RS5 vs M3 vs C63 AMG vs 911 C4 S (In Spanish)

[jmloa]

Just received the Automovil Magazine, wich is one of the best car magazines in Spain


Hope you understand, anyway the figures will be understood.

I am attaching links to those images in extra large format


http://img256.imageshack.us/i/img195d.jpg/

http://img820.imageshack.us/i/img196x.jpg/

http://img836.imageshack.us/i/img197.jpg/

[Fab]

Very interesting. Here the RS5 is at the top !

[Ritchy]

Incredible the difference in performance between 2 magazines.....here the C63 is behind.

[Fab]

Agree... which confirms that in real life chronos can be very much different on each occasion... I still have difficulties to believe C63 is behind... no way...

[crespo]

What are you guys talking about? I don't see a ranking anywhere, and there's even a part that says that, although older, the other cars have no reason to worry about the RS5.

I'm fluent in Spanish, but I didn't see anything involving a ranking...

[brownies3]

I think there is some kind of mis print, look at the weight of the RS5 1470kg! - nice if it were true. I really like the RS5 and thought it would be the replacement for my RS4, but it has trouble keeping up with the competition let alone beat it - overweight under torqued and too expensive once some basic extra's are added

[Fab]

I really like the RS5 and thought it would be the replacement for my RS4, but it has trouble keeping up with the competition let alone beat it - overweight under torqued and too expensive once some basic extra's are added

Exactly same conclusion for me.

[jmloa]

I think there is some kind of mis print, look at the weight of the RS5 1470kg! - nice if it were true. I really like the RS5 and thought it would be the replacement for my RS4, but it has trouble keeping up with the competition let alone beat it - overweight under torqued and too expensive once some basic extra's are added

You are right it's a mis print, the right figure should be 1870 Kg, they say that the car is very good but has a big problem, the weight (and obviously the high price), that's the main reason it makes the RS5 not to be on top of those competitors.

They don`t make any ranking, they just say the good things of each car, give you the test figures and that depending on personal aproach you will choose the one fitting to your style.

[Kliko]

Audi didn't learn any lesson of the RS6 C6. That was also a car that had a very nice engine, and very strong, BUT THE WEIGHT!!!
I think the RS5 is a nice granturismo instead of a serious sportscar that has to beat the C63 and the M3.

I don't really understand Audi. Why didn't they put a stronger supercharged or turboed motor in it, when they know that it will be a heavy car??? With a supercharged motor I think it wouldn't get much much more weight that it has now....

It's dissappointing for me to see that the RS5 isn't ahead of those three cars, because it's the newest one, has the newest chassis, electronics and teqniques....

[Fab]

You are right it's a mis print, the right figure should be 1870 Kg....

[Georgious86]

Either the most strange magazine or we can't understand something here, on the first page is written particulary in "Cotas" the height,width,length and weight and it's written true i think 1725 Kg...
if it's true Audi really did the biggest mistake making such a beautiful,sexy,Aggressive car...2010 y model and MUCH SLOWER than M3 or C63...but we have to wait yet,because i remember critics of audi about RS6 C6 2 years ago,the same problem was at that time, THE WEIGHT, and all of this discussions finished with destroying Bmw's M5