Motortrend: M3 Wins Again! Still Benchmark for RS5 and CTS-V

[quality_sound]

The Panamera Turbo walks it and even though it constantly gets ranked lower, the CTS-V has already shown it's faster on a track. There isn't even enough room to get into all the better sports coupes.

The M3 is a great car but if you think it's the best thing on the road, in any of it's variations, you need to get out more.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

The Panamera Turbo walks it and even though it constantly gets ranked lower, the CTS-V has already shown it's faster on a track.

The CTS-V posted a faster Ring time, but on other tracks it has been beaten by the M3 (Bob Lutz, even).

It would be interesting to see how an E90 M3 ZCP DCT stacks against the Panamera Turbo and CTS-V sedan on track. I'll bet that it would not be far off. And in a subjective comparison that takes more than track times into account, who knows which would win. Panamera would be the likely winner, but you never know.

There isn't even enough room to get into all the better sports coupes.

Agree, assuming you include two seaters. Amongst four seaters, M3 is again going to be right near the top.

[Bunkei]

Originally Posted by adc

Well if getting the second best satisfies you, then go ahead. Because you're right, that wonderful blue color is *the* definitive car selection criteria.

I guess sarcasm doesn't bear out well in text.

At any rate, second best in what, in acceleration? Wouldn't the CTS-V be #1?

[adc]

Originally Posted by Bunkei

I guess sarcasm doesn't bear out well in text.

No harm intended, I guess I misread your comment.

At any rate, second best in what, in acceleration? Wouldn't the CTS-V be #1?

Acceleration is not (the only thing) I'm after - if I was, I'd buy a Charger SRT like my coworker, invest $10k in some engine work and put out 560RWHP in an otherwise perfectly innocent looking Charger.

He makes a habit of regularly embarrasing exotic cars on the highway. Not my cup of tea.

A CTS-V is certainly a pretty damn good car - but still too big and heavy. Muscle first (although a pretty good handler). And if you've read the latest comparisons against the M3 Coupe ZCP DCT, you've noticed it also didn't place first. And yes, even the track times are within a spit of each other.

Originally Posted by quality_sound

The Panamera Turbo walks it

Walks it typically means an acceleration contest - and I am in no doubt the Panamera Turbo is significantly faster in a straight line than an M3. Plus a $1000 chip will make it a 600+ BHP monster. But it's a big bluff thing, no finesse, and no manual gearbox - if I wanted a tank, I'd buy a Sherman.

and even though it constantly gets ranked lower, the CTS-V has already shown it's faster on a track.

Read some more - they're pretty even. Ring times are close (8min flat for M3 ZCP DCT and 7:59 for CTS-V), track times are split between the 2 (Motor Trend got better times in the M3 at Laguna Seca, C&D got a better time in the Caddy at VIR). If you think there is a world of difference between these cars on track, think again.

And unlike many on the forums who do magazine racing, I actually track my cars - I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I know my way around a performance car. I know what I want from a car on track - it must have balance, must be progressive and intuitive - all attributes the M3 has got in spades - and the reason it wins all the damn comparisons.

If you don't care about this, then get whatever floats your boat.

There isn't even enough room to get into all the better sports coupes.

I own a sedan, so I wouldn't know - assuming you are talking about 2 seaters?

The M3 is a great car but if you think it's the best thing on the road, in any of it's variations, you need to get out more.

I did my research, did my test drives, compared prices - everything pointed out to the M3 as being the best sports sedan currently on offer. I'm not the only one who thinks this - just look at the *unanimous* praise lavished on it. What, they're all idiots?

I'm not afraid of owning a different brand. Just tell me who else offers a 4 door car with the speed, agility, handling and comfort of the M3, which I can drive in Europe to my heart's content, perhaps do a few laps on the Nurburgring, and all this for less than $51k. I'll sell the M3 and buy this impossible wonder in a heartbeat.


Let me try to rephrase this - I don't have a BMW tattoo or bathroom towel - not even a baseball cap. It's just that in the past 10 years in my search for a practical performance car (4 seater, trunk) BMW has been the only one that has managed to deliver the right dose of excitement, practicality, performance and comfort - by a country mile. They always seem to have that extra little edge - a little less weight, a more exciting engine, perfectly calibrated suspension, the right amount of grip to keep the car entertaining - everything in balance, harmoniously working together to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. The cars have never been perfect - each generation having little quirks, drawbacks, annoyances and faults - but they have always managed to put a huge grin on my face after the little one was safely delivered to school, or when the wife wasn't looking. The current M3 clearly comes from this great family - it feels every bit as exciting and special as the other ones. Everything is honed to greatness, it speaks of engineering prowess, it's simply so damn good. And never, ever fails to put a huge grin on my face on that special drive.

