Motortrend: M3 Wins Again! Still Benchmark for RS5 and CTS-V

[Epacy2]

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

The next m3 will be out next year and while I will truly miss the V8, I am sure that BMW ///M will craft another engineering marvel that will in turn, place Audi even further behind the curve.

??? M cars are not on a 3-year life cycle...

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by Epacy2

??? M cars are not on a 3-year life cycle...

Correct. My mistake. The 2013 model will be new so we should see something in 2012. So basically, in less than 2 years.

-SZ

[erio]

Originally Posted by footie

I think I say this a lot but you need to drive something before making judgement solely on what others might say. Sure the TT-RS feels more fwd biased than the M3, heck it even feels it more than the RS5 but driven to it's strengths it's probably quicker than both of them, this will especially be true when matched up to the DSG. I'm a big fan of this car because it feels more alive than either of them but needs to be specced correctly with items like magnetic-ride suspension.

The problem is that both the TT and RS5 can't be driven like you would an M3, do so and both will understeer but learn the slow in fast out approach and they are credibly quick machines.

Well the title of this thread is afterall based on a review by a professional car critic. None of us have driven the RS5 and probably most have not driven the TT-RS either. Therefore, I we shouldn't make any comments and this thread shouldn't even exist as we have not driven the cars Have you driven them both? We can only make judgments based on these reviews and previous experience with similar Audi cars, ie. TTS and S5. I have only driven the TT and S5.

I'm not saying that the TT-RS isn't a nice car. It's probably a blast to drive but saying that it's a better car than an M3 is a little much. The reviews have proven otherwise and I don't think going to a DSG is going to make a huge difference.

[footie]

Originally Posted by erio

Well the title of this thread is afterall based on a review by a professional car critic. None of us have driven the RS5 and probably most have not driven the TT-RS either. Therefore, I we shouldn't make any comments and this thread shouldn't even exist as we have not driven the cars Have you driven them both? We can only make judgments based on these reviews and previous experience with similar Audi cars, ie. TTS and S5. I have only driven the TT and S5.

Yes I have driven both, the TT-RS quite some time ago and the RS5 more recently. Personally I doubt too many people will be disappointed with the RS5, everything works extremely well together, gearbox, brakes, engine, but I can understand why so many are complaining about the steering, though having a similar setup in the S4 so I am much more familiar to it.

It's a different driving experience to the M3, where as the M3 grabs your attention and fulfils your exciting from the word go the RS5 is a more laid back and dare I say mature experience. Driven like an M3 and you will be disappointed by the Audi, but driven correctly, waiting for the nose to grip then floor the throttle and marvel at all the traction you would never have thought was possible is still a very pleasurable experience.

Originally Posted by erio

I'm not saying that the TT-RS isn't a nice car. It's probably a blast to drive but saying that it's a better car than an M3 is a little much. The reviews have proven otherwise and I don't think going to a DSG is going to make a huge difference.

Like the RS5 the TT-RS needs a different method of driving to that of the M3 but the numbers speak for themselves, it's as quick around Hockenheim as the new improved M3 with it's competition pack. So there is no doubting it's as quick on the track and definitely quicker on the street with it's superior traction.

Is it a better car? Everyone has their own opinion on that one but for me I prefer the engine and the feeling of being lighter on it's feet without feeling less solid. Plus any road car with the same exhaust note of an Audi Quattro rallycar is hard to beat.

[Robertyu]

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

Correct. My mistake. The 2013 model will be new so we should see something in 2012. So basically, in less than 2 years.

-SZ

So they shortened the M3 lifespan a whole two years compared to the E46 M3? For the E46 M3, it debuted as a 2001 model year, to be replaced with the E9X as a 2008 model year.

From you are saying it seems like the E9X that debuted as a 2008 model year, while be replaced by a completely different M3 as a 2013 model years (in five years as opposed to the previous seven).

Any others want to confirm this?

[erio]

Originally Posted by footie

Yes I have driven both, the TT-RS quite some time ago and the RS5 more recently. Personally I doubt too many people will be disappointed with the RS5, everything works extremely well together, gearbox, brakes, engine, but I can understand why so many are complaining about the steering, though having a similar setup in the S4 so I am much more familiar to it.

It's a different driving experience to the M3, where as the M3 grabs your attention and fulfils your exciting from the word go the RS5 is a more laid back and dare I say mature experience. Driven like an M3 and you will be disappointed by the Audi, but driven correctly, waiting for the nose to grip then floor the throttle and marvel at all the traction you would never have thought was possible is still a very pleasurable experience.



Like the RS5 the TT-RS needs a different method of driving to that of the M3 but the numbers speak for themselves, it's as quick around Hockenheim as the new improved M3 with it's competition pack. So there is no doubting it's as quick on the track and definitely quicker on the street with it's superior traction.

Is it a better car? Everyone has their own opinion on that one but for me I prefer the engine and the feeling of being lighter on it's feet without feeling less solid. Plus any road car with the same exhaust note of an Audi Quattro rallycar is hard to beat.

Well I need to get my hands on one to see for myself if it comes to the U.S.

[991brothers]

I am so happy to be an owner of one!

[mkoesel]

No, you are correct, Robert, 2013 is too early. 2015 is when we'll see the F32 M3 in US showrooms (2014 in Europe).

Originally Posted by Robertyu

So they shortened the M3 lifespan a whole two years compared to the E46 M3? For the E46 M3, it debuted as a 2001 model year, to be replaced with the E9X as a 2008 model year.

From you are saying it seems like the E9X that debuted as a 2008 model year, while be replaced by a completely different M3 as a 2013 model years (in five years as opposed to the previous seven).

Any others want to confirm this?

[footie]

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

footie,

I appreciate your enthusiasm for Audi but the fact is that Audi has had three years to build a car that is better or at least as good as an m3. From initial tests, the RS5 is not even as good as an m3 and is also more expensive.

However, considering technology has progressed in the last three years, I would only assume that some of the parts used in the RS5 may be a bit more refined than the ones in the m3 (i.e., DCT in Auto mode).

I do truly love the combination of quattro's confidence and security with German logic and fine materials. In reality the RS5 was on the drawing board a lot longer than 3 years (same is true for the M3) so while each brand reacts to their competitors this is only done late on in the development process, what really happens is their try and predict where the competition will be at come the release of their model. Power and weight were all wrong with the RS5, a little too heavy and not the right engine meant that BMW only needed minor tweaks to their chassis to remain competitive.

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

I do agree with your statement that the Audi is more of a GT car but I don't believe that was Audi's intention. I believe Audi made a failed attempt to dethrone the e9X m3 and because of this failure, the RS5 has been relegated as a GT car.

Find me one example of an RS model that isn't a slightly more focused version of their S model sibling? They are all designed to offer more speed, more power but not at the expense of refinement or drivability. This RS5 is both things, it's quicker and any 'normal' driver can exploit the car's full potential without running the risk of the thing biting back. I think too many people expect Audi to mimic the M3 and throughout history they have always done things their way, quattro instead of RWD.

The only problem this time round was they didn't have an extra 70+hp to play with and weight exceeded the comfortable margin. Though all things considered I reckon the RS5 is one heck of an achievement, it's right up there with the improved M3, yet in the real world and in the hands of normal drivers it will ultimately be the quicker car, all this without losing it's GT credentials.

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

The next m3 will be out next year and while I will truly miss the V8, I am sure that BMW ///M will craft another engineering marvel that will in turn, place Audi even further behind the curve.

And if the rumor is true about the next BMW supercar, then the R8 will be put to bed as well!

Cheers!

-SZ

If you talk to many an E46 owner they regard the E92 as a failure in some areas, so I assume the same will be true of the next one, even more so now that it will be FI. So while it will undoubtedly be quicker than before it might not necessarily be better at everything compared to the E92 M3 and RS5.

P.S.
Wait until you see what is in store for the next R8. Don't count your chickens on any future BMW supercar being better.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

...The first part of that paragraph was a reference to Audi's failings with the car's weight but an acknowledgement that given such failings it was still an achievement to get this close. In the second part of that paragraph the M3 was only there in reference to it's weight and not to the fact that the RS5 at it's weight would have been better than it, my comment was that at the M3's weight the RS5 would have been a better overall car to the RS5 we currently have.

