Autocar say RS4 beats M3 / Evo say M3 beats RS4 Too close to call?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scaff
  • 87 comments
  • 5,185 views

Scaff

Moderator
Messages
29,906
United Kingdom
He/Him
Messages
ScaffUK
In this weeks Autocar they run a twin test between the Audi RS4 and the new M3 and the Audi takes the win.

Autocar
...this alone is not sufficient to save the M3 from suffering a deeply surprising overall defeat at the hands of the RS4. Yes, it has one of the most sensational V8 engines yet to be installed beneath the bonnet of a road car, one that yet again elevates BMW's M division above and beyond the competition, and never more so than at 8400rpm in third gear. In virtually every other department, however the RS4 is as good as, if not better, than the M3, and in the end it grinds the M3 into submission simply by being faster, roomier, better looking, more communicative.....you name it, the RS4 takes it, often only by the narrowest of margins. But a clear margin nonetheless.

Blimey (roll on the M3 CSL).


Scaff
 
Makes me wonder if the upcoming Mercedes C63AMG has a chance to beat the M3 as well - maybe even compete for the top spot. Autocar gave it a first drive the other week and they liked it a lot - a quote being: "I can’t remember a more entertaining, more dynamically rounded Mercedes model since the 190 2.5 Evo."

Well have to see how this turns out. BMW and Audi watch out!

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Mercedes-Benz-C-Class-C63-AMG/226409/
 
Agreed with James on that one, really looking forward to as how the Merc. will compete against these 2...

However, was the M3 tested a normal M3 or the CSL one? Not that it's really important but I'm rather suprised the RS4 beats the M3 in the corners...(as the article is showing from what they write.) Many people say the RS4 is heavy and a terrible cornering car but seems Audi proves them wrong? Anyway, I agree with all the rest though, especially the looks, the M3 is an awesome looking car but the new Audi RS cars are simply amazing qua looks 👍
 
Agreed with James on that one, really looking forward to as how the Merc. will compete against these 2...

However, was the M3 tested a normal M3 or the CSL one? Not that it's really important but I'm rather suprised the RS4 beats the M3 in the corners...(as the article is showing from what they write.) Many people say the RS4 is heavy and a terrible cornering car but seems Audi proves them wrong? Anyway, I agree with all the rest though, especially the looks, the M3 is an awesome looking car but the new Audi RS cars are simply amazing qua looks 👍

Who are these "many people", and have they driven the car? Pretty much every review I've seen of the current RS4 has said "we expected it to handle like gash and we were wrong". Audi are selling A LOT of them as well.
 
Blimey indeed. So the RS4 is the better car than the new M3? - In some tests the outgoing M3 CS beat the RS4. Does this mean the older M3 CS is better than the new M3?

It would seem that BMW have dropped the ball somewhat.
 
Blimey indeed. So the RS4 is the better car than the new M3? - In some tests the outgoing M3 CS beat the RS4. Does this mean the older M3 CS is better than the new M3?

It would seem that BMW have dropped the ball somewhat.

From the same Autocar head to head....

Autocar
Only last year, in fact, we compared the last and final evolution of the old M3, the CS, with the RS4 and concluded that, overall, the BMW just about nicked it. Does that mean we think the new V8 M3 isn't as good a car as the last and best version of the old straight six M3? You are welcome, as they say, to draw your own conclusions....

..which reads to me that Autocar don't think the new car is as good as the CS.


Regards

Scaff
 
Who are these "many people", and have they driven the car? Pretty much every review I've seen of the current RS4 has said "we expected it to handle like gash and we were wrong". Audi are selling A LOT of them as well.

I must pick up the publications you read...
 
Eh, no big deal here. The M3s aren't exactly running off the production line for the public, so there's still time to tweak it.

The one thing I don't like in the article is that only 2 of the 4 reasons they listed better are valid. Better looking? Opinion. Roomier? No ****! 1's a 4 door, the other's a coupe. If I wanted to compare the roominess of a M3 to a RS4, I'd wait til' the Sedan.
 
McLaren (+rep) has good points about the Sedan being Roomier and the appearance being an opinion (one which I agree with though since the RS4 does look incredible).

None the less, those reasons are worthy of criticisms.
On top of that, I'd be interested to know if the RS4 got any flak for being a 4wd model. I'm sure there are a few on the staff of any and every car publication who would knock on 4wd just for the sake of stressing their love of RWD handling.

In any case, this news isn't very suprising to me... I think of this in terms that are similar to shooting my gun or shooting a basketball... Keep aiming for the same target and eventually you're bound to hit it. 👍

That's the case here I'm sure. The RS4 (audi and the A4 line) have been gunning for the best in class competition (the 3 series) and it looks like they've finally figured out how to match and beat the competition.

Good for you Audi. 👍
Also, good for us (the consumer). We all know competition drives the market and at this point I'm sure BMW is already trying to figure out what should be done next.

Last thing... I don't think the CSL would be a good comparison. The thing is so stripped and reduced that the overall value would probably suffer compared to a package as full and well rounded as the RS4 (although I'm sure the CSL would do a great job in the performance department).
 
I just want them to release the RS5 already. Now there's some M3 competition.
 
I must pick up the publications you read...
Likewise, I've seen and read a lot of reviews and tets that conclude that the RS4 doesn't handle nearly as well as the outgoing M3. That it understeers and while being fast, is not as precise a car as they would have liked. Evo, TopGear, CAR and I think Autoexpress all gave similar views along thoes lines.
 
I just want them to release the RS5 already. Now there's some M3 competition.

The new 5 from Audi will most likely arrive once all the RS4's have disappeared from your local Audi dealer's new car lot.
 
if Audi keeps the same pattern of having only one RS car in production in any given time , we will not see an RS5 for a while because next RS car is going to be the RS6.

According to M engineers the E92 M3 is faster on the ring than any other M3 including E46 so I don't how the E46 CS would be faster
 
Well, compared to the E46 M3... :ouch:
I've got a rather large wmv. file of an episode of 5th Gear where the RS4 is tested against the M3.
They test straight-line performance, drifting, and a lap on a course.
The M3 easily took drifting but the other two subjects went to the Audi. According to Tiff and the "other guy?" the Audi was pretty much unbeatable. :eek:
While the M3 seemed a bit "twitchy" the RS4 seemed "stable and safe."

With that in mind, I'd say the RS4 is probably a bit on the frustrating side of difficult to drive where the M3 is on the exciting side of difficult to drive. :sly:

Of course, for people like me they would both be exciting to drive! :cheers:
 
Jason Plato was the bloke you're referring from Fifth Gear.

And the RS4 is definately the better looking of the two cars--but that is an opinion as some have already stated. To me the real victory is in what the RS4 does that the M3 couldn't even touch--interior build quality and comfort. I've always preferred driving Audi's as opposed to BMW's due to the Audi usually being the more comfortable to sit in. But, actually, Mercs are just as comfy as Audis to sit in (even more so in the SL line). I chalk that up to BMW being more "hardcore" versus the other two Germans.

And I also can't wait to see the new 5. :drool:
 
*Waits patiently for Evo's take on the car*


M

As an Evo subscriber I normally get the new issue a few days early, the next issue (with the M3 review) is due out in the 23rd, so it should be any day now.

As soon as I read it I will post a summary up here.

👍

Scaff
 
I really like all of these cars, the RS4, the new M3 and the C63 AMG - some great power-limousines. There's one thing that really puts me off though - weight. Here are some figures for you:

BMW M3 - 1655 kg = 3649 lb
Audi RS4 - 1725 kg = 3803 lb
Merc C63 AMG - 1730 kg = 3814 lb
Bugatti Veyron - 1888 kg = 4162 lb (for comparison)

I must say these things have grown really fat over the years, and as good as they may look and drive, we're really going over the top here.
 
No ****! 1's a 4 door, the other's a coupe.
The M3 is also larger in every dimension then the RS4, with a 10cm longer wheelbase. Coupe or not, at least legroom should be improved. The only dimension that is negligible is width, where the M3 has 1mm on the RS4. All of the other dimensions give around 2cm to the BMW.

I had read that the new M3 has lost some of its character and gone rather soft based on initial tests. Here's hoping that BMW fixes it with a revision or with a CSL version, as it doesn't seem like BMW to lose right out of the gate.
 
I really like all of these cars, the RS4, the new M3 and the C63 AMG - some great power-limousines. There's one thing that really puts me off though - weight. Here are some figures for you:

BMW M3 - 1655 kg = 3649 lb
Audi RS4 - 1725 kg = 3803 lb
Merc C63 AMG - 1730 kg = 3814 lb
Bugatti Veyron - 1888 kg = 4162 lb (for comparison)

I must say these things have grown really fat over the years, and as good as they may look and drive, we're really going over the top here.
Why? If they corner well and go like stink, why is the weight (which is added luxury and/or safety) a bad thing?
 
Why? If they corner well and go like stink, why is the weight (which is added luxury and/or safety) a bad thing?
Well, apart from that the same engine would feel more ferocious in a lighter car, weight is something that totally puts me off in sporty models. I do like a bit of comfort, and I know it won't go without adding weight, but this is really really bad. More than 1.7 tons, that was top-class limousine territory a few years ago. Now we get that in a mid-sized saloon car. That trend can't be right, can it?
 
It depends whether you think technology in terms of safetly and luxury should stand still or not. The way I see it, the weight is rising, but the technology to compensate is increasing too. These newer, heavier cars are generally a lot quicker than older lighter cars in both corners and straight line speeds, even in cases where thoes older cars have similar power outputs.

Imo safetly should always be looked at with a view to improvment, luxury, well that depepnds, a bare bones car can be made more conmfortable while still being bare bones. I have no desire to drive to work in a go kart every day, and I'm referring to comfort there. So personally, these things don't bother me. Ofcourse, there's a place for luxury to go out the window, but a sport saloon in the £50k range certainly isn't one of them.

BMW's and Audi saloon cars are almost as opposite a sports car can get to a Lotus Elise in principals.
 
The M3 is also larger in every dimension then the RS4, with a 10cm longer wheelbase. Coupe or not, at least legroom should be improved. The only dimension that is negligible is width, where the M3 has 1mm on the RS4. All of the other dimensions give around 2cm to the BMW.

I had read that the new M3 has lost some of its character and gone rather soft based on initial tests. Here's hoping that BMW fixes it with a revision or with a CSL version, as it doesn't seem like BMW to lose right out of the gate.

Yeah, part of the reason why I love the coupe is that the space inside is incredible. Of course, when I'm in the front seat, the car becomes a 3-seater with a bench for a bag or small cargo or something. Still, it has the most legroom of any car I sat in at the last autoshow I went to.
 
It depends whether you think technology in terms of safetly and luxury should stand still or not. The way I see it, the weight is rising, but the technology to compensate is increasing too.
I am an absolute friend of advancing technology, but that also should include saving weight in my eyes.

These newer, heavier cars are generally a lot quicker than older lighter cars in both corners and straight line speeds, even in cases where thoes older cars have similar power outputs.
I absolutely agree here as well, with the Veyron being the perfect example of a heavy car still being very fast and good at cornering (so they say at least). However, from what I've driven in my life (which is not very much in terms of sporty equipment, but a bunch of very different cars), I think that weight should be high up the in the to-do list when making a sporty car. In terms of agility and liveliness, I must say one of the best cars I drove was a 60 hp Ford Ka. We have the most powerful engines, the cleverest suspensions and electronics and the grippiest tires today. But that still doesn't make a car feel alive when it weighs over 1.7 tons. And Audi has the way to do it, as demonstated with the surprisingly light new TT.

I think that weight is something they're just starting to work on, which means that we've pretty much reached the peak now (or so I hope). I think we have the technology to make a car lighter than its predecessor, they just need to start using and advertising it. Just imagine what kind of bang you get out of that? A lighter car (probably with even more power), means quicker acceleration, shorter stopping distances, better cornering and improved fuel economy.
 
I am an absolute friend of advancing technology, but that also should include saving weight in my eyes.
True, but I guess this is where, at present at least, the cost to benefit factor makes it less liekly to happen. But we may see a turn soon, it may have even started to level off already. We'll have to see.

However, from what I've driven in my life (which is not very much in terms of sporty equipment, but a bunch of very different cars), I think that weight should be high up the in the to-do list when making a sporty car.
Yes and no, yes for an out and out sports car and not a Grand Tourer. But on a regular car with sports car intentions, like an M3, I don't think weight should be a make or break factor, as long as it's within the ball park for cars in it's class. getting the rest of the car right will compensate for that.

In terms of agility and liveliness, I must say one of the best cars I drove was a 60 hp Ford Ka. We have the most powerful engines, the cleverest suspensions and electronics and the grippiest tires today. But that still doesn't make a car feel alive when it weighs over 1.7 tons. And Audi has the way to do it, as demonstated with the surprisingly light new TT.
Ah, but you see, you drove a Ford Ka, a car well praised for it's handling and the big smiles it can put on your face. How many small and light cars are there out there that feel crap to drive in comparison. A lot. It's more to do with responsiveness and feedback imo, yes weight can and does play a part. But imo people make more of a deal over it these days than it's worth. Unless it's a a car attempting to be a true sportscars then I still have no problem with cars weighing as much as they do these days.

I think that weight is something they're just starting to work on, which means that we've pretty much reached the peak now (or so I hope). I think we have the technology to make a car lighter than its predecessor, they just need to start using and advertising it.
I tihnk we've had the technology to at least keep the weights similar, but I think the cost benefit is lacking somewhat. Increased safety features do have a big hand in the matter of weight though. Electronics are also largly to blame, be it devices to make the car easier/ faster to drive, or comforts. I tihnk we will see lighter materials and such employed soon though. I don't think we'll ever see the day when a 3 series of tomorrow is as big as a Rolls Royce Phantom of today, so I do think that weight will level off and maybe decrease at some point.

Just imagine what kind of bang you get out of that? A lighter car (probably with even more power), means quicker acceleration, shorter stopping distances, better cornering and improved fuel economy.
True, I'm certainly not against lighter cars, just in case you were wondering, I'm just not against cars being as heavy as they generally are today. I don't see weight as being as big a handicap as people often make it out to be with current technology in use. But I wouldn't mind cars getting lighter thats for sure.
 
The M3 is also larger in every dimension then the RS4, with a 10cm longer wheelbase. Coupe or not, at least legroom should be improved. The only dimension that is negligible is width, where the M3 has 1mm on the RS4. All of the other dimensions give around 2cm to the BMW.

I had read that the new M3 has lost some of its character and gone rather soft based on initial tests. Here's hoping that BMW fixes it with a revision or with a CSL version, as it doesn't seem like BMW to lose right out of the gate.

And yet one has its seats sit farther back because it is a coupe. The backseat room is therefore usually sacrificed unlike the RS4 sedan. I've sat in plenty of the backseats of BMW Coupes, and I can tell you, sir, that even though it's comfortable, it's still not as spacious as the RS4.

Again, if I want to compare the roominess of the 2, I'll wait for the M3 sedan.
 
Why? If they corner well and go like stink, why is the weight (which is added luxury and/or safety) a bad thing?

Because maximum grip and straight line speed are hardly what make a car actually fun to drive. The previous RS6 is a perfect example of this, as is just about everything from AMG. The near-opposite of those, the Lotus Elise, is an example of how low weight can truly be taken advantage of. Of course, this is all in regards to sports cars; GT/luxury cars are not part of this "weight is bad" discussion.

Still, the weight of the car is not the only deciding factor in what makes a sports car great (or fun), but "adding lightness" never hurts. Assuming you have two otherwise equivalent cars, the lighter one will always be "better".

But regardless of what car we're actually talking about, lighter cars are where the industry should be headed for all market segments. It's the responsible thing to do, and in a time where ineffective hybrids are considered "the right thing to drive", why not take the higher ground (and the more effective one) and make lighter cars? If adding $5,000 worth of batteries to a Honda Civic helps move it out the door, how about $4,000 worth of CFRP instead of fiberglass? Maybe $6,000 in aluminum substructures rather than steel? Why am I asking questions to car companies that simply don't care?
 
Back