Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[devo]

Originally Posted by footie

The 997S might not have been running CUP tyres but I believe it was using Ceramic brakes.

In any case I feel all tests should be conducted with a few choices, in the case of the M3 we should be able to see the difference in times with 18" and 19" options and what ever tyre options are available, same goes for the other manufacturers.

The only think I do know is that different tyres options like the difference between 18" and 19" or UHP and UHP+ will effect the way the car behaves and it's not necessarily the quickest option that is the most enjoyable one to own and live with.

I hope that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are not talking about 18 or 19" tires, you are talking about street legal race tires (CUP). Yes, any other options avaiable for the car should be used, however, only in the country for which they are available.

The 911 didn't have PCCBs, nor did it have 20mm susp. w/LSD, x51 or CUP tires.

[footie]

Originally Posted by devo

Porsche may step up the performance of the fl 911 and subsequent year 911's.

Porsche are indeed upping their game with the aid of Audi and their FSi technology. This will be being added to all of their engines over the next couple of years and it's believed to yield an extra 20~25hp per engine (excluding GT3, Turbo and GT2).

[devo]

Originally Posted by footie

In all honesty who is really that concerned whether it's the RS4, C63 or M3 which is the quicker.

I believe you buy the car not so much on the lap times it does but the way it feels while driving it, if I was so concerned as to how quick the M3 was I probably would be keeping the S5 as where I live most of the year it's raining and there would be no doubt that the Audi would be the quicker in these conditions, but it's the pleasure that the M3 gives over the S5 that is important to me and the reason why I am so looking forward to owning it.

Always remember the real reason why you are driving what it is you are driving.

I agree, but that's not what was being discussed.

[footie]

Originally Posted by devo

I hope that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are not talking about 18 or 19" tires, you are talking about street legal race tires (CUP). Yes, any other options avaiable for the car should be used, however, only in the country for which they are available.

The 911 didn't have PCCBs, nor did it have 20mm susp. w/LSD, x51 or CUP tires.

Well then AUTOCAR must have got it wrong because they stated that the 997S had Ceramics.

As for the differences between 18" and 19", your bloody right I believe there is a difference in the way they make a car behave and I have experienced it first hand.

[devo]

Originally Posted by footie

Porsche are indeed upping their game with the aid of Audi and their FSi technology. This will be being added to all of their engines over the next couple of years and it's believed to yield an extra 20~25hp per engine (excluding GT3, Turbo and GT2).

Thanks. Everyone knows that by now. I am talking about REALLY stepping up. As much as I love P cars, I will still say that they are over priced. For the kind of money Porsche demands, more power should be had. For example, for $90k something, x51 should be standard and 400 hp should come with it, and so on.

[devo]

Originally Posted by footie

Well then AUTOCAR must have got it wrong because they stated that the 997S had Ceramics.

As for the differences between 18" and 19", your bloody right I believe there is a difference in the way they make a car behave and I have experienced it first hand.

Again, no kidding, 18's are better for racing. I am simply talking about CUP tires.

[devo]

Originally Posted by footie

Well then AUTOCAR must have got it wrong because they stated that the 997S had Ceramics.

As for the differences between 18" and 19", your bloody right I believe there is a difference in the way they make a car behave and I have experienced it first hand.

I am talking about the Sport Auto test; 8:05.

I am not aware of that car having ceramics. Even if it did, why would it matter. I don't care what available option you put on the M, DCT, whatever, as long as the tires are of equal caliber.

[footie]

Originally Posted by devo

Thanks. Everyone knows that by now. I am talking about REALLY stepping up. As much as I love P cars, I will still say that they are over priced. For the kind of money Porsche demands, more power should be had. For example, for $90k something, x51 should be standard and 400 hp should come with it, and so on.

If there is enough mugs out there willing to pay their prices for the performance they are currently giving then they aren't likely to change things, now are they. The only thing Porsche can be accused of in my opinion is not being open-minded with their design policy, for heaven sake every model looks like a 911, regardless if it looks right or not. Apart form that they are spot on, but for their exclusiveness and quality in engineering you pay a price and it isn't cheap.

