|
|
02-21-2010, 04:07 PM | #89 | |
Lieutenant
6
Rep 402
Posts |
Quote:
Hell the E46 M3 was supposed to have 333hp, but when dyno'd it only made between 250-260whp. BMW has always fibbed power figures just as Audi has so try not to look like a hypocrite. Also if you or anyone else think that Audi hasn't geared the RS5 to decisively beat a 3 year old M3, then the fanboy is definitely strong with this forum. Don't fool yourselves. It's going to be a visually stunning, albeit overpriced machine with performance numbers that will rival our cars. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:15 PM | #90 |
Brigadier General
435
Rep 3,888
Posts |
I don't care if the RS5 is better. It has no RWD, so it is out of the list. And even if it had, I just prefere M3. Footie, I hope you say the truth about the RS5, and that it is really much faster than the M3, otherwise you would be rediculous. It wil not suprise me that the RS5 is much faster as it comes out much later. If it were not Audi ("We have to be better than BMW"), the RS5 would not have to be faster than the M3 to be what it is. Many chose the slower S5 over the faster M3, without denying the capablites of the M3, and yet prefering the hole package of the S5. And remember, the M3 has yet much potiential. M3, M3 GTS, M3 Edition, M3 Competition and there is yet an M3 Clubsport to come, without forgeting M3 Performance and Personalisation program.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:25 PM | #91 | |||
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
1.) They have an R8 supercar with a V8/V10 that they are not going to eclipse in performance; which, with a V8, still can't beat an M3 from a roll (). 2.) They are unable to find a way to get rid of the parasitic drivetrain losses and extra weight associated with AWD. Will the RS5 be faster? Maybe. However, these two facts leave me very confident that the RS5, undoubtedly a nice car, will not be able to put 2 bus lengths on an M3 like the E9x did to the B7 when it came out unless it goes turbo. In fact, I think the cars are going to be closer than you think. Nothing a Powerchip tune won't be able to fix. Quote:
Last edited by smmmurf; 02-21-2010 at 04:42 PM.. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:41 PM | #92 | |
Major
62
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Quote:
Well, you keep repeating 8250 rpm when I actually posted a video of a real RS4 gauge meter and the redline is clearly at 8000 rpm. We are not talkin about the rev cut-off. What else will it take for you to believe it was actually at 8000 rpm??? Reading somewhere what is written or actually looking at the gauge meter and seeing where it is at?? The new RS5 has redline starting at 8400 rpm and the cut off could be at 8500 - 8600 rpm. Aside from that, I had given example of how Porsche increased horsepower from the same displacement of 3.8L for the 911 from one generation to the next by using newer and better technology. That resulted in 40 more horsepower, cleaner emissions and better fuel economy. Regarding the E9X M3 vs RS4, it is not about versus RS4, but a new generation RS5. Let's be clear, with all things being equal, I want to put this to rest that M3 was without a shadow of a doubt MUCH FASTER in the dry than the RS4 due to 300 lbs lighter weight (hence the much higher trap speed, which is a function of PWR), more power to the wheels due to RWD and a much wider torque plateau. It consistently put down better numbers in every north american test. It was head and shoulder a better car in the dry than the RS4 because it was developed to outperform the RS4. Every single test done on these two cars showed the M3 was indeed faster comprehensively than the RS4 including top gear so there is no doubt other than to an Audi fanboi in denial. RS4: M3: Car and driver M3 vs RS4: http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/125/m3rs4.jpg http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...28dc1e1622.pdf Motor trend: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html I have more comparisons where the M3 put down better numbers in every way than the RS4 so every single thing points to M3 being the faster car in the dry than the RS4.
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."
- Lamborghini on turbocharging Last edited by 330CIZHP; 02-21-2010 at 04:46 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:45 PM | #93 |
Major General
1153
Rep 8,027
Posts |
I never said the gap between the RS5 and M3 will be huge, if that had been the case then M3 would have offer a power hike with their 'Competition Pack'. Like I said the RS5 if produce a 0-200km/h similar to a C63.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:49 PM | #94 | |
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
See above response to footie regarding the RS5 not beating the R8. Porsche did increase power with the same displacement and that was due to the incorporation of DFI, which Audi already has with their FSI engines currently in the RS4/R8/other models. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 04:57 PM | #95 |
Major General
1153
Rep 8,027
Posts |
BTW the RS5 will be quicker in every single acceleration discipline compare to the R8 but due to it's weight balance and higher CoG is won't be quite as quicker on tracks like Hockenheim.
Also the DFI in the RS4 was 1st Gen, the one in the RS5 has a few tricks on that old hat techology, my guess is you will be surprised by this engine. Last edited by footie; 02-21-2010 at 05:15 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 05:50 PM | #96 | |
Major
62
Rep 1,211
Posts |
You are wrong on all acounts. E46 M3 can bone stock dyno up to 290 wheel HP. I posted it once before. Now posting again. Same dyno, same day, same place. Units used are PS. It does not get anymore apples to apples than this.
1 PS = 0.98631997 HP E46 M3 vs E92 M3 vs 335. Let the numbers do the talking: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89961 Quote:
RS5 will never come close to the 525 HP R8 V10 in terms of acceleration even with 480 HP. R8 V10 is a good mid-to-low 11 second car so there is no chance a 480 HP RS5 will get anywhere near that. RS5 stock will be a low-12 to high-11 second car at best. http://blog.caranddriver.com/2010-au...cuderia-video/ Regarding Porsche 911 engines, DFI was only one part of what they improved. I would recommend you reading the technical development document. They modified tons of internals using newer and lighter technologies to achieve much more horsepower with the same displacement while cutting back on emissions and making it more fuel economy. I am sure Audi did the same with RS5 by putting a heavily reworked 4.2 Liter with an additional 50 - 60 HP while decreasing emissions and making the fuel economy better. You are buying too much into BMW marketing propaganda of not being able to meet "emissions standards" with high-revving engine and their response to that is to switch to low-revving turbo engines. That is pure bullsh*t! Nothing but a cost cutting measure and ability to mass produce more M cars at lower production cost. Last edited by 330CIZHP; 02-21-2010 at 06:23 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 06:27 PM | #97 | |
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
Where are you getting that I'm "buying" into anything at all? I personally hope that Audi and BMW keep making NA RS/M cars, lol... I think 12.0-12.5 is the best you can hope from this RS5 with 450-470hp. This is a ~3,600 pound AWD GT. In fact, the R8 V10 is not a low 11 second car... It is more like a 12 second flat car. Low 11 seconds is a a joke. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 06:35 PM | #98 |
Major
62
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Oh geez!! A car that runs a 0-60 in 3.5 seconds being a 12 second car??? Come on I am sure you can do better than that.
No way is the R8 V10 with 525 HP a 12 seconds car. It has the power-to-weight ratio of a solid mid-11 seconds car and possibly low-11 seconds car with the optional S-tronic transmission and launch control. You sure you want me to go fact hunting again?
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."
- Lamborghini on turbocharging |
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 06:38 PM | #99 | |
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
Now do still think an Audi RS5 with 300 lbs. more and 70-90 hp less has a chance to run in the 11's...? Last edited by smmmurf; 02-21-2010 at 06:55 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 07:01 PM | #100 | |
Major
62
Rep 1,211
Posts |
You stand corrected yet again:
Audi R8 V10 0-60: 3.3 secs 1/4 mile: 11.5 secs Weight: 3745 lbs Lamborghini LP560 V10 0-60: 3.2 secs 1/4 mile: 11.2 secs Weight: 3595 lbs http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...March-2010.pdf Quote:
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."
- Lamborghini on turbocharging |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 07:03 PM | #101 | |
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
Bench racing is just as retarded as arguing about where the redline paint starts on the tach versus where fuel cut is... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 08:00 PM | #102 | |
Lieutenant
6
Rep 402
Posts |
Quote:
That being said, I was a tad low on with the dyno figures, they typically dyno around 275whp. NOW lets see....I was "wrong on all acount's" which I hope you mean "wrong on all counts". Proper grammar aside, what counts would you be refering to? Please list "all" of them. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 08:04 PM | #103 | |
Colonel
313
Rep 2,190
Posts |
Quote:
Good point regarding Euro cars dynoing much higher. A Euro E46 M3 can almost keep up with a B7 RS4 whereas a U.S. M3 cannot. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 08:12 PM | #104 |
Lieutenant
6
Rep 402
Posts |
Thanks man, it seems useless to continue a discussion with someone who's incapable of seeing he's wrong. Family guy's on. Have a good night.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 08:56 PM | #106 | |
Major
138
Rep 1,274
Posts |
Quote:
Similar thing with what happened with the RS4 when the M3E46 was around. The other con will be the price... Im sure will cross the 80k barrier with options... Looks really nice though... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 09:11 PM | #108 | |||
Major
62
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Quote:
So toddler what does a Euro spec vs NA spec E46 M3 have to do with a constant ratio of drivetrain loss? So somehow BMW rating 343 HP Euro spec M3 is exempt from your logic of M division overrating their cars. Right? That makes no sense at all. It shows for its rating of 343 BHP, the 295 wheel HP is perfectly in line for a rear wheel drive car in terms of wheel horsepower considering the typical RWD drivetrain loss. Here: http://evosport.com/upload/e46m3/stock-vs-afe-8x6.jpg 275 wheel HP for a NA spec E46 M3 consistent with the 290 - 295 wheel HP Euro spec M3 shows the drivetrain loss percentage in a similar range. That still is nowhere near the 250 - 260 wheel HP you were predicting. Quote:
Above everything your following statement: Quote:
http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=768 or another one: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203239 350 wheel HP with crank 414 HP is still 16% drivetrain loss that is typical of a RWD car. So that makes you completely wrong on every accounts. Cheers! Last edited by 330CIZHP; 02-21-2010 at 09:52 PM.. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2010, 11:12 PM | #110 |
Major
58
Rep 1,305
Posts |
how the hell would you know Footie?....
__________________
2009 Jet Black E92 M3, DCT, Nav, Novillo Leather, PDC, EDC, BBS CHR's 20", Yokohama Advan Sports Tires, Eiback Pro-Kit Springs, Dinan Pullies and Dinan Stage1 software, black grills, black side gills, alcantara shift and ebrake boot.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|