8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHM030 vs. PSS9 opinions...
Leading reported evidence
Adjust ride height (not rebound)the car has
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Adjustable coil overs are a great idea, but remember anytime you adjust the ride height (not rebound)the car has to be re-aligned.
Leading evidence: 'Adjust ride height (not rebound)the car has' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust ride height (not rebound)the car has' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The advantage of it however is I can always claim that I could not properly adjust the suspension when I get low lap times
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
8 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Interested in opinions on installing either the ROW M030 or PSS9 suspension on my otherwise stock '01 996 C4 6sp. From all I have read, owners with the ROW M030 setup are very happy, some saying the handling matches or finally beats that of the 95-99 E36 M3. Appreciate your comments.
Well, besides having owned a 95 Euro Spec M3 with a hard MK Motorsports sport suspension setup and clearly being able to tell the difference in handling with my C4, here is the proof; even with less HP in the STOCK 3.4l carrera it laps faster than the STOCK E36-M3 the tracks... thats known as handling.
Nurburgring
Euro E36-M3 321HP --- 8:20
3.4l 996 C2 300HP --- 8:16
Jarama circuit
Euro E36-M3 321HP --- 1:55'90
3.4l 996 C2 300HP --- 1:52'82
Same for Hockenheim and another track in the US which I don't recall the figures exactly.
The altered stiffness, front ride height, and alignment all act to increase the load on the front-end of the RoW M030. So I would say the reduced understeer and much crisper steering are the way big advantages.
The tunable PSS9 ought to be able to do more of whatever you want, at the cost of expert (race shop) fiddling and experimentation.
The problem I have with adjustable suspensions is constantly finding the right setup for a given track; and if you add an adjustable anti-roll bar, oh boy the fun of it...
The advantage of it however is I can always claim that I could not properly adjust the suspension when I get low lap times
Adjustable coil overs are a great idea, but remember anytime you adjust the ride height (not rebound)the car has to be re-aligned. I'm very happy with my RoW M030, it's the way a Porsche should handle.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