But as you rightly stated, if the RS5 was at this kind of weight it would indeed have been superior to the M3, but as it isn't and it actually weighs close on 400lbs more I think even you have to admit that as such it's a heck of an achievement. In fact another failing of Audi was to fit the wrong engine, what the RS5 needed was a turbo or supercharged unit instead, then it's awd system could have easily coped with what ever amount of torque Audi seen fit to give the engine and it would have been even further from trying to mimic the M3.

Only my opinion but there you go.

I believe the law of diminishing returns would be at work here.

In rocketry, you can build a bigger rocket which can carry more fuel and thus go faster and further, but the bigger rocket with more fuel aboard takes more thrust to get going, so you use more fuel to get to a given speed and distance, thus limiting your return on investment.

In building skyscrapers, you can add fifty more floors of office space, but unless you are going to supply your elevators with G couches and are prepared to have the passengers screaming with ear pain when they reach their destination, you're going to have more of the normal speed elevators to populate those fifty floors, therefore stealing office space from the lower floors - again limiting your return.

Audi could easily build a 3600 pound RS5, but they're going to have to use a sub frame made of unobtanium, aluminum body panels, etc., etc., and they'd have to charge for that expensive stuff. Let's say another $20 - 25K. Then they'd have to redo the business model because they'll sell way fewer of them at that price, so engineering costs would have to be applied to fewer finished cars, again adding to the price.

Since they're in business to make cars and money, the notion that they'd have to compete against really ferocious stuff ((including the R8) at the new and inflated bottom line means:

Forget it.

Audi has built a a very high performance coupe that will appeal to Audi buyers - and some BMW and Mercedes buyers as well. It fits a niche in their lineup - and has a unique (if somewhat narrow) niche in the general marketplace.

I am reminded of the IS-F. Lexus didn't try to beat up on BMW with this car. What they did was fill a hole in the lineup that had forced some of their buyers to look elsewhere to satisfy a need for speed.

Only fanboys think Audi tried to outmuscle the M3 with this car and failed. If Audi had wanted to outmuscle the M3 they would've - much as Mercedes and Cadillac have. This is no huge technical challenge, powerwise.

Bruce

PS - A nit:

Looking at the Motor Trend data, they obviously had a sick Audi in their care, so forget the performance data. (If you doubt me, just check the 30-60 time and/or the quarter mile trap speed.)

Looking at Car and Driver's numbers, they show identical 0-30 times against the bimmer, which seems preposterous. The Audi ought to have crushed the bimmer in this venue, so I think they've either softened the launch in an effort to pursue longevity, or that particular car was also a little off, performance-wise. The trap speed is more or less OK, I guess (perhaps just a tad off), but with that trap you'd expect even a 12.3 or so with a proper (and theoretically available) launch.

BTW, if both these press cars were off, performance-wise, shame on Audi!

Oh well. We'll see more data over time, I'm sure.

Bruce

[gthal]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Looking at the Motor Trend data, they obviously had a sick Audi in their care, so forget the performance data. (If you doubt me, just check the 30-60 time and/or the quarter mile trap speed.)

Looking at Car and Driver's numbers, they show identical 0-30 times against the bimmer, which seems preposterous. The Audi ought to have crushed the bimmer in this venue, so I think they've either softened the launch in an effort to pursue longevity, or that particular car was also a little off, performance-wise. The trap speed is more or less OK, I guess (perhaps just a tad off), but with that trap you'd expect even a 12.3 or so with a proper (and theoretically available) launch.

BTW, if both these press cars were off, performance-wise, shame on Audi!

Oh well. We'll see more data over time, I'm sure.

Bruce

So BOTH magazines had bad cars huh? Maybe the data was actually correct. Both mags had different numbers for the three cars but on a relative basis were very similar. If the "excuse" for the performance of the RS5 is a bad car AND it happened twice... well that's a bigger problem for Audi if quality control is that poor.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by footie

I do truly love the combination of quattro's confidence and security with German logic and fine materials. In reality the RS5 was on the drawing board a lot longer than 3 years (same is true for the M3) so while each brand reacts to their competitors this is only done late on in the development process, what really happens is their try and predict where the competition will be at come the release of their model. Power and weight were all wrong with the RS5, a little too heavy and not the right engine meant that BMW only needed minor tweaks to their chassis to remain competitive.



