Autozeitung comparison : S5 vs. 335i

[emve]

German Autozeitung magazine pitted the S5 against a 335i coupe.

S5

0-100 : 5,1s
0-160 : 11,6s
0-200 : 18,3s

braking :
100-0, cold : 35,1m
100-0, warm : 34,5m

handling : 1:44,6 min
slalom : 62,2 km/h

weight : 1721kg

335i coupe (manual)

0-100 : 5,5s
0-160 : 11,9s
0-200 : 19,1s

braking :
100-0, cold : 36,6m
100-0, warm : 34,8m

handling : 1:44,6 min
slalom : 63,0 km/h

weight : 1596kg

The S5 won the comparison.

[Leadfoot]

German Autozeitung magazine pitted the S5 against a 335i coupe.

S5

0-100 : 5,1s
0-160 : 11,6s
0-200 : 18,3s

handling : 1:44,6 min
slalom : 62,2 km/h

weight : 1721kg.

Like I said a few weeks ago.....


Originally by Leadfoot
I have it on good authority that the S5 should be able to post the 0~160km/h in 11.6s and the 0~200km/h in 18.5s.

Looks like what I was told was indeed, spot-on. :thumb:



335i coupe (manual)

0-100 : 5,5s
0-160 : 11,9s
0-200 : 19,1s

handling : 1:44,6 min
slalom : 63,0 km/h

weight : 1596kg

The S5 won the comparison.

Man that 335i is very quick for the little outlay of money involved.:applause:

The times on the handling track weren't what I was expecting but to be fair to S5, the 335i isn't an old dog in the handling department and when you are only talking about going off the track as the worst that could happen if pushed to hard then it all about out-right grip and in this I doubt the S5 will be much if any better than a 335i.

Which track was used, was it tight or quite open? :eye:

P.S.

Not to start an argument with our fellow Beemer Boys, but when we have seen reports of 335i dynoing at 360hp and 360ft/lbs. Again ask the question where is the disadvantage from having awd with regards to power to the wheels? Especially as the S5 is a huge 125Kgs heavier.:vhmmm:

Me thinks dynoing like I already said isn't an exact science. :D

[Leadfoot]

S5 vs M3 manual vs 335i coupe (manual)


0-100 : 5,1s (5.5s) (5.5s)
0-160 : 11,6s (12.3s) (11.9s)
0-200 : 18,3s (19.5s) (19.1s)

weight : 1721kg. (1570Kg) (1596Kg)

Clearly this time round Audi have got there power working at it's best. I wonder if the new MLP setup gives more power to the wheels than the old system. :hahahehe:

[tvrfan]

S5 vs M3 manual vs 335i coupe (manual)


0-100 : 5,1s (5.5s) (5.5s)
0-160 : 11,6s (12.3s) (11.9s)
0-200 : 18,3s (19.5s) (19.1s)

weight : 1721kg. (1570Kg) (1596Kg)

Clearly this time round Audi have got there power working at it's best. I wonder if the new MLP setup gives more power to the wheels than the old system. :hahahehe:

i hope too!!! BMW is working on a lighter X-Drive version to have much less power loss, DAMN audi has to bring this on toooo!!! anyone knows when a new maybe lighter quattro version comes out? i know just the new quattro with torque vectoring but i dont know if its lighter?! :confused:

[The RS6]

S5 vs M3 manual vs 335i coupe (manual)


0-100 : 5,1s (5.5s) (5.5s)
0-160 : 11,6s (12.3s) (11.9s)
0-200 : 18,3s (19.5s) (19.1s)

weight : 1721kg. (1570Kg) (1596Kg)

Clearly this time round Audi have got there power working at it's best. I wonder if the new MLP setup gives more power to the wheels than the old system. :hahahehe:

335i faster than an M3?! :bigeyes:

[chewym]

faster than the last gen m3

[Leadfoot]

335i faster than an M3?! :bigeyes:

Why the surprise, if you have watched any of the races between the two on YOUTUBE you will have seen that the 335i gets the better of the M3 after second gear and slowly but surely pulls away. :bye:

But even more so with the S5. :hihi:

[KK265]

Why the surprise, if you have watched any of the races between the two on YOUTUBE you will have seen that the 335i gets the better of the M3 after second gear and slowly but surely pulls away. :bye:

But even more so with the S5. :hihi:
Not all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3YwyNv5zwk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfrR0JXwgJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIcKWZ66Pvk
Where did you see stock 335i vs M3 E46 stock and winner is 335i?If you mean this 335i:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ4kaeNiPb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw6GwOjtXYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhfAGJBV6wA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGl4zd3zpw
see details at last video.His car is modified a lot...
the 335i is not stock

[Leadfoot]

I know what you are saying KK265, but the first few videos are on an automatic 335i which is over 0.5s slower to 100km/h than a manual version.

The test results are for a manual 335i.

Plus with the last video the way the 335i left the M3 is clearly much greater than the other videos, this is not a slight acceleration difference of the 0.4s to 160km/h quoted above, it more like a good 1.5s quicker don't you think.

[3x5PSI]

E46 M3 is faster than the 335. Sport Auto got it to 200 in 16.8.

[Leadfoot]

E46 M3 is faster than the 335. Sport Auto got it to 200 in 16.8.

Yeah, but that was one of those magical fairy dust covered M3 which could clearly fly. :lovl:

Not one other UK magazine ever came close to matching this time, in fact the best I have every read for an E46 M3 to 160km/h is 12s dead.

[3x5PSI]

Are you saying SPort Auto is rigged? C'mon give it a break man. Car & driver got 13.1 1/4 mile, Sport Auto got 13.0 for that test where it ran to 200 in 16.8.

[Leadfoot]

Are you saying SPort Auto is rigged? C'mon give it a break man. Car & driver got 13.1 1/4 mile, Sport Auto got 13.0 for that test where it ran to 200 in 16.8.


For starters, Car and Driver conduct their tests on a dragstrip, not a normal surface and both times are near enough identical to that of the S5.

So now you are saying the M3 could pull a whole 1.5s on the S5 in the extra 25mph it takes to get to 200km/h, who now needs to give it a break and I reckon stay off the sauce. :doh:

By the way Autocar got their M3 to achieve the 1/4 mile in 13.3s but it still only achieve the 100mph in 12s and didn't post a 125mph (200km/h) anywhere near 16.8s. So am I saying it's rigged, hey if the shoe fits. ;)

[3x5PSI]

Yeah, but that was one of those magical fairy dust covered M3 which could clearly fly. :lovl:

Not one other UK magazine ever came close to matching this time, in fact the best I have every read for an E46 M3 to 160km/h is 12s dead.

Ok so you a bright guy. LEt's use common logic. You say this test is rigged:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m32003-2.htm

Test in ams 1/2003Gewicht 1570 kg0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s0 - 120 km/h 6,5 s0 - 140 km/h 8,5 s0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s


And yet on another continent a totally different US spec M3 ran 0-100mph in 11.2:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/4227/bmw-m3-page4.html

Bear in mind the US spec M3 has slightly less power.

[3x5PSI]

So now you are saying the M3 could pull a whole 1.5s on the S5 in the extra 25mph it takes to get to 200km/h,


No I am not saying that. You are obviously a magazine racer. You can't work out how much car A will pull on Car B based on some tests done in different places with different timing equipment. But an M3 will pull an S5 at those speeds, I can't say if it will be 1.5 secs or what.

And it's a pretty bold statement to say SPort Auto are rigging tests for M3's & M3's only, & only once. I wonder what they would have to gain by doing that. I think they been in business long enough to know better.

[Leadfoot]

And are tested on very sticky dragstrips or are you simply forgetting this little fact.

And by the way the times shown are near enough identical to the times Autocar got from a CSL funny enough, maybe the two cars' times got mixed up in the print.

I can tell you this, NO STANDARD M3 WILL RUN A 16.8s @ 200KM/H .... period.

[Leadfoot]

No I am not saying that. You are obviously a magazine racer. You can't work out how much car A will pull on Car B based on some tests done in different places with different timing equipment. But an M3 will pull an S5 at those speeds, I can't say if it will be 1.5 secs or what.

And it's a pretty bold statement to say SPort Auto are rigging tests for M3's & M3's only, & only once. I wonder what they would have to gain by doing that. I think they been in business long enough to know better.

Sorry, did I miss something, you are stating times from Sport Auto and I am the one who is the magazine racer.

Man you don't know a single thing about me and I reckon I have a lot more respect on this site than you do.

[3x5PSI]

I can tell you this, NO STANDARD M3 WILL RUN A 16.8s @ 200KM/H .... period.

Been done already whether you like it or not. Maybe write a letter to the editor & complain about the time. You never know they may retract the magazine.

[3x5PSI]

Wow, another rigged test:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m3e462005-1.htm

This car is fully optioned with 19" wheels as can be seen on the spec list on the link. It ran 0-160 in 11.0 & 0-200 in 17.6

The one that ran 16.8 had 18" wheels & very few options & was tested in cooler conditions.

I guess its beyond the realms of possibility because you say so.

[Leadfoot]

Wow, another rigged test:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m3e462005-1.htm

This car is fully optioned with 19" wheels as can be seen on the spec list on the link. It ran 0-160 in 11.0 & 0-200 in 17.6

The one that ran 16.8 had 18" wheels & very few options & was tested in cooler conditions.

I guess its beyond the realms of possibility because you say so.

Before we go any farther with this, I already told people that a S5 would post a time of 11.6s to 100mph and around 18.5s for the 125mph mark and this was all before any magazine has even reported test results or quite possibly conducted the test in the first place, I have also reported before any magazine did, that the speed limit of a RS6 would be 300km/h and again how quick it would be capable of accelerating, so you may already get the feeling I know a lot more than most about what cars are capable of and what they are not.

I know how the tests are conducted in the UK magazines and that is why I believe their results 100%, now when they aren't able to achieve a result of 16.8s knowing full well that some of their testers are the holders for the 0-100-0 world records then chances are the car isn't capable of this time. The best time any UK magazine has posted for a CSL never mind a standard M3 is 10.6s and 12.0s for a standard M3 and you are expecting me to believe that the basic car is only 0.3s slower, please do the maths and check the power to weight of both models and then check this with the RS4 and S5, you will see a similar pattern forming. The S5 is a whole second slower to 100mph and just over 2.5 seconds slower by the 125mph mark and remember both car are on similar rubber unlike the two Beemers where the CSL is on super soft semi-race rubber, much better traction off the line.

If the German mags are getting their cars the achieve these times and the UK supplied cars aren't then just maybe there is a difference between the stock supplied in both countries don't you think.

[3x5PSI]

These are 2 different cars tested by well respected mags. I doubt anyone cares what you think is possible or not. I ran it through my simulator & according to the laws of physics its possible. Well of course its possible, it has already happened.

What magazines run in the UK is of no significance. We are talking about a good run in ideal conditions.

[Leadfoot]

3x5PSI,

I tell you what, when I get my S5 I will be sure not to take on any M3s because all this facts and figures have got me a little concerned that I might just get blown away. ;)

P.S.

Any any race I do decide to have, I will make doubly sure that it's with a manual :stick: M3 before I try a rolling start race. :D

[Leadfoot]

These are 2 different cars tested by well respected mags. I doubt anyone cares what you think is possible or not. I ran it through my simulator & according to the laws of physics its possible. Well of course its possible, it has already happened.

What magazines run in the UK is of no significance. We are talking about a good run in ideal conditions.

That explains your arrogance, I think if you ask quite a lot of the members on this board who have read any test conducted by any of the UK Magazines will know how meticulous they are in the process, using only the best of equipment and timing gear all performed at the same locations.

But what the heck, if a simulator says it's so then who am I to disagree.

Lets agree to disagree. :cheers:

[3x5PSI]

But what the heck, if a simulator says it's so then who am I to disagree.

Lets agree to disagree. :cheers:

Well besides the simulator 2 GErman mags & 1 American mag have run those times. But I'm sure all the motoring press on the planet have rigged the times becos in the UK it can't be done. Probably bcause it rains for 9 months there. Because the Brits can't do something doesn't mean its not possible. It has been done so of course its possible. I'm pretty sure even an S5 might run good times under the right conditions. I wouldn't shout that the magazine rigged it if the S5 runs a good time. Magazines inevitably strap their equipment onto a car, run the tests then publish the results. There's no "conspiracy" out there.

[Leadfoot]

Well besides the simulator 2 GErman mags & 1 American mag have run those times. But I'm sure all the motoring press on the planet have rigged the times becos in the UK it can't be done. Probably bcause it rains for 9 months there. Because the Brits can't do something doesn't mean its not possible. It has been done so of course its possible. I'm pretty sure even an S5 might run good times under the right conditions. I wouldn't shout that the magazine rigged it if the S5 runs a good time. Magazines inevitably strap their equipment onto a car, run the tests then publish the results. There's no "conspiracy" out there.

3X5PSI,

If the British roadtesters can't do it then in my opinion it can't be done or should I say drop it's time this much. You could argue that up to a 1 second or so is quite possible but not nearer 3 second, that places the car in to another power bracket completely, so unless the two cars (UK and German) are pulling out a difference of 50hp then I doubt it is possible.

You are right in saying heat will effect the performance of the cars but the difference in N/A engines are very small compared to turbo engines and in any case the UK's temperature is less than most, as for the tests been conducted in the rain, sorry that's just plain silly if this had been the case it would have been reported and I would have known, but as no less than 4 UK magazines have tested the M3 I reckon at least one might have came close to the time but alas no.

With the exception of this M3 every other roadtest conducted by any other magazine with all other cars, they all seems to be very similar to that of UK magazines and this includes the Z4M, M5 and M6, so I again ask the question could there be a difference between the cars supplied.

As for the US tests, I have always said even when the tests involve Audi cars, that the should be disregarded because they are conducted on such a sticky track surface and their results don't reflect true conditions and road surfaces so aren't possibly achievable by their owners.

Alas 3x5PSI, you and I will not see eye to eye on the subject, but there again you don't seem to see eye to eye with quite a few people here. Was it not you who stated that the new RS6 wasn't turboed because you couldn't see the intercoolers at the side.:doh:

[3x5PSI]

Buddy please just concede. I have a British test here where the M3 ran 11.5 to 100mph. Will you accept that? It's from Evo. Will you squirm out if I post it?

[Leadfoot]

Please do.

I remember the test quite well actually and for reasons I will keep to myself. ;)

But I would love to read it again.

[3x5PSI]

Ok my bad I mistook Autocar for Evo. ANyway, remember they test on like an airfield or something. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Whatever it is, they don't have a sticky surface like C&D do.

So let's recap. Sport AUto got 16.8 to 200 & on that run the 1/4 mile was 13.0.

C&D did 0-60 in 4.5, 11.2 to 160, 13.1 1/4 mile.

Here's Autocar.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1573-1/2318820-CSLa_001.jpg

11.5 to 160. Is that really that different to 11.2 the Yanks got? Sport AUto have a much better surface & I know when they ran that time is was very cold as the C32 also ran its best time on that day. Is half a second beyond the realms of reality to 160 especially on a traction-impaired surface like Autocar has?

[Leadfoot]

This was conducted on different occasions and the M3 was a German press car, one of the early ones. On the full road test conducted back in the UK the M3 only achieved a time of 12.0s dead, a time equalled at the 0-100-0 event at Burlington, of course they were different cars.

But steadily the times are get more realistic, first 10.9s, then 11.2s and now 11.5s, soon we will arrive at the magic number of 12s. :D But to use your own posts the Sport Auto car did 160km/h in 10.9s and the 200km/h in 16.8s and in another test a M3 did an almost identical time to 160km/h 11.0s, only 0.1s out yet lost another 0.7s in the next 40km/h.

My problem isn't the 100mph time as much as the 125mph time, to get a 1570kgs car with only 343hp to 125mph in 16.8s isn't possible, it would require a drop in weight or an increase in power. I believe it's the latter in some of the press cars.

[3x5PSI]

, to get a 1570kgs car with only 343hp to 125mph in 16.8s isn't possible.

I'm afraid it is possible as it has been done. And a car with no options, so sunroof, no power seats will weight less than 1570kg. There is a guy with such a car is the US who ran 12.8 1/4 mile stock. These things happen from time to time.

2ndly, any simulator will tell you that it is possible. But like you said we don't need a simulator to tell us what a magazine has already run. I implore you to write a letter to Sport Auto complaining that they lied to the world & ask them for the reasons for their lies.

Another point is that Autocar ran the M3 vs M3 CSL vs M3 tuned. The stock M3 also ran 11.5 on that test to 100mph. I will try to find it & get it online. It was a different M3 to the one in the C55 test above as it was a different colour.

And sure you seem to accept that it's possible for an M3 to run 11.0 to 100mph. Well of course it's possible, it's been done already. But the run to 124mph after than will be determined by the conditions on the day. Running in bad air will a high DA will slow you down after 100mph. Running in cool air with low humidity & pressure will yield significant increases in time after 100mph. Wind resistance becomes a major factor at higher speeds & running in good air can make a big difference.

Sometimes my cars can trap 2-3mph higher on different days with the same fuel, tune, etc just by running in different air on the day. The DA at the day is the 1st thing you look for.

[Leadfoot]

I'm afraid it is possible as it has been done. And a car with no options, so sunroof, no power seats will weight less than 1570kg. There is a guy with such a car is the US who ran 12.8 1/4 mile stock. These things happen from time to time.

Doing a 12.8s 1/4mile run on a dragstrip is a lot more believable than on a public road as you will know, in fact awd will gain very little advantage if any in such conditions.


2ndly, any simulator will tell you that it is possible. But like you said we don't need a simulator to tell us what a magazine has already run. I implore you to write a letter to Sport Auto complaining that they lied to the world & ask them for the reasons for their lies.

Why blame the innocent party, they don't supply the cars.


Another point is that Autocar ran the M3 vs M3 CSL vs M3 tuned. The stock M3 also ran 11.5 on that test to 100mph. I will try to find it & get it online. It was a different M3 to the one in the C55 test above as it was a different colour.

Not all of the cars in this test weren't timed by the way.


And sure you seem to accept that it's possible for an M3 to run 11.0 to 100mph. Well of course it's possible, it's been done already. But the run to 124mph after than will be determined by the conditions on the day. Running in bad air will a high DA will slow you down after 100mph. Running in cool air with low humidity & pressure will yield significant increases in time after 100mph. Wind resistance becomes a major factor at higher speeds & running in good air can make a big difference.

