Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 73 to 78 of 78

Thread: Do you think the E92 M3 will match the R8 in performance?

  1. #73
    Registered User El_cucaracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Georgia, Tbilisi
    Posts
    183
    one M3forum i noticed that those fools think that M5(E39) is faster than RS6...
    they say that M3(E46) CSL is faster than RS4 and that M3 is faster than S4.... heh... i've seen lots of jokers, but these guys are different, hilarious...
    Maybe BMW is better than Mercedes or Mercedes is better than BMW but there is one car which better then both of them together... 25 years quattro..AUDI


    past: Nissan Micra K11 1.3 16 valve;
    BMW 325 1995 192hp(stock) Chip tuning up to 207hp.
    Present: Audi A4 2.8L V6 237hp (intercooling system, injection, chip tuning)

  2. #74
    Registered User Leadfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,791
    Quote Originally Posted by El_cucaracha View Post
    one M3forum i noticed that those fools think that M5(E39) is faster than RS6...
    they say that M3(E46) CSL is faster than RS4 and that M3 is faster than S4.... heh... i've seen lots of jokers, but these guys are different, hilarious...
    I think all races are 50/50, some you will, some you lose. I don't think all RS6s will be all the M5s and likewise for the other two comparison. But as an overall average for each model I would agree with your opinion that the RS6 is quicker and the RS4 but not the S4, from personal experience my S4v8 was a quickie and this was seen when it raced another S4 a couple of years ago.

    Sad to say it but I would put an M3 on average quicker than a S4v8 though there is the odd exception to the rule.
    Search and you will find the truth.

  3. #75
    Moderator RXBG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,838

    intangibles

    Quote Originally Posted by QuattroFun View Post
    Indeed more peaceful and all for the better - but besides the paint, we should be able to cope with the proposition that the M3 will probably be in terms of numbers - acceleration or track times - pretty close to the R8.

    I have been the first to say that decimals in the numbers do not matter. That said, if it turns out that the M3 is too close to the R8 also on the track (i.e. within 5s on the Ring with same tyres, weather and driver) - the R8 main forte and purpose as it is not an everday car like the RS4 but a two-seater mid-engine car - we should in all honesty start ask ourselves certain questions...
    i think that is a good point. if it were the case that the R8 and new M3 perform similarly the justification for the R8 will lie in its exotic physical presence, which the M3 will not achieve. but i do not think the new M3 will put up faster numbers in any way. and the driving experience the R8 will provide will not be touched by the M3's based upon the former's physical layout. and especially if the new M3's ride is as aggressive and punishing as the old one's, an issue no review has accused the R8 of thus far.

    IF the M3 puts up numbers within a tenth or two of the R8's, that scenario would be no different than the one shown during one of the top gear episodes where an evo 9 beat (or came close to beating) a murcielago around their track.

    we begin to ask ourselves- what makes an exotic or near exotic what they are? perhaps it is sheetmetal, engine layout, and very high speed acceleration that justify ridiculous price tags, not acceleration numbers or brake times.

    in the realm of car aficcionado elites like ourselves there is no right answer. only the right kind of discussion, the kind that promotes mutual respect amongst us. that is what makes this theme most interesting and it is why rs6.com is the best at it, from across the ponds that separate us this is where we converge, this is the nexus of gentlemen, and audi, scholars. so yes. let's continue. grab a scotch and lets go.



    ..... let the discussion continue gents.
    Past- A4, TT, S4

    Present- R8 V10

  4. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    178
    Sorry to correct you RXBG, but the Murcielago was 1.1 seconds faster than the Evo FQ400* around their track. However, they did do that test you speak of and showed the FQ400 could handle the corners as well as the Murcielago.

    On Topic:
    I'm still not sure yet, until they post a ring time with the 4.2 V8 broken-in.

    ~Mason
    1995 Audi A6 Quattro Sedan, 218K miles.
    2009 Audi A5 S-line, 5500 miles.

  5. #77
    Moderator RXBG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,838
    those evo's 8, 9, 10, FQ400.... i just can't keep em straight

    1.1 secs---- goes to show. maybe the R8 will only be that much faster than the M3 when they tests it.

    i'll spill the extra dough for the R8. who needs a davidoff 100th anniversary edition ashtray anyway.
    Past- A4, TT, S4

    Present- R8 V10

  6. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    178
    Agreed. But for some reason I should be thinking about the R8 but I'm only thinking about the R230 SLs. They are so damn beautiful to me... Is there something wrong with me? I'm going to be so sad after this year when they drop the R230 chassis. It doesn't seem like they could do much better to me.

    ~Mason
    1995 Audi A6 Quattro Sedan, 218K miles.
    2009 Audi A5 S-line, 5500 miles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •