new M3. first official info.......

[RXBG]

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070403/FREE/70402007/1059

[AuditudeA642]

BMW has set the 0-60 mark at 4.8 while Audi set the 0-60 of the RS4 at 4.8 also. Car and Driver set the 0-60 of the RS4 at 4 seconds flat so im assuming thats the area the M3 will be set at also. I think the RS4 has the edge in Handling, looks and the ability to be a year round car. The M3 in nice but the RS4 is in another leauge. " The new M3 will need to come with a free moon to be better then this." Top Gear said about the RS4.

[RXBG]

C and D did not get that low. fastest for RS4 i know of is R and T at 4.3.

4.0 for the R8......

[AuditudeA642]

It might have been another company but i have seen the RS4 at 4.1. I dno where though.

[Ruergard]

That looks like carbonfiber roof to me?
Interesting, but still.. put an RS4 besides it. The M3 isn't as good looking as the old E46 M3. At least not on the pics. But I'm waiting to check it out in the real world. It might be a looker, but with the RS4.. it was love at first sight even on pics. This just isn't... and as a year-around car the RS4 is the way to go. But it will be a grat car, can't wait for the tests and see how it handles and how fast 0-200 km/h takes. After all, it wil probably be a hell of a car and we should salute it because the better it is. The better the new RS4 will be!

[Thrives]

Looks most convincing; especially the fact that it will be running a manual six speed tranny is good news I think (well, bad news for Audi perhaps) but good news all around compared to the SMG + Sport 500/P 400 mode etc in the M5 I think.

This car will be a killer for sure. And to add to the succes for BMW Bangle really managed to design the 3 series coupé as a stunner I think. One thing I don't like though is the four pipes in the M3 which are not even cut in line with the chassis :noshake:.

Whether it will be better than the RS4? Well, it will be faster for sure in a straight line but better, nah I don't think so :rs4addict. Interestingly, the article also notes that it will come as a sedan which means that BMW really will be encroaching on Audi's RS territory. Interesting times ahead ...

[DJim]

It will be faster and better come on wake up;).. It's BMW.. BMW know what they doing.. It will be better than Rs4, it's a brand new m3!!!! But than there come the Rs5 that wil be another story:D (sorry for my English:P)

[BigRick]

If this is not better than the RS4, we can all have a good laugh. It will not be available for another year or so here. Probably at the same time the S5 and RS5 will be available also... and these will be the real comparaison to the new M3 so if I was in the market to get a new car I doubt I would even consider the new M3 at all!!!

It's probably to soon to tell but my guess is that they missed the boat this time. It looks like they started playing catchup and that's bad news for BMW.

But let's wait that whole year :rotflmao: and see if someone can prove me wrong.

Cheers

[Klint]

The colours that BMW M gmbh chose to launch the production version M models don't give their designs any justice what-so-ever...

Look at the E46 M3, that was launched as Pheonix Yellow...Nasty! Same goes for the Z3 M Roadster that was imola red.

E60 M5...Silverstone 2...Doesn't make the car look even remotely special!

[Tanner]

Four door version spotted...

http://63.151.139.220/spyphotos/6070403.003/6070403.003.mini4L.jpg

http://www.worldcarfans.com/spyphotos.cfm/country/gcf/spyphotoID/6070403.003/bmw/spy-photos-more-bmw-m3-saloon

[Hwany]

ummm that 4.8 is from 0-100km/h or 0- 62mph...
M5 is 4.7 according to BMW.de

So it will be in the 4.5-4.6 range to 60.

that's fast...

[Toto89]

It's good to have a four door M3 as well, it will be easier to compare with RS4 because the coupe could have some benefits in weight and drag. However it won't be so fair because the BMW will be 3,5 years younger, of course it'll be a bit better.

[Leadfoot]

I don't know how well the last 4dr M3 sold in Europe but here in the UK it was a dead duck and the resale was awful. So buy at your cost, you have been warned.

[skratch]

having 4 doors as an option will only help BMW.We at least know the weight now C&D said its 3483 lbs and its using a really agressive final drive of 3.82.The old M3 had a 3.64 and the same with the M5

The Auto 335 has a 3.38 and the manual has a 3.21(from memory on that)so it looks like BMW again is using crazzy gearing to put the power down.

[Leadfoot]

Skratch,

What part of Europe are you from?

If not, is there anyone here who knows how the last M3 4dr sold in Europe because I can't believe we in the UK were any different in their disliking of the 4dr M3. I believe BMW's marketing department did too good of a job convincing all of us that a M3 was only a coupe that hardly anyone bought the saloon because of this.

Maybe it's me but I just don't see the M3 working as a concept in anything other than a coupe. I do get it in coupe form, the aggressive gearing, the firm suspension, the high revving engine, all thing you think of from the coupe/sportscar but in a saloon you have already deciding about family matters and all the above don't work so well with young kids or a nagging wife. The sound from the V8 engine might make all the difference as the old straight six engine was a screamer.

I am starting to like the looks, especially the pictures of it on the road and am glad to like the interior has dropped the carbon fibre look of the ZM Coupe but it's not RS4 in the looks department never mind the S5.

[skratch]

The only reason BMW ever made the 4dr e36 was becuase of demand in the usa,wich is BMW's biggest market share.They don;t care what the rest of the world says,having more choices in your main market is better for BMW.Don't forget that the M3 is a direct competitor to the RS4 and you betcha BMW is going to try and steal a few potential RS4 buyers by offering a 4door.No one is telling you u need a 4dr but its nice to have that option for the people that are almost switching over to the M side.

Just look at the M5 with its highly talked about SMG.BMW's biggest market share complained about not having a clutch and walla,BMW gave them a clutch on a car that was never ment to have a normal manual tranny.

I live in Newengland and Im sad to say that I see more 4dr e36s than 2dr in my area.

That does nothing with the resale value and only makes it better for BMW to get more buyers.I just hope the CSL makes it here this time.

[Klint]

Actually, you'll find the E36 M3 Saloon was produced through the years when the E34 M5 transitioned (eventually) into an E39 M5. ;)

[skratch]

I found a dyno of an old M5 sitting around...This forum has the rep that BMW'S don't make low end torque and that is so far from the truth(with the exception of the new F1 v10 that makes no torque until you rev it past 4k)There old M engines made planty of torque and that adds a little more fuel to the debate on weather the new engines dont have f1 at heart in them....Just look at the torque band of the v10 it almost looks like a racer street bike that skyrockets in the top end.

anyway here is the old dyno.Look at that massive 300ft to the ground its making before 2000 rpms...This is also a low reading mustange dyno done in miami at aa tuning


http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9941/00m5stockvs00m5caijo6.jpg

[Leadfoot]

I found a dyno of an old M5 sitting around...This forum has the rep that BMW'S don't make low end torque and that is so far from the truth(with the exception of the new F1 v10 that makes no torque until you rev it past 4k)There old M engines made planty of torque and that adds a little more fuel to the debate on weather the new engines dont have f1 at heart in them....Just look at the torque band of the v10 it almost looks like a racer street bike that skyrockets in the top end

Who said the old M5 5.0Lv8 didn't make decent amount of torque low down, not me. This is why I have always said that BMW marketing are involved in to why BMW went for a v10 engine in the next M5, to link it to their F1 programme. The old engine was and still is the better package compared to the v10 especially for a road engine, you are near enough saying as much yourself '(with the exception of the new F1 v10 that makes no torque until you rev it past 4k)' why would anyone want a family saloon car to behave like a motorbike engine. :eye:

The old M5 is very like that of the S4 and RS4 v8 engines and also why it is rated by many magazine reports as the better car, it was more comfortable, quieter and had a manual gearbox that allowed you to disconnect the ESP/DSC system. :hihi:

[Clio16V]

Nice wheels!

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/jjelli/sexonwheels.jpg

Check this:
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_highend.html

[Lateknight]

More info at
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/gcf/newsID/2070405.010/bmw/new-bmw-m3-officially-revealed

Bit heavier than I was expecting at 1596kg.
Considering all the weight saving 'blah' gone into it I thought it would have been about 1500kg.

Roll on the road comparisons with the RS4.:race:

[Clio16V]

http://www.connectxt.co.uk/m3_coupe_catalogue.pdf

[Leadfoot]

I don't speak German but on page 12 it quotes the weight I think as 1655kgs not 1596kgs.

Like Lateknight says where is all the weight saving exercises?

[Leadfoot]

When you compare the measurements of both the A5 and the 3 series Coupe they are very similar to say the least.

http://www.audi.de/audi/de/de2/neuwagen/a5/s5/technische_daten.html
http://www.audi.de/audi/de/de2/neuwagen/a5/s5/abmessungen.html

http://www.connectxt.co.uk/m3_coupe_catalogue.pdf

With the notable exception being tracking front and rear, the Audi is a lot wider and also lower I might add.

On pure measurement alone it does look like the two are evenly matched. But the really big question is how come Audi got the S5 to weigh less than the M3 with it's carbon roof and everything by a total of 25kgs ? AMAZING!!!

[Leadfoot]

After checking out the pics of the M3 on WFC, I was wondering if anyone thinks the back of the car is almost jacked up compared to the front?

[Lateknight]

It does have the look of a car that is permanently going in 'hard on the brakes'.
Maybe done deliberately to give it a musclecar stance.

I was incorrect with my quoted weight for the M3 (I worked out from the 3.8kg per hp figure in the 1st paragraph on WCF).
Leadie you are correct that the weight is 1655kg - although that is the EU1 figure including a 75kg allowance for driver etc.
Unladen (Din) dry weight would be 1580kgs.
We have to remember to compare like for like to get a true picture.

[Leadfoot]

I was always under the impression that VW/Audi did it the same way as BMW ( with the 75kgs per driver allowance ) is this incorrect?

Is this not what is said on the German website.

Zul. Dachlast/Stützlast
75/- kg :eye:

[skratch]

Car and driver said its 3,480 lbs not that much more than the old M3.I still can't believe how light the csl was at under 3100 lbs

Edit...all the weight saving went away because the car is a little bigger than the e46.I will take a stab at say that the csl will be 3300 lbs with 440hp

[Leadfoot]

Car and driver said its 3,480 lbs not that much more than the old M3.I still can't believe how light the csl was at under 3100 lbs

Edit...all the weight saving went away because the car is a little bigger than the e46.I will take a stab at say that the csl will be 3300 lbs with 440hp

1655Kgs = 3641lbs, so it looks like CAR & DRIVER have go it wrong, sorry mate as these figures come from the BMW website. I personally doubt the CSL version will drop more than 100~150lbs, mainly because the M3 now has the carbon roof which already drop the weight over steel by 50~60lbs. I soppose they could do the same as the last one and drop Air-Con, maybe fit thinner glass, fit ceramic brakes etc but is there any real chance of them getting an extra 240~250lbs off the car.:rolleyes:

[Lateknight]

I was always under the impression that VW/Audi did it the same way as BMW ( with the 75kgs per driver allowance ) is this incorrect?

Is this not what is said on the German website.

Zul. Dachlast/Stützlast
75/- kg :eye:

I believe that all car manufacturers (Euro ones anyway) quote the incl. driver figure, EU1 ?
I have not read the German article posted, so I was not contradicting what you quoted.
What I was referring to was the possible mix up you might get if you quote dry weight against EU1 weight. An example is quoted from Skratch from CarandDriver, who I believe were quoting the dry, unladen weight.
I cannot comment on the ruling for quoted weights in the States, which I believe is where the discrepancy between 3480lbs and 3641 lbs is.

[KresoF1]

Audi RS4 Saloon 1650kg(DIN) 1725kg(EU1)

Audi S5 1630kg(DIN) 1705kg(EU1)

BMW M3 Coupe 1580kg(DIN) 1655kg(EU1)

[Lateknight]

Spooky !!

I was just going to post something very similar.

