RS4 beats new M3 in Autoexpress Test

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by ILC32

Thanks for that too. It really is amazing that there are always faster cars out there. That is real news to me.

here's some other real news, there's always bigger assholes too.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by Carnage

here's some other real news, there's always bigger assholes too.

Nice.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by jworms

not necessarily:

the sport auto laptime is 8:15 for the standard vette:
8:15 --- 149.818 km/h -- Corvette C6, 404 PS/1491 kg (sport auto 08/05), 8:15* -- 149.818 km/h -- Holden GTS (00), *estimated

there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring:
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)

You might as well throw that original time out the window too since it was done with the automatic that was only in the 05's and replaced because it sucked. Based on current knowledge and it's times at other tracks with the 6-spd man, it's not unreasonable to think it will run it in under 8 minutes.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by kem

Yes and no... I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people cross shop the vette and the M3. If performance is everything the vette is cheaper, but none of us drive vettes and for our good reasons. But the similarities between the vette and m3 coupe are far more then the differences (back seats). The 911 S is a totally different class of car too, but if the m3 indeed beats its ring time I'm sure there will be no shortage of punters claiming the superiority of the m3.

Anyways, I think maybe the expectations were too high for the M3 and maybe thats why the media so far has been somewhat critical. But I have a feeling its going to be an awesome car and I can't wait to drive one.

True, but 2 things drove me to trade my E46 M3 for the C6. 1) I didn't need a back seat and 2) there is no comparison is terms of performance. My M3 felt like my 330i after test driving the C6 and what was just stock. My C6 was stock for about 4 hours. On top of that, the engine upgrade potential for the M3 was limited and that is a strong suit of any small block V8 from GM.

Don't get me wrong, I loved my M3 and it did alot of things very well but I was ready for the next step up in terms of performance and the things that the M3 did well, the Vette did them better. No knock on the M3, that's what the Vette is built to do.

The E46 M3 is the best looking car ever built by BMW IMO, and I'd love to own another.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by kem

First, off I'd like to thank some of the more mature posters here that are not hell-bent on having a pissing contest of which car is better (my dad can beat up your dad, sound familiar?).

But I think right off the bat from some of these tests its pretty clear to me when the M3 and RS4 face off going down into the canyons (or the track), the winner is going to be the better driver and not the car. We can magazine race all we want but its not going to change that fact.

I was pretty surprised by some of these tests the the RS4 is right there with the M3 even though the M3 has the nod in weight distribution and it has RWD working for it. It's amazing Audi made a car that overcame many of the short comings that Audis have always faced.

I'm sure as more real track tests come in you will all be happy when the M3 inches out the RS4, however with either one your driving home in a badass car. But to those posters who are hellbent on being better, just remember there is always a vette around the corner thats ready to mop you up. Even the standard C6 vette broke the 8min barrier on the Nürburgring (7.59 I think).

I'll take your statement one step further. What is comical about this thread and the hundreds of "Does/Will/Should the M3........?! is it's full of forum trolls who have a) never owned an M3 of any kind or driven one and b) probably don't even have the means to get the car they are complaining about or praising for that matter.

They sit in their mom's basement all day reading car mags online, hitting other car forums while posting meaningless conjecture and wondering what real girls look like.

The only meaningful answers are the ones from owners/drivers who can truly speak to the experience, most anything else is mainly bullshit from people who need something to fill up the time in their pathetic existence.

[bulletproof]

If its having trouble with the RS4, just think of what the RS5 is going to do...

[kem]

The RS5 is not confirmed. They are already trying to wrap up RS4 production so they can do the RS6 for 2008 (as a 09 model). They also always state they will only make one RS at a time. So considering RS6 production hasn't started yet its going to be a LONG time before they even start on an RS5 (if they do).

Originally Posted by bulletproof

If its having trouble with the RS4, just think of what the RS5 is going to do...

[NaTuReB0Y]

forget the RS4..............go and pick on the S4.

[djcevo]

Originally Posted by jworms

lol.

RS4:
0-200km/h = 16.6 seconds
100-0 km/h = 37m
nurburgring laptime: 8:09 --- 151.656 km/h – Audi RS4, 420 PS/1728 kg (sport auto 06/06)

:

This is my Standard RS4 B7 below 0-200kph 16.6.... Don't think so!!!

[jworms]

Originally Posted by bulletproof

If its having trouble with the RS4, just think of what the RS5 is going to do...

that's just it, the e92 M3 isn't having trouble with the RS4 from a performance standpoint. the article posted even admits that.

Originally Posted by Carnage

You might as well throw that original time out the window too since it was done with the automatic that was only in the 05's and replaced because it sucked. Based on current knowledge and it's times at other tracks with the 6-spd man, it's not unreasonable to think it will run it in under 8 minutes.

i'm not doubting it was an auto, but do you have evidence to support that it was, aside from the date posted next to the laptime? next year's models typically come out the year before so maybe this was an '06 model? like i said i don't doubt what you said, but for my own good i'd like to see where it states that it was an auto. as far as a base model c6 vette hitting under 8 minutes on the ring, it's probably possible. but so far we just have the auto c6 vette, or the upgraded (z51) vette's barely under 8minutes laptime to go on.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by djcevo

This is my Standard RS4 B7 below 0-200kph 16.6.... Don't think so!!!

you're assuming that your speedometer is accurate at those speeds. it also looks like you started the video after you were already going.

either way, i searched around for the best 0-200km/h times i could find for the rs4 and that was what i found. i can only assume that audi/magazines/tuners who do these tests and provide these numbers use higher precision equipment that is a bit more accurate than your standard speedometer/stop watch.

[BruceWain]

Not one true test.
Not one true comparison.

Can you smell the fear.....lol

Starve the Haters.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by BruceWain

Not one true test.
Not one true comparison.

Can you smell the fear.....lol

Starve the Haters.

here's some more hard facts - from: http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...m3.html?al=124

Check out the torque peak differences: the V-10, 6100 rpm; the V-8, 3900. This makes the M3’s engine feel far more flexible and it often doesn’t even need a downshift for passing, responding so strongly on the highway that a couple times we mistakenly thought we were in fourth gear when we were still comfortably in sixth. Throttle blips under heel-and-toe downshifting are spectacular and happen almost naturally. But, not surprisingly, the best part is the shrieking crescendo from 6000 rpm all the way up to the 8400-rpm sweet spot. Sorry, 420-hp Audi RS 4; this one sounds better and pulls harder.

Dropping the hammer from a standstill, we blasted to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, 0.4 second quicker than the previous car, with the quarter-mile dispatched in 12.9 seconds at 111 mph, an even larger, 0.7-second gain. The surface wasn’t ideal, however, and we expect even better numbers once we get one to our usual test track. Even so, that’s already enough to outrun the $69,785 Audi RS 4.

...and that's not even with the DCT transmission.

like i said, the e92 M3 is not going to be competition for the RS4, more like the R8.

[BruceWain]

I think you may have misunderstood me.
I totally agree with you.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71289

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by jworms

that's just it, the e92 M3 isn't having trouble with the RS4 from a performance standpoint. the article posted even admits that.


i'm not doubting it was an auto, but do you have evidence to support that it was, aside from the date posted next to the laptime? next year's models typically come out the year before so maybe this was an '06 model? like i said i don't doubt what you said, but for my own good i'd like to see where it states that it was an auto. as far as a base model c6 vette hitting under 8 minutes on the ring, it's probably possible. but so far we just have the auto c6 vette, or the upgraded (z51) vette's barely under 8minutes laptime to go on.

It was a 2005, I can't find the article at the moment but it was an 2005. I just noticed a comment you made earlier that's funny...

"there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring:
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)"

There are 2 things that blow your theory about that not being a valid time.

1) Dave Hill is no Hans Stuck and think Hans would be insulted by the comparison.
2) This is the same Dave Hill who ran the Z06 at a time that is more than 8 seconds slower than the SportAuto time they got when they tested it in 06/07.

Taking #2 into consideration, I would argue that the C6 is capable of a quicker time than 7:59 with a better driver.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by Carnage

It was a 2005, I can't find the article at the moment but it was an 2005. I just noticed a comment you made earlier that's funny...

"there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring:
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)"

There are 2 things that blow your theory about that not being a valid time.

1) Dave Hill is no Hans Stuck and think Hans would be insulted by the comparison.
2) This is the same Dave Hill who ran the Z06 at a time that is more than 8 seconds slower than the SportAuto time they got when they tested it in 06/07.

Taking #2 into consideration, I would argue that the C6 is capable of a quicker time than 7:59 with a better driver.

i'm not here to argue that the corvette isn't a phenomenal machine for the money. what i'm getting from all this is that there are no 'valid' runs with a base level manual c6 corvette at the nurburgring. i have no doubt it's faster than the e92 M3 (by how much is still to be determined) and if that's what you think i'm trying to defend, i'm definitely not. i have a great deal of respect for the new breed of vettes...but for now, let's get this thread back on topic, shall we? :rocks:

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by jworms

i'm not here to argue that the corvette isn't a phenomenal machine for the money. what i'm getting from all this is that there are no 'valid' runs with a base level manual c6 corvette at the nurburgring. i have no doubt it's faster than the e92 M3 (by how much is still to be determined) and if that's what you think i'm trying to defend, i'm definitely not. i have a great deal of respect for the new breed of vettes...but for now, let's get this thread back on topic, shall we? :rocks:

this thread has a real topic??? (j/k)

[SR71]

jworms,

If you're gonna pull a load of lap times off supercars.net, then get the RS4 time for the Nurburgring right....

And that'd be 7.58.

FWIW.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by SR71

jworms,

If you're gonna pull a load of lap times off supercars.net, then get the RS4 time for the Nurburgring right....

And that'd be 7.58.

FWIW.

i can tell you for certain that the laptime you are referring to is invalid due to a couple of things. do some research and you'll find that the driver "Frank Stippler" is a pro driver for audi. The RS4 also had stickier tires - if i remember right they were pirelli p zero corsa tires which are race compound tires. they were definitely not stock tires when it ran that time. this is why i generally look at the sport auto times and use them as much as i can because they keep the driver variable (and other things - tires, etc.) from changing.

but good try.

[Estorilm3]

Originally Posted by jworms

not necessarily:

the sport auto laptime is 8:15 for the standard vette:
8:15 --- 149.818 km/h -- Corvette C6, 404 PS/1491 kg (sport auto 08/05), 8:15* -- 149.818 km/h -- Holden GTS (00), *estimated

there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring:
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)

the competition for the c6 z06, etc. will come with the e92 M3 CSL. the e46 M3 CSL managed to drop 32 seconds on its nurburgring laptime compared to the standard e46 M3:
8:22 --- 147.749 km/h -- BMW M3 E46, 343 PS/1584 kg (sport auto 12/00)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- BMW E46 M3 CSL, 360 PS/1421 kg (sport auto 08/03)

now i'm not saying the e92 M3 CSL will have the same 32 second difference with the non-CSL e92 M3, but the non-CSL e92 M3 has already proven that it's faster than the e46 M3 CSL in a straight line:
e46 M3 CSL: 16.1s
e92 M3: 15.8s

and braking performance is the same:
e46 M3 CSL: 100km/h - 0: 34m
e92 M3: 100km/h - 0:34m

so with that stated i think we can definitely assume that the e92 M3 CSL will pull an even better time around the nurburgring than the e46 M3 CSL. somewhere in the 7:4X range would put it head to head with cars like:

7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h – Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05), http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44 --- 159.828 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.484 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- McLaren F1, *estimated lap time from a video available at www.pistonheads.tv
7:45*-- 159.484 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/ 1424 kg, worls driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/01)
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine 07/00), www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/evo-0007-7.jpg
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652 PS (sport auto 99)
7:47 --- 158.801 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1805 kg (sport auto 01/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=111663
7:47* -- 158.801 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/ 1440 kg, works driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1424 kg (sport auto 03/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=120285
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1440kg (sport auto 07/06) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=2&tID=91836
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 512 PS/1440 kg (sport auto 06/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=0&tID=129099
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h –- BMW X5 Le Mans, 700 PS/~2000 kg, Hans-Joachim Stuck
7.49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3, 392 PS (AutoBild 2004)
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/99)

How accurate is this?

[ruff]

Originally Posted by 2002 Tii

I sure do that's why I voted for my buddy Bush

You should have sensed that my post was entirely sarcastic and if you didn't if you read my following post it would have been very clear.

No need to stress, I knew you were sarcastic. I was being sarcastic myself.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Terrible post and amplified by it being his first post. OP: Go troll somewhere else, you are so uninformed you are embarassing your fellow Audi enthusiasts.

Swamp, relax, nothing wrong with a little trolling or with posts that are oppositional or misinformed. It's a discussion forum about cars not neurosurgery. It shouldn't be about proving who is right or smarter in order to massage, dare I say - our fragile egos. By the way, I am as guilty as anyone. I just find singing to the choir over and over is really a bore.