Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngl1145
You sure every mag test to date said the old and aging RS4 beat the IS-F? If you look at all the factors they use to rate besides performance, the IS-F actually does pretty good. When you throw in factors such as fuel economy, I really think if you're driving this kind of car hard, you really don't care if it's off 1-2 mpg. It's the acceleration, braking, handling that you really care about. Not the fact that someone thought the seats could be more comfortable. All that is subjective. I should say even the driving is subject to the actual driver as well as the times. If they gave you an M3 and wanted you to race a professional race car driver in a standard 325i, I'm sure the 325i will be able to get a faster lap time than you in the M3. It comes down to experience and the driver. All these cars are well matched. I love all of them and would own all of them if I could... unfortunately I had to pick one.
Plus if you look at the 0-60 for the M3.. don't you think that's kind of high? In reality the M3 probably can do it much quicker than what the magazine states. If you take what magazines say literally, you're getting the wrong info. Try the car and see how it is. If I looked at those numbers below and saw the 0-60 times, I'd think the M3 is the slower of the pack.
|
He's probably reffering to the Edmunds test where the RS4 did beat the ISF. And another comparison where the ISF placed last behind the RS4. In regards to the M3's performance results in that R&D test, that is rather slow for the M3. We've all seen the M3 do 4.2 or even 4.1 to 60 and 12.5 on 1/4 mile.