Took me a while to confirm which weights were which on the internet. (its not clear) :confused:

Are these right? These do look about right. (Naughty of Audi if they are quoting dry weights on their website)


Thanks Kreso :thumb:

[Lateknight]

Zul. Dachlast/Stützlast
75/- kg :eye:

Translates as
Permissible roof load/trailer hitch tongue load
75kg / -kg .. 75kg max roof load weight/trailer hitch tongue load not known yet

Leergewicht - 1630kg / unloaded weight - 1630kg

[Leadfoot]

Thank god I said I didn't speak German or I would have looked a little stupid right about now.:blush:

So Audi don't quote like BMW, very naughty of them. But another very interesting thing is that the Quattro drive system is roughly give or take a couple of kilos 50kgs more than a rwd system which so happens to be the difference between the S5 and the M3.

So once again where is all this weight saving that BMW has done on the M3 because I am at a lose. :vhmmm:

Now that we know Dynos aren't perfect for testing AWD cars the S5 might just be a little closer than first thought in normal give or take back road driving. I will be very interested to see how well the S5 compares to the S4 and RS4 around the ring, I reckon it will be closer to the RS4's time than that of the S4, which if I'm right will see it posting a time around the 8:17 or less.

So what do we think the M3's time will be, it's power to weight is not much better than the CSL and as 7:53RS6 keeps reminding us, that weight is the key to producing a really quick time on the ring I doubt if it will get any lower than 8:05. Any better as I will be amazed and eat my words.

[skratch]

1655Kgs = 3641lbs, so it looks like CAR & DRIVER have go it wrong, sorry mate as these figures come from the BMW website. I personally doubt the CSL version will drop more than 100~150lbs, mainly because the M3 now has the carbon roof which already drop the weight over steel by 50~60lbs. I soppose they could do the same as the last one and drop Air-Con, maybe fit thinner glass, fit ceramic brakes etc but is there any real chance of them getting an extra 240~250lbs off the car.:rolleyes:

um where are you getting 1655kgs from? car and driver have it at 3,480 and change wich is exactly what kresof1 posted

BMW M3 Coupe 1580kg(DIN) 1655kg(EU1)

1580X 2.2 =3,476 lbs

[Leadfoot]

um where are you getting 1655kgs from? car and driver have it at 3,480 and change wich is exactly what kresof1 posted

BMW M3 Coupe 1580kg(DIN) 1655kg(EU1)

1580X 2.2 =3,476 lbs

Sorry, you are correct at the time I replied it was unknown that BMW included 75kg for the driver in their figures.:thumb:

But it is interesting that with all of BMW's weight saving they has a car no lighter than the S5 if it were without the quattro system. Chances are when it is offered with SMG it will weigh even more and in German the cars are usually not as well speced as they are in the UK and the US so this 1580kg (M3) & 1630 (S5) will no doubt increase with every comfort item that we expect to be standard in our basic spec.:rolleyes:

What do you think about my prediction of lap times for both the S5 and the M3, any comments?

[Lateknight]

I think the BMW will be within a whisker of breaking 8 mins but miss out by 1 or 2 seconds. I wonder if this is why its taken so long. They keep thrashing it round the ring hoping to get a 7.59!! :vhmmm:
Not sure about the S5 breaking less than 8.20 though (the only S4 time I can compare to was one for an S4 Avant @ 8.29) - 100kg less, slightly better weight balance, 10 more ponies and 40/60 power split - is that worth 10 secs ?
You could be right.

[skratch]

I think the s5 and the new M3 will be the closest compitition between the 2 camps has ever had.But im sorry to tell that the s5 will not beat the rs4.That is what BMW has tuned the M3 for.Don'tforget that BMW is using a 3.82 final drive in the M3 so it will be putting a lot more torque to the ground than the S5

If the rumors are right about the csl not having any back seats at all,that is where BMW will get its weight savings from.

[Leadfoot]

I think the BMW will be within a whisker of breaking 8 mins but miss out by 1 or 2 seconds. I wonder if this is why its taken so long. They keep thrashing it round the ring hoping to get a 7.59!! :vhmmm:
Not sure about the S5 breaking less than 8.20 though (the only S4 time I can compare to was one for an S4 Avant @ 8.29) - 100kg less, slightly better weight balance, 10 more ponies and 40/60 power split - is that worth 10 secs ?
You could be right.

I reckoned 8:05 basing my opinion on what Porsche has achieved with the 997 Carrera S with ceramic discs, if the M3 better that will weighing an extra 150kgs and less rubber contact then in hand goes up to them for achieving something very special. I totally agree on your reasoning of why the M3 has been so long in the making, it would be a major coup to get below the 8 minute barrier for what is a standard production coupe.

I reckon with what I have been told about the new S5 that it is on the cards to better 8:20 but you are right in saying that anything more is a big ask, it is meant to out handle the RS4 but only when the acceleration figures are revealed will we know if it is capable to get any closer than that of the RS4's time.



I think the s5 and the new M3 will be the closest compitition between the 2 camps has ever had.But im sorry to tell that the s5 will not beat the rs4.That is what BMW has tuned the M3 for.Don'tforget that BMW is using a 3.82 final drive in the M3 so it will be putting a lot more torque to the ground than the S5

If the rumors are right about the csl not having any back seats at all,that is where BMW will get its weight savings from.

Totally agree, the S5 on steering feel, handling etc will most likely be the closest Audi and BMW have ever been. No one here for one moment would reckon the S5 will perform as well not I do believe on some fronts the S5 will be even better than the M3, such things like lateral grip, controlled balance through the corner and high speed stability but will be behind on steering feel, braking and directional change.

As for the CSL, if they drop the rear seat then it is losing any right to be call a normal coupe, it will be called a trackday special just as the last one should have been called.

[Clio16V]

M3 Interior:

http://www.auto-tuning-news.com/flash_21_56.html
Few track movies:
http://www.auto-tuning-news.com/flash.html

[Leadfoot]

Clio16v,

Great find, thanks mate. It surprising similar in exhaust note to that of the RS4 only a little lighter in pitch. The suspension looks to be softer than I expected which might mean an improvement in ride over the last model.

I think anyone considering buying one will be very happy with their purchase.

[Clio16V]

Here some more M3 action :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqtPzm7orBs

[Leadfoot]

It you close your eyes and just listen to it, the similarity between it's sound and that of the RS4 are uncanny.

[sticky]

It you close your eyes and just listen to it, the similarity between it's sound and that of the RS4 are uncanny.
First of all you need to hear a motor in person. Just the position of a mircophone alone can alter sound. If you listen to aftermarket exhaust videos they never do the car justice as the sound in person is much more full.

Second of all, they are similar sized v8's that are front mounted, a similarity is there by design. The only way they would sound very different is if each had a different style crank.

[Leadfoot]

Sticky,

No doubt you are right but all the same I think the similarity is uncanny especially when you consider that the Aston Martin Vantage is a 4.3v8 and it sounds totally different. No I believe BMW know their main rival and have chosen by design to make it note similar to that of the RS4.

The point you have raised about the crank is very valid, does anyone know why with all of the F1 technology blessed on this motor did BMW not bless it with a F1 style crank which Ferrari use? :eye:

It can't be less torque because the Ferrari does produce a decent amount in both the 360 and the 430.

[RSAudi]

That looks like carbonfiber roof to me?
Interesting, but still.. put an RS4 besides it. The M3 isn't as good looking as the old E46 M3. At least not on the pics. But I'm waiting to check it out in the real world. It might be a looker, but with the RS4.. it was love at first sight even on pics. This just isn't... and as a year-around car the RS4 is the way to go. But it will be a grat car, can't wait for the tests and see how it handles and how fast 0-200 km/h takes. After all, it wil probably be a hell of a car and we should salute it because the better it is. The better the new RS4 will be!

I agree that the looks aren't as great as the RS4-pictures from the front show an under grill intake thats not on the std coupe, and looks horrible. Why?

[RSAudi]

[quote=BigRick;91779]If this is not better than the RS4, we can all have a good laugh. It will not be available for another year or so here. Probably at the same time the S5 and RS5 will be available also... and these will be the real comparaison to the new M3 so if I was in the market to get a new car I doubt I would even consider the new M3 at all!!!

It's probably to soon to tell but my guess is that they missed the boat this time. It looks like they started playing catchup and that's bad news for BMW.

But let's wait that whole year :rotflmao: and see if someone can prove me wrong.


I agree, and I think the upcoming C63 AMG will miss the boat as well. The Audi has a few more months anyway before it starts worrying about rivals.

[sticky]

Sticky,

No doubt you are right but all the same I think the similarity is uncanny especially when you consider that the Aston Martin Vantage is a 4.3v8 and it sounds totally different. No I believe BMW know their main rival and have chosen by design to make it note similar to that of the RS4.

The point you have raised about the crank is very valid, does anyone know why with all of the F1 technology blessed on this motor did BMW not bless it with a F1 style crank which Ferrari use? :eye:

It can't be less torque because the Ferrari does produce a decent amount in both the 360 and the 430.
BMW didn't give it a flat crank like ferrari because the motor is a version of the 5.0 liter v10 which does not have a flat crank. It wouldn't make sense and would require a complete redesign.

Second of all, the BMW engineers are not sitting in a room listening to the RS4 and telling themselves their V8 needs to sound like that and then building their motor around that principle. Where do you get these deluded thoughts from? Like BMW cares what the RS4 sounds like.

The aston v8 is based on a far older design of the old 4.0 liter that Jag has been using for... forever it seems like. The aston does not rev as high so it will have a meatier tone. I don't have the bore and stroke with me but if you look at that I bet you will see a difference vs. the M3 and RS4 as well.

[Leadfoot]

sticky,

Sorry to disagree with you on the similarity of the two sounds, but engineers spend buckets of money and time getting the desired noise out of their exhaust systems. I bet even with the similar engine designs (which isn't really the case anyway because the M3 has a larger bore and shorter stroke and it's the opposite with the RS4), their two exhaust system will look and perform totally different. The noise is engineered in to all cars, the reason the Aston sounds the way it does is not so much down to it's design but the way the exhaust was engineered.

If you looked at the S4 and RS4 you will find that the RS4 sounds totally different, why should this be when both share the exact same engine and the a very similar exhaust system.

I am not trying to make an argument out of nothing, more a discussion of differences. I do believe BMW check out the competition and see what there is to take to their own design, the exhaust note might have been one of those things, the other has been the V8 engine. I don't see why you would dismiss such a belief, Mercedes and Audi both developed their respective AMG and RS models on the back of BMW's M range's success. Just because Audi has stole their thunder with the RS4, BMW are now fighting back the only way their know how, to beat them at their own game, build a V8 powered 4door saloon. The next year or so will tell if they have succeeded.

[BigRick]

Leadie, you're right. All car makers have "sound engineers" even ford for the F150 is making good use of them. So, why would BMW do any otherway for the M3? There's much more than just the size of the engine that comes into play when deciding the sound an engine will produce.

This is just another proof that BMW is now playing catch-up. But as you said, there's nothing wrong here, others were doing it before and it's for the consumer benefits at the end...

The nice part of it is that we'll be hearing the RS4 sound everywhere soon! :applause:

Cheers!

[Leadfoot]

Leadie, you're right. All car makers have "sound engineers" even ford for the F150 is making good use of them. So, why would BMW do any otherway for the M3? There's much more than just the size of the engine that comes into play when deciding the sound an engine will produce.

This is just another proof that BMW is now playing catch-up. But as you said, there's nothing wrong here, others were doing it before and it's for the consumer benefits at the end...

The nice part of it is that we'll be hearing the RS4 sound everywhere soon! :applause:

Cheers!

BigRick,

You are the master of understatement.:applause:

I wonder how long it will take before we see a BMW with a goatie grill. :hihi:

[skratch]

I hope you guys know that the M3 test mules were spotted way before the rs4 was even drawn up.BMW made the v10 in 02 with the intent of putting the v8 in the next M3

its funny that people forget that BMW has been tuning this car for 3 years now lol

The e46 sounds the way it does because the S54 is at the absolute max and needed an Iron block,wich is also the reason it sounds so raspy.

