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

[Philly]

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".

Weight really is not much of an issue. My car is a 3300 pound hot hatch and yet it is very responsive and fun to drive. I have a friend who owns Ferraris yet said a GTI was one of the most fun cars he's ever driven. While I am very impressed with how the car behaves for it's weight, I can't help but be dissapointed by it. I would love for my car to be below maybe 2800 pounds.

Weight is also one of the main reasons I want to go and try out a MKI GTI (aside from the GTI "legacy"). I really want to see if the lightness of the car makes it as fun to drive as todays models. That's the same reason why I would kill to drive an E90 and E30 M3.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the eventual toppling of the M3 has been a long-time coming, particularly when Audi is so dead-set on doing so, and furthermore with AMG chomping at the bit to do much the same. That being said, it isn't as though the M3 is a total slouch, but it certainly isn't the same as what it used to be.

I'm personally going to wait until the car is "officially" out, and the big super-sedan showdown occurs. You know, with the "usual suspects":

- Audi RS4
- BMW M3
- Cadillac CTS-V
- Lexus IS-F
- Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG

Early bets for me are going to the Mercedes, although the Bat-tastic Cadillac will likely surprise quite a few people a few months from now...

 

[Philly]

I think the eventual toppling of the M3 has been a long-time coming, particularly when Audi is so dead-set on doing so, and furthermore with AMG chomping at the bit to do much the same. That being said, it isn't as though the M3 is a total slouch, but it certainly isn't the same as what it used to be.

I definitly see what you mean. As of now, it seems as though the E36 will endure as the "best" M3 in comparison to everything else. I kinda saw that coming once I saw the new car and it's new competition. I just didn't expect the fall of the M3 to be this soon. It will be nice to see an AMG model finally at or near the top, though.

 

[Tornado]

I think the eventual toppling of the M3 has been a long-time coming, particularly when Audi is so dead-set on doing so, and furthermore with AMG chomping at the bit to do much the same.

I agree that it was likely to happen, but to happen imdediately after the release of a new model in comparison to an older car is quite surprising.

 

[YSSMAN]

Its a head-scratcher to say the least, but overall the launch of the car hasn't gone over well. We're waiting until what, spring 2008 to get the M3 in the United States? I'd assume by then the car will have a few of the "issues" fixed, if not, the CSL will likely be available in the not-too-distant future, something I believe Top Gear noted is most likely the reason for the performance issues.

My guess is that BMW is messing with the formula a bit too much, which is leading to issues. The M3 is supposed to be a lightweight, race-based coupe with serious capabilities on the track and on the road, and while this fits most of the bill, it isn't quite the same anymore. It would be like Ford deciding that the Mustang isn't potent enough anymore, deciding that it would be better off stealing a lot from the Jaguar and Volvo parts bin, adding a V10 and a slushbox, and calling it a day.

It just isn't the same, but one continues to hope that it will keep the M-folks happy.

 

[Philly]

It just isn't the same, but one continues to hope that it will keep the M-folks happy.

I thought it was cool for awhile but I think I would still rather have an E46. Maybe that's just because I grew up around those.

The new M5 did really hit me big and made me feel like the old one was more of a wuss.

 

[Blackbird.]

Although I agree that the RS4 is better looking then the M3 but how can a magazine grade a car based upon it's looks? Isn't the looks of a car highly based upon people's opinion?

 

[Wolfe]

I'm not really that bothered by this result. BMW has really been fudging up their steering feel these days, and to hear that the E92 M3 is lacking in this area doesn't surprise me. However, aside from the slightly embarrassing weight, that's the only problem they need to fix to have a winner, IMO. Being slower and less roomy didn't stop the E46 from winning comparos.

 

[Scaff]

Although I agree that the RS4 is better looking then the M3 but how can a magazine grade a car based upon it's looks? Isn't the looks of a car highly based upon people's opinion?

Of course appearance is a very personal factor, but I've never come across a magazine that doesn't comment on it and take it into account, and lets not forget it was not the sole factor this was based on at all.

Weight really is not much of an issue. My car is a 3300 pound hot hatch and yet it is very responsive and fun to drive. I have a friend who owns Ferraris yet said a GTI was one of the most fun cars he's ever driven. While I am very impressed with how the car behaves for it's weight, I can't help but be dissapointed by it. I would love for my car to be below maybe 2800 pounds.