Sometimes my cars can trap 2-3mph higher on different days with the same fuel, tune, etc just by running in different air on the day. The DA at the day is the 1st thing you look for.

The problem I have with these times are the variation, two cars can run to within a tenth of each other to 160km/h yet be over 7 tenth different after another 40km/h, this is more than a sloppy gear change. The reason I talk about the 12s 100mph thing for UK magazine as this is the quickest for a full roadtest and only with a full roadtest is it conducted to exacting standards, with all of the equipment set-up for the job in hand. You talk about running in good air, most if not all the tests over here have be done in temperature less than 25C and most would be down 20C, heck that like winter in the States. But you may already know that numerous runs are carried out with differing techniques to see which gives the best results, unlike a drag race which is a one time deal, mess it up and you're out. You say Sport Auto use a stickier track, I can live with that as a reason for a very quick 0-60mph but after this the take off plays no role in the outcome above this and it's here where the times really go a miss.

It's my opinion and I am not asking you to agree with it.

[3x5PSI]

It can be your opinion but when you accuse highly respected mags of rigging tests, it gets a bit ridiculous. I have run my M3 in the low 17's to 200 when it was stock. As tested by a Racelogic Vbox. My 335 runs 14.5 to 200. You can read up & calculate & tell me that's impossible but that's what it ran.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1425-1/0-200_001.JPG

[Leadfoot]

It can be your opinion but when you accuse highly respected mags of rigging tests, it gets a bit ridiculous. I have run my M3 in the low 17's to 200 when it was stock. As tested by a Racelogic Vbox. My 335 runs 14.5 to 200. You can read up & calculate & tell me that's impossible but that's what it ran.

Is the 335 (BMW I take it) standard ? Because if so then you are right, I don't believe it. :jlol: I roadtested one a while back and yeah they are fast but not to these figures. But then again the petrol is different over there, it's what 93 octane, while over here it ranges from 97~99octane. I know which one should be capable of achieving the better times.

[3x5PSI]

No the 335 most certainly is not stock.

[Leadfoot]

No the 335 most certainly is not stock.

Then yes, but again that would depend on what's been done and how much it's putting to the wheels, but I already knew this from the graph because of the pick up it was having after 50mph, it looks like about then on you were able to use all of the available power. :burnout:

[3x5PSI]

Well it doesn't matter but all the hardware on the car is standard on that run. The point is you would think its impossible for a 335 with stock hardware to run 14.5, but it obviously is possible as it's been done. Sometimes the stars line up & you get a perfect run. There have been plenty times at the track I have seen some of my competitors run a great time & if I wasn't there I would never have believed it.

You can't sit there & say 16.8 0-200 is impossible for an M3. It may be highly unlikely, but it's not impossible. (Well seeing as its been done, it's obviously not impossible).

[Leadfoot]

There is a difference between getting a great start and the other, when I have set times in different cars I never lift the throttle when changing and I will tell you this, that is a lot easier in a rwd car than an awd car.

To achieve these times in a manual is like I say impossible, without LC and SMG to help you along, it isn't do-able.

[3x5PSI]

What isn't do-able? Change gears fast. My 335 is manual, tell me if you can see the 2nd to 3rd ot 3rd to 4th shift on the Vbox graph.

Also bear mind that when you start the gear-change operation, you put the clutch in & do your thing, but the car is still travelling at the speed it was when you dipped the clutch. So it you are doing 160 & start a shift, you still doing 160. You still covering 45 metres per second, you ain't standing still.

Lots of people say, "Oh it takes 0.5 seconds to change gears so you losing half a second." You not. You losing half a second of time you could be accelerating in. Not half a second in elapsed time. And at high speeds the acceleration isn't that much in half a second.

Anyway, I pulled out some logs & worked out the shift times. Easy to do as I have a high speed logger logging MAP, rpm, etc. The MAP sensor sits in the pipe after the intercooler & before the throttle plate. So when the throttle closes there is a boost spike as the boost goes back up the pipe to the dump valves. You will see the boost go up & then immediately start to fall.

When the car is in the next gear & gets load again the boost will start rising again. The boost can only go up when there is load. There is no other way for the boost to start climbing again unless you have engaged the gear. So that's an easy way to tell when the shift it over. Also you can normally see when the rpm starts climbing again that the gear has been engaged, clutch released & the shift is over.

So below is a log of a ripper. Not a power-shift mind you, I did lift, as can be seen by the rpm dropping when the throttle closes. If you powershift the rpm goes up when you engage the clutch.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1567-1/SMG.JPG

So 21.25 - 21.094 = 0.156 secs for the complete shift.

That is the best ever shift, but on average I do about 0.20-0.25 secs. That the same as SMG does.

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0212ec_bmw_e46_m3_shifting/index.html

And pretty much all the guys at the track shift like that.

[Clio16V]

I've got a scan here of Auto Motor und Sport testing the Audi S4/BMW E46 M3/MB C32AMG:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/ErikT595/m3s4c32amg.jpg

[Leadfoot]

Well if you based the times Sport Auto got from that M3 way back then I reckon the recent test of the M3 doesn't say a lot for BMW's new found F1 technology, because clearly there is little or no improvement. :D

No doubt Sport Auto will be able to make this new one fly. ;)

[3x5PSI]

You really can't compare times done by different mags in different countries. Do they use a GPS Racelogic V-box or Datron laser timing or stopwatch or what? How can you compare times done with a certain timing equipment to that done on a different one?

[Arslanoff]

Some times I think that some car mags are using "mississippi one, mississippi two..... and so on" technique to mesure performance of cars!!!

[Leadfoot]

You really can't compare times done by different mags in different countries. Do they use a GPS Racelogic V-box or Datron laser timing or stopwatch or what? How can you compare times done with a certain timing equipment to that done on a different one?

Man, you really need to lighten-up. ;)

[3x5PSI]

Hey I'm all good.

[Leadfoot]

To lighten the mood a little, how do you find the 335i compared to the M3 and are you going to get the new model or hopefully see the light and get yourself an Audi. :D

[Z07]

Before we go any farther with this, I already told people that a S5 would post a time of 11.6s to 100mph and around 18.5s for the 125mph mark and this was all before any magazine has even reported test results or quite possibly conducted the test in the first place, I have also reported before any magazine did, that the speed limit of a RS6 would be 300km/h and again how quick it would be capable of accelerating, so you may already get the feeling I know a lot more than most about what cars are capable of and what they are not.

I know how the tests are conducted in the UK magazines and that is why I believe their results 100%, now when they aren't able to achieve a result of 16.8s knowing full well that some of their testers are the holders for the 0-100-0 world records then chances are the car isn't capable of this time. The best time any UK magazine has posted for a CSL never mind a standard M3 is 10.6s and 12.0s for a standard M3 and you are expecting me to believe that the basic car is only 0.3s slower, please do the maths and check the power to weight of both models and then check this with the RS4 and S5, you will see a similar pattern forming. The S5 is a whole second slower to 100mph and just over 2.5 seconds slower by the 125mph mark and remember both car are on similar rubber unlike the two Beemers where the CSL is on super soft semi-race rubber, much better traction off the line.

If the German mags are getting their cars the achieve these times and the UK supplied cars aren't then just maybe there is a difference between the stock supplied in both countries don't you think.
Good post. Autocar recently ran a 335i 0-100-0 and made 12.49s for the 0-100mph with a 4.33s 0-60mph. Interestingly the 335d made 5.84s for 0-60mph and 0-100mph in 13.77s. Notice that the 335d is faster from 60-100mph!! I generally ignore the 0-60mph time and look at the 60-100 and 100-125mph times. A variety of factors can completely skew 0-60 times.

Given that an RS4 takes 16.6s for 0-125mph and has AWD, the people saying that a RWD M3 can make 0-125mph in 16.8s are actually arguing that a M3 is faster than an RS4 once rolling. This is certainly not the case because RS4s make a much better job of keeping up with my 14 year-old Datsun beater than M3s.

Autocar are about the most mechanically brutal testers on planet Earth. If anyone records a time significantly faster than them, the BS flag flies at full mast. What we must remember is that turbocharged cars are easily tweaked and many unscrupulous manufacturers are well known for tampering with press cars.:mech:

[Leadfoot]

Good post. Autocar recently ran a 335i 0-100-0 and made 12.49s for the 0-100mph with a 4.33s 0-60mph. Interestingly the 335d made 5.84s for 0-60mph and 0-100mph in 13.77s. Notice that the 335d is faster from 60-100mph!! I generally ignore the 0-60mph time and look at the 60-100 and 100-125mph times. A variety of factors can completely skew 0-60 times.

Given that an RS4 takes 16.6s for 0-125mph and has AWD, the people saying that a RWD M3 can make 0-125mph in 16.8s are actually arguing that a M3 is faster than an RS4 once rolling.

Autocar are about the most mechanically brutal testers on planet Earth. If anyone records a time significantly faster than them, the BS flag flies at full mast. What we must remember is that turbocharged cars are easily tweaked and many unscrupulous manufacturers are well known for tampering with press cars.:mech:

Thank god, sanity finally reins. :applause:

[Z07]

Buddy please just concede. I have a British test here where the M3 ran 11.5 to 100mph. Will you accept that? It's from Evo. Will you squirm out if I post it?
Doubt it. Evo are complete gear stick retards. Good magazine though. Autocar made 11.5s with an M3 and 10.9s with a CSL. That's as good as it gets. 10.9 for a standard M3 is dreaming.

