Autocar Full M3 Test

[KK265]

http://www.imageshack.gr/images/uqjymj2xy0yyhkzmm2m2.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=uqjymj2xy0yyhkzmm2m2.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/zz5wqweimndz0yatwyqm.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=zz5wqweimndz0yatwyqm.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/d3izikdgm1muztno5kjj.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=d3izikdgm1muztno5kjj.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/tmclzn2wq12yodzjmzme.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=tmclzn2wq12yodzjmzme.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/nt2gzoyjjmnht1hacjgk.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=nt2gzoyjjmnht1hacjgk.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/mj5cmvtwkzizmtgyi50u.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=mj5cmvtwkzizmtgyi50u.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/j3mwljwn1mejyqzgwnmm.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=j3mwljwn1mejyqzgwnmm.jpg)

[Leadfoot]

I knew I was correct that AUTOCAR got the RS4 to the 150mph in the 26s or should I say 26.8s exactly, that was a whole 0.3s slower to reach the 150mph mark.

Please BMW guys, explain to me here and now that Quattro loses more power from it's drive-train than the BMW rwd set-up because from what I'm reading here if anything it's the Quattro set-up which is losing less because the weight of the two cars is one thing that is always correct and in the UK all RS4s are quite highly specced and the one AUTOCAR tested had SAT-NAV and rear electric windows and was a full 150Kgs heavier.

You can't even say that this M3 didn't perform because it posted a mind boggling 10.2s to 100mph, that's on par with an M5 for heaven-sake. And I know I keep preaching on about this (this is addressed to the S.African guys) but just look at the difference between the RS4 and the M3 around the wet handling course.:hihi: Oh and by the way just to rub it in, a Focus ST220 or Golf GTi are both quicker on this track, once again proving that in such conditions even fwd is better than rwd.

But then again you already knew that.

P.S.
They got the weights of the two wrong in the TOP FIVE bit at the bottom, it's the RS4 which is claimed 1655Kgs and the M3 that's 1538Kgs.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

the track times are quite strange.
How could RS4 in wet be faster than in dry conditions?

[Leadfoot]

artur777,

It not the same track, that's how.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

my ages!
Sorry - it was my inattentiveness.

[Leadfoot]

artur777,

Don't beat yourself up about it, must look at and think the same, the track is actually quite a bit shorter and is totally covered in water, not unlike some roads you will get in the UK at the height of the Autumn only without the fallen leaves which can be even worse.

I am giving the M3 is really hard time about it's wet handling but the truth is it actually coped with the corners well, it's problem was traction out of the corners, it's that 50/50 weight balance coming in to the argument again or should I say 51/49 weight balance, naughty BMW for quoting all their cars are 50/50, in fact both the M5/6 don't meet this figure either but back to the traction problems maybe Ferrari and the others are right after all with their 47/53. :vhmmm:

It still a great car and a brilliant alternative to either the RS4 or the Cayman S. :cheers:

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

do you mean that for a car to exit a corner faster it's better to have assymetric weight balance?
the second question: is it better to have such balance with more weight on the front axle or rear axle if we talk about RWD and AWD cars?

[Leadfoot]

On rwd to have a bit more weight on the driving wheels has to be a benefit especially on slippery conditions. As for awd, I believe it's less weight bias than either fwd or rwd but it's setting will be more determined by where the engine is on the car and then the awd setting will be adjusted accordingly.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

in Audi RS4 weight balance is 60/40 and power is distributed as 40/60.
So they have more power at the end - not at the front.
So it seems that if the power distribution were 60/40 as the weight, RS4 could exit corners even faster.
But then it should be even more understeered than it is.
Do I get right?

[Fab]

Very nice test. Once again both cars are very close but definitely the RS4 has specific characteristics that the M3 can't match i.e. engine sound, built quality, allweather car etc.

This is the most objective point of view I red... Then you simply choose the one you prefer.

For me the RS4/M3 battle has come to an end : Audi managed to bring its RS to the level of the "king" M3 (as many magazines are used to call it) which is a great achievement with even some better charateritics.

No doubt in my mind that the next RS generations (4, 5, 6) will just leave BM in the dust in all criterias. :rs4addict :rs4kiss: :heart:

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot,

in Audi RS4 weight balance is 60/40 and power is distributed as 40/60.
So they have more power at the end - not at the front.
So it seems that if the power distribution were 60/40 as the weight, RS4 could exit corners even faster.
But then it should be even more understeered than it is.
Do I get right?

Artur777,

Sorry mate, you are missing the point, forget the 40/60 split that the RS4 has, this is just it's normal set-up while driving without load like on the motorway etc, as soon a load happens the power is shifted to where the grip is required so depending on the situation the power can be anything between 85/15 ~15/85. This is the beauty of awd over rwd.

Like I said before weight balance is less important with awd than rwd cars but clearly the more even the axles are the better it will perform.:thumb:

[audi_ch]

am i right, the m3 is on 18" wheels, the rs4 was on 19". If yes that definitly makes a difference up to 150 mph

[KK265]

am i right, the m3 is on 18" wheels, the rs4 was on 19". If yes that definitly makes a difference up to 150 mph

Look a little better on subject tyres please.....(245/35/19 front and 265/35/19 rear)...

[KK265]

P.S. Suffered epic understeer on a roundabout yesterday with the RS4.

http://www.imageshack.gr/images/mjj2giydounyzwljonzq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=mjj2giydounyzwljonzq.jpg):hihi:

[Leadfoot]

They were both fitted with 19" alloys in the test.