Weight is also one of the main reasons I want to go and try out a MKI GTI (aside from the GTI "legacy"). I really want to see if the lightness of the car makes it as fun to drive as todays models. That's the same reason why I would kill to drive an E90 and E30 M3.

I'm a big fan of 'intelligent' weight reduction in modern cars and am quite set in my belief that it does make a huge difference. Now while it is more than possible to make a heavy modern car that has bag loads of mechanical grip that does not equal a great handling car (your GTI is one of the modern exceptions).

Weight is killing good cars in a wide range of segments, the latest Renaultsport Clio being a prime example. Lower weight has a huge number of advantages (from cog placement, to lower Polar moment, better fuel economy, greater PTW for the same engine, etc) and should, in my opinion, be the target of more manufacturers.

Now the Veyron has been mentioned as an example of a heavy car that handles well, and I certainly would not dispute that. However I would state that its an anomaly, and its balance of handling (and not to forget huge levels of mechanical and aero grip) was achieved at a staggeringly high cost in both development and retail price. Its not exactly a good example of the normal trend and pattern that increased weight brings at all.



Regards

Scaff

 

[vladimir]

BMW 335i coupe faster than audi RS4


around virginia raceway the 335ci takes 3:10.5 while the RS4 does it in 3:11.2.

 

[McLaren]

BMW 335i coupe faster than audi RS4


around virginia raceway the 335ci takes 3:10.5 while the RS4 does it in 3:11.2.

At Hockenheim, it was also 2 seconds off the RS4. 1:15.4 for the Audi while BMW set 1:17.8. It was also a 4 second difference at Autozeitung test track.


And if the 335i can get that close on certain tracks, I'm pretty sure about this article of the RS4 won't mean anything in a year.

BTW, is it not surprising to anyone that Autocar did not post any times? So, unless Scaff hasn't posted the lap times, this article can go where the sun don't shine. It'd be quite a fraud to tell everyone twice now the RS4 is better, and reveal absolutely zero lap times.

I'd hate to also mention that these M3s are incredbily pre-production. I'm sure as YSSMAN would tell you about the CTS-V Gen. I, it's production model far outclassed the pre-production cars seen in the beginning.

 

[Tornado]

So, unless Scaff hasn't posted the lap times, this article can go where the sun don't shine. It'd be quite a fraud to tell everyone twice now the RS4 is better, and reveal absolutely zero lap times.

Corvette Z06 is faster in every way than the Porsche 911 GT3, but the GT3 still wins pretty much every contest the two have. Lap times mean jack unless it is purely a performance competition.

I'd hate to also mention that these M3s are incredbily pre-production. I'm sure as YSSMAN would tell you about the CTS-V Gen. I, it's production model far outclassed the pre-production cars seen in the beginning.

Yeah, the CTS-v's were refined considerably. But they still suffered from many of the foibles that the preproduction cars did in the driving department. BMW may fix the steering, though, I agree.

 

[Kent]

I'm not sure I really believe any American based publication more than I trust Best Motoring. With that in mind, I've never really trusted Best Motoring to provide balanced, unbiased test sessions.

These tests are often skewed by the levels of abuse previously dealt to the car in other test sessions. Brakes, tires, even oil and gas can all play a part in the comparisons...

With all that in mind, I've seen fast laps go to the RS4 and now I've read fast laps going to the M3. My guess is that the driver, course, and vehicle specifics all play a part in allowing one to win over the other.

 

[McLaren]

Corvette Z06 is faster in every way than the Porsche 911 GT3, but the GT3 still wins pretty much every contest the two have. Lap times mean jack unless it is purely a performance competition.

Ok, so this is just another unvaild thing to include?

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.

He lists 2 reasons as to why the RS4 is a better performer, yet the article apprently shows no lap times or performance figures. And it's a rarity for a magazine to show neither. Unforunately, these magazines that don't also are not the most trustworthy.

May I remind you that Autocar are a bunch of hypocrits?
Z4M Vs. Cayman Vs. E46 M3 CS Vs. RS4.

No question about it, the RS4 is a fabulously quick car featuring one of the great V8 engines of our time and, at last, a suitably slick 6-speed manual gearbox to go with it. The real surprise with the RS4, however, is how well it competed around the track. Yes, it understeered more than the Porsche and, no, it didn’t have the ultimate composure of the BMW in the quick corners. But neither did the RS4 run out of ideas like we expected it to going on past form. The truth is the Audi was fast, fun to drive, sounded fantastic and went well against the clock. Yes, it was outperformed by the Cayman and BMW on lap time, but the difference was marginal.

