M3 (E90) or Audi RS4 ????

[footie]

Originally Posted by Mikewarlover

I have to say M3 is a lot faster than a RS4 in fact it will walk a RS4.

Heres proof of my statement

Now I would say the M3 totally humiliated the RS4 and plz also rmb that was when both are standard. The M3 will be even faster if it is an DCT.

Four wheel drive combined with the extra weight sucks a lot of top end from the car.

That's a great video because it also show both cars accelerating from a stand still. Listen to the gear changes on the M3 and you will see that it took somewhere between 135~140mph before the M3 pulled level with the RS4. That result all but matches what I witnessed, there isn't a dramatic improvement in acceleration from the M3 over the RS4, it's just that in this dicsipline the RS4 as with any awd is dead simple to launch correctly every time.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by footie

you will see that it took somewhere between 135~140mph before the M3 pulled level with the RS4. That result all but matches what I witnessed, there isn't a dramatic improvement in acceleration from the M3 over the RS4, it's just that in this dicsipline the RS4 as with any awd is dead simple to launch correctly every time.

The 50 - 250 KM/H is a far better indicator of the faster car where the M3 pulled immediately. For RWD, the launch is dependent a lot on traction on dry pavement and according to Gustavo on M5Board who shot the video, the track was very cold with a moisture factor making it difficult for the M3 to get some heat in the tire (7 C with 80% moisture). That is why you see in the video it spun all the way through 2nd gear and start of 3rd gear.

Any high powered RWD car will have difficulties launching properly in lower gears and putting the power down. Even a Z06 will get killed by a much less powerful STi until 100 mph where it blow past the STi. AWD does launch better in those difficult conditions. All weather traction is what AWD is all about. Who can argue with that?

On hot, dry pavement, much like "Top Gear" race between RS4, M3 and C63 shot in Spain clearly showed the M3 killing the RS4 right after 70 mph and putting on 3 - 4 car lengths by the 1/4 mile.

[footie]

I'm not going to get dragged into an argument on this. I have owned an M3, probably the quickest version (M-DCT) and having driven all the cars mentioned I know that the M3 is the quickest but the difference isn't that dramatic, not the 3-4 car lengths on a 1/4mile that you are suggesting. Even the data supplied here states that fact, yet none of you will acknowledge this fact.

Gustva believes that having the races from 50km/h moves the skill involved in launching these cars but the fact is that it switches the advantage away from the awd cars and hands it to the rwd ones. Clearly his loyalities lie with BMW which is understandable being a member of M5board.com.

I just know that on the experience I have had the RS4 holds a noticable advantage if the race is conducted from a stand still and the M3 holds all the cards when the standing start is removed.

On the track the same thing happens, the RS4 gets a small jump on the exit of the corners and the M3 hauls it in towards the end of the straight. Also on a track versus the road the M3 is better suited to trackwork and is the quicker but on the road it's the RS4 that's best suited for all possible conditions of weather and surface. If you believe your M3 is quicker on the road then you are living in a dream world.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by footie

I'm not going to get dragged into an argument on this. I have owned an M3, probably the quickest version (M-DCT) and having driven all the cars mentioned I know that the M3 is the quickest but the difference isn't that dramatic, not the 3-4 car lengths on a 1/4mile that you are suggesting. Even the data supplied here states that fact, yet none of you will acknowledge this fact.
.

Every single test conducted on both cars has shown M3 being faster than RS4 in a 1/4 mile by 0.2 - 0.4 seconds on the same race track and on the same day using an extremely abusive redline clutch dump on RS4. I could imagine what happened to the poor diff with all the traction. In 1/4 mile terms, it translates to 3 - 4 car lengths with cars trapping around 110 mph. That includes Top Gear, Car and Driver and the list goes on. In a 0 - 150 mph race, the M3 wins by well over 5 seconds, which translates to about 8 - 9 car lengths. All of that is consistent with Gustav's video. My argument stands.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests

Around the Top Gear race track conducted in Spain on a hot dry day, the RS4 was close to 5 seconds slower than the M3 again in hot and dry conditions being driven by The Stig back to back.

Besides, every single evidence points to the fact that M3 is substantially quicker:

- M3 is 300 lbs lighter than the RS4
- Makes more power to the wheels due to less drivetrain loss.
- M3 has shorter gearing while RS4 has a lower final drive so their gearing advantages are negligible.

That translates to a huge advantage of power-to-weight ratio for the M3. On a dry pavement, M3 is the substantially quicker car both in a straight line and around a race track. On a wet, cold and snowy pavement, the RS4's AWD gives it a good advantage.

Let's just leave it at that.

[footie]

I think you are making the classic mistake of taking the US magazine results to heart and ignoring the rest of Europe. The reason I say this is because all US results include the customary 1ft rollout which falsely make the results misleading. The reality is that when rollout is removed both car cross the line near enough with identical figures and again your 3-4 car lengths are wrong.

At the 150mph mark I am sure the M3 will be ahead on almost all races but from 0-150 the distance would be closer to the 3-4 car lengths you suggested for the 1/4mile discipline.

On average the RS4 will do the 1/4mile in 13seconds and will do this time all day long, regardless of whether it's dry or wet. On the otherhand an M3 will vary greatly between runs, even in the dry. Removing rollout shows this up even better.

I don't see anything you are saying that changes my opinion that the two cars are very close in performance.

[mixja]

My previous car was an RS4 (EU spec) - in stock trim it felt disappointingly slow, definitely quite a bit slower than my M3 DCT when it was stock.

On a dynapack dyno my RS4 only put down 320WHP whereas my DCT put down 370WHP with just air filter and crank pulley.

Even once my RS4 was chipped with full exhaust system (Milltek Down Pipes and Exhaust), I still felt the stock M3 DCT was on a par in terms of low to mid-RPM torque and was stronger at high RPMs.

The only thing better about the RS4 is looks (subjective), its gearbox (although I prefer DCT over manual in either car) and potentially AWD (depending on where you live, lifestyle etc).

The RS4 being AWD has a natural advantage off the line in any standing start acceleration comparison, but the fact the M3 can negate this advantage prior to the quarter mile indicates to me it is a significantly quicker car...I think the Carrera 4S is "close" to the M3 in performance (with the M3 being slightly quicker, really a drivers race), but not the RS4...

[Zero.7]

Originally Posted by footie

You may feel that the S4 is far more expensive, it appears that depending on the country it ranges from more expensive to almost equal. Point is that regardless of what you or I think the two are rivals in every sense of the word and as such the S4 has proven itself to be much quicker in acceleration which according to the results I have seen it didn't just maintain it's early advantage due to being awd but actually increases it as the speeds increase. These are normal stock examples that are supplied by the manufacturers so either your example of 335i was an exceptional one or the cars you have been racing have being very poor example of the breed.

My point is that I know having driven both the S4 and RS4 that though the S4 is very quick it's not as fast as an RS4 so why not accept that your car was somehow special and stop referring to it as the norm.

Hey Footie,
To be honest, this is a useless argument. I am with you 100%. At least you post non-biased facts...rather than just "I love my M3...it's the best thing ever" biased opinions. But what do you expect on an M3 forum. As for the 335 beating the RS4s...

[Jonmartin]

Food chain..

R8> (Barely) M3> 335 > RS4 > S4 > 328 > A4

Any questions?

[Nawaaz]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Food chain..

R8> (Barely) M3> 335 > RS4 > S4 > 328 > A4

Any questions?

I do.

Why isn't the M3 better than the R8?

[Zero.7]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Food chain..

R8> (Barely) M3> 335 > RS4 > S4 > 328 > A4

Any questions?

Nope. I think you have all the answers. NOT...again

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

My guess is the 2 RS4 you raced were pre-fixed models that were well known to produce less than the quoted output.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that Audi offered a fix for these engines! Do you have any more details?

Originally Posted by Cni2i

Hey Footie,
To be honest, this is a useless argument. I am with you 100%. At least you post non-biased facts...rather than just "I love my M3...it's the best thing ever" biased opinions. But what do you expect on an M3 forum. As for the 335 beating the RS4s...

C'mon, it's not that bad. Some very "passionate" opinions don't speak for the forum as a whole.


Best regards,
south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that Audi offered a fix for these engines! Do you have any more details?

Best regards,
south

I wish I could magically produce the evidence your looking from the net but I can't, all you can do is truth me on this one. The first batch of RS4s didn't produce all their output, I can't recall how much they were down but it did effect their ability to rev out.

Also the problem with most people is they view dyno reading as gospel which isn't always the truth with some awd systems. I am more inclined to believe the results from someone like MTM who's dyno was design to work with awd and by people who can read the data properly. If people want to believe that quattro loses much, much more power through it's awd system than BMW's rwd setup then why should I put them right.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

I wish I could magically produce the evidence your looking from the net but I can't, all you can do is truth me on this one. The first batch of RS4s didn't produce all their output, I can't recall how much they were down but it did effect their ability to rev out.

Also the problem with most people is they view dyno reading as gospel which isn't always the truth with some awd systems. I am more inclined to believe the results from someone like MTM who's dyno was design to work with awd and by people who can read the data properly. If people want to believe that quattro loses much, much more power through it's awd system than BMW's rwd setup then why should I put them right.

You're right that I would call for such evidence usually. Though, I "know" you well enough to know that you don't make up these things. I was only asking if you happen to have some details as to what was changed. I'd happily take your word for it.


Best regards,
south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

You're right that I would call for such evidence usually. Though, I "know" you well enough to know that you don't make up these things. I was only asking if you happen to have some details as to what was changed. I'd happily take your word for it.


Best regards,
south

Thanks for the respect South, you are a gentleman.

On a different subject, you haven't commented on the output of next M5 and what you reckon the next M3 will have. Any reason for this?

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Food chain..

R8> (Barely) M3> 335 > RS4 > S4 > 328 > A4

Any questions?

LOL, just facts indeed

Footie has his 'own facts', that's all.No worries, enjoy your Jag.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

LOL, just facts indeed

Footie has his 'own facts', that's all.No worries, enjoy your Jag.

The list suggested by Jonmartin greatly depends on where your priories lie. There is no doubting the fact that the R8 is the superior driver out of this list and the M3 is rightly placed second, after this point it's one person's opinion that the 335i is next. Frankling I would place both the RS4 and S4 ahead but that's just me.

If it's ability to cover ground quickest on back roads (well the types we have in the UK) then the order would by R8>RS4>M3>S4>335i. If you believe otherwise then your dreaming.

P.S.
The Jag is a pure joy to drive, totally different to the M3 but more rewarding as a daily drive, I would also say that it's dratically better than either a 535d, A6 3.0TDi or the equivalent Merc. And I can say without fear of being proved wrong that it will hold it's money far better than my M3 did which was eye wateringly bad and frightening in equal measures. Only advice I can give is don't change after a year.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

The list suggested by Jonmartin greatly depends on where your priories lie. There is no doubting the fact that the R8 is the superior driver out of this list and the M3 is rightly placed second, after this point it's one person's opinion that the 335i is next. Frankling I would place both the RS4 and S4 ahead but that's just me.

Having just test driven the new S4 I would comfortably place it ahead of my 335i in terms of a driver's car. In it's most aggressive "dynamic" mode, Audi's suspension/steering/throttle system (I forget their acronym for it) in combo with their new differential makes the car a joy to throw around turns. Nothing I did to on the twisty sections of my test drive could upset it. It felt supremely planted and in control. The only disappointment was the engine. Not that it was weak, but it's very muted and doesn't bring a lot to the party in terms of theatrics. That's the main reason this car (unmodified) can't compete directly with the M3. An aftermarket exhaust and a chip could make things interesting.

I also drove 2 Cayman S's and would place them equal or above the M3.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Having just test driven the new S4 I would comfortably place it ahead of my 335i in terms of a driver's car. In it's most aggressive "dynamic" mode, Audi's suspension/steering/throttle system (I forget their acronym for it) in combo with their new differential makes the car a joy to throw around turns. Nothing I did to on the twisty sections of my test drive could upset it. It felt supremely planted and in control. The only disappointment was the engine. Not that it was weak, but it's very muted and doesn't bring a lot to the party in terms of theatrics. That's the main reason this car (unmodified) can't compete directly with the M3. An aftermarket exhaust and a chip could make things interesting.

I also drove 2 Cayman S's and would place them equal or above the M3.

Nice to see someone with a 335i admitting that Audi have done something right with it's dynamics. I understand fully with your comments on the engine, especially coming from something with a turbo that though has little lag it is present none the less and has a bit of thump when the turbo kicks in. The Audi has produced in the S4 an engine which is extremely polished, no peak in it's delivery and no noticable lag from the supercharger, it's does have a sound which I actually liked better than what BMW give to the 335i but it's no subsitute for the drama that the M3 or RS4 can provide.

Interested to see you have the same opinion as my own that give modest tweaks it could easily rival the M3. And you are so right about the Cayman, anyone who has driven the latest Cayman with agree with you, Porsche's finest hour of late.

[Jonmartin]

Ok so now we're talking about "tweaking" I'm glad you brought that up. lol. Now its over..

M3>R8>335>RS4>S4>A4>328i

A modded M3 will murder anything in Audi's stable and a tuned 335 will be close behind. Therefore it will ruin the audi guys day.. I speak from experience. AWD - RWD it doesn't matter as long as both cars are in proper working condition and you're not driving in 1ft of snow then BMW will always wax Audi.

[foosh]

[kmac1980]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Ok so now we're talking about "tweaking" I'm glad you brought that up. lol. Now its over..

M3>R8>335>RS4>S4>A4>328i

A modded M3 will murder anything in Audi's stable and a tuned 335 will be close behind. Therefore it will ruin the audi guys day.. I speak from experience. AWD - RWD it doesn't matter as long as both cars are in proper working condition and you're not driving in 1ft of snow then BMW will always wax Audi.

what are you talking a supercharged M3?? in that case a "modded civic" will beat any audi too (with 50K in mods)

with bolt ons the m3 won't beat an R8 and wont even come close to the R8 5.2, or RS6

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by kmac1980

with bolt ons the m3 won't beat an R8 and wont even come close to the R8 5.2, or RS6

Actually, the 4.2L V8 R8 runs very similar times to the M3. Only slightly faster bone stock. A modded M3 will beat a stock R8 (again, V8).