I still think to this day that the S54 is a more advanced design and will never be beaten.

heres some info compairing the S54 to the new F1 style engines

There's been so much talk about the S65's torque number that this needed to be discussed.

Everyone relating torque to displacement is essentially correct.
However, there are five other big design variables that affect torque output besides displacement.......volumetric efficiency, bore/stroke ratio, rod ratio, compression ratio and electronic engine management.

Often when we were given design criteria, we would increase the bore/stroke ratio (oversquare) to increase valve area, unshroud port flow, increase maximum engine speed limitations, shorten the height of the engine and reduce the engine's weight. But there are a couple of tradeoffs....one being slightly less torque output, primarily due to the reduced lever arm on the crank. Other negatives of an oversquare engine are increased cooling requirements and an increased tendency to exhibit pre-ignition and detonation for a given fuel and compression ratio and increased exhaust emissions.

The reason I'm bringing up the bore/stroke ratio is that the S54 engine design was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the S65 engine design. The bore/stroke ratio for the S54 is 0.945 or undersquare while the S65 ratio is 1.223. This is one of the reasons why the S54 had such an impressive torque number for its displacement of 12.39 cc/ft.lb. while the S65's number is 13.56 cc/ft.lb.

But the S54 was really a one off oddball design because you almost never see high RPM, high specific output, undersquare engines. You only see them when a manufacturer wants to put a small displacement engine in a fairly heavy car. By shedding the six cylinder historical requirement and going with a larger displacement V8, BMW could use a proper high RPM oversquare engine.

You have to understand that the engineers were considering many other factors in addition to peak torque when deciding on a bore/stroke ratio. These are the possible reasons to use a more oversquare design like the S65's:
-Lower hood height for reduced frontal area (reduced drag for efficiency)
-Reduced weight
-Higher RPM limit
-Improved crankshaft and rod life under high RPM operation
-Reduced vibration
-Reduced stresses on the engine block
-Reduced fuel consumption
-Improved volumetric efficiency through larger valve area and unshrouding of the valves/ports
-Now that they had 3995cc to use, absolute maximum torque was less critical than in the small 3246cc S54 in the 3400lb. E46 M3.

Believe me, if we were dropping the S65 into a lightened M coupe weighing 2700lb., we wouldn't be having this discussion. A big part of the impression of torque is weight. It is frankly amazing to me that the 3400lb. E46 M3 felt as torquey as it did for having a 3.2L engine. And that was the bore/stroke ratio coming into play. (in addition to its excellent volumetric efficiency and compression ratio) My E46 M3 is 3172lb., and it really feels fairly torquey now compared to the loaded 3400+ versions.

So my point here is that when the engineers were no longer constrained with using the smaller six cylinder design (which was maxed out due to block length), they were able to use a more naturally high RPM, oversquare, short, lightweight, fuel efficient, small displacement V8 engine with excellent power characteristics at the expense of a little peak torque.

Another interesting point is that the S65 is supposed to just be 4/5 of the V10.....so the specific hp and tq should be approx. the same between the two engines, yet they're off a little. The V10 puts out 13.05cc/ft.lb at 6100rpm while the S65 has 13.56cc/ft.lb. from 3500 to 6300rpm, yet at the power peak the V10 puts out 10.00cc/hp at 7750rpm while the S65 puts out 9.51cc/hp. at 8300rpm......this suggests a couple things may be going on.....the S65 either has different cam duration, cam overlap, vanos cam timing settings, port/valve design or a combination of them. This is because they both have the same bore, stroke (thus ratio), compression, intakes, ECU design etc. And the reason for the V10-V8 similarities was certainly provided by a financial incentive for BMW to not re-design the heads and ports. The shift of the power upward in the S65's operating speed range then primarily suggests a cam duration/timing/overlap difference when all else between the two engines is essentially of the same design. This S65 torque number also makes it easier for BMW to show a torque and power gain later on when the CSL version comes out.....something they don't have to do with the V10. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a little sandbagging going on and the real torque number is closer to 305-307 ft.lb.(approx. 13.04cc/ft.lb).....just because the two engines are so similar along with the financial incentive to keep them similar. This can also be seen in how the S65's torque curve rises rapidly to 3500rpm and then just stops.....LOL....8300rpm power peak engines don't do that naturally.....it should have kept rising slowly to about where the V10's peak was around 6100rpm, obviously, since the S65 is actually showing better VE or volumetric efficiency at 7500rpm+ than the V10 is. So what am I saying? Either BMW is sandbagging and underestimating the S65 or it is being electronically limited by some combination of vanos timing and spark timing. Why would they do this? To enable a simple bump for the CSL. Just allow the optimum settings on the CSL and you get the curve like it should look and the improved numbers....Keep in mind this is exactly what BMW did with the differences between the E90 330i and the E90 325i.....same 3.0L engine, just vanos/valvetronic/timing/ignition electronic changes......
so what should those numbers be on the M3 when not limited? Somewhere around 445bhp. and 312ft.lb.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Notice how I drew the torque curve slowly and smoothly continuing past the 3500rpm level off of the stock car to where the peak is on the V10 around 6100rpm......that smooth curve is at around 423NM or 312 ft.lb.....the hp should end up around 445bhp with the extrapolation of a standard curve.

With the same bore and stroke as the V10 the V8 should look like this drawn up dyno.I think BMW is just going to tweak the csl a little and get these numbers
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58009&d=1175940457
BMW design this engine long before they even heard an RS4.The sound it makes is the way most cross plane crank V8 make

[Leadfoot]

skratch,

Thanks for your opinion on why the M3 sounds like the RS4. I am still at a lose as to what was said? :confused: You feel because the M3 started development before the RS4 so it's it that has really copied the M3? :confused:

You say that BMW developed the M3 v8 long before Audi did the RS4, based on what, your opinion or fact. :eye:

Anyway it doesn't get past the fact that the M3's exhaust note has been tuned to sound very similar to that of the RS4, regardless of who started first. The RS4 has been on the roads now for over a year now and will be one and a half years old by the time the M3 hits the streets so to everyone it will look like BMW is copying Audi, I do hope you inform them every time the comment comes up because it will, a lot.

In the past year BMW could have tuned it's exhaust to sound different but they haven't and regardless of what you think the answer is the exhaust note sounds right in the RS4 and it now does in the M3 too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Picture this for a moment.

Street race at night, two cars line up. An M3v8 vs RS4, the flag drops and both hit for the horizon.

Question - In the dark you can't tell by the lights which car is which and the they sound the same, so which car has won? :confused:

[skratch]

I have seen test mule videos of the M3 over 3 years ago online...They were everywhere,In deserts,mountains ect...

It had the same engine before BMW ever heard what the rs4 sounded like.

Are you telling me you dont remember back in late 04 of the test mules videoed on the ring?

the car has been spotted on roads well before an rs4 was even seen.

[BigRick]

BigRick,

You are the master of understatement.:applause:



:asian: thank you! :asian:

[BigRick]

I hope you guys know that the M3 test mules were spotted way before the rs4 was even drawn up.BMW made the v10 in 02 with the intent of putting the v8 in the next M3

its funny that people forget that BMW has been tuning this car for 3 years now lol

The e46 sounds the way it does because the S54 is at the absolute max and needed an Iron block,wich is also the reason it sounds so raspy.

I still think to this day that the S54 is a more advanced design and will never be beaten.

heres some info compairing the S54 to the new F1 style engines

There's been so much talk about the S65's torque number that this needed to be discussed.

Everyone relating torque to displacement is essentially correct.
However, there are five other big design variables that affect torque output besides displacement.......volumetric efficiency, bore/stroke ratio, rod ratio, compression ratio and electronic engine management.

Often when we were given design criteria, we would increase the bore/stroke ratio (oversquare) to increase valve area, unshroud port flow, increase maximum engine speed limitations, shorten the height of the engine and reduce the engine's weight. But there are a couple of tradeoffs....one being slightly less torque output, primarily due to the reduced lever arm on the crank. Other negatives of an oversquare engine are increased cooling requirements and an increased tendency to exhibit pre-ignition and detonation for a given fuel and compression ratio and increased exhaust emissions.

The reason I'm bringing up the bore/stroke ratio is that the S54 engine design was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the S65 engine design. The bore/stroke ratio for the S54 is 0.945 or undersquare while the S65 ratio is 1.223. This is one of the reasons why the S54 had such an impressive torque number for its displacement of 12.39 cc/ft.lb. while the S65's number is 13.56 cc/ft.lb.

But the S54 was really a one off oddball design because you almost never see high RPM, high specific output, undersquare engines. You only see them when a manufacturer wants to put a small displacement engine in a fairly heavy car. By shedding the six cylinder historical requirement and going with a larger displacement V8, BMW could use a proper high RPM oversquare engine.

You have to understand that the engineers were considering many other factors in addition to peak torque when deciding on a bore/stroke ratio. These are the possible reasons to use a more oversquare design like the S65's:
-Lower hood height for reduced frontal area (reduced drag for efficiency)
-Reduced weight
-Higher RPM limit
-Improved crankshaft and rod life under high RPM operation
-Reduced vibration
-Reduced stresses on the engine block
-Reduced fuel consumption
-Improved volumetric efficiency through larger valve area and unshrouding of the valves/ports
-Now that they had 3995cc to use, absolute maximum torque was less critical than in the small 3246cc S54 in the 3400lb. E46 M3.

Believe me, if we were dropping the S65 into a lightened M coupe weighing 2700lb., we wouldn't be having this discussion. A big part of the impression of torque is weight. It is frankly amazing to me that the 3400lb. E46 M3 felt as torquey as it did for having a 3.2L engine. And that was the bore/stroke ratio coming into play. (in addition to its excellent volumetric efficiency and compression ratio) My E46 M3 is 3172lb., and it really feels fairly torquey now compared to the loaded 3400+ versions.

So my point here is that when the engineers were no longer constrained with using the smaller six cylinder design (which was maxed out due to block length), they were able to use a more naturally high RPM, oversquare, short, lightweight, fuel efficient, small displacement V8 engine with excellent power characteristics at the expense of a little peak torque.

Another interesting point is that the S65 is supposed to just be 4/5 of the V10.....so the specific hp and tq should be approx. the same between the two engines, yet they're off a little. The V10 puts out 13.05cc/ft.lb at 6100rpm while the S65 has 13.56cc/ft.lb. from 3500 to 6300rpm, yet at the power peak the V10 puts out 10.00cc/hp at 7750rpm while the S65 puts out 9.51cc/hp. at 8300rpm......this suggests a couple things may be going on.....the S65 either has different cam duration, cam overlap, vanos cam timing settings, port/valve design or a combination of them. This is because they both have the same bore, stroke (thus ratio), compression, intakes, ECU design etc. And the reason for the V10-V8 similarities was certainly provided by a financial incentive for BMW to not re-design the heads and ports. The shift of the power upward in the S65's operating speed range then primarily suggests a cam duration/timing/overlap difference when all else between the two engines is essentially of the same design. This S65 torque number also makes it easier for BMW to show a torque and power gain later on when the CSL version comes out.....something they don't have to do with the V10. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a little sandbagging going on and the real torque number is closer to 305-307 ft.lb.(approx. 13.04cc/ft.lb).....just because the two engines are so similar along with the financial incentive to keep them similar. This can also be seen in how the S65's torque curve rises rapidly to 3500rpm and then just stops.....LOL....8300rpm power peak engines don't do that naturally.....it should have kept rising slowly to about where the V10's peak was around 6100rpm, obviously, since the S65 is actually showing better VE or volumetric efficiency at 7500rpm+ than the V10 is. So what am I saying? Either BMW is sandbagging and underestimating the S65 or it is being electronically limited by some combination of vanos timing and spark timing. Why would they do this? To enable a simple bump for the CSL. Just allow the optimum settings on the CSL and you get the curve like it should look and the improved numbers....Keep in mind this is exactly what BMW did with the differences between the E90 330i and the E90 325i.....same 3.0L engine, just vanos/valvetronic/timing/ignition electronic changes......
so what should those numbers be on the M3 when not limited? Somewhere around 445bhp. and 312ft.lb.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Notice how I drew the torque curve slowly and smoothly continuing past the 3500rpm level off of the stock car to where the peak is on the V10 around 6100rpm......that smooth curve is at around 423NM or 312 ft.lb.....the hp should end up around 445bhp with the extrapolation of a standard curve.

With the same bore and stroke as the V10 the V8 should look like this drawn up dyno.I think BMW is just going to tweak the csl a little and get these numbers
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58009&d=1175940457
BMW design this engine long before they even heard an RS4.The sound it makes is the way most cross plane crank V8 make

Thanks for the course... a bit too technical for me but nevertheless really instructive.

But I'm still puzlled at why this as anything to do with the sound similarity between both cars. For me and probably most of the normal human the next M3 will simply sounds like an RS4.

I think it's much easier to understand this way... If BMW had ever wanted it to sound differently trust me they would have found a way to do so. So for now if they sound alike it's only because they wanted it to be like that, don't you think?

We don't really care who started their engine design first. That could be debated for years, but we all know which one the general public heard first... and that's the :rs4addict

Cheers!

[Leadfoot]

Thanks for the course... a bit too technical for me but nevertheless really instructive.

But I'm still puzlled at why this as anything to do with the sound similarity between both cars. For me and probably most of the normal human the next M3 will simply sounds like an RS4.

I think it's much easier to understand this way... If BMW had ever wanted it to sound differently trust me they would have found a way to do so. So for now if they sound alike it's only because they wanted it to be like that, don't you think?

We don't really care who started their engine design first. That could be debated for years, but we all know which one the general public heard first... and that's the :rs4addict

Cheers!

Thanks mate for reitterating what I just said. I hope I spelt it right.:vhmmm:

As I said skratch, if you go around re-correcting everyone who says the M3 copied the sound of the RS4 you will be a lot of fun at parties, NOT.:hihi:

[skratch]

point is you guys are taking it way to far saying it sounds like the RS4 without even hearing it in real life.

listen to this one,it has the throty bmw rasp to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-Jsz3E2Ms

[sticky]

Leadie, you're right. All car makers have "sound engineers" even ford for the F150 is making good use of them. So, why would BMW do any otherway for the M3? There's much more than just the size of the engine that comes into play when deciding the sound an engine will produce.

This is just another proof that BMW is now playing catch-up. But as you said, there's nothing wrong here, others were doing it before and it's for the consumer benefits at the end...

The nice part of it is that we'll be hearing the RS4 sound everywhere soon! :applause:

Cheers!


Wow, some of you guys have those 4 rings so far up your posterior they are affecting your eyesight and thought processes.

I won't even get into the comment that you make of BMW playing catch up, I don't really feel like typing out the lengthy response cutting this comment to shreds as it would be lost on you anyway.

Second of all, these "sound engineers" as you put it are there to ensure sound meets all specifications of each market, as in legal decibel limits. Also checking the sound at each rev range for resonance and such. I understand you guys are trying to pull in BS to somehow delude yourself into thinking BMW is "copying" Audi's sound because that is the M engineers life long goal, but they build the motor around performance first and foremost. Someone needs to remind the guys at M audi invented the high revving v8 and patented the sound on all variations.

Second of all, the basic buildup of the motor has the most to do with how it will end up sounding. Leadfoot thinks the RS4 should sound like the S4 because he "thinks" they are the same motor. If the RS4 revved to 7k and was tuned accordingly, it WOULD sound like the S4. However, the way a motor sounds at redline varies depending at what revs the redline is, headers and cats are designed around this each having an impact on the sound.

Seriously, its like you Audi guys live in your own little world outside of reality. No matter what BS is thrown around as long as it is Pro Audi it is good.

[Leadfoot]

sticky,

Once again verbal abuse is all you bring to a discussion, note not a argument but a discussion.

The last time I looked the S4 and the RS4 shared the same basic construction and exhaust system, yes you are right in commenting that there is differences like cams, etc. But saying that all engines that are roughly the same size, number of cylinders and rev limit will sound the same is plain silly. You state that these sound engineers are only there to meet regulations of differing countries is partly correct, but that is under selling their job. They play a very important role, Ferraris sound like they do because they are designed to sound this way, Porsches, Lamborghinis, etc all sound the way they do because of these guys. Heck the Aston Martin Vantage still meets the drive by regulations but at full throttle you can hear one over a mile or two away and again this is down the these sound engineers.

No one is saying anything other than the M3 sounds uncannily like that of the RS4, basing what you say every v8 high-revving engine will all sound the same, I am no expert but somehow I doubt this is indeed the case. In fact the only cars I know that sounds similar are ....:vhmmm: oh yes, the M3 and RS4.

[sticky]

sticky,

Once again verbal abuse is all you bring to a discussion, note not a argument but a discussion.

The last time I looked the S4 and the RS4 shared the same basic construction and exhaust system, yes you are right in commenting that there is differences like cams, etc. But saying that all engines that are roughly the same size, number of cylinders and rev limit will sound the same is plain silly. You state that these sound engineers are only there to meet regulations of differing countries is partly correct, but that is under selling their job. They play a very important role, Ferraris sound like they do because they are designed to sound this way, Porsches, Lamborghinis, etc all sound the way they do because of these guys. Heck the Aston Martin Vantage still meets the drive by regulations but at full throttle you can hear one over a mile or two away and again this is down the these sound engineers.

No one is saying anything other than the M3 sounds uncannily like that of the RS4, basing what you say every v8 high-revving engine will all sound the same, I am no expert but somehow I doubt this is indeed the case. In fact the only cars I know that sounds similar are ....:vhmmm: oh yes, the M3 and RS4.

The way you twist and distort things is really getting annoying.

I never said these "sound engineers" if that is what you want to call them ONLY work with the design in regards to meeting regulations. Meeting emission and noise regulations is simply the most vital role. There are obviously many different factors, euro and US m3's even had a slight overall sound difference due to the integration of the cat into the US m3's header to meet emissions.

Secondly, when did I say that roughly the same amount of cylinders and size would sound the same? Wasn't I the one pointing out the RS4 and S4 motors being different enough yet you provided the oversimplification that they were the same thing?

If a motor has a different powerband it will have different exhaust tuning as well to compliment it. I think they spend a bit more time on header design, cats, emisisons, and backpressure than they do on trying to fine tune a high pitched whine which aftermarket muffler companies no doubt tackle.

Ferrari's don't sound the way they do because a guy sits in a room thinking to himself how the motor should sound and then telling the engineers to build a motor that sounds like what he thinks it should sound like. A flat-plane crank gives a ferrari v8 the sound it has. Listen to some other ferrari motors some time, or just spend time comparing the 355, 360, and 430 sounds. All different, yet similar.

You haven't even heard the M3 yet but you already made a hasty conclusion. What I think you should do is wait until a production car rolls by you and then come to your decision. The m3 will no doubt have a different sound at 8400 rpm than the rs4 at 8250, but it will always retain a basic similarity.

The whole point is your thinking that BMW somehow copied Audi with sound is ridiculous. Why not just go down the path that Audi copied BMW by going to high revving NA?

[BigRick]

Holy cow!!! man I might have the 4 rings deep in my ... but you got the M far enough yourself... by the way you're on a audi fan site may I remind you. What the heck were you expecting.

I'm not going to post anything regarding the Audi on the BMW forums so why are you playing with our nerves and telling us we're annoying you... you're free to leave. Nobody will miss you, trust me!

Man, if you can't stand the fact that BMW is more than 2 years late with the new M3 and that they ARE now trying to catch-up. Go comfort yourself on a BMW board and stop bugging us.

End of discussion as this is no more a discussion. All we said was that the new M3 sounds like the RS4 (which by the way is a great sound so why all the fuzz)

[sticky]

Holy cow!!! man I might have the 4 rings deep in my ... but you got the M far enough yourself... by the way you're on a audi fan site may I remind you. What the heck were you expecting.

I'm not going to post anything regarding the Audi on the BMW forums so why are you playing with our nerves and telling us we're annoying you... you're free to leave. Nobody will miss you, trust me!

Man, if you can't stand the fact that BMW is more than 2 years late with the new M3 and that they ARE now trying to catch-up. Go comfort yourself on a BMW board and stop bugging us.

End of discussion as this is no more a discussion. All we said was that the new M3 sounds like the RS4 (which by the way is a great sound so why all the fuzz)
Why should it matter where I am? Reality should change for bias?

I didn't say you all annoy me. I said leadfoot's distorting of points annoys me, read it again.

BMW is late with the M3? Was a date missed that I wasn't informed about? Hasn't Audi been the one late to come up with a competitor to the E46 m3? Two generations of s4's that went to a v8 couldn't outperform BMW's inline 6 and then finally the RS4 version came offering more straight line performance but not all around performance, especially in the case of the CSL. Now BMW is going to a v8 that will obviously outperform Audi's best offering in all respects. Audi has barely caught up to the E46 and now BMW widens the gap yet again.

Do we even need to get into how far behind Audi's V10 is? How the 335 outperforms Audi S cars? Is the RS6 coming late to the party or is it due to the design cycle of the generation?

[skratch]

Leadie My family has had AUDI'S and BMW'S all my life and most of my friends drive S4s and not one time did they ever think the new M3 sounds anything like the rs4.

To be 100% honest the first words my brother said is that it has the BMW throttyness to it.

For fun I will actually ask friends at the next party if they think the rs4 sounds like the M3,but I know I will be the one getting laughed at lol

How is BMW copying the rs4...Its a cross plane crank v8.They will all have very similar sounds to them.It looks like BMW has went with equal legnth headers and I'm sure the Rs4 has them aswell.OMG BMW copied AUDI notttttt lol jk but legs get serious here friend.

saying the m3 copied the rs4 is like sayin Audi copied bmw for going NA,high rev,100hp/l....whats next RWD lol

Oh and to put this at rest.THE M3 IS NOT LATE...IT IS THE BENCHMARK THAT STARTED IT ALL

when did the e46 get beat by the B5 or B6 s4 ? or the old rs4? NEVER not untill the B7 RS4.Now bmw is again setting the benchmark with its next M3...It happened every gerneration since the e30.

[skratch]

LOL Leadie look what you yourself posted about the sound of the new M3



Yeah, the BMW inline six is a great sounding engine. But alas it's only natural to find something that's more and bigger is better.

The six cylinder engine sounds better than the four, the eight is better than the six and so on and so on, reaching the pike which is the V12. I like the sound of the new M3 and IMHO it's better than the old one but in the same way I think the exhaust note of the RS4 is that little deeper and better than the slightly higher pitched M3. Each to their own I say.


now how is that the same as the rs4 when its higher pitched and you say the rs4 is deaper lol

You need to wait untill you hear it in real life to go around telling people BMW copied the rs4 sound my friend....Just get ready to get flamed out side your audi biased forum.

[Leadfoot]

LOL Leadie look what you yourself posted about the sound of the new M3



Yeah, the BMW inline six is a great sounding engine. But alas it's only natural to find something that's more and bigger is better.

The six cylinder engine sounds better than the four, the eight is better than the six and so on and so on, reaching the pike which is the V12. I like the sound of the new M3 and IMHO it's better than the old one but in the same way I think the exhaust note of the RS4 is that little deeper and better than the slightly higher pitched M3. Each to their own I say.


now how is that the same as the rs4 when its higher pitched and you say the rs4 is deaper lol

You need to wait untill you hear it in real life to go around telling people BMW copied the rs4 sound my friend....Just get ready to get flamed out side your audi biased forum.

I hope this shows that unlike sticky I am not as bias to a brand as he. But back to my comment, the M3 has a slightly higher pitched, yes I still agree with my first opinion of the note, but unless similar means something different than what I believe than what is the problem with this statement. Similar does not mean exactly the same but close enough to confuse the average person.

