M3 Beats Out RS5 and CTS-V Coupe in C&D Shootout

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by footie

Yes, very disappointed with the figures being produced.

No, not surprised the M3 is still getting the vote, though this is but a few tests and I am sure (like you probably are) that the RS5 will win it's share of battles.

Thanks for your frankness. I will be painfully honest as well. If there wasn't a $20k premium for the RS5 I would probablly get one over the M3. It just looks so nice(inside and out) and I have always been dissapointed in the M3 interior. It's just not $20k better looking. At the end of the day, since cars are like women, I will use my girl analogy again. I would rather be with the girl who is hot and laughs at my jokes, is witty and makes me feel good inside, over the supermodel who is slightly better looking but vapid, not-so-smart and lacking a single funny bone in her body. So yeah I would love to take the RS5 for a hard ride but I want to take the M3 home.

[adc]

Originally Posted by footie

Regardless of what we think or want to believe, the times achieved by C&D are questionable at best.

So let me get this straight - when it goes Audi's way they're fine, but when they go BMW's way they're not? That's just silly.

And whatever happened to all that "RS5 is truly superior" and "RS5 is faster and better" crap that you posted on these forums before the RS5 became available? I haven't seen any reviews supporting this.

The RS5 was supposed to best the M3, it was Audi's great white hope. A good effort but in the end, a failure. An $80,000 video game console.

Isn't it maddening when it comes so so close, but it's just out of reach?

[adc]

Originally Posted by gthal

I agree the AWD system is better in bad weather. However, what I don't agree with is the weight you put on its significance. How many days a year are you driving in heavy rain or snow? And even with AWD, you have more capability but it isn't as though you can drive like you would on a clear day. AWD doesn't make any car invincible. So, for the 15 to 20 days a year that you are driving in really poor weather, the AWD system wins for sure. In nice weather, it is personal preference and, many, would prefer RWD.

The M3 IS driveable in all weather (other than deep snow). I have owned RWD BMWs and Infinitis for the last several years and driven them all winter. The only time there is a problem is because of clearance in deep snow. The RS5 will have the same issue regardless of Quattro.

I have driven the R8 quite a bit and the grip is truly amazing but it is also less involving and fun than the RWD M3. I would choose an R8 over the M3 (if it were close in price, which it isn't) mainly because of how gorgeous the R8 and NOT because of the AWD. Again, for the few days a year when it matters, the RS5 is better. The rest of the year, it is personal preference and it seems most reviews are still favouring the M3.

+1.

I've gone from FWD to AWD and finally found my groove with RWD.

When we had the big snowstorms in the East last winter, I could take out the X3 simply because it has 8" of ground clearance - in previous years in similar conditions I managed to beach my A4 quite thoroughly 3 feet from my driveway. In snow, tires and clearance are king - everything else are simply nice to haves, not essentials.

Interesting thing is I got the M3 after test driving it on rain-slicked country roads, that's where it blew my mind. I took it out in the pouring rain on track at Summit Point this past May and just blew everything else into the weeds - it's the confidence, the predictability that let's you try things you'd never dream of in other cars.

So maybe I'm one of the few weird ones, but I prefer a nice RWD chassis even in bad weather.

[footie]

Originally Posted by adc

So let me get this straight - when it goes Audi's way they're fine, but when they go BMW's way they're not? That's just silly.

Don't know how to answer this one. Do I question the results, yes I do because I can't believe a stock M3 capable of posting a 0-60 time in 3.9s. Is an RS5 capable of similar, yes and for one simple reason, greater traction off the line.

Originally Posted by adc

And whatever happened to all that "RS5 is truly superior" and "RS5 is faster and better" crap that you posted on these forums before the RS5 became available? I haven't seen any reviews supporting this.

I think if you read my comments you will be aware that I am a little disappointed in the figures being achieved by the RS5, why, well the simple answer is info told to me during testing. The M3 was with it ever step of the way and according to that information they had it covered. I did share with some that info which included estimates of acceleration figures which haven't been reproduced, reasons for this I don't fully know why.

Originally Posted by adc

The RS5 was supposed to best the M3, it was Audi's great white hope. A good effort but in the end, a failure. An $80,000 video game console.

Isn't it maddening when it comes so so close, but it's just out of reach?

This is a matter of opinion. Different people may feel after driving the RS5 that it's superior in many ways and prefer it over the M3, the same will be true regarding the C63. It all depends on which things you place most value in.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by quality_sound

Then why all the videos showing that it "wins" if it's not a competition? Anytime anyone has the audacity to even suggest that there might be a better car all of the comparison "tests" come out.

I will say, it strikes me as odd that no one has any issue with someone saying they're moving on to a P-car, even though the video above ranked it last, two spots behind the M3 so it MUST be inferior, but if someone says they want to move on to an Audi they're uneducated buffoons. Elitist hypocrisy anyone?

I mean really, who cares? If someone prefers Audi, they prefer Audi. If they prefer Porsche, they prefer Porsche. If they want to drive the piss out of a Skoda, who are we to judge them for THEIR preferences?

I was attempting to have a discussion with footie. I'm not sure I get you comments above at all. They are almost entirely unrelated to the points I have been making.

Originally Posted by Levi

BMW has cheated. M did not say anything, but secretly the M3 LCI has a power bump. We know what would have been the consequences if this was made officially. M tuned the ECU, M3 LCI has 440 PS and 420 Nm instead of 420 PS and 400 Nm. This explains better accelerations for M3 LCI, and also why the M3 ZCP DCT runs the N-Ring under 8:00 min (with sport tires). I do not know if the ECU tune is for all M3 LCI or only M3 ZCP.

That is pure speculation. On top of that I highly doubt it is true. There is so much to do for an OEM to offer a mid-life change such as this. Emmissions, reliability, extensive in house testing, fuel economy testing and certification and it goes on and on. It just does not make sense. Ever heard of Occam's razor? Future tests will give some small insight as dynos will but only when those are both done back to back.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Don't know how to answer this one. Do I question the results, yes I do because I can't believe a stock M3 capable of posting a 0-60 time in 3.9s. Is an RS5 capable of similar, yes and for one simple reason, greater traction off the line.

Try to see the big picture. The cars are very close in all reported acceleration figures less the 0-150. This is about a lot more than just 0-60 and how reasonable or unreasonable that number is. With most drivers, under most conditions, in a stop light drag race, my bet would be on the RS5. But again that is not the only criteria. The unanimous decision thus far by the press is that Audi was unable to dethrone BMW in this particular key battle.

Also the criticism adc levied against you was perfectly fair. As such you had no reply of substance to it. Perfect. Audi wins, magazines are great, BMW wins, magazines are to be questioned. Ugh.

[erio]

Sorry I couldn't resist. The RS5 is a nice car, but......

[adc]

Originally Posted by footie

Don't know how to answer this one. Do I question the results, yes I do because I can't believe a stock M3 capable of posting a 0-60 time in 3.9s. Is an RS5 capable of similar, yes and for one simple reason, greater traction off the line.

Greater traction only matters if you have a surfeit of power over grip. Perhaps that is not the case with the heavy RS5? Perhaps there are too many things that can be adjusted on the RS5 that can make a difference?

Regardless, the cars were tested on the same day in the same way.

I think if you read my comments you will be aware that I am a little disappointed in the figures being achieved by the RS5, why, well the simple answer is info told to me during testing. The M3 was with it ever step of the way and according to that information they had it covered. I did share with some that info which included estimates of acceleration figures which haven't been reproduced, reasons for this I don't fully know why.

Well far be it for me to doubt that Audi engineers know what they're doing, but there are many potential explanations for this. They could be testing on different road surfaces (more slippery would show clear advantages to the RS5), or have a slower M3 (published 1/4 mile times vary by as much as 4-5mph), or perhaps they're simply not that good with launching RWD cars.

Everybody knows that the finished product can behave very differently in the real world compared to the test beds.


Doesn't really matter - I just wanted to rub some salt in the wounds - you seemed so all knowing at the time (although apparently based on hearsay). Even though the power to weight ratios are all but identical.

This is a matter of opinion. Different people may feel after driving the RS5 that it's superior in many ways and prefer it over the M3, the same will be true regarding the C63. It all depends on which things you place most value in.

Yes - like performance, in a performance car.

I agree that some people will prefer it because it's rarer, more expensive/exclusive, or stuffed to the gills with "stuff", or because it has a prettier interior - but as far as driving is concerned, it clearly isn't superior.

At least the C63 is FAST.

[mkoesel]

Test results aside, why could neither C&D nor MotorTrend manage to test all 3 cars in their respective red hues? Both only got 2/3.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Test results aside, why could neither C&D nor MotorTrend manage to test all 3 cars in their respective red hues? Both only got 2/3.

Can't do that. It would tear the spatial-temporal fabric of the car magazine aura, resulting in a devastating implosion. It's kind of like if a supreme court justice farted.


Cheers.

[calintexas]

Originally Posted by MonteCarloM3

it's no big deal, just want to bring some balance here to the board as I don't think the M3 is the best car ever made although it has lived up to my boyhood expectations.
as an aside, still perplexed why bmw hasn't answered audi's call for a supercar similar to the R8 V8/V10.

Balance? Read the name of the forum at the top of the page. This site isn't about balance. It's about M3's. You won't make many friend's here trying to bring balance to the forum (except maybe with the trolls).

My guess is that it's hard for a big manufacturer to make real money on something like an R8. It's likely useful if you feel you need a halo vehicle to bring positive attention to your entire line or to demonstrate your technology. The way BMW has been saving nickels quietly decontenting the vehicles the last 2 years, it seems like profit is more their motive these days. I do almost remember reading that they are doing a special limited production car though. We'll see.

[BMW269]

The RS5 acceleration figures (unofficial) are closer to that of the C63 which means it is slightly ahead of an M-DCT M3. Track times on the ring are expected to be between 7:55-7:59 depending on conditions and rubber used at time of test, which I might add is roughly 10s better than the M3 depending on whether it's using CUP+ or PS2. Where the RS5 will really score over the M3 is in it's ability to cover ground extremely quickly, yet safely.

Overall, whether it's in acceleration, handling, braking, in-gear times, economy, emissions, in fact everything will be that little bit better than the M3 which when all of this is taken into consideration proves that Audi have indeed produced a superior car.

[erio]

OK...last one.

[BMW269]

Hey, the RS4 is one of the only nice Audi. Put an other Audi there. R8 V10?

[erio]

Originally Posted by Levi

Hey, the RS4 is one of the only nice Audi. Put an other Audi there. R8 V10?

I agree, but this pic was hard to pass up.

[Jack28]

Hey Does anyone have the full test video of this comparison?

Originally Posted by calintexas

Balance? Read the name of the forum at the top of the page. This site isn't about balance. It's about M3's. You won't make many friend's here trying to bring balance to the forum (except maybe with the trolls).

[consolidated]

IS-F and C63 didn't make either of these comparisons, like yesterday's fish. Poor IS-F seems just about forgotten these days, despite all the hot blooded threads from a year or two ago.

[adc]

Originally Posted by consolidated

IS-F and C63 didn't make either of these comparisons, like yesterday's fish. Poor IS-F seems just about forgotten these days, despite all the hot blooded threads from a year or two ago.

The philosophical problems with all these cars, it seems to me, is that they're just aiming to beat or equal the M3. At which task they may succeed or fail, depending on various factors.

If these companies would set their sights much higher, or better yet stop trying to copy somebody else, I'm sure their end results would become instant icons. That's the secret to BMW's past successes - and the potential for future failure. As long as they do what they've always done best and stick to their own internal yardsticks, their products are simply unbeatable. As soon as they try to emulate other companies on comfort/gimmicks/design, they becomes less special, more diluted - and eventually begin loosing comparisons (like the 535i vs. A6 in a recent C&D).

That is why Audi has had such success with the R8 - they created a niche product for themselves, and they are improving it every chance they get. (The fact that they based it on a Lamborghini is largely irrelevant ).

[Scoobe]

Originally Posted by adc

The philosophical problems with all these cars, it seems to me, is that they're just aiming to beat or equal the M3. At which task they may succeed or fail, depending on various factors.

If these companies would set their sights much higher, or better yet stop trying to copy somebody else, I'm sure their end results would become instant icons. That's the secret to BMW's past successes - and the potential for future failure. As long as they do what they've always done best and stick to their own internal yardsticks, their products are simply unbeatable. As soon as they try to emulate other companies on comfort/gimmicks/design, they becomes less special, more diluted - and eventually begin loosing comparisons (like the 535i vs. A6 in a recent C&D).

That is why Audi has had such success with the R8 - they created a niche product for themselves, and they are improving it every chance they get. (The fact that they based it on a Lamborghini is largely irrelevant ).

Agreed. The Audi S4 is a really nice car. If it had the horsepower to match the M3, it would be a decent competitor. Unfortunately, they set it up against the 335i which might be a good marketing strategy, offering a specially badged car to face off against a perception of a token 3 Series, but it will always get thrown in with the M3... because it has a special badge. And the S5 really falls between the M3 and M5. So it appears Audi is shooting the gaps and trying their luck outside of a direct face off with BMW, which may be smart on paper but it's not working out so well in the magazines.

The IS-F seems to be thrown together with available parts from other cars, and the C63 isn't much different. You're not going to compete well against an M3 with an adhoc car. But the M3 is an industry benchmark for that price range and class and has the advantage of being really a completely re-engineered 3 series. Until the other manufacturers put that much effort into it, I don't think they are going to out-do the M3 outright.

But with the F30 M3 rumored to adopt one of the cookie cutter I6's, it might be that BMW is slacking off making it a truely unique car. Dropping the Sedan doesn't help, giving up a pretty sizable market share of sport sedans to Merc, Lexus, and Audi.

[graider]

does anyone have total number sold for m3, isf, c63 amg, rs4, s5, 335i up to today?

[consolidated]

Maybe now we can stop having to watch these Audi commercials.

Frankly, the "Audi" character in each sketch comes across as a genuine jerk, d'bag or straight up freak. Like the dad beating his son, hoo-ya!

Can't wait to see BMW's "checkmate" comeback. I guess they would need to add a third character, since Caddy also put the RS5 in the weeds.

[ghosthi32]

omg m3! its so amazing! its the fastest and greatest car on the planet!