Evo group test - C63 - RS5 - M3.

[Bobbersmill]

Picked up Evo today and had a quick skim through - RS5 - 3 stars. C63 and M3 - 5 stars.
RS5 quicker than M3 around track by a tenth of a second (that was a suprise).
Slated the damping saying RS4 was better.
Will have a read tonight but it looks a comprehensive test.
Sorry the Lexus is in there too.

[Joker]

Picked up Evo today and had a quick skim through - RS5 - 3 stars. C63 and M3 - 5 stars.
RS5 quicker than M3 around track by a tenth of a second (that was a suprise).
Slated the damping saying RS4 was better.
Will have a read tonight but it looks a comprehensive test.
Sorry the Lexus is in there too.

Z07 said that the EVO tested RS5 had 20" rims, so it's not at all surprising that they slated the ride as it's an extra inch bigger than the M3 has. The car when tested with the stock 19" fares a lot better and probably not just in the ride department.

I does suprise me that the RS4 and RS5 use very similar DRC systems yet the ride appears to be dramatically different. :vhmmm: Must be the rim size.

[Bobbersmill]

Oh dear, read it last night and not very complimentary to the RS5 with quotes like "its a trip back to Audis of old" "cannot find a suitable set up" "RS4 better damped" etc etc.
I was expecting the M3 to be better around a track and the RS5 better on a cross country blat but they say the M3 does both better! The Audi was slightly faster around a track but the M3s brakes were cooked.
On the bright side dealers may be a little more accommodating with discount! There are 5 odd dealer cars for sale on Pistonheads already.

[ZeroRisk]

I was expecting the M3 to be better around a track and the RS5 better on a cross country blat but they say the M3 does both better! The Audi was slightly faster around a track but the M3s brakes were cooked.

Umm, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the recurring trend in the reviews... "the RS5 is quicker round the track, but somehow the M3 is better", generally followed by some odd excuse or rationale about how they reached that conclusion, which doesn't quite gel with the actual numbers. :vhmmm:

:harass: Guess that's why I'd never make a good motoring journalist - I can't make the actual numbers support the conclusion I want to reach.

[Joker]

Umm, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the recurring trend in the reviews... "the RS5 is quicker round the track, but somehow the M3 is better", generally followed by some odd excuse or rationale about how they reached that conclusion, which doesn't quite gel with the actual numbers. :vhmmm:

:harass: Guess that's why I'd never make a good motoring journalist - I can't make the actual numbers support the conclusion I want to reach.

They claimed that because they were using their long-term M3, it's brakes were by their best by the time they did their flying lap so they made some mistakes which cost them some vital tenths of a second. I said BS, it's more likely Audi turned them down on their request for a long-term RS5 and they have a downer on the car and the brand now. :lovl:

The sorry thing is that they got an RS5 with 20" rims instead of the standard rims which provide a sweeter ride.

[Bobbersmill]

I dont think its any great conspiracy I just think 99% of the journos dont like the RS5 driving experience. Fast is not always enjoyable.
I had one on order and luckily cancelled but it was May last year when I decided to pull out and after driving one recently I have to agree with alot of what I have read except the ride quality as that seemed okay to me.
The long and short of it is its a techno car that lacks the driver interaction that you get with say the C63.
I know from driving the M3, C63 and RS5 that the RS5 felt less of an event to drive than the others.
I have no axe to grind with it as I really like the look of it in the flesh.
Put it another way if I had a brand new RS5 and a brand new as it was B7 RS4 side by side at the same money for entertainment I would take the B7 hands down.
I just hope they dont cock up the next RS4 as thats what I really want.

[Joker]

^ Why was it lucky that you cancelled it?

If you dislike the behaviour of an AWD car and much prefer the interaction you get from RWD then you probably shouldn't have considered one in the first place. To me the RS5 and the RS4 drive similarly, the only noticeable difference is the superior grip at the front of the RS5 compared to the RS4 and the superior turn-in of the newer model. If there was one issue I had with the RS5 compared to the old model it's the dynamic steering which doesn't quite match the rest of the experience.

Overall the RS5 is a more polished experience, partly down to the S-Tronic gearbox that removes some of the connection with the car that you get in the RS4.

