Road & Track: RS4 vs M3 vs C63 vs IS-F

[pampas]

Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Wins.

Full article here! (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6696)

"Ultimate Sedan Comparison
Lock and load: Eight cylinders, four doors, one winner in a high-caliber sedan shootout."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2008/W16/4182008113555.jpghttp://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2008/W16/041820081249241353.jpg


Points:
380.9 - C63
376.7 - M3
375.4 - RS4
367.9 - Lexus IS-F


0-60:
4.1 - C63
4.2 - Lexus IS-F
4.5 - RS4
4.6 - M3

1/4Mile:
12.5@114.4 - C63
12.6@113.8 - Lexus IS-F
13.0@110.4 - M3
13.0@108.1 - RS4

Full comparison chart. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0608_comp_chart.pdf)

[pampas]

The looser is not far away from the winner. It's a really close call there. Of course the RS4 is the true winner. At least at fuel consumption: 16.2mpg in their tests, the best from this bunch.

[Audiphile]

The point spread between the winner and second and third is statistically irrelevant in the real world. One can say the RS4 is the winner in the sense that the rest of the pack HAD to catch-up to the RS4. That makes the RS4 the benchmark regardless of what BMW poseurs may think.

[pampas]

well, the RS4 was the benchmark, and the competition did good. let's see what the next rs4/5 comes with - in 1-2-3 years!! :)

competition is good for us :)

[Rock]

I do not see any of those cars as being a significant upgrade over the RS4. The RS4 may be slightly slower but it's the best looking (not in yellow), the most exclusive and offers the greatest all-weather fun!!:rs4addict

[AndyBG]

RS 4 is winner just b/c of its ''age''...!

[Ruergard]

With age in mind, the RS4 did good, very good. Audi have created something special, not just for the first year. But also after 3 years out on the field... :bow:

[2jm]

Interesting to see that C63 has started to win these tests although the first impressions were quite lame.

In this this test it is quite amazing that M3 got maximum points for braking from 60-0 and 80-0, but still got the least points for brakes.

Too bad the RS4 was the US version as they gave critics about the lateral support of seats though they gave credit for more space for the rear passenger. I feel bad that the real RS4 seats weren't available for the US market, not to mention the steering wheel.

The whole idea of this test, IMHO, seemed to be which car offers the biggest tail slides, has the top speed and burns more rubber. Despite these the RS4 was not the last (no burning and almost no slides with quite nice going) so I think this proofs that the RS4 is still magnificient.

If I was choosing a car for my self, I would still buy the RS4 of these four, although no RS4 is available anymore.

:rs4addict

[RXBG]

not bad for a car that is no longer in production. the RS4 actually wins.

the C63 is out since you don't actually drive it. you guide it. and then tell all your friends about how you smoked a 911 while pretending to believe that you actually know how to drive a car fast (the sine qua non of AMG owners of every single kind). :stick:

and the point spread between the M3 and the RS is insignificant. even so, though it is higher, the M3 does come in second. and barely- with two fewer doors and development time taken while the old bat RS4 was being produced..... i would bet a lighter two door RS4 would have beat it, then. :deal:

when the RS5 comes out the M3 will be old news. you'll actually need a vishnu modded 335i to get close to it. bet those M3 drivers will love that. :doh:

ps- hey mercedes. throw the intelligent people a bone here and put a manual in your C63 and then lets see how good your traction and handling engineering REALLY are. and tell nissan to do the same with their GT-R. :hihi:

[Audiphile]

not bad for a car that is no longer in production. the RS4 actually wins.

the C63 is out since you don't actually drive it. you guide it. and then tell all your friends about how you smoked a 911 while pretending to believe that you actually know how to drive a car fast (the sine qua non of AMG owners of every single kind). :stick:

and the point spread between the M3 and the RS is insignificant. even so, though it is higher, the M3 does come in second. and barely- with two fewer doors and development time taken while the old bat RS4 was being produced..... i would bet a lighter two door RS4 would have beat it, then. :deal:

when the RS5 comes out the M3 will be old news. you'll actually need a vishnu modded 335i to get close to it. bet those M3 drivers will love that. :doh:

ps- hey mercedes. throw the intelligent people a bone here and put a manual in your C63 and then lets see how good your traction and handling engineering REALLY are. and tell nissan to do the same with their GT-R. :hihi:


:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[rks838]

Guys, a little bit of history - rs6.com has typically been one of the most un-biased, thoughtful, intelligent car forums that was named after, well, a brand-specific car.

1) The RS4 came in third, not first! It is the true third-place winner! At least in this test.
2) The RS4 is in no way the "winner," here in the present, because it set the benchmark first as a result of its age. That was the past...of course the competitors have to catch up! And they have done so!
3) BMW drivers are not all "poseurs." BMWs are damn fine cars, and most people buy them because of that. "Poseurs" usually follow a legitimate reputation. There are "poseurs" that drive BMWs, true, but there are also "poseurs" that drive Audis, especially since Audi has made a name for itself in exterior styling over recent years.
4) Just because you have an automatic transmission, doesn't mean you don't know how to drive a car fast. First of all, would you tell that to Formula 1 drivers? Second, this entire forum was named after a car with an automatic. Third, would you say to the driver of an automatic who just smoked you, "you don't actually know how to drive fast, because you don't drive stick"? No...he would point out that he, in fact, just drove faster than you, and that if he is not driving fast, then you are at least driving slower than him.
5) Traction and handling engineering are not directly, closely related to the type of transmission in a car.
6) The Nissan GT-R just lapped the Ring in 7:29. It's therefore the fastest production car in the world on a racetrack, and it starts at under $70,000. That is effin brilliant engineering, my friends, whether or not it's got a manual transmission. As a matter of fact, the GT-R's dual-clutch transmission is amazing as well. (Yes, Audi mass-produced this technology first, but that doesn't mean Nissan stole their design sheets...and, that doesn't matter anymore).

The RS4 is a WONDERFUL car, and it is great that it can perform very similarly to these new cars. In fact, if I remember correctly, it beat the new M3 in several European magazine tests. However, let's not be Audi-philic idiots. Let's keep out the ridiculous combination of bias for one brand and prejudice against all others that have made visiting other car forums a waste of time. The writers on those forums do not find the bones thrown to intelligent people...

[AndyBG]

Ok, ok..., but let us just a little bit more to love Audi..., as you said, this is '' RS6.COM''! :D

For me Audi B7 RS 4 have proven it self milion times, and I just have need to say that current cars in its class aren't on the same level as B7 was when was brand new. Of c', tie is passing buy, and competition is working well, so the outcome of this test is showing, I just want to express my respect for the car.


Yes, Audi mass-produced this technology first (dual clutch gearbox)...

VW, actualy... :D

:thumb: :cheers:

[pampas]

rks838:
Well, if anyone reads my only remark about the RS4 deserving the first place will realize it's a joke - don't need to be to smart to see that.

RS4 is third indeed, but at least at this test it's really close to the 1st and 2nd place (and IS-F isn't that much behind either). If you look at the total points, is hard to really see a winner. I mean, 5 points less than the winner (out of 375!) is NOTHING. Other than that, I think all the cars are faster in straight line, the M3 is clearly the best on the track, but in real life I would still choose the RS4.

[The RS6]

Guys, a little bit of history - rs6.com has typically been one of the most un-biased, thoughtful, intelligent car forums that was named after, well, a brand-specific car.

...

True, so what I think most guys are trying to say is that because BMW and Merc had more than 2 years to develop an RS4 competitor, the final result should have easily beaten the almost 3 year old RS4.

But they didn't, the RS4 still matches them and stays with the best, and maybe today the RS4 isn't the number 1 (for me it is :rs4addict ), but if you look at the moment each of these cars was introduced I think only the RS4 was MUCH better than all it's competitors, which you can't really say for the M3 or C63.

It seems to me the beemer and the merc weren't created to be "THE BEST", "THE NUMBER 1", but were simply created with only one thought: to match the RS4 - not to be better, but to be just as good. Why is that so, is really the RS4 so hard to match, and too hard to be better than? I don't know, but I don't like it because if the new RS4 wants to be the best, it doesn't have to be really that much better than the old one...and it should be!

[KresoF1]

Hmm...
This is the ONLY test with that kind of test results...

Just for comparison German Sport Auto Hockenheim track test results:

Audi RS4(SS+, Ceramic Brakes, NO Navi, Pirelli Corsa 19") 1.15,4min
BMW M3 Saloon(EDC, standard 18") 1.15,2min
Lexus ISF(standard car) 1.15,8min
Mercedes C63 AMG(030 Package with LSD, standard 18") 1.15,2min

BMW M3 Coupe(EDC, Michelin Cup+ 19") 1.14,3min

Both M3 were manuals. M-DKG would bring another 0.5s-0.8s per lap in Hockenheim...

For me case closed. RS4 was(and still is!) great car but, its competition is better. Just think this-Lexus ISF is faster on Hockenheim then RS4(with normal 19" Michelin or Contis)...

[MrBucket]

and the point spread between the M3 and the RS is insignificant. even so, though it is higher, the M3 does come in second. and barely- with two fewer doors and development time taken while the old bat RS4 was being produced..... i would bet a lighter two door RS4 would have beat it, then. :deal:



I think you missed it but the M3 in this article is indeed the sedan so there goes your argument about the having 2 less doors thing.

[Rage]

Guys, a little bit of history - rs6.com has typically been one of the most un-biased, thoughtful, intelligent car forums that was named after, well, a brand-specific car.

1) The RS4 came in third, not first! It is the true third-place winner! At least in this test.
2) The RS4 is in no way the "winner," here in the present, because it set the benchmark first as a result of its age. That was the past...of course the competitors have to catch up! And they have done so!
3) BMW drivers are not all "poseurs." BMWs are damn fine cars, and most people buy them because of that. "Poseurs" usually follow a legitimate reputation. There are "poseurs" that drive BMWs, true, but there are also "poseurs" that drive Audis, especially since Audi has made a name for itself in exterior styling over recent years.
4) Just because you have an automatic transmission, doesn't mean you don't know how to drive a car fast. First of all, would you tell that to Formula 1 drivers? Second, this entire forum was named after a car with an automatic. Third, would you say to the driver of an automatic who just smoked you, "you don't actually know how to drive fast, because you don't drive stick"? No...he would point out that he, in fact, just drove faster than you, and that if he is not driving fast, then you are at least driving slower than him.
5) Traction and handling engineering are not directly, closely related to the type of transmission in a car.
6) The Nissan GT-R just lapped the Ring in 7:29. It's therefore the fastest production car in the world on a racetrack, and it starts at under $70,000. That is effin brilliant engineering, my friends, whether or not it's got a manual transmission. As a matter of fact, the GT-R's dual-clutch transmission is amazing as well. (Yes, Audi mass-produced this technology first, but that doesn't mean Nissan stole their design sheets...and, that doesn't matter anymore).

The RS4 is a WONDERFUL car, and it is great that it can perform very similarly to these new cars. In fact, if I remember correctly, it beat the new M3 in several European magazine tests. However, let's not be Audi-philic idiots. Let's keep out the ridiculous combination of bias for one brand and prejudice against all others that have made visiting other car forums a waste of time. The writers on those forums do not find the bones thrown to intelligent people...

Great post.

[RXBG]

mr bucket- thanks for clarifying the 4 doors on the M3. kudos. makes me give more cred to the bimmer than i originally gave it :)


rks-

"2) The RS4 is in no way the "winner," here in the present, because it set the benchmark first as a result of its age. That was the past...of course the competitors have to catch up! And they have done so!"

a car handicapped by having given its competitors three years to produce updated cars with which to challenge it is a winner when it comes in third official place with such a small point spread. i disagree with you.

"4) Just because you have an automatic transmission, doesn't mean you don't know how to drive a car fast. First of all, would you tell that to Formula 1 drivers? Second, this entire forum was named after a car with an automatic. Third, would you say to the driver of an automatic who just smoked you, "you don't actually know how to drive fast, because you don't drive stick"? No...he would point out that he, in fact, just drove faster than you, and that if he is not driving fast, then you are at least driving slower than him."

naturally, i would not make such an assumption. it is not about your skills. it is about the car you are driving. and, logically, if that car has an auto you did your skills NO service in the process of winning a race. and you cannot get as much credibility for winning it since you did less work. my wife could kick michael schumakers ass if she were driving an S65 and he was driving a manual 911 TT if she pulled up to him in a red light. it doesn't take much driving skill to launch an automated car of any kind. just put it in D and step on the gas. even easier on a turn. my point being, regardless of your skills you are not professing or challenging as much of a skill level of any significant kind when you drive a C63 as opposed to an RS4. stated another way, as good as the C63 is, it would be a better driver's car and more fun, albeit slower (gasp) if it had a manual. it does most of the work for you. concepts like these are sometimes hard to get. but it was driven home to me when i saw the vid of the M5 racing an RS4 from a redlight. it was hilarious in that it was absurd. you see the M5 kid pressing a bunch of buttons to set the car in 500 hp mode, then another bunch of buttons to activate the "launch" set up, then he grabs on tight to the steering wheel with both hands at 10 and 4 (like he's going for a disney ride), and then when the light turns green he mashes on the accelerator. wheeeeeeeeeee! meanwhile, you see the RS4 driver calculating his revs, choosing gear, and imagine him modulating throttle and clutch.... the M5 beats him by a nose. think about that one for a minute. it is subtle. but it is huge.

