BMW M3 vs. Audi RS5

[Jeff_DML]

Originally Posted by KonigsTiger

I like the way you put this I do generally agree. Isn´t the M3 weight lower than the RS5?

yes 200 or so pounds

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by shiggy

FYI....the M3 with DCT is 4.3 0-60

Yup, I think an M3 with DCT should at least be even with an RS5 from a roll if it doesn't pull on it.

RS5: 450 - 20% drivetrain loss = 360 awhp
3800 lbs./360 awhp = 10.56 lbs./awhp

M3: 420 - 15% drivetrain loss = 357 rwhp
3570 lbs./357rwhp = 10 lbs./rwhp

(European figures)

[brava09]

Originally Posted by footie

May I make one thing perfectly clear and put this on record once and for all.

I have never ever said the RS5 will wipe the floor with the M3, in fact you can ask Southlight who I have PMed on several subjects, one of which is the RS5 that I have always reckon that it will be quicker, both on the track and in acceleration but not by a huge margin. It's up to the individual what they class as wipe the floor.

In my opinion with the M3 vs RS5 we will have a similar comparison to that of the M5 vs RS6, meaning in almost every way the RS6 is a bit quicker or better though the margin isn't huge but taken as a whole it's the better overall package. The main difference this time round is that the RS5 is far in a way a better driver's car than the RS6 is, way better than the gap is between that of the M3 and the M5.

Yes, RS6 is a bit faster than M5 but RS6 has some consistent 73hp and 130 NM more than the M5, which is not the case in RS5 with only 30 more ponies and similar torque with M3.

I can't wait for the tests where M3 will be declared winner once again

[footie]

Originally Posted by Levi

Redline: RS5: 8.500 rpm < M3: 8.400 rpm
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: RS5: 4.5 sec = M3: 4,6 sec
V-max: RS5: 280 km/h < M3: 280 km/h
Ring: RS5: 7:58 min > M3: 8:05 min
Styling: RS5 = M3
Details/Quality: RS5 > M3
MPG: RS5 > M3
Fun: RS5 < M3
History: RS5 < M3
Drivablility: RS5 > M3 (rain, snow, unexperienced driver,...)
Seats: RS5 > M3
Brakes: RS5 > M3
Weight: RS5 = M3
Traction: RS5 > M3
Tunability: RS5 = M3
Price: RS5 > M3
Sound: RS5 > M3

For me: RS5 < M3 (not saying RS5 is bad)
For f...: RS5 > M3 (saying M3 is a bad car)

Fixed, the I left the final comment because you seem to be the one person that doesn't seem to get it that I don't think the M3 is a bad, far from it. It's an exceptional car and the best rwd sports saloon/coupe in this sector in my opinion.

[Neil McRae]

RS5 I'm sure will be a great car, but its 4 wheel drive - as they said in the 80s "just say no".

Regards,
Neil.

[footie]

Originally Posted by brava09

I can't wait for the tests where M3 will be declared winner once again

Well can I give you a head's up on how these compares tests where the M3 will win will go like.

Yes the RS5 is the better car overall, doing everything asked of it that little bit better..................but it isn't as trilling to drive at the limit as the M3 is, nor does it have the same sweet adjustable chassis and though our head says the RS5 is the one we should get but our heart says that in the M3 we will have the most fun.

Now does that sound about right to you guys, because chances are these will be the outcome of most of the test where the M3 is placed first, oh and by the way I TOTALLY AGREE with this opinion (SHOCK HORROR). But reading between the lines what these reviewers are ultimately saying is for their vast driving skills they can extract more from the M3 chassis and will ultimately get the most pleasure from it. But alas 90% of drivers that own these two cars will never ever have this level of skill and ultimate will be living an idealistic dream which they will never ever get the full pleasure out of.

So what I am basically saying and if you guys were honest to yourselves you would admit is that the majority would be able to use more of the car's performance if they were driving the RS5 than the M3.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

Well can I give you a head's up on how these compares tests where the M3 will win will go like.



Now does that sound about right to you guys, because chances are these will be the outcome of most of the test where the M3 is placed first, oh and by the way I TOTALLY AGREE with this opinion (SHOCK HORROR). But reading between the lines what these reviewers are ultimately saying is for their vast driving skills they can extract more from the M3 chassis and will ultimately get the most pleasure from it. But alas 90% of drivers that own these two cars will never ever have this level of skill and ultimate will be living an idealistic dream which they will never ever get the full pleasure out of.

So what I am basically saying and if you guys were honest to yourselves you would admit is that the majority would be able to use more of the car's performance if they were driving the RS5 than the M3.