[ZeroRisk]

I had one on order and luckily cancelled but it was May last year when I decided to pull out and after driving one recently
I ordered one, and luckily didnt cancel! Each to his own. I like "techno" cars, and, honestly, you cant really be suggesting M3's and C63's arent techno???


Put it another way if I had a brand new RS5 and a brand new as it was B7 RS4 side by side at the same money for entertainment I would take the B7 hands down.
I just hope they dont cock up the next RS4 as thats what I really want.

Whilst I understand it's easy to get enthusiastic about the B7 RS4, your happy memories are probably being influenced to no small degree by the huge leap the RS4 made over most cars of that period when it was first released. The truth, though, (like the M3 comparisons) lies in the facts and figures. Here's some comparison info from a post I made on another forum...

Starting with the basics, the engine capacity is identical on both vehicles (4,163 cc), whilst the B7 RS4 at 1,680kg is somewhat lighter than the RS5 at 1,800kg (kerb weights).

Max Power Output
RS4: 309kw @ 7,800rpm, 74.2kw per litre
RS5: 331kw @ 8,250rpm, 79.5kw per litre (a 7% increase)

Max torque is the same (430nm), though the RS4 doesn't achieve maximum torque until 5,500 rpm, whilst the RS5 hits peak torque earlier at 4,000 rpm and sustains max torque until 6,000 rpm. The RS4 suffers a pretty big decline in torque beyond 6,000 rpm where it eventually drops off (41%) to around 250nm at 8,000+ rpm (theoretically rev limited at 8,000). The RS5, however, has a much more sustained torque curve and only declines (16.3%) to about 360nm before it hits it's rev limiter at 8,250 rpm.

Combined CO2 Emissions
RS4: 322 gm/km
RS5: 252 gm/km, (a 21% reduction)

Speed
0-100 km/h
- RS4: 4.8 sec
- RS5: 4.6 sec (4.2% improvement)

0-200 km/h
- RS4: 16.6 sec
- RS5: 15.5 sec (6.6% improvement)

So, whilst the RS5 might not have excited you like the RS4 because it didnt make the same quantum leap that the RS4 made, you'd be selling yourself short and passing up a better car if you took an RS4 over an RS5. As previously posted, its not a revolution, but it is an evolution.

[Joker]

I ordered one, and luckily didnt cancel! Each to his own. I like "techno" cars, and, honestly, you cant really be suggesting M3's and C63's arent techno???

Exactly, how are the M3 and C63 less technology based than the RS5, apart from the obvious lack of awd?

Paddle shift gearboxes......check.
Advanced ESP systems......check.
LSD devices.........check.
Launch control software........check.

The only noticeable difference that I see between them is the driving experience and this is solely down to Audi's quattro awd system which by it's very nature trys to curb lose of traction from either axle thus being less control driven by the throttle. This might be a negative to some people, especially the semi-professional drivers who make up most of the motoring journalists but it does make for an extremely efficient cross-country tool for the rest of us.


Whilst I understand it's easy to get enthusiastic about the B7 RS4, your happy memories are probably being influenced to no small degree by the huge leap the RS4 made over most cars of that period when it was first released. The truth, though, (like the M3 comparisons) lies in the facts and figures. Here's some comparison info from a post I made on another forum...

Quite right, the RS4 did advance things beyond anything Audi had done in the past and unfortunately people expect the same advances to continue from model to model. This couldn't have happened here from obvious reasons, the weight took a huge leap, not desirable but considering on how well it's doing against much lighter competition the new awd system is compensating for this and then there's the engine choice, no one wanted another big N/A v8 under the hood, such a thing meant another nose heavy animal. Hopefully the new RS4 will receive a smaller v6tt instead but if not then at the very least the next B9 RS models will benefit from Audi's desire to cut weight across the board and this will include engine weight.

