Where is the Audi RS5?

[Powerslide]

I guess we'll see when the lap times actually come out. It's certainly possible the RS5 will improve on some of the lap times, but again, the extra weight (especially at the front of the car) cannot escape the laws of physics. So when you (Footie) say the RS5 "will" improve on the lap times (instead of "might"), how is it that you can make such an unequivocal statement like that without having access to Audi's test information (just curious)? Do you have any specific data to back that up?

[footie]

All I will say is that I know things about most of the German brands future products, not only VAG, BMW, Mercedes and Porsche.

Also you would have to be a mug not to believe that the RS5 will improve on the M3. After all it's due to be released 2 and 1/2 years after the introduction of the M3 and will be using technologies more up to date than what is present in the M3. Look at the F10 M5, another product being intro-ed soon, it will intro technology never seen in the M3, why assume that BMW only have monopoly on new technics and technologies.

When you look at the facts on both closely related products (i.e. 335i and S4) you see that the more recent one (S4) is the superior one, all down to learning from it's competitors and improving on them.

What Audi do with the RS5 vs the M3 then you can expect the F30 to improve by at least as much.

[Powerslide]

BMW certainly does not have a monopoly on performance. I agree that Audi builds a great product as well - and I agree with your general analysis that the RS5 "should" improve somewhat on the M3. The reason I'm skeptical is that Audis tend to be heavier overall and more nose-heavy than the counterpart BMW models - which is why the Audi generally needs to have a significant horsepower advantage just to equal or slightly exceed the corresponding BMW model. The RS4 (B7) was only able to outtrack the M3 (E46) by having a massive horsepower advantage, and once the E9x M3 came out (with equal or slightly less horsepower, depending upon SAE or DIN ratings), less torque (317 ft/lbs vs. 295 ft/lbs) and without quattro, the M3 has consistently outperformed the RS4 (B7) on almost every track the two of them have both run on.

Of course, this does not mean that this trend will continue indefinitely. I just don't have as much faith in Audi's philosophy (quattro but with much greater weight overall and too much weight over or even in front of the lead axle) as BMW's philosophy (lower overall weight, closer to 50/50 weight balance, weight centered more aft as compared to Audi). Even look at the current RS6 vs. the E60 M5. Once again, massive hp advantage to the RS6, yet very marginal improvement in track times. S5 has significant horsepower/torque advantage over 335i, yet only marginal improvements in track time (and 335i has seen better lap times on some tracks despite this power discrepancy).

Once again, time will tell... If the RS5 had such a clear advantage over the M3, why on earth hasn't Audi released it yet - especially since the A5/S5 have been out for quite some time now? Once again, I may be wrong, but this just makes me think that Audi is having its share of difficulties in tuning it to match up with the M3.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

BMW certainly does not have a monopoly on performance. I agree that Audi builds a great product as well - and I agree with your general analysis that the RS5 "should" improve somewhat on the M3. The reason I'm skeptical is that Audis tend to be heavier overall and more nose-heavy than the counterpart BMW models - which is why the Audi generally needs to have a significant horsepower advantage just to equal or slightly exceed the corresponding BMW model. The RS4 (B7) was only able to outtrack the M3 (E46) by having a massive horsepower advantage, and once the E9x M3 came out (with equal or slightly less horsepower, depending upon SAE or DIN ratings), less torque (317 ft/lbs vs. 295 ft/lbs) and without quattro, the M3 has consistently outperformed the RS4 (B7) on almost every track the two of them have both run on.

Of course, this does not mean that this trend will continue indefinitely. I just don't have as much faith in Audi's philosophy (quattro but with much greater weight overall and too much weight over or even in front of the lead axle) as BMW's philosophy (lower overall weight, closer to 50/50 weight balance, weight centered more aft as compared to Audi). Even look at the current RS6 vs. the E60 M5. Once again, massive hp advantage to the RS6, yet very marginal improvement in track times. S5 has significant horsepower/torque advantage over 335i, yet only marginal improvements in track time (and 335i has seen better lap times on some tracks despite this power discrepancy).

The problem when comparing times is to get results with similar rubber, when that is the case the two cars are quite closely matched, example is Topgear and Hockenheim laps where the RS4 was 0.3s slower on the Topgear track and 0.2s slower on Hockenheim. Regarding the fact that the E46 is close to the RS4 is a slight stretching of the truth, when you compare most cases the gap is ..........well quite big. Again when you look at the RS6 vs M5 I think you will find that the respective gaps are greater than first thought, the RS6 is roughly 1.5s quicker than the M5 on most tracks, even on Hockenheim a track which should in fact play to M cars' strengths (i.e. better weight distribution). The same is true when comparing like for like with the S5 and 335i though the gap is smaller it's still in favour of the S5 and as for the power difference, are we all not in agreement that the 335i is closer to putting out 340hp in stock form, that is hardly a huge power advantage to the S5.

This isn't me playing one car or brand up over another, only highlighting the fact that always one must look closer at comparisons before jumping to conclusions as to how wide the differences are between models because it ain't generally that great. I will say that I completely agree that Audi are nose heavy when driven like one would an M car, this is partly to do with the weight distribution and partly that they have quattro, they require a similar technique of the 911 (i.e. slow in and power through once grip is established). What we have here is similar results between brands but their approach/philosophy and how they achieve these results differ greatly, thus making the brands unique and appealing in totally different ways and to different people.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Once again, time will tell... If the RS5 had such a clear advantage over the M3, why on earth hasn't Audi released it yet - especially since the A5/S5 have been out for quite some time now? Once again, I may be wrong, but this just makes me think that Audi is having its share of difficulties in tuning it to match up with the M3.

I think timing played a big part in this, the world economy took a nose dive and like most companies Audi waited to see how things played out before making to decision. Though this should have meant more development time to fine tune the chassis if nothing else. As to how much of a possible improvement Audi will have made over the M3 is any-one's guess, personally I don't think it will be huge, but I am expecting that across the board in all disciplines it should improve over the M3, be that accelerating, cornering, braking, emissions and economy but as I say earlier this will all cost more and the difference on cost between them will be as great as it is between the RS6 and M5 in percentage terms.

[Powerslide]

You make a lot of good points Footie - but don't misunderstand what I was saying - I never said the E46 was close to the RS4 B7 - what I was saying is that an RS4 model (of any generation) was not able to outtrack an M3 (of any generation) until the B7 came out. I agree that the B7 is a significant performance improvement over the E46 - but again, in large part because of a massive horsepower/torque advantage.

As far as comparing track times without knowing what rubber is on each car - again I agree with you 100% that unless both cars are using stock rubber, it is truly an apples/oranges comparison. Is there any way to quickly look up (and without spending hours of research time) what tires are on a given car for a given track/lap result? I assume that the vast majority of track times are on stock rubber, but again, this is admittedly just an assumption on my part.

As far as the 335i having closer to 340 hp - is this based upon widely-published dyno results for stock cars? Computer models/simulations? I'm not saying that this cannot be true, but I'm one of those people (as I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone who's read my posts) that likes to see the underlying data before blindly accepting something that is stated as an unequivocal fact rather than an assumption or guess.

Perhaps you don't intend to come accross this way (and I don't doubt your knowledge of cars), but my personal belief is that a lot of people on this forum think you're an Audi/VAG "fanboy" because whenever someone points out a more favorable track result for a BMW vs. an Audi/VAG, you always seem quick to conclude that it's because the BMW was using better, non-stock tires, or because the non-BMW entry didn't have the optional rear differential, etc. However, it appears (even though this may not be your intention) that whenever the result favors the Audi/VW entry, you never seem to wonder if in those cases the Audi/VW had the better rubber, that it had more than the "advertised" horsepower, or that the BMW model otherwise had less performance-related options.

I am not trying to mount a personal attack on you by saying this - but having been married for almost 14 years I have truly learned the difference between: a) intending to come accross a certain way; vs. b) coming accross in a way that is different from or perhaps opposite of what you intended. (I'm sure I come accross as a BMW fanboy at times, and I even admit that I am to some extent). In any event - good to see that the majority of people on this forum can have lively debates and question each other without being unfriendly or hostile about it.

[footie]

It's not me showing a preference to Audi over BMW, it's just that the difference in performance is extremely small, you have to remember that these brands are direct rivals to each other and on performance terms even closer then that of Mercedes, so they closely evalute each others products and develop accordingly. That was what I was trying to show above, they are basically as good as each other but approach things from a different angle.