[Z07]

11.5 to 160. Is that really that different to 11.2 the Yanks got? Sport AUto have a much better surface & I know when they ran that time is was very cold as the C32 also ran its best time on that day. Is half a second beyond the realms of reality to 160 especially on a traction-impaired surface like Autocar has?
I wonder what Motor Trend got. Their surfaces are real sticky. They probably made 9 seconds flat.

[chewym]

BS on 335i 0-60 time of 4.33 seconds. American magazines at the drag strip haven't gotten those times. Even if you consider rollout. The best is 4.9 or maybe 4.8.

[Z07]

What isn't do-able? Change gears fast. My 335 is manual, tell me if you can see the 2nd to 3rd ot 3rd to 4th shift on the Vbox graph.

Autocar don't even use the clutch. Doesn't get much faster than that.

[3x5PSI]

To lighten the mood a little, how do you find the 335i compared to the M3 and are you going to get the new model or hopefully see the light and get yourself an Audi. :D

335 is boring. Like driving an Audi. M3 is much more responsive, sounds better, more fun to drive, more rewarding.

[Z07]

BS on 335i 0-60 time of 4.33 seconds. American magazines at the drag strip haven't gotten those times. Even if you consider rollout. The best is 4.9 or maybe 4.8.

Yep, '4.33s' is a misprint on their behalf. Should have spotted that. The bar on their chart is clearly 5.33s long just to confirm that.

[Z07]

Well it doesn't matter but all the hardware on the car is standard on that run. The point is you would think its impossible for a 335 with stock hardware to run 14.5, but it obviously is possible as it's been done. Sometimes the stars line up & you get a perfect run. There have been plenty times at the track I have seen some of my competitors run a great time & if I wasn't there I would never have believed it.

You can't sit there & say 16.8 0-200 is impossible for an M3. It may be highly unlikely, but it's not impossible. (Well seeing as its been done, it's obviously not impossible).
The M3 does 100+ in third yes? So with a 10.9 0-100 and a 16.8 0-125, you're asking me to buy a 5.9s 100-125mph with a gear change from a 343ps M3? Nein.

[Leadfoot]

The M3 does 100+ in third yes? So with a 10.9 0-100 and a 16.8 0-125, you're asking me to buy a 5.9s 100-125mph with a gear change from a 343ps M3? Nein.

Most of the M3's times to 200km/h centres around the middle to high 18's, for one to throw a 16.8s just smells fishy. The problem is, after the launch which if you get it perfect can shave three possibly four tenths off an average start the rest of the runs will be all but identical, you see a bad start in the comparison test I used when comparing it with the 335i and S5, it's start to 60mph was an awful 5.3s and the best is 4.8s, if you take 0.5s away from the end resulting time in that test of 19.5s you end up with a 19s slow still but not that much worse than the average time for an M3. There 12.3s to 100mph (160km/h) isn't enough that wrong when compared to what Autocar got from it's full roadtest (12.0s). And even funnier is the 1000m speeds from both tests, the Greece test 136.2mph, Autocar's 140.8mph.

Like I have said, is it in the realms of possibility that the early sample used by both Autocar and Sport Auto one in the same press car, especially as the results are so different to the rest of them.:eye:

[Leadfoot]

335 is boring. Like driving an Audi. M3 is much more responsive, sounds better, more fun to drive, more rewarding.

Exactly as I expected, this is more than likely why I rate it so highly and the best 3 series in the range which includes the M3.

I find M3 owners are the same the world over, my brother-in-law included. What I think of them, well I will keep to myself. :hihi:

[3x5PSI]

No I like the 335 (note I wouldn't say love). IT is indeed a great package & awesome value for money. It does everything so well. It has grunt from the bottom to 6500rpm. It has great brakes. IT handles actually very well with grip that you wouldn't actually believe.

But it really has no soul. I have also owned some Audi's & currently have a 2.0T as well. Also a package that cannot be beat overall. You could own these cars & have a great ownership experience & they will serve you well.

But if you are a driver & have been doing competitive events most of your life then you need a bit more from a car.

[3x5PSI]

The M3 does 100+ in third yes? So with a 10.9 0-100 and a 16.8 0-125, you're asking me to buy a 5.9s 100-125mph with a gear change from a 343ps M3? Nein.

Ok 3 points. 1stly, there's no shift. You go into 4th just before 100. You will see my shift just before 10 secs.

2ndly a shift takes 0.2 secs & you aren't standing still during the shift. (although on this run I had a very shoddy shift).

3rdly, here is my graph of my M3 when it was stock. Note I am at elevation so I'm sure it will be a second or so quicker at sea-level.

I did not get to 200 on this run, but I got to 194.4km/h in 16.63 secs with a bone stock M3 at altitude. I did 0-160km/h in 11.15 & then 194km/h in 16.63. Hence the 160 to 194km/h time was 5.48 secs.

BUT WAIT. Look at the elevation at 160. 1538metres. Look at 194, 1540 metres. Our drag strip actually goes UPHILL after the 1/4 mile. Its actually 2 metres uphill from 160 to 200. 2 metres might not sound like a lot, but it's significant.

I have plenty more graphs, so shout if you want, but the fact it don't say something's impossible from behind a keyboard when other people have done it out on the road. It takes a neart perfect set of conditions but it can happen.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1589-1/M3a.JPG
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1592-1/M3b.JPG
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1587-1/M3160200.JPG

[Leadfoot]

No I like the 335 (note I wouldn't say love). IT is indeed a great package & awesome value for money. It does everything so well. It has grunt from the bottom to 6500rpm. It has great brakes. IT handles actually very well with grip that you wouldn't actually believe.

But it really has no soul. I have also owned some Audi's & currently have a 2.0T as well. Also a package that cannot be beat overall. You could own these cars & have a great ownership experience & they will serve you well.

But if you are a driver & have been doing competitive events most of your life then you need a bit more from a car.

I would class myself as a driver and though no longer did rallying and karting so skill levels aren't to shabby either. I think the difference is I believe the two roles should be separate, racing and the road, when on the track like I have said before I prefer rwd because it gives you a bit more options and on the track there's the safety net of run off areas should you over step the mark. But on the road, safety is the most important thing, not only yourself and your family but also the other road users around you, this is where I feel awd gives the added security in all conditions to push without over-stepping the mark.

I class most M3 owners and the like as showoffs, only interested in two things, how fast is it and can they powerslide and the really sad thing is most of the owners can't drive them that well and end up making a dick of themselves and wiping out some innocent person in the process.

Cue Videos.

Dick1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOboBIAK70)
Dick2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fUEkKZ7-s)
Dick3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0roXi4qrgE)
MEGA_DICK4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU5Dg3Cnd3M&mode=related&search)

Need I say more, give these people to tools and sure as anything they will kill themselves or someone else as well.

And finally the only sensible one
M3_powersliding_on_a_track (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en2QJZ_tn_s)

P.S.

This is not only the reserve of BWM drivers.

Audi_drifting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-de2BOHfM5Q)

We have our fair share of them too.

[Leadfoot]

I was curious about your M3, is it your day to day drive or do you only use it at the dragstrip now?

Seems such a waste if it is, but then again such punishment isn't good for a daily drive either.

[Z07]

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1587-1/M3160200.JPG
You've got a good 100-160 time there. However, your 160-180 time is ~3.0s. Your 180-190 time is ~1.7s. Therefore, even if you get from 190-200 in the same time as you got from 180 to 190, your overall 0-200 time is 17.6s. Unfortunately given the nature of drag being proportional to v^2 and the profile of the 160-190 times, your 190-200 time will be slower, so 18s sounds about right.

A 2m rise over a distance of approximately 250-300m is nothing. You have a further 5kgf or 50N acting against you. The drag force is ~1000N at 112.5mph. You're overall tractive force is ~4,500N at 112.5mph. So for a 1600kg vehicle, the difference in acceleration is 2.1875ms^-2 vs 2.1563ms^-2 or 1-1.5%. I.e. giving you a tenth is over-generous.

As for the high altitude. As well as reducing the mass of O2 entering the cylinder, the drag, given by 0.5*density*A*Cd*v^2 is also reduced. The air is also cooler than ground level, which has benefits. Incidently, what was the temperature? If we're going to start applying psuedo SAE corrections, let's do it properly.

Theory is all very nice but having a car that does 100-125mph in ~5.0s, I know that an M3 can't achieve the same interval in 5.9s. 6.0s is approximate RS4 pace and they are far harder to dispose of and usually catch me eventually as my aerodynamics start killing me.

[3x5PSI]

I was curious about your M3, is it your day to day drive or do you only use it at the dragstrip now?


Huh? The M3 gets eaten by my 335. There would be no point in running it on drag events. That was just an event to see what time it does. But it's a waste of time to get an M3 to run faster in a straight line. But then again, that's not really the reason to own an M3 or RS4. IT's all about the complete package.

[3x5PSI]

Z07, I have logs from sea-level to altitude. I have dyno's as well. I am losing 17% power to the rear wheels. I dyno around 295rwhp at sea-level & around 245hp up here. There is less wind resistance up here, burt there's also less power. After 120mph it more or less evens out, but the lack of power hurts you up to those speeds. I trap 4-6mph less up at this elevation. So 18 secs to 200 means that the sheer grunt at sea-level will make up at least a second. On the 1/4 mile I run 0.7 faster at sea-level. LEt me find a sea-level vs altitude run to show you what I mean. But it's a commonly acknowledged fact that normally aspirated cars lose a lot of power at altitude.

