///M-Spec
Let me make a couple of things perfectly clear. First, I happen to view RS4 with a mixture of admiration/lust and would give it hard consideration if I had 70 grand burning a hole in my pocket (I don't). I am not here to discredit or play down this vehicle because there is no question it has raised the bar for what a sports sedan can be.
Hmm, I never implied you were trying to discredit the RS4 or anything remotely close to that, I apologise if that's how I came across, but even after re-reading my post you quoted, I still don't see how you came to that conclusion, I think maybe you missunderstood me maybe.
Second, the is also no question the RS4's level of objective performance is greater than the M3 or M3 CS. This is matter of simple math and I don't think anyone will dispute this.
Agreed.
However, I will take exception to the statement that the RS4 "smashes" the M3. I don't usually quibble over word choice, but in this case I think this is an exaggeration. I have with me the 2/2006 issue of Evo magazine where they do a comparo test with the RS4 vs. M3 CS vs. C55 AMG.
The standard M3 was beaten very comfortably by the RS4 in both TopGear tests (mag and TV tests) and the M3 CSL was beat on the test track by a few seconds. I wasn't saying the RS4 smashes the M3 CSL,but the standard the M3, I'm sorry if the word smashes in this context has offended you, however that's not my problem and the phrash "smashes it" is rather open to interpretation of how extremem you are actually referring to, maybe not the best descriptive phrase as a result of that, and in the way I used it it was limited to car's in the same class like the RS4 and M3, when you get two car's in the same class, a decisive win can be reffered to in that way imo. In performance, straight line and circuit, every time I've seen backs up that the RS4 is faster than the M3 and comfortably faster.
Now, 1.2 seconds on a 1.8 mile course is a decisive win, but not really enough to warrant "smash". Smash is what a Caterham R500 does to all these cars with a 1:19.62.
Well different people use descriptive words differently, but the Caterham R500 is a totally different class of car altogether, and was built to do just what it did. Let me explain what I meant later.
Let me try to put a 1.2 second advantage into perspective. You are racing in GT4 with a friend and both of you put in a stellar lap in different cars. If your margin of victory is 1.2 seconds, would you say that you "smashed" your buddy in the next seat? Maybe if you were talking smack, but not if you were being honest. He'd have been looming in your mirror the entire time, not loafing around 2 corners back.
I know how long 1.2 seconds is, and what the difference can be made up by, I can also tell you that on the TopGear test track the RS4 beat the M3 CSL by 2.4 seconds but that's really nothing to state as who's better, the CSL was in the wet, but it beat the normal M3 by 5.2 seconds and the M3 was in the dry. I can also tell you that round the Ring the M3 CSL beat the RS4 by around 6 seconds, but the RS4 beat the M3 by over 20 seconds. Now Ring time's arn't definitive thanks to the less controled conditions you have to lap in, and I'm sure all three car's could on a free track pull off faster lap's, but then you add the RS4 beating the M3 CS at Bedford, then the RS4 comfortably beating the M3 CS on 5th gear yesterday, I think it's safe to say, the RS4 is superior to the M3 but not quite as quick as the CSL, but it's clser to the CSL then to the M3, and consistenly so.
Again, not trying to discredit the RS4. Just trying to put it's speed advantage into proper perspective. It's faster, just not a whole catagory faster.
I never said it was, I was never comparing a concord to a glider, two car's in the same class, one beates the other in every performance test done between the two, I class that as smashing it, if you don't, fair enough, but just like your not trying to discredit the RS4, I'm not trying to discredit the M3, at the end of the day, that's probably the more enjoyable car to take to the track, and in that case 1.2 seconds will hardly matter. I'm the first to argue that performance isn't everything in terms of what makes a great car, but I speak of performance alone, and I was in this instance. However, that's not to say I thnik the M3 is the better car overall, it depends how you're going to use your car I suppose.
And FWIW, Evo picked the M3 CS over the RS4 as the better car.
I know that, I read Evo.
The M3 CSL is closer in performance to a 996 GT3 and I doubt an RS4 can compete with it on a technical circuit. Oddly, this issue of Evo I have here doesn't have the CSL's times at Bedford. I have the CSL issue somewhere in a closet, so when I get home, I'll look for it.
That depends, current GT3 or last GT3, it was pretty close to the last GT3 on the Ring, but I don't have any other times other than the TopGear lap but that's the GT3 RS which is a a good couple of seconds faster than the GT3. The new GT3 is supposed to be a lot faster than the old one, but I'd say the last GT3 is fastest, the CSL just behind it and the RS4 just behind that, the the M3 CS and the M3 behind the RS4. As I said, I was never comapring it to the CSL when I said, "smashes" only the standard M3 and t was in the context as described above.
BTW, according to the BMWUSA.com website. They list the M3 Coupe as having a curb weight of 3415 pounds (1549kg). That is, all fluids and full tank of gas without driver. I checked the audiusa.com website and they list the curb weight as N/A.
The RS4 is probably 1650, I've seen figuers saying it's 1550 but moer site's I've seen saying 1550kg's have more incorrect figure's on car's I know the spec of, that the site's that asy 1650kg's, I'm not going to aruge on that line.