The choice of rubber is tricky to know but there is tell tale sign in the times. Most of the European M3 times are with CUP+, though the E90 time I referred to was with PS2 which closely match the rubber choice on the RS4. Likewise the M5 doesn't use CUP+ and it's slower than the RS6 and new E63, this isn't playing down the M5's ability as it's more involving the the Audi but it's older and the F10 with show a similar improvement over it's two newer rivals as they have shown over it.

P.S.
Once again I will apologize if it appears to be pro-Audi, it's not my intent, but the Internet at times is a bad time to look for data because quite often the important stuff is missing and can mislead one way or another.

But one thing is true is that BMW are more involving than Audi and anyone who thinks difference is wrong. Oh with the exception of the R8 that is.

[Powerslide]

No need to apologize, especially if any perceived bias was unintentional. It's good to have points of view on the forum that don't automatically praise BMW for everything.

R8 is a totally awesome car - esp. the 5.2 V-10! I'd love to drive one someday (not to mention the F458, LP560-4, etc. etc...)

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

I guess we'll see when the lap times actually come out. It's certainly possible the RS5 will improve on some of the lap times, but again, the extra weight (especially at the front of the car) cannot escape the laws of physics. So when you (Footie) say the RS5 "will" improve on the lap times (instead of "might"), how is it that you can make such an unequivocal statement like that without having access to Audi's test information (just curious)? Do you have any specific data to back that up?

but it's the way of the world... withouth it, nothing we currently own or enjoy driving would exist...

do you think it's a coindidence that audi is releasing the RS4 / RS5 now?? no, they used the M3 / C63 as their benchmark... they improve on existing platforms, and put out a car that will best it... this in turn will cause BMW to overhaul their vehicles, and put out a car that is superior to what is currently out on the market now...

it's not just cars... look at the playstation / xbox / sega / nintendo... first comes xbox, then comes a more superior hardware system in the PS3... this will cause microsoft to make an even better system and then PS4 will follow...

take just about anything in life and there will always be something bigger better stronger faster, which causes other companies to improve on their existing platforms... without that competition, it'd be pretty boring...

to footsie's statement, it a VERY safe to assume that audi will NOT put out a product that will produce slower laptimes than the M3... makes ZERO sense... why bother putting a product out there anyways?? what do you think audi's benchmark was, the motortrend car of the year Ford Focus??

[footie]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

No need to apologize, especially if any perceived bias was unintentional. It's good to have points of view on the forum that don't automatically praise BMW for everything.

R8 is a totally awesome car - esp. the 5.2 V-10! I'd love to drive one someday (not to mention the F458, LP560-4, etc. etc...)

I'm pleased that you at least aren't seeing my comments as solely one-sided as some other member do. I love to praise BMW as much as the next person but I don't blindly believe everything written as gospel, some people have the belief that their products are unbelieveable great at a fanatical level (remember the thread about what cars the M3 was better than ).

When viewed senibly one can come to the conclusion that the M3 and M cars in general are among the best allrounders.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by shoei

but it's the way of the world... withouth it, nothing we currently own or enjoy driving would exist...

do you think it's a coindidence that audi is releasing the RS4 / RS5 now?? no, they used the M3 / C63 as their benchmark... they improve on existing platforms, and put out a car that will best it... this in turn will cause BMW to overhaul their vehicles, and put out a car that is superior to what is currently out on the market now...

it's not just cars... look at the playstation / xbox / sega / nintendo... first comes xbox, then comes a more superior hardware system in the PS3... this will cause microsoft to make an even better system and then PS4 will follow...

take just about anything in life and there will always be something bigger better stronger faster, which causes other companies to improve on their existing platforms... without that competition, it'd be pretty boring...

to footsie's statement, it a VERY safe to assume that audi will NOT put out a product that will produce slower laptimes than the M3... makes ZERO sense... why bother putting a product out there anyways?? what do you think audi's benchmark was, the motortrend car of the year Ford Focus??

What about the Mercedes C63 AMG? That came out after the current generation M3, and the M3 has thoroughly outclassed it on virtually every track that the two have both run on...

Of course in theory it makes no sense for a manufacturer to put out a product that is inferior to that which it is competing against. But by no means is this general rule without exceptions, as we all have seen (as shown by my example above).

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

What about the Mercedes C63 AMG? That came out after the current generation M3, and the M3 has thoroughly outclassed it on virtually every track that the two have both run on...

Of course in theory it makes no sense for a manufacturer to put out a product that is inferior to that which it is competing against. But by no means is this general rule without exceptions, as we all have seen (as shown by my example above).

If I'm not mistaken, the IS-F also came out just after the M3. Certainly Lexus and Mercedes did not intend to put out something that wasn't as good on the track as the M3 while the IS-F and C63 were under development, of course that would have been nonsense - but that is nevertheless what has happened despite their intentions... this is my point with the RS5 - sure, in all likelihood it will improve upon the M3 in certain ways - the questions are: 1) in what ways; and 2) by how much?

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

What about the Mercedes C63 AMG? That came out after the current generation M3, and the M3 has thoroughly outclassed it on virtually every track that the two have both run on...

Of course in theory it makes no sense for a manufacturer to put out a product that is inferior to that which it is competing against. But by no means is this general rule without exceptions, as we all have seen (as shown by my example above).

but merc decided to make it slightly quicker than the M3 0-60 and 1/4... they went for "street" bragging rights, more torque, more horse, etc etc...

[shoei]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

If I'm not mistaken, the IS-F also came out just after the M3. Certainly Lexus and Mercedes did not intend to put out something that wasn't as good on the track as the M3 while the IS-F and C63 were under development, of course that would have been nonsense - but that is nevertheless what has happened despite their intentions... this is my point with the RS5 - sure, in all likelihood it will improve upon the M3 in certain ways - the questions are: 1) in what ways; and 2) by how much?

right... i'm not saying all car companies new cars are gonna best the M3 on every circuit, but they will find a niche where it will best it... audi has always focused more on the handling aspect instead of the straight brute blunt force trauma of say a 6.3 litre engine, i can't speculate on R8 V10 either cuz i haven't driven one, lol) so it is safe to assume that their focus will be to best the M3 around the track...

[footie]

Mercedes nor Lexus have truly tried to out do the M3 on the track, it's not Merc's intention to fully compete because their brand average age is quite a bit older than BMW has and their stable customer base looks for a more relaxing driving style, though that being said their do now offer performance upgrades as optional so they are showing a shift that direction, as for Lexus, well they aim squarely at Merc, always have.

[McCartney]

Personally,

I was wanting an M3 but the more I've waited for this car, I will likely get this or a used R8 if the RS5 does not come to Canada.

However, I cannot see it not coming to Canada just due to the preference of AWD over RWD for our winters. People who are spending 90k on a fully loaded M3 (I was one of those), would rather spend 10-15k more for a car that has AWD and better performance (maybe the same numbers, or slightly better) because of Quattro and a way better DSG...

Just my 2c tho.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by footie

The RS5 will have advanced aerodynamics (possibly similar to those of the M5) as well as adaptive suspension with I believe is to work in combination with those aerodynamic aids. Gearbox is to be more advanced than the DSG in the S4 with the inclusion of launch control. Performance will probably only be slightly quicker to 150mph than the M3 DCT but it's projected lap times are probably going to comfortably beat the M3.

One thing it won't be is a match of the GTR or even close to that. You have to remember that the GTR is under-rated because it's an FI engine and as such it's extremely easy to gain 10% without breaking sweat. The RS5 is a N/A and I believe is working closer to it's upper limit while still proving reliable.




It all depends on whether you believe it's official output is 450ps and not something similar to the S4. My guess is this figure is close to factual.

Sorry Footie - you're a good guy - but I couldn't resist asking if you've seen the Sport Auto comparison M3 ZCP v. RS5??

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Sorry Footie - you're a good guy - but I couldn't resist asking if you've seen the Sport Auto comparison M3 ZCP v. RS5??

I'm sure he has by now, but he wanted this thread to die!

[Meff]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Sorry Footie - you're a good guy - but I couldn't resist asking if you've seen the Sport Auto comparison M3 ZCP v. RS5??

He is being uncharacteristically quiet.....

[stickypaws]

Ask this guy, Domobrown
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...9&postcount=20

He claims to own one now.
He's from Toronto, Nigeria.

Of course he once owned an invisible 997TT and a M6

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...1&postcount=13

[slo_guy]

Originally Posted by ChinoOrtega

It has to come out, the A5 is a really gorgeous car, imagine what an RS5 would look like, Audi is always late to come out against the competition, but, when it does, it blows them away, (m3 e46 vs rs4, e60 m5 vs new rs6)

It's easier to better an already present product. Setting a trend or being the benchmark is always a much more difficult task.