I think that's the point of the car. Who cares if people can't use all of it, it's a fundamentally different drive. None of these cars require you to be able to use anywhere close to 90% in most driving situations. It's that 5-10% of the time when the car is bliss. It doesn't matter if the drivers can't access all of it, they can at least access enough of the chassis and engine that persuades them buy the car. The point is we are driving the car we want to drive, not some 2-ton, front-heavy AWD loaf.

It's not really about how fast you go, but how you go fast. I'll take slip angle with a side of tire smoke, please.

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

I think that's the point of the car. Who cares if people can't use all of it, it's a fundamentally different drive. None of these cars require you to be able to use anywhere close to 90% in most driving situations. It's that 5-10% of the time when the car is bliss. It doesn't matter if the drivers can't access all of it, they can at least access enough of the chassis and engine that persuades them buy the car. The point is we are driving the car we want to drive, not some 2-ton, front-heavy AWD loaf.

It's not really about how fast you go, but how you go fast. I'll take slip angle with a side of tire smoke, please.

It's the basic differences in feel that the majority are noticing rather than accessing the chassis, unless you are at or beyond 8th the M3 doesn't really sing and while I agree that those 5-10% times are special they only really happen on the track.

Regarding the opinion that the RS5 will feel like a 2 ton front-heavy AWD loaf, may I suggest waiting to see how it performs before jumping the gun. I know you like many prefer the M3 and can use it's true potential but closing your eyes to different ideas makes you appear very narrow minded.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

It's the basic differences in feel that the majority are noticing rather than accessing the chassis, unless you are at or beyond 8th the M3 doesn't really sing and while I agree that those 5-10% times are special they only really happen on the track.

Regarding the opinion that the RS5 will feel like a 2 ton front-heavy AWD loaf, may I suggest waiting to see how it performs before jumping the gun. I know you like many prefer the M3 and can use it's true potential but closing your eyes to different ideas makes you appear very narrow minded.

I'm sure the RS5 will be one of the better front-heavy, two-ton AWD loaves, and I'd love to take one for a spin around the block for kicks because I'm sure it's going to be a nice car. I wouldn't say I'm narrow minded, but I am experienced as to what a car with that weight distribution will feel like with the limits associated with street cars (street tires, street alignment/camber, reasonable compromises made for comfort ~3800 lbs., etc.).

However, I think it is narrow minded to think that sheer capability and the ability to use such is the formula for deciding how much a driver enjoys these types of cars. Clearly not. These are toys meant for people to buy at a whim; the level of performance they offer is completely unnecessary. It comes down to preference and which one responds the way you like, not about their all-out ability.

I honestly don't care if it's faster, driving an AWD car with the engine so far forward in a chassis not too dissimilar from a FWD VW Jetta is not my cup of tea. Now an R8 is a proper car, I would love to experience first hand how an AWD car with a decent weight distribution would feel like at the limit.

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

I'm sure the RS5 will be one of the better two-ton AWD loaves and I'd love to take one for a spin around the block. However, I think it is narrow minded that you think that performance and the ability to use performance is the way a driver enjoys these types of fun cars; they are meant for people to buy at a whim because the level of performance they offer is completely unnecessary. It comes down to preference and the way they make you feel, not about their ability.

I haven't a problem with that opinion and welcome it, but I am far from narrow minded, I have probably own a more diverse range and make of cars that most people here so I am very open to new products and new ideas. I totally agree that the amount of performance on hand is unnecessary but at the same time I feel, no I know that AWD makes this performance that bit more accessible.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

I haven't a problem with that opinion and welcome it, but I am far from narrow minded, I have probably own a more diverse range and make of cars that most people here so I am very open to new products and new ideas. I totally agree that the amount of performance on hand is unnecessary but at the same time I feel, no I know that AWD makes this performance that bit more accessible.

Yes, more accessible is a good way to characterize it. We can agree that AWD helps less experienced drivers go faster. It is then up to whether you want a more involving/challenging drive or one that is easier to drive and faster (for most drivers).

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Yes, more accessible is a good way to characterize it. We can agree that AWD helps less experienced drivers go faster. It is then up to whether you want a more involving/challenging drive or one that is easier to drive and faster (for most drivers).

Well since we all approaching a common ground on this may I take it a bit further.

No only is it's performance easier to access but it's performance is safer to use more of the time (i.e. in the wet) where is will hold a major advantage. So depending on your climate conditions throughout the year you may well find that the logical choice is the car with awd. Even if the performance is slightly down on the dry handling ability it's wet weather ability far outweighs the slight shortfall in the dry.