Find me one example of an RS model that isn't a slightly more focused version of their S model sibling? They are all designed to offer more speed, more power but not at the expense of refinement or drivability. This RS5 is both things, it's quicker and any 'normal' driver can exploit the car's full potential without running the risk of the thing biting back. I think too many people expect Audi to mimic the M3 and throughout history they have always done things their way, quattro instead of RWD.

The only problem this time round was they didn't have an extra 70+hp to play with and weight exceeded the comfortable margin. Though all things considered I reckon the RS5 is one heck of an achievement, it's right up there with the improved M3, yet in the real world and in the hands of normal drivers it will ultimately be the quicker car, all this without losing it's GT credentials.



If you talk to many an E46 owner they regard the E92 as a failure in some areas, so I assume the same will be true of the next one, even more so now that it will be FI. So while it will undoubtedly be quicker than before it might not necessarily be better at everything compared to the E92 M3 and RS5.

P.S.
Wait until you see what is in store for the next R8. Don't count your chickens on any future BMW supercar being better.

Yes Footie - Perhaps you shouldn't have counted your chickens on the RS5 being faster For about a year all you kept saying was how the RS5 was going to outperform the M3 in every category - now that several magazines besides Car and Driver have proven that wrong, now you switch stories and say how the RS5 is a more "mature" driving experience. Please..... if someone wants "mature" on that platform, they can for for the S5 (or, for an even more "mature" driving experience, the A5.

As far as C&D getting a 3.9 0-60 time for the M3 competition package vs. Autobild getting 4.6 on the M3 GTS - yes - this does seem a little hard to reconcile. However, you didn't notice that Motor Trend just got a 4.0 time for the M3 competition - only 0.1 off C&D - I also noticed how you don't even blink at the fact C&D got a 4.0 time for the RS5, which is also surely a lot faster than the european magazines would get due to the different testing methods (no rollout).

I have to say Footie - you clearly make this forum much more interesting now that you're "back." But these are just a few reasons why so many people on this forum think you have a blatant Audi bias...

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I believe the law of diminishing returns would be at work here.

In rocketry, you can build a bigger rocket which can carry more fuel and thus go faster and further, but the bigger rocket with more fuel aboard takes more thrust to get going, so you use more fuel to get to a given speed and distance, thus limiting your return on investment.

In building skyscrapers, you can add fifty more floors of office space, but unless you are going to supply your elevators with G couches and are prepared to have the passengers screaming with ear pain when they reach their destination, you're going to have more of the normal speed elevators to populate those fifty floors, therefore stealing office space from the lower floors - again limiting your return.

Audi could easily build a 3600 pound RS5, but they're going to have to use a sub frame made of unobtanium, aluminum body panels, etc., etc., and they'd have to charge for that expensive stuff. Let's say another $20 - 25K. Then they'd have to redo the business model because they'll sell way fewer of them at that price, so engineering costs would have to be applied to fewer finished cars, again adding to the price.

Since they're in business to make cars and money, the notion that they'd have to compete against really ferocious stuff ((including the R8) at the new and inflated bottom line means:

Forget it.

Audi has built a a very high performance coupe that will appeal to Audi buyers - and some BMW and Mercedes buyers as well. It fits a niche in their lineup - and has a unique (if somewhat narrow) niche in the general marketplace.

I am reminded of the IS-F. Lexus didn't try to beat up on BMW with this car. What they did was fill a hole in the lineup that had forced some of their buyers to look elsewhere to satisfy a need for speed.

Only fanboys think Audi tried to outmuscle the M3 with this car and failed. If Audi had wanted to outmuscle the M3 they would've - much as Mercedes and Cadillac have. This is no huge technical challenge, powerwise.

Bruce

PS - A nit:

Looking at the Motor Trend data, they obviously had a sick Audi in their care, so forget the performance data. (If you doubt me, just check the 30-60 time and/or the quarter mile trap speed.)

