Originally Posted by grussell

Jack,

If you drove them both at the track on the same day, both with the same circuit alignment and LWFW I would give your comparison much more credit.

I value you opinion, but until you get your pumpkin to the track and we can trade off for a few laps, I can only put those down that are lucky enough to have an RS.

Originally Posted by frayed

Jack,

I reread your post on the subject. You noted two big differences, the ltw fly and the rear end stability. The ltw fly is easily added to the 3. So, from a driving perspective, rear end grip is the distinguishing factor.

You wrote

" don't know if it's the different suspension components or the wider track or re-configured suspension computer settings or all of the above..... but the RS just felt more stable."

I'm guessing here but the PASM calibration is said by PAG to be a slightly more aggressive mapping than that on the 3. The extra rear track inproves overall rear grip a bit, but by itself does not improve suspension action at all. . . that is, the camber curve and toe control isn't so much a function of rear track.

That leaves the new components. I've read vague references (see European Car e.g.) to improved camber control with the RS. That seemingly would be associated with the revised homologation components. If that's at the core of the differnce in terms of dynamic stability, I wonder if the associated goodies can be retrofitted onto the 3?

If its that simple, I'm not terribly motivated to go through the financial pain of a car swap.