Here, Autocar says even though out performed by the M3 and Cayman on laptime, the difference in the beating didn't mean anything because the times were very close.
In this case, the M3 wins but it doesn't mean anything because the RS4 time was right next to it.

And yet here.

you name it, the RS4 takes it, often only by the narrowest of margins. But a clear margin nonetheless.

Even though the magrin is "the narrowest of margins", it is perfectly fine.
It does matter if the RS4 won by 5 minutes or .1 second, it's automatically the better performer. But should the E46 M3 CS beat it by 1 second, it doesn't mean anything.
Hypocrticial, if you ask me. This same test of the M3 CS and RS4 also showed zero performance figures. Except that the Pre-Prod. M3 is a manual. The M-DCT is not yet available.

This fellow on m3post who apparently tests cars, had different thoughts with his crew. There are no performance figures either, but enough to make me think Autocar isn't a great source to trust.

I read the article just now and 'most' of what Sutters states is true, but.... and this is the frustrating part from my persepctive, he is economical with the truth in certain areas that I 'know' will provide controversy. The cynic in me sees an editorial input that was designed to generate interest and therefore sell more magazines.

Why do I think that? Well first of all there was a carelessness in the content of the article with several errors;

- the M3 doesn't weigh 1655kg versus 1650kg for the RS4
- the RS4 was not riding on 18" wheels
- and the previous E46 CSL did not happen 4 years into the E46 M3's lifespan.

Ok, maybe these are just semantics, the key message concerned the driving impressions.

Well given that we did exactly the same test as Autocar (namely drive an RS4 down to Marbella to compare), there were a few differences in our findings.

- Firstly our RS4 (the EVO long-termer) was not faster than our M3 - the video I have shows the M3 (with two people on board) pulling away from me on the autopista driving the RS4 on my own
- our RS4's steering was more vague compared to the M3's, so the opposite to the cars Autocar drove
- Our RS4 was inert when in the corner, and did not communicate grip levels as clearly as the M3 we had
- and whilst the RS4 sounded louder on start-up it was not as loud as the M3 once under load (I can look at the videos we took to remind me)
- Sutters talks about one moment during their drive when the M3 was scrabbling for grip, and likewise there was a seminal moment in our drive when over half a dozen times through the same corner we just couldn't find as much traction in the RS4 as we could in the M3.

So, what does that tell us. Well it certainly is not conclusive evidence of a win from either RS4 or M3. Sutters was right to say that they were two very different cars, and that's how they come across. Both likeable but for different reasons. So unless Autocar's RS4 was distinctly above average (remember our RS4 had been in EVO's ownership for 18 months and was a known quantity), then they have jumped to a conclusion that was never as forthcoming as they claim.

Now I like the RS4 and am considering buying a second hand one myself to cover mileage until my CSL arrives, but assuming we had identical cars then Autocar's conclusion is premature.

Let us not forget EVO's pre-production review is coming soon. By far a better thing to wait for.

EDIT* This is also noteworthy.

That's quite a big statement on there for something that was just on par or barely beat it.

 

[Kent]

The quote at the bottom of Mclaren's post seems horribly biased.

First and foremost, you can not compared a car that spent 18 months being tested by Evo and a car that is brand new. That's just not fair at all (for either car since we don't know what 18 months could have done to the car).

Also, the fact that the journalist admits he's waiting on his CSL tells me that he is a hardcore BMW person. I mean, to buy a BMW stripped out like the CSL tells me that you have a passion for BMWs that goes beyond enjoying BMW as a daily driver.

Beyond that, I have to admit, the strong contradictions from test to test combined with the consistant acknowledgment that both cars are very similar in final result tells me that both reviews are strongly biased with personal issues.

Clearly these cars are both very similar and in my opinion, personal opinion seems to be the most important factor for these so-called journalists.

That said, I suggest everyone takes a good look at the 5th Gear comparison done using these two cars. While I always doubt journalists to some extent, I'm less likely to doubt Tiff and even less likely to doubt journalists who provide video to go with their claims.
Need I remind anyone that in 5th Gear's comparo the Audi RS4 was consistantly faster in a straight line and clearly faster through the test course?

 

[McLaren]

First and foremost, you can not compared a car that spent 18 months being tested by Evo and a car that is brand new. That's just not fair at all (for either car since we don't know what 18 months could have done to the car).