[Leadfoot]

Wet road performance is all in the tires. As long as you are not pressing the gas pedal in the corner, it doesn't matter what kind of "drive" you have, the tires matter. AWD means that you can be hamfisted with the throttle.

P.S. Suffered epic understeer on a roundabout yesterday with the RS4.

This is only a bit of advice, please stop saying things that are trying to make it look like the RS4 is a poor handling car because all you are doing is proving to the rest of us that you have to be one of the worst drivers ever. :jlol:

[RussianM3_dude]

Talk to the hand...

[artur777]

Leadfoot, thanks for the answer.
Now I understand why RS4 corners out quicker than M3.

If I got right basing on the figures of RS4 and M3 - RS6 will simply humiliate M5 with having even 73hp more!

[Leadfoot]

Talk to the hand...

Clearly this shows your mentality, stick your head in the sand while someone gives you good advice. Very mature. :boring:

[Erik]

OK children, please behave!

[Leadfoot]

Erik,

This guy is trying to get on everyone's tits and for no reason other than to argue. Clearly we aren't the problem don't you think.

[Fab]

To tell you my thought I have been very disapointed and surprised of the recent behaviour of some participants (mainly new ones) jumping in with agressive statments as I never saw for years on this forum.

This is not good at all but not easy to handle as well for Eric.

I think that the "core" members are well known to us as per each one "past posting reputation" and those are definitely not the one to blame when someone is trying to damage a tread.

This is a great quality forum, the best in my opinion and must keep is quality.

Eric : you are doing a great job :thumb:

[Erik]

This is not good at all but not easy to handle as well for Erik.


Thanks!

I have 2 jobs, a family and I run RS6.com free of charge for everyone.
My day only has 24h so every time I, or one of the other moderators, have to get involved with "Kindergarten" it is very irritating because it means I will lose money somewhere else, not see my family etc.
On the internet, when two (or more) people are arguing it is very difficult to distinguish who's "the idiot", who's to blame, who's wrong and not.

I don't have as much time as I had when I started RS6.com, far from actually.
But I only see problems increasing. We have a warning system, 3 strikes and you're out but in some cases with new members or people who clearly are here only for one thing 1 strike is enough.

I might not always be right, but I don't have time to look in each thread, write 20 pms per day etc. This is not a democracy I'm afraid. :deal:

[audi_ch]

Talk to the hand...


Not understandable, why you are so unsatisfied with your care and still own it.

When i am unhappy with a car then i sell it straight away and thats it.
why you lose then your time and try to tell clear audi fans and audi owner what a shity car they have...

Come on if you really own one sell it and go away. Buy the m5 or new m3 wathever and be happy. Or maybee you dont own it, just leasing and stock with the leasing. Then you loose some money but you still can go away ..

[RussianM3_dude]

It's a lease and a company car. Can't really get rid of it fast.

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot, thanks for the answer.
Now I understand why RS4 corners out quicker than M3.

If I got right basing on the figures of RS4 and M3 - RS6 will simply humiliate M5 with having even 73hp more!

Back to the proper discussions again.

Yep I believe this will be the case, the PTW difference between the RS6 and the RS4 is near enough 35hp per tonne plus if you look at the torque per tonne the numbers differences are huge, this should allow the RS6 to post much quicker times than the RS4 and with it's super quick shifting auto each gear change will be an easy half that of the manual. I wouldn't be surprised to see the RS6 being 4~5 seconds quicker than the RS4/M3 to the 150mph mark and 2+ seconds quicker to the 125mph mark.

This will be a seriously quick car.

[RussianM3_dude]

Problem is, why do you need a very fast automatic car... Unless you live in Germany and can do long high speed runs?

[KK265]

Thanks!

I might not always be right, but I don't have time to look in each thread, write 20 pms per day etc. This is not a democracy I'm afraid. :deal:

Off course this is not democracy.That is the reason that personal insults became more.From my recent personal experience you do not examine the story between two persons.You need a colleague.

[KK265]

It's a lease and a company car. Can't really get rid of it fast.

Park it and buy something else or change job!!

[OfftheHeZie]

The power loss in the drivetrain doesn't matter because the 4.2 liter V8 in the front of the RS4 is greater than the carbon copy in the front of the M3. :nono: :lovl: Paper must have been disfigured. :p

[Leadfoot]

Problem is, why do you need a very fast automatic car... Unless you live in Germany and can do long high speed runs?

I think you might be missing the point of these big luxury sports saloons, all and I mean all of them are automatics of a sort, the Merc and Audi and proper automatics while the M5 is a semi-automatics but all of them can either run in fully automatic mode or semi with the use of paddles, the fact that the new RS6 will be running a ultra-quick shift pattern will feel like a manual. Just because all set are true auto does that make them any the less for it. It's the style of the breed, the majority of people that buy these type of cars are professional types who like the performance but not the trappings the usually go with them, like manual boxes, stiff ride and noisy interiors.

The Merc E63 is at the most comfort bias side of the scale and the M5 at the other with the RS6 most likely in between, but be understand no illusions all of them aren't sportscars in the true sense of the word.

So unless you are also directing your displeasure at the M5 then you can't have a problem with either the Merc or Audi, unless it's because of the brand name that you are having the problem with.;)

[artur777]

Back to the proper discussions again.

Yep I believe this will be the case, the PTW difference between the RS6 and the RS4 is near enough 35hp per tonne plus if you look at the torque per tonne the numbers differences are huge, this should allow the RS6 to post much quicker times than the RS4 and with it's super quick shifting auto each gear change will be an easy half that of the manual. I wouldn't be surprised to see the RS6 being 4~5 seconds quicker than the RS4/M3 to the 150mph mark and 2+ seconds quicker to the 125mph mark.

This will be a seriously quick car.

Leadfoot, agree!
My expectations are the same.
We have to wait until 11.09 , 12-00 when the Audi press-conference at IAA is held. So soon we will get all answers for our questions.:cheers:

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot, agree!
My expectations are the same.
We have to wait until 11.09 , 12-00 when the Audi press-conference at IAA is held. So soon we will get all answers for our questions.:cheers:


Well some of you will in any case.;)

[Leadfoot]

Got to read the M3 review in full today and regardless of the fact that they still prefer the RS4 this M3 is a much more accomplished machine than the one it replaced. The fact that it ride is a lot more polished than before but still understeers less than previously means for those who are looking for that tail-out foolery is even more accessible and with it's new ESP options, even more controllable.

I reckon it's abilities are a lot more multi-talented than the one dimensional character of old. The die-hard might not like it the same and the reviews might not get the same rating but the buying public will love it even more and I reckon they will sell them by the bucket load.

[Leadfoot]

I am surprised that finally the M3 is getting fully tested in a number of magazine and the members on the site that are fans of all thing M aren't here to discuss it. :eye:

Me thinks some are a little disappointed with the results but for no good reasons, come on guys we need your input too. :cheers:

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

the results of M3 test are good, but not excellent.
M3 CSL is a car we should wait for.
Though I will be glad to read comparisson tests with M3 and C63, because RS4 is leaving us.
My personal opinion about M3.
Everything that were in the tests is more or less predictable.
But the only thing impressed me most of all: the acceleration times.

Comparing M3 to M5 from one side and RS4 from the other side, I expected M3 to do 0-200 at 15-15,5 sec, no more.
But it is slightly faster than RS4, very slightly!
And all the upstated discussions about AWD / RWD drivetrain losses becom even more interesting.

Why do you think M3 is not that faster than RS4, counting AWD/RWD losses? You know, anyway AWD car loses more than RWD. The question is the difference of those losses...

[Fab]

Well there is been many many discussions about the RS4 not having all its quoted HP so maybe the explanation is that the M3 is getting the same issue and even less real hp than the RS4. This could explain why M3 times are not better.

This is also my main question mark : how the RS4 with 4wd (power loss) and 100kg (approx) heavier can have the same chronos ????

Well I personally do not focus on finding the reason I better enjoy the fact :applause: :applause: :rs4kiss:

[RussianM3_dude]

I think you might be missing the point of these big luxury sports saloons, all and I mean all of them are automatics of a sort, the Merc and Audi and proper automatics while the M5 is a semi-automatics but all of them can either run in fully automatic mode or semi with the use of paddles, the fact that the new RS6 will be running a ultra-quick shift pattern will feel like a manual. Just because all set are true auto does that make them any the less for it. It's the style of the breed, the majority of people that buy these type of cars are professional types who like the performance but not the trappings the usually go with them, like manual boxes, stiff ride and noisy interiors.

The Merc E63 is at the most comfort bias side of the scale and the M5 at the other with the RS6 most likely in between, but be understand no illusions all of them aren't sportscars in the true sense of the word.

So unless you are also directing your displeasure at the M5 then you can't have a problem with either the Merc or Audi, unless it's because of the brand name that you are having the problem with.;)

I tried the M5 recently and didn't like it that much. I can see a lot more interesting things to do with 160,000 CHF and if I were rich... why buy the M5, go for the Bentley or an Aston or Brabus.

[Leadfoot]

I tried the M5 recently and didn't like it that much. I can see a lot more interesting things to do with 160,000 CHF and if I were rich... why buy the M5, go for the Bentley or an Aston or Brabus.

All of the above still have automatic boxes, yeah they are great cars but with the exception of the Aston Martin all are basically the same as the others and are bringing nothing more to the table than exclusiveness and in the case of the Brabus monstrous power. But I thought you disliked the Aston because they all look the same and the Bentley is still surely a fancy VW, as for the Brabus well it still a Merc.

I don't personally have a problem with any of these cars but I don't see how you see them to be different from the other. :confused: Or is it just me who thinks this.

[quattro]

Well there is been many many discussions about the RS4 not having all its quoted HP so maybe the explanation is that the M3 is getting the same issue and even less real hp than the RS4. This could explain why M3 times are not better.

Well I personally do not focus on finding the reason I better enjoy the fact

Let's just hope that BMW have learnt their lesson, that the M3 engine will keep together better this time.

Your last comment: perfect sense. :thumb:

[RussianM3_dude]

All of the above still have automatic boxes, yeah they are great cars but with the exception of the Aston Martin all are basically the same as the others and are bringing nothing more to the table than exclusiveness and in the case of the Brabus monstrous power. But I thought you disliked the Aston because they all look the same and the Bentley is still surely a fancy VW, as for the Brabus well it still a Merc.

I don't personally have a problem with any of these cars but I don't see how you see them to be different from the other. :confused: Or is it just me who thinks this.

Well Bentley has no sporting pretense and is basically to lazily cruise about, Brabus I probably woouldn't get one actually. Astons look the same but are beautiful, it's like sleeping with a hot Milf, then her hot model daughter, then her hot younger sister. In the parlance of our time "I'd hit it." (cue the relevant PShopped image.) The V8 is actually pretty nice to drive.