[Z07]

Z07, I have logs from sea-level to altitude. I have dyno's as well. I am losing 17% power to the rear wheels. I dyno around 295rwhp at sea-level & around 245hp up here. There is less wind resistance up here, burt there's also less power. After 120mph it more or less evens out, but the lack of power hurts you up to those speeds. I trap 4-6mph less up at this elevation. So 18 secs to 200 means that the sheer grunt at sea-level will make up at least a second. On the 1/4 mile I run 0.7 faster at sea-level. LEt me find a sea-level vs altitude run to show you what I mean. But it's a commonly acknowledged fact that normally aspirated cars lose a lot of power at altitude.

Do a 16.Xs 0-200kph run at see-level and I'll believe you. The issue here is that variables can affect times but 16.Xs isn't representative at all.

[3x5PSI]

Do a 16.Xs 0-200kph run at see-level and I'll believe you. The issue here is that variables can affect times but 16.Xs isn't representative at all.

You are absolutely correct. 16.xx is not representative. I never said it was. I said it was possible, alebit highly unlikely. And seeing as one of the most highly respected mags in Europe did do it, it obviously is possible.

I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level. But I'm pretty sure if that if I can do 18.0 at 5500ft elevation, I can get darn close under ideal conditions.

[Z07]

You are absolutely correct. 16.xx is not representative. I never said it was. I said it was possible, alebit highly unlikely. And seeing as one of the most highly respected mags in Europe did do it, it obviously is possible.

I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level. But I'm pretty sure if that if I can do 18.0 at 5500ft elevation, I can get darn close under ideal conditions.
Well hell, I'll agree it's possible. With the help of a super-cell my car could probably achieve 300km/h in 0.5s. Very unlikely though. This is why only side-by-side testing has any value, but even then driver error can mess things up.

[3x5PSI]

Well what do you know? I went through my Vbox logs & I actually did get a few runs to 200, funnily enough at an Audi Club event. You are correct. I could not do 16.8 to 200. I managed to do 17.37 on a really poor surface. Everyone at the event complained about the traction, as can be seen by my 0-100km/h being rather slow with loads of time being lost going into 2nd gear. The 160-200 was 6.06 seconds. I believe under better traction conditions low 17's is possible. Add a slight tailwind & extremely low temps & 16's is not beyond the realms of possibility as was proven by SPort Auto.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1595-1/D1.JPG
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1598-1/D2.JPG

[Leadfoot]

I don't want to keep sounding like a sceptic, but I have a problem with both of these graphs. We have been going over this argument for the best part of 3~4 days you saying that 16.8s is possible from a standard car and I disbelieving it and all of a sudden you now have one graph showing your car doing the same speed in an estimated mid 18s at altitude which by your own reckoning is losing roughly 20% of it's power and now another graph showing the 200km/h being done in 17.37s and just prior to this not 1 hr before you said and I quote
I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level. and not only do you now have a graph to prove it's possible but better still the surface was slippy.

I'm personally renaming you 'Harry H', after somebody very famous. :D

[3x5PSI]

I have hundreds of graphs of many cars. I did not recall that I had enough room to get to 200 when I was down, but obviously I had. The only way I would have known is by checking all the graphs.

[Leadfoot]

You want the rest of us to believe an M3 can post a time of 16.8s as possible and has been done, but are unwilling to accept the possibility that press cars are tampered with or in other words producing more than their quoted output to improve their results.

You know something, this argument is getting us nowhere. You have your opinions and some of the rest of us have ours.

Lets call this to an end.

[3x5PSI]

No. You don't have an opinion. If it were an Audi that could do it, the your opinion will change. The fact that it's a BMW is what made up your mind.

Do you know what the power difference on the wheels between an E46 M3 & an RS4 on the same dyno is? I'm talking a normal wheel dyno. I have the graphs on the same dyno as we had a dyno day recently. I also have the weights of the cars as weighed on a weighbridge at the track. But I want to hear it from you.

[3x5PSI]

but are unwilling to accept the possibility that press cars are tampered with or in other words producing more than their quoted output to improve their results.

Yeah OK, all Audi cars ever tested wer also tampered with. WTF? What's wrong with you?

You can't really gain much power anyway. CSL has so many expensive hardware mods for like 13kw. And when EVo ran them the stock M3 was faster than the CSL up to around 100mph.

[3x5PSI]

We had an Audi club dyno day recently. There were 2 RS4's on the dyno:

http://members.audiclubsa.org.za/d/12530-1/IMG_1702.JPG
http://members.audiclubsa.org.za/d/12468-1/IMG_1666.JPG

Here's the results from the official Audi club website:

http://members.audiclubsa.org.za/d/12247-4/AudiClub+Dyno+Day+200706.JPG

How much does an E46 M3 make on the same dyno? How much less does it weigh? Coming right up, let me upload the info.

[3x5PSI]

Ok so 2 RS4's on that dyno made 189kw & 196kw on the wheels at 5500ft elevation. We all lose around 17% power due to the thinner air up here.

On the same dyno my M3 makes 192kw on the wheels:

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1600-1/M3Dyno.JPG
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1605-1/MDyno.jpg

That's 4kw less than the more powerful RS4 on the wheels. Now remember when you out on the road running to 200, all that matters is how much power you have to accelerate your mass. You acceleration is determined by your power on the wheels / mass.

Now at another track event we had 3 RS4's.

These 2 cars belong to the same guy:

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/587-2/Image682.jpg
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/599-2/Image691.jpg
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/593-2/Image685.jpg
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/597-2/Image689.jpg

Now on the weighbridge the RS4 weighed 180kg more than the M3. And it has only a slight power advantage on the wheels. On that day the 3 RS4's trapped about the same as the E46 M3's down the 1/4 mile. The Rs4's were about 2 tenths quicker in ET, but after the initial launch the gap remained the same.

So why can an M3 not run 16.8 to 200? If it can't then an RS4 can't as well.

[Leadfoot]

I remembered a quote from the very firm that EVO and all most all of the other magazines use when wanting to check output of cars being tested, in their opinion testing four wheel drive systems on a dyno is not an exact science, the fact their systems constantly shifts power between the two drive axles no dyno system can truly give an accurate reading as power is briefly being lost during these shifts, sometimes it reads more and other times less, so regards the system as a tuning tool only, taking readings prior to tuning and then after. Though they did say for fwd and rwd systems it's 100% accurate.

As proof some press car produce more than quoted, they took the new Ferrari 599 to the firm for testing and it was making almost 10% more than quoted, who knows maybe every 599 does the same. ;)

But lets use your opinion that the RS4 produces only a much as a old M3 and weighs upwards on 160kgs more, if this is to be true then how much more does the new M3 have power wise over the RS4, heck it most be as much as an extra 50hp/ton based on your reckoning. But what's this when in-gear times are checked for both cars it's the Audi that's the quicker. :bigeyes: Surely not, their must be a misprint or something and to tell you the truth there is, it's in the power at wheel figures from dyno machines. :hihi:

I can't believe we are still going over this BS, that BMW are putting way more power to the wheels than a Quattro because the last time I checked there isn't that much of a difference in any of the times that each of the cars are doing and remember the one thing you can be 100% sure of is the weight and like you said the Audi is always the heavier.

[3x5PSI]

Ok Leadie, so I did a quick search to see what others are getting:

http://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/58717.phtml

217kw on wheels = 291whp

http://www.teraspeed.com/RS4/StockJunevsMiltech.JPG


http://www.fourtitude.com/news/uploads/Features/milltek.jpg

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/uploads/Features/dyno_run_corrected.jpg

Note, I'm talking about a wheel dyno, not a chassis dyno. Looks like 290-305 wheel hp is about the norm for an RS4. Does that sound right?

[Leadfoot]

Do I have to repeat what I just wrote, surely not. :doh:

If a CSL and a RS4 is roughly quoting the same PTW based on engine power and not what a dyno says at the wheels, then why are they within a whisker of each other in acceleration. That is because their respective powers at the wheels to weigh are again roughly the same. It's not rocket science. :vhmmm:

[3x5PSI]

I remembered a quote from the very firm that EVO and all most all of the other magazines use when wanting to check output of cars being tested, in their opinion testing four wheel drive systems on a dyno is not an exact science, the fact their systems constantly shifts power between the two drive axles no dyno system can truly give an accurate reading as power is briefly being lost during these shifts, sometimes it reads more and other times less, so regards the system as a tuning tool only, taking readings prior to tuning and then after. Though they did say for fwd and rwd systems it's 100% accurate.

As proof some press car produce more than quoted, they took the new Ferrari 599 to the firm for testing and it was making almost 10% more than quoted, who knows maybe every 599 does the same. ;)

But lets use your opinion that the RS4 produces only a much as a old M3 and weighs upwards on 160kgs more, if this is to be true then how much more does the new M3 have power wise over the RS4, heck it most be as much as an extra 50hp/ton based on your reckoning. But what's this when in-gear times are checked for both cars it's the Audi that's the quicker. :bigeyes: Surely not, their must be a misprint or something and to tell you the truth there is, it's in the power at wheel figures from dyno machines. :hihi:

I can't believe we are still going over this BS, that BMW are putting way more power to the wheels than a Quattro because the last time I checked there isn't that much of a difference in any of the times that each of the cars are doing and remember the one thing you can be 100% sure of is the weight and like you said the Audi is always the heavier.