Looking at Car and Driver's numbers, they show identical 0-30 times against the bimmer, which seems preposterous. The Audi ought to have crushed the bimmer in this venue, so I think they've either softened the launch in an effort to pursue longevity, or that particular car was also a little off, performance-wise. The trap speed is more or less OK, I guess (perhaps just a tad off), but with that trap you'd expect even a 12.3 or so with a proper (and theoretically available) launch.

BTW, if both these press cars were off, performance-wise, shame on Audi!

Oh well. We'll see more data over time, I'm sure.

Bruce

The Audi ought to have "crushed" the Bimmer? As gthal stated, you clearly disregard Motor Trend's results, and you also disregard the SportAuto comparison, whereby the M3 out-accelerated the RS5 0-200kph, out-slalomed it and in all four "in-gear" acceleration tests, was faster than the RS5. (only performance category RS5 was faster in was 0-100kph).

Looks like not only Car and Driver, but also Motor Trend and Sport Auto had a "sick" Audi on their hands... what a joke...

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by footie

Yes I have driven both, the TT-RS quite some time ago and the RS5 more recently. Personally I doubt too many people will be disappointed with the RS5, everything works extremely well together, gearbox, brakes, engine, but I can understand why so many are complaining about the steering, though having a similar setup in the S4 so I am much more familiar to it.

It's a different driving experience to the M3, where as the M3 grabs your attention and fulfils your exciting from the word go the RS5 is a more laid back and dare I say mature experience. Driven like an M3 and you will be disappointed by the Audi, but driven correctly, waiting for the nose to grip then floor the throttle and marvel at all the traction you would never have thought was possible is still a very pleasurable experience.

Here's another example of your bias Footie - stating a conclusion as if it's black-and-white, indisputable fact:

Like the RS5 the TT-RS needs a different method of driving to that of the M3 but the numbers speak for themselves, it's as quick around Hockenheim as the new improved M3 with it's competition pack. So there is no doubting it's as quick on the track and definitely quicker on the street with it's superior traction.

If you go to fastestlaps.com and compare the TT-RS coupe or TT-RS roadster to the E92 (DKG), you'll see that the M3 was faster in all seven combined comparisons - Hockenheim was the only one that was close (TT-RS behind by 0.1 sec) - even if you throw out the two tests where the track was damp for the Audi - M3 still faster in 5 of the remaining 5 - yet you conveniently leave these details out when you make your unqualified statement that the TT-RS is just as fast on the track, and "definitely quicker on the street with its superior traction." (Just like said months ago before the C&D, Motor Trend and SportAuto comparison tests came out - "you'd have to be a 'mug' to think the RS5 wasn't going to be superior in every way to the M3...")

Is it a better car? Everyone has their own opinion on that one but for me I prefer the engine and the feeling of being lighter on it's feet without feeling less solid. Plus any road car with the same exhaust note of an Audi Quattro rallycar is hard to beat.

So - does that mean you'd prefer the M3 over the RS5? The M3 is definitely going to feel lighter on its feet (about 400 lbs lighter to be slightly more precise) than the RS5 without feeling less solid...

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

If you go to fastestlaps.com and compare the TT-RS coupe or TT-RS roadster to the E92 (DKG), you'll see that the M3 was faster in all seven combined comparisons - Hockenheim was the only one that was close (TT-RS behind by 0.1 sec) - even if you throw out the two tests where the track was damp for the Audi - M3 still faster in 5 of the remaining 5 - yet you conveniently leave these details out when you make your unqualified statement that the TT-RS is just as fast on the track, and "definitely quicker on the street with its superior traction." (Just like said months ago before the C&D, Motor Trend and SportAuto comparison tests came out - "you'd have to be a 'mug' to think the RS5 wasn't going to be superior in every way to the M3...")

If I left out bits of information to make the TT-RS appear quicker than it was against the M3 then you are just as bad. In almost all those cases where the M3 was quicker it was equipped with PSC+ rubber which everyone knows is far grippier than the normal rubber used on the TT.

