Dutch magazine test M3vsRS4

[Clio16V]

Acceleration times:

RS4 M3
0 - 20km/h: 0.8s 0.5s
0 - 40km/h: 1.7s 1.6s
0 - 60km/h: 2.5s 2.4s
0 - 80km/h: 3.8s 3.7s
0 - 100km/h: 5.1s 4.8s
0 - 120km/h: 6.8s 6.5s
0 - 140km/h: 8.6s 8.3s
0 - 160km/h: 11.0s 10.2s
0 - 180km/h: 13.8s 13.1s
0 - 200km/h: 17.2s 16.0s

100-200 in 3th&4th: 12.1s 11.2s
100-200 in 4th: 13.2s 14.0s
100-200 in 5th: 16.0s 16.6s
100-200 in 6th: 20.8s 20.7s

Braking:
100-0 in: 36.4m 33.8m
200-0 in: 148.1m 141.9m

The Audi had the optional ceramic brakes.
With the normal brakes, the Audi did 200-0 in 141.22m

[Leadfoot]

ClioV16,

3x5PSI will reckon the new M3 must be faulty as it's only 0.8s quicker to 200km/h than the old M3. It's little or no heavier and has a whole 67hp more yet it's only 0.8s quicker.

Yeah right 3x5PSI, we believe you.

[Clio16V]

Nice to see waht the M3 and RS4 can do from 100-200 in 4th gear, 14s for the BMW and 13.2s for the Audi.

I've got a movie of my own car, a BMW E36 M3 3.2L, and it does from 110-210 in 4th in 15s! Not bad for a 12year old M3 :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4bBSAfpt8U

[Ruergard]

Nice to see waht the M3 and RS4 can do from 100-200 in 4th gear, 14s for the BMW and 13.2s for the Audi.

I've got a movie of my own car, a BMW E36 M3 3.2L, and it does from 110-210 in 4th in 15s! Not bad for a 12year old M3 :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4bBSAfpt8U


The E36 3.2L is still a damn quick car, and with the limiter removed it's fast to! :revs:

[steve]

0 - 20km/h: 0.8s 0.5s
0 - 40km/h: 1.7s 1.6s
0 - 60km/h: 2.5s 2.4s

If you know how to launch a quattro properly, then it will be a lot quicker of the line than a RWD car...

these numbers show the lack of driving skill ;)

[Leadfoot]

The E36 3.2L is still a damn quick car, and with the limiter removed it's fast to! :revs:

From experience I have found the 286hp E36 to be one of the best engine/gearbox combinations, the 5 speed was a much better box than the M3 EVO with it's 6 speed.

I personally didn't like the EVO model, it was a bit like the new M3, it had gain more power in the evolution but had lost a bit of the sparkle along the way. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, it's just my opinion. :thumb:

[Leadfoot]

0 - 20km/h: 0.8s 0.5s
0 - 40km/h: 1.7s 1.6s
0 - 60km/h: 2.5s 2.4s

If you know how to launch a quattro properly, then it will be a lot quicker of the line than a RWD car...

these numbers show the lack of driving skill ;)

It would remind me of a tired clutch, especially as it keeps losing time through the gears but not when the times are taken in a single gear.

What anyone else's opinion on this.

[steve]

It would remind me of a tired clutch, especially as it keeps losing time through the gears but not when the times are taken in a single gear.

What anyone else's opinion on this.

Is possible with those press cars.

But with quattro, there is only one way to properly launch it... make lots of revs, and dump the clutch rapidly.
That's how i do it, and I find it should be able to cope with that, if not it's garbage :hihi:

[Clio16V]

@Leadfoot,

Of course you're free to give you opinion about the EVO ;)

One of the differences between the 3.0 and 3.2 engine is that the 3.0 sounds a little bit sharper and it looks like it's got a little bit more/quicker throttle response.

The gearbox is, as far as i know, both the same, only the EVO got 6 gears but the first 5 gears are the same.

Some say that the EVO is almost not faster then the 3.0, i can tell you, it is :)
Here's a movie from my car, the blue one, against an M3GT(Limited edition with 295HP) http://video.google.nl/url?docid=8260410236898311872&esrc=gvre&ev=v&q=M3%2BGT%2Bvs%2Be36%2B3.2&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.nl%2Fvideoplay%3F docid%3D8260410236898311872&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8260410236898311872&usg=AL29H20nK5AQTOgokYke5rFVgCRLkfxH9w

The double VANOS also gives the EVO a lot of more tourqe in the lower revs.

And yes my car hasn't got a speedlimiter :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/ErikT595/Teller2.jpg
I managed to to 290km/h on GPS(sorry no picts of that) I've got a pict. of 286GPS
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/ErikT595/286GPS.jpg
Thake that new M3 :hihi:

Got a lot more movies and picts, i also "killed" a E46 M3CS.
And yes my car is completely standard no tuning.

[Leadfoot]

ClioV16,

This was not me dissing your car, the EVO is still a great car. I'm not sure about the gearbox, I know the ratios are the same but is memory serves me, the 5 speed was a lot stronger and was less inclined to block when you changed very quickly but my experience might have been the example I drove.

It funny but over the years though the M3 has got a little bit more powerful, since the E36 model some owner of each have said that they don't seem to be getting any quicker. What your opinion of this, do you feel the same.

[Clio16V]

Could be true Leadfoot about the strength of the 5-spd gearbox.

The power and speed gained of the E36 M3 compared to the E30 M3 is a lot, but indeed the E46 isn't a lot faster then the E36 also the new M3 isn't that much faster then the E36/46(in a straight line)

Here you can see my race against a guy who i know on a German Autobahn:
He drives the BMW E46 M3 CS
He cheated a little and started in 2nd gear i started in 3rd so he could 'jump'a little on me, but see what happens...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss2FgMiv2fo

[3x5PSI]

ClioV16,

3x5PSI will reckon the new M3 must be faulty as it's only 0.8s quicker to 200km/h than the old M3. It's little or no heavier and has a whole 67hp more yet it's only 0.8s quicker.

Yeah right 3x5PSI, we believe you.

You can't compare times done on Mars to times done in Holland. Using different timing equipment. Surely you have enough intelligence to know that you can't comparee times from different mags in different places.

All that matters is that at the same place at the same time with the same timing equipment, the M3 was significantly faster.

[Leadfoot]

3x5PSI,

As this is a roadtest carried out by a car magazine the timing equipment will be as accurate as any other. If you noticed the M3 matches the exact time BMW official give the new M3 so they haven't got a bad start and each speed segment doesn't show anything but a small drop in acceleration as the speed increases.

As for the RS4, to expect a rwd car to match or better a quattro over the first 40~50mph is plain silly and something I doubt anyone here would reckon as sensible, so clearly what we had here is a RS4 with a worn clutch which will work perfectly well in normal conditions but under extreme load will slip a little, but enough to stop the car from using it's extra traction at the start and with each change.

When you check the in-gear times you can also see this affect taking place.

100-200 in 3th&4th: 12.1s 11.2s (The change is clearly affecting the RS4)
100-200 in 4th: 13.2s 14.0s (No affect from the clutch)
100-200 in 5th: 16.0s 16.6s (likewise)
100-200 in 6th: 20.8s 20.7s (Here is where the both car have equal amounts of torque in the rev range and the less weight of the M3 is allowing it to match the RS4)

I not doubt the M3 will go a little faster and reckon a 15.4s is clearly on the cards, no doubt one of my fellow UK magazines will prove this. :D But until we have more data on the M3 it true potential is an unknown quantity. As for the RS4, it's average to 200km/h is about 16.1s with a best of 15.6s and a worst here of 17.2s but most are in the low 16s. I have always said that I believed the M3 would be a little quicker but it won't produce the times some people here have raved about. It's a rival to the RS4 but not the all conquering machine of old.

[3x5PSI]

My word, you have no idea what you are talking about. The clutch is affecting the RS4 by one second in the 100-200 (3rd & 4th)? Are you serious? Why do you always make excuses? There's only one shift there. The reason the M3 was a second faster is that it was in the powerband.

And yeah a RSW can beat a 4WD. Been done many times. Especially on grippy surfaces. I have videos, tell me if you want to see them.

[Leadfoot]

My word, you have no idea what you are talking about. The clutch is affecting the RS4 by one second in the 100-200 (3rd & 4th)? Are you serious? Why do you always make excuses? There's only one shift there. The reason the M3 was a second faster is that it was in the powerband.

And yeah a RSW can beat a 4WD. Been done many times. Especially on grippy surfaces. I have videos, tell me if you want to see them.

I can tell you this, I have experienced a worn clutch on a quattro and no a full second would not be expected from just one shift, but I didn't say as much, I hinted that it is affecting it's time. But in any case check the acceleration figures, all they have done is subtracted the 100km/h time from the 200km/h time, this is not starting in 3rd and only shifting to 4th. The RS4 will make middle sixties in 2nd gear, so what you are seeing is in fact two gear changes. As for the other in-gear times it's the lack of gear changes that is helping the RS4 which proves I am right, the RS4 is not only heavier, but because it's driving twice the wheels more power is being lose in the transmission. The RS4 betters the M3 is 4th and 5th gears and all but equals the M3 in 6th and if you check their torque band is very similar proving that it's gear changes that is affecting the RS4.

If there is one thing launching an awd car is bad for is it's clutch, I remembered doing it one time in the S4 and the clutch slipped something awful, I thought the thing was buggered and it was for most of the day, each gear change was followed by slipping and the smell. Luckily the rest over night fixed the problem and it didn't occur again.

You are correct that in some cases like a dragstrip, a rwd car can beat an awd car off the line and if this is the case in this test then I will agree with you. But if this is indeed the case both cars performance was piss poor.

[Clio16V]

The test in this magazine also told us that the M3 has very very good grip even in the wet.
The drove a few laps on the Nordschleife in the wet and yes even in the wet the RS4 wasn´t able to shake off the M3!

No they didn´t post laptimes ;)

[Leadfoot]

The test in this magazine also told us that the M3 has very very good grip even in the wet.
The drove a few laps on the Nordschleife in the wet and yes even in the wet the RS4 wasn´t able to shake off the M3!

No they didn´t post laptimes ;)

Never have I say that in the hand of professionals will an awd car gain much if anything over a rwd car, especially on the track. But as most here are Joe Average, on the road awd cars give the kind of confidence that almost all rwd cars can't. I just wished some magazine would take the average guy off the street and get them to do some lap when doing comparison tests, I think it would be a lot more enlightening than a semi-pro telling us which is best.

[Clio16V]

You got a point there Leadfoot.

[Leadfoot]

You see, I'm not always talking BS, sometimes I even amaze myself. :D