Deciding between an E90 M3 and RS4

[Robin_NL]

I love (WRC)rallying compared to let's say Formula 1. But just like a M3 is not a F1 car, an Audi RS4 certainly IS NOT a WRC car. It's FWD bias sucks. And our roads are not gravel/snow/rallystages LOL.Better go for a Mitsu EVO5/6 or try to find a Sportquattro/RS200()or Pug 205T16 for that matter.

Some Lotus Elise/Exige drivers are tired of explaining Subaru Impreza GTT drivers the difference between grip and traction.

And I don't live on the Northpole so maybe that's why I 'd choose proper wintertyres OVER AWD(IF necessary!) but the 2 would go hand in hand in winter/snowy conditions I agree.



(Me enjoying powersliding/drifting/going sideways once in a while and admitting I love a proper rwd car, also(especially) in wet conditions, not for going faster but for enjoying the ride)

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

Some people will never be convinced that awd is the most efficient way to drive quickly.

Is it really, even on a dry road?


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

Is it really, even on a dry road?


Best regards, south

I would say yes but not always the case, the problem with all cars is packaging. The RS4 is a poor example of what is capable with awd, not to say it's a bad car only that it carrys to much weight over the nose. The R8 or GTR are much better examples of what is capable and both produce better lap times than the majority of equal powered rwd cars.

But the main reason for using awd is it makes cornering easier to control for the masses, and the majority of people (even M3 drivers) are pretty shit behind the wheel.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

Some people will never be convinced that awd is the most efficient way to drive quickly. I will not deny that the rwd chassis is usually more enjoyable but not always the case, I have always enjoyed rallying more so in an awd car than rwd.

One car in the Audi line up that did impress me most was the TT-S, I reckon the RS version will be a hoot to drive and could prove to be the next model after the R8 to prove Audi can build sportscars.

I think the GTR has shown that a torque vectoring AWD system can improve performance. The stuff in the Audis don't, yet.

[Irb Digital]

Maybe you got me wrong, I wasn't saying RWD is better than AWD, even if RWD is what I prefer, I just don't like Audi when it comes to comparing its performance cars to the competition. My point was they take a FWD chassis, and throw on "quattro", and market it as a sports car. IMO a sports car its not. too much weight is over the front wheels, and it severely effects the handling dynamics. When a company decides the do that, the car still handles like its FWD, it just has more grip when applying power. The TT is a prime example, of a car that had no business being a FWD (w/ an AWD version) car, other than to save money on engineering a proper platform to base it on.

[mixja]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Maybe you got me wrong, I wasn't saying RWD is better than AWD, even if RWD is what I prefer, I just don't like Audi when it comes to comparing its performance cars to the competition. My point was they take a FWD chassis, and throw on "quattro", and market it as a sports car. IMO a sports car its not. too much weight is over the front wheels, and it severely effects the handling dynamics. When a company decides the do that, the car still handles like its FWD, it just has more grip when applying power. The TT is a prime example, of a car that had no business being a FWD (w/ an AWD version) car, other than to save money on engineering a proper platform to base it on.

Any car that can lap the ring in under 8 minutes (i.e. Audi RS4) IMO should be considered a "sports" car...the RS4 is considered in many circles a very fine sportscar and most write ups I've read praise the handling of the car, in spite of the engine being well ahead of the front axles.

Most would agree the most recent RS4 > E46 M3, so by your logic would you consider the E46 M3 not a sports car?

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by mixja

As I kind of alluded to earlier, M3 DCT > RS4 > M3 MT... If you are after a manual then I'd go the RS4. The gearing of the M3 MT is too tall for my liking - the RS4 has similar gearing to the DCT.

Here's a few pics of my old RS4 - beautiful, I don't think the M3 really comes close, but is all subjective of course...

My favourite view of the RS4 is the rear...


Others:

She's beautiful, i can't believe you got rid of her.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by mixja

Any car that can lap the ring in under 8 minutes (i.e. Audi RS4) IMO should be considered a "sports" car...the RS4 is considered in many circles a very fine sportscar and most write ups I've read praise the handling of the car, in spite of the engine being well ahead of the front axles.

Most would agree the most recent RS4 > E46 M3, so by your logic would you consider the E46 M3 not a sports car?

Anything that can lap the ring in under 8 minutes should be a sports car? What if I could lap the ring in under 8 minutes in a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, or in a Mustang GT500, Charger SRT8, F250 Turbo Diesel(modded)........does this make them great sports cars? Some people will never understand this, but there is so much more to a sports car than grip and power.

Maybe in your circle RS4 > E46 M3, but not in mine. It might lap the ring in a faster time, but that doesn't make it a better sports car. If a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, lapped the ring better than an M3, is it a better sports car? As far as I'm concerned, Miata > RS4, no matter how much faster the RS4 is around the track.

I guess I have to say it again, slapping AWD on a jetta/passat, with a great engine, doesn't constitute a great sports car, even if it was (it's not) faster than an M3.

[jml]

08 & 09 Azz compared to RS4

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by jml

08 & 09 Azz compared to RS4

Attachment 217141
Attachment 217142
Attachment 217143

+1 for the Audi here.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

+1 for the Audi here.

Does it matter? In that price range, no one will see that end of the RS4.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Does it matter? In that price range, no one will see that end of the RS4.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Does it matter? In that price range, no one will see that end of the RS4.

This comes back to where you live because here the RS4 and the M3 are identically priced.

Next you disregarded Audi cars because you feel they are 'nose heavy', well some facts about the RS5 and the GTR, they both have similar torque vectoring rear diffs which means they are both more advanced then the BMW system. Also similar is the percentage of weight over each axle, the GTR is 54/46 and that is the bear minimum that Audi will use for the RS5, they both have a dual clutch transmission and both will run FI engines.

Now how here thinks the GTR any less the sportscar because of it's awd chassis?

[MJC///M3]

those fender flares on the rear of the RS4 look awesome!

[jml]

Originally Posted by MJC///M3

those fender flares on the rear of the RS4 look awesome!

I agree, the Audi ha a nicer back end. The 09 is light years improved on the 08, but still not "there". Bangled

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by footie

This comes back to where you live because here the RS4 and the M3 are identically priced.

Next you disregarded Audi cars because you feel they are 'nose heavy', well some facts about the RS5 and the GTR, they both have similar torque vectoring rear diffs which means they are both more advanced then the BMW system. Also similar is the percentage of weight over each axle, the GTR is 54/46 and that is the bear minimum that Audi will use for the RS5, they both have a dual clutch transmission and both will run FI engines.

Now how here thinks the GTR any less the sportscar because of it's awd chassis?

In the U.S., M3 starts $13k cheaper than the RS4. GTR and RS5 aren't the cars in discussion, and one doesn't even exist yet, but if you insist. All I care for is a mechanical diff, so if one car has a diff with all the bells and whistles, thats good too, but I don't care. I don't know the stats of the RS5, so I won't make assumptions til its here. The RS4, the car we've been discussing, 58% of the weight over its front wheels, and based on a FWD chassis. The discussion should end there, but I'll keep going. S5 54% over the front wheels, which is nothing to brag about, and again, based on a FWD chassis. The GTR's 53% percent over the front wheels isn't the best either, but an improvement and its a dedicated chassis, built with one purpose in mind. Methinks if the RS4 and RS5 (I took the bait ) had 480hp, it still wouldn't be posting the times the GTR is. Adding turbo's and a DCT (which isn't confirmed in the U.S. yet) doesn't make it a GTR. I like the GTR, but its not the ultimate sports car, it understeers a lot until the electronics take over, and doesn't offer a 3rd pedal. Dollar for dollar though, it might be the ultimate "track" car. Enough about the GTR though, I didn't bring it up, and there's PLENTY of other threads on here to discuss it.

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

In the U.S., M3 starts $13k cheaper than the RS4. GTR and RS5 aren't the cars in discussion, and one doesn't even exist yet, but if you insist. All I care for is a mechanical diff, so if one car has a diff with all the bells and whistles, thats good too, but I don't care. I don't know the stats of the RS5, so I won't make assumptions til its here. The RS4, the car we've been discussing, 58% of the weight over its front wheels, and based on a FWD chassis. The discussion should end there, but I'll keep going. S5 54% over the front wheels, which is nothing to brag about, and again, based on a FWD chassis. The GTR's 53% percent over the front wheels isn't the best either, but an improvement and its a dedicated chassis, built with one purpose in mind. Methinks if the RS4 and RS5 (I took the bait ) had 480hp, it still wouldn't be posting the times the GTR is. Adding turbo's and a DCT (which isn't confirmed in the U.S. yet) doesn't make it a GTR. I like the GTR, but its not the ultimate sports car, it understeers a lot until the electronics take over, and doesn't offer a 3rd pedal. Dollar for dollar though, it might be the ultimate "track" car. Enough about the GTR though, I didn't bring it up, and there's PLENTY of other threads on here to discuss it.

I think there's enough proof that the GTR is not making 480hp, more like 530hp or more, so no the RS5 or RS4 with 480hp would not be posting GTR times. The whole thread is about which car should the OP take, the M3 or RS4. Not only which car performs better. So looks, performance, and price is included in the decision IMO.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

In the U.S., M3 starts $13k cheaper than the RS4. GTR and RS5 aren't the cars in discussion, and one doesn't even exist yet, but if you insist. All I care for is a mechanical diff, so if one car has a diff with all the bells and whistles, thats good too, but I don't care. I don't know the stats of the RS5, so I won't make assumptions til its here. The RS4, the car we've been discussing, 58% of the weight over its front wheels, and based on a FWD chassis. The discussion should end there, but I'll keep going. S5 54% over the front wheels, which is nothing to brag about, and again, based on a FWD chassis. The GTR's 53% percent over the front wheels isn't the best either, but an improvement and its a dedicated chassis, built with one purpose in mind. Methinks if the RS4 and RS5 (I took the bait ) had 480hp, it still wouldn't be posting the times the GTR is. Adding turbo's and a DCT (which isn't confirmed in the U.S. yet) doesn't make it a GTR. I like the GTR, but its not the ultimate sports car, it understeers a lot until the electronics take over, and doesn't offer a 3rd pedal. Dollar for dollar though, it might be the ultimate "track" car. Enough about the GTR though, I didn't bring it up, and there's PLENTY of other threads on here to discuss it.

Some serious opinions on what is and isn't a sportscar. I see that not many if any awd car will ever meet your expectations, which is good for the rest of us who happen to like the added security and confidence that such setups give to the driver. You comments that the GTR understeers must be based on one equipped with Bridgestones because the same can't be said when it wears Dunlops, the thing just grips and grips, something us Brits are luckily getting as standard.

I know we are really discussing the RS4 vs M3 but as the RS5 is only a year away it should really be added into the debate because it is the next new Audi which will take on the M3. I also agree that the RS5 will not be as quick as the GTR, no BMW is either and Audi aren't gunning for the Nissan with the RS5 it's prize is the M3 so all it really has to beat is a 8:05 time if we are discussing the Nurburgring which I believe it will do with ease. Also, will it get 480hp, not likely as that would place it well ahead of the competition. No I would have thought that 450hp would be enough to say ahead of the M3 and the C63. Next thing is the chassis, regardless of what many think about the S5, it grips right to the end and near enough matches the M3 for lateral grip from less magical rubber which is no mean feat, yes it's boring in comparison to the M3, the M3 is be far the best BMW on sale and a joy to drive but the RS5 will get the torque vectoring diff which has done wonders to the X6's ability only this one is far more advanced so I would expect the only understeer to be present is the one all manufacturers add as a safety warning to it's customers that grip limits are getting close or inother words it too will be a joy to drive with throttle steer on demand.

The only problem you guys have is the price that Audi will demand for the RS5 in the States, considering the M3 is already so much cheaper than the aging RS4 I suppose the newer car will be even more. Tough pill to swallow, thank god we here in Europe can take price difference over of the mix and judge each car on their merits.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

I think there's enough proof that the GTR is not making 480hp, more like 530hp or more, so no the RS5 or RS4 with 480hp would not be posting GTR times. The whole thread is about which car should the OP take, the M3 or RS4. Not only which car performs better. So looks, performance, and price is included in the decision IMO.

Originally Posted by footie

Some serious opinions on what is and isn't a sportscar. I see that not many if any awd car will ever meet your expectations, which is good for the rest of us who happen to like the added security and confidence that such setups give to the driver. You comments that the GTR understeers must be based on one equipped with Bridgestones because the same can't be said when it wears Dunlops, the thing just grips and grips, something us Brits are luckily getting as standard.

I know we are really discussing the RS4 vs M3 but as the RS5 is only a year away it should really be added into the debate because it is the next new Audi which will take on the M3. I also agree that the RS5 will not be as quick as the GTR, no BMW is either and Audi aren't gunning for the Nissan with the RS5 it's prize is the M3 so all it really has to beat is a 8:05 time if we are discussing the Nurburgring which I believe it will do with ease. Also, will it get 480hp, not likely as that would place it well ahead of the competition. No I would have thought that 450hp would be enough to say ahead of the M3 and the C63. Next thing is the chassis, regardless of what many think about the S5, it grips right to the end and near enough matches the M3 for lateral grip from less magical rubber which is no mean feat, yes it's boring in comparison to the M3, the M3 is be far the best BMW on sale and a joy to drive but the RS5 will get the torque vectoring diff which has done wonders to the X6's ability only this one is far more advanced so I would expect the only understeer to be present is the one all manufacturers add as a safety warning to it's customers that grip limits are getting close or inother words it too will be a joy to drive with throttle steer on demand.

The only problem you guys have is the price that Audi will demand for the RS5 in the States, considering the M3 is already so much cheaper than the aging RS4 I suppose the newer car will be even more. Tough pill to swallow, thank god we here in Europe can take price difference over of the mix and judge each car on their merits.

JaeS4, that point is highly debatable. Many magazines have strapped the GTR to a dyno, and seen nothing to indicate shenanigans.

Well said Footie, I really don't hate AWD that much. I actually like it, I just prefer RWD. RWD>AWD>FWD. My main prob with Audi is the cars from which they are based. As a previous VW owner, my memories are not fond. I put Acura in the same boat. They take a FWD car, throw on AWD and think that I'll forget what this car's roots are. FWD cars are the furthest thing from a sports car. It's why as great as a car an Acura is, I wouldn't buy it knowing what the basis is. Audi and Acura do the same thing, and I don't buy it. It's not like the 911, or older skylines which were/are based on RWD platforms, which are the proper basis for any true sports car. I don't argue the advantages or the utility of AWD, but I'll wait until the pinnacle of racing(drag included) makes the switch before I think about changing my mind.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

JaeS4, that point is highly debatable. Many magazines have strapped the GTR to a dyno, and seen nothing to indicate shenanigans.

Well said Footie, I really don't hate AWD that much. I actually like it, I just prefer RWD. RWD>AWD>FWD. My main prob with Audi is the cars from which they are based. As a previous VW owner, my memories are not fond. I put Acura in the same boat. They take a FWD car, throw on AWD and think that I'll forget what this car's roots are. FWD cars are the furthest thing from a sports car. It's why as great as a car an Acura is, I wouldn't buy it knowing what the basis is. Audi and Acura do the same thing, and I don't buy it. It's not like the 911, or older skylines which were/are based on RWD platforms, which are the proper basis for any true sports car. I don't argue the advantages or the utility of AWD, but I'll wait until the pinnacle of racing(drag included) makes the switch before I think about changing my mind.

I can't argue with a preference, but I do in fact take issue with your (bolded) comment. Most FWD cars have their roots in economy, so they tend to be non sporty. However, the first GTI was a ball to drive, as was the early Fiesta.

In fact, our effing Neon was an absolute delight on track, arguably more fun than either of the M3s that have graced our garage. Piece of crap? Sure. It was bought as a sacrificial New England winter car, after all. But after one track session, our (then E36) M3 never saw the track again.

Yeah, fwd cars tend to be boring because of their roots, but your blanket statement is inappropriate.

Bruce

[Irb Digital]

I recently sold my wifes SRT-4 Neon. That car was fun as hell, much more so than my MkIV GTi. But you still can't get away from its FWD econobox roots. On power, it was the equivalent of riding a bull., which made for some serious fun, in a hooligan sort of way. Not in the way of getting around a set a twisties with minimal haste.

For you I will change my blanket statement. FWD cars are closest to a sports car when driven in reverse . More fun than an E36 M3? Wow! I took a ride years ago in a 4 door E36 M3 and the brakes alone are enough to tell me which car I would prefer at the track. I sincerely hope the other M3 that graced your garage wasn't an E30, which I had extensive wheel time in during my college years, or an E46. I don't have much time behind the wheel of an E46, but I've driven King Tut's and that car was heads/tails above my wifes SRT-4 in every aspect of performance (subjective and objective).

I can't think of one dedicated sports car that is driven by the front wheels. The only sporting cars that I know of that are driven by the front wheels are cars that are based on an econobox. On the contrary, RWD doesn't automatically mean a sports car either. I don't consider a Mustang, Charger, or Challenger a sports car.

[captainaudio]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

I recently sold my wifes SRT-4 Neon. That car was fun as hell, much more so than my MkIV GTi. But you still can't get away from its FWD econobox roots. On power, it was the equivalent of riding a bull., which made for some serious fun, in a hooligan sort of way. Not in the way of getting around a set a twisties with minimal haste.

For you I will change my blanket statement. FWD cars are closest to a sports car when driven in reverse . More fun than an E36 M3? Wow, I took a ride years ago in a 4 door E36 M3 and the brakes alone are enough to tell me which car I would prefer at the track. I sincerely hope the other M3 you had wasn't an E30, which I had extensive wheel time in during my college years, or an E46. I don't have much time behind the wheel of an E46, but I've driven King Tut's and that car was heads/tails above my wifes SRT-4 in every aspect of performance.

When the Skip Barber Racing School was sponsored by Dodge they had a fleet of Neons. It was pretty imnpressive how fast the instructors (some of whom have probably done about 40 million laps of the track) could get them around the course with three students aboard.

CA