[Remonster]

Originally Posted by chris719

Most BMWs have underachieved on the lightning lap for the following reasons:

1. It's a power track and BMWs are not usually the most powerful car in their class.
2. Before the AWD M5, BMWs struggle to put the power down because they are RWD and don't use 305+ section width tires like the Americans.
3. BMW can't seem to get the suspension tuning right on the F8x series cars.

The reality is that BMW isn't really out to compete for lap times. They will name cars "competition", but they still want to sell you a daily driver, GTS aside. They don't put the same amount of money into the extremes of performance as their competitors.

I would say BMW has always been much more concerned with how their cars feel at their limit than with how high those limits are or how quick their performance numbers are.

When I first got my F80, I was surprised by how easily the stock custom Pilot Super Sports would break traction, how overly stretched they seemed to be, etc. so I experimented with a few different sets of 20” and 19” tires on my 666M and 437M stock wheels. I gained a ton more performance, I can launch incredibly quickly, put power down coming out of corners much better than before, etc. but I also feel like a lot of the car’s ‘magic’ has been lost in this pursuit.

Before, in fully stock form, the car felt tremendously agile, front to rear grip balance seemed to be very neutral and yet easily adjustable mid-corner, the body weight felt very well controlled up until the limits of grip. Now, the suspension & tire sidewalls feel softer at the higher cornering limits, and the damping is less impressive because you end up going that bit more quickly, etc.

I’m of the opinion that sometimes the choices made during engineering of certain cars that set super, super quick laptimes are also the same things that make them a little less fun to drive when the stop watch is not involved.

[stein_325i]

Originally Posted by 535i MSport

The funny thing is, is that I am a BMW fan, prefer the iDrive, layout of controls etc, but they don't do an M3 touring, so it was the C63 S or an RS4 and the V8 and more engaging drive decided it for me.

What I do know is that the new M3 will be great to drive. I just needs to look great too....

Same here, always been a BMW guy, still prefer iDrive and some of the ergonomics, but I preferred the CLS53 and E53 I drove in comparison to the M550i when it came to driving dynamics.

[cptobvious]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I would say BMW has always been much more concerned with how their cars feel at their limit than with how high those limits are or how quick their performance numbers are.

When I first got my F80, I was surprised by how easily the stock custom Pilot Super Sports would break traction, how overly stretched they seemed to be, etc. so I experimented with a few different sets of 20” and 19” tires on my 666M and 437M stock wheels. I gained a ton more performance, I can launch incredibly quickly, put power down coming out of corners much better than before, etc. but I also feel like a lot of the car’s ‘magic’ has been lost in this pursuit.

Before, in fully stock form, the car felt tremendously agile, front to rear grip balance seemed to be very neutral and yet easily adjustable mid-corner, the body weight felt very well controlled up until the limits of grip. Now, the suspension & tire sidewalls feel softer at the higher cornering limits, and the damping is less impressive because you end up going that bit more quickly, etc.

I’m of the opinion that sometimes the choices made during engineering of certain cars that set super, super quick laptimes are also the same things that make them a little less fun to drive when the stop watch is not involved.

Good sir, Remonster, can you talk more about precisely what changes you tried out on your tires?

It's almost time for me to swap out new tires on my M2C, and was considering going from the stock MPSS 245/35/19 fronts and 265/35/19 rears to MPS4 in 265/30/19 fronts and 295/30/19 rears. Figured the wider set up would give me greater traction, higher performance, etc., but by the same token, I LOVE how the M2C currently drives, I really couldn't care less about true performance as I don't track and the M2C is just my fun DD, so definitely don't want to do anything that might kill the "magic."

For me, the #1 priority is fun, and the car is awesomely fun at the moment. You think making a switch like that might kill some of the fun?

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

Repeat after me... "BMW is NOT the Ultimate Driving Machine"

It will take a lot of therapy to counter the marketing brainwashing , but don't lose hope, 3 times a week sessions at a minimum and your tunnel vision will slowly get wider.

It is for now.

Soon to be... The Ultimate Self-Driving Machine ‼️

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by ///M TOWN

It is for now.

Soon to be... The Ultimate Self-Driving Machine ‼️

Haha, I think the industry as a whole is going that direction.

Driving yourself in 20 years might be a novelty.

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I would say BMW has always been much more concerned with how their cars feel at their limit than with how high those limits are or how quick their performance numbers are.

When I first got my F80, I was surprised by how easily the stock custom Pilot Super Sports would break traction, how overly stretched they seemed to be, etc. so I experimented with a few different sets of 20” and 19” tires on my 666M and 437M stock wheels. I gained a ton more performance, I can launch incredibly quickly, put power down coming out of corners much better than before, etc. but I also feel like a lot of the car’s ‘magic’ has been lost in this pursuit.

Before, in fully stock form, the car felt tremendously agile, front to rear grip balance seemed to be very neutral and yet easily adjustable mid-corner, the body weight felt very well controlled up until the limits of grip. Now, the suspension & tire sidewalls feel softer at the higher cornering limits, and the damping is less impressive because you end up going that bit more quickly, etc.

I’m of the opinion that sometimes the choices made during engineering of certain cars that set super, super quick laptimes are also the same things that make them a little less fun to drive when the stop watch is not involved.

Yup. This is a very important thing to keep in mind. The thing is, no matter how bad I want them to, F1 scouts are not going to show up to my local track day to consider me for a job.

I am quite literally at one for six billion in terms of "human beings who care if I run a 2:16 instead of a 2:18 at my local track day"

Since accepting the universe's (totally unfair) apathy towards my driving talent, I've gone with the philosophy of favoring the subjectively more fun driving experience ten times out of ten.

[chris719]

I'm fine with people saying they want fun over the best absolute time. I'd agree, but sometimes we have to come to terms with the fact that BMW makes cars that are compromises by design. I mean, if fun and feel on track are your only benchmarks, I'm not sure BMW is competitive in that regard either. BMW makes dual purpose cars, with the possible exception of the M4 GTS. I doubt they would ever be as fun on a track as a Lotus.

M cars start life as the chassis for base series vehicles, so it's going to be tough to compete with purpose-built platforms. It used to be that the BMW base chassis was a lot better than the competition, but everyone else has improved.

Still probably the best dual-purpose cars for the money, but let us be objective here.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by cptobvious

Good sir, Remonster, can you talk more about precisely what changes you tried out on your tires?

It's almost time for me to swap out new tires on my M2C, and was considering going from the stock MPSS 245/35/19 fronts and 265/35/19 rears to MPS4 in 265/30/19 fronts and 295/30/19 rears. Figured the wider set up would give me greater traction, higher performance, etc., but by the same token, I LOVE how the M2C currently drives, I really couldn't care less about true performance as I don't track and the M2C is just my fun DD, so definitely don't want to do anything that might kill the "magic."

For me, the #1 priority is fun, and the car is awesomely fun at the moment. You think making a switch like that might kill some of the fun?

I would say "probably." You'll lose a bit of tight feel of the stock tire/wheel combination especially in the rear going up three sizes in width but sticking to the same wheel width. You're also talking about increasing width stagger and diameter stagger by one increment; slight change but there nonetheless. Now if you were going to 10" and 11" wheels and 275/30-19 fronts with the 295/30 rears....

If you want a bit more width and a slight bit more grip, PS4S (*not* the PS4) 255/35-19 and 275/35-19 are perfect fits for 9" and 10" wheels.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by chris719

I'm fine with people saying they want fun over the best absolute time. I'd agree, but sometimes we have to come to terms with the fact that BMW makes cars that are compromises by design. I mean, if fun and feel on track are your only benchmarks, I'm not sure BMW is competitive in that regard either. BMW makes dual purpose cars, with the possible exception of the M4 GTS. I doubt they would ever be as fun on a track as a Lotus.

M cars start life as the chassis for base series vehicles, so it's going to be tough to compete with purpose-built platforms. It used to be that the BMW base chassis was a lot better than the competition, but everyone else has improved.

Still probably the best dual-purpose cars for the money, but let us be objective here.

100% true. Somewhere along the line people started to expect M3s to match purpose-built sports cars in pace and characteristics, which is ridiculous.

Funny because just about every enthusiast group outside of our own sees and appreciates M cars for what they are. I used to load up and drive south for track days in my modified E90. Hit winter weather trying to escape more often than not, so my car was coated in salt and grime. I'd arrive to Sebring, Homestead, PBIR looking homeless with a trip's worth of gear, equipment, 4 track wheels, etc. Often approached by Vette, 911, R8 owners inquiring about my mods, then they'd spot my northern plates, ask my story. Shared all of the above and that it's my wife's part-time daily driver, family road trip car back home. None of them thought the M3 sucked because it couldn't match the Z06's on slicks...

And yes, even the most extreme iteration of an M car is still going to feel like a highly modified GT car. The starting platform is the starting platform. I've driven a 458 and my M4 GTS back to back on-road. Clearly, two fundamentally different types of cars.

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by cptobvious

Good sir, Remonster, can you talk more about precisely what changes you tried out on your tires?

It's almost time for me to swap out new tires on my M2C, and was considering going from the stock MPSS 245/35/19 fronts and 265/35/19 rears to MPS4 in 265/30/19 fronts and 295/30/19 rears. Figured the wider set up would give me greater traction, higher performance, etc., but by the same token, I LOVE how the M2C currently drives, I really couldn't care less about true performance as I don't track and the M2C is just my fun DD, so definitely don't want to do anything that might kill the "magic."

For me, the #1 priority is fun, and the car is awesomely fun at the moment. You think making a switch like that might kill some of the fun?

Probably best to go with stickier tyres (Yokohama AD08R, Bridgestone RE-71R...etc) in stock size if u want to keep the same 'magic' and have fun on the road.

Then some people don't like the RE-71R for daily so really depends on your usage

[Big boi m5]

'M5 isn't a track car'
'M2 is the sportiest car in BMWs line up!'

Quotes that tell if someone has no clue what they are talking about.

[clee1982]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I would say BMW has always been much more concerned with how their cars feel at their limit than with how high those limits are or how quick their performance numbers are.

When I first got my F80, I was surprised by how easily the stock custom Pilot Super Sports would break traction, how overly stretched they seemed to be, etc. so I experimented with a few different sets of 20” and 19” tires on my 666M and 437M stock wheels. I gained a ton more performance, I can launch incredibly quickly, put power down coming out of corners much better than before, etc. but I also feel like a lot of the car’s ‘magic’ has been lost in this pursuit.

Before, in fully stock form, the car felt tremendously agile, front to rear grip balance seemed to be very neutral and yet easily adjustable mid-corner, the body weight felt very well controlled up until the limits of grip. Now, the suspension & tire sidewalls feel softer at the higher cornering limits, and the damping is less impressive because you end up going that bit more quickly, etc.

I’m of the opinion that sometimes the choices made during engineering of certain cars that set super, super quick laptimes are also the same things that make them a little less fun to drive when the stop watch is not involved.

Well said! That's why pure obsession about ring time need to go, some times something good in the ring is good on the road too, but sometimes it's not.

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by cptobvious

Good sir, Remonster, can you talk more about precisely what changes you tried out on your tires?

It's almost time for me to swap out new tires on my M2C, and was considering going from the stock MPSS 245/35/19 fronts and 265/35/19 rears to MPS4 in 265/30/19 fronts and 295/30/19 rears. Figured the wider set up would give me greater traction, higher performance, etc., but by the same token, I LOVE how the M2C currently drives, I really couldn't care less about true performance as I don't track and the M2C is just my fun DD, so definitely don't want to do anything that might kill the "magic."

For me, the #1 priority is fun, and the car is awesomely fun at the moment. You think making a switch like that might kill some of the fun?

I don't own an M2 so take this with a grain of salt but looking at the measurements of the PSS and PS4S in your sizes makes it seem like BMW is not playing the same games with tire sizing on M2s as it is on the M3 ZCP. The M3 ZCP stock tires are extra narrow in BMW star spec compared to the standard version of the tire which explains why I was able to add so much grip & traction and simultaneously noticed some drawbacks to the new tire setup.

In your case, it looks like PS4S is 0.2" wider front and rear than PSS at the tread so you should be very happy with the upgrade if you stick to the same 245/35 front and 265/35 rear. I would not recommend moving up to the 265 & 295 setup, the car will feel totally different to what you're used to and not in a good way IMO.

[adc]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

VIR is all about power and traction. Nimbleness means very little. That's why a lot big chunky rockets see good lap times there.

4.1 miles in 3 mins. Seems like drag racing all the time...

Yes and no. Yes it has two long straights (longer in the 3.x mile configuration, confusingly enough), but it also has strange off camber things, and the infield in the LL configuration favors nimbleness and a sorted out suspension.

So it's not crazy tight and technical like Shenandoah but I think it's a good mix of challenges thrown at a car. C&D picked it over other tracks because of that.

You should try it.

[adc]

Originally Posted by chris719

Most BMWs have underachieved on the lightning lap for the following reasons:

1. It's a power track and BMWs are not usually the most powerful car in their class.
2. Before the AWD M5, BMWs struggle to put the power down because they are RWD and don't use 305+ section width tires like the Americans.
3. BMW can't seem to get the suspension tuning right on the F8x series cars.

The reality is that BMW isn't really out to compete for lap times. They will name cars "competition", but they still want to sell you a daily driver, GTS aside. They don't put the same amount of money into the extremes of performance as their competitors.

1. The M2/3/4 can get to 148-15x mph or so on the front straight. That's plenty fast.

2. To your point about putting the power down, it doesn't seem to me the F80 had a problem with that in heavy track use, it's always been the front lacking for grip in my experience. That's why everyone runs 275 with camber plates at the front and wish they could run more. My rear tires are having a walk in the park on track, compared to the fronts...

3. Anecdotal but in my opinion they did get it right in the CS. C&D should have tested the CS. But you're right, the F8x suspension is too soft for the track. Still despite this, with good tires and brake pads I run very similar times as the Camaro SS and Mustangs 350 in my run groups.


Don't get hung up on a couple of seconds difference in amateur tests. There is such variability in it, that the reality of what is happening at track events (where most everyone runs equal performance brakes and tires) is very different.

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I don't own an M2 so take this with a grain of salt but looking at the measurements of the PSS and PS4S in your sizes makes it seem like BMW is not playing the same games with tire sizing on M2s as it is on the M3 ZCP. The M3 ZCP stock tires are extra narrow in BMW star spec compared to the standard version of the tire which explains why I was able to add so much grip & traction and simultaneously noticed some drawbacks to the new tire setup.

In your case, it looks like PS4S is 0.2" wider front and rear than PSS at the tread so you should be very happy with the upgrade if you stick to the same 245/35 front and 265/35 rear. I would not recommend moving up to the 265 & 295 setup, the car will feel totally different to what you're used to and not in a good way IMO.

why is that?

I went 295/30r19 rears (MP4S), and the car drives absolutely phenomenal! Kept the 245/35 front size.

The car can put the power down much better, there is more grip on the corners specially coming out of the apex, and in highway/city driving there is literally ZERO after effects. Car feels more planted and more secure to me.

Not to mention the amazing aesthetic upgrade. Car looks like a true M car now, and very aggressive looking.

the ONLY downside I can point to thus far, in a very small way, is that there is a hint more of hydroplaning when there is heavy rain, in these south florida afternoon thunderstorms. Nothing huge but it's slightly noticeable.

[5.M0NSTER]

Originally Posted by ssabripo

why is that?

I went 295/30r19 rears (MP4S), and the car drives absolutely phenomenal! Kept the 245/35 front size.

The car can put the power down much better, there is more grip on the corners specially coming out of the apex, and in highway/city driving there is literally ZERO after effects. Car feels more planted and more secure to me.

Not to mention the amazing aesthetic upgrade. Car looks like a true M car now, and very aggressive looking.

the ONLY downside I can point to thus far, in a very small way, is that there is a hint more of hydroplaning when there is heavy rain, in these south florida afternoon thunderstorms. Nothing huge but it's slightly noticeable.

From a vehicle dynamics point of view you shifted the handling balance of the chassis towards understeer. Now just driving it normally and around town this would be very difficult to tell. At the limit on the track or in a fast canyon run it would be clear as day. Even if you push it in the corners in the wet around town you would be able to tell.

So if you like coming out of corners a bit sideways and power slides this setup will make it difficult to oversteer. If you drive 6 or 7/10 you likely will never notice.

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

From a vehicle dynamics point of view you shifted the handling balance of the chassis towards understeer. Now just driving it normally and around town this would be very difficult to tell. At the limit on the track or in a fast canyon run it would be clear as day. Even if you push it in the corners in the wet around town you would be able to tell.

So if you like coming out of corners a bit sideways and power slides this setup will make it difficult to oversteer. If you drive 6 or 7/10 you likely will never notice.

negative. Perhaps this is what you learned from theoretical analysis and theorems, but in real life this is absolutely NOT the case. Sorry.

Twice I've been on the track in this car, one in OEM tires, and once in this setup....same track (PBIR), similar conditions (clear, 80's temps, et al), and there is significant improvement in overall handling specially in the tighter corners of the track. On the back corner prior to the long straight away, where you want to take the apex as fast and aggressive as you can to get a good roll into the straight away, the difference was absolutely noticeable...IN A GOOD WAY! no understeer whatsoever, and much more planted.

This myth of understeer on the larger rears on this chassis (and on the F80), is absolutely false.

I will take videos next time I go in a few weeks. Similar effects where felt in my older F80 M3, and you can see it here (295 rears on the F80):

[5.M0NSTER]

Originally Posted by ssabripo

negative. Perhaps this is what you learned from theoretical analysis and theorems, but in real life this is absolutely NOT the case. Sorry.

Twice I've been on the track in this car, one in OEM tires, and once in this setup....same track (PBIR), similar conditions (clear, 80's temps, et al), and there is significant improvement in overall handling specially in the tighter corners of the track. On the back corner prior to the long straight away, where you want to take the apex as fast and aggressive as you can to get a good roll into the straight away, the difference was absolutely noticeable...IN A GOOD WAY! no understeer whatsoever, and much more planted.

This myth of understeer on the larger rears on this chassis (and on the F80), is absolutely false.

I will take videos next time I go in a few weeks. Similar effects where felt in my older F80 M3, and you can see it here (295 rears on the F80):

No need to apologize because I'm right.

By which governing principles of physics do you think increasing mechanical grip in the rear but not in the front results in same over/under-steer balance as before?

What you describe on corner exit makes perfect sense. More traction in the rear helps put the power down on corner exit. Plus eLSD sends more torque to the outside wheel to add yaw torque and rotation out of a corner combating understeer.

The flip side of this (and there is a flip side as for every action there IS an equal but opposite reaction) is when increasing steering off throttle and on brakes. Front wheels by definition will lose grip and begin to understeer before the rear lose grip. This doesn't have to be terminal understeer (since you increased traction in the back by max of 11%) it can manifest in you needing to increase steering from 90 deg wheel angle to 105 deg for example, and this you most likely don't notice. But it’s there. Because Physics.

So I misspoke when I said the difference would be clear as day because ~11% difference is not discernible to an average driver.

Next time you're on a small roundabout, take it pretty hard, let the car settle at 0.7g lateral acceleration or so, and slowly add throttle while increasing steering input. You will get understeer sooner with your setup than in stock tire configuration. Guaranteed. Because Physics.

If you were able to instrument your car and measure speed, yaw, lateral acceleration, steering wheel angle and side slip the difference will be quite clear. Your "feel" doesn't have the objectivity of instrumentation data.

P.S. I work on electronic stability control systems. Algorithms and tuning. This is sort of my daily work both in theory and practice.

[Alex_bm]

Agreed 100%. Would be good to know why BMW is avoiding proper testing of this particular automobile. I am pretty sure C/D and other have asked for it by now.

Originally Posted by joshuastein55

The Lightening Lap is always tested during late April to early May, so this was done months ago when M340i's were likely still arriving at dealers or possibly not even available. Also, C/D asks BMW to provide vehicles, BMW likely chose the M2C and M5C as their choice, or maybe C/D wanted to test those particular vehicles instead, but most of the time, C/D sends out invites to every automaker to participate, and they likely want to send their best/fastest cars for the track.

I'm gonna say its likely BMW who didn't provide the vehicle or didn't have it on sale at the time of the event. Another question is why haven't there been any publications that have reviewed the M340i? Likely BMW just hasn't given it to the press or the press hasn't requested the vehicle.

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

No need to apologize because I'm right.

By which governing principles of physics do you think increasing mechanical grip in the rear but not in the front results in same over/under-steer balance as before?

What you describe on corner exit makes perfect sense. More traction in the rear helps put the power down on corner exit. Plus eLSD sends more torque to the outside wheel to add yaw torque and rotation out of a corner combating understeer.

The flip side of this (and there is a flip side as for every action there IS an equal but opposite reaction) is when increasing steering off throttle and on brakes. Front wheels by definition will lose grip and begin to understeer before the rear lose grip. This doesn't have to be terminal understeer (since you increased traction in the back by max of 11%) it can manifest in you needing to increase steering from 90 deg wheel angle to 105 deg for example, and this you most likely don't notice. But it’s there. Because Physics.

So I misspoke when I said the difference would be clear as day because ~11% difference is not discernible to an average driver.

Next time you're on a small roundabout, take it pretty hard, let the car settle at 0.7g lateral acceleration or so, and slowly add throttle while increasing steering input. You will get understeer sooner with your setup than in stock tire configuration. Guaranteed. Because Physics.

If you were able to instrument your car and measure speed, yaw, lateral acceleration, steering wheel angle and side slip the difference will be quite clear. Your "feel" doesn't have the objectivity of instrumentation data.

P.S. I work on electronic stability control systems. Algorithms and tuning. This is sort of my daily work both in theory and practice.

this I agree with

Yes, there will absolutely be more "forced" understeer on the front wheel due to the higher grip on the rears, per se..... and again, as you pointed out, the difference is NOT noticeable by average driver or track enthusiasts. I'm sure professional drivers and BMW M-Testers will definitely see this effect, but to me and the vast majority of the folks in this forum, this will not be noticeable.

On the flip side, the effects of the better grip on the rear, to these same "average" drivers and track enthusiasts will be MORE noticeable and with a better overall driving dynamics.... in my very humble opinion.

To me, the net-v-net benefit of the better grip, the more planted nature on hard corners, and the more aggressive stance.... vs..... the slight increase in hydroplaning and the slight increase (~11% at worst case as you stated ) in front understeer at full push, is more than beneficial to me.

ps- If anyone likes drifting more, or likes the tossability nature of this car as is, then yes, going wider tires - specially 295/30, is not for you

[5.M0NSTER]

Originally Posted by ssabripo

this I agree with

Yes, there will absolutely be more "forced" understeer on the front wheel due to the higher grip on the rears, per se..... and again, as you pointed out, the difference is NOT noticeable by average driver or track enthusiasts. I'm sure professional drivers and BMW M-Testers will definitely see this effect, but to me and the vast majority of the folks in this forum, this will not be noticeable.

On the flip side, the effects of the better grip on the rear, to these same "average" drivers and track enthusiasts will be MORE noticeable and with a better overall driving dynamics.... in my very humble opinion.

To me, the net-v-net benefit of the better grip, the more planted nature on hard corners, and the more aggressive stance.... vs..... the slight increase in hydroplaning and the slight increase (~11% at worst case as you stated ) in front understeer at full push, is more than beneficial to me.

ps- If anyone likes drifting more, or likes the tossability nature of this car as is, then yes, going wider tires - specially 295/30, is not for you

Agreed, now we're on the same page.

And you bring up a good point. Depending on how you drive there is an advantage to higher stagger like you describe. Most people can control understeer a lot easier than oversteer. All you have to do is lift and/or apply a little brake to transfer more weight forward. It can even be faster on the track because it can give you more confidence to get on the throttle harder and stay on the throttle. If you turn in just a bit early and get on the gas sooner you can maximize a setup with more stagger on track without feeling the understeer.

I like oversteer, but it can be nerve wracking and typically not the fastest around the track.
In my opinion M2 with the factory stagger has the perfect balance for how I drive. I like braking very late and diving into the corners late and hard, and manage slip with throttle and steering. I was doing hot laps at Nurburgring over the summer and lost grip mid corner in Hatzenbach series of corners. But thanks to the balance both front and rear let go simultaneously, and the car slid out towards the outside of the track. I did nothing, kept all my inputs constant. Fraction of the second later I felt the grip come back and I added a bit more steering to get back on the racing line. I thought this was very telling about a balanced nature of the car.

I tracked a heavily modified 2014 Mustang GT before this, and that car was very tail happy. It helped me sharpen my senses to recognize and control oversteer to a point of near pre-cognition. I had full suspension so there was no understeer (unless I did something stupid), and with R comp tires it became very snappy. Huge grip, and then instantly no grip. The M2 is much more approachable and transitions slower. I find myself having to slow down my responses because the car has such a balanced and progressive nature.

But we all drive different and enjoy different characteristics of the car. Glad you found your perfect setup Keep tracking it, it's quite rewarding. And driver mod is the best mod money can buy!