[Erik]

Astons look the same but are beautiful, it's like sleeping with a hot Milf, then her hot model daughter, then her hot younger sister.

:applause: :lovl:

[bastordd]

The RS4 is more fast 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile! The wet circuit the RS4 is more fast than M3! Is incredible it is that the system quattro exactly in the speeds highest is almost equal the back traction of the M3!
I waited much more of the new M3!
RS POWER!

[Erik]

The RS4 is more fast 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile!


And the quarter mile is what wins the race, not the 0-200 km/h time. :cool2:

[Leadfoot]

Well Bentley has no sporting pretense and is basically to lazily cruise about, Brabus I probably woouldn't get one actually. Astons look the same but are beautiful, it's like sleeping with a hot Milf, then her hot model daughter, then her hot younger sister. In the parlance of our time "I'd hit it." (cue the relevant PShopped image.) The V8 is actually pretty nice to drive.

This is the kind of interaction we are looking for, keep up the good work. :cheers:

[Leadfoot]

And the quarter mile is what wins the race, not the 0-200 km/h time. :cool2:

Correct, but only on the dragstrip as out on the open road away from the motorways you will seldom see a straight between corners that is even the distance of a 1/4mile. So I say what wins a race is the ability of the car in the corners and size of the balls between your legs. :hihi:

Needless to say I walk like John Wayne. :D

[bastordd]

All people it waited more of the new BMW M3! because the new V8 engine, BMW rwd, and less weight! But the RS4 it proved one more time that it is a top car!
The new RS6 goes to finish with the all competition!
RS POWER!

[RussianM3_dude]

BMW honestly just got lazy. Why shouldn't they? Their sales are up and up and they have tasted high profits and want more. They just don't feel the need to prove anything by releasing a very focused car anymore. Even if sales tank in Europe AND US, they will prbably sell all they can make in emerging markets, so why go the extra mile to impress a handfull of enthusiasts? Thus the M products have been steadily loosing focus recently and are getting more and more techno geeky.

However if the competition does indeed catch up in the next year or two, I expect M to finally get their act together.

[Leadfoot]

BMW didn't get lazy, the competition just got better that's all and regardless of what the motoring press think of the M3, BMW have made to right move to make it less extreme because now it will play to a bigger audience than ever before. If you believe BMW has gone soft than the same has to be said about Porsche because the new GT3 is more like a Carrera S in drive-ability than any previous version and this proves that the majority of customers want their trackday specials to still be driven everyday instead of being parked up through the week.

BMW learned their costly lesson with the last CSL, it was too extreme and too expensive to be regarded as anything other than a toy and sadly too common of a brand to be regarded as special. The next one will drive a lot closer to the last M3 though going a little better than the current one and no doubt handling almost as well as the last one. But the price will have to be right for it to sell anyway well.

[RussianM3_dude]

BMW never planned to sell many E46CSLs. In fact they ended up building more then expected. I've seen some examples for sale with massive mileage, so daily driven.

[Leadfoot]

BMW never planned to sell many E46CSLs. In fact they ended up building more then expected. I've seen some examples for sale with massive mileage, so daily driven.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe but here in the UK which I might add is BMW's biggest market for M cars in Europe after German did sell well at all, in fact they didn't sell their expected quota and ended up heavily discounting them to within a few thousand pound over than the regular M3.

Now I can't believe that the UK's market was very much different than the rest of Europe but clearly you are saying it is.

[RussianM3_dude]

Not here in Switzerland.

As far as I remember, BMW doubled the original CSL allocation for Britain, p-offing existing owners, since the car became less rare and it affected resale value.

[Leadfoot]

Not here in Switzerland.

As far as I remember, BMW doubled the original CSL allocation for Britain, p-offing existing owners, since the car became less rare and it affected resale value.

The UK received 500 CSL of which all were meant to be sold out, but the reality was dealers were bringing them in to stock hoping to make a killing and only 390 something sold at full price according to a friend at BMW UK, the rest sat on Garage forecourts until the price dropped in some cases as low as £46K. I don't call that a success unless your opinions are a little different than mine.

[Z07]

Why do you think M3 is not that faster than RS4, counting AWD/RWD losses? You know, anyway AWD car loses more than RWD. The question is the difference of those losses...
At least one manufacturer is telling fibs about their engine's power output.:hahahehe: Interesting that Autocar felt the E46 M3 CS was better than the new M3.

[Z07]

Let's just hope that BMW have learnt their lesson, that the M3 engine will keep together better this time.

"My crank bearings, my poor crank bearings," cried the BMW driver.:harass:

[Z07]

Well Bentley has no sporting pretense and is basically to lazily cruise about, Brabus I probably woouldn't get one actually. Astons look the same but are beautiful, it's like sleeping with a hot Milf, then her hot model daughter, then her hot younger sister. In the parlance of our time "I'd hit it." (cue the relevant PShopped image.) The V8 is actually pretty nice to drive.

Astons are like Jessica Simpson, they look nice and sound good but underneath it all they're utterly retarded.

[Leadfoot]

Astons are like Jessica Simpson, they look nice and sound good but underneath it all they're utterly retarded.

I know which one I would prefer to take for a spin.:hahahehe:

[KK265]

I knew I was correct that AUTOCAR got the RS4 to the 150mph in the 26s or should I say 26.8s exactly, that was a whole 0.3s slower to reach the 150mph mark.

Please BMW guys, explain to me here and now that Quattro loses more power from it's drive-train than the BMW rwd set-up because from what I'm reading here if anything it's the Quattro set-up which is losing less because the weight of the two cars is one thing that is always correct and in the UK all RS4s are quite highly specced and the one AUTOCAR tested had SAT-NAV and rear electric windows and was a full 150Kgs heavier.



P.S.
They got the weights of the two wrong in the TOP FIVE bit at the bottom, it's the RS4 which is claimed 1655Kgs and the M3 that's 1538Kgs.
Today performance data M3 4.0 from Greek magazine 4wheels (the biggest).I have scans if anyone is interested:
0-100 4,9 (72,2m)
0-160 10,6
0-400m 13,7/179km/h
0-1000m 23,5/232 km/h

They dynoed also:356,3 HP/8000rpm and 33,9 kgm/7.200 rpm on wheels both

[Z07]

I disagree completely. Have you ever owned one ?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/stimmers/Aston001.jpg

A Jessica Simpson? No, never.

The new ones are a little better but the Vanquish is a shocking case of mutton dressed as lamb.

[Leadfoot]

Today performance data M3 4.0 from Greek magazine 4wheels (the biggest).I have scans if anyone is interested:
0-100 4,9 (72,2m)
0-160 10,6
0-400m 13,7/179km/h
0-1000m 23,5/232 km/h

They dynoed also:356,3 HP/8000rpm and 33,9 kgm/7.200 rpm on wheels both

Basically this is telling you what I have been saying about dynos and awd cars for ages, here is an M3 with equal power output in theory producing at least 10+% more power than a RS4 which weighs upwards on 150Kgs more yet is no quicker when tested side by side on the same track with same equipment.

[audi_ch]

Today performance data M3 4.0 from Greek magazine 4wheels (the biggest).I have scans if anyone is interested:
0-100 4,9 (72,2m)
0-160 10,6
0-400m 13,7/179km/h
0-1000m 23,5/232 km/h

They dynoed also:356,3 HP/8000rpm and 33,9 kgm/7.200 rpm on wheels both


Scans please, thanks

[KK265]

Scans please, thanks


http://www.imageshack.gr/images/cny2tr2yygmmdjiyyyl5.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=cny2tr2yygmmdjiyyyl5.jpg)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/ij2dzzn2mkjybkzjul0m.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=ij2dzzn2mkjybkzjul0m.jpg)

[Leadfoot]

Though I don't speak Greek I can read the numbers and it appears that the S5 in their hands at least near enough matched both the RS4 and the M3, plus was second best at braking.

Do you have any info on what the RS4, Cayman S and S5 achieved around the same track?

[bastordd]

LOL! RS4 0-100 km/h 5.2 seconds? hm... They are the worse numbers I see for RS4... but test is test and it exists some tests!

[KK265]

Though I don't speak Greek I can read the numbers and it appears that the S5 in their hands at least near enough matched both the RS4 and the M3, plus was second best at braking.

Do you have any info on what the RS4, Cayman S and S5 achieved around the same track?
No.They did not try but the magazine is BMW and Porsche bias a little.You can see a video-clip of the test here:
http://www.4troxoi.gr/index.php?cat_id=201&page_id=5467
(press left click on the dash)
There is also a whole vcd of the test which i have but it is illegal to upload it.So it says at the beggining.

[The RS6]

S5 faster 80-100km/h and 120-140km/h than the RS4 and Cayman S :)

Nice...

[skratch]

That is the best torque curve BMW has put out yet.From 3k-8k its in its torque peake lol That car must feel awesome revving up to redline,after 3k there is no power loss and it pulls all the way to red.It even peaks at 7,000 rpms and is still making more torque after that than it is in the mid range.The car will be at its torque peak on every shift,no matter where you are after 3k.

[Leadfoot]

Agreed with skratch on this engine, it's BMW's best effort since the old MacLaren F1 car and a lot more impressive than the big v10 of the M5/6. I worth while competitor to the RS4 engine.

It's just a shame that it doesn't seem to be able to pull as hard when you consider that it's in a car that is 150kgs lighter and with a power-train that supposably loses less power. ;)

[KK265]

Though I don't speak Greek I can read the numbers and it appears that the S5 in their hands at least near enough matched both the RS4 and the M3, plus was second best at braking.

Do you have any info on what the RS4, Cayman S and S5 achieved around the same track?
CAYMAN S WET TRACK:

http://www.imageshack.gr/images/1ytuniwzzmmegtyg42mm.bmp (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=1ytuniwzzmmegtyg42mm.bmp)
http://www.imageshack.gr/images/0ewwnygjio24zzmee5yq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/viewer.php?file=0ewwnygjio24zzmee5yq.jpg)

[KK265]

Automobile magazine M3 E 92 test:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80995

[3x5PSI]

It's just a shame that it doesn't seem to be able to pull as hard when you consider that it's in a car that is 150kgs lighter and with a power-train that supposably loses less power. ;)

Hey Leadie, did you miss me? I been in AMsterdam for 8 days.

I see in that test that the M3 was a full second quicker over a standing kilometre & travelling 14km/h faster! OMG! Do you comprehen what an exit speed differential of 14km/h is? The M3 is GALLOPING away at that speed. As it should be according to the laws of physics. More power to the wheels, less weight. I think we need to get more side-by-side tests in the same conditions like the Dutch one, where the M3 was also a second quicker. But yeah I agree some of the times have been disappointing in isolation. I wonder what's going on there.

[Leadfoot]

Hey Leadie, did you miss me? I been in AMsterdam for 8 days.

I see in that test that the M3 was a full second quicker over a standing kilometre & travelling 14km/h faster! OMG! Do you comprehen what an exit speed differential of 14km/h is? The M3 is GALLOPING away at that speed. As it should be according to the laws of physics. More power to the wheels, less weight. I think we need to get more side-by-side tests in the same conditions like the Dutch one, where the M3 was also a second quicker. But yeah I agree some of the times have been disappointing in isolation. I wonder what's going on there.

Hi mate, hope you didn't bring anything back with you that requires treatment.:hihi:

Clearly you haven't read the AUTOCAR test which tested both the M3 and RS4 in acceleration, well let me inform you of the results and times. RS4 times in red. Track conditions dry and grippy with a air temperature of 16C.

speeds -----M3 vs RS4
30mph --(2.15s) vs (1.8s) -------- 100mph --(10.2s) vs (10.5s)
40mph --(2.8s) vs (2.5s) --------- 110mph --(12.6s) vs (12.8s)
50mph --(3.9s) vs (3.7s) --------- 120mph --(15.0s) vs (15.2s)
60mph --(4.7s) vs (4.5s) --------- 130mph --(17.8s) vs (18.1s)
70mph --(5.8s) vs (5.9s) --------- 140mph --(21.9s) vs (22.0s)
80mph --(7.2s) vs (7.2s) --------- 150mph --(26.5s) vs (26.8s)
90mph --(8.7s) vs (8.7s)

1/4mile times
M3 13.3s @ 112mph vs RS4 13.1s @ 111.5mph

1000m
M3 23.5s @ 143mph vs RS4 23.5s @ 142mph

Sadly on the day on the track time testing the M3 wasn't able to post a dry track handling time due to rain and standing water on some of the corners but it did post a wet track time of 1:10.55s compared to the RS4's time of 1:06.4s, a full 4 seconds quicker showing how much awd improves things when conditions get slippy.

By the way just to prove that on slippy conditions rwd is the worst choice because the GTi Golf and Focus ST220 both posted much better times on the wet track than the M3.


I don't know if you are seeing the same as me but this is what I am meaning when I say dyno machines can't figure awd cars correctly because if they were then the M3 would be walking away from the RS4 but what these times proves is if anything it's the RS4 that is actually pulling the harder when you consider it's the heavier by 150kgs as tested.

What's your thinking on this 3x5PSI.

[3x5PSI]

I'm thinking those cars weren't tested side by side. They just collated the results. Seeing as the circuit was wet on the same day, the drag strip might also not have been ideally dry. Judging by the 0-30mph time I might be onto something. 335's with no LSD run quicker than that. E46 M3's run quicker than that. Autocar themselves the E46 M3 quicker than that to 30mph.

Seeing as Autobild fot 0-200 in 15.7, I think those are the times it should do in ideal conditions. The only test that actually tested that cars side by side is the dutch one & the M3 was a second quicker.

[Leadfoot]

I'm thinking those cars weren't tested side by side. They just collated the results. Seeing as the circuit was wet on the same day, the drag strip might also not have been ideally dry. Judging by the 0-30mph time I might be onto something. 335's with no LSD run quicker than that. E46 M3's run quicker than that. Autocar themselves the E46 M3 quicker than that to 30mph.

Seeing as Autobild fot 0-200 in 15.7, I think those are the times it should do in ideal conditions. The only test that actually tested that cars side by side is the dutch one & the M3 was a second quicker.

I can assure you that the test was dry and grippy for the M3 test, the same for the RS4. This was the best result after several runs, so there is no denying the time being a poor one. Please lets not get back on the subject of the old M3, I and everyone else would prefer to leave that argument behind us. :noshake:

The combined results from the test so far show that both are pretty much equal in acceleration times, so I ask again how can this be if awd drive-trains lose so much more power at the wheels plus when you factor in the added weight of the RS4 none of this argument holds any water, awd is every bit as efficient as rwd.

As for a LSD, the difference in a straight line take-off is none, as both wheels are receiving equal resistance both will spin the same as a car with a LSD, but I'm sure you knew that.:boring:

You all may try and deny it but the facts are the M3 is little or no quicker than the RS4 and basing on it additional weight this is not the result any of you were expecting. :hihi:

[3x5PSI]

Please lets not get back on the subject of the old M3, I and everyone else would prefer to leave that argument behind us. :noshake:

Why? You aren't happy with Autocar's results with the M3 against the C55. You aren't happy with Sport Auto that got the M3 to 200 in 16.8. What about the other test that got 17.2? I guess you aren't happy with the C&D test that got good times as well for the E46. You put down any test that had good numbers for the E46.

The E92 M3 will be significantly faster than the RS4. As shown by the Greek test & the dutch test where they tested the cars together on the same day.

When more tests are out you will see that for yourself.

Using your logic of selective tests I could show the E46 M3 to be faster than the RS4. There have been some tests that have got the E46 faster. There has been one test that was done side by side & the E46 was quicker.

If you gonna' stick to a line of reasoning on results from selective tests then at least be consistent. The same argument you use applies to the E46 M3 against the RS4.

Now here's a test of the E46 & Rs4 tested in a shootout, but there are other mags like Car & Driver that got the E46 M3 faster but not tested on the same day.

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

[Leadfoot]

3x5PSI,

I don't think any of the moderators would be happy for the old M3 vs RS4 thing to kick off again.

I'm taking the higher position and not getting in to a debate on the old M3, it's out of production and as most will be looking for the new model to carry the flag it's only fair to discuss it's results so far. Regarding the new M3's times, it looks like the average for the car is slightly quicker than the RS4 maybe by a tenth or two and based on the results that AUTOCAR have conducted this seems to be the case.

The results from the AUTOCAR test are in line with others and a 0-100mph time of 10.2s is truly amazing don't you think especially as it betters the RS4, but regardless of whether it got off the line better in one test or other isn't really my point, it's the fact that between the 100~150mph mark both cars recorded an identical time.

Based on this please give me your opinions as to why a car (RS4) that you have said on more than one occasion don't produce the power that the BMW does at the wheels is able to post identical times even after the advantage of the extra grip from awd is taken out of the equation.

Please 3x5PSI, I'm all ears. ;)

[RussianM3_dude]

Well, the M3 DOES have less displacement.

[Leadfoot]

But identical quoted power and according to dyno machines more power to the wheels.

If you believe such things.

[Audi.de]

i saw the times and again i am amazed that RS4 is slightly better or equal with new 2007 M3 were RS4 was released in europe in 2004...man i am inlove with the RS4...
do you guys imagine what will be like the newRS4 B8?MLP platform, better differentials (maybe Torsen 3), maybe torque vectoring, less weight, better balance front/rear, much more torque because of the bi-turbo's and bigger tires...man i will cry when the future beast will be released...

[3x5PSI]

3x5PSI,

it's the fact that between the 100~150mph mark both cars recorded an identical time.

Not according to the Dutch & Greek magazines. The Greek test posted showed the M3 travelling 18km/h faster at the 1 km mark. Why do you keep choosing to ignore that and the only test to test the cars on the same day. You keep harping about Autocar but ignoring the others.

[Leadfoot]

Not according to the Dutch & Greek magazines. The Greek test posted showed the M3 travelling 18km/h faster at the 1 km mark. Why do you keep choosing to ignore that and the only test to test the cars on the same day. You keep harping about Autocar but ignoring the others.

For starters the Greek test like the Autocar one was not conducted side by side, especially this recently one supplied by KK265, but on the time printed for the RS4, clearly this is a mistake because this example is no quicker than a S5 which even you will admit is wrong. But look at the times and speeds from the Greek test and the one in Autocar, in both the M3 performed near enough identically, the 1000m times and speeds were the same at 23.5 and only 2mph out so clearly the Autocar test shows the M3 is posting the same times regardless of country and temperature. But on numerous tests the RS4 has also performed to with in a tenth or two and similarly on speed.

I'm the one here who is taking the averages and the results show that there is nothing between the two cars that indicates this huge power lose at the wheels which yourself and other BMW fans harp on about. Why can't you admit the theory that I am indeed right and dyno machines might be figuring awd incorrectly because there can be no other explanation for why the two cars are so evenly matched.

But what about the wet track times, is there a reason for this or are you in agreement that rwd isn't all it's cracked up to be and just to prove it's a rwd and BMW problem when conditions get slippery the 330d posted an identical time to the M3 proving that an M-diff and all that power counts for nothing if you haven't got control. I believe the problem why we aren't seeing eye to eye is the fact that bad weather isn't a problem for you lot in JHB compared to most of Europe.

[3x5PSI]

especially this recently one supplied by KK265, but on the time printed for the RS4, clearly this is a mistake because this example is no quicker than a S5 which even you will admit is wrong.

No buddy. It's not wrong. Its called conditions on the day. The RS4 must have run in bad air & the S5 in good air. Thats my whole point. The Greek test is not wrong. Thats what the RS4 ran on the day, whether you like it or not. Why can an Rs4 not run the same time as an S5 (in different conditions)? The E92 has also run the same time as the E46 M3 tested by Sport Auto. So I wouldn't say its impossible for an E92 to run E46 times. If the conditions are such its possible.

And of course a powerful RWD will not post a good time on a wet circuit. Its a lottery in the wet & your time depends on:

1. TYRES, TYRES, TYRES, what tyres & the tread design & depth
2. How wet it it is & in which parts of the corner
3. The driver

not necessarily in that order. But I could have told you an M3 will post a poor time in the wet. The driver will have a ball out there though. But I don't know many people that buy cars so they can race around circuits in the wet.

[3x5PSI]

But look at the times and speeds from the Greek test and the one in Autocar, in both the M3 performed near enough identically,

Yeah good point. The E92 ran 13.7 400m in the Greek test. 13.7!. Forget about the E46 M3, a STOCK E36 M3 runs that time. 13.7! And yet you say autocar is running similar times to the km. Well no wonder. Hell I know a buddy with a slightly modded 330i running 13.7.

http://www.imageshack.gr/images/ij2dzzn2mkjybkzjul0m.jpg

[artur777]

Interesting figures!
BMW badly needs new M3 CSL to make a visible difference between e92 m3 and other pretendents such as 335i, e46 m3, RS4 and others.
I respect BMW but the difference is no that great so far as it was in last generation (e46).

[RussianM3_dude]

i saw the times and again i am amazed that RS4 is slightly better or equal with new 2007 M3 were RS4 was released in europe in 2004...man i am inlove with the RS4...
do you guys imagine what will be like the newRS4 B8?MLP platform, better differentials (maybe Torsen 3), maybe torque vectoring, less weight, better balance front/rear, much more torque because of the bi-turbo's and bigger tires...man i will cry when the future beast will be released...

Not 2004. More like early 2006.

[Leadfoot]

No buddy. It's not wrong. Its called conditions on the day. The RS4 must have run in bad air & the S5 in good air. Thats my whole point. The Greek test is not wrong. Thats what the RS4 ran on the day, whether you like it or not. Why can an Rs4 not run the same time as an S5 (in different conditions)? The E92 has also run the same time as the E46 M3 tested by Sport Auto. So I wouldn't say its impossible for an E92 to run E46 times. If the conditions are such its possible.

OK, the RS4 run bad on the day, but as all of the times of the M3 are within a tenth or so one must expect that this the average time it will achieve, sure there might be one or two posting slightly better and slightly worse but on the whole this is it and like I said the two are evenly matched.


And of course a powerful RWD will not post a good time on a wet circuit. Its a lottery in the wet & your time depends on:

1. TYRES, TYRES, TYRES, what tyres & the tread design & depth
2. How wet it it is & in which parts of the corner
3. The driver

not necessarily in that order. But I could have told you an M3 will post a poor time in the wet. The driver will have a ball out there though. But I don't know many people that buy cars so they can race around circuits in the wet.

The tyres on all of the road tests carried out by AUTOCAR and any in the UK are new or within the first 1000km so tyres aren't the problem and the M3 currently only has one choice.

The track is identical for all cars, it is continuously hosed by sprayers all around the track, in fat the Bedford Autodome is possibly the most advance circuit anywhere in Europe.

And regarding the driver, please don't even go there.

[3x5PSI]

The driver is the most important factor. You could repeat the test with a different driver & get different results. The RS4 will still win. Some drivers do better in the wet than others. It about who is smoother, turns in later & feeds the power, etc. You can't say driver's not a factor.

This whole testing in the wet is a lottery due to the MAKES of tyre as well. A local mag had a hot hatch shoot-out at Killarney raceway. There were 10 hot hatches like Golf V Gti, CLio, Megane, Seat, etc. The results were totally messed up & in almost a random order compared to the dry results. And yet the same pro driver drove all cars & they were all front-wheel drive. It all depends on the tyres & how their specific characteristics handle that car. You could have the same car on different makes of tyres & it will get different times. For example, Michelin PS2 has an assymetrical design with big blocks on the outsides sidewalls for cornering & smaller blocks with lots of grooves on the inside for better water dispersion. Each manufacturer has a different way of striking the right balance.

[Leadfoot]

What I was meaning regarding the driver was Autocar drivers are among the best in the business. Lap times are the same as acceleration times, more than one lap is completed, in fact numerous one are done to see which style best suit the car/track.

I would expect on the dry handling track for the M3 to post the quicker time, this is normal for this track as grip is amazing at Bedford.

But you are still skirting around the question of PTW which is the one most here are most interested to discuss, like how the RS4 with awd can possibly match the similarly power M3 with a worse PTW. You see everything about these figures are all wrong, the two engine at the crank figure very closely indeed, right through the rev range so even if they were quoting identical PTW figures the fact that the RS4 is 150Kgs more should mean it will still be significantly slower in acceleration, especially as the speeds rise, but this is clearly not the case.

Please give your opinions on this. :D

[3x5PSI]

My opinion is that it is against the laws of physics, unless the M3 is making much less than 420hp. The next shoot-out with the cars tested on the same day will show me to be correct. Or else Sir Isaac Newton will be rolling in his grave.

[Leadfoot]

My opinion is that it is against the laws of physics, unless the M3 is making much less than 420hp. The next shoot-out with the cars tested on the same day will show me to be correct. Or else Sir Isaac Newton will be rolling in his grave.

Old Isaac I don't have a problem with only dyno machines.;)

[Speedou]

Offtopic: Friend called me from Ring today and told he saw the new CSL today. He said it looks very good and sound was something you can't tell.

[HKS786]

Offtopic: Friend called me from Ring today and told he saw the new CSL today. He said it looks very good and sound was something you can't tell.

Did he say anything about what it looked like?

[KK265]

Automobile magazine M3 E 92 test:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80995

New M3 test.Spanish magazine autopista:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81842

[Leadfoot]

It seems that not only the RS4 can post figures the same as a S5, now we have an M3 posting times similar to a 335i, what's the world coming to. :hihi:

P.S.

Who here still thinks the AUTOCAR times are bad now. ;)

[artur777]

It seems that not only the RS4 can post figures the same as a S5, now we have an M3 posting times similar to a 335i, what's the world coming to. :hihi:

P.S.

Who here still thinks the AUTOCAR times are bad now. ;)

Leadfoot, please explain how it could be so, both for RS4-S5 and M3-335i?

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot, please explain how it could be so, both for RS4-S5 and M3-335i?

First RS4 performs like a S5.

RS4_vs_S5_(Greece_test) (http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=105057&postcount=66)

Now M3 performs like a 335i

Spanish_M3_Figures (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81842)

335i_Figures (http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=102455&postcount=1)

It's meant as fun but it does show that both cars can have their off days.

[artur777]

Days-off is a funny thing, I should say-)))
But figures are proving that.

[Z07]

Funnily enough the R8 never appears to be any faster than an RS4 either.

[Speedou]

Did he say anything about what it looked like?

Their pics: http://carfreaks.net/photos/m3spyshots/

[Leadfoot]

Funnily enough the R8 never appears to be any faster than an RS4 either.

This might be down to the fact that it doesn't use Audi's original Quattro system so possibly loses a bit more power to the wheels than the RS4 does.