BMW M4 F82 / BMW M2 F87

BMW M Division's generational overlap creates an intriguing intra-brand rivalry when the larger F82 M4 confronts its compact F87 M2 sibling—two rear-wheel-drive performance machines sharing the same S55 twin-turbocharged inline-six philosophy but wrapped in different chassis sizes targeting distinct buyer priorities. The M4 F82 delivers 431 horsepower from its S55 3.0-liter twin-turbo six, holding a 61-horsepower advantage over the M2 F87's N55-powered 370 horsepower (pre-Competition spec). The M4's 3,340-pound curb weight sits just 44 pounds heavier than the M2's 3,296 pounds—a negligible 1.3% differential despite the M4's significantly larger dimensions. Yet LapMeta's 83 recorded comparisons across 45 common tracks reveal the M4 averaging just 0.1 seconds faster than the M2—a performance gap so narrow it validates BMW's engineering success at preserving the smaller M2's agility while the larger M4 leverages its power advantage.

Dimensional differences create distinct handling personalities despite shared rear-drive DNA. The M4 measures 4,671mm in length with a 2,812mm wheelbase—proportions optimized for high-speed stability and four-seat practicality. The M2's more compact 4,475mm length and 2,692mm wheelbase (120mm shorter) enable the pivot-on-center rotation that compact sports coupes deliver through tight technical sections. The M4's 16mm additional width (1,870mm versus 1,854mm) provides marginally wider track for ultimate grip ceiling, though the M2's more concentrated mass and shorter overhangs generate more eager turn-in response that experienced drivers exploit through corner entry.

Engine specifications reveal BMW's product differentiation strategy. The M4 F82's S55 engine represents M Division's first turbocharged inline-six, delivering 431 horsepower at 5,500-7,300 rpm with 406 lb-ft torque from 1,850-5,500 rpm. The M2 F87 initially received BMW's N55 single-turbo engine producing 370 horsepower (later replaced by the S55 in Competition spec), with slightly narrower powerband and less aggressive turbo response. Both engines rev to 7,000+ rpm maintaining BMW's high-revving character despite forced induction, though the M4's twin-turbo setup provides more linear power delivery and better top-end thrust where the N55's single turbo shows its breathing limitations.

Weight distribution tells the agility story. Despite just 44 pounds separating these cars, the M2's more compact dimensions concentrate mass more efficiently—shorter wheelbase and reduced overhangs create lower polar moment of inertia, enabling quicker direction changes without fighting the chassis. The M4's additional length distributes weight across a larger footprint, providing high-speed stability advantages but requiring more driver commitment to achieve similar rotation speeds through hairpins. Power-to-weight ratios reflect this: 0.129 hp/lb for the M4 versus 0.112 hp/lb for the M2—a 0.017 advantage for the larger car that translates to stronger acceleration but cannot overcome the M2's agility advantages on tight technical circuits.

Chassis sophistication remains remarkably similar. Both employ double-wishbone front suspension, multi-link rear, electronically controlled limited-slip differential, and adaptive M dampers with multiple drive modes. The M4 receives slightly larger anti-roll bars and stiffer spring rates to manage its additional length, while the M2's setup prioritizes responsiveness over ultimate body control. Professional reviewers consistently note the M2 communicates limit behavior more transparently, enabling skilled drivers to exploit available grip more confidently despite the M4's superior electronic systems and broader adjustment range.

Tire specifications show strategic sizing differences. The M4 typically specifies staggered 255/35R19 fronts with 275/35R19 rears on Michelin Pilot Super Sport rubber, though optional 20-inch setups provide wider contact patches. The M2 arrives on 245/35R19 fronts with 265/35R19 rears—narrower rubber reflecting its lower output and lighter weight, though the tire compound and construction remain similar. The M4's wider tires provide ultimate grip ceiling advantages that matter most at limit handling, while the M2's narrower rubber enables more progressive breakaway characteristics that flatter intermediate drivers still developing car control skills.

Braking systems scale appropriately to weight and usage. The M4 employs larger rotors with more aggressive caliper configurations reflecting its higher speeds and power output—369mm fronts versus the M2's 360mm units. Despite the M4's larger brakes, professional testing reveals similar 60-0 mph stopping distances around 100-102 feet for both cars, as the M2's 44-pound weight advantage partially compensates for its smaller brake package. Optional carbon-ceramic brakes remain available on both platforms, providing fade resistance and unsprung weight savings that benefit track-focused buyers willing to accept the substantial cost premium.

Modification potential under LapMeta's tiered rules favors both platforms similarly. Under Medium modification guidelines, both turbocharged inline-sixes respond dramatically to ECU tuning. The M4's S55 famously produces 500+ horsepower with bolt-on modifications and software, while the M2's N55 (pre-Competition) unlocks 100+ additional horsepower through similar upgrades. Later M2 Competition models with S55 engines match the M4's tuning potential exactly. Both platforms benefit equally from suspension optimization and tire upgrades in Light modification, with neither showing inherent advantage once aftermarket components level the equipment playing field.

Price positioning created substantial differentiation when new. The M4 F82 commanded $72,500+ MSRP reflecting its larger platform and additional equipment, while the M2 F87 entered at $53,495—a $19,000+ gap that made the compact M2 extraordinarily compelling for performance-per-dollar metrics. Current used market values range $30,000-$45,000 for M2s and $35,000-$50,000 for M4s depending on mileage and specification, with the gap narrowing as both cars age. The M2's stronger value retention reflects its cult following and more manageable size for daily use, while M4 depreciation provides opportunities for buyers prioritizing power over collectibility.

Interior versatility separates practical from focused. The M4's larger cabin provides genuine rear-seat utility with adult-accommodating legroom—legitimate four-passenger capability for buyers needing dual-purpose track day and daily driver duty. The M2's rear seats serve emergency-only roles with limited legroom restricting practical use to children or very short trips. Both interiors feature M Division sport seats, carbon-fiber trim, and performance-oriented displays, though the M4's additional space translates to more cargo capacity and daily comfort without sacrificing driver focus.

Running costs remain nearly identical despite the price gap. Both require premium fuel, expensive BMW M-specific parts, and similar maintenance intervals. The M4's larger platform means marginally higher tire costs and slightly increased brake pad consumption, though differences prove negligible across annual ownership. Insurance premiums typically favor the M2 as the "smaller" M car despite similar performance capabilities, providing modest savings for cost-conscious enthusiasts. Both depreciate rapidly during early ownership years, though the M2's stronger cult following and limited production volumes help it retain value more effectively long-term.

Real-world track application reveals each platform's competitive windows. The M4 F82 excels on faster, flowing circuits where its power advantage, high-speed stability, and longer wheelbase reward committed driving—tracks with sustained high-speed sections and long straights favor the M4's 61-horsepower advantage. The M2 F87 thrives on tight technical circuits where its compact dimensions, lower polar moment, and more transparent handling enable quicker direction changes—venues with frequent transitions and tight hairpins reward the M2's agility over the M4's power.

LapMeta's relative speed data contextualizes the comparison across 83 recorded sessions spanning 45 common tracks: the M4 averages just 0.1 seconds faster than the M2—a performance delta so narrow it effectively declares these cars equals on track. This remarkable parity validates BMW M Division's product planning success: the M4 delivers its power and size advantages exactly where they matter most, while the M2's agility compensates perfectly on circuits favoring compact dimensions. Neither car dominates universally—track layout determines which platform extracts maximum performance, with the 0.1-second average gap proving statistically insignificant across varied circuit configurations.

The comparison ultimately presents a size-versus-agility decision within BMW's M car hierarchy. Enthusiasts prioritizing maximum daily versatility, rear-seat utility, and raw power will find the M4's broader capability appealing despite its $19,000 higher original MSRP—the additional space and 61 horsepower justify the premium for buyers needing four-seat practicality. Those seeking maximum driver engagement, more manageable daily dimensions, and the cult-status appeal of BMW's compact M car will accept the M2's marginally slower lap times for its more focused character and stronger enthusiast following. Both deliver genuine M Division performance through the same rear-drive, turbocharged inline-six formula—the M4 proving that larger dimensions need not compromise lap times when power compensates for size, the M2 demonstrating that compact proportions can match bigger siblings' performance when agility offsets power deficits. The choice becomes practical: select the package size matching specific use cases, knowing both deliver effectively identical track performance separated by just one-tenth of one second.