Take for example the difference of 4s on the ring. How much of a difference would PSC+ have made to the TT's time? And if you reckon it would have been as much as 4 or possibly more seconds then would the same not be true for all the other occasions where the M3 was a little quicker. The point I was trying to make was that the TT-RS is as quick as the M3, nothing more and nothing less.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

So - does that mean you'd prefer the M3 over the RS5? The M3 is definitely going to feel lighter on its feet (about 400 lbs lighter to be slightly more precise) than the RS5 without feeling less solid...

Well as someone who owned an M3 DCT and driven both the Audis I can report that you are correct in saying that the M3 feels lighter than the RS5, but I think I explained how the two need to be driven differently. Each car are great but for different reasons, drive the M3 like you would an RS5 and you will spin out, drive the RS5 like you would an M3 and you'll understeer. But for me at least I feel the RS5 offers a wider scope of situations where it's power can be used to the full and by less that brilliant drivers which has to be a bonus for 95% of drivers on the road and at least 70% of drivers that are into performance cars.

But given a choice of all three I would pick the TT-RS every time because of the engine (love that exhaust note and the off-beat noise of a five cylinder), because of the way it feels in your hands and because in my opinion it's the quicker car on the road.

Now if liking someone with an quattro badge on the boot lid instead of an M3 on this occasion makes me pro-Audi then hands up I confess but since I have owned several BMWs, Fords, Vauxhalls, Porsches , Lotus, Volvos and Jaguars as well as Audis I think one could also say that I just like cars in general.

[Powerslide]

Ok - now that answer I can respect - with one qualification - one of the major car mags recently tested the M3 with those same tires in the same track as an M3 equipped with the stock PS2's and achieved the same lap time - so once again - your conclusion is not necessarily consistent with the objective data out there.

However - I can respect that some people may prefer a TT-RS or RS5 over an M3 and may also be able to max those cars out more than an M3 - i (and I assume most other people on this forum, with some exceptions) am cool with subjective preferences such as these.

It is when you take the lesser amount of objective data available that favors the audi, without mentioning or addressing the objective data that otherwise favors the BMW product that makes people label you as an audi fanboy - your opinions would have much more credibility if you provided more objective support (and support that you could actually cite to).

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by gthal

So BOTH magazines had bad cars huh?

Didn't say that - or at least I didn't think I said that.

Can we agree that Motor Trend's RS5 was off song, at least? With that trap speed, it was way off on power.

Originally Posted by gthal

Maybe the data was actually correct.

I'm quite sure the observed data was correct.

Originally Posted by gthal

Both mags had different numbers for the three cars but on a relative basis were very similar

Disagree. The trap speed on the Motor Trend car was "sickly" - and trap speed is a very good indicator of power to weight.

Originally Posted by gthal

If the "excuse" for the performance of the RS5 is a bad car AND it happened twice... well that's a bigger problem for Audi if quality control is that poor.

As I mentioned, were that the case, shame on Audi. For me, it's more likely that Audi is being conservative on their controlled-launch parameters. Of course, I'm saying that largely because of the C & D data, wherein with fairly similar trap speeds the Audi should have a minor advantage over a quarter mile, unless they've softened the launch.

Do you agree?

Don't give a damn either way who's ahead at any point, but just studying the minutiae, as per my habit.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

The Audi ought to have "crushed" the Bimmer?

Absolutely - but I should've been more specific in my wording. By "venue", I meant zero to 30. If unfettered in its launch control algorithm, the Audi should launch like a ball bearing out of a slingshot, leaving the bimmer temporarily floundering. The bimmer should catch up and pass over time.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

As gthal stated, you clearly disregard Motor Trend's results...

What? I specifically mentioned Motor Trend's results as evidence that they had a sick car. Based on trap speed vs power to weight, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by Powerslide

...and you also disregard the SportAuto comparison, whereby the M3 out-accelerated the RS5 0-200kph, out-slalomed it and in all four "in-gear" acceleration tests, was faster than the RS5. (only performance category RS5 was faster in was 0-100kph).

Haven't read SportAuto, but it sounds as if their results jibe with "normal" expectations - meaning the Audi gets an early lead due to its theoretical launch advantage, but loses out later.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Looks like not only Car and Driver, but also Motor Trend and Sport Auto had a "sick" Audi on their hands... what a joke...

Obviously you don't know me, as I've not posted in awhile. Let me introduce myself this way:

I am a promiscuous badge whore. I love cars in general, and don't give the south end of a north-running rat about Audi, BMW or any other manufacturer in particular. My evenhandedness should've been obvious from my post, and your reaction makes me suspect you of fanboyism. Perhaps not, though. We'll see.

My observations of the data from MT and C & D tend to show that:

A) Motor Trend's Audi was clearly sick, and

B) Car and Driver's Audi seemed to perform about the way it should in regard to the bimmer overall, but it lacked any low-end advantage.

This in turn points me into thinking that Audi has softened the launch algorithm (perhaps for U.S. cars). The only other possibility is that both Audi test cars were not perfect as tested, which seems like a low-percentage chance, given the venue. Again as mentioned, it's too soon to tell, although I'll take a look at the SportAuto data, which should help. Thanks for mentioning it.

[MonteCarloM3]

ur in the wrong place to not have a fetish for BMW. most readers here want their ego's massaged constantly for their m3 purchase.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Ok - now that answer I can respect - with one qualification - one of the major car mags recently tested the M3 with those same tires in the same track as an M3 equipped with the stock PS2's and achieved the same lap time - so once again - your conclusion is not necessarily consistent with the objective data out there.

Well that is one test which I seriously find quite odd. It's a well proven fact that the more grip you can get the harder you can corner, brake and the sooner you can get back on the throttle. Sportauto's own tests back up that opinion as they tested two M3s (different days), one a saloon equipped with 18" PS2s and the other a coupe equipped with PSC+, needless to say the coupe was 0.9s quicker. After driving both cars I would actually rate the saloon to be the sweeter handling car so in my opinion the tyres are making all the improvement in that time.




Feel free to disagree with this opinion but I don't think any professional driver among us will disagree with what I am saying here regarding the benefits of these tyres and if you gave the TT-RS the same rubber it's times would also improve to match or possibly excess those of the M3.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

However - I can respect that some people may prefer a TT-RS or RS5 over an M3 and may also be able to max those cars out more than an M3 - i (and I assume most other people on this forum, with some exceptions) am cool with subjective preferences such as these.

This is all I have ever tried to suggest regarding these cars, they are all equally good but each have different strengths, like I said earlier if you drive an M3 the same way as you would an RS5 then you will spin out but in the say breath if you try and drive either the TT-RS or RS5 like an M3 then you will suffer understeer, less problematic or as difficult to control but still frustrating. Sure I was lead to believe that the RS5 would be quicker in almost every discipline but on feel the M3 would still win, that data has been to be wrong on this occasion mainly because the weight suggested to me in those early days was more in line with 1650Kg and not the 1725Kgs it ended up with. Likewise the power of 450hp was suggested to be conservative but I feel now that this is actual.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

It is when you take the lesser amount of objective data available that favors the audi, without mentioning or addressing the objective data that otherwise favors the BMW product that makes people label you as an audi fanboy - your opinions would have much more credibility if you provided more objective support (and support that you could actually cite to).

It's human nature to spin things to suit their argument, I do it, you do it, everyone does. Calling that fanboism is a forum thing but the reality is that we all have a favourite but we all just happen to love cars. When I agree with something that BMW are doing or about to do I am more passionate than just about anyone here, not blindly of course, but when I see failings I call them out.

What I have a real problem with blind favouritism, believing that it's better just because the magazines say it's so or purely basing an opinion on numbers without experiencing the cars being discussed. I seldom debate on American cars simply because I know little about them but when I do know about someone then I am both vocal and very opinionated, something I apologize for but simply can't change.

[Archon]

BMW wins again...yawn.

Has the RS5 won any direct comparos? ANY?

[Coach]

I had my buddys CTSV coupe for the past three days and it is a great car. I fealt like a power broker driving that thing. Straight out of a GQ magazing add. It's fast down low but the pull from 60ish is crazy. Stupid fast!

I picked up my E90 M3 about two hours ago and within a 1/2 mile I knew why it won. It feels much more special.