Steved, this is exactly why I consider EVO as the ultimate auto authority, and I read everything else just to simply pass the time. The depth of EVO's reporting is so far ahead of everything else out there. It is consistent and above all, responsible, which means you call it how you see it. If it is rubbish, then you say it is rubbish. No sugar coating, which means it must atleast be respected. (I just wish you guys were located in the U.S. so I didn't have to pay $160 for my subscription
)
I have no doubt that your road test/comparison will report the most accurate findings, especially as how they relate to the "thrill of driving", which after all, is the reason why we buy sports cars.
Am I crazy or simply the only person that thinks the new M3 will be more accurately pitted against a Porsche 911??
The RS4 is inherently such a different car from the M3, I personally find the comparison almost unecessary. If Mitsubishi EVO's and Subaru Impreza's cost 20K more, we would never even hear about the RS4 because it would be competing against those AWD cars. In my opinion, it's Audi who has created a car in the RS4 which seems to be the one very much alone in true competition, so we have to find the closest things to it...the M3.
I have not lost one minute of sleep reading all this babble about how the RS4 is better than the M3.
Keep the faith people, I've got a feeling all this forum negativity will utterly disappear upon test-drives of the new M3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steved
I read the article just now and 'most' of what Sutters states is true, but.... and this is the frustrating part from my persepctive, he is economical with the truth in certain areas that I 'know' will provide controversy. The cynic in me sees an editorial input that was designed to generate interest and therefore sell more magazines.
Why do I think that? Well first of all there was a carelessness in the content of the article with several errors;
- the M3 doesn't weigh 1655kg versus 1650kg for the RS4
- the RS4 was not riding on 18" wheels
- and the previous E46 CSL did not happen 4 years into the E46 M3's lifespan.
Ok, maybe these are just semantics, the key message concerned the driving impressions.
Well given that we did exactly the same test as Autocar (namely drive an RS4 down to Marbella to compare), there were a few differences in our findings.
- Firstly our RS4 (the EVO long-termer) was not faster than our M3 - the video I have shows the M3 (with two people on board) pulling away from me on the autopista driving the RS4 on my own
- our RS4's steering was more vague compared to the M3's, so the opposite to the cars Autocar drove
- Our RS4 was inert when in the corner, and did not communicate grip levels as clearly as the M3 we had
- and whilst the RS4 sounded louder on start-up it was not as loud as the M3 once under load (I can look at the videos we took to remind me)
- Sutters talks about one moment during their drive when the M3 was scrabbling for grip, and likewise there was a seminal moment in our drive when over half a dozen times through the same corner we just couldn't find as much traction in the RS4 as we could in the M3.
So, what does that tell us. Well it certainly is not conclusive evidence of a win from either RS4 or M3. Sutters was right to say that they were two very different cars, and that's how they come across. Both likeable but for different reasons. So unless Autocar's RS4 was distinctly above average (remember our RS4 had been in EVO's ownership for 18 months and was a known quantity), then they have jumped to a conclusion that was never as forthcoming as they claim.
Now I like the RS4 and am considering buying a second hand one myself to cover mileage until my CSL arrives, but assuming we had identical cars then Autocar's conclusion is premature.
|