In my opinion only one car in recent years that has thrown a spanner in the works and shown Porsche car to be over-priced for what you get, and that car has been the Audi R8. Not only does it out handling and out drive the 997S but it looks like a proper supercar and has the quality and the sense of occasion that no Porsche this side of a Carrera GT can muster. If BMW want to complete with Porsche they need to start building a car like the R8 instead of that poor excuse called the M6.

Sorry guys for being this blunt.

[footie]

Back to topic,

I was under the impression that the CUP tyres were to be part of a performance package to be offered as an option which included the limiter being moved to 280km/h. Is this not the case now?

[southlight]

Originally Posted by devo

I am talking about the Sport Auto test; 8:05.

I am not aware of that car having ceramics. Even if it did, why would it matter. I don't care what available option you put on the M, DCT, whatever, as long as the tires are of equal caliber.

The car had PCCB and 20mm suspension with LSD. What's the problem about tires then?

Best regards, south

[Epacy]

Well Devo, you have done it again. After I warned you not to and you said you weren't going OT.
You're getting fairly predictable now.

[Just_me]

Originally Posted by footie

In all honesty who is really that concerned whether it's the RS4, C63 or M3 which is the quicker.

Its good for bragging rights in real life it doenst matter much but its always a fun argument to have in audi/mb/porsche/bmw discussion battles

----------------------------------

Regarding tires, then all cars should have the exact same tire brand, same size, same width etc etc if its going to be fair

[Just_me]

Originally Posted by devo

I have owned three 911's, too include the turbo and two E46 M3's. If you need more help, look over at the left at "drives". Does that help you?

I doubt the M will beat the 911S on the ring without the aid of CUP tires, but we've already been there way too many times. I hope that it does, however, for two reasons: 1) I am very likely buying the M (Price?) and want it to perform as goood as it can. 2) Better competition yields better competing products; i.e. Porsche may step up the performance of the fl 911 and subsequent year 911's.

Enough of rehashing this BS again. Do a search if you need more banter. Get a grip on reality. A fair test is a fair test. What I drive, drove or want to drive isn't the motivating factor. Truth in testing is. Porsche 911's and BMW M's are cars that inspire me, period.

To me it seems that it is the arguement for you. Do you like to argue?

Wow dude, you dont need to be so hostile. Relax Devo! Its just cars afterall.

[devo]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Well Devo, you have done it again. After I warned you not to and you said you weren't going OT.
You're getting fairly predictable now.

Yeah...you're right, I'm the only guy that went OT. Ooooooooohhhh, you warned me.

I guess, I'm not the only predictable one.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

...if I was so concerned as to how quick the M3 was I probably would be keeping the S5 as where I live most of the year it's raining and there would be no doubt that the Audi would be the quicker in these conditions...

Don't forget the test results I posted showing the E46 M3 being quicker through wet corners than the S4! Perhaps not easier but faster for sure. Sorry can't find the post right now or would provide a link.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Don't forget the test results I posted showing the E46 M3 being quicker through wet corners than the S4! Perhaps not easier but faster for sure. Sorry can't find the post right now or would provide a link.

The article was from AUTOCAR with the chief editor at the wheel. At the time the results were BS and the same applies now. I maybe an Audi owner at present but believe me when I say it that in the wet an awd car (regardless of who makes it) will be quicker. If you doubt this then check out the review from AUTOCAR again on the new M3, they tested it on their wet handling track and it's time was a whole 6 seconds slower than the RS4. They even said that the M3 was just as quick in the corners but could get the same traction coming out of them and that was where the time was lost.

But this is missing my point which I was trying to make, we don't buy cars based on lap times, well us intelligent ones don't in any case. We buy them because on the enjoyment they bring, that is it, end of story.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

The article was from AUTOCAR with the chief editor at the wheel. At the time the results were BS and the same applies now. I maybe an Audi owner at present but believe me when I say it that in the wet an awd car (regardless of who makes it) will be quicker. If you doubt this then check out the review from AUTOCAR again on the new M3, they tested it on their wet handling track and it's time was a whole 6 seconds slower than the RS4. They even said that the M3 was just as quick in the corners but could get the same traction coming out of them and that was where the time was lost.

But this is missing my point which I was trying to make, we don't buy cars based on lap times, well us intelligent ones don't in any case. We buy them because on the enjoyment they bring, that is it, end of story.

In the complete absense of contradictory evidence comparing the E46 and S4 wet cornering speeds I find it very amusing that you call BS on the results. What basis other than your opinion and pure speculation do have to call "BS"? E92 M3 vs. RS4 results do not validate nor invalidate E46 M3 vs. S4 tests! So in short my skeptical nature tells me it is simply not a fact, never to be questioned, that all AWD cars are faster through wet corners than all RWD cars. When phrased that way wouldn't you agree it is probably rubbish? It is very close to your statement . Furthermore, I find it very amusing that you as an Audi owner call BS on the test by a magazine that places a major competitor above an Audi and yet praise the other test BY THE SAME MAGAZINE which finds results for almost the exact same test in favor of the Audi.

Again to be clear I am not saying AWD and the great Quattro system the Audi uses is not a significant advantage in many traction limited circumstances. But "Quattro" does not mean by holy proclamation "outperforms RWD in all metrics".

[UltimateBMW]

So, it seems like the European bought M3s were not given an option to have the Cup tires come OE. Which brings me to ask this question:

If we get that option over here in the states, how many Euro M3 owners will go ape-shit?

I ask because it almost seems a bit ironic that we would possibly get the Cup tire option while Europe didn't because I view American street laws and typical driving to be way more toned down and nonchalant. While I personally don't drive slow, and nor would I expect anyone posting on this forum to drive slow either, there are people out there with e46 M3s and e92 335i's that drive very po-dunk. I imagine much of Europe isn't as lax on the streets.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

So, it seems like the European bought M3s were not given an option to have the Cup tires come OE. Which brings me to ask this question:

If we get that option over here in the states, how many Euro M3 owners will go ape-shit?

I ask because it almost seems a bit ironic that we would possibly get the Cup tire option while Europe didn't because I view American street laws and typical driving to be way more toned down and nonchalant. While I personally don't drive slow, and nor would I expect anyone posting on this forum to drive slow either, there are people out there with e46 M3s and e92 335i's that drive very po-dunk. I imagine much of Europe isn't as lax on the streets.

These Cup tires will be OE on european cars (probably by next year), they won't be OE on the U.S. cars though...

Best regards, south

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by footie

Back to topic,

I was under the impression that the CUP tyres were to be part of a performance package to be offered as an option which included the limiter being moved to 280km/h. Is this not the case now?

I tried hassling my dealer about this.

They won't offer this option in the U.K.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

In the complete absense of contradictory evidence comparing the E46 and S4 wet cornering speeds I find it very amusing that you call BS on the results. What basis other than your opinion and pure speculation do have to call "BS"? E92 M3 vs. RS4 results do not validate nor invalidate E46 M3 vs. S4 tests! So in short my skeptical nature tells me it is simply not a fact, never to be questioned, that all AWD cars are faster through wet corners than all RWD cars. When phrased that way wouldn't you agree it is probably rubbish? It is very close to your statement . Furthermore, I find it very amusing that you as an Audi owner call BS on the test by a magazine that places a major competitor above an Audi and yet praise the other test BY THE SAME MAGAZINE which finds results for almost the exact same test in favor of the Audi.

Again to be clear I am not saying AWD and the great Quattro system the Audi uses is not a significant advantage in many traction limited circumstances. But "Quattro" does not mean by holy proclamation "outperforms RWD in all metrics".

swamp2,

Let me explain how the test was conducted and I will leave it up to you to decide whether it's a true reflection of both cars abilities. The test was carried out on a public road, both cars had to stay on their own side of the road and the person carrying out the test was using his own M3 long term car.

When you are limited to staying on the one side of the car you are not exactly pushing the limits of traction in either car plus the fact that the person doing the test happens to be overly familiar with one example doesn't exactly lead to an objective result, now does it.

The test carried out on the E92 M2 was conducted on a track under identical conditions and in this it proved the advantage that the RS4 and quattro has over the M3 and rwd. In fact the same test was carried out on the 335 a few months earlier and produced almost identical results to the M3, proving that in such conditions awd and in fact even fwd cars provide quicker times as the Ford Focus ST220 was in itself over 3 seconds quicker than the M3.

But again this is getting away from the objective of my original post which was to say that what time a car gets compared to another is not that important in my opinion.

[Just_me]