[Qisha]

http://www.rs6.com/showthread.php/19500-The-Audi-RS5-will-debut-at-Geneva-2010?p=190422&viewfull=1#post190422

[Joker]

But Qisha, what about the new RS4, is it going to receive the same v8 engine and weigh equally as much as the RS5 (probably more) or are Audi going to listen to it's potential customers and make an about turn and fit a smaller, lighter and equally as powerful v6tt under the bonnet. It's the engine we have all been crying out for, the rest of the package is great, regardless of what EVO say but the engine needs to return to force feed where mountains of torque define the character of the car, like it is with the TTRS and C63.

[Bobbersmill]

The C63 has a slush auto box, no lauch control, no adaptive dampers, no adaptive steering, no jiggery pokery that brakes one wheel here and one wheel there. Id say its significantly wanting in the techno department.
Less than a tenth of a second to 200km is nothing, quoted dyno figures as has been proved time and time again on here and any Audi RS forum are dubious at the very best. Its back side dynos that tell you all you need to know.
I think Audi missed a chance so unless its competitors all get it wrong next year (Facelifted C63, maybe with new 5.0 turbo, M3, C63 coupe, new 911 all due) then I dont think it will be anywhere near as successful as the RS4. Also bear in mind that a well specced M3 and C63 listing at 63k can be had new with discount for 54k where as Audi are not as yet discounting the RS5 (although I was offered 1k off) and its list with extras is a heady 65k - 75k.
If Audi do bring an Avant only RS4 then I think if comfort mode is given a softer setting then the set up and ride that the RS5 has will be more suited to it.

[Joker]

The C63 has a slush auto box, no lauch control, no adaptive dampers, no adaptive steering, no jiggery pokery that brakes one wheel here and one wheel there. Id say its significantly wanting in the techno department.
Less than a tenth of a second to 200km is nothing, quoted dyno figures as has been proved time and time again on here and any Audi RS forum are dubious at the very best. Its back side dynos that tell you all you need to know.

Yes the C63 has a slush box but the M3 doesn't, it's transmission is bang up to date like that of the RS5, as it's suspension and steering, all of which mimic that of the RS5, yeah I know the C63 is lacking in those things but it does offer a Limited Slip Diff like that fitted to the M3 and though the RS5 offer something slightly different they all do the same thing. I just think you are being unfair to the RS5 stating it's a techno feast when it's offering little or nothing more than the M3 already did.

I don't want to comment on dyno results because I feel that if the RS4, RS5 or any other Audi quattro didn't develop it's quoted output then the times they achieved against the competition in controlled test like that of the magazine reviews wouldn't be that competitive which we already know they are.


I think Audi missed a chance so unless its competitors all get it wrong next year (Facelifted C63, maybe with new 5.0 turbo, M3, C63 coupe, new 911 all due) then I dont think it will be anywhere near as successful as the RS4. Also bear in mind that a well specced M3 and C63 listing at 63k can be had new with discount for 54k where as Audi are not as yet discounting the RS5 (although I was offered 1k off) and its list with extras is a heady 65k - 75k.
If Audi do bring an Avant only RS4 then I think if comfort mode is given a softer setting then the set up and ride that the RS5 has will be more suited to it.

Both the C63 and M3 are close to the end of their current life as we know them, the C63 will receive it's new engine and transmission and the M3 is due an entire replacement which explains why both can be bought significately cheaper than retail, the RS5 is brand new which explains why it can't. But the RS5 offers something unique to either the C63 or M3, it's awd and that's something you may either want/need or not, if you do then it could very well justify the price difference on it's own.

[QuattroFun]

Well, based on my test drive of the RS5 and long ownership of the B7 RS4, I would not go as far to say that the RS4 is the better car - it simply is not. The RS5 definately understeers less and the ride is no worse IMO (RS5 without DRC plus and RS4 with SS plus). That said, already at the onset I questioned all the ADS stuff, which does not work too well in opinion in the M3 either.

I guess the problem is that the flexibility of the ADS allowed Audi not to fully finetune the chassis and we all expected more of the car (both involvement and raw speed) given the stiff price than we got. Still, it is a very good car and the engine as a stand-alone item is great, but the car is too heavy and a bit lost in tech translation, which contributes to numb efficiency.

[Bobbersmill]

Just for the sake of clarity I didnt say the RS4 was a better car only that I would choose it for being more entertaining, I dont doubt as an everyday prospect the RS5 is better suited.