Autocar Front Cover Says It All

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by BMW320i

i will have to wait and read the article...

some reviews say strange things on why a car is better than the other, some are stupid like "it doesnt have the wow factor" or "better in everything except the price"...

so i need to read the article ...

Or they don't know how to drive a high-revving engine that has instantenous throttle response....!

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by Garrett

Or they don't know how to drive a high-revving engine that has instantenous throttle response....!

Of course they don't. Read up about Steve Sutcliffe before you assume he doesn't know his onions.

[Vorsprung]

WOw, first Autoexpress give the win to the RS4 and now Autocar give the win to the RS4!

I'm sure the M3 is a good car, but many were arrogant enough to think it would blow the RS4 away. If you ask me BMW have been caught sleeping and it just shows how good an RS4 is.

By the way, for those making the ridiculous statement that its M vs S and CSL vs RS, that is a complete joke!
CSL's are lightweight M cars made specifically for track purposes at the expense of comfort and luxury. RS4 is still a 4-door family saloon with all the luxury bells and whistles. To compare an RS4 to a CSL is just stupid.

Say, if the M3 is an S4 competitor, then how come the M3 costs practically the same as an RS4? What will the CSL cost?
Lets not even mention that even BMW themselves compare the RS4 to the M3 in their M3 brochure, so that just eliminates that myth.

Long live the king!! RS4! :rocks::rocks:

[nusevad]

i dont care for mag. reviews, ill go by seeing which car i most enjoy driving before deciding.

[JEllis]

Yeah but CAR mag gave the win to the M3...go figure

Jason

[JEllis]

Yep the "ring" time also means the most to me as well. I am just glad the M is running under 8:10 which is significantly better than the previous M and to me that is mission accomplished.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Vorsprung

WOw, first Autoexpress give the win to the RS4 and now Autocar give the win to the RS4!

I'm sure the M3 is a good car, but many were arrogant enough to think it would blow the RS4 away. If you ask me BMW have been caught sleeping and it just shows how good an RS4 is.

By the way, for those making the ridiculous statement that its M vs S and CSL vs RS, that is a complete joke!
CSL's are lightweight M cars made specifically for track purposes at the expense of comfort and luxury. RS4 is still a 4-door family saloon with all the luxury bells and whistles. To compare an RS4 to a CSL is just stupid.

Say, if the M3 is an S4 competitor, then how come the M3 costs practically the same as an RS4? What will the CSL cost?
Lets not even mention that even BMW themselves compare the RS4 to the M3 in their M3 brochure, so that just eliminates that myth.

Long live the king!! RS4! :rocks::rocks:

You can argue this both ways. You make some good points. But how much more simple can it get? Both brands have a base car A4/335i and very sporty step up S4/M3 and an extremely high end BASED ON AN ENHANCEMENT of the "step up" RS4/M3 CSL. It just doesn't get that much more simple. Sure the CSL is price is >> RS4 but the M3 is also priced > S4. One brand often releases their new model totally out of sync with the other and attempts to trump aspects of the others vehicle - this is one big a reason for the price differences.

In the end the rankings based on a (dry) performance focused criteria are

335i>>A4
M3>>S4
M3>RS4

Then we can add the other competitions as well
335i>S4
CSL>>RS4

Go ahead and replace all the "4"s with "5"s above and I'm still probably correct.

[Hans Delbruck]

Why is this thread 5 pages long with over 3500 views?

If I cared about the RS4, I would have bought one already!
So would anyone else here. Why argue about it?

[Romo]

Originally Posted by BostonStatie

You can't put too much into these magazine reviews. Have a look at this:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...b-c32-amg.html

The E46 is an icon yet in this instance they liked the Audi better. Go figure. The only way to judge a car is to drive it yourself. Even then, most people who drive the RS4 and the M3 will not even detect the differences that separate the two cars.

Laptimes are by no means concrete, either; the RS4 throttled the CSL on 5th Gear and the heavy CLS55 beat the CSL by over a second on the Top Gear circuit. Safe to say nobody considers the Audi or Merc a better track car. For me, the 'Ring time is the only track time that matters.

Predicted Ring time by BMW people who talked with a Dutch car magazine "Autovisie"

Average E92 M3 trackspeed 156 km/h
Track is 20,8 km
This means the M3 will have a track time off 8.00 min......................

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Romo

Predicted Ring time by BMW people who talked with a Dutch car magazine "Autovisie"

Average E92 M3 trackspeed 156 km/h
Track is 20,8 km
This means the M3 will have a track time off 8.00 min......................

Terrible, we all wanted <8:00. Nice find! Can you elaborate on the source?

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by Romo

Predicted Ring time by BMW people who talked with a Dutch car magazine "Autovisie"

Average E92 M3 trackspeed 156 km/h
Track is 20,8 km
This means the M3 will have a track time off 8.00 min......................

This is just a simple calculation, not someone having tested it. However we all know it's not just math and averages, track temp, ambient temp, surface condition, overhead weather, German yellow-tailed fox running across track at Karoussel, all play a role...

Average = 156km/h
which is 2.6km/min

20.8/2.6 = 8 minutes flat

I'll wait till October for Sportauto to test the ///M3 and see what it gets as a laptime (as will BMW ///M themselves as mentioned in a mail i referred to in the official Nürburgring time thread)

Thanks Romo for posting this anyway, good to keep discussions going and I appreciate new info as much as anyone else

[Saebb]

I'll wait for the "Supertest" of Sportauto, too. In my oppinion there is no other test which better reveals the pros and cons of a sportcar. If the M3 fails and the RS4 is better, then BMW has developed a piece of "shit". But I doubt that the M3 will fail.
Btw, is there anyone surprised by the fact that a 4WD has better traction than an RWD?

[Steved]

Originally Posted by Saebb

Btw, is there anyone surprised by the fact that a 4WD has better traction than an RWD?

It didn't in our experience. Both cars ran on Michelin PS2s, but the M3's were a special compound so that 'may' have helped. But traction out of tight hairpin corners was the M3's advantage not the RS4.

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by Steved

It didn't in our experience. Both cars ran on Michelin PS2s, but the M3's were a special compound so that 'may' have helped. But traction out of tight hairpin corners was the M3's advantage not the RS4.

Again, what you find is at odds with what Autocar found. WTF is up with all this? Were some of the cars on better rubber whilst others had a dodgy batch?

[adamr]

Originally Posted by ottomobeel

It also beat out the M6 in that very test did it not? How does that square with your propeller shaped badge?

The VA track is a short track which favors lighter cars apparently, unless you're ready to say the 335i is faster in most circumstances than an M6? Someone also called into question the method in which the heavier cars were warmed up due to the physics of weight, tires/air pressure and hot lapping, the rules of their tests favored lighter cars due to the way they warmed each car up. This likely affected the M6 in this test as well.

But let's get real here. The RS4 has bested BMW's best efforts., this new M3 And for those who don't realize this, the RS4 might only be a 2.5 year old car, but it sits on a 6+ year old chassis. Why not just give credit where it's due?

I am sure the BMW M3 is a great car, it's OK to be 2nd place, the RS4 has received almost unanimous praise over the last several years for a very good reason. There's nothing to be ashamed of.

+10 000 .... i am from the ///M stable ... have to admit Audi rasied the game with an awesome car ... i.e. the RS4 ...

[southlight]

Originally Posted by The CSL

Again, what you find is at odds with what Autocar found. WTF is up with all this? Were some of the cars on better rubber whilst others had a dodgy batch?

Some indicated that first sets of the Michelin tires weren't that good and kinda faulty!?
But I don't know if that's true...

Best regards, south

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by southlight

Some indicated that first sets of the Michelin tires weren't that good and kinda faulty!?
But I don't know if that's true...

Best regards, south

I'm waiting for this to be confirmed/denied, but then, I doubt BMW could openly confirm this.

[NavNurs]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Audi-...QQcmdZViewItem

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by BostonStatie

If you don't care, don't bother reading the thread.

I didn't read the thread. I just saw the hits and page count, wondered what the fuss was about, and posted at the end to keep my post count ahead of yours, noob.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by The CSL

Again, what you find is at odds with what Autocar found. WTF is up with all this? Were some of the cars on better rubber whilst others had a dodgy batch?

You will read about it further in EVO's article, but traction is a function of both tyre and road surface. Most of the reviews published thus far have failed to refer to the very unusual road conditions we encountered. On slippy surfaces the M3 still found more speed in the corners, where the RS4 would often just understeer.

When we're doing action shots we cover a mile stretch of twisty tarmac probably a dozen times (until the photographer is happy) and each time I was in the RS4 and less than a car length behind Richard in the M3. We were travelling quickly (70+) and every time on the final corner I lost 3-4 car lengths no matter how I tackled the corner in the RS4. It was an uphill tightening left-hander, and I tried slow-in fast-out, a lift of the throttle to loosen the tail and then nail it mid-apex, I even tried cutting the inside of the (blind) corner just to find more corner speed, but each time the M3 got away... whilst drifting controllably sideways. There was nothing I could do. The RS4 was truly beaten in an area we thought it should have easily won. Swapping cars and drivers made no difference.

So, maybe the tyres on the M3 were a more advanced compound but you can understand why I don't concur with the comment made in Autocar that the M3 lacked traction.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BostonStatie

... most people who drive the RS4 and the M3 will not even detect the differences that separate the two cars.

Wow I couldn't disagree with this more. It does not take a very experienced driver to feel the difference between 4WD and 2WD, dramatically different in character, steering, sliding, correction from slides, etc., etc. Just because they will be fairly close in hp and in some performance numbers does not mean in any way they will feel the same.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

I didn't read the thread. I just saw the hits and page count, wondered what the fuss was about, and posted at the end to keep my post count ahead of yours, noob.