1stly its bull that it shifts power. The Haldex used to do that. I can show you an S3 dyno where you can see it shift power during the run. The Torsen quattro does not. But having 3 difs (front, centre & rear) & 4 wheels means there are a lot more frictional losses in getting to the wheels. That is a fact.

Whether the dyno is right or wrong is irrelevant as the trap speeds at the track are very similar. The RS4 has a slight edge in trap speed, the most I have seen is 1mph on the day when the RS4's & M3's ran together at the same track on the same day, side by side. The fact that they cross the line travelling at the same speed tells you what the dyno does, that the power to weight ratio is similar. More specifically the power-to-wheels to weight ration is similar, with a slight edge to the RS4.

Car & Driver got the RS4 1.4 mile at 13.2 & the E46 M3 at 13.1. The RS4 trapped 1mph I believe.

The E92 M3 was 1.2 seconds quicker from 100-200 in the only side-by-side instrumented test to date (the Dutch one).That was in the run through the gears. Rolling in the higher gears may have been closer, but the M3 may have a peakier engine with less usable torque in the mid-range. I don't know. Maybe it's also heavier than we thought.

The point is Car & Driver got the E46 M3 & RS4 doing very close times. So apply the same logic. If the M3 can't do 16.8 to 200, then the RS4 also can't. YOu have to be consistent with your logic. You can't say, "IT's impossible to do that time because it doesn't have an Audi badge."

[3x5PSI]

If a CSL and a RS4 is roughly quoting the same PTW based on engine power and not what a dyno says at the wheels, then why are they within a whisker of each other in acceleration.:vhmmm:

Please tell me you joking? I have buddies with both cars & the CSL RUNS AWAY from the RS4. It really does. I'm not trying to be funny, but after 160km/h its like they not racing. It may be close up to that point, but then the CSL starts to go. Lemme see if I got some videos.

[Leadfoot]

The E92 M3 was 1.2 seconds quicker from 100-200 in the only side-by-side instrumented test to date (the Dutch one).That was in the run through the gears. Rolling in the higher gears may have been closer, but the M3 may have a peakier engine with less usable torque in the mid-range. I don't know. Maybe it's also heavier than we thought.

I reckon you need to go and check out the specs of the BMW 4.0V8 M3 engine, you will see that both engines shadow each other the whole way and in fact the M3 has slightly more torque below 2500rpm. Which explains why it's 6th run was ever so slightly quicker.


The point is Car & Driver got the E46 M3 & RS4 doing very close times. So apply the same logic. If the M3 can't do 16.8 to 200, then the RS4 also can't. YOu have to be consistent with your logic. You can't say, "IT's impossible to do that time because it doesn't have an Audi badge."

You need to count up the combined times to get an average for both car and this will prove that the RS4 is by far the quicker car to 200km/h, the RS4's average is in the mid 16s while the M3 is in the mid 18s, that's two seconds which proves that there is an inconstancy with the M3s tested through the years. And by the way, most of the quick times for the M3 occurred at the start of it's production, now what does that not tell you.

If you understand awd cars you will know that it should be the RS4 being the more inconstancy because launching it differently will show up a greater variation in times to 60mph, launch at maximum revs and side step the clutch compared to launching at 3000rpm could amount to the best part of a second difference.

[3x5PSI]

Well, either way it's pretty obvious now that it's possible for an M3 to run 16.8. I never said it would happen every day. But it's possible. I will be sure to get some videos for you.

[Leadfoot]

Well, either way it's pretty obvious now that it's possible for an M3 to run 16.8. I never said it would happen every day. But it's possible. I will be sure to get some videos for you.

I didn't say it wasn't impossible, you have misunderstood me. I said it's impossible for a M3 with quoted output to do a 16.8 time.

There is a difference .:D

[3x5PSI]

I said it's impossible for a M3 with quoted output to do a 16.8 time.


343hp with 1570kg. Plug that into any simulator. I like Cartest, but you can use anyone. You will see that according to the laws of physics it IS possible.

[Leadfoot]

You will see that according to the laws of physics it IS possible.

Don't bring the law of physics in to the argument, it's got enough problems of it's own.

http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=102838&postcount=1

:applause:

[3x5PSI]

OK seriously no, let's analyse the claim that this car was "tampered". All the tampering in the world didn't help the CSL get more than 13kw & the "tampering" was pretty obvious for one to see & hear in the form of Schrick cams, Carbon fibre airbox, conversion to Alpha N with MAP sensor, reprogram, etc. All that for 13kw.

NOW, I clean forgot that there was a video of the AMS shoot-out below. Do you recall it? They had the 3 cars going through the cones & the times were up on the screen. Then they had the sprint tests, etc.

Now all these cars tested & the M3 & C32 had there best ever results in THIS shoot-out. So what did both BMW & MErcedes "tamper" with their cars? And yet in the on-board videos the M3 revved to 8000 like a normal M3 does. ITalso consumed the least fuel of all the cars tested. AMS filled it with SuperPlus fuel as per their test procedure & the car ran fine on normal pump fuel. It revved to the stock rev-limiter. So what "hidden" tampering did they do that was not part of the production car & was nor part of the expensive CSL programme? You see why this sounds ridiculous?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/ErikT595/m3s4c32amg.jpg

[Leadfoot]

The CSL only produces an extra 13hp and wonder why with all the expensive poured over it, man I expected more from you. OK, here goes, what was the CSL's intended for, was it the road or competition? The engine had to withstand constant stress over long periods, this is something a normal M engine isn't design for, the same goes for the GT3 and the 996GT3 only produced 360hp but the current Carrera S has 350hp, :bigeyes: OH MAY GOD what is this, an increase of only 10hp and yet the engine has it's roots in GT3 racing and cost an arm and a leg to replace.

Please wake up and smell the coffee. ;)

[3x5PSI]

That's not the point. The point is it's a lot of money to get more power out of a 100hp/litre engine. And it will be visible & audible, may require higher octane fuel. A CSL hunts on idle when hot due to the cams.

The M3 in this test sounded stock, looked stock in the engine bay, ran on pump fuel, revved to the stock rev-limiter. What mods would they have done? Please tell me. I'm dying to know as I have an M3 I would like to also do these "hidden" tweaks that they did.

[Leadfoot]

Please someone take over here because I am sick to death going over to same things over and over and over. :nana:

I don't mind when a debate is going somewhere or there's a new angle to discuss but this is plain boring. :boring:

[3x5PSI]

Well I really would like to know what hidden mods I can do to my M3 to make it faster & yet look & sound stock, rev to the stock limiter, run fine on pump fuel, be light on fuel, etc. And why weren't these "hidden" mods part of the standard production car?

[Leadfoot]

This is my last word on the present discussion.

You want to know how to make a mass produced production engine quicker without actually changing any of the components. I will give you a clue it begins with B. ;)

And this is something my father use to do years ago.

[3x5PSI]

Well please let me in on the secret. I would like to do the same to my car. I can pay you money for this info. You think if I mail BMW they can give me these tips? Wow, I am so excited, maybe my M3 can finally beat my 335 now.

[Leadfoot]

Every racing engine will get this at the time of it's assembly. Come on, think. :vhmmm:

And trust me this will make a world of a difference to the way a car performs. :burnout:

[3x5PSI]

M3 engines have always been hand-built. I'm not sure about the E46 tho.

Blusprinting doesn't make a major difference these days.. The manufacturing plants don't have the tolerances they used to. Like gas-flowing a modern head, also has very little effect. Especially on an M motor.

Our local Group N racing scene had 330's running in Class A last year. The engines were blue-printed by BMW. On an engine dyno it gained between 2-3kw. That's at the crank.

You know how it works huh? Have you seen a video of the factory? Have you seen the QA process for the components? I think you clutching at straws but hey that's just me.

[Z07]

We had an Audi club dyno day recently. There were 2 RS4's on the dyno:

Dyno results mean next to nothing. Autocar figured the M3 and RS4. The RS4 is nearly a second faster between 60 and 100mph.

[Leadfoot]

Sad to say I reckon I know about more on the subject than your good self. Blueprinting involves a lot more than just balancing each matching component and setting all their respective tolerances to the optimum. But then that would be telling the whole story know. ;)

Stop looking it up on the internet for answers because the ins and outs of it won't be found there. :vhmmm:

Trust me you would win this battle, regards of what you say.

[3x5PSI]

I dont need to search the net to know about blueprinting. I do have a racecar. So tell me was the C32 also blueprinted? Really pathetic. I think all Audis ever tested were also blueprinted.

[Leadfoot]

There is a big difference between owning a racecar and have a father who use to build the bloody things. OK it was a long time ago and yes things have moved on, especially with the intro of computer mapping etc. but the lightening of the internals give a performance boost. What did my dad always say 'a pound off the engine was like thirty pound off the car'. I don't know if that was him just bumming it's importance, but when again. ;)

As for the Merc, I have no problems with it's time, look at the power and torque, above that of the S4 and well above the M3 so why complain about something that seem right.

[3x5PSI]

Autocar figured the M3 and RS4. The RS4 is nearly a second faster between 60 and 100mph.