Any car nut only needs one drive to "get" this car. People can easily recognize this special-ness, it simply oozes out of it.

Sure, there are faster cars. More exciting cars. More luxurious cars. But never one that mixes all these things in such an organic manner - at least at this price point. And that is, in very simple terms, why it wins all these comparisons.

If some other manufacturer can build a better car using the M3 recipe, I'd be thrilled to give it a go. But in the meantime, I'm too busy enjoying my M - and don't begrudge anybody their right - or pleasure - of driving something else. But yeah, on an *M3 forum*, you can damn right expect people to be passionate about their cars, all the more so when it's so richly deserved.

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The CTS-V posted a faster Ring time, but on other tracks it has been beaten by the M3 (Bob Lutz, even).

It would be interesting to see how an E90 M3 ZCP DCT stacks against the Panamera Turbo and CTS-V sedan on track. I'll bet that it would not be far off. And in a subjective comparison that takes more than track times into account, who knows which would win. Panamera would be the likely winner, but you never know.

I agree it takes more than track times and that cars and their ownership in the real world is subjective, not a "test result." You just said EXACTLY what I said would be said when someone here was presented with a car that will likely be better than the M3 but dismiss when the argument is used against the M3.

Agree, assuming you include two seaters. Amongst four seaters, M3 is again going to be right near the top.

It will be near the top, but not at the top. The ludicrous comments some people here make about "only driving the top car in the class" is a fantasy. In any of the three categories there are cars that are better. That's not to meant to be a knock to the M3. The cars that best it are, for the most part, considerably more expensive. I only point it out to illustrate the ridiculous high horse that some members post from.

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by adc

Walks it typically means an acceleration contest - and I am in no doubt the Panamera Turbo is significantly faster in a straight line than an M3. Plus a $1000 chip will make it a 600+ BHP monster. But it's a big bluff thing, no finesse, and no manual gearbox - if I wanted a tank, I'd buy a Sherman.

Don't read more into what I wrote than what I wrote. "Walks" is a genewral term and I used it as such. I have no interestin what's fastest in a straight line as there are many, many cars that best the M3.

Have you driven a Panamera? If not, how can you compare the two? Depending on the reviews of magazine editors is silly since the tests they perform have no basis in reality and rarely translate into what is a better real world car.

Read some more - they're pretty even. Ring times are close (8min flat for M3 ZCP DCT and 7:59 for CTS-V), track times are split between the 2 (Motor Trend got better times in the M3 at Laguna Seca, C&D got a better time in the Caddy at VIR). If you think there is a world of difference between these cars on track, think again.

I don't have to read anymore anything. I'm using the same argument used against the RS5. Better is better, no matter how slight the margin. If you want me to change my view I suggest you be prepared to alter yours as well.

And unlike many on the forums who do magazine racing, I actually track my cars - I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I know my way around a performance car. I know what I want from a car on track - it must have balance, must be progressive and intuitive - all attributes the M3 has got in spades - and the reason it wins all the damn comparisons.

I agree, the M3 is a fantastic track car but even you have to realize that the VAST majority of owners will never see a track. Hell, a good number probably never see triple digits. Yes, it wins comparisons because it's great on a track but as I said above, that doesn't make it the best street car.

If you don't care about this, then get whatever floats your boat.

Agreed. It's the rampant fanboyism screaming about the domination of a car in an aspect that few will ever use it in is what I have a problem with. Yes, I bought one. Yes, I love it. Are there better cars? Absolutely. Are there better options for how I used it? Undoubtedly, but I wanted an M3 so I bought an M3. Not because some magazine editor said I should.

I own a sedan, so I wouldn't know - assuming you are talking about 2 seaters?

No, just 2-door models no matter the number of seats. I went with the bastardized common usage of coupe and sedan since the real definitions has to do with interior room rather than number of doors or seats.

I did my research, did my test drives, compared prices - everything pointed out to the M3 as being the best sports sedan currently on offer. I'm not the only one who thinks this - just look at the *unanimous* praise lavished on it. What, they're all idiots?

If they think they have to drive it on a track to make the determination of the best street car, then yes, they're idiots. Since you track yours then you're really down to a small handful of cars. I applaud you looking into your needs vs. what some random editor said was best.

