PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the E92 M3 will match the R8 in performance?



EKaru
April 14th, 2007, 02:03
Some of the BMW guys seem to think so:
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=156442&page=2


The RS4 weighs 500 lbs more than the R8 and will be close to the M3 in terms of performance, so the R8 will likely toast the M3....

sticky
April 14th, 2007, 03:48
Well what type of performance do you mean? If straight line, then yes, the M3 has an advtange.

There are a few threads on numbers magazines have achieved with the R8. The R8 is slightly faster than a carrera S.

We also need more details on the M3. If the M3 has a 7 speed SMG, the straight line advantage will definitely lay with the M3.

Even with the R8's weight advatange over the RS4 it is not much lighter than the M3, about 30 pounds, and with the AWD will not put as much power to the ground. The R8 has not put up numbers significantly faster than the RS4, we will have to wait and see. I think it will be close, with the edge going to the M3 as speeds rise, and the R8 having an advantage from a stop. Handling is in the R8's court.

EKaru
April 14th, 2007, 05:04
Well what type of performance do you mean? If straight line, then yes, the M3 has an advtange.





so you're telling me that the M3 will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds?? I think not


http://i16.tinypic.com/30cbslw.jpg
http://i16.tinypic.com/2dma9n4.jpg

sticky
April 14th, 2007, 05:59
Straight line is more than 0-60. 0-60 with modern cars and the power they put out is more of a test of traction. An AWD car will usually have a better 0-60, due to traction.

I said from a stop the R8 has an advantage and from a roll the M3 does. Past 60 AWD is not any benefit. Trap speed will determine the faster car on the highway.

Ruergard
April 14th, 2007, 09:54
In a straight line I think the M3 will be quicker. But on a track... we'll just have to see!

buyalemon
April 14th, 2007, 11:25
RS4 uses old school Torsen quattro system which easy eats more power than the viscodiff in the R8 ...so if the RS4 puts down 365 hp on the wheels ...the R8 could perhaps put down 385-390 hp! That makes a big difference ...so the M3 will probably walk all over the RS4 above 190 km/h ...but not the R8!

MPT
April 14th, 2007, 11:58
In straight line acceleration the R8 will have the advantage with Quattro from the start, and in higher speeds you forget about the advantage of the MUCH lower drag-coefficient, hence it has got a lower Cw-value.

Of course the new M3 will be fast. Even faster than RS4 in straight line drag. But in a drag against the R8, the M3 will get killed :stick:.


Kind regards.

Leadfoot
April 14th, 2007, 13:13
RS4 uses old school Torsen quattro system which easy eats more power than the viscodiff in the R8 ...so if the RS4 puts down 365 hp on the wheels ...the R8 could perhaps put down 385-390 hp! That makes a big difference ...so the M3 will probably walk all over the RS4 above 190 km/h ...but not the R8!

Quite correct buyalemon, the M3 will most likely pull clear air between it and the RS4 but like you say the R8 is indeed a different animal. But is the only racing done discussed on this site about acceleration, even if the M3 holds on to the R8 in a straight line chances are in a few corners the R8 will drift into the distance. After all one is a Coupe and the other is a Supercar, a 997 Carrera S most likely won't stand a chance against the R8, the G rating for roadholding says as much and I doubt the M3 will get to the 997's level.

QuattroFun
April 14th, 2007, 20:50
If the new M3 is faster than a R8 in 0-200 km/h remain to be seen: it will be a close call, but really not material how the small margins turn out. Indeed, if only that would matter no Porsches except GT3, GT2 and Turbos would be sold anyway. R8 is very different from the M3 - completely different chassis set-up and balance. The M3 is of course much more useable and cheaper.

buyalemon
April 14th, 2007, 23:45
If the new M3 is faster than a R8 in 0-200 km/h remain to be seen: it will be a close call, but really not material how the small margins turn out. Indeed, if only that would matter no Porsches except GT3, GT2 and Turbos would be sold anyway. R8 is very different from the M3 - completely different chassis set-up and balance. The M3 is of course much more useable and cheaper.

good post ...straight line racing is pretty much useless ...I use to have a S2 doing 402m in 12,8 ..far from the best car in the world!

For sheer acc the Z06 must be the car to have ...costing less money than the R8!

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 00:08
RS4 uses old school Torsen quattro system which easy eats more power than the viscodiff in the R8 ...so if the RS4 puts down 365 hp on the wheels ...the R8 could perhaps put down 385-390 hp! That makes a big difference ...so the M3 will probably walk all over the RS4 above 190 km/h ...but not the R8!
No one has put down 365 to the wheels in an RS4. Even if the driveline was efficient at 20%, you would be looking at 336 hp at the wheels. All the dynos that RS4 guys have provided have been in the 300-310 range suggesting a 25% loss. A guy with the milltek full exhaust had 320 at the wheels, on a dynojet which tends to read high.

The M3 will put down most likely in the 350-360 rwhp range. The R8's more efficient AWD setup is 2-3% more efficient than the RS4 from what I have read. 385-390 wheel would be more hp than a 996 turbo, as in, it isn't happening. A 997 GT3 puts out 385 wheel, and the R8 isn't going to be anywhere near that car. I would expect 10 AWHP more than the RS4, at best.

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 00:11
Of course the new M3 will be fast. Even faster than RS4 in straight line drag. But in a drag against the R8, the M3 will get killed :stick:.




You say it wil be faster than an RS4 but get killed by an R8? That doesn't make sense, the R8 doesn't turn times much faster than the RS4. If the M3 is faster than the RS4, which it will be, then "killed" is hardly an accurate assessment. A lot depends on if the M3 gets a 7 speed SMG.

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 00:12
Quite correct buyalemon, the M3 will most likely pull clear air between it and the RS4 but like you say the R8 is indeed a different animal. But is the only racing done discussed on this site about acceleration, even if the M3 holds on to the R8 in a straight line chances are in a few corners the R8 will drift into the distance. After all one is a Coupe and the other is a Supercar, a 997 Carrera S most likely won't stand a chance against the R8, the G rating for roadholding says as much and I doubt the M3 will get to the 997's level.
For the price of the R8 the porsche to compare against it seems to be the GT3. Which of course, will win in all performance aspects.

Leadfoot
April 15th, 2007, 02:04
For the price of the R8 the porsche to compare against it seems to be the GT3. Which of course, will win in all performance aspects.