So you seem to be in agreement that for most drivers the AWD car would be the logical and wisest choice but for those that truly have the skill to access the potential of a rwd car then I would be the last person to stand in their way, but only if the majority of the time was spent in the dry and it was their sole purchase.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by footie

I haven't a problem with that opinion and welcome it, but I am far from narrow minded, I have probably own a more diverse range and make of cars that most people here so I am very open to new products and new ideas. I totally agree that the amount of performance on hand is unnecessary but at the same time I feel, no I know that AWD makes this performance that bit more accessible.

how can you make a statement like that?...do you know everyone on here......do you know what they own...what they have owned?
Personally, I have owned:
2 civics, accord, Sub XTI, 69 Mustang, 72 chevelle, mazda MX6, ford 150, Audi A6, acura nsx, 2001 lotus esprit, 335i and currently own an 09 M3 and 06carrara 4S.
stick with what you know and quit making silly assumptions...it makes you look stupid!

[footie]

Originally Posted by shiggy

how can you make a statement like that?...do you know everyone on here......do you know what they own...what they have owned?
Personally, I have owned:
2 civics, accord, Sub XTI, 69 Mustang, 72 chevelle, mazda MX6, ford 150, Audi A6, acura nsx, 2001 lotus esprit, 335i and currently own an 09 M3 and 06carrara 4S.
stick with what you know and quit making silly assumptions...it makes you look stupid!

My apologises for making such a generalized statement like that, I just thought that having been driving for 26years and having owned a total of 13 makes and a total of 34 cars between myself and the wife would have allowed such a comment to be made.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by footie

My apologises for making such a generalized statement like that, I just thought that having been driving for 28years and having owned a total of 13 makes and a total of 34 cars between myself and the wife would have allowed such a comment to be made.

you do that quite often......

[logpak23]

Originally Posted by shiggy

you do that quite often......

Relax everyone, and shiggy footie's assumptions stands because he has owned more cars than you, but it is still an assumption compared to everyone else

and smmmurf you obviously do not know much about the a5 platform, Audi changed the chassis so the engine sits behind the axle, and on top of that the Audi rs5 weighs slightly more than an m3, and due to the awd, but you make it seem like a million pounds. rs5 kerb weight 1725 M3 1680

Someone else said that the e92 m3 set standards... ummm not really the RS4 was the one that set the standard and the m3 followed and beat it no Shiz nit the rs4 was almost 4 years older, so the same goes here the rs5 will probably win but it came out later, and will probably win by a slight margin nothing to get worked up about.

im not biased at all, i drive an m5, but i am a car enthusiast and appreciate every great car that comes out and the m3 has held its own and so will the rs5.

[Jeff_DML]

audi shifted the engine back but I dont think it sits behind the front axle. Still fwd based so they can only move it back so much without major issues.

[logpak23]

Originally Posted by Jeff_DML

audi shifted the engine back but I dont think it sits behind the front axle. Still fwd based so they can only move it back so much without major issues.

Ya its easy to get that confused, but the a5 platform has the engine sit behind the axle there's a lot of reviews that state it as well but im still pretty sure that the m3 achieves a better weight distribution ratio.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/audi-a5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5

[southlight]

Originally Posted by logpak23

and smmmurf you obviously do not know much about the a5 platform, Audi changed the chassis so the engine sits behind the axle, and on top of that the Audi rs5 weighs slightly more than an m3, and due to the awd, but you make it seem like a million pounds. rs5 kerb weight 1725 M3 1680

We need to consider that these weight figures are following different standards. Using the EU standard weight for both cars, the M3 DCT weighs 1,675 kg and the RS5 1,800 kg (1,725 according DIN + 75 kg driver/luggage), so the RS5 weighs 125 kg more. Agreed that it's not a "million pound", but two passengers nonetheless.


Best regards,
south

[logpak23]

Originally Posted by southlight

We need to consider that these weight figures are following different standards. Using the EU standard weight for both cars, the M3 DCT weighs 1,675 kg and the RS5 1,800 kg (1,725 according DIN + 75 kg driver/luggage), so the RS5 weighs 125 kg more. Agreed that it's not a "million pound", but two passengers.


Best regards,
south

Thanks southlight for the correction but may i add shouldn't you add the passenger and luggage weight to the m3 as well, so that would be 1750. and the number i state of 1725 was the official kerb weight for the rs5 but the 1800 seems about right for the total weight excluding the luggage who caries luggage in these cars lol

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by logpak23

Ya its easy to get that confused, but the a5 platform has the engine sit behind the axle there's a lot of reviews that state it as well but im still pretty sure that the m3 achieves a better weight distribution ratio.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/audi-a5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5

The drive shafts for the front wheels of the RS5 originate behind the engine. The centerline of the RS5 front wheels is behind the engine. These are facts.

[logpak23]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

The drive shafts for the front wheels of the RS5 originate behind the engine. The centerline of the RS5 front wheels is behind the engine. These are facts.

thats how it works for every car, if you can push the v8 completely behind the Axle you would have the engine in the cockpit, and the gear box where the rear passengers sit.