Yes but Audi sent an RS4 with a blueprinted engine to that test. If you don't believe me ask my father.

Leadie, maybe in your father's days these things made a difference. Not in the modern era, & not on an M engine.

BTW a C32 has 8kw more than an M3 at the crank. That is negated by the slushbox with torque convertor which robs more power. Hence it makes less power on the wheels & its heavier than the M3. 90% of comparative tests have the M3 faster than the C32. I don't know if you noticed but this C32 was the fastest one ever tested by some margin.

[Leadfoot]

Leadie, maybe in your father's days these things made a difference. Not in the modern era, & not on an M engine.

I don't know if you noticed but this C32 was the fastest one ever tested by some margin.

Wrong about the Merc, Autocar tested it and it's time to 100mph was 11.3s which isn't what I would call 'by some margin', torque as every one know is the key to acceleration not power, power is for top speed.

M engines are mass produced not hand made in the true sense of the word, you can't knock the numbers out that BMW do and expect everything to be done by hand. I would agree that it will be made to higher tolerances than a normal BMW engine, but the CSL was made to a higher tolerance again, much like the GT3 so there is gains to be had how every small you may feel they are and they are done for a reason.

But to end this argument once and for all, lets say that the M3 did on a couple occasions post great times to 200km/h, 16.8s and 17.2s. The average is mid 18s which shows that the majority of them posted mid to high 18s and the odd 19 as well. When compared to the average of a RS4 which is in the mid 16s that shows the majority are in the low to mid 16s, the two cars are a world apart in performance terms.

It like saying I got a hole in one at golf today, sure it was done but the chances of it happening again are slim at best.

[3x5PSI]

torque as every one know is the key to acceleration not power, power is for top speed.

No. Torque is static unit. It does nothing without being applied. That, by definition, is horsepower. The rate at which the torque is applied. Note rate implies there is a unit of time associated. Which power does being a "rate" unit. Torque is not related to time in any way whatsoever.

So yeah instantaneously F=MA and hence the torque is what deems the acceleration. But of course acceleration at a point in time (even if it were possible to determine that) means nothing. We need to continuously provide the force to keep the object moving & accelerating. That is horsepower.

Also when you out on the road wheel torque is all that matters. A 6 speed with 3.64 final drive & aggresive gearing may well get more torque to the wheels than a long 5-speed auto with very long final drive. And the M3 will make more power to the wheels in the racing powerband. Here's the formula for wheel torqueL

WTn = FD x GRn X Te x Lt

Where
WTn = wheel torque in gear n
GRn = gear ratio of gear #n
Te = engine torque
Lt = total drive train and parasitic losses

[3x5PSI]

the two cars are a world apart in performance terms.

Actually they are a lot closer than you think.

[Leadfoot]

Actually they are a lot closer than you think.

Only in your reality mate, only in your reality.:hihi:

[3x5PSI]

Only in your reality mate, only in your reality.:hihi:

PLease. I have seen it at the track & on the road as well. Some mags have got the RS4 faster. Some have got the M3 faster. All the times when the RS4 was faster was when Audi sent Rs4's with blueprinted engines to the test. My uncle has the proof to back me up.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/977-1/M3vsRS4.jpg
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/693-1/Table.JPG

Car & Driver, M3 1/4 mile 13.1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=4227&page_number=1

Car & Driver RS4 1/4 mile 13.2

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11333/2007-audi-rs-4-quattro-specs-page4.html

Now I know the RS4 won a few tests, like the M3 has, but all those were "tweaked" RS4's.

[Leadfoot]

No. Torque is static unit. It does nothing without being applied. That, by definition, is horsepower.

OK, so torque has no relevance so why quote it at all when horsepower in the only important thing worth quoting. Oh but hold on a minute, if this is indeed the case then why can a 330d destroy a 330i on in-gear acceleration and the same goes for the A4 3.0TDi over the A4 3.2FSi and every diesel which have similar hp (actually less) but much greater, :vhmmm: oh what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes TORQUES. And all of the above diesel cars have a much longer final drive because of their low rev limit.

In fact, if you check the acceleration times where both can have be test (by a UK mag I might add) quoted that between the 60~100mph mark the 335d was actually 0.5s quicker than the 335i, again another example of less power but more torque proving to be quicker in acceleration, in fact from dyno tests carried out in the US the 335i may be kicking out as much as 360hp and not the quoted 306hp. And in the case of the A5 3.0TDi over the A5 3.2Quattro, it's the diesel which is the quickest in all acceleration disciplines and this also has less hp than the petrol equivalent.

At what point is the penny going to drop that actually the torque figures quoted are important and DO effect the acceleration process.

You see, it OK to quote equations when you really understand what they mean, but please don't try this again, it doesn't suit you. :boring:

[3x5PSI]

I happen to have a physics degree & it's plain you don't. You assume that Car A is beating Car B from speed X to Y because it has more torque. It may well have more torque at that point. But that's not the reason it is faster at that point. It's faster because it ALSO HAS MORE POWER at that point. If it har more torque at 3000rpm than car B, it will also HAVE MORE POWER at 3000rpm than car B. SImple formula relate torque & power.

If you knew anything about physics you would know this. To go from 160-200 you need to maintain torque over the period of time it takes you to go from 160-200. That torque applied over that period is horsepower. Trust me on this. FOrumula 1 cars have 220NM torque but they go plenty fast.

[Leadfoot]

FOrumula 1 cars have 220NM torque but they go plenty fast.

Re-check again, it closer to 500Nm of torque. :hihi:

[3x5PSI]

Re-check again, it closer to 500Nm of torque. :hihi:

You just made a fool of yourself. Go & check again. You saying a 2.4l normally aspirated engine makes 500NM?

I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.

[3x5PSI]

Dude, I'm gonna put you out of your misery as you are obviously out of your depth. Everyone knows that F1 cars make power because they reto almost 20 000rpm, but they make very little torque.

SO here's a Wiki link for you, I know you must be googling like crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

the 2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 552 kW (740 bhp, 751 PS) at 19,000 RPM and outputs 274 Nm of torque

[chewym]

Check this place (they do pretty consistent tests)
RS4
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2604b.shtml
335i
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2624b.shtml
M3
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2101.shtml

But then again, here is the R&T test of the RS4

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/espnnbaboards/5af1ba3f.jpg

0-100 in 10.7

Motor Trend: 0-100 in 11.4 (1/4 mile time is obviously wrong)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0608_2006_audi_rs4_vs_2006_cadillac_cts_v/specifications.html

The C/D test was done at altitude, sure they correct for it, but it is't perfect correction.

[Leadfoot]

You just made a fool of yourself. Go & check again. You saying a 2.4l normally aspirated engine makes 500NM?

I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.

Correct I was remembering the old F1 engines.

[3x5PSI]

The C/D test was done at altitude, sure they correct for it, but it is't perfect correction.

Yeah sure, but wherever they test, they tested the M3 & RS4 at the same place & the M3 was 0.1 faster.

Thanks for the links. Very informative. It shows the RS4 ran 13.3 @ 106 & the M3 ran 13.5 @ 107. Sure the better traction might have got the RS4 ahead but the M3 was travelling faster at the end. And the times just prove what I'm saying that the cars are closely matched. I'm sure the RS4 is faster, but not by as much as Leadie thinks.

[Leadfoot]

[quote=3x5PSI;103139]I happen to have a physics degree & it's plain you don't. quote]

I think I remember reading that statement before. In fact why not come clean and tell everyone what your original Handle was some months ago. You see one thing I do have is a very good memory and over the last while I have been piecing together things you have said that though similar to someone else from the State they just weren't quite the same until very recently, the equations for one, the Black M3 photos popping up and pictures from the dragstrips and final the degree in Physics.

http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103030&postcount=74
http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88082&postcount=34
http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88730&postcount=199

Are you going to come clean with your real name. :hihi:

[3x5PSI]

WTF? You could have just asked me? It's no secret. My previous login doesn't work anymore. I think I was banned or something. So I had to create a new one. Pretty obvious. You want to see a video of me against Pitzi's M5 because I like you so much?

[3x5PSI]

Hey Leadie, you remember SoulBladeZA with the SLK55 that ran against Pitzi's CSL? Well great news. He has an RS4 now. I will be hooking up with him this week hopefully. I will take the M3 as it will be ugly if I race him with the 335. Here's a video of his RS4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqdgTg3PrS8

[Leadfoot]

Explain why you like to come and argue on this site, surely there are BMW sites for you. Or are you banned there too.

[3x5PSI]

Yeah I got banned from the BM sites for telling the truth.

[Leadfoot]

Yeah I got banned from the BM sites for telling the truth.

What Audi RS4s are indeed faster. :lovl:

[RXBG]

no arguing guys. just constructive exchange, please. make it fun. not stressful.

[Leadfoot]

no arguing guys. just constructive exchange, please. make it fun. not stressful.

Will do. :thumb:

[chewym]

Yeah sure, but wherever they test, they tested the M3 & RS4 at the same place & the M3 was 0.1 faster.

Thanks for the links. Very informative. It shows the RS4 ran 13.3 @ 106 & the M3 ran 13.5 @ 107. Sure the better traction might have got the RS4 ahead but the M3 was travelling faster at the end. And the times just prove what I'm saying that the cars are closely matched. I'm sure the RS4 is faster, but not by as much as Leadie thinks.


