EVO M4 vs 911

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

I don't think so,the faster the track the more heat the tires will generate,and fall off even quicker.

I don't know. My E92 with 275 square setup RS-3s was way better than stock and it didn't fall off during the sessions I ran in the California desert heat. Just saying.

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

I don't know. My E92 with 275 square setup RS-3s was way better than stock and it didn't fall off during the sessions I ran in the California desert heat. Just saying.

Cant compare RS-3 to PSS,two different tires designed for different uses,PSS will fall off way before RS-3.The tire in discussion (my quote earlier) is the stock PSS.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

Cant compare RS-3 to PSS,two different tires designed for different uses,PSS will fall off way before RS-3.The tire in discussion (my quote earlier) is the stock PSS.

Bro, are you reading the same thread I'm reading? I literally brought up a 295 or 205 RS-3 tire and that's what we were discussing. Please go back and read your responses.

kthx.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

I don't think so,the faster the track the more heat the tires will generate,and fall off even quicker.

A bit of an exaggeration! On a faster track with less turns the M4 would do better against the Carrera than on a tighter track- I think that's a fair assumption to make. Two days ago I was doing between 120 and 165 mph for around 45 mins on the autobahn and my tyres didn't fall off

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Bro, are you reading the same thread I'm reading? I literally brought up a 295 or 205 RS-3 tire and that's what we were discussing. Please go back and read your responses.

kthx.

Like I said,you can get any track tire you like,in order to balance the car out you will need to address the suspension issues that will eventually come up as you start to push harder and harder.In order to beat the 911,tires alone will not cut it.

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by ss134

A bit of an exaggeration! On a faster track with less turns the M4 would do better against the Carrera than on a tighter track- I think that's a fair assumption to make. Two days ago I was doing between 120 and 165 mph for around 45 mins on the autobahn and my tyres didn't fall off

Lol,really your tires did not fall off on the bahn hey? Thats gotta be a joke...moving on

The faster the track,the harder you will brake and faster you will be going around corners.No matter how you slice it,a faster track is still going to put more heat than a slower track.Answer this question,what makes a fast track fast?

[ss134]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

Lol,really your tires did not fall off on the bahn hey? Thats gotta be a joke...moving on

The faster the track,the harder you will brake and faster you will be going around corners.No matter how you slice it,a faster track is still going to put more heat than a slower track.Answer this question,what makes a fast track fast?

It was a joke, I added a big green grinning smiley so there was no confusion

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

Like I said,you can get any track tire you like,in order to balance the car out you will need to address the suspension issues that will eventually come up as you start to push harder and harder.In order to beat the 911,tires alone will not cut it.

You must not track much, because tires make a world of a difference- even without changing suspensions.

Do I agree that coilovers would help? Absolutely...and I'll have them once they're available for my car. However, 1.4 seconds could easily be made up from tires alone (especially when they're significantly wider than stock)

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

You must not track much, because tires make a world of a difference- even without changing suspensions.

Do I agree that coilovers would help? Absolutely...and I'll have them once they're available for my car. However, 1.4 seconds could easily be made up from tires alone (especially when they're significantly wider than stock)

You could say the same about putting better tires on the 911. The stock Pirelli Pzero that comes on the 911 is a worse tire than the PSS and most certainly isn't a track tire.

[JoeFromPA]

The comments here are getting a bit ridiculous. A porsche 911 PDK has a curb weight of 3,086 pounds. 500 POUNDS LESS THAN THE M4. FIVE HUNDRED.

It's wheelbase is 14.3" smaller and it's total length is 7" smaller. It's over 3" lower and 2" less wide.

It's also carrying wider rear tires and is a car built from the ground up for the track.

...

Yes, sure, a lazier track with higher speed straights and less technical turns (I.e. flat) will benefit the M3 more. That's like saying a straightaway would benefit a Hellcat more. No crap; the less you've got to haul 500 pounds around turns using less rubber, a higher center of gravity, and on a longer wider wheelbase, the better the car will perform.

From a showroom stock perspective, the 911 is a better track platform. The m3, through amazing engineering, gets close despite it's limitations comparatively.

I'm happy for the M3

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by trinim3

You could say the same about putting better tires on the 911. The stock Pirelli Pzero that comes on the 911 is a worse tire than the PSS and most certainly isn't a track tire.

I dont think you get it. I was simply saying that with better tires, the M4/M4 could be right there with it. No shit you could say the same about the 911. The M3/4 should have wider tires to begin with. The M3/4 is not anywhere near as good of a sports car as the 911, but guess what? At >20k cheaper, it's a clear winner in the logic book.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

The comments here are getting a bit ridiculous. A porsche 911 PDK has a curb weight of 3,086 pounds. 500 POUNDS LESS THAN THE M4. FIVE HUNDRED.

It's wheelbase is 14.3" smaller and it's total length is 7" smaller. It's over 3" lower and 2" less wide.

It's also carrying wider rear tires and is a car built from the ground up for the track.

...

Yes, sure, a lazier track with higher speed straights and less technical turns (I.e. flat) will benefit the M3 more. That's like saying a straightaway would benefit a Hellcat more. No crap; the less you've got to haul 500 pounds around turns using less rubber, a higher center of gravity, and on a longer wider wheelbase, the better the car will perform.

From a showroom stock perspective, the 911 is a better track platform. The m3, through amazing engineering, gets close despite it's limitations comparatively.

I'm happy for the M3

So true. ^this.

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

I dont think you get it. I was simply saying that with better tires, the M4/M4 could be right there with it. No shit you could say the same about the 911. The M3/4 should have wider tires to begin with. The M3/4 is not anywhere near as good of a sports car as the 911, but guess what? At >20k cheaper, it's a clear winner in the logic book.

You seem to want it both ways.
-On the one hand you admit that the 911 is a better track car. This we both agree.
-On the other hand you sound like a whiny baby constantly making excuses and saying that if the M4 had this and that it could beat an otherwise stock base 911. This is obvious. If you think the 911 is better at the track, then why do you feel the need to defend the M4 so badly? Nobody is saying the 911 is the better all-around car. People are simply stating that it is the better car at the track stock v stock.

And yes the 911 is $20k more than a M4...so what? Their are mustangs that are $30k cheaper than the M4 and still compete with it at the track. And if you remove the economies of scale cost advantages BMW has, do you really think the 911 costs $20k more per car to MAKE than the M4? That's mostly Porsche profit, little else.

As I said earlier I'm curious to see what the Cayman S/GTS will do against the M4 as those are similarly priced.

[JoeFromPA]

Trinim3 - One of the reasons people "defend" a car by saying it could match the performance of another car with something simple done differently is because....

We are all keyboard racing on here. It's a 1.4 second difference in this test. So we're only looking at one component of performance - a single track time.

In that context, it's fair to say that "Well if you want the M4 to match that 911's track time, you just need some wider tires of a different brand and wheels to match."

Because in reality, that would probably get them to match times.

Now others are saying coilovers: Drop the CoG, stiffen it up, and you'll get better adhesion and carry more speed.

Ok, that's fair and in the context of 1.4 seconds on a track that's accurate. I mean, coilovers are a completely different compromise modification and tend to remove alot of the very finely tuned ride and noise characteristics making the car alot more.....hardcore I guess....in order to gain some track time. But that's an option too.

Of course, the fatal flaw with all that is that the same can be said of a 1990 miata.

So at some point, you've got to stay at or close to showroom stock for comparison purposes.

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Trinim3 - One of the reasons people "defend" a car by saying it could match the performance of another car with something simple done differently is because....

We are all keyboard racing on here. It's a 1.4 second difference in this test. So we're only looking at one component of performance - a single track time.

In that context, it's fair to say that "Well if you want the M4 to match that 911's track time, you just need some wider tires of a different brand and wheels to match."

Because in reality, that would probably get them to match times.

Now others are saying coilovers: Drop the CoG, stiffen it up, and you'll get better adhesion and carry more speed.

Ok, that's fair and in the context of 1.4 seconds on a track that's accurate. I mean, coilovers are a completely different compromise modification and tend to remove alot of the very finely tuned ride and noise characteristics making the car alot more.....hardcore I guess....in order to gain some track time. But that's an option too.

Of course, the fatal flaw with all that is that the same can be said of a 1990 miata.

So at some point, you've got to stay at or close to showroom stock for comparison purposes.

I don't disagree but I find jc05e46m3 tone to be rather condescending therefore my reply will be equally condescending. There's a way to make an argument without being a douche.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by trinim3

You seem to want it both ways.
-On the one hand you admit that the 911 is a better track car. This we both agree.
-On the other hand you sound like a whiny baby constantly making excuses and saying that if the M4 had this and that it could beat an otherwise stock base 911. This is obvious. If you think the 911 is better at the track, then why do you feel the need to defend the M4 so badly? Nobody is saying the 911 is the better all-around car. People are simply stating that it is the better car at the track stock v stock.

And yes the 911 is $20k more than a M4...so what? Their are mustangs that are $30k cheaper than the M4 and still compete with it at the track. And if you remove the economies of scale cost advantages BMW has, do you really think the 911 costs $20k more per car to MAKE than the M4? That's most Porsche profit, little else.

As I said earlier I'm curious to see what the Cayman S/GTS will do against the M4 as those are similarly priced.

Whiny baby excuses? lol. All I said was TIRES, for Christ's sake. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. The point is, BMW should have given it wider rubber from the get go. Porsche and Chevy have had that right for years.

The 911 is a better track car. I'll say it again to make you a happy man. I am in no way "defending the M4 so badly". I said TIRES would make it better (since the factory didnt think to do that even though they added ~40% more torque) I mention the price of the porsche because it's ~30% more than the F8x and still appeals to the badge snobs who would never go for a mustang. You're turning this into a retarded debate when all I said was with better tires, it would be a better car. If that hurts your feelings and you somehow need to validate your existence by turning into something more, then by all means- this is the perfect place.

Thanks though, brother.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by trinim3

I don't disagree but I find jc05e46m3 tone to be rather condescending therefore my reply will be equally condescending. There's a way to make an argument without being a douche.

lol, if you found that to be condescending, then you need thicker skin. Welcome to the internet. How people survive in the real world by taking offense to my comment of "I don't think you get it" is beyond me.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Trinim3 - One of the reasons people "defend" a car by saying it could match the performance of another car with something simple done differently is because....

We are all keyboard racing on here. It's a 1.4 second difference in this test. So we're only looking at one component of performance - a single track time.

In that context, it's fair to say that "Well if you want the M4 to match that 911's track time, you just need some wider tires of a different brand and wheels to match."

Because in reality, that would probably get them to match times.

Now others are saying coilovers: Drop the CoG, stiffen it up, and you'll get better adhesion and carry more speed.

Ok, that's fair and in the context of 1.4 seconds on a track that's accurate. I mean, coilovers are a completely different compromise modification and tend to remove alot of the very finely tuned ride and noise characteristics making the car alot more.....hardcore I guess....in order to gain some track time. But that's an option too.

Of course, the fatal flaw with all that is that the same can be said of a 1990 miata.

So at some point, you've got to stay at or close to showroom stock for comparison purposes.

Thank you for understanding. I don't see where the disconnect was.

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Thank you for understanding. I don't see where the disconnect was.

Interwebz. It's easy to misread words on a page. no harm, no foul.

At least we can all agree that the M4 is the best all-around car for the money.

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by trinim3

Interwebz. It's easy to misread words on a page. no harm, no foul.

At least we can all agree that the M4 is the best all-around car for the money.

NP, wouldn't be the first or last time anyone does that (including me) and yes, it is .

Cheers.

[JoeFromPA]

I daily drove an e39 m5 for 2 years. It weighed ~400-500 pounds more than the f80, had a higher CoG, and had a very responsive and slightly tuned 4.95 liter v8. Similar output.

And it was shod in 245/40/18 up front and 275/35/18 out back (stock sizing).

So to me, given the weight reduction and better weight alignment (lower, more central) of the F80, I feel like it's stock tire sizes are perfect for street + track blend.

That being said, it looks like the F80 is an extremely tail happy vehicle. Maybe it's massive torque at all speeds, whatever, but it just seems like it is undertired in the rear....

That being said, my understanding is that a taller sidewall (more rubber, more air) tire will handle heat better - so maybe it's simply better suited for track duty with the 18" wheels than the 19" upgrade. Perhaps we'll see the smaller wheels pull better times consistently.

IDK, just throwing out thoughts here.

[SOM3]

Originally Posted by 2Late

The 911 is a better all around sports car with 75 less hp and 119 less tq it still out performs the bmw. The m3/m4 is much more of a compromise. I view it more as a sports sedan, an improved 335/435 with upgraded suspension and a great engine thats still good for picking up the kids and a loaf of bread on the way home hence the focus on comfort mode

I had a 911 and there was never a doubt I was in a pure sports car. I have a few months until my m3 comes in so I'll hold out my thoughts on it. I am very disappointed that in all the videos I see the bmw's seem to have a real problem with traction. I understand the tremendous torque that it puts out but I don't understand why the engineers didn't compensate for this with the wheel/tires and suspension. The car appears overpowered. The chassis cannot handle the tq effectively.

I'm not down on the bmw or I wouldn't have purchased one, but I'm not oblivious to it's shortcomings. Most vehicles are a compromise.

Sounds like 320 is a little more in your comfort zone. You should reconsider getting M3.