Make your mind up sticky, one times car are to be compared based on performance and the next it's price.

The GT3 is a trackday car not exactly the normal mode of transport that the Carrera 4S is, so based on that assumption the standard car is the better choice as it will be the one most people including the magazines will compare it to. If you want to compare it to any other 997 do it with the Turbo as both are everyday cars.

If you want to be silly like that, why not compare the M3 with a Lotus Exige GT. You have to compare like with like or the test becomes meaningless.

Leadfoot
April 15th, 2007, 02:09
No one has put down 365 to the wheels in an RS4. Even if the driveline was efficient at 20%, you would be looking at 336 hp at the wheels. All the dynos that RS4 guys have provided have been in the 300-310 range suggesting a 25% loss. A guy with the milltek full exhaust had 320 at the wheels, on a dynojet which tends to read high.

The M3 will put down most likely in the 350-360 rwhp range. The R8's more efficient AWD setup is 2-3% more efficient than the RS4 from what I have read. 385-390 wheel would be more hp than a 996 turbo, as in, it isn't happening. A 997 GT3 puts out 385 wheel, and the R8 isn't going to be anywhere near that car. I would expect 10 AWHP more than the RS4, at best.

It has already been discussed that Dynos have problems with AWD car and can't get meaningful readings, so disregard all figures that dynos give including ones for RWD cars as well. At most they help chip and tune a car but nothing else.

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 02:29
It has already been discussed that Dynos have problems with AWD car and can't get meaningful readings, so disregard all figures that dynos give including ones for RWD cars as well. At most they help chip and tune a car but nothing else.
This statement is complete and utter BS. I want to make that very clear.

There are many different dynos in the world and all dynos are used by major tuners to create a baseline and then record the difference afterwards.

Let's say you are right and dynos can't be trusted. So if someone takes an RS4 and gets a baseline of 300 wheel and then gets a full exhaust and redynos on this same AWD dyno and it shows they picked up 20 wheel, the gain can't be trusted?

Different dynos give different readings but come on, saying readings aren't meaninfull and don't do anything else but help with a chip and tune is idiotic. My M3 put down 275 at the wheels on a dynojet. This was in line with what other people all around the world were getting on dynojets. How is that possible?

I think you are disregarding dynos because no dyno has shown the RS4 to put down significant power. There are also AWD and RWD/FWD dynos in this world you know.

Funny how you didn't take issue to the guy posting that an R8 would put down 385 wheel but you have an issue with me posting that it won't.

A major tuner like www.evoms.com uses an AWD dyno in their measurements of power gains for the AWD 911 turbo. Their graphs correspond to those that tuners from all over the globe have. Those guys know more about vehicles than any of us, you think they don't know what they are doing and that they should throw their dyno away? You are really, really reaching on this one. Go post that AWD dyno's are meaningless on a 911 turbo forum and let's see what happens.

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 02:37
Make your mind up sticky, one times car are to be compared based on performance and the next it's price.

The GT3 is a trackday car not exactly the normal mode of transport that the Carrera 4S is, so based on that assumption the standard car is the better choice as it will be the one most people including the magazines will compare it to. If you want to compare it to any other 997 do it with the Turbo as both are everyday cars.

If you want to be silly like that, why not compare the M3 with a Lotus Exige GT. You have to compare like with like or the test becomes meaningless.
I take it you do not know much about the current generation 997 GT3. Go on porsche's website, look it up, and look into PASM and then get back to me. Or read this thread on rennlist where many guys are switching over from 997S's to the 997 GT3 as the new GT3 is a great daily driver thanks to PASM and being able to adjut suspension settings to your will: http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=342962


Now, my mind has been made up since the beginning. What I have been saying from the beginning (do a search if you need to) is that the way Audi prices the car is vital. Now that I have the price and the base is 108k for the manual, that is 2k more than a 997 GT3. Why isn't the GT3 a good comparison? Why wouldn't someone who is looking at the R8 also look at the GT3 along with the turbo as the R-tronic R8 has a base of 118 vs. the turbo's 122k. These prices are all significantly higher than the supposed base 997 competition.

The R8 was supposed to compete with the Carrera S and C4S. However, at the price point they put it at in the US it is simply inevitable that comparisons will be drawn to the other 911 models that are in the same price bracket. Logical isn't it?

Perhaps when you were thinking of the GT3 as a trackday only car, you were thinking of the GT3-RS, common mistake.

Leadfoot
April 15th, 2007, 07:58
sticky,

My opinion about is based not only from EVO magazines' roadtest partner which supplies the figures use in their papers and someone know has little to gain by saying something like this and AMD another tuner specializing in tuning Audi, VW, Porsche and others including BMW. They all say the baseline figures for AWD cars are very inaccurate but do provide a start for modifying as any improvement is going the right direction.

When based with such evidence I reckon that what Dyno reading is at the very least objective and should be taken as such, I don't have a problem with anyone believing in that they said and quoting figures I just reckon the measurements for AWD cars will be out some what.

As for the GT3 being the right comparison to a R8, unless the ride quality of the GT3 has improved hugely over the last model there is no way anyone would even consider it over a 997 4S if in their choice of cars were a R8. I know the Porsche range quite well and have spent time in most of them, though the 997GT3 has not been one of them so I will base my opinion on the previous model if that OK.

sticky
April 15th, 2007, 09:31
sticky,

My opinion about is based not only from EVO magazines' roadtest partner which supplies the figures use in their papers and someone know has little to gain by saying something like this and AMD another tuner specializing in tuning Audi, VW, Porsche and others including BMW. They all say the baseline figures for AWD cars are very inaccurate but do provide a start for modifying as any improvement is going the right direction.

When based with such evidence I reckon that what Dyno reading is at the very least objective and should be taken as such, I don't have a problem with anyone believing in that they said and quoting figures I just reckon the measurements for AWD cars will be out some what.

As for the GT3 being the right comparison to a R8, unless the ride quality of the GT3 has improved hugely over the last model there is no way anyone would even consider it over a 997 4S if in their choice of cars were a R8. I know the Porsche range quite well and have spent time in most of them, though the 997GT3 has not been one of them so I will base my opinion on the previous model if that OK.
Basing a comment on a pervious model is not the way to go. Don't you think you should know for sure before making a comment like that the GT3 can not be a daily driver? Check out a 997 GT3, read about it, see if they will let you drive one (most likely not, as they are all spoken for the next 2 years). Your beloved EVO magazine loves the damn thing, didn't you read their car of the year issue? It lost out by half a point I think to the 599 which makes sense considering porsche won the 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005 car of the year competitions.