Who says that the they tested the M3 at the same place. C/D usually tests in CA, the RS4 test was in another place and that is why they mentioned it.

R&T got a 12.8@109.7 1/4 mile.

[3x5PSI]

no arguing guys. just constructive exchange, please. make it fun. not stressful.

Hey no arguing man. We just chatting. I luv Leadie. When I grow up I wanna' be just like him.

Ok Leadman, you get a cookie for your great PI work. So here's your reward. Me vs Pitzie's Monster M5. My 335 makes 575NM on the wheels, 424lb/ft.

Pitzi's M5 makes a LOT less than that. We make similar power with him making a few hp more. His car is heavier. But yet when we race he pulls away especially in the upper gears. Why? Well because he has more power in the band where we race. In the upper rpm. All my torque don't mean jack once in motion. It's always about the HP.

Here is the video. Bear in mind Pixie's M5 is superfast & runs in the 13's to 200km/h.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qFJj2U84LY

[Leadfoot]

For each race there is the opposite outcome.

M5_vs_CLS55 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QaZ7W_yVfOo)

M5_vs_CSL55_part2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7sBQKi6n7ZQ)

[3x5PSI]

What does the 55 have to do with this? But if you look at the bottom right of the screen it shows what mode the gearbox was in. They were testing all the modes. In the fastest mode with LC, the M5 won. I Think it's a widely acknowledged fact that the M5 is faster.

Here's more vids, horsepower always works its way to the front:


1st run - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz61fds9acs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz61fds9acs)

2nd run - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrjTd_lZEk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrjTd_lZEk)

3rd run - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTu4AnUsjYA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTu4AnUsjYA)


1st run - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtwq0XqFy7Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtwq0XqFy7Y)

2nd run - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOnCjm0feH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOnCjm0feH0)

[Z07]

Yes but Audi sent an RS4 with a blueprinted engine to that test. If you don't believe me ask my father.

Leadie, maybe in your father's days these things made a difference. Not in the modern era, & not on an M engine.

BTW a C32 has 8kw more than an M3 at the crank. That is negated by the slushbox with torque convertor which robs more power. Hence it makes less power on the wheels & its heavier than the M3. 90% of comparative tests have the M3 faster than the C32. I don't know if you noticed but this C32 was the fastest one ever tested by some margin.

Your father must blueprint all RS4s because everyone I’ve met is faster than every M3 I’ve met.

Let me also ask you 2 questions. Can you fully counter-balance a V8? What about an I6?

[Leadfoot]

Your father must blueprint all RS4s because everyone I’ve met is faster than every M3 I’ve met.

Let me also ask you 2 questions. Can you fully counter-balance a V8? What about an I6?

If you want to go down that route, why not have a boxer engine as it's by far the best. The reason Audi and now BMW chose the V8 is power per weight and crash safety, the in-line 6cyl has reached the end of it's life as a viable option to compete as a N/A engine.

I think if I remember correctly the V12 is the best balanced and the V10 the worst. The V8 is the best engine package wise for power/economy/space etc. it's the favourite of the F1 teams.

[Z07]

I happen to have a physics degree & it's plain you don't. You assume that Car A is beating Car B from speed X to Y because it has more torque. It may well have more torque at that point. But that's not the reason it is faster at that point. It's faster because it ALSO HAS MORE POWER at that point. If it har more torque at 3000rpm than car B, it will also HAVE MORE POWER at 3000rpm than car B. SImple formula relate torque & power.

If you knew anything about physics you would know this. To go from 160-200 you need to maintain torque over the period of time it takes you to go from 160-200. That torque applied over that period is horsepower. Trust me on this. FOrumula 1 cars have 220NM torque but they go plenty fast.
Sadly he is correct on this. Torque comes into play because it tends to increase the average power across the rpm range being used and hence the average torque at the wheels over the same range. If you’re producing more power at the flywheel, you’re producing more torque at the wheels. Going through the gearbox, power remains the same (ignoring losses), rotational speed is reduced by a factor (the reduction ratio) and torque is multiplied by the same factor. If you have more power at the flywheel but less torque, you must have a higher rotational speed (rpm), hence for the same road speed, the reduction ratio must be higher and the torque multiplication is higher, leading to a higher torque at the wheels.

Not quite that simple however because parasitic losses increase at a moderate exponential rate as rpm increases, so sometimes slightly lower power and more torque at lower rpm wins the day.

[3x5PSI]

Your father must blueprint all RS4s because everyone I’ve met is faster than every M3 I’ve met.


Hey dude, I was just yanking Leadie's chain man ;) It was a joke.

[Z07]

You just made a fool of yourself. Go & check again. You saying a 2.4l normally aspirated engine makes 500NM?

I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.
I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.[/QUOTE]
You’re both wrong, it’s probably about 220lbft peak or 300Nm. 220Nm would equate to less than 650bhp even at 21,000rpm. F1 cars don’t rev quite that high yet and make around 750-800bhp. Maximum rpm is around 19,000rpm.

[Z07]

Dude, I'm gonna put you out of your misery as you are obviously out of your depth. Everyone knows that F1 cars make power because they reto almost 20 000rpm, but they make very little torque.

SO here's a Wiki link for you, I know you must be googling like crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

the 2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 552 kW (740 bhp, 751 PS) at 19,000 RPM and outputs 274 Nm of torque
Your wiki link is also talking BS because 274Nm, even at 19,000rpm, only equates to 731bhp and since the torque will be falling by peak power, it’s well out.

[Z07]

Check this place (they do pretty consistent tests)
RS4
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2604b.shtml
335i
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2624b.shtml
M3
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2101.shtml

But then again, here is the R&T test of the RS4

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/espnnbaboards/5af1ba3f.jpg

0-100 in 10.7

Motor Trend: 0-100 in 11.4 (1/4 mile time is obviously wrong)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0608_2006_audi_rs4_vs_2006_cadillac_cts_v/specifications.html

The C/D test was done at altitude, sure they correct for it, but it is't perfect correction.
That’s so typical of Motor Trend (reference my comment a few pages ago), it’s either they use telekinetic energy or they lie through their bottoms.

[Leadfoot]

I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.
You’re both wrong, it’s probably about 220lbft peak or 300Nm. 220Nm would equate to less than 650bhp even at 21,000rpm. F1 cars don’t rev quite that high yet and make around 750-800bhp. Maximum rpm is around 19,000rpm.[/quote]

I think it was me who got confused, after re-checking the figure I should have quoted was 354Nm and this was for the pre-race engine (setting lap times) for the BMW F1 engine. I didn't check it before posting and thought it was in ft/lbs, the 500Nm was my doing the rough maths in my head. :doh:

[Leadfoot]

Motortrend test of M3 CS model.

2005 BMW M3 (http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2005/bmw/m3/index.html) Competition PackageBase price incl dest$48,995Price as tested$54,690Vehicle layout Front engine, RWD, 5-pass coupeEngine 3.2L/333-hp/262 lb-ft DOHC 24 valve I-6Transmission(s)6-speed manual (6-speed auto-clutch manual)Curb weight3383 lbWheelbase107.5 inLength x Width x Height176.9 x 70.1 x 54.0 in 0-60 mph4.8 sec1/4 mile13.3 sec @ 104.4 mph Braking, 60-0 mph116 ft600-foot slalom66.6 mph avgLateral acceleration0.91 g avgMT Figure-eight25.7 sec @ 0.72 g (avg)EPA city/hwy fuel econ 16 / 24 mpgWhat's HotSurgical steering, brilliant brakes, improved rideWhat's NotCSL engine not available, Long throw stick shift

Motortrend got the Audi S5 to achieve a 1/4mile time of 13.1 @ 105.2mph.

That would place the S5 approx. 2 car lengths ahead of the M3 at the end, pretty impressive for what is a luxury cruiser.

[artur777]

Leadfoot, but it's previous M3!
Let us see what the new M3 is capable for.
Until RS5 comes (not a near future), S5 would be compared to M3 e92.
And the same with RS4 - a new A4 generation is coming and RS4 would likely appear not earlier than in 2009.

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot, but it's previous M3!
Let us see what the new M3 is capable for.
Until RS5 comes (not a near future), S5 would be compared to M3 e92.
And the same with RS4 - a new A4 generation is coming and RS4 would likely appear not earlier than in 2009.

To compare the S5 to something which is over £10K more and kicking out an extra 65hp wouldn't be a very fair comparison but no doubt many magazines will compare them regardless just as the M3 was compared to the RS4. The S5's true rival is the 335i and similar, but at the present the M3 will be compared to the RS4 and soon to hit the streets C63, the S5 will only be use when the RS4 finally ceases it's stock supply.

The point I was making for the S5 was the comparison between the Z4M and the Cayman, the Porsche crossed the line over 1 car length ahead yet the difference in their times was only 0.1s, the M3 tested only achieved a 1/4mile time of 13.3s, that's 0.2s slower explaining that the S5 will be 2 lengths ahead of what was and still is a very popular sports coupe and one which some here believe capable of taking scalps from such cars as the RS4 and others.

[Arslanoff]

Was that video link here?
Audi S5 und BMW 335i (http://www.autozeitung.de/online/render.php?render=0069151)
http://www.autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/69607_300.jpg

[Leadfoot]

Yeap, that's it. :thumb: