Does anyone prefer m3 handling over a 911 (996/997)?

[Redd]

Speed - GT3; handling - M3.

[W///]

Originally Posted by TheKosherStogie

While I love an e9xm3. Have owned 4. I love Porsche’s handling and prefer. Have owned 997.2gt3, 997.1gt3, 964, 993c2s, 991GTS.

I think rear engine platform shines! The car is very intuitive and tells you what it’s doing. Use it for its strengths. Exiting turns and braking.

I’ve tracked for 10 years at all the SoCal tracks and have respectable times. And I think to say the 911 is flawed is crazy. It’s fun and amazing to drive at the limit. And hell I find the older ones way more fun to drive at the limit compared to the newer. They’re easier and easier now.

Curious as to what you think of the 997 GT3's specifically and why you got rid of them? Or do you just like trying different cars? Also a big fan of Gen V Vipers btw!

[14_deltaM3]

An interesting read that validates much of the discussion here:

https://www.evo.co.uk/porsche/911/14...-evora-and-c63

[FormulaMMM]

Added a .2 GT3 6MT. Have yet to take it to the track, but based upon street handling impressions --

It erases corners. Must be the rear axle steering. Find myself routinely oversteering around corners -- not as in losing the back end, but too much steering input for the corner. It works its way through corners differently than any other car I've driven. Almost seems to slither around a corner, if that makes sense. Between that and the absence of perceptible body roll, feels like cheating, honestly.

Could one prefer an M3 or M4 handling characteristics to the 911? The experiences are very different, don't see why not.

My problem -- from financial and garage space standpoints -- is that with each new car I end up finding things to like about my others even more. I've never subscribed to the idea that a great performance car negates or diminishes another. That's YouTube comparison and brand fanboy bs.

So, thought for sure my Z/28 would go with this acquisition. Now I'm not so sure I want to let go of that V8 absurdity. Can't believe the sharp throttle response that BMW managed with the GTS, appreciate how lively it is, and how perfect the damn steering wheel is, lol. Etc.

I'm driving my E90, which is stock, and GT3 on the regular right now.

The one very clear impression I have at the moment is that the E90 M3 is the best all-around performance car ever made.

An engine that's (call it…) 80% as awesome as the 4.0 GT3 with four seats, practicality, comfort, playful handling. It's just such a kick ass sedan, no way they'll ever make another as good. Hang onto yours.

[Jims M3]

I have an E92 M3, F80 M3 and a C7 Corvette. Of the three my favorite car is the E92 M3. I have never tracked a car that was more predictable and felt bullet proof to me. It stays cool it handles incredibly and is easy to drive fast.

I put on a Stoptech BBK for the front but other than that just drove it the way it was. I replaced the rod bearings when I bought the car and really have had no other issues with the car.

The F80 I bought is an individual car, I mainly bought it because it was rare, low miles, good price and more modern, I replaced a M6 GC because that car was just too big for me. I love the F80 and I would choose it as a daily driver over the E92 mainly because of the options and conveniences.

The C7 I also love it is set up for the track as well.

All three of these cars can lap quicker than comparable P Cars I lap with at COTA. The difference with the P car is for the price of these three cars, I could have 1 GT3, instead I have three great cars that offer lots of different options and all look fantastic. Buying a P Car mean you have to really love it because they are usually double the price of a BMW or Corvette. I'll take the multiple choices over a P Car.

[kyrix1st]

There is a reason why front engine, rear wheel drive has been the most superior platform for more than a century since Daimler started making cars. Rear engine cars i.e. 911 inherently have lighter front end on which the high speed traction becomes a huge problem when driving hard.

M3 has 50:50 balance on top of being FR platform, so the whole car feels very neutral whether you are going slow, at the limit or over the limit.

I have not driven a single car that was easier to catch oversteer than the M3s.

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

I have not driven a single car that was easier to catch oversteer than the M3s.

Seriously. I'm not even sure it's possible to spin this car. I think DSC off may be a fallacy. Like it's actually just the most advanced stability control system of all time.

[Redd]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

Seriously. I'm not even sure it's possible to spin this car. I think DSC off may be a fallacy. Like it's actually just the most advanced stability control system of all time.

Try zero rear toe if you want a spinny car (Not speaking from experience or nuthin' )

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by Redd

Try zero rear toe if you want a spinny car (Not speaking from experience or nuthin' )

Haha true.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

M3 has 50:50 balance on top of being FR platform, so the whole car feels very neutral whether you are going slow, at the limit or over the limit.

I have not driven a single car that was easier to catch oversteer than the M3s.

Neutral to oversteer-y.. And back to the original question, a subjectively preferable balance to the 911's.

M perfected the front end with the F8X gen. (E9X almost gets there with a 275 square setup + suspension bits.) On track that translates to a lot of focus on mid-corner to corner exit strategy and management. Getting the best out of an M car, shaving seconds off of lap times comes down to how early and how hard you can get back on the power. Throttle and steering coordination.

911 is a lot of corner entry management. Prone to understeer. I find there's less adjust-ability in each phase of the corner -- carry too much speed in and it's a bit of a waiting game until the car is resettled. You can saw at the wheel searching for more bite and punish the front tires for small gains. (Video below is a good example. Experience is probably different with the wider front track and 265's of the RS.)

Whereas the M nails corner entry, the Porsche is truly remarkable on corner exit. The cliche is legit. There's a second gear hairpin at Sebring. Car fast forwards from corner exit to 100 mph. It's also incredible at putting the power down in quick bursts between corners in tighter complexes.

I'm still early days with the 911 with a lot to learn, but first impressions as I incrementally up the pace on track: Find myself searching for/wondering about the car's limitations more than I'm used to. As in, do the engineers have me covered for another 5 mph here?... Hope so...

M car's limitations are more immediate. you can feel them. The rear axle constantly communicates status. Getting the best out of the car is an exercise in how well you can manage that limitation.

Not saying the 911 doesn't require driver talent for a lap time. But I do feel like there's more "cheating" going on. Sort of equal parts driver management and Porsche Motorsport influence. So far, anyways.

[Rassilon]

Interesting comments. I am an ordinary driver with no talent driving a (mostly) stock m3. while I really enjoyed it I disliked the weight, limited grip and bipolar viscolok lsd of the car. I have never driven a 911 on track before and didn't realize e9x m3 is this good. is grippy square tires the key to unleash the potential of my car and get a taste of this 911 beating performance you guys talked about?

[slowdown_dan]

I'm a nobody who only got his e92 M3 4 months ago. My first track day is coming up in a few weeks and I will be on street tires now and for the foreseeable future. With that out of the way: In regard to the comment that 275 square is the key to unlocking the true potential of this car I have to wonder if maybe it's actually that 275/35 FRONT tires are the key to unlocking the potential of this car at the track. When you can run a 295 or even 305 rear (with a little finessing) why would adding more mechanical grip in the back be bad? If you are racing and or DE'ing and there are no rules as to which tire sizes you can run, AND tire money is not an issue (just pretend with me) how many of you are still running 275 square?

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by butte2butte

I'm a nobody who only got his e92 M3 4 months ago. My first track day is coming up in a few weeks and I will be on street tires now and for the foreseeable future. With that out of the way: In regard to the comment that 275 square is the key to unlocking the true potential of this car I have to wonder if maybe it's actually that 275/35 FRONT tires are the key to unlocking the potential of this car at the track. When you can run a 295 or even 305 rear (with a little finessing) why would adding more mechanical grip in the back be bad? If you are racing and or DE'ing and there are no rules as to which tire sizes you can run, AND tire money is not an issue (just pretend with me) how many of you are still running 275 square?

I think we would adjust the balance of the car and run a slightly wider rear tbh. But fronts would die quick. Would need a mobile tire changer that swaps out fronts for you, and if money was no object we'd probably be driving faster cars lol. It's a slippery slope of a hypothetical scenario.

[slowdown_dan]

So you purposely reduce rear grip by sticking with 275 rear so you don't overpower and melt off the fronts? Just trying to understand.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by butte2butte

So you purposely reduce rear grip by sticking with 275 rear so you don't overpower and melt off the fronts? Just trying to understand.

E9X doesn't require anything more than 275 rear. Doesn't struggle for exit traction, it's not overly loose through transitions, etc.

275 square creates an ideal handling balance for an M car (neutral to oversteer), budget no consideration. Race teams ran square on the E9X platform.

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by butte2butte

So you purposely reduce rear grip by sticking with 275 rear so you don't overpower and melt off the fronts? Just trying to understand.

Well I'm running 295 square currently, and will eventually be running 305 square slicks. With my suspension setup, square has great balance, and I can rotate the tires to make them last much longer. On track, the outside of the front tires will get worn faster than the rear regardless of the rear tires size. Being able to swap them around makes the tires last longer.

I would actually argue that 275 is too small for this car on either end (for hard track use), given its weight.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

I would actually argue that 275 is too small for this car on either end (for hard track use), given its weight.

did you run 275 r comps and find insufficient? Stock engine?

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

did you run 275 r comps and find insufficient? Stock engine?

Ran 275 RS4 and several sets of NT01. Only power mods - test pipes, tune, and intake. I eventually found the NT01 insufficient because I can run a wider tire and have better heat management, grip, and wear.

275 is totally fine, and a great compromise. It just isn't an ideal size imo. We can make use of much more tire at all four corners on track. Also, tire heat builds up quickly with our porker, and larger tires help with that. Just look at the proportion of tire size to weight on modern track focused cars from the factory.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

Ran 275 RS4 and several sets of NT01. Only power mods - test pipes, tune, and intake. I eventually found the NT01 insufficient because I can run a wider tire and have better heat management, grip, and wear.

275 is totally fine, and a great compromise. It just isn't an ideal size imo. We can make use of much more tire at all four corners on track. Also, tire heat builds up quickly with our porker, and larger tires help with that. Just look at the proportion of tire size to weight on modern track focused cars from the factory.

Cool that you have the 275 reference points. I imagine an E90 with 295 or 305 square is fricking glorious. Had to modify KW clubsports to fit 275 front, so never even entertained going wider.

Interesting thought on the heat management. You're getting more hot laps before overheating with 295s?

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Cool that you have the 275 reference points. I imagine an E90 with 295 or 305 square is fricking glorious. Had to modify KW clubsports to fit 275 front, so never even entertained going wider.

Interesting thought on the heat management. You're getting more hot laps before overheating with 295s?

Well, I don't have an apples to apples comparison since NT01 aren't made in a larger size which fits. 295 AR-1 actually overheat faster than the 275 NT01 (but they are also still faster when overheated so it's not too bad). But a larger/wider tire generally takes longer to overheat.

My clubsports are modified as well, with 140mm springs and removed helpers. I ran the 275's before that with spacers.