5) Traction and handling engineering are not directly, closely related to the type of transmission in a car.

yes they are. do you think mercedes only spent ten minutes figuring out how to make an S65 go without wheelspin? or an AMG black series CLK 63? come on now.

6) The Nissan GT-R just lapped the Ring in 7:29. It's therefore the fastest production car in the world on a racetrack, and it starts at under $70,000. That is effin brilliant engineering, my friends, whether or not it's got a manual transmission. As a matter of fact, the GT-R's dual-clutch transmission is amazing as well.

no problem with that. but where does it stop? the day someone makes a production car with fully active steering that can read the road, calculate gearing and braking, and turns itself and guides itself along a preloaded nurburgring map, anticipating each turn and grade and nets a 2:25 time are we going to say what a swell car :thumb: ! are we going to say, "hot damn, what a car, what machine!" when in fact you are practically no longer driving it and are instead practically sitting in a manned drone, not a car. don't think so. :nono: this is the reason F1 changed rules and put limits on things. just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should". F1 racing would be much less predictable, more fun, and more genuine... and they realized that. at some point, driving a car is no longer driving a car. just like flying a jet is no longer flying a jet (though i am sure the guys sitting at a computer drinking coffee "flying" an unmanned drone into afghanistan still consider themselves pilots, eh?). the GTR may not be at the full level of automation i have exemplified, but my point is made.
finally, you are right the car this forum is named after never had a manual. but that actually makes my argument more relevant because it sheds light on the fact that audi should have given it it one. on the other hand, kudos to audi for given the R8, their first sports car, an honest to god proper transmission.

[BigRick]

mr bucket- thanks for clarifying the 4 doors on the M3. kudos. makes me give more cred to the bimmer than i originally gave it :)


rks-

"2) The RS4 is in no way the "winner," here in the present, because it set the benchmark first as a result of its age. That was the past...of course the competitors have to catch up! And they have done so!"

a car handicapped by having given its competitors three years to produce updated cars with which to challenge it is a winner when it comes in third official place with such a small point spread. i disagree with you.

"4) Just because you have an automatic transmission, doesn't mean you don't know how to drive a car fast. First of all, would you tell that to Formula 1 drivers? Second, this entire forum was named after a car with an automatic. Third, would you say to the driver of an automatic who just smoked you, "you don't actually know how to drive fast, because you don't drive stick"? No...he would point out that he, in fact, just drove faster than you, and that if he is not driving fast, then you are at least driving slower than him."

naturally, i would not make such an assumption. it is not about your skills. it is about the car you are driving. and, logically, if that car has an auto you did your skills NO service in the process of winning a race. and you cannot get as much credibility for winning it since you did less work. my wife could kick michael schumakers ass if she were driving an S65 and he was driving a manual 911 TT if she pulled up to him in a red light. it doesn't take much driving skill to launch an automated car of any kind. just put it in D and step on the gas. even easier on a turn. my point being, regardless of your skills you are not professing or challenging as much of a skill level of any significant kind when you drive a C63 as opposed to an RS4. stated another way, as good as the C63 is, it would be a better driver's car and more fun, albeit slower (gasp) if it had a manual. it does most of the work for you. concepts like these are sometimes hard to get. but it was driven home to me when i saw the vid of the M5 racing an RS4 from a redlight. it was hilarious in that it was absurd. you see the M5 kid pressing a bunch of buttons to set the car in 500 hp mode, then another bunch of buttons to activate the "launch" set up, then he grabs on tight to the steering wheel with both hands at 10 and 4 (like he's going for a disney ride), and then when the light turns green he mashes on the accelerator. wheeeeeeeeeee! meanwhile, you see the RS4 driver calculating his revs, choosing gear, and imagine him modulating throttle and clutch.... the M5 beats him by a nose. think about that one for a minute. it is subtle. but it is huge.

5) Traction and handling engineering are not directly, closely related to the type of transmission in a car.

yes they are. do you think mercedes only spent ten minutes figuring out how to make an S65 go without wheelspin? or an AMG black series CLK 63? come on now.

6) The Nissan GT-R just lapped the Ring in 7:29. It's therefore the fastest production car in the world on a racetrack, and it starts at under $70,000. That is effin brilliant engineering, my friends, whether or not it's got a manual transmission. As a matter of fact, the GT-R's dual-clutch transmission is amazing as well.

no problem with that. but where does it stop? the day someone makes a production car with fully active steering that can read the road, calculate gearing and braking, and turns itself and guides itself along a preloaded nurburgring map, anticipating each turn and grade and nets a 2:25 time are we going to say what a swell car :thumb: ! are we going to say, "hot damn, what a car, what machine!" when in fact you are practically no longer driving it and are instead practically sitting in a manned drone, not a car. don't think so. :nono: this is the reason F1 changed rules and put limits on things. just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should". F1 racing would be much less predictable, more fun, and more genuine... and they realized that. at some point, driving a car is no longer driving a car. just like flying a jet is no longer flying a jet (though i am sure the guys sitting at a computer drinking coffee "flying" an unmanned drone into afghanistan still consider themselves pilots, eh?). the GTR may not be at the full level of automation i have exemplified, but my point is made.
finally, you are right the car this forum is named after never had a manual. but that actually makes my argument more relevant because it sheds light on the fact that audi should have given it it one. on the other hand, kudos to audi for given the R8, their first sports car, an honest to god proper transmission.

Even greater post! :)

But must rekon that the days of manual transmissions are coming to an end... those new semi-auto/semi-manul are getting so good that not too many people will want to get beaten badly and will switch (the "I'm a better driver excuse" won't stand for very long) and that's only one part of the equation... think about rev matching and clutch lifespan... those new transmissions are much better than the normal human can be and this is only the beginnig...

[pampas]

Even greater post! :)

But must rekon that the days of manual transmissions are coming to an end... those new semi-auto/semi-manul are getting so good that not too many people will want to get beaten badly and will switch (the "I'm a better driver excuse" won't stand for very long) and that's only one part of the equation... think about rev matching and clutch lifespan... those new transmissions are much better than the normal human can be and this is only the beginnig...

yeap! DSG/S-Tronic or whatever others are calling it will be the future. Manual is nice, but with the new trans everybody is getting out there is no future for it. even MPG is better on auto trans now, something that in the past was the other way around, many people going for a manual (in europe) because of better fuel consumption. Plus all the things BigRick pointed out.

[OzRS4]

Lads,
Yes, the C63 is the winner but to me, it's like that blonde chick that you would just want a one night stand with and the RS4 is the one you definitely want to settle down and have kids with!!! :lovl:

[rks838]

Absolutely, we're all a little biased toward Audi. It's a great company, making great cars, that 15 years ago was on the verge of death. Well, clearly this is still good 'ol RS6.com, arguing without going nasty or nuclear on each other. A couple things I would add:

In any RWD car with a lot of power, you have to control wheelspin. In a manual, this depends on throttle input and clutch modulation, while an automatic needs only a careful right foot. So, driving a manual does require more SKILL...but whoever covers a lot of distance in a little time is a fast driver, independent of their transmission type. Exactly as you clarified, RXBG.

I don't think putting a manual in a high-powered automatic car would force the engineers to engineer the car's traction and handling to a higher standard. A different one, possibly. Take the Corvette: its wheelspin is caused by its engine, and has very little to do with its transmission. The manual Corvette driver has to ease into the throttle (and modulate the clutch) to control it. The automatic driver can either ease into the throttle as well, or can stomp on the gas and let traction control handle wheelspin. That's why engineers may vary the traction control settings on the Corvette slightly between the manual and automatic versions, but leave the chassis and suspension untouched. I near certain that the S65 could have a manual and face identical wheelspin issues.

It definitely involves less driver skill and interaction to drive a stick-shift car well. And a stick-shift driver who has turned in a lap time equal to a similar, automatic-equipped car I believe has more to be proud of. You can figure it out/do it yourself, or have the computers do it for you, and if it's the latter, than you can be proud of...your algorithms and semiconductors. So the issue we have with C63s and GT-Rs and the "modernization" of cars is that technological progress often takes away driver involvement, and requires less driver skill. That is a shame...and the day the 2:25 lap times roll around, we will certainly be saying, "that's impressive." The keyword being "that," referring to the car rather than the driver, who will likely be using his CrackBerry. So, hopefully, the "antiquated" manual-transmission will stick around purely for the purpose of driver involvement. :rs4kiss: :R8kiss:

:cheers: