That picture cinches it for me. YEEUCK! I'll keep the S till something that doesn't make me reach for the Tums comes along.

 

Well, that's just it -- the car isn't supposed to be luxurious. Sure it'll come with leather seats and a couple other nice things, but it's not going to be the push yuppie-mobile that the E46 is. The E46 M3 definitely has an unmistakable marketing bend. Watch for this car to be stripped of many new luxury features and stick with just the classics, like leather seats, air conditioning, xenon lamps, and an intelligent on-board computer. You can forget about things like power seats, integrated garage door opener, climate control, etc. You can bet that it will have a newer version of Dynamic Stability Control which can have both traction control and active braking disabled. Despite your opinions on whether it's good or bad, it's clear to me that 1) it is a trend that will be in ALL consumer cars in the next decade and 2) its presence in S2000s could have prevented many accidents. I know there was a rash of S2000 spin outs that were mostly from driver error. While I can't say that it would have prevented every one of them, I think that it would have definitely helped. It's probably true, however, that electronic controls are creating poor drivers, thinking that they can do more than they really can.

Also, I've heard that it will be VERY competitively priced -- $40k at the most. Of course, I'll believe it when I see it, too ... we've all heard and gone through pricing stories from other cars.

I think this design looks pretty good. BMW has gotten a lot of flak lately for new, upcoming designs thanks to its Chief Designer, Chris Bangle. Rumors are hot that he's getting the boot because the new 7 series hasn't been widely accepted as a good design. Clearly it's a remarkable car, but the trunk that looks like it was ripped off of a Chrysler Sebring has many potential buyers skeptical.

 

[QUOTE]
[B]
* Torque not just HP.

 

Actually, 90ft/lb for a normally aspirated engine is doable. Don't forget that this engine will be the most sophisticated 4 cylinder ever produced, and that BMW has a history of infusing torque into all their engines (the 2.3l M3 engine is certainly not torqueless).

I think 180lb/ft of torque may just be doable.

 

FUGLY??!! Wadja expect, it's the successor to the M Coupe!

Seriously, those are not exactly what the car will look like. They are not official photos and are likely doctored up a bit. BMW generally tacks on stuff to the prototypes to help camouflage the style.

Stan

 

On the torque thing...

BMW tends to make wide range engines without very sudden jumps in output. The S2K has pretty much two torque curves, above and below Vtec, and they are pretty flat. I think that the s2k would be more forgiving to drive it it did NOT have the jump at the vtec point. An i-vtec stook could have a bit higher torque on the low lobe and a smoother vtec engagement if that was desired. BMW may also put on a variable intake manifold. They have done 2 and 3 stage and continuous designs in the past. That would really help torque too.

Roughly what is the PRE vtec ft-lb / litre of the s2k?

Stan

 

Okay so 115-120 lb-ft. is about 82-85.7% of the torque peak. And that 115-120 lb-ft covers a broad RPM range below 6000 RPMs. If we assume that the same relative percents apply at the crank, the 76.5
lb-ft/L falls to only about 63-65 lb-ft/L for the first 2/3 of the RPM range. Not nearly as impressive. With variable cam phasing and a variable intake manifold it should be possible to gain at least 12-15% more torque across much of the range below 6000. That would mean that the car would act like a 2.2 - 2.3 without those features at those RPMs. So an S2k may have a broad range above 80% peak torque but its more like near 100% peak OR just over 80% to oversimplify.

On autocrosses, an S2k might be less forgiving than some cars with more torque. Little errors may have a higher penalty if you lose momentum. There may be times when an s2k encounters a ministraight on part of a course such that a downshift followed by an upshift is not feasible. So you have to grunt it out below vtec.

Stan

 

I don't know if it's the angle of the car in the picture, but the front looks ugly to me. The lines on the car don't flow well at all.

 

your choice for "weekend fling" was perfect. i would still take mine over that though. i'd like to see how it performs though.

 

I don't know, it looks to me like the Chrysler Crossfire and the Z5 were separated at birth, what do you think?