EVO tests the Audi TT-RS

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by M&M

Only if you force the M3 into a particulart gear out of powerband for the magazine in gear testing. In the real world I will kick the clutch & downshift to the lowest possible gear & smoke the TT. Any questions?

+1000 Finally someone with a sense of what hes talking about.

BTW your data is wrong to begin with thats probably the worst acceleration data I've seen for an E9x M3. 0-60 in 4.9? ORLY? Ya with my mom driving in the rain maybe.

[footie]

Originally Posted by M&M

Only if you force the M3 into a particulart gear out of powerband for the magazine in gear testing. In the real world I will kick the clutch & downshift to the lowest possible gear & smoke the TT. Any questions?

Fair enough, that might be the case. But the data seems to point that up to 120mph the difference between them is very slim so all your smoking will have to be done above this point.

But I return to the fact that 99% of people don't drive their cars at the limit 99% of the time. Sugarcoat it all you will but I bet when the new M3 comes out with it's FI engine you will be chewing at the bit to get one, such a difference all that in-gear performance will being to the party.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

+1000 Finally someone with a sense of what hes talking about.

BTW your data is wrong to begin with thats probably the worst acceleration data I've seen for an E9x M3. 0-60 in 4.9? ORLY? Ya with my mom driving in the rain maybe.

For a start, there is no rollout so you could knock 0.3s off that time, and secondly the surface used provides the sort of grip you find on a public road and not a dragstrip or race track that is nothing like a public road. Sure you can improve those times but what's the point in that if you can never repeat it on the road.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by footie

For a start, there is no rollout so you could knock 0.3s off that time, and secondly the surface used provides the sort of grip you find on a public road and not a dragstrip or race track that is nothing like a public road. Sure you can improve those times but what's the point in that if you can never repeat it on the road.

Well hopefully I'll catch one of these dear cars in the area while my car is N/A and I'll see whats up first hand how fast they really are. I'll call my buddy in the audi scene and see what he can setup soon.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Well hopefully I'll catch one of these dear cars in the area while my car is N/A and I'll see whats up first hand how fast they really are. I'll call my buddy in the audi scene and see what he can setup soon.

Well that will depend on whether Audi chose to sell the TT-RS there. I reckon we will see either street race videos or at events like what Gustva does all before your comparison will happen.

Though I much prefer our official comparisons (EVO, Autocar, Sportauto, etc) as they are less bias either way and driven by skilled drivers.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Fine, I'll beg to differ right back. We (the forum) have had this same debate and I have had flavors of it with others on topics that are seemingly unrelated but in fact are basically the same debate. It IS a value judgement. I am not saying 30-50 in 6th is unimportant for all driving styles I am just saying if you choose to drive you car in a purposefully in a slow/crippled fashion you will get what you ask for, sure perhaps more so with the M3 that with a FI car but who really cares? I don't care if my car is loud when I am driving fast, hell I wish it was louder. IMHO even ignoring the very good acoustic isolation of the M3s cabin, the exhaust at WOT could be quite a bit louder. If you are so paranoid about a ticket from being observed by the police from your cars acoustics and based on that you want to do all of your aggressive driving at part throttle go ahead, have fun, but when I want to get on it I simply have no issues whatsoever using WOT, the right gear and all of the gears required.

The same debate surfaced in the torque vs. hp debate, the part throttle debate and in the FD swap debate as well. Sure, if you want to talk about in gear "grunt", part throttle performance, in gear acceleration times and instantaneous (or very short duration) acceleration feel then absolutely TT-RS all the way. But as soon as you allow for using what you have (meaning WOT, the best initial gear possible and the acceleration across multiple gears) it becomes a no brainer in favor of the M3. How many real races be them street, strip or track involve only a single gear? That was my point earlier to foot and now my point to you as well. I also not saying I personally don't like low rpm torque and the exhilarating feeling of strong in gear performance figures. But you have to accept that the enjoyment of these things is subjective and a preference rather than an overall measure of the best a particular car can offer.

Since we seem to agree (see bolded text), just what in the hell is your post for, other than knee-jerk reaction?

I personally feel that in an all-out race over some distance at or perhaps greater than a quarter mile, the M3 will prevail, but my references to lazy speed are not without merit. I'm not worried about cops, but just love that effortless feel coming out of a corner in third or fourth and just motoring off with little or no sturm and drang. Is this somehow hard for you to understand? I'm not putting down anyone's love for the M3's transition from mild to wild as the tach passes 12 noon, so why are you having this reaction to my love of effortless grunt with little noise?

Bruce

PS - When I said "value judgement". I was trying to indicate that I wasn't putting down anyone with differing values on what makes a car fun to drive.

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

Fair enough, that might be the case. But the data seems to point that up to 120mph the difference between them is very slim so all your smoking will have to be done above this point.

But I return to the fact that 99% of people don't drive their cars at the limit 99% of the time. Sugarcoat it all you will but I bet when the new M3 comes out with it's FI engine you will be chewing at the bit to get one, such a difference all that in-gear performance will being to the party.

sorry, but i will stick with the v8 NA.

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

sorry, but i will stick with the v8 NA.

Well then look to Audi for your next thrills because the RS5 has been confirmed to be getting an improved version of their 4.2FSI with (get this) over 8500rpm and possibly higher.

They won't be getting my business because I didn't buy into the M3's lack of grunt due to it's incredible highs so I doubt Audi will have improved on that experience.

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Since we seem to agree (see bolded text), just what in the hell is your post for, other than knee-jerk reaction?

I personally feel that in an all-out race over some distance at or perhaps greater than a quarter mile, the M3 will prevail, but my references to lazy speed are not without merit. I'm not worried about cops, but just love that effortless feel coming out of a corner in third or fourth and just motoring off with little or no sturm and drang. Is this somehow hard for you to understand? I'm not putting down anyone's love for the M3's transition from mild to wild as the tach passes 12 noon, so why are you having this reaction to my love of effortless grunt with little noise?

Bruce

PS - When I said "value judgement". I was trying to indicate that I wasn't putting down anyone with differing values on what makes a car fun to drive.

high rev and lazy speed and low noise don't exist. please state a car that does what you said? gt3, f430, m3? lol I'm afraid the other two is even louder than the m3 and you need to rev them faster. the point of a high rev na engine is to rev it. if it is made so effortlessly to speed at low rpm, then you don't need a high rev na engine. Why? because you will never have a need to rev it.

btw, no one put down car with load of torque. i'm just saying they don't offer anything special and your post doesn't make any sense.

bmw can easily put a 5L v8 into the m3. but they didn't. why? because they wanted us to rev it all the time to truly experience what M is about. just like e46 m3, I love to rev this thing anywhere anytime. don't forget the new m stock exaust is so quiet. probably the quietest compare to the competition. even if you rev the hell of out it, i bet you can't hear it that much. So your complain about noise doesn't apply in this case either.

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

high rev and lazy speed and low noise don't exist. please state a car that does what you said? gt3, f430, m3? lol I'm afraid the other two is even louder than the m3 and you need to rev them faster. the point of a high rev na engine is to rev it. if it is made so effortlessly to speed at low rpm, then you don't need a high rev na engine. Why? because you will never have a need to rev it.

btw, no one put down car with load of torque. i'm just saying they don't offer anything special and your post doesn't make any sense.

bmw can easily put a 5L v8 into the m3. but they didn't. why? because they wanted us to rev it all the time to truly experience what M is about. just like e46 m3, I love to rev this thing anywhere anytime. don't forget the new m stock exaust is so quiet. probably the quietest compare to the competition. even if you rev the hell of out it, i bet you can't hear it that much. So your complain about noise doesn't apply in this case either.

I think it's you that doesn't understand what 'M' is all about, this mighty letter has nothing to do with what an engine revs to, it's all about the experience and thrill of the drive. M-Division take a perfectly normal saloon, coupe or what ever and turn it into a truly exceptional driver's car. None of this is solely down to the engine or the revs it makes, it's the quality of the controls, clutch, brake, throttle and steering, the control of the suspension and the way it's puts a vice like grip on body movements yet is still full of finesse and complacence. Everything is important, not just how the engine behaves, so while you feel the engine is the most important thing to you I reckon that switching to any other brand of car just because it offers the kind of engine you want will be a hollow experience overall, yes the engine will still thrill but the rest of the package will not have that 'M' ness you so desire.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

2.7 seconds in a run is like at least 5 car lenghts at that speed. Where I'm from we call that an ass whooping.

I'm not actually disputing you, but how can you tell?

Seriously, if you have a way to actually figure this out, I'd like to know about it, since I personally am at a loss to figure where cars are in relation to each other based on time to speed.

If you don't have a way to figure this out, don't bother answering and we'll realize you're just blathering.

Bruce

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I'm not actually disputing you, but how can you tell?

Seriously, if you have a way to actually figure this out, I'd like to know about it, since I personally am at a loss to figure where cars are in relation to each other based on time to speed.

If you don't have a way to figure this out, don't bother answering and we'll realize you're just blathering.

Bruce

It would be easier to predict if one car is always increasing it's advantage right from the off but in this race between the TT-RS and the M3 it's the TT-RS that holds the early advantage with the M3 slowly but surely clawing it back and regaining the advantage proper after the 125mph mark or there abouts.

Based on the data you could make a stab and say the TT would be one maybe one and a half car lengths ahead (maybe) up to 80-90mph with the M3 pulling level at the 130mph mark and slowly pulling clear there after. My point to Jonmartin was how over only the space of 9 seconds could the M3 crave out a 5 car lengths lead. It's simply impossible.

If the 5 car lengths was at the 175mph mark I would say for definite because there would have been enough time elapsed to allow the M3 to open such a gap and probably more if truth be told.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I'm not actually disputing you, but how can you tell?

Seriously, if you have a way to actually figure this out, I'd like to know about it, since I personally am at a loss to figure where cars are in relation to each other based on time to speed.

If you don't have a way to figure this out, don't bother answering and we'll realize you're just blathering.

Bruce

+1

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

I think it's you that doesn't understand what 'M' is all about, this mighty letter has nothing to do with what an engine revs to, it's all about the experience and thrill of the drive. M-Division take a perfectly normal saloon, coupe or what ever and turn it into a truly exceptional driver's car. None of this is solely down to the engine or the revs it makes, it's the quality of the controls, clutch, brake, throttle and steering, the control of the suspension and the way it's puts a vice like grip on body movements yet is still full of finesse and complacence. Everything is important, not just how the engine behaves, so while you feel the engine is the most important thing to you I reckon that switching to any other brand of car just because it offers the kind of engine you want will be a hollow experience overall, yes the engine will still thrill but the rest of the package will not have that 'M' ness you so desire.

I think you are so wrong. the engine is the heart of any car and yes, high rev NA is what M should be. There is a reason why people don't call the suspension the heart of a car right? M is motorsport and in motorsport, high rev NA is what it is. this is why most race car rev past 8000rpm. The engine is the most important part of the experience, the noise it makes, etc.

unless M is marketing or environmental friendly which trigger the move to turbo in next gen m3, then well I have nothing to say.

how many current m3 owner would go c63amg or isf if the m3 has a similar big displacement engine with rev max out at 7k rpm? I'm sure many would choose the other two instead or the rs4. bmw knows that, so that is why they stick with a 4L v8 instead of 5-6L v8 with a 7k rpm redline.

or if bmw thinks like you, then why bother with the new v8. just shove the old m5 v8 and call it a day and save ton of development cost on the process. but seriously that is not how the m3 supposed to be.

doesn't matter what suspension or mness you have in the m3, but it won't be a complete m3 without a proper high rev N/A engine. In this case, bmw give us both and that what makes it so special compare to the competitor.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

high rev and lazy speed and low noise don't exist.

Right. Thank you for your agreement.

Originally Posted by graider

please state a car that does what you said? gt3, f430, m3? lol I'm afraid the other two is even louder than the m3 and you need to rev them faster. the point of a high rev na engine is to rev it. if it is made so effortlessly to speed at low rpm, then you don't need a high rev na engine. Why? because you will never have a need to rev it.

Duh. There are any number of high powered cars with terrific low-end grunt - and why would big revs matter in this discussion? I haven't mentioned 8000 rpm numbers because it's completely beside my point - and I don't personally care one way or another about stratospheric red lines.

Originally Posted by graider

btw, no one put down car with load of torque. i'm just saying they don't offer anything special and your post doesn't make any sense.

Take a Viper for a drive and tell me that it isn't anything special. It'll shorten your eyeballs up by a couple of diopters from right off idle.

Originally Posted by graider

bmw can easily put a 5L v8 into the m3. but they didn't. why? because they wanted us to rev it all the time to truly experience what M is about. just like e46 m3, I love to rev this thing anywhere anytime. don't forget the new m stock exaust is so quiet. probably the quietest compare to the competition. even if you rev the hell of out it, i bet you can't hear it that much. So your complain about noise doesn't apply in this case either.

Look, I'll use small words so you can get it:

I personally like the effortless feel you get from not having to use big numbers on the tach to whip down the road smartly. The low-noise, under-the-radar aspect appeals to me. You're perfectly welcome to like a lot of exciting sturm and drang with your speed, but try and understand another viewpoint. Sneaky speed just flat works for me, and your intolerance of this viewpoint is baffling.

Bruce

PS - Big loud speed works for me too - when I'm in the mood.

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Right. Thank you for your agreement.



Duh. There are any number of high powered cars with terrific low-end grunt - and why would big revs matter in this discussion? I haven't mentioned 8000 rpm numbers because it's completely beside my point - and I don't personally care one way or another about stratospheric red lines.



Take a Viper for a drive and tell me that it isn't anything special. It'll shorten your eyeballs up by a couple of diopters from right off idle.



Look, I'll use small words so you can get it:

I personally like the effortless feel you get from not having to use big numbers on the tach to whip down the road smartly. The low-noise, under-the-radar aspect appeals to me. You're perfectly welcome to like a lot of exciting sturm and drang with your speed, but try and understand another viewpoint. Sneaky speed just flat works for me, and your intolerance of this viewpoint is baffling.

Bruce

PS - Big loud speed works for me too - when I'm in the mood.

at near 100K in price, it must be somehow special. but is it the most special, no? there are ton of other car that people would choose over the viper even it has the huge low end grunt that you described. I wouldn't be surprise people even choose the less torque m3 over the viper.

not sure what you are trying to get at. everyone understand low, quiet, effortless speed. but that is not what you buy the m3 or any performance car for. it seems you can't get that or just can't understand the fact.

I have no problem you want the effortless feel in car like viper, c63 amg, etc.., but those are not what most people who want performance car look for.if you are correct, then the gt3, ferrari, rs-4, m3, etc don't exist today. I'm just saying your complain for effortless speed in the m3 doesn't make sense because that is not how bmw intended it to be use...like keep it in low 2-3k rpm on acceleration. if you can't do that, then clearly it is not the car for you. simple as that.

let take your acura tl for an example. i'm sure it is way more effortless than the m3 at low rpm. tap that and it goes, no need to press anything hard. but that is not what people buy the m3 for.

[Viscous]

This has all been done before: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...highlight=audi

For some reason this person continues to force blind Audi loyalty down BMW throats.

Every criticism of the TT made has held true and it is clear to anyone that it is barely an N54 Z4 rival.

Comparing it to the M3 is only something a blind Audi loyalist would do, as it is not on the M3's performance level, period.

No one with a diesel should be talking about performance cars anyway, because they don't know what one is.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by graider

how many current m3 owner would go c63amg or isf if the m3 has a similar big displacement engine with rev max out at 7k rpm? I'm sure many would choose the other two instead or the rs4. bmw knows that, so that is why they stick with a 4L v8 instead of 5-6L v8 with a 7k rpm redline.

Actually, I would still choose the M3 because I feel that the rest of the car is that much better than the C63, ISF, RS4, whatever. I do love the high-revving S65, but it's the whole car that makes the M3 magic; not just the engine.

I think footie said it best when he says that it's all about the experience and thrill of the drive. The engine is certainly a large part of that but if the rest of the car isn't up to the task, ... well, ... you might as well just get a 335.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

at near 100K in price, it must be somehow special. but is it the most special, no? there are ton of other car that people would choose over the viper even it has the huge low end grunt that you described. I wouldn't be surprise people even choose the less torque m3 over the viper.

not sure what you are trying to get at. everyone understand low, quiet, effortless speed. but that is not what you buy the m3 or any performance car for. it seems you can't get that or just can't understand the fact.

I have no problem you want the effortless feel in car like viper, c63 amg, etc.., but those are not what most people who want performance car look for.if you are correct, then the gt3, ferrari, rs-4, m3, etc don't exist today. I'm just saying your complain for effortless speed in the m3 doesn't make sense because that is not how bmw intended it to be use...like keep it in low 2-3k rpm on acceleration. if you can't do that, then clearly it is not the car for you. simple as that.

let take your acura tl for an example. i'm sure it is way more effortless than the m3 at low rpm. tap that and it goes, no need to press anything hard. but that is not what people buy the m3 for.

My single, exceedingly simple point was and is that the M3 is not the car to use for sneaky speed. I'm glad you agree.

Your point that nobody buys high performance cars and likes sneaky speed (in addition to all-out speed) is childish. It implies that there is something "wrong" with an opinion that you don't share. Nonsense.

[footie]

Originally Posted by graider

I have no problem you want the effortless feel in car like viper, c63 amg, etc.., but those are not what most people who want performance car look for.if you are correct, then the gt3, ferrari, rs-4, m3, etc don't exist today. I'm just saying your complain for effortless speed in the m3 doesn't make sense because that is not how bmw intended it to be use...like keep it in low 2-3k rpm on acceleration. if you can't do that, then clearly it is not the car for you. simple as that.

I think you are mistaking people's desire to all be racing drivers. That is why Ferrari exist today, why Porsche make the GT3 and why there is so many semi-automatic gearbox now-a-days instead of only manuals and true automatics.

If you understood Ferrari's history you would know that what he raced the day before he sold to the public the day after, he basically built up a reputation of producing road going racing cars. Likewise the same sort of history is present with Porsche, but at least they have seen that highly strung engines aren't for the masses and now most of there stuff only revs south of 7K.

Guess which is the most successful brand of these two.

Is there a market for high revving engines......definitely, but is it practical in a family car......definitely not. High revs don't even bring any advantage in either acceleration or trackwork as currently most of the quickest stock cars around the ring are lower revving, torque laden big blocks or turbo units.

Sorry but if you want to use the racing card to justify a high rev limit on your car then make sure the car in question has a roll cage, full 5point harness and stripped interior or at the very least have only two doors, two seats and be as practical as an ash tray on a motorbike.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Viscous

No one with a diesel should be talking about performance cars anyway, because they don't know what one is.

Second post. What a bummer.

Because I own a diesel means I should know nothing about performance cars. Do I know nothing about car ...............?

Mate you clearly don't know anything about me because if you did you wouldn't be making that statement.

Am I an Audi loyalist..........?

I certainly like their cars, but then I like most quality products which includes some BMWs, some Mercs, all Porsche, most Lambos, not a Ferrari fan but then there's enough of them already, only getting into Jags now I'm passed forty and are designing decent looking cars, love Astons, adore Bentleys and get all wet at the thought of Corbas.

The question you should be asking is whether I rate the M3 the greatest car in the world because anything else in your opinion proves I'm anti-BMW. I've owned a few BMWs through the years so either I've a bad memory and keep forgetting I hate them or I like them but no more than anything else. Personally I think it option number two.

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

My single, exceedingly simple point was and is that the M3 is not the car to use for sneaky speed. I'm glad you agree.

Your point that nobody buys high performance cars and likes sneaky speed (in addition to all-out speed) is childish. It implies that there is something "wrong" with an opinion that you don't share. Nonsense.

there is a huge different between "nobody" and "most". your reading comprehension is quite questionable.

for example, i said you can hit speed limit in the m3 effortlessly in one of my previous post. but to you it seems you want fast speed at low 2-3k rpm. I just point out to you that the m3 doesn't work like that. if you want fast, you punch it. if you want effortless at posted speed limit, then the m3 can definitely provide that as well as many current m3 owner can confirm here. But not brutally fast at 2-3k rpm.

If you want brutally fast like the viper at low rpm, then the m3 is not for you. That's all I'm saying.

I think your lack of reading comprehension, fault assumption, too sensitive, calling people childish because I don't agree with your opinion. well...