I bet if you run a poll on the site and asked all to vote most would agree that the M3v8 has a very similar sound to that of the RS4. Are they coping, I don't know but one thing for sure they could have changed the exhaust note very easily but chose not to.:eye:

As for sticky's opinions about the Audi playing catch-up all the time, I wouldn't disagree that Audi has on the most part walked a different path to the M model, the RS model though extreme in their performance were always practical (mostly estates) and fitted with turbos. Only this one time being the RS4 has Audi decided to fit a N/A engine, is this to prove that they too can build a world class N/A engine, who knows but in the RS4 that is indeed to case.:rs4kiss:

As for his comment that the V10 in the S6 is inferior, is this based on the opinion that it is slower or some other reasons. It is a S model not a RS which very their direct rival, as an overall package the S6 is a better car which quite a few reviews agreed with. It once again proving that speed is the only thing that matters to some BMW fans, very juvenile.;)

You say the 335i out performs the S4, this might indeed be the case and in all the tests I have read from German magazines it also betters the E46 M3 so where does this leave us, it out performs two older designs. Or does it prove that Audi has indeed always been right and forced-induction is better than N/A engines. Sticky, I will let you decide.:D

Audi has and always walk a different path than BMW and I am glad for it, I want all wheel drive, the superior quality of construction, the better paint finish, the better shut lines, it's look. I want to drive an Audi.:looking:

Now finally in all my posts about the M3v8 I have said it will be a great car, why don't you guys comment on these posts.:noshake:

skratch I reckon you are a great person to have a discussion with, though your views are BMW based and I and others might not agree with them, you always listen to each comment and reply in a decent manner, unlike certain others.:thumb:

[sticky]

I hope this shows that unlike sticky I am not as bias to a brand as he. But back to my comment, the M3 has a slightly higher pitched, yes I still agree with my first opinion of the note, but unless similar means something different than what I believe than what is the problem with this statement. Similar does not mean exactly the same but close enough to confuse the average person.

I bet if you run a poll on the site and asked all to vote most would agree that the M3v8 has a very similar sound to that of the RS4. Are they coping, I don't know but one thing for sure they could have changed the exhaust note very easily but chose not to.:eye:

As for sticky's opinions about the Audi playing catch-up all the time, I wouldn't disagree that Audi has on the most part walked a different path to the M model, the RS model though extreme in their performance were always practical (mostly estates) and fitted with turbos. Only this one time being the RS4 has Audi decided to fit a N/A engine, is this to prove that they too can build a world class N/A engine, who knows but in the RS4 that is indeed to case.:rs4kiss:

As for his comment that the V10 in the S6 is inferior, is this based on the opinion that it is slower or some other reasons. It is a S model not a RS which very their direct rival, as an overall package the S6 is a better car which quite a few reviews agreed with. It once again proving that speed is the only thing that matters to some BMW fans, very juvenile.;)

You say the 335i out performs the S4, this might indeed be the case and in all the tests I have read from German magazines it also betters the E46 M3 so where does this leave us, it out performs two older designs. Or does it prove that Audi has indeed always been right and forced-induction is better than N/A engines. Sticky, I will let you decide.:D

Audi has and always walk a different path than BMW and I am glad for it, I want all wheel drive, the superior quality of construction, the better paint finish, the better shut lines, it's look. I want to drive an Audi.:looking:

Now finally in all my posts about the M3v8 I have said it will be a great car, why don't you guys comment on these posts.:noshake:

skratch I reckon you are a great person to have a discussion with, though your views are BMW based and I and others might not agree with them, you always listen to each comment and reply in a decent manner, unlike certain others.:thumb:
Definitely the model reply free of bias. Throwing a bunch of smiley's in does not make you super duper friendly when you take shots throughout the post. Right? :) ;)

I never suggested BMW copied Audi's exhaust note (how ridiculous is that????) and if someone searches your posts it is very easy to see MANY erroneus statements thrown out without proof or substance. That is how it goes on an Audi board, no big deal. Don't get upset when people correct you, wether they own an Audi or not, anyone can see how stupid it is to say someone steals and exhaust note. You went further with it and said BMW copies the way the car drives as well, just ridiculous.

I did not realize the RS cars were the M competitors now. How far behind are they that the S cars can't keep up anymore? I remember the S4 always being positioned as the M3 competitor. Whatver, now it is the RS vehicles, that is fine. We will see how the RS4 stacks up with all around performance, the exhaust note isn't going to decide the better car.

By the way I don't think you are a bad person or anything like that, I just should able to get my point across just like you can. You just don't like that often I am on a different side of the fence.

[Leadfoot]

Definitely the model reply free of bias. Throwing a bunch of smiley's in does not make you super duper friendly when you take shots throughout the post. Right? :) ;)

I never suggested BMW copied Audi's exhaust note (how ridiculous is that????) and if someone searches your posts it is very easy to see MANY erroneus statements thrown out without proof or substance. That is how it goes on an Audi board, no big deal. Don't get upset when people correct you, wether they own an Audi or not, anyone can see how stupid it is to say someone steals and exhaust note. You went further with it and said BMW copies the way the car drives as well, just ridiculous.

I did not realize the RS cars were the M competitors now. How far behind are they that the S cars can't keep up anymore? I remember the S4 always being positioned as the M3 competitor. Whatver, now it is the RS vehicles, that is fine. We will see how the RS4 stacks up with all around performance, the exhaust note isn't going to decide the better car.

By the way I don't think you are a bad person or anything like that, I just should able to get my point across just like you can. You just don't like that often I am on a different side of the fence.

The S4 has been the direct rival to the M3 but with the introduction of the M3v8 this has all changed, it is not Audi's doing more so BMW's. They have changed the M3 moving it above the S4 in terms of out right performance and directly into the path of the RS4, check it out, power both 420hp, acceleration to 60mph both 4.8s, no sorry sticky but this is a case of BMW choosing to match what Audi done over a year ago. The S4 was the direct rival to the old M3, every group roadtest included it along side the C55, now you might not have rated the S4 but on more than one occasion the S4 beat the both of them.

The original statement regarding the exhaust note started like all of my posts, an innocent opinion that I reckoned when you closed your eyes the M3 sounded uncannily like that of the RS4, your good self decided for what ever reason to turn that statement into a full blooded argument with not just me but BigRick and anyone else who happens to come along.

I feel that BMW could have changed the exhaust note if they had wanted too, but they didn't. The two engines are different enough that without the exhaust system I would reckon (my opinion) that they would sound totally different.

Now I wouldn't say that the M3 is late but it has been in development for a very long time indeed, why. Was it's performance/handling so far off the mark that they need more than normal development time, this is not a fact only an opinion so don't go off on one again. It has been said that the RS4 was started after the M3 which if right means Audi developed the RS4 not only quicker but to such a standard that BMW needed this extra time to make sure it was better/possibly better, still to be tested.

This leads into another question if you like. Is it easier to develop an AWD car and make it handle well over a RWD car?

Another question, if the M3/5/6 engines have been developed from F1 technology then why are they not using F1 style crank shafts? It can't be they are unsuitable for the road because Ferrari use them to great effect on their road cars. Audi didn't make such claims I assume because they aren't in F1 so should they have claim Le Mans series technology or what?

[sticky]

The S4 has been the direct rival to the M3 but with the introduction of the M3v8 this has all changed, it is not Audi's doing more so BMW's. They have changed the M3 moving it above the S4 in terms of out right performance and directly into the path of the RS4, check it out, power both 420hp, acceleration to 60mph both 4.8s, no sorry sticky but this is a case of BMW choosing to match what Audi done over a year ago. The S4 was the direct rival to the old M3, every group roadtest included it along side the C55, now you might not have rated the S4 but on more than one occasion the S4 beat the both of them.

The original statement regarding the exhaust note started like all of my posts, an innocent opinion that I reckoned when you closed your eyes the M3 sounded uncannily like that of the RS4, your good self decided for what ever reason to turn that statement into a full blooded argument with not just me but BigRick and anyone else who happens to come along.

I feel that BMW could have changed the exhaust note if they had wanted too, but they didn't. The two engines are different enough that without the exhaust system I would reckon (my opinion) that they would sound totally different.

Now I wouldn't say that the M3 is late but it has been in development for a very long time indeed, why. Was it's performance/handling so far off the mark that they need more than normal development time, this is not a fact only an opinion so don't go off on one again. It has been said that the RS4 was started after the M3 which if right means Audi developed the RS4 not only quicker but to such a standard that BMW needed this extra time to make sure it was better/possibly better, still to be tested.

This leads into another question if you like. Is it easier to develop an AWD car and make it handle well over a RWD car?

Another question, if the M3/5/6 engines have been developed from F1 technology then why are they not using F1 style crank shafts? It can't be they are unsuitable for the road because Ferrari use them to great effect on their road cars. Audi didn't make such claims I assume because they aren't in F1 so should they have claim Le Mans series technology or what?
I'm not sure I even understand what you are talking about. Formula 1 doesn't use a v10 anymore, and in order for a motor to really be a "formula 1" motor it needs to rev past 15k and make over 250 hp per liter. BMW said they applied certain things they learned in formula 1 to their S65 v10 and I have no reason to doubt them.

Your tone has changed now that people called you on it. You said BMW was copying audi, here is your comment:


I believe BMW know their main rival and have chosen by design to make it note similar to that of the RS4

another one:


As I said when I heard it for the first time, very spooky how it sounds so like that of the RS4. Did they say to themselves 'Make it go, handle and sound like a RS4'. Well you know what they say, to copy something is the highest form of praise there is

So they are not just copying the sound but now the whole car?

A crank shaft doesn't determine an F1 motor, if you look at the history of f1 many different types of cranks and motors have been used. What an "F1" crankshaft is what they have sanctioned as acceptable within the motor specs for that year. Back when they had turbo motors BMW made 1500+ hp out of a 1.5 liter using completely different technology than the naturally aspirated motors.

Another thing, Audi plays up their Le Mans wins all the time and claim Le Mans technology, R8, hello.

The M3 has been in development a long time? You base this on what? The E9x series was launched as 06 models. The E46 was launched as 99. The M3 came out as an 01. This new one will come most likely as an 08. Now what leads you to believe there has been an exceptionally long development phase?

BMW could have made it shorter, use the new chasis and the old motor, and call it an M3. They don't take shortcuts, didn't Audi launch 2 generations of S4's with the same motor?

[BigRick]

The M3 has been in development a long time? You base this on what? The E9x series was launched as 06 models. The E46 was launched as 99. The M3 came out as an 01. This new one will come most likely as an 08. Now what leads you to believe there has been an exceptionally long development phase?


hummm maybe here! :doh:



I have seen test mule videos of the M3 over 3 years ago online...They were everywhere,In deserts,mountains ect...
It had the same engine before BMW ever heard what the rs4 sounded like.
Are you telling me you dont remember back in late 04 of the test mules videoed on the ring?
the car has been spotted on roads well before an rs4 was even seen.

Have you read the thread?

I normally try to stay away from personal attacks but you’re not really helping me staying on the right side. Every time you get cornered you start saying that's not what I meant or said or... whatever it's never you it's always the others. (Starting to sound pathetic to me.)
I'm not going to quote everything you said in this thread or any others. But have a look around. If I'm the master of understatement (I'm glad of the title :)) you're the master of evading your telling. Everything you said can/could be interpreted in many ways and most often in bad ones.
You think I’m bias... then you’re damn right! I tried many BMWs and I don’t like them. So why would I start saying anything good about a car that I don’t like? The new version, it’s even worst. It’s late; only RWD and the interior is on part with BMW interiors... it sucks. These are my personal opinions of the car, you don’t like them then you’re free to find yourself another board where people will be sharing your thoughts about BMW. I’m here to chat with people that love Audis not to confront people like you who’s only reason to live is to stir some sh.t on competition boards.
We have other members on this board that are BMW lovers and they are capable of sharing their thoughts without the kind of sarcasm you put in your posts. Members like 7:53 RS6 are an example of good behaviour that even I cannot reach. You’re much closer to M&M in this respect.
So, you like your brand I like mine. Let’s keep it there. (I like those four rings in my posterior, they really suit me well)

[sticky]

hummm maybe here! :doh:



Have you read the thread?

I normally try to stay away from personal attacks but you’re not really helping me staying on the right side. Every time you get cornered you start saying that's not what I meant or said or... whatever it's never you it's always the others. (Starting to sound pathetic to me.)
I'm not going to quote everything you said in this thread or any others. But have a look around. If I'm the master of understatement (I'm glad of the title :)) you're the master of evading your telling. Everything you said can/could be interpreted in many ways and most often in bad ones.
You think I’m bias... then you’re damn right! I tried many BMWs and I don’t like them. So why would I start saying anything good about a car that I don’t like? The new version, it’s even worst. It’s late; only RWD and the interior is on part with BMW interiors... it sucks. These are my personal opinions of the car, you don’t like them then you’re free to find yourself another board where people will be sharing your thoughts about BMW. I’m here to chat with people that love Audis not to confront people like you who’s only reason to live is to stir some sh.t on competition boards.
We have other members on this board that are BMW lovers and they are capable of sharing their thoughts without the kind of sarcasm you put in your posts. Members like 7:53 RS6 are an example of good behaviour that even I cannot reach. You’re much closer to M&M in this respect.
So, you like your brand I like mine. Let’s keep it there. (I like those four rings in my posterior, they really suit me well)
First of all, someone saying they saw test mules doesn't mean something is set in stone. Who knows exactly what BMW was testing, a 335, an m3, a 328, a new tranny, who knows.

Once again, what makes you think this M3 is taking any longer to develop than any previous ones? You don't think it makes sense for the M3 to launch on the new chasis about the same time as the old one launched on the new chasis? When did the E46 start testing? Do you know? Does anyone really know except for BMW themselves? Does it matter, the development time is right in line with the preveious version, where is this exceptionally long difference?

I have no idea what I'm evading, please enlighten me. That, or you could just keep making predetermined judgements.

Your personal opinion is that the car sucks and that is fine, good for you. I like cars, not brands. You don't like BMW period, a shame you take such a narrow minded view on BMW and on my posts which provide far more insight than "BMW sucks."

[skratch]

Um big rick,why are you qouting me and running off with your rant.If you took the time to read why I typed what you quated you would see it was to leadie when he said the M3 copied the rs4.How can the M3 copy the rs4 when it was MADE BEFORE IT.

[Leadfoot]

I'm not sure I even understand what you are talking about. Formula 1 doesn't use a v10 anymore, and in order for a motor to really be a "formula 1" motor it needs to rev past 15k and make over 250 hp per liter. BMW said they applied certain things they learned in formula 1 to their S65 v10 and I have no reason to doubt them.

Your tone has changed now that people called you on it. You said BMW was copying audi, here is your comment


another one:


So they are not just copying the sound but now the whole car?

This statement you refer to stated that the M3's engine note was similar to the RS4 the other part that they were coping the handling as well was humour, alas you didn't take it the way it was meant but then does that surprise me.


A crank shaft doesn't determine an F1 motor, if you look at the history of f1 many different types of cranks and motors have been used. What an "F1" crankshaft is what they have sanctioned as acceptable within the motor specs for that year. Back when they had turbo motors BMW made 1500+ hp out of a 1.5 liter using completely different technology than the naturally aspirated motors.

Another thing, Audi plays up their Le Mans wins all the time and claim Le Mans technology, R8, hello.

What has Audi claimed for it's road engines, FSi that is it, end of story. No big claim that this part and that part is all F1 technology and when have you heard anyone on this site make great claims about their connection to Le Mans, ......:vhmmm: no, well me neither.


The M3 has been in development a long time? You base this on what? The E9x series was launched as 06 models. The E46 was launched as 99. The M3 came out as an 01. This new one will come most likely as an 08. Now what leads you to believe there has been an exceptionally long development phase?

BMW could have made it shorter, use the new chasis and the old motor, and call it an M3. They don't take shortcuts, didn't Audi launch 2 generations of S4's with the same motor?

Yes BMW could have launch the M3 sooner with the old engine in a new chassis, but it's problem would have been that the 335i would have still been the better car and it would have still not competed with the RS4 as you already now. Now your comment that Audi re-used the S4 engine in two versions, this show how ill-informed you are, the new one was only a face-lift of the old one, no mechanical changes were made, these were only made to the rest of the range.

skratch's statement was directed to me regarding the M3 was in development first, as I reckon he is a well informed chap I have little reason to doubt his claims and I said as much in my reply. So if the M3 was indeed beating around the ring long before the RS4 I again ask the question, does is take longer to make a RWD handle than an AWD one?

I don't know the answer but one must assume that this is indeed the case based on the above statement.

I also notice that you make no comment to the opinion that the 335i is also better than the M3 so it should indeed be a little quicker and more accomplished than the S4, after all both are old technology if it hadn't beaten them BMW would have had a lot to answer for.

[BigRick]

Um big rick,why are you qouting me and running off with your rant.If you took the time to read why I typed what you quated you would see it was to leadie when he said the M3 copied the rs4.How can the M3 copy the rs4 when it was MADE BEFORE IT.

Sorry if it looked like I ranted on you. It was really not my intention. I was using your post to show Sticky I long it took for the M3 to get on the market.

He's claiming the M3 is not late but when you look at the posts. There's one guy saying it was in development before the RS4 and another saying it's not late. We all know that the RS4 is now available and the M3 is still to come. So could it not be late!?

So again, I wasn't ranting on you. If anything I like how you keep contribute. Even when over technical it's still very interresting to read. So please accept my appologies :cheers:

[BigRick]

First of all, someone saying they saw test mules doesn't mean something is set in stone. Who knows exactly what BMW was testing, a 335, an m3, a 328, a new tranny, who knows.

Once again, what makes you think this M3 is taking any longer to develop than any previous ones? You don't think it makes sense for the M3 to launch on the new chasis about the same time as the old one launched on the new chasis? When did the E46 start testing? Do you know? Does anyone really know except for BMW themselves? Does it matter, the development time is right in line with the preveious version, where is this exceptionally long difference?

I have no idea what I'm evading, please enlighten me. That, or you could just keep making predetermined judgements.

Your personal opinion is that the car sucks and that is fine, good for you. I like cars, not brands. You don't like BMW period, a shame you take such a narrow minded view on BMW and on my posts which provide far more insight than "BMW sucks."

Again you're twisting the story. Skratch posted that comment referring to the M3. He looks like a guy who knows quite a lot about the car (I might be wrong). But if he says the M3 was made before the RS4 then how come the RS4 is now available and not the M3. From my point of view this is being late. The reasons for it are still unclear.
Are they having difficulties, have they been surprised by the RS4 and decided to put a little more in the car... or whatever else. The point is still that they are now late. Maybe not according to their schedule but to the world's schedule.
This is not a blame on BMW, it is just a fact. It would have been nice to have both cars available within a year of each other. That way we would have been able to finally have a nice comparison but now with all the time they're taking, the gap is getting big every day. Let’s hope the S5 and RS5 will hit the market within a year of the M3 and then we’ll have a nice battle. 
Regarding my comment about BMW "that sucks". We've been through the arguments many times before on this board. I didn't want to restate all of them again. People are buying based on personal tastes and after trying BMWs, Mercedes, Volvos and Audis I think I can safely say which one I prefer (and that is not BMW, they're last in the pack from my point of view) The only thing they manage to put in the car is performance and gadgets to make you forget all the little irritants. They decided to go for a look that is a love at first sight or a complete hate. They decided to go for a poor interior design. I can’t sit properly in any of the one I tried. There’s winter here so going RWD with that much power is planning for a catastrophe. It’s much more of a two seaters. The breaks on the M3 I tried were really not to my liking (much too aggressive for a daily drive)... should I continue? I think I did my homework when I decided to go for the RS4.
So if you still think I’m narrow minded (again a personal attack from you) so be it!

[Leadfoot]

Rick,

There is no need to defend yourself over this, like almost everyone here we have all had a BMW or two in our time and have decided to settle on Audis as the best choice for us. I don't see us as anti-BMW or any brand for that matter, most of the discussion start very innocently and in good humour but for reasons we are all aware of turn into something totally different.

I agree that skratch on the most part posts very informative replies though like the rest of us, he can get side tracked into an argument because of our strong opinions on what we all like. If there was one person who I wouldn't want to lose from this forum it would be skratch.:cheers:

[BigRick]

Rick,

There is no need to defend yourself over this, like almost everyone here we have all had a BMW or two in our time and have decided to settle on Audis as the best choice for us. I don't see us as anti-BMW or any brand for that matter, most of the discussion start very innocently and in good humour but for reasons we are all aware of turn into something totally different.

I agree that skratch on the most part posts very informative replies though like the rest of us, he can get side tracked into an argument because of our strong opinions on what we all like. If there was one person who I wouldn't want to lose from this forum it would be skratch.:cheers:

A hundred percent with you!

1) Skratch is quite a member
2) BMW are not bad (I've probably gone too far in the argumentation, my wrong) but it's not good for me.

Cheers (everyone including you Sticky)

[Leadfoot]

having 4 doors as an option will only help BMW.We at least know the weight now C&D said its 3483 lbs and its using a really agressive final drive of 3.82.The old M3 had a 3.64 and the same with the M5

The Auto 335 has a 3.38 and the manual has a 3.21(from memory on that)so it looks like BMW again is using crazzy gearing to put the power down.

I was re-reading back on this post and noticed you post about the M3's final drive being 3.82. Are they going to limit the new car's top speed to closer the 155mph limiter or are they going to allow it a higher top speed. What is it doing per 1000rpm in top gear?

If it is 25mph or there abouts, sure the final drive means very little as it's down to what speed each gear makes that determines how aggressive the gearing is and ultimately the acceleration or am I wrong on this assumption?

I assume since you made a point of it you will be able to explain what the difference is.

[sticky]

Again you're twisting the story. Skratch posted that comment referring to the M3. He looks like a guy who knows quite a lot about the car (I might be wrong). But if he says the M3 was made before the RS4 then how come the RS4 is now available and not the M3. From my point of view this is being late. The reasons for it are still unclear.
Are they having difficulties, have they been surprised by the RS4 and decided to put a little more in the car... or whatever else. The point is still that they are now late. Maybe not according to their schedule but to the world's schedule.
This is not a blame on BMW, it is just a fact. It would have been nice to have both cars available within a year of each other. That way we would have been able to finally have a nice comparison but now with all the time they're taking, the gap is getting big every day. Let’s hope the S5 and RS5 will hit the market within a year of the M3 and then we’ll have a nice battle. 
Regarding my comment about BMW "that sucks". We've been through the arguments many times before on this board. I didn't want to restate all of them again. People are buying based on personal tastes and after trying BMWs, Mercedes, Volvos and Audis I think I can safely say which one I prefer (and that is not BMW, they're last in the pack from my point of view) The only thing they manage to put in the car is performance and gadgets to make you forget all the little irritants. They decided to go for a look that is a love at first sight or a complete hate. They decided to go for a poor interior design. I can’t sit properly in any of the one I tried. There’s winter here so going RWD with that much power is planning for a catastrophe. It’s much more of a two seaters. The breaks on the M3 I tried were really not to my liking (much too aggressive for a daily drive)... should I continue? I think I did my homework when I decided to go for the RS4.
So if you still think I’m narrow minded (again a personal attack from you) so be it!
They are late according to the world's schedule? The world's schedule is Audi's schedule? The E46 M3 finished production in 2005. The new M3 will start production in 07 as an 08. The E36 finished production in 99. The E46 started production in 2001. Things look pretty much right on. I think BMW is following THEIR schedule not "the worlds" whatever that means. Is Audi late with the RS6? Was the RS4 a late competitor to the E46 M3?

When should this car have come out? The same year the E46 M3 finished production? Your perspective is that it is late, that is fine, but reality is the car isn't late, or early, just right when "the world" should expect it. They did the same thing with the E46 when they revealed the concept and then gave production details.

And another thing, the real competition is going to be the C63, not the RS4. Both of these vehicles are going to come out the same year and mercedes and BMW will be the real competition putting out serious horsepower just like the M5 and E55/E63 are the real competition in that segment as Audi does not have a competitive offering.

Saying you are narrow minded is not a personal attack it is an opinion on your perspective. I do believe you took a narrow minded approach to your assessment of a company as a whole. I have never simply written, "Audi sucks" and left it at that nor do I think that.

[Leadfoot]

And another thing, the real competition is going to be the C63, not the RS4. Both of these vehicles are going to come out the same year and mercedes and BMW will be the real competition putting out serious horsepower just like the M5 and E55/E63 are the real competition in that segment as Audi does not have a competitive offering.

Saying you are narrow minded is not a personal attack it is an opinion on your perspective. I do believe you took a narrow minded approach to your assessment of a company as a whole. I have never simply written, "Audi sucks" and left it at that nor do I think that.

sticky,

I am again at a lose as to how the RS4 isn't in your mind a rival to the M3, it has exactly the same power, same acceleration time in 100km/h. If the true be told the C63 is performance wise on another level to both of them, OK it's handling might not if one bases past models but I will wait judgement until I see the finished product. RS4 not it's rival indeed and you say BigRick is narrow minded.:lovl:

The RS6 will be here soon enough but you will be right in saying their haven't a direct rival to either the M5 or E63 as it's performance will most likely be on another level to both of them. And as for the S6, it doesn't have to compete with them in performance terms to beat them as more than a few results have already shown.:deal:

You may not have wrote Audi sucks in so many words but a statement that says the RS4 isn't a rival to the M3 and C63 is as much as saying it.:nono:

[sticky]

sticky,

I am again at a lose as to how the RS4 isn't in your mind a rival to the M3, it has exactly the same power, same acceleration time in 100km/h. If the true be told the C63 is performance wise on another level to both of them, OK it's handling might not if one bases past models but I will wait judgement until I see the finished product. RS4 not it's rival indeed and you say BigRick is narrow minded.:lovl:

The RS6 will be here soon enough but you will be right in saying their haven't a direct rival to either the M5 or E63 as it's performance will most likely be on another level to both of them. And as for the S6, it doesn't have to compete with them in performance terms to beat them as more than a few results have already shown.:deal:

You may not have wrote Audi sucks in so many words but a statement that says the RS4 isn't a rival to the M3 and C63 is as much as saying it.:nono:
Well see it depends how you look at it. The RS4 has AWD unlike the other two and is probably the closest rival to the M3 from a perspective of drivers interaction.

There have been a couple tests that suggest the S6 can keep up around a tight circuit. There have also been a couple tests that say the S6 doesn't hold up to either car. It is pretty obvious the E63 and M5 are in another league power wise. The S6 isn't a competitor or a rival to either of these cars.

The C32 was a better competitor to the M3 than the S4 was power wise and looks wise (the looks are subjective). In my neck of the woods, Audi is considered a distant third in prestige following Mercedes and BMW. Most potential buyers would consider Mercedes and BMW. I myself looked at the C32 first before going to the M3. At the time, the B5 S4 was at the end of its lifespan and not really competitive with either stock for stock.

The C63 will also be coming to the party around the same time, and they are all the same segment. However, I think you will see many more individual who care about straight line power considering either the C63 or M3 vs. the RS4. It will be eerily similar to C32 vs. E46 M3 vs. B6 S4

I didn't imly Audi sucks and that the RS4 isn't a rival, I just think it will remain in the third position as far as popularity. Obviously BMW is going to sell more M3's and Mercedes will sell more AMG C class. Who sells more doesn't mean which car is better but obviously there will be more buyers considering the Mercedes and BMW.

[rqiu]

Obviously BMW is going to sell more M3's and Mercedes will sell more AMG C class. Who sells more doesn't mean which car is better but obviously there will be more buyers considering the Mercedes and BMW.

So getting whatever most other people get is your idea? Toyota sells a lot more cars than MB and BMW.

[sticky]

So getting whatever most other people get is your idea? Toyota sells a lot more cars than MB and BMW.
Did you miss this:


Who sells more doesn't mean which car is better but obviously there will be more buyers considering the Mercedes and BMW.

[Leadfoot]

Well see it depends how you look at it. The RS4 has AWD unlike the other two and is probably the closest rival to the M3 from a perspective of drivers interaction.

So driver interaction is important to you, will then the RS4 is a better choice than the C63, with it you can't even turn off the ESP.


There have been a couple tests that suggest the S6 can keep up around a tight circuit. There have also been a couple tests that say the S6 doesn't hold up to either car. It is pretty obvious the E63 and M5 are in another league power wise. The S6 isn't a competitor or a rival to either of these cars.

What have I always said about your opinion, it always based about straightline performance and nothing else. I take it you go to the drag-strip a lot. Another funny note is that the S6 can keep up with the M5 on a tight circuit which is meant to favour RWD cars and smooth fast corners suit AWD cars, so in this case the S6 given a faster circuit will put away.


The C32 was a better competitor to the M3 than the S4 was power wise and looks wise (the looks are subjective). In my neck of the woods, Audi is considered a distant third in prestige following Mercedes and BMW. Most potential buyers would consider Mercedes and BMW. I myself looked at the C32 first before going to the M3. At the time, the B5 S4 was at the end of its lifespan and not really competitive with either stock for stock.

Well outside of your neck of the woods Audi is not considered third, in fact that place is fought out by Merc and BMW, especially in the performance market. But anyway the S4 had a V8 by the time the E46 M3 was out and in most roadtest it fared well against the M3 winning as many as it lost to the M3.


The C63 will also be coming to the party around the same time, and they are all the same segment. However, I think you will see many more individual who care about straight line power considering either the C63 or M3 vs. the RS4. It will be eerily similar to C32 vs. E46 M3 vs. B6 S4

The only person who would consider straightline performance over the overall package is a very narrow minded person who only cares what other people think about. I though being on this site you would be better than that, but obviously I was wrong.


I didn't imly Audi sucks and that the RS4 isn't a rival, I just think it will remain in the third position as far as popularity. Obviously BMW is going to sell more M3's and Mercedes will sell more AMG C class. Who sells more doesn't mean which car is better but obviously there will be more buyers considering the Mercedes and BMW.

I think you will find you are the only one that thought you didn't imply that Audi sucks.

[sticky]

So driver interaction is important to you, will then the RS4 is a better choice than the C63, with it you can't even turn off the ESP.



What have I always said about your opinion, it always based about straightline performance and nothing else. I take it you go to the drag-strip a lot. Another funny note is that the S6 can keep up with the M5 on a tight circuit which is meant to favour RWD cars and smooth fast corners suit AWD cars, so in this case the S6 given a faster circuit will put away.



Well outside of your neck of the woods Audi is not considered third, in fact that place is fought out by Merc and BMW, especially in the performance market. But anyway the S4 had a V8 by the time the E46 M3 was out and in most roadtest it fared well against the M3 winning as many as it lost to the M3.



The only person who would consider straightline performance over the overall package is a very narrow minded person who only cares what other people think about. I though being on this site you would be better than that, but obviously I was wrong.



I think you will find you are the only one that thought you didn't imply that Audi sucks.
You have your view, I have mine.

Mercedes and BMW are clearly favored more in the world's largest auto market, the US. That does not mean Audi does not build a good car, the RS4 will more than likely be more fun to drive than the MB. I find mercedes numb, but this does not mean I am implying they "suck" or build a bad car.

I also said that those that favor straight line performance will favor the M3 and C63, not everyone. What do you think most people who buy these cars are going to do, take their cars on a race track or go full throttle for short periods? I really don't have official C63 details so the comment about ESP is irrelevant until we do get exact details. You can disable ESP on the 63 models so why would it be different here? If handling and dirver interaction was most peoples concern the M5 would outsell the E63/E55. A lot of people clearly want big power in a luxury package.

The performance market is clearly dominated in the sedan segment by BMW and Mercedes. Audi is obviously third, and has been.

I don't have statistics on how many road tests the M3 won and the S4 won, but the better overall drivers and performance car was and has been the e46 M3 vs the B6/B7 S4's. This is an old debate, no need to go into all the E46 M3's accolades, that is an old battle BMW won.

The C63 will probably have the most power out of the three. The M3 will be the most adept at all around performance, power and handling. The RS4 will be there for those that want something different, enjoy a manual, and require AWD. Once again, very similar to the last generation battle.

[Leadfoot]

Yes the US is the biggest market but a statement like says to the rest of us that everywhere else doesn't matter at all.

The C63 will indeed be the most powerful, the M3 will appeal to those who like to drift and showboat to their friends but the best overall performance car will be the one that is most usable most of the time no matter what the weather conditions and that my friend is the RS4. Oh but yes, this final statement will only apply in the rest of the world and not LA, where it never rains and is full of beautiful people.

[Informer]

Most people don't buy cars for performance in adverse weather conditions. All cars have good traction control & stability control systems for those conditions. But it's not for racing. It would be unwise to race in poor conditions no matter what car you have.

When the conditions, visiblity, grip etc are good, then its time to test performance. Evo magazine, Autocar & a few others have chosen the M3 over the RS4. The M3 was the runner up in the Evo Car of the year in its 1st year of release & again in its last year. It has also won numerous other awards & shoot-outs.

[Leadfoot]

Most people don't buy cars for performance in adverse weather conditions. All cars have good traction control & stability control systems for those conditions. But it's not for racing. It would be unwise to race in poor conditions no matter what car you have.

When the conditions, visiblity, grip etc are good, then its time to test performance. Evo magazine, Autocar & a few others have chosen the M3 over the RS4. The M3 was the runner up in the Evo Car of the year in its 1st year of release & again in its last year. It has also won numerous other awards & shoot-outs.

I agree with that statement if you aren't buying an AWD car. I like a lot here love it when the weather turns really bad with snow, it's in these conditions that the quattro system show what it is really capable of and is at it's best. I would be the last person to say ESP/DSC systems are a bad thing, they are amazingly good at recovering things when either the driver or car's capabilities have over stepped the mark.

Roadtests are carried out in good conditions because this is the fairest for all modes of traction, be it fwd,rwd or awd. To hold a roadtest in bad conditions would give an awd car an unfair advantage and sway the test in it's favour. But I do like what EVO are now doing with their roadtests which includes two handling tests, one in the dry and another in the wet, this will hopefully help people who's countries have a lot of rain to pick the best car to suit not only them but the road conditions.

The M3 is a very good car and anyone who I know has owned one loved it, but for me I prefer a performance car that not only handling amazingly in the dry but also in the wet, that is why I choose Quattro, it combines everything I like in German engineering with a quality I don't believe the other two major players provide in a package that has all weather traction and grip. As an out and out drivers car in the dry, the M3 is quite possible the more entertaining drive, but in the wet it can be down right scary and this is something I have never found in any quattro cara I have ever owned.

[Informer]

No RWD car is "scary" in the wet if you have the right tyres & stability systems. Have a look at the BEst Motoring video with the Z4M against the S2000, 350Z, etc. Despite what SuperStarLunatic said, the BMW was the best in the wet. Funnily enough the S2000 with the least torque looked the scariest to handle.

[BigRick]

What's going on in here all of the sudden??? an invasion of rear wheel fanatic drivers!

Come-on guys, claiming a RWD is good in the wet. Well, "good", I suppose it depends on your standards.

Scariness is subjective but a RWD will always be scarier than AWD in the wet or in bad weather. In fact, it's always scarier than AWD when you start losing grip unless that's what you're looking for and you know what you're doing.

Whatever the ESP you have it cannot defeat the laws of physic and when the rear of your car wants to be in front it's usually not funny.