I'm not afraid of owning a different brand. Just tell me who else offers a 4 door car with the speed, agility, handling and comfort of the M3, which I can drive in Europe to my heart's content, perhaps do a few laps on the Nurburgring, and all this for less than $51k. I'll sell the M3 and buy this impossible wonder in a heartbeat.

Now it's a price thing? Did you pay less than $51K or are you using base MSRP? I ask because optioned the way I like the M3 and S4 were close enough in price to make it a non-issue. As I've said before, the M3 needs more weight or downforce on the autobahn at high speeds. I think it's why Audi and M-B build their cars so heavy. They're building GTs, not track cars. If you're primary concern is autobahn driving and track driving is limited to a few laps a year I think all the ranting about what is the best track car is beyond pointless.

Let me try to rephrase this - I don't have a BMW tattoo or bathroom towel - not even a baseball cap. It's just that in the past 10 years in my search for a practical performance car (4 seater, trunk) BMW has been the only one that has managed to deliver the right dose of excitement, practicality, performance and comfort - by a country mile. They always seem to have that extra little edge - a little less weight, a more exciting engine, perfectly calibrated suspension, the right amount of grip to keep the car entertaining - everything in balance, harmoniously working together to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. The cars have never been perfect - each generation having little quirks, drawbacks, annoyances and faults - but they have always managed to put a huge grin on my face after the little one was safely delivered to school, or when the wife wasn't looking. The current M3 clearly comes from this great family - it feels every bit as exciting and special as the other ones. Everything is honed to greatness, it speaks of engineering prowess, it's simply so damn good. And never, ever fails to put a huge grin on my face on that special drive.

I agree. This is my first BMW but I've driven them before and I always felt pretty much the same way. It's the reason I wanted one for 20 years and why I finally bought one.

Any car nut only needs one drive to "get" this car. People can easily recognize this special-ness, it simply oozes out of it.

Sure, there are faster cars. More exciting cars. More luxurious cars. But never one that mixes all these things in such an organic manner - at least at this price point. And that is, in very simple terms, why it wins all these comparisons.

I think people just focus on the track aspect too much, especially considering the comparatively little time M3s as a whole spend there. As I've said before Audi and BMW make a better GT but people ignore that and focus on the M3s area of excellence and that, IMO, is a mistake.

If some other manufacturer can build a better car using the M3 recipe, I'd be thrilled to give it a go. But in the meantime, I'm too busy enjoying my M - and don't begrudge anybody their right - or pleasure - of driving something else. But yeah, on an *M3 forum*, you can damn right expect people to be passionate about their cars, all the more so when it's so richly deserved.

I'm not begrudging anyone anything. It's the childish manner most go about it. I'm passionate about my car as well, but I can also accept other cars for what they are and how they stack up to the M3 in the real world. Most of the people here act like they're making personal comments about their mom or wife. It's not THAT important.

[adc]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

Have you driven a Panamera? If not, how can you compare the two? Depending on the reviews of magazine editors is silly since the tests they perform have no basis in reality and rarely translate into what is a better real world car.

I think the M3 is on the porky side of things - there is absolutely no way - none - that adding 500, 600 or 700lbs to this weight can make a car drive better. And the Panamera lacks a manual transmission, which is why I stopped looking at the C63 as well (an otherwise superb car).

I get the feeling you want an Autobahn stormer - cars from the M5/E63/Panamera are indeed much better suited to that role than an M3. But those aren't sport sedans, they are fast executive GTs.

I don't have to read anymore anything. I'm using the same argument used against the RS5. Better is better, no matter how slight the margin. If you want me to change my view I suggest you be prepared to alter yours as well.

You weren't paying attention. On the Nurburgring, 7:59 and 8:00 on different days and different drivers is as close to identical as you're going to get.

As far as other tracks, when driven back to back by the same driver, there were instances where the M3 bested the CTS-V and instances were it was slower. So exactly how does this invalidate my claim that in fact, they are pretty well matched?

I agree, the M3 is a fantastic track car but even you have to realize that the VAST majority of owners will never see a track. Hell, a good number probably never see triple digits. Yes, it wins comparisons because it's great on a track but as I said above, that doesn't make it the best street car.

I respectfully disagree. The M3 with EDC and 18" rims is an absolute pussycat on the street and rides amazingly well even on the worst surfaces.

The track thing is just the icing on the cake. The M3 impresses in other areas of street driving as well. Exactly what are your gripes with it?

Now it's a price thing? Did you pay less than $51K or are you using base MSRP?

Unless you're the Sultan of Brunei, yes the price is always the main thing. If it weren't, I'd be driving a GT3 on track and a E63 or similar on the street. The M3 just happens to artfully combine the two extremes into the same thing.

I bought my E90 M3 with an MSRP of $59k for $51k plus taxes, Euro Delivered, for the greatest thrill ever. Drove it through the big Alpine passes, Autobahn, Ring, French Autoroutes, Spain's Autovia as well as back roads everywhere and encountered all manner of road quality and surfacing.

As I've said before, the M3 needs more weight or downforce on the autobahn at high speeds.

Nope - check out the downforce data somewhere else on this site - the M3 does really well in this area.

Check your tire pressures and run on Normal or Comfort on the Autobahn when simply cruising. Sport does tend to set it slightly on edge - then again if you really want to haul ass, I always put it on Sport and dealt with the slightly bumpy ride.

I think it's why Audi and M-B build their cars so heavy. They're building GTs, not track cars.

I think they just can't help it, they'd love to lower the weigth a bit. BMW is not doing very well either lately, check out the weight of the new 5er.

I think you have the car categories mixed up. The M3 is not a GT - it's a sports sedan. They are supposed to be fast, edgy, raw and exciting, all the while mixing it up with a small dose of comfort and practicality. That the M3 can play the GT part so well while maintaining the exciting side is nothing short of amazing.

If you're primary concern is autobahn driving and track driving is limited to a few laps a year I think all the ranting about what is the best track car is beyond pointless.

Again, if your primary concern is Autobahn driving then you shouldn't be looking at a sport sedan. Just get an M5 or big fat AMG, perhaps an R type Jag and call it a day.

People focus on the agility/balance/track thing of the M3 because well, that is the primary mission of a sport sedan.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

You just said EXACTLY what I said would be said when someone here was presented with a car that will likely be better than the M3 but dismiss when the argument is used against the M3.

Well, if the metric for "better" is "consistently comes out on top in comparison tests", then I for one won't put on the M3 fanboy hat when results come in against the M3. Happens all the time against the 911 for example. Very few here are going to suggest the M3 is actually the better car there, even though in some performance categories it has matched or beaten a 911 (or even an S on rare occasion).

It will be near the top, but not at the top.

...

The cars that best it are, for the most part, considerably more expensive. I only point it out to illustrate the ridiculous high horse that some members post from.

I agree some people take it too far for sure. But yes, once you remove pricetag from the equation, obviously all bets are off.

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by adc

I think the M3 is on the porky side of things - there is absolutely no way - none - that adding 500, 600 or 700lbs to this weight can make a car drive better. And the Panamera lacks a manual transmission, which is why I stopped looking at the C63 as well (an otherwise superb car).\

I get the feeling you want an Autobahn stormer - cars from the M5/E63/Panamera are indeed much better suited to that role than an M3. But those aren't sport sedans, they are fast executive GTs.

I didn't say it would make it a better car. I said it would make it a better cruiser. I was pointing out that there are times when the M3 is NOT th ebest car, and when high speed cruising, there are better options.

I happen not to like cars that large so they're out. Something like the RS5 (well, RS4 since I'm a sedan guy) or C63, if available in manual transmissions, would have probably been better options for me. I have no problems admitting that. However my preference for a manual won out over the high speed cruising since I spend more time shifting that doing 150+.

You weren't paying attention. On the Nurburgring, 7:59 and 8:00 on different days and different drivers is as close to identical as you're going to get.

Unless that 7:59 was a driver with noticably less skill but was helped by a better car. Point being, with different drivers and days the times are incomparable.

As far as other tracks, when driven back to back by the same driver, there were instances where the M3 bested the CTS-V and instances were it was slower. So exactly how does this invalidate my claim that in fact, they are pretty well matched?

It doesn't. But it does show that a small difference in times around a random track doesn't make it better, it makes it more suited to that track. In the case of the RS5 it shows that the RS5 isn't a track car, and as I have contended, was never meant to be. None of the RS cars have EVER been designed fo track use. They've always been more powerful GT type cars than the S-line cars that had enough power to be used on a track but that's not their ideal environment.

I respectfully disagree. The M3 with EDC and 18" rims is an absolute pussycat on the street and rides amazingly well even on the worst surfaces.

Mine with 19s and EDC is a pussycat on the streets, but the VERY light flywheel on the 6MT and the notoriously glitchy DCT both make daily driving more difficult that it really needs to be. We put up with it because the rest of the car is so good.

The track thing is just the icing on the cake. The M3 impresses in other areas of street driving as well. Exactly what are your gripes with it?

My only real issues are the MUCH too small gas tank and the floating you get at high speeds. I can't really say it's an issue with the tank but the range. Bad mileage and bigger tank or better mileage and smaller tank, either would be fine. Other than that I love the car.

Unless you're the Sultan of Brunei, yes the price is always the main thing. If it weren't, I'd be driving a GT3 on track and a E63 or similar on the street. The M3 just happens to artfully combine the two extremes into the same thing.

As does the RS5. The point about price was the difference in price between anything in this class is small enough, when optioned equally, to be a non-issue.

I bought my E90 M3 with an MSRP of $59k for $51k plus taxes, Euro Delivered, for the greatest thrill ever. Drove it through the big Alpine passes, Autobahn, Ring, French Autoroutes, Spain's Autovia as well as back roads everywhere and encountered all manner of road quality and surfacing.

See my note about price above. Using price as justification in this class of cars is kind of silly.

Nope - check out the downforce data somewhere else on this site - the M3 does really well in this area.

Yes it does, until it generates lift, and it does.

Check your tire pressures and run on Normal or Comfort on the Autobahn when simply cruising. Sport does tend to set it slightly on edge - then again if you really want to haul ass, I always put it on Sport and dealt with the slightly bumpy ride.

I NEVER use Sport. It's simply too harsh for anything but a glass smooth track. I might try it at Hockenheim since I hear it's smooth and flat but for DD I use comfort and Normal at the Ring. TP gets checked every 4 days when I gas up.

I think they just can't help it, they'd love to lower the weigth a bit. BMW is not doing very well either lately, check out the weight of the new 5er.

Good god that thing is a pig. Not to mention WAAAAAY too big.

I think you have the car categories mixed up. The M3 is not a GT - it's a sports sedan. They are supposed to be fast, edgy, raw and exciting, all the while mixing it up with a small dose of comfort and practicality. That the M3 can play the GT part so well while maintaining the exciting side is nothing short of amazing.

I agree that the M3 does a wide range of things very, very well. It's the air of superiority that everything else is garbage in relation is simply ridiculous. I'm not saying you were one of the ones perpetuating this, but as a newcomer to the site I see it with fresh eyes. I'm also not the only noob here that sees it.

That's all my point has ever been.




Again, if your primary concern is Autobahn driving then you shouldn't be looking at a sport sedan. Just get an M5 or big fat AMG, perhaps an R type Jag and call it a day.

People focus on the agility/balance/track thing of the M3 because well, that is the primary mission of a sport sedan.[/QUOTE]

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Just because Im a stickler for numbers, since this came up the other day, here is a list of ALL the tracks the Panamera Turbo has been tested on and where the M3 has slotted behind it.

That's a great list, but those aren't ZCP M-DCT M3s, right? My point was, I'd like to see how a ZCP and M-DCT equipped car could improve on past M3 results. For example, I believe the recent results from the Sport Auto tests of such a car vs. the RS5 were markedly better than the original results from a pre-ZCP 6MT car.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Maybe the times for it havnt been very good and thats why many of the times havnt been listed?

I have to doubt that. Like I said, Sport Auto got the best time with DCT and ZCP.

Here's a link:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=399683

A tenth faster than a 6MT with Cup+ on Hockenheim. M3 ZCP DCT ring times are likely to fall below 8 minutes, I'd say. That's speculation of course. Like I say, I'd really love to see it tested.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I have to doubt that. Like I said, Sport Auto got the best time with DCT and ZCP.

Here's a link:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=399683

A tenth faster than a 6MT with Cup+ on Hockenheim. M3 ZCP DCT ring times are likely to fall below 8 minutes, I'd say. That's speculation of course. Like I say, I'd really love to see it tested.

Not sure where you're getting sub eight-minute times out of a tenth of a second per minute. I'd cheerfully speculate on an 8:04 at the 'ring based on the Hockenheim times, even though I'd bet serious money that the Hockenheim circuit would be more favorable overall to the automagic M3, because of lower average speeds, and therefore proportionally more shifts.

But sub eight minutes? Don't think so.

Not important, though. The M3 is still an overachiever, given its specs.

Bruce

PS - I'm subbing for footie here, since someone has to. Apparently some genius named jason has not only banned footie from this forum (where he has provided more actual content and thoughtfully presented opinions than nearly anyone), but also banned him from even doing PMs.

jason, wherever you are, keep up the hamhanded, haphazard work.

[graider]

the panamera turbo approach to track time is like the gtr. awd, dct, lot of hp/tq from turbo, etc. so I don't doubt the time at all.

if anyone driven both, which one feels better pan turbo vs m3?

[bobbyd1961]

how much is the panamera turbo? i saw a panamera yesterdy in manhattan black looked good . i dont think it was a turbo becasue an M3 blew its doors off.

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Apparently some genius named jason has not only banned footie from this forum (where he has provided more actual content and thoughtfully presented opinions than nearly anyone), but also banned him from even doing PMs.

I am sure he will be back in no time!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by shift@red

.1 on Hockenheim is nothing. I would be suprised if it posted a sub 8 minute lap time. It will be the first time BMW will crack 8 mins with a US production car.

Remember though, that's with PS2s. The other time was on Cup+. Can't recall if the M3's 8:05 Ring time (or whatever the exact number was) was accomplished on Cup+ as well. I remember it was a topic of heavy debate.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Not sure where you're getting sub eight-minute times out of a tenth of a second per minute. I'd cheerfully speculate on an 8:04 at the 'ring based on the Hockenheim times, even though I'd bet serious money that the Hockenheim circuit would be more favorable overall to the automagic M3, because of lower average speeds, and therefore proportionally more shifts.

But sub eight minutes? Don't think so.

Maybe, maybe not. We're all speculating here obviously. I would still be very curious to see how the M3 performs on the Ring with the addition of ZCP and M-DCT.

[graider]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Remember though, that's with PS2s. The other time was on Cup+. Can't recall if the M3's 8:05 Ring time (or whatever the exact number was) was accomplished on Cup+ as well. I remember it was a topic of heavy debate.



Maybe, maybe not. We're all speculating here obviously. I would still be very curious to see how the M3 performs on the Ring with the addition of ZCP and M-DCT.

i agree, sometimes subtle changes can improve lap time tremendously.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

PS - I'm subbing for footie here, since someone has to. Apparently some genius named jason has not only banned footie from this forum (where he has provided more actual content and thoughtfully presented opinions than nearly anyone), but also banned him from even doing PMs.

I'd just like to offer my support for Footie whenever the opportunity comes up. I've asked Southby PM if he can tell me (us) something more about the ban. From the limited information I have it seems there is no reason for the ban.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by shift@red

My guess, ZCP/DCT/PS2s, probably no better than the M3 did with cup+ tires (8:05 +/-), but I doubt they will test with PS2s.

If they do test, I should hope they'll use PS2s this time. I realize Cup+ are available OEM in some countries, but PS2 (or Conti3) is what most people get.

Maybe by a few seconds, nothing groundshattering though. The only ones who can add very little hp and make small refining tweaks and really show on lap times is Porsche. The 997S is one of the biggest overachievers out there (7:50 with an 8.7 power/weight).

Not sure how you meant that, but I don't think there's anything germane to the 911 (or any Porsche vehicle) that should make that statement so, at least not in any scientific sense. I do agree that the C2S is fast for what it has though. I assume that 7:50 is with PDK, which, if so, again demonstrates what a good DCT can do for track times.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'd just like to offer my support for Footie whenever the opportunity comes up. I've asked Southby PM if he can tell me (us) something more about the ban. From the limited information I have it seems there is no reason for the ban.

According to south, footie's latest transgression was writing "Is it a case that my debate and reasoning is striking a nerve called the truth?"

Pretty heady stuff, huh? Apparently, that got him banned from even doing a PM.

Jason is apparently out of control.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

According to south, footie's latest transgression was writing "Is it a case that my debate and reasoning is striking a nerve called the truth?"

Pretty heady stuff, huh? Apparently, that got him banned from even doing a PM.

Jason is apparently out of control.

The information I got what that was just the title of a post with other "objectionable" comments. I'd love to see the entire post and very well might agree. I don't understand Foot's incessant stirring of the pot but one shouldn't be banned for that, especially a prior owner and long term contributor.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The information I got what that was just the title of a post with other "objectionable" comments. I'd love to see the entire post and very well might agree. I don't understand Foot's incessant stirring of the pot but one shouldn't be banned for that, especially a prior owner and long term contributor.

I read that post. Somewhat confrontive, that's all - of course in my opinion.

This forum appears to be slipping into one in which only Stepford wives need contribute.