RS5 vs. M3

[H Bomb]

i agree 100% in my class 90% of the guys run a 450 and i run a 250 and pass most of them bc almost all of them can even use the full power of the 450 and the bike weighs an extra 20lb

Originally Posted by klammer

Glaring deficiency maybe, but never really get it because the deficiency is usually at the edge of performance, at this level it's the driver not the car. Like when i used to track my bikes, passed plenty of liter bikes on my 600, and even saw quite a few 250s lapping everyone... Size of the fight in the dog, not dog in the fight...

[H Bomb]

i think stock sounds great it just sounds better when opened up with an after market muffler just like almost any car

i agree the R8 sounds great i forgot about that car, but just like the M3 the R8 sounds so much better with an aftermarket muffler

Originally Posted by quality_sound

The V8 R8 sounds better IMO as so most domestic performance V8s. I also think having to spend 3 grand on top of the already high price is silly. It's a ///Motorsport car, it should sound like it. If you have to change the exhaust to make that happen then its not really the M3's sound IMO.

[quality_sound]

Everything sounds better aftermarket which is why I discount that sound when comparing cars. At least comparing stock models you know the engineers had roughly the same goals and limitations. With aftermarket all bets are off. Stock for stock the M3 sound is just eh.

[graider]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

The V8 R8 sounds better IMO as so most domestic performance V8s. I also think having to spend 3 grand on top of the already high price is silly. It's a ///Motorsport car, it should sound like it. If you have to change the exhaust to make that happen then its not really the M3's sound IMO.

r8 vs sound just like rs4. low rev sound good, but up top doesn't sound anything special.

i disagree about all engineers have the same goal and limitation. obviously c63 amg engineer does not have the same goal as m3 engineer. just listen to how loud the stock c63 amg exaust is compare to other car in its class.

rs5, m3, rs4, etc all pretty much muted. why? because the goal is to keep them quiet to appeal to the mass. do you think a 50 years old guy who buy an m3 want a loud exaust, doubt it.

you seriously think bmw can't fit a louder exaust in m3 from factory? it's pretty simple as there are so many aftermarket exaust for the m3 which proved it could be done easily by anybody. I mean it doesn't cost more to make a loud exaust from the factory. piping/welding/development cost are all the same no matter how loud or quiet the exaust is.

[H Bomb]

^^
exactly look at the M3 GTS, that is def louder then the M3 so the factory can def make it louder and lighter since it is Ti. but they also have to think of the buyers as a whole and now that they have the M3 in a 4 door and vert now again i think they put the level of the muffler at a decibal that would please the masses. and those that it doesn't well we see how theres sound lol. the amount of M3's that are out there with aftermarket systems is a very small % to what are out there stock

[quality_sound]

I understand what you're saying. What I meant by having the same goals and limitations was that all OEM exhausts are limited by DoT and state regs. With aftermarket exhausts all bets are off. So while OEM exhausts clearly are different, they can only be so loud or so free-flowing.

Does that make sense? I might not be explaining it right.

[graider]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

I understand what you're saying. What I meant by having the same goals and limitations was that all OEM exhausts are limited by DoT and state regs. With aftermarket exhausts all bets are off. So while OEM exhausts clearly are different, they can only be so loud or so free-flowing.

Does that make sense? I might not be explaining it right.

i get what you mean. stock for stock, the c63 amg does sound brutal and i like it too.

[spearfisher]

really want to like the RS5 good looking car, but M3 is so much more nimble

[uljoe]

c63 sounds better anything louder is not wife happy for a road trip, stock m3 is fine for me.

[shiggy]

R8 cant beat the M3...what makes anyone think an RS5 can???!!!

[shiggy]

this is one seriously funny video!!
http://goanimate.com/movie/00mpEOiZLkYo/1

[brava09]

Another test for RS5 and yet another triumph for the M3:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...V8-RS5/253641/



The verdict:

"the RS5's biggest problem is the existence of the more agile, more able V8 coupé with a propeller on its nose."

[pride355]

Originally Posted by shiggy

R8 cant beat the M3...what makes anyone think an RS5 can???!!!

And M-DKG is faster than manual by 0,9 sec from 0 to 200 km/h (from 100 - 200 km/h faster by 0,7 sec) according to BMW official data which can be found at BMW.de

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by brava09

Another test for RS5 and yet another triumph for the M3:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...V8-RS5/253641/



The verdict:

"the RS5's biggest problem is the existence of the more agile, more able V8 coupé with a propeller on its nose."

good read...thx for sharing!

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by brava09

Another test for RS5 and yet another triumph for the M3:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...V8-RS5/253641/



The verdict:

"the RS5's biggest problem is the existence of the more agile, more able V8 coupé with a propeller on its nose."

Great quote!

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by brava09

Another test for RS5 and yet another triumph for the M3:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...V8-RS5/253641/



The verdict:

"the RS5's biggest problem is the existence of the more agile, more able V8 coupé with a propeller on its nose."

It's not a propeller.

[graider]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

It's not a propeller.

who care right?

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

It's not a propeller.

.."The current BMW logo is said to be inspired from the circular design of a rotating aircraft propeller. The white and blue checker boxes are supposed to be a stylized representation of a white/silver propeller blade spinning against a clear blue sky. The theory is further strengthened with the statement that the image has its origins in World War I in which the Bavarian Luftwaffe flew planes painted in blue and white. It also reflects the origins of BMW as a military aircraft engine maker during WWI and the belief that BMW started as an aero engine manufacturer. According to the company’s journal, “BMW Werkzeitschrift” (1942), the BMW logo emerged when a BMW engineer was testing the company’s first 320 bhp engine. He admired the reflection of the shining disc of the rotating propeller that radiated like an aura of two silver cones. In between the two cones, the blue from the sky shined that made the ‘rotating propeller into four areas of color – silver and blue’. The engineer, who envisioned this image, also saw three letters – B M W – reflected on the propeller. Thus, the BMW logo was born. However, according to a BMW spokesperson, the BMW logo does not symbolize a spinning propeller (although the imagery did appear in post-WWI advertisements). On other note, this statement is considered by many as merely a bogus claim made by the company to give a logical explanation to the public about the BMW logo’s creation. In fact, the first BMW aero-engine test took place in March 1918 – six months after the BMW logo had been created. Additionally, the founding myth of the BMW logo, the propeller, was a component of the engine that was never manufactured by BMW.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by shiggy

.."The current BMW logo is said to be inspired from the circular design of a rotating aircraft propeller. The white and blue checker boxes are supposed to be a stylized representation of a white/silver propeller blade spinning against a clear blue sky. The theory is further strengthened with the statement that the image has its origins in World War I in which the Bavarian Luftwaffe flew planes painted in blue and white. It also reflects the origins of BMW as a military aircraft engine maker during WWI and the belief that BMW started as an aero engine manufacturer. According to the company’s journal, “BMW Werkzeitschrift” (1942), the BMW logo emerged when a BMW engineer was testing the company’s first 320 bhp engine. He admired the reflection of the shining disc of the rotating propeller that radiated like an aura of two silver cones. In between the two cones, the blue from the sky shined that made the ‘rotating propeller into four areas of color – silver and blue’. The engineer, who envisioned this image, also saw three letters – B M W – reflected on the propeller. Thus, the BMW logo was born. However, according to a BMW spokesperson, the BMW logo does not symbolize a spinning propeller (although the imagery did appear in post-WWI advertisements). On other note, this statement is considered by many as merely a bogus claim made by the company to give a logical explanation to the public about the BMW logo’s creation. In fact, the first BMW aero-engine test took place in March 1918 – six months after the BMW logo had been created. Additionally, the founding myth of the BMW logo, the propeller, was a component of the engine that was never manufactured by BMW.

Best regards,
south

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by southlight

Best regards,
south

THX