[skratch]

I dont know if BMW will limit the top speed here in the states but 155 is plenty fast.The car will have a higher redline that the old e46 and since we dont know the gear ratios yet we cant figure out how fast it will be in each gear.At least we know that the final drive is the most agressive BMW has ever put out in an M car.

Being said it will put more power to the ground threw gearing.

Oh and 06 was the last production year of the e46

[Informer]

What's so "scary" about driving in the wet? Hitting a puddle & aquaplaning? Well aquaplaning has nothing to do with traction. All 4 wheels lift off the ground & 4WD can't help you. Braking distances are dependant on the weight, tyres, etc of the car & nothing to do with the drivetrain layout. The ability of the car to swerve in a non-throttle application is dependant on the chassis, suspension, tyres etc but not on the drivetrain layout.

So what exactly is "scary" about driving a RWD in the wet? The scariest part is the probability of getting hit by another car that didn't see you in the poor visibility or couldn't stop due to the lower grip available under braking (which 4WD can't help you with as well). Your primary objective when driving in the wet is to get home safe. So you cruise at 30-40mph or whatever speed is appropriate with very light throttle application & avoid danger. 4WD is not "less scary" when cruising in the rain on part throttle.

[OfftheHeZie]

If you were to hit a puddle with one side in and the other on the road, AWD would be more stable for that. If you were to aquaplane and lift off the ground, as you say, when your tires make contact again, quattro would be much more stable. If you hit snow/ice, you would rather be in a quattro machine. Yes, you can drive safely in bad weather in a RWD car.

~Mason

[Informer]

If you were to hit a puddle with one side in and the other on the road, AWD would be more stable for that.


Huh??? :confused: Torsen & Haldex do not have LSD's on either front or rear diffs as far as I know. If I am wrong then please forgive me.


If you were to aquaplane and lift off the ground, as you say, when your tires make contact again, quattro would be much more stable.

:confused: When you come out of an aquaplane 4WD is more stable? How so? You would probably be off the throttle in such an emergency situation.

[OfftheHeZie]

You must be joking.

[Informer]

YEah I'm joking. In an amergency I always go full throttle. Especially in a front heavy pig.

[sticky]

What's going on in here all of the sudden??? an invasion of rear wheel fanatic drivers!

Come-on guys, claiming a RWD is good in the wet. Well, "good", I suppose it depends on your standards.

Scariness is subjective but a RWD will always be scarier than AWD in the wet or in bad weather. In fact, it's always scarier than AWD when you start losing grip unless that's what you're looking for and you know what you're doing.

Whatever the ESP you have it cannot defeat the laws of physic and when the rear of your car wants to be in front it's usually not funny.
The laws of physics would say that in the wet you would not want most of your weight in the front.

[BigRick]

What's so "scary" about driving in the wet? Hitting a puddle & aquaplaning? Well aquaplaning has nothing to do with traction. All 4 wheels lift off the ground & 4WD can't help you. Braking distances are dependant on the weight, tyres, etc of the car & nothing to do with the drivetrain layout. The ability of the car to swerve in a non-throttle application is dependant on the chassis, suspension, tyres etc but not on the drivetrain layout.

So what exactly is "scary" about driving a RWD in the wet? The scariest part is the probability of getting hit by another car that didn't see you in the poor visibility or couldn't stop due to the lower grip available under braking (which 4WD can't help you with as well). Your primary objective when driving in the wet is to get home safe. So you cruise at 30-40mph or whatever speed is appropriate with very light throttle application & avoid danger. 4WD is not "less scary" when cruising in the rain on part throttle.

Many aspect of aquaplaning can be out-balanced by the drivetrain unless you have all four wheels in the air (or in the water in that matter). But, I was not really talking about that extremely rare case where you have all four wheel in enough water so that they all start aquaplaning. In which case you should probably stay home whatever car you have...

I clearly said that a RWD is scarier when you start losing the rear and with the amount of power the new M3 (and even the old one) have this is something that will happen even more. Everyone will agree that an M3 has more power per "working" wheel than the RS4 thus making is even easier to lose the rear end. That's why all car makers are adding ESP to reduce the amount of power the wheel receive when losing traction. So unless the ESP is always reducing the power to the wheels you will have to adjust the throttle yourself. Adjust too much in either directions and you could lose it (hah! but maybe you're a professional pilot and that cannot happen to you as a pro never lose it!) that's the part I think is scary! even more if there's up-coming traffic.

So afterall, you're right, for a RWD to be less scary in the wet (or any condition reducing the grip) you need to cruise at part throttle (reduce the power) something I don't really have to worry about. I admit I will not break better than a RWD but as you said that has nothing to do with the drivetrain and I agree. But in curves and straight the advantage is clear.

Thanks for making my point.

[Leadfoot]

How many here have done a little rallying? I can tell you there is a hell of a difference driving a rwd car and an awd car in slippery conditions and the awd car is always the much easier to control and make do what you want it to do, period.

When I talk about scary I mean the car is more unpredictable, especially on the road. Things happen much quicker in a rwd car than an awd car, call me a wimp but I prefer predictability. If you only have power going to one axle your options when something goes wrong are more limited. But anyway where is this leading us in the discussion of the M3v8, nowhere.

[Leadfoot]

The laws of physics would say that in the wet you would not want most of your weight in the front.

Or the rear, so how about 50/50, does that sound about right. :thumb:

Oh but should you then have the power going to the front or the rear, oh I know how's about both. :D

[BigRick]

The laws of physics would say that in the wet you would not want most of your weight in the front.

Mr twisty stikes again! Again you're taking one part of a complete answer and turn it to your advantage. Don't you have anything else to do than twisting the story?

But let's compare if you want.

The quattro system can bring all it's power where it's needed (the front or the rear) counter balancing most of the weight problem you're talking about. It's not perfect by I keep my full power in 95% of the situation and that's even with ESP off.

How does the "super" new M3 will balance the fact that it's loosing grip.... by reducing the overall power through the ESP (or any other electronic tricks). So unless you're a professional pilot who knows what he's doing. I doubt you'll want to turn the ESP off in the wet (or any slippery condition)

And don't forget that the RS4 has only 58% on the front axle which is only 8% off of perfect balance... the M3 on its side has 0% of the power in the front which is a 100% short!!!

Have you ever read the "unfair advantage" of quattro (just google it) you should be able to find some articles showing the clear advantage of that type of drivetrain over anything else in the wet (and any slippery condition). This has been recon since 1982-83 (if my memory's right) so why even try to convince me of the opposite?

I'm really eager to see how you'll twist it this time, but let's see it.

[BigRick]

How many here have done a little rallying? I can tell you there is a hell of a difference driving a rwd car and an awd car in slippery conditions and the awd car is always the much easier to control and make do what you want it to do, period.

When I talk about scary I mean the car is more unpredictable, especially on the road. Things happen much quicker in a rwd car than an awd car, call me a wimp but I prefer predictability. If you only have power going to one axle your options when something goes wrong are more limited. But anyway where is this leading us in the discussion of the M3v8, nowhere.

You have such a nice way of putting thing together sooo easily.

"quattro is predictable" sounds good to me! but let see how Sticky will bend this one.

I agree with you, this discussion is going no where. It's like they are trying to sell BMWs on an Audi board... Is it me or is there something wrong in that statement?! :)

[sticky]

You have such a nice way of putting thing together sooo easily.

"quattro is predictable" sounds good to me! but let see how Sticky will bend this one.

I agree with you, this discussion is going no where. It's like they are trying to sell BMWs on an Audi board... Is it me or is there something wrong in that statement?! :)
You know what, I have a headache. And I still have to stop by BMW later to pick up my check for all the BMW's I sold on the Audi boards today. MUAHAHAHA!

[BigRick]

You know what, I have a headache. And I still have to stop by BMW later to pick up my check for all the BMW's I sold on the Audi boards today. MUAHAHAHA!

I hope you don't count on that for a living... MUAHAHAHA!

[sticky]

I hope you don't count on that for a living... MUAHAHAHA!
I'm not sure if you got the sarcasm.

[rqiu]

Discussing which drivetrain is better in wet or snow, RWD or AWD is a waste of time, period. If someone cannot even figure this one out, how can you expect a meaningful conversation from him/her?

[BigRick]

Discussing which drivetrain is better in wet or snow, RWD or AWD is a waste of time, period. If someone cannot even figure this one out, how can you expect a meaningful conversation from him/her?

Thanks for pointing it out. I think these people never saw snow. That could explain why they like RWD so much. Nothing wrong with it in perfect conditions. But the statement that RWD was "good" in wet was too much to leave uncorrected.

I'm done with this thread, let see what the M3 will be able to really deliver and then we'll be able to start those "hostilities" again.

Cheers!

[skratch]

you guys are taking the rwd awd way to far....We know that the M3 can't handle well in extream weather conditions and so does BMW.It dosnt stop them from making the car becasue they know what there market is.IT IS NOT TO PLEASE PEOPLE IN BAD WEATHER.

If you think a rwd car is scary then never get a ride in a zo6 because that will scare the soul out of you lol

lets get back to topic and leave the awd rwd out of it because it has been beaten to death and back again.

I saw a few pictures of the M3 and it looks like there is a power button...looks like BMW might limit power like they did in the M5.

[Leadfoot]

I saw a few pictures of the M3 and it looks like there is a power button...looks like BMW might limit power like they did in the M5.


Please sticky, stay off for a little while so we can get back on topic.

skratch, with regards to the power button, this time round I think will can rule out a power drop. The button only throttle responds and suspension etc.

[sticky]

Please sticky, stay off for a little while so we can get back on topic.



I think you confused yourself with a moderator.

On topic: Will it have a 7 speed SMG or is BMW going to launch a dual clutch tranny?

[Erik]

I think you confused yourself with a moderator.


sticky, my patience is gone and you're now history on this forum.

I think you confused yourself you could humilate the RS6.com moderators and members without any action. In fact, you should have been banned long time ago and I'm just sorry I didn't see it earlier.

Bye, have your fun else where.

[sticky2]

sticky, my patience is gone and you're now history on this forum.

I think you confused yourself you could humilate the RS6.com moderators and members without any action. In fact, you should have been banned long time ago and I'm just sorry I didn't see it earlier.

Bye, have your fun else where.
Oh, I undertstand. Someone tells me to get off a thread and that is ok. Other people put down other makes and that is ok. I suppose you want more superstardriver type members.

However, since my opinion goes against the Audi majority at times that is "bad." Can't have someone providing a different voice.

Go ahead and have your little audi cult if that is what you wish. You should thank for me sparking the most posting you have seen in a long time as well as bringing many erroneus statements into reality.

You could have at least had a bit of a better excuse for "banning" other than the whining of RXBG. Boy, the post I made earlier really was flying off the handle eh?

BTW: It is really a virtual impossibilty to "ban" someone from a board. As long as there are free e-mail address's and plenty of IP address's you can't really "ban" someone. I seem to know vbulletin a bit better than you... good day to you, my own german automotive forum shall be back up shortly ;)

[Leadfoot]

I am very sad it came to this but it's a lesson to all of us to step back from the keyboard is think before posting any remark that can be thought of a abusive.

[skratch]

will wait and see but BMW has given there cars a sports button for throttle responce and the power button came in with the M5/M6 I hope it does what the american cars do to save gas as they shut off 4 cyl when your just cruising around town.

It could very well limit power to save gas...

Im my opinion sticky should not of gotten banned.

[Leadfoot]

will wait and see but BMW has given there cars a sports button for throttle responce and the power button came in with the M5/M6 I hope it does what the american cars do to save gas as they shut off 4 cyl when your just cruising around town.

It could very well limit power to save gas...

Im my opinion sticky should not of gotten banned.

The least said the sooner mended.

Back on topic, if like you say it reduces power, to what level might this be, 280hp?, 300hp? or 320hp? and if like the M5/6 this is the standard mode this will leave the M3 slower than either the 335i or S5 which I very much doubt will be the case.

I like the idea of turning off half the cylinders. This is something all performance car should offer when you either pull up at the lights or are just cruising.