Your thinking on dyno's is very wrong. They are an integral tool in the automotive community. A dyno reading is not set in stone but gives perspective. If they were innacurate why would they use them? Why would they make different dyno's for AWD cars? I think you will find regardless of dyno a GT3 will put down more hp than an R8, period. There must be something to it if the GT3 with less hp and less displacement is able to out muscle an R8 (in reality more hp, ratings can be deceiving as in this case). The motor is highly underrated, 385 wheel hp is over 100 wheel horsepower per liter, simply amazing, no production motor does this, not even the f430 or carrera GT. Perhaps it is even a bargain having a cheaper base than the r8.

The AWD version of the 911 is not the only competitor to the R8. There is no RWD version of the R8, so the only one we can choose is AWD by default. I don't think that only C4S buyers are going to look at the R8, carrera S buyers would as well. The nice thing about porsche is they have every base covered, RWD, AWD, lightweight, turbo, naturally aspirated, etc. I don't think the GT3 is really the main competitor but it clearly can be compared due to the pricing. The GT3 is clearly a more visceral experience.

M3 owner
April 15th, 2007, 10:17
What is w/ this M3 OBSESSION ?
Audi can't release a car without some 1 here wondering if it's faster then an M3.
If u r so obsessed w/ an M3 why don't u just buy 1 instead of an Audi ?

Leadfoot
April 15th, 2007, 10:22
What is w/ this M3 OBSESSION ?
Audi can't release a car without some 1 here wondering if it's faster then an M3.
If u r so obsessed w/ an M3 why don't u just buy 1 instead of an Audi ?

I think you need to read the start of this thread and you will see that it was discussed on an M3 forum. Maybe it's M3 owners obsession with beating Audis to is the problem.:D

bastordd
April 15th, 2007, 15:41
The R8 is more fast than M3 in circuit and drag race!
0-200 in 14.3 is very fast!

SuperstarDriver
April 15th, 2007, 20:27
the new M3 will not beat RS4 in a drag race or in Nurburgring for example, R8 do not count cause it will humiliate nasty the new M3 with his 30/70 quattro, middle engine and of course those super high tech suspension MagneRide:d
Who wanna bet with me that M3 will not beat RS4?WHO WHO?I Have money who wanna takes this?!
My future RS4 cabriolet in the summer when it will arrive will have a supercharger in which my RS4 will develop 560-580HP, milltek exaust, bigger tires, carbon ceramic brakes, carbon fiber interior and more of this...when it will arrive i will drive 1500km as requested by audi and then let's modificate it:d I will make it an extreme beast...so if any M5/M6 or future M3 CSL or M6 CSL would want to mess with my car i will kick them off...i expect to do 320-330km with the supercharger, but by then i'm so nervous that i can drive the car right now cause it's not possible to get if so fast...Audi exclusive line has their limitations sadly but i will be thankfull to God that it will come in the middle of the summer so i will enjoy the summer with it!

Informer
April 15th, 2007, 23:36
Who wanna bet with me that M3 will not beat RS4?WHO WHO?

Get real, the RS4 has been beaten by an E46 M3 in some instances.

sticky
April 16th, 2007, 00:47
The R8 is more fast than M3 in circuit and drag race!
0-200 in 14.3 is very fast!
Who has recorded a 14.3 0-200? Audi themselves claimed a 14.9 and r8's haven't hit either figure. Once we start seeing some broken in cars I think 14.9 will probably be achieved but car and driver has the fastest test of the R8 to date and wasn't anywhere near a 14.3.

SuperstarDriver
April 16th, 2007, 09:00
really?should i remember to you the time that a superdriver with RS4 has beaten the "mighty" M3,M5,M6, M3 CSL?! 7.58...M6 (the best BMW) was only 8.04sec WITH 87HP more so?!Haha....BMW faster then Audi?!Dream on...
RS4 will beat the crap new M3 saloon, RS5 will beat the crap M3 coupe and M3 CSL coupe, RS6 will definitively kick M5 ass and of course future R8 V10 will beat M6 CSL for sure (but you must wait for both of it) and yes i know R8 is not the rival to M6 but i wanna see that test coming cause it will be very very important to see how Audi has grown up and not challenge BMW but beat them at every category!

sticky
April 16th, 2007, 10:49
really?should i remember to you the time that a superdriver with RS4 has beaten the "mighty" M3,M5,M6, M3 CSL?! 7.58...M6 (the best BMW) was only 8.04sec WITH 87HP more so?!Haha....BMW faster then Audi?!Dream on...
RS4 will beat the crap new M3 saloon, RS5 will beat the crap M3 coupe and M3 CSL coupe, RS6 will definitively kick M5 ass and of course future R8 V10 will beat M6 CSL for sure (but you must wait for both of it) and yes i know R8 is not the rival to M6 but i wanna see that test coming cause it will be very very important to see how Audi has grown up and not challenge BMW but beat them at every category!

What the f*ck are you on?

Leadfoot
April 16th, 2007, 11:22
Sorry superstardriver but all of your info is wrong. Both the M6 and RS4's times are the same. As for what the RS5 will do to the M3 or M3 CSL, lets see how well the S5 performs and then discuss the merit of it before moving on to a car that hasn't a release date set.

The post is about the M3 being quicker than a R8 which was started by some M3 owners on another site. Lets get back on topic please.

RXBG
April 16th, 2007, 15:05
sticky. this is another warning. you have posted offensive responses almost twice in a row.

KresoF1
April 16th, 2007, 15:46
First full test of R8(with all acceleration measurements) will be published in the next issue of German AMS on 25th April(Issue 10/2007).

So, let's wait with this almost pointless discussion(at least IMHO) till then...
BTW, do not be shocked if test resluts do not meet all expectations...

New M3 fast as R8? In straight line and on the dry road answer is yes. On the track or twisties? Answer is no. Of course IMHO...

Informer
April 16th, 2007, 21:07
New M3 fast as R8? In straight line and on the dry road answer is yes. On the track or twisties? Answer is no. Of course IMHO...

I think it would be better to compare the R8 to the CSL for the track or twisties, even though the R8 is double the price of a CSL.

SuperstarDriver
April 16th, 2007, 21:12
it doesn't compare new M3 with R8...R8 is much faster, way more handlling and very very precise machine, i don't care about BMW statements but if you see how thinks grow up in the last 10 years you shall see that BMW is looking at Audi to develop their M cars and thei also think they could beat them but they couldn't of course!

Leadfoot
April 16th, 2007, 21:38
I think it would be better to compare the R8 to the CSL for the track or twisties, even though the R8 is double the price of a CSL.

The CSL was a very special car for BMW and history has shown that even with what was learned from the CSL exercise, BMW still haven't developed a car to better it. If someone was to tell me that the R8 was even better than a CSL in the handling department than I would class that as very high praise indeed.:thumb:

Informer
April 16th, 2007, 22:00
What do you mean. Isn't the R8 a supercar or something. No compromises in the handling department? I should kill the CSL's 7:50 ring time.

RXBG
April 16th, 2007, 22:16
i don't think it'll kill it, but i think it will be no slower. which would say alot given the luxury and smoothness it has that the CSL will never have.

what might be interesting is the so called M6 CSL. i wonder if bmw will "soften" their new CSL models a bit in order to show an even more multifaceted overachieveing nature. that is an area they have yet to touch audi on.

Informer
April 16th, 2007, 22:20
What luxury & smoothness are you talking about? Where is the engine in the R8? I'm not familiar with the setup. How high is the centre of gravity? Does it have back seats & a trunk? Does it have all these compromises which affect handling?

OfftheHeZie
April 16th, 2007, 22:58
RXBG is talking about ride comfort and luxury equipment that the R8 has that the CSL does not. Having a mid-engine configuration and only 2 seats does not change that. Considering the compromises of the past CSL I think it would be fair to assume future CSL's to be lacking in creature comforts. The M3 CSL's time is amazing regardless, especially considering when it was conceived. Would R-Compound tires on the R8 show considerable time improvement with AWD?

~Mason

sticky
April 16th, 2007, 23:21
sticky. this is another warning. you have posted offensive responses almost twice in a row.
Do you only read my posts?

Informer
April 16th, 2007, 23:23
Having a mid-engine configuration and only 2 seats does not change that.

Yeah, but what that does change is the c0mpromises on the handling front. I looked up some articles on thise site & it seems my initial assumptions were correct. The R8 is a built-from-the-ground-up sports car designed for ultimate handling. The ride height & Cog are much lower than the CSL.

The CSL is based on the E46 & so have many compromises. Do you understand what it involves when having a design sheet with no back seats to worry about? The CSL didn't even have a blank design sheet as it is the E46 chassis it has. The suspension was changed & the roof, & the track was made wider.

The R8 is a rear-engined car, with no back seats & a high-tech tubular chassis. With lots more power and the all-conquering quattro system. The CSL is an E46 with a Carbon roof. Surely you realise that it shouldn't even be a contest & the R8 should lap the CSL around the Ring. 7:50 is a no brainer.

sticky
April 16th, 2007, 23:24
What do you mean. Isn't the R8 a supercar or something. No compromises in the handling department? I should kill the CSL's 7:50 ring time.
It should kill it as a mid engine, but it won't. It will be interesting to see if BMW goes forward with the rumored Z10 mid engine car based around the M5 v10 and then we can have more of a direct comparison. Comparing a mid engine v8 sports car to a 2001 6 cylinder front engine 4 seater sounds far off but definitely shows just how good of a car BMW built.

sticky
April 16th, 2007, 23:25
What luxury & smoothness are you talking about? Where is the engine in the R8? I'm not familiar with the setup. How high is the centre of gravity? Does it have back seats & a trunk? Does it have all these compromises which affect handling?
Nice post ;)

I was trying to figure out the luxury and smoothness as well.

OfftheHeZie
April 17th, 2007, 00:35
You act as if it was said the R8 would destroy the M3 around The Ring. The M3 was and is an unbelievable machine, as well as the CSL. The R8 is definately built as a sports car, and you act like BMW did not intend to make the M3 or the CSL as great as they are. What was said was the R8 has more creature comforts than an M3, and especially the CSL. If the R8 does "kill" the CSL's time around the ring, it would be an even more amazing machine than it already is.

~Mason

OfftheHeZie
April 17th, 2007, 00:41
One other thing. If Audi based their design philosophy around RWD architecture to make high performance and ultimate driving machines, and a purpose to "kill" an M3, they would have easily accomplished it by now. Audi's engineering department has done wonders with their AWD architecture in making high performance machines with front-engine configurations. The RS4 is a testament of it, no matter how late it came after the E46 conception. So I think this sarcasm and comments about the M3 and CSL vs Audi high-performance machines is unneccessary. Audi's are amazing cars as well as BMW's.

~Mason

Informer
April 17th, 2007, 01:00
Wow, did they bult the R8 for the creature comforts? Must be like a Rolls inside. But then they went & put the engine behind the driver's head. That must take away a bit of the "creature comforts".

So what, they put the creature cup holders, but make a loud V8 on a spaceframe chassis a few inched behind your head.

Don't kid yourself, the R8 is for performance. That's why it doesn't have back seats. The S6 is for creature comforts.

And it will not be a more amazing creature comfort extraodinaire if it beats the CSL around the Ring. This is a rear engined 2 seater with a 420hp engine. it HAS to beat the CSL. What you think it will be a bonus if it beats the CSL?

OfftheHeZie
April 17th, 2007, 01:06
Did I say they built the R8 for creature comforts, or that it has more. Did I say it wasn't a performance machine? I don't understand why you post things with that "holy BMW" attitude when they are not arguments to what I stated.

~Mason

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 01:08
Comparing a mid engine v8 sports car to a 2001 6 cylinder front engine 4 seater sounds far off but definitely shows just how good of a car BMW built.

For once sticky I agree with you, but the important word you used in your statement was 'built' as past tense. The CSL was a landmark model for BMW which to this date they haven't beaten or even got close to beating, so like I say, if the R8 beats the CSL then that is very high praise indeed.

Regardless of where the engine is the R8 has moved the game on for Audi and the sports/supercar market. The luxury/smoothness that RXGB rightly talks about is with regards to the smoothness of the ride quality and the luxury being the quality of the components, be it the steering, gearbox, even right down to the stitching on the leather. Every pre-review carried out with the car has commented on a ride quality, the equal of any luxury car and the control the suspension has over bad surfaces. One might think what is the need for such things in a supercar, but Audi have wanted to give the R8 a wider audience than most manufacturers, the 997 has for a very long time had this part of the market for most usable supercar to themselves, what Audi have done it not only given us a much prettier car which combines elegance with supercar looks but makes the Porsche look dated and common and when you compared their abilities in handling and feel the differences in their ride I think we will be amazed as to how Audi have done it.

To compare the R8 to a yet to be launched M6CSL is just silly, the two cars will only be the same in their capability to cover ground because after that the two will go their separate ways, the R8 providing this capability with it's amazing ride quality and the CSL with it's raw experience. Two car achieving the same results but catering for the opposite customers.

And as the wheather the M3 will be the equal of the R8, lets see what it does against the RS4 first and then take it from there.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 01:10
Wow, did they bult the R8 for the creature comforts? Must be like a Rolls inside. But then they went & put the engine behind the driver's head. That must take away a bit of the "creature comforts".

So what, they put the creature cup holders, but make a loud V8 on a spaceframe chassis a few inched behind your head.

Don't kid yourself, the R8 is for performance. That's why it doesn't have back seats. The S6 is for creature comforts.

And it will not be a more amazing creature comfort extraodinaire if it beats the CSL around the Ring. This is a rear engined 2 seater with a 420hp engine. it HAS to beat the CSL. What you think it will be a bonus if it beats the CSL?
Nothing really comes close to the interior of a Rolls, trust me ;)

The R8 is based on a the gallardo chasis. I don't see any performance compromises, other than AWD (take it how you will, some people want AWD, porsche gives you the option, either way it adds weight.) This is the first time Audi has a vehicle with more weight in the back than the front. The r8 isn't a luxury sedan, it is a sports car.

I hope it does beat the CSL as it should, 120k mid engine sports car, and we are comparing it to an out of production 3 series chasis?

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 01:20
For once sticky I agree with you, but the important word you used in your statement was 'built' as past tense. The CSL was a landmark model for BMW which to this date they haven't beaten or even got close to beating, so like I say, if the R8 beats the CSL then that is very high praise indeed.

Regardless of where the engine is the R8 has moved the game on for Audi and the sports/supercar market. The luxury/smoothness that RXGB rightly talks about is with regards to the smoothness of the ride quality and the luxury being the quality of the components, be it the steering, gearbox, even right down to the stitching on the leather. Every pre-review carried out with the car has commented on a ride quality, the equal of any luxury car and the control the suspension has over bad surfaces. One might think what is the need for such things in a supercar, but Audi have wanted to give the R8 a wider audience than most manufacturers, the 997 has for a very long time had this part of the market for most usable supercar to themselves, what Audi have done it not only given us a much prettier car which combines elegance with supercar looks but makes the Porsche look dated and common and when you compared their abilities in handling and feel the differences in their ride I think we will be amazed as to how Audi have done it.

To compare the R8 to a yet to be launched M6CSL is just silly, the two cars will only be the same in their capability to cover ground because after that the two will go their separate ways, the R8 providing this capability with it's amazing ride quality and the CSL with it's raw experience. Two car achieving the same results but catering for the opposite customers.

And as the wheather the M3 will be the equal of the R8, lets see what it does against the RS4 first and then take it from there.
How exactly is BMW supposed to beat their M3 when their new M3 hasn't hit the streets yet? You better believe the new M3 is going to be even more impressive than the CSL. And if there is another CSL, watch out.

The looks argument is completely subjective. What about the upsides to porsche having reserved styling? First of all, when a new model is launched the older ones don't look completely outdated. Second of all, the 911 silhouette is an expression of reserved beauty that has been around for 40 years. The 911 will never look dated, as it is a classic. Some people still say the 993 is the best looking 911 ever, and it is hard to fault them. The R8 pays the price for pushing the design edge as the design will quickly wear in comparison. The successor, if there is one, will have to go to extreme lengths to retain this quality. Not to mention how porsche tends to hold its value vs. audi due to their restraint. I find it impossible for someone to find the 997 ugly unless they hate 911's. The r8 definitely is a fresh design.

Audi also has 1 R8 currently. They aren't beating the 911, the 911 can't be beat, they would have had to start 40 years ago. Porsche gives every variation possible, naturally aspirated, turbocharged, lightweight rwd, AWD, whatever you desire. Audi priced themselves too high to truly compete with the base 911. Not to mention sales will never approach 911 levels, so thinking Audi has beat the 911 is not correct, the 911 won before the R8 ever started. The argument could be made that porsche offers more car for less money. I don't think Audi fans should be thinking the R8 is beating the 911, but be thrilled that Audi offers a competitor. If you spend R8 money on a 911 you are in a GT3 or turbo, how will the R8 stack up to those?

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 01:21
Wow, did they bult the R8 for the creature comforts? Must be like a Rolls inside. But then they went & put the engine behind the driver's head. That must take away a bit of the "creature comforts".

So what, they put the creature cup holders, but make a loud V8 on a spaceframe chassis a few inched behind your head.

Don't kid yourself, the R8 is for performance. That's why it doesn't have back seats. The S6 is for creature comforts.

And it will not be a more amazing creature comfort extraodinaire if it beats the CSL around the Ring. This is a rear engined 2 seater with a 420hp engine. it HAS to beat the CSL. What you think it will be a bonus if it beats the CSL?

I am at a lose as to why a car with only 2 seats can't combine luxury and creature comforts.:eye: Ferrari made the F430 as any out and out racer but the 599 adds to this luxury and comforts, Porsche make the GT3 as an out and out racer but also build the Turbo which combines the speed and handling but in a more luxurious form. Who here would class and EVO more luxurious than a 997Turbo just because it has four seats & doors, none.

The CSL is a trackday car that was built on a coupe's chassis, there was something very special done to the car for it to knock 30 seconds off it's standard car time, think about it, in only 15+ laps it would have lapped the standard M3. It not as luxurious as the R8, it just a trackday car like a GT3 which doesn't need to be trailered to the track, that's all.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 01:28
I am at a lose as to why a car with only 2 seats can't combine luxury and creature comforts.:eye: Ferrari made the F430 as any out and out racer but the 599 adds to this luxury and comforts, Porsche make the GT3 as an out and out racer but also build the Turbo which combines the speed and handling but in a more luxurious form. Who here would class and EVO more luxurious than a 997Turbo just because it has four seats & doors, none.

The CSL is a trackday car that was built on a coupe's chassis, there was something very special done to the car for it to knock 30 seconds off it's standard car time, think about it, in only 15+ laps it would have lapped the standard M3. It not as luxurious as the R8, it just a trackday car like a GT3 which doesn't need to be trailered to the track, that's all.
The CSL was built on the E46 chasis, which is a sedan chasis. The 3 series coupe still has 4 seats, and yes 2 doors.

He isn't saying a car is more luxurious because it has more doors. He is saying that there are compromises in the design of a sedan with a higher center of gravity and being front engine that are not in a dedicated mid engine sports car.

Saying the GT3 and CSL are trackday only cars is wrong thinking, we went over this before. The GT3, especially the 997, is now an accomplished all around car. The suspension is adjustable and you can adjust the ride to suit you. These are not cars with lexan windows, no AC, no leather, no radio, no navigation, and one seat, especially in the case of the new GT3.. They are built as cars for the street with a racecar pedigree.

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 01:33
I don't think Audi fans should be thinking the R8 is beating the 911, but be thrilled that Audi offers a competitor. If you spend R8 money on a 911 you are in a GT3 or turbo, how will the R8 stack up to those?

The price must be different in the US to the UK. The 997 turbo is all but £20K more expensive and you already know my views on the GT3 so there is no need to go there. I agree that it won't retain the value of a Porsche but then no car does and as for the looks, again it's objective and everyone does have their own tastes, I like Porsches and they have been in the family off and on for quite a few years now, but I personally think it needs to change and in fact drop the rear-engined layout but that is for another post and not this one.

And as for beating Porsche in all it's forms, it only has to be two, the Carrera S and the 4S, all the others are safe as far as I am concerned.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 01:38
The price must be different in the US to the UK. The 997 turbo is all but £20K more expensive and you already know my views on the GT3 so there is no need to go there. I agree that it won't retain the value of a Porsche but then no car does and as for the looks, again it's objective and everyone does have their own tastes, I like Porsches and they have been in the family off and on for quite a few years now, but I personally think it needs to change and in fact drop the rear-engined layout but that is for another post and not this one.

And as for beating Porsche in all it's forms, it only has to be two, the Carrera S and the 4S, all the others are safe as far as I am concerned.
We went over the pricing. 108k for a 6 speed R8, 106k for a 997 GT3, base to base. R-tronic 118k vs. turbo 122k, in the US. So maybe they priced themselves too high in the US? Just because Audi prices themselves like a 911 turbo does not mean they are on that level. There were so many threads where people said I was crazy saying the R8 would come at 130k, and looks like it will for an r-tronic with some options, and much more if someone wants ceramic brakes. I said the R8 is not almost 50k better than a carrera S.

If I am looking for a sports car, I don't see how the R8 would be better than the GT3, from a fun to drive perspective, especially for more money. It will take a v10 R8 for a lot more money (why not just get a gallardo) to try to match the GT3. The R8 will not appeal based on performance for the dollar but for exlusivity and design. I still think 130k for an Audi doesn't sound right.

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 01:38
The CSL was built on the E46 chasis, which is a sedan chasis. The 3 series coupe still has 4 seats, and yes 2 doors.

He isn't saying a car is more luxurious because it has more doors. He is saying that there are compromises in the design of a sedan with a higher center of gravity and being front engine that are not in a dedicated mid engine sports car.

Saying the GT3 and CSL are trackday only cars is wrong thinking, we went over this before. The GT3, especially the 997, is now an accomplished all around car. The suspension is adjustable and you can adjust the ride to suit you. These are not cars with lexan windows, no AC, no leather, no radio, no navigation, and one seat, especially in the case of the new GT3.. They are built as cars for the street with a racecar pedigree.

I have driven a 997 GT3 now sticky, and yes the ride has improved but your perspective of comfort must be different to mine. The car is still to hard to be classed as an allrounder, and the thing still dances over the road when the surface is bad, I think the roads in your part of the world are much better than mine because over here no one would class the GT3 as an everyday mode of transport. It an important just not enough.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 01:55
I have driven a 997 GT3 now sticky, and yes the ride has improved but your perspective of comfort must be different to mine. The car is still to hard to be classed as an allrounder, and the thing still dances over the road when the surface is bad, I think the roads in your part of the world are much better than mine because over here no one would class the GT3 as an everyday mode of transport. It an important just not enough.
Whoa whoa whoa, when exactly did this GT3 drive take place? In between your posts of having to check one out since the other day and this one?

Dances all over the road? Are you sure it was a GT3? The GT3 is glued to the road like nothing else. Maybe the roads are better, or my back is, I mean my friends 996 GT3 was comfortable enough for me, and I love the feeling of feedback that a porsche gives that no one else seems to be able to match. Dozens of old men who actually own the car seem to think it is good enough to be driven everyday, so I think I will stick with their opinion as well as that of the autmotive press. Motortrend has a review of the 997 GT3 up, check it out.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 02:00
I have driven a 997 GT3 now sticky, and yes the ride has improved but your perspective of comfort must be different to mine. The car is still to hard to be classed as an allrounder, and the thing still dances over the road when the surface is bad, I think the roads in your part of the world are much better than mine because over here no one would class the GT3 as an everyday mode of transport. It an important just not enough.
This is from the review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0705_2007_porsche_911_gt3/index.html:


The overall mood is confident, suave, refined. The engine sounds like a standard 911's-at least until your right foot crushes the pedal, whereupon the exhaust butterflies open and the sound explodes into THX surround. The firm chassis doesn't beat you up, absorbing road irregularities as if the shocks were working in syrup and never stepping out of line. The variable-ratio steering is simply brilliant, heavy but full of life and always keeping your fingertips apprised of cornering loads. The seats apparently are capable of performing body magnetism, such is the security of their embrace.

The previous GT3 endeavored to combine race-car brio with road-car liveability, but this new GT3 has truly achieved that unlikely marriage. Performance has improved right along with road manners. You could drive the GT3 every day in complete comfort (watch your left calf muscle slowly grow after regular workouts with the Bowflex clutch pedal). The GT3 even delivers remarkably reasonable fuel economy

OfftheHeZie
April 17th, 2007, 02:25
Everyone has their opinion. It doesn't make Motortrend's word gospel. This is all off-topic, but I like the GT3 as well as the last generation GT3. However, since the R8 came out, I feel as if Audi really pulled something great out of their ass in my opinion. Meaning, I feel as if they made a really amazing looking car that actually made it to production without many compromises from it's original concept. I can't wait.

~Mason

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 02:35
Everyone has their opinion. It doesn't make Motortrend's word gospel. This is all off-topic, but I like the GT3 as well as the last generation GT3. However, since the R8 came out, I feel as if Audi really pulled something great out of their ass in my opinion. Meaning, I feel as if they made a really amazing looking car that actually made it to production without many compromises from it's original concept. I can't wait.

~Mason

Of course motortrend isn't gospel but the point was to illustrate the car isn't exactly a track day special and that it is completely realistic to expect to drive it every day and so is a viable R8 competitor.

The R8 really is great, but they didn't pull it out of their ass so to speak they built it out of the parts bin. Which is a good thing, who knows what the cost would have been if they had designed a motor and chasis solely for the R8 instead of modifying what they already had.

OfftheHeZie
April 17th, 2007, 02:44
True, but the aesthetics look wilder and better than a Gallardo in my opinion.

~Mason

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 07:10
This is from the review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0705_2007_porsche_911_gt3/index.html:

sticky,

I take it you haven't actually drove the 997 GT3 and are quoting from a test because of this. Well I can tell you, it may have improved but to regards this as comfortable to drive daily requires the sort of commitment that most people will not have, that is why Porsche build the Turbo and will build possibly 10 times more of them per year.

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 07:13
To say the car was design and pulled together from a parts bin is a little unfair. That would be like me saying the same about the M3CSL and we both know that would be just as unfair.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 07:46
sticky,

I take it you haven't actually drove the 997 GT3 and are quoting from a test because of this. Well I can tell you, it may have improved but to regards this as comfortable to drive daily requires the sort of commitment that most people will not have, that is why Porsche build the Turbo and will build possibly 10 times more of them per year.
What I have tried to show you is that actual owners, most of them, seem to have the commitment to drive the car every day. I am sure the same people that would be willing to drive an R8 every day would be the same individuals taht would drive a GT3 every day. The quoting from the magazine was to illustrate that professionals who deal with many more cars hands on than anyone find it acceptable. Their opinion carries more weight than yours. Another thing, you yourself said you didn't know much about the 997 GT3 and your comments were based on the past one. The link was to help you.

The turbo is a different beast, big power, big torque, different powerband, easily modded, what creature comforts does the turbo have that the GT3 doesn't? PASM, PCM, seats, ect. can all be specced. The pilot sport cups supposedly have a softer ride than all year radials.

I have not driven a 997 GT3, haven't had the chance yet. Have driven and ridden in the 996, and from what I have read from magazines and owners the 997 is much more comfortable.

I still find it a little hard to believe you drove a 997 gt3 on short notice? When did this take place? How? Who's was it? And you were able to determine in your professional opinion that most people would not want to drive it daily in this short stint? Did you take it on a test drive to the grocery store? Something doesn't sound right.

sticky
April 17th, 2007, 07:49
To say the car was design and pulled together from a parts bin is a little unfair. That would be like me saying the same about the M3CSL and we both know that would be just as unfair.
Well perhaps that was overgeneralized, there are of course large changes, but it is accurate. The CSL can't be a parts bin car because CSL bits can not be found on any other BMW model.

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 09:28
Well perhaps that was overgeneralized, there are of course large changes, but it is accurate. The CSL can't be a parts bin car because CSL bits can not be found on any other BMW model.

Some the chassis, engine, gearbox and diff didn't come from the M3 then, sorry then I stand corrected.

As for the GT3, it was on Sunday and the car was the dealer's stock that he took home over the weekend on my request. I told you I was very friendly with the dealer and excluding the Carrera GT I can get to drive any Porsche I choice.

sticky2
April 17th, 2007, 11:16
Some the chassis, engine, gearbox and diff didn't come from the M3 then, sorry then I stand corrected.

As for the GT3, it was on Sunday and the car was the dealer's stock that he took home over the weekend on my request. I told you I was very friendly with the dealer and excluding the Carrera GT I can get to drive any Porsche I choice.
I don't think you understood, the M3 CSL obvously has to be based on the M3, it is the CSL version of the M3. BMW did not later decide to take CSL attributes and apply them to a "new" car for Mini.

So they just gave you a 997 GT3 at your beck and call? This is a very rare car, even more so in the UK. Plus if I was buying a new GT3 I would find excess miles suspect. I am not calling you a liar I just believe that is an amazing coincidence on such short notice. What color was it? What about the interior details? You didn't take a picture? No more details at getting a chance to drive one of the best sports cars in the world?

Leadfoot
April 17th, 2007, 11:43
Sticky, I can still call you that.

The car happens to have one which is part of the dealers own, one of a few including a Cayenne Turbo. It not a case that it was at short notice because I had asked to see it more than a couple of weeks ago and this weekend he happen to bring this home instead of his normal Cayenne.

In your statement you are basically calling me a liar, asking for the evidence proves as much.

At this rate we will be seeing a STICKY 3.

Erik
April 17th, 2007, 14:11
sticky, sticky2 etc. you have been banned.

You're not welcome here any longer and you know why. Banned two times in one day is a new record.

I didn't think I would have to IP ban you to make you understand our message.

When, or if, you get your R8. E-mail me a picture and promise me you can behave like a gentleman and I will reconsider. Until then...so long.

m3fan
April 21st, 2007, 19:06
Some of the BMW guys seem to think so:
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=156442&page=2


The RS4 weighs 500 lbs more than the R8 and will be close to the M3 in terms of performance, so the R8 will likely toast the M3....

I'm not saying the M3 is faster but even if it was, I would take the R8 over the M3 hands down. But I don't see how it would be faster in a strait line. R8 more torque , mid-rear engine, and AWD. US spec M's don't get the "REAL" launch control, front engine. Now maybe the future CSL M3 would be faster but not the regular one.:nono:

RXBG
April 22nd, 2007, 03:19
I'm not saying the M3 is faster but even if it was, I would take the R8 over the M3 hands down. But I don't see how it would be faster in a strait line. R8 more torque , mid-rear engine, and AWD. US spec M's don't get the "REAL" launch control, front engine. Now maybe the future CSL M3 would be faster but not the regular one.:nono:

from published data by bmw and audi for the euro models of the cars without driver (75 kg) the R8 is lighter by about 20 kg.

a great deal may have to do with gearing, and power loss by the awd system on the R8, as well as weight distribution, and the mild torque differences between the cars. the R8 will be faster. but i don't think it will obliterate the M3.

where it will come close to obliterating the M3 will be in the handling department, i think, but we will need to see some solid performance data by R & T.

i am looking forward to it, though i think most car mags will drive the M6 alongside the R8, rather than the M3.

guessWHO
April 22nd, 2007, 11:52
M3 has no chance against the R8

Leadfoot
April 22nd, 2007, 13:14
I reckon that like the RS4, the M3 will indeed perform the acceleration exercise very closely to that of a R8v8, after all their power, torque and weight are all quite close. And I also believe that in handling terms all again will be close in the average person's hands because all of these cars can corner better than most of us will push them.

But in the right hands like a professional he/she will be able to make the R8 work it's magic and pull out a gap on any given road or track. If for a moment we can entertain the notion that the R8 will post a time of 8:00, the M3 8:05 and the RS4 8:09 all on the ring, how far in front will the R8 be over the M3 and RS4. I reckon based on the top speed of the M3 and RS4 being 160mph the it would take the M3 350 meters to cover the 5 seconds of difference and the RS4 will that 640 meters to cover it's 9 seconds of difference at their topspeed. But the difference is based on the lap starting and stopping somewhere on this main straight, if it happened to be after the main straight and where it does on the Playstation's GT4 then the cars would only be travelling at best 60mph and the gap would be only 130 meters and 240 meters respectively.

I hope this shows the real difference in distance that the respective times meant between all to these cars.:thumb:

Leadfoot
April 22nd, 2007, 19:47
Is it just me or has everyone noticed how nice and peaceful things are, now that certain people are no longer posting on the site. :thumb:

Now we can all get back to the serious job of discussing which paint finish suit that interior colour best. ;)

QuattroFun
April 23rd, 2007, 21:18
Indeed more peaceful and all for the better - but besides the paint, we should be able to cope with the proposition that the M3 will probably be in terms of numbers - acceleration or track times - pretty close to the R8.

I have been the first to say that decimals in the numbers do not matter. That said, if it turns out that the M3 is too close to the R8 also on the track (i.e. within 5s on the Ring with same tyres, weather and driver) - the R8 main forte and purpose as it is not an everday car like the RS4 but a two-seater mid-engine car - we should in all honesty start ask ourselves certain questions...

El_cucaracha
April 23rd, 2007, 21:32
one M3forum i noticed that those fools think that M5(E39) is faster than RS6...
they say that M3(E46) CSL is faster than RS4 and that M3 is faster than S4.... heh... i've seen lots of jokers, but these guys are different, hilarious... :rotflmao: :applause:

Leadfoot
April 24th, 2007, 00:19
one M3forum i noticed that those fools think that M5(E39) is faster than RS6...
they say that M3(E46) CSL is faster than RS4 and that M3 is faster than S4.... heh... i've seen lots of jokers, but these guys are different, hilarious... :rotflmao: :applause:

I think all races are 50/50, some you will, some you lose. I don't think all RS6s will be all the M5s and likewise for the other two comparison. But as an overall average for each model I would agree with your opinion that the RS6 is quicker and the RS4 but not the S4, from personal experience my S4v8 was a quickie and this was seen when it raced another S4 a couple of years ago.

Sad to say it but I would put an M3 on average quicker than a S4v8 though there is the odd exception to the rule. :D

RXBG
April 24th, 2007, 01:50
Indeed more peaceful and all for the better - but besides the paint, we should be able to cope with the proposition that the M3 will probably be in terms of numbers - acceleration or track times - pretty close to the R8.

I have been the first to say that decimals in the numbers do not matter. That said, if it turns out that the M3 is too close to the R8 also on the track (i.e. within 5s on the Ring with same tyres, weather and driver) - the R8 main forte and purpose as it is not an everday car like the RS4 but a two-seater mid-engine car - we should in all honesty start ask ourselves certain questions...

i think that is a good point. if it were the case that the R8 and new M3 perform similarly the justification for the R8 will lie in its exotic physical presence, which the M3 will not achieve. but i do not think the new M3 will put up faster numbers in any way. and the driving experience the R8 will provide will not be touched by the M3's based upon the former's physical layout. and especially if the new M3's ride is as aggressive and punishing as the old one's, an issue no review has accused the R8 of thus far.

IF the M3 puts up numbers within a tenth or two of the R8's, that scenario would be no different than the one shown during one of the top gear episodes where an evo 9 beat (or came close to beating) a murcielago around their track.

we begin to ask ourselves- what makes an exotic or near exotic what they are? perhaps it is sheetmetal, engine layout, and very high speed acceleration that justify ridiculous price tags, not acceleration numbers or brake times.

in the realm of car aficcionado elites like ourselves there is no right answer. only the right kind of discussion, the kind that promotes mutual respect amongst us. that is what makes this theme most interesting and it is why rs6.com is the best at it, from across the ponds that separate us this is where we converge, this is the nexus of gentlemen, and audi, scholars. so yes. let's continue. grab a scotch and lets go.

:)

..... let the discussion continue gents.

OfftheHeZie
April 24th, 2007, 02:51
Sorry to correct you RXBG, :) but the Murcielago was 1.1 seconds faster than the Evo FQ400* around their track. However, they did do that test you speak of and showed the FQ400 could handle the corners as well as the Murcielago.

On Topic:
I'm still not sure yet, until they post a ring time with the 4.2 V8 broken-in. :rs4kiss:

~Mason

RXBG
April 24th, 2007, 03:56
those evo's 8, 9, 10, FQ400.... i just can't keep em straight ;)

1.1 secs---- goes to show. maybe the R8 will only be that much faster than the M3 when they tests it.

i'll spill the extra dough for the R8. who needs a davidoff 100th anniversary edition ashtray anyway.

OfftheHeZie
April 24th, 2007, 04:11
Agreed. But for some reason I should be thinking about the R8 but I'm only thinking about the R230 SLs. They are so damn beautiful to me... Is there something wrong with me? :love: I'm going to be so sad after this year when they drop the R230 chassis. It doesn't seem like they could do much better to me.

~Mason