Yes, however, he also reports their RS4 is of the same quantity as any other, i.e. the same. It may be 18 months old, but we don't know if it's kept in prime condition (and obviously is broken in more). And being it's EVO who maintains its vehicles, I'm pretty sure their cars are kept in the highest quality to ensure equal results. Besides that, older RS4 Vs. Pre-Production M3. Neither are respectable clones of what they'll be like from the factory, so seems like a fine comparison to me.

Also, the fact that the journalist admits he's waiting on his CSL tells me that he is a hardcore BMW person. I mean, to buy a BMW stripped out like the CSL tells me that you have a passion for BMWs that goes beyond enjoying BMW as a daily driver.

So, for every article writer who owns a top-model Ford, BMW, Chevrolet, etc. and to write that it's manufacturer wins is suddenly under question?

Does the fact that he is considering a RS4 as well, mean nothing, which is also a die-hard Audi?

 

[Tornado]

He lists 2 reasons as to why the RS4 is a better performer, yet the article apprently shows no lap times or performance figures.

I see only one performance-related reason.

Here, Autocar says even though out performed by the M3 and Cayman on laptime, the difference in the beating didn't mean anything because the times were very close.

So, the M3 and Cayman beats the RS4, and the journalist says the margin isn't wide enough to warrant dismissing the car completely. So what? This takes me to my next point...

Even though the magrin is "the narrowest of margins", it is perfectly fine.
It does matter if the RS4 won by 5 minutes or .1 second, it's automatically the better performer. But should the E46 M3 CS beat it by 1 second, it doesn't mean anything.

That is a highly false conclusion. Highly false. For one reason: The second article claims that the RS4 exceeded the new M3, however marginally, in all standards. That's interior room. That's steering communication. That's even day-to-day liveability. None of which has to do with track performance, which is only what the first quote is discussing.
Even if the track performance of the E92 was better, and it was faster, you must remember that the last M3 beat cars that exceeded its performance since the day it came out. It beat them by feel, which is probably why the M3 CS won the test against the Audi and is why the Audi won this test. So taking down numbers only and declaring a winner is highly hypocritical of you, not the journalist. Your trying to take lemons and make apple cider.

This fellow on m3post who apparently tests cars, had different thoughts with his crew. There are no performance figures either, but enough to make me think Autocar isn't a great source to trust.

Poverty used to claim tests that declared anything that wasn't an Audi the winner was rigged, and while I'm not saying this guy is outright lying, he clearly has obvious bias towards BMW which could very well dull his enthusiasm for the Audi and make him look at the M3 with rose tinted glasses.

Many of his incredible test undermining inconsistencies are easily explained as well:
- the M3 doesn't weigh 1655kg versus 1650kg for the RS4
Perhaps that is the Audi's dry weight? You do realize that the manufacturers are usually the ones who supply the info, right? And companies have tried to do that before. Lamborghini, for example, has supplied the dry weight in some of their tests when the comparison car has supplied the curb weight. Porsche did it back on the 80's with the 959.
- and the previous E46 CSL did not happen 4 years into the E46 M3's lifespan.
No, it didn't. It did, however, happen 4 years into the E46's overall life span.
- the RS4 was not riding on 18" wheels
This one is rather confusing. It seems the RS4 originally came with 18 inchers standard and 19 inchers optional. Now they are all 19 inchers. Maybe the test car in question did have 18 inchers, being a test car and all.

This is also noteworthy.
That's quite a big statement on there for something that was just on par or barely beat it.

Which is incredibly well covered by the phrase "in the closest twin test ever."

 

[McLaren]

I see only one performance-related reason.

I find more communicative as something that can easily relate to performance.

That is a highly false conclusion. Highly false.

Nope, see why.

For one reason: The second article claims that the RS4 exceeded the new M3, however marginally, in all standards. That's interior room.

Which is an obvious. This a coupe vs. a 4 door sedan. In overall interior room, the 4 door is more than likely going to take it.

That's steering communication.

How do we know the steering communication is better? There's no talk of how well each car did on a performance run which is the best way to see how well a car communicates.

That's even day-to-day liveability.

So, driving a car for 2 days automatically means, I can say it can be used every single day?

Poverty used to claim tests that declared anything that wasn't an Audi the winner was rigged, and while I'm not saying this guy is outright lying, he clearly has obvious bias towards BMW which could very well dull his enthusiasm for the Audi and make him look at the M3 with rose tinted glasses.

What makes him biased? Because he has a CSL? Ok, that's a valid reason. It's not HIS review to begin with. It's a CREW's overall conclusion. THEY found different results from Autocar. Unless you're going to say THEY all HAVE CSL's.

- the M3 doesn't weigh 1655kg versus 1650kg for the RS4
Perhaps that is the Audi's dry weight? You do realize that the manufacturers are usually the ones who supply the info, right? And companies have tried to do that before. Lamborghini, for example, has supplied the dry weight in some of their tests when the comparison car has supplied the curb weight. Porsche did it back on the 80's with the 959.

He's referring to the fact the M3 weight is wrong.

- the RS4 was not riding on 18" wheels[/B]
This one is rather confusing. It seems the RS4 originally came with 18 inchers standard and 19 inchers optional. Now they are all 19 inchers. Maybe the test car in question did have 18 inchers, being a test car and all.

The test car more than likely had 19". He saw the cars in person, so he's probably right.

Which is incredibly well covered by the phrase "in the closest twin test ever."

[/quote]
But it's not a beating, and it's certainly not the closest twin test if performance figures are also not brought into the equation.

To have the "closets twin test ever", it's expected you review everything about the cars, not just looks, and stupid comparisons.

It has better looks - What does this have to do with a RS4 winning?
It has more room - Why is this even noted? One's a coupe. One's a sedan. It's quite obvious the sedan will have more room.
By being faster - How so? Where are the figures that tell me this?
More communicative - Again, how so? Because you turned both cars at 40Mph and the RS4 felt better?

 

[Tornado]

Which is an obvious. This a coupe vs. a 4 door sedan. In overall interior room, the 4 door is more than likely going to take it.

So what? Does that mean the Audi lost in that category? No it does not. If you compare a Porsche and a Corvette, does the fact that the Porsche have rear seats and the Corvette doesn't make those rear seats not exist?

How do we know the steering communication is better? There's no talk of how well each car did on a performance run which is the best way to see how well a car communicates.

In your opinion. I think the best way to determine steering communication is to determine how well the car makes you feel the road surface at any speed. The editors may think something different from both of us.

So, driving a car for 2 days automatically means, I can say it can be used every single day?

So, in the interest of fairness, all of the British publications that said that the Z06 had too hard of a suspension to be liveable with day to day based on a day test are automatically wrong.

What makes him biased? Because he has a CSL? Ok, that's a valid reason. It's not HIS review to begin with. It's a CREW's overall conclusion. THEY found different results from Autocar. Unless you're going to say THEY all HAVE CSL's.

You posted a review that basically said the Autocar review was crap, but failed to include any of those precious statistics. Yet you cite a major reasoning for the Autocar review being crap as lacking statistics. So, if Autocar is biased against the BMW (not likely, as an M3 CS just won a competition against Audi and its parent), whoever wrote that review is biased towards BMW for the same reason.

Nope, see why.

I'm waiting. You debunked (or not) the individual examples they cited in the conclusion. Not the fact that the Audi was better in every category, which I would assume would include things other than what is mentioned specifically.

He's referring to the fact the M3 weight is wrong.

Which would be quite odd, as it most likely is not. Car and Driver said the new M3 is about 300 pounds heavier. The old M3 weighed in the 1570 kg area. That would be quite close to 1650 kg when converted, if not more.

The test car more than likely had 19". He saw the cars in person, so he's probably right.

So, I guess everything they said about the Audi is wrong because they got the wheel sizes wrong.

But it's not a beating, and it's certainly not the closest twin test if performance figures are also not brought into the equation.

Have you read the article? The full article, and not the snippets Scaff posted?

To have the "closets twin test ever", it's expected you review everything about the cars, not just looks, and stupid comparisons.

And do you have proof that they didn't? In any case, your original point was nullified by the subtitle regardless.

It has better looks - What does this have to do with a RS4 winning?

Nothing by itself. I happen to disagree anyways, because the RS4 is, in fact, a new Audi, so the front is already destined to be junk before it leaves the factory.

It has more room - Why is this even noted? One's a coupe. One's a sedan. It's quite obvious the sedan will have more room.

Well, for starters, the fact that the Audi has more room is not nullified by the M3's lack of doors, because the RS4 still does, in fact, have more room.

By being faster - How so? Where are the figures that tell me this?
More communicative - Again, how so? Because you turned both cars at 40Mph and the RS4 felt better?

Both of those are probably somewhere else in the article. Conclusions are for concluding, not for explaining.

You are basing you entire argument, it seems, on the little bits posted by Scaff. Maybe they had far more reasons for choosing the RS4, like they alluded to having in the conclusion. Maybe they had figures. I don't know. But unless you have read the entire article, I doubt you do either.

 

[Kent]

Yes, however, he also reports their RS4 is of the same quantity as any other, i.e. the same. It may be 18 months old, but we don't know if it's kept in prime condition (and obviously is broken in more). And being it's EVO who maintains its vehicles, I'm pretty sure their cars are kept in the highest quality to ensure equal results. Besides that, older RS4 Vs. Pre-Production M3. Neither are respectable clones of what they'll be like from the factory, so seems like a fine comparison to me.

If all is well in their practices then I would agree the comparison is fine. I should note though, when any company puts up a pre-production car, whether it be a GM or German product, I have the same reservations (which aren't all that great ).

So, for every article writer who owns a top-model Ford, BMW, Chevrolet, etc. and to write that it's manufacturer wins is suddenly under question?

Well, actually, yes.
I do believe people fall victim to their own biases and I'm not afraid to admit that (even regarding myself when the situation calls for it).
Is there any real suprise to this sort of belief? I would hope everyone keeps the possibility of bias in mind when they read the findings of a journalist (or tv anchor, or teacher, or anyone else ).

Does the fact that he is considering a RS4 as well, mean nothing, which is also a die-hard Audi?

Well, sorta but not entirely.
I mean, I'm considering an Xbox360 still but that doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty sure I'll have a PS3 before very long.
When you haven't made an action I can't be sure of your feelings... you know what they say "actions speak louder than words."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one or the other was wrong.
What I'm saying is that the Audi seems to be faster in a straight line (just by the theoretical advantage of 4wd). The BMW seems to carry the advantage of a pure RWD format, and overall they both seem to do equally well on a race track. 👍
With all that in mind, I'd like to mention that the driver can make a difference in both the performance and the criticisms of a car. People may react differently to different drivetrain formats and many of the opinions regarding each car may be formed based on said opinions. When those opinions become the base of journalistic articles there is no reason to doubt that personal prefferences and biases play atleast a minor role.

Bottom line:
I believe these cars are very similar in overall performance and appeal- deciding which is better very well may come down to personal bias aka prefference aka opinions.

 

[Scaff]

But it's not a beating, and it's certainly not the closest twin test if performance figures are also not brought into the equation.

To have the "closets twin test ever", it's expected you review everything about the cars, not just looks, and stupid comparisons.

I take it you have read the full article in question to be able to comment so strongly on it?

I think that the road testers at Autocar would be able to say (based on there own experience) if its the closest twin test they have conducted, and having now read the piece a number of times I can assure you that it not just looks and stupid comparisons (and one could argue that looking at just lap times is equally stupid).

For the record no the test does not include lap times as the article freely admits that its a road test, you do however seem to be basing your entire opinion on the very small section I have quoted and a strap line from the front cover. Hardly grounds for an un-biased opinion yourself.

The piece details that the RS4 only just beats the M3 in the areas discussed, but it beats it in all of those areas,

It has better looks - What does this have to do with a RS4 winning?
It has more room - Why is this even noted? One's a coupe. One's a sedan. It's quite obvious the sedan will have more room.
By being faster - How so? Where are the figures that tell me this?
More communicative - Again, how so? Because you turned both cars at 40Mph and the RS4 felt better?

Lets look these (from the context of the article one at a time).

Looks - well much as you may disagree its still a rather large factor for a number of potential owners of cars in this class. However the piece freely admits that its a subjective area.

Room - Again its a factor that potential owners of cars of this type will take into account, yes the M3 Saloon would be a better match (again covered in the article) but that's not available to test right now and they are hardly going to ignore what is an obvious area of comparison.

Faster - Its a road test (again clearly admitted in the article) and on the very wide range of road used in the test the RS4 was the faster car, however to the second timing is not generally a smart idea on a public road. The piece describes the last 1000rpm on the M3's V8 as having "what Samuel L Jackson might refer to as "a moment of clarity"", so they are far from unkind to the M3, simply saying that the RS4 has a far more usabel range of power in everyday driving situations.

Communicative - Now you comment above is simply silly, the cars in this piece were driven in Spain on a wide range of roads and speeds, and the Autocar test team (despite what you may claim) is one of the most respected in the business - something the Evo team freely acknowledge. However for the sake of detail the summary of the communication issue is...

The RS4 is more talkative, even if it ends in understeer....while the more driftable M3 can feel vague.

...which I'm sure you will feel can have holes picked in it.

However lets be quite clear about this, every magazine or TV car review is by its very nature subjective, however Autocar have a strong reputation around the world and from manufacturers for an unbiased and knowledgeable approach and it strikes me that you appear to be basing most of your comments on what you think the article says, rather than its actual content.

As I have already said myself I wait with interest on the Evo article, as you do. Which does raise a good point, you knock Autocar for including lap times in a previous piece and then not making them a major factor in the final result, well this is something that EVO do on a regular basis, quite freely admitting that performance figure are of interest but never a final factor in judging a car. None of which is a major shock in UK car magazines, as very few place a high degree of importance on numbers as a final judge of a car.



Regards

Scaff

 

[McLaren]

So what? Does that mean the Audi lost in that category? No it does not. If you compare a Porsche and a Corvette, does the fact that the Porsche have rear seats and the Corvette doesn't make those rear seats not exist?

Um, no, but in that comparison, you're comparing 2 coupes. All the roominess is based off the first 2 seats entirely.

But in the RS4 and M3, the back seats of the M3 are going to fail next to the RS4.
Front Seats M3: 85/100
Front Seats RS4: 80/100
Rear Seats M3: 20/100
Rear Seats RS4: 65/100

Total:
M3: 105/200
RS4: 145/200

See what I mean? There's really no point in stating the obvious.

In your opinion. I think the best way to determine steering communication is to determine how well the car makes you feel the road surface at any speed. The editors may think something different from both of us.

Fair enough.

So, in the interest of fairness, all of the British publications that said that the Z06 had too hard of a suspension to be liveable with day to day based on a day test are automatically wrong.

Did they push the car's suspension and find its conclusions off that? For all I know, Autocar could have drive around a couple roads at 60Mph and deemed it such.

IMHO, a weekly test is something I prefer magazines to do to tell me if the car can be daily driven since there's more than suspension. Or at least a full 6-7 hour test.

You posted a review that basically said the Autocar review was crap, but failed to include any of those precious statistics. Yet you cite a major reasoning for the Autocar review being crap as lacking statistics.

Did I not note the fact that the other review also lacked performance figures?

So, if Autocar is biased against the BMW (not likely, as an M3 CS just won a competition against Audi and its parent), whoever wrote that review is biased towards BMW for the same reason.

Firstly, even though it won, it was noted as nothing. It basically said the RS4 was still just as good so times didn't matter to it. Secondly, how is it biased? They concluded their tests showed differently, but also reported their findings didn't make the BMW a sure fire winner either. Sounds pretty fair to me, not biased.

Which would be quite odd, as it most likely is not. Car and Driver said the new M3 is about 300 pounds heavier. The old M3 weighed in the 1570 kg area. That would be quite close to 1650 kg when converted, if not more.

Has Car and Driver driven it yet? I wouldn't know.

So, I guess everything they said about the Audi is wrong because they got the wheel sizes wrong.

Did I say that? No. I'm saying he saw both cars in person, so he probably knew if the Audi ran on 19 or 18 inch wheels, and noted that it untipped the scales.

Have you read the article? The full article, and not the snippets Scaff posted?

That's what "if" is for. But I could say the same for you and me. We haven't read the BMW owner's crew's full article either. After deeper research, he is a part if Evo or very close, so we'll be reading his team's findings very soon.

Well, for starters, the fact that the Audi has more room is not nullified by the M3's lack of doors, because the RS4 still does, in fact, have more room.

Read previous chart above. One's a coupe, one's a sedan. I'm sure even the RS4 Cabriolet lacks less room than a RS4 Sedan.

I take it you have read the full article in question to be able to comment so strongly on it?

Then perhaps you could post the whole article instead of just posting the RS4 won and the 4 conclusion reasons why it won.

(and one could argue that looking at just lap times is equally stupid).

Except those are actually worth noting. People buy cars to track on spare time as well.

For the record no the test does not include lap times as the article freely admits that its a road test, you do however seem to be basing your entire opinion on the very small section I have quoted and a strap line from the front cover. Hardly grounds for an un-biased opinion yourself.

Again, post the whole article. You posted just little bits of info on why the RS4 won, and nothing that would lead me to believe why except 2 out 4 worthwhile reasons.

But since it did not have performance figures, then they are expecting me to believe the RS4 is faster on their word alone. So, should I trust them, or take note of another magazine showing a full performance comparison in their review of full-blown article of the 2?

Room - Again its a factor that potential owners of cars of this type will take into account, yes the M3 Saloon would be a better match (again covered in the article) but that's not available to test right now and they are hardly going to ignore what is an obvious area of comparison.

I understand such an area won't be ignored but it shouldn't be concluded as 1 of 4 main reasons it won. I know the RS4 will win. Why tell me 2 times in the article?

Faster - Its a road test (again clearly admitted in the article) and on the very wide range of road used in the test the RS4 was the faster car, however to the second timing is not generally a smart idea on a public road. The piece describes the last 1000rpm on the M3's V8 as having "what Samuel L Jackson might refer to as "a moment of clarity"", so they are far from unkind to the M3, simply saying that the RS4 has a far more usabel range of power in everyday driving situations.

Fair enough there if they acknowledge both.

Communicative - Now you comment above is simply silly, the cars in this piece were driven in Spain on a wide range of roads and speeds, and the Autocar test team (despite what you may claim) is one of the most respected in the business - something the Evo team freely acknowledge. However for the sake of detail the summary of the communication issue is...

I'll agree with you up until the magazine. Autocar is far from one of the most respected. The U.K. one is most indeed better, but even I find confusion in how they determine who's better i.e. the Ford Mondeo being a better car in nearly every way compared to a BMW 3 Series. I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly hard to believe.

 

[Dave A]

The Mondeo is a better car than the 3-series to live with every day and whatnot. It's not as sporty a car, but it's a better daily car. It has more room inside, it has a smoother ride, it's better specked for your money, it's cheaper to run, it has more leg room, more boot space and despite it not being as sporty a car it's still good to drive.

 

[Scaff]

Did they push the car's suspension and find its conclusions off that? For all I know, Autocar could have drive around a couple roads at 60Mph and deemed it such.

Sorry but you appear to have missed that the bit about it being the conclusion of every UK publication that the Z06 is too stiffly set-up for UK roads. Far from just being Autocar, the same was said by Top Gear, Car, EVO, etc. Now that means either they all drove it around at 60mph, a mass conspiracy exists about the Z06 in the UK or m ore likely the car is indeed set-up too stiff for UK roads.

You comment above is I'm afraid rather silly, its implying that professional road testers in the UK don't know how to evaluate a car, on what exactly do you base that?

IMHO, a weekly test is something I prefer magazines to do to tell me if the car can be daily driven since there's more than suspension. Or at least a full 6-7 hour test.

Autocar will road test a car for as long as a manufacture will allow them, in some situations that will be for a few hours and if possible they will run a car for a year. The full road tests will always be for at least two days, and I am quite sure that once the chance arrives (and BMW allow it) they will run a full road test of the car with more figures than you can throw a stick at.

Then perhaps you could post the whole article instead of just posting the RS4 won and the 4 conclusion reasons why it won.

I could, but would then have to immediately give myself a warning. Quoting selected info from an article is one thing, a scan of the full thing would be a breach of copyright. As we (the staff) recently took down a full article (from Evo) for just those grounds, that would make me a rather large hypocrite. However I'm sure the article will pop up on the Autocar web-site very soon.

Except those are actually worth noting. People buy cars to track on spare time as well.

True, but still not the majority of owners of cars (even in this class) and if a manufacturer will not release a test car for track evaluation against a competitor at that time do you suggest that the magazine don't bother? I for one would rather that they still tested the two in the environment that they will spend the vast majority of time, the public roads.

Again, post the whole article. You posted just little bits of info on why the RS4 won, and nothing that would lead me to believe why except 2 out 4 worthwhile reasons.

For the first part see above. The second part only you are putting equal weighting on all four factors, I haven't, nor have I said the article did.

But since it did not have performance figures, then they are expecting me to believe the RS4 is faster on their word alone. So, should I trust them, or take note of another magazine showing a full performance comparison in their review of full-blown article of the 2?

No one is telling you that you have to believe what they say at all, however I would also caution about putting to much direct weight on performance figures alone, many factor can and do influence they (in particular lap time comparisons. Don't get me wrong the info is useful, but has to be taken in context. You are also taking as if they will not ever fully figure both cars, a rather presumptive stance.

I understand such an area won't be ignored but it shouldn't be concluded as 1 of 4 main reasons it won. I know the RS4 will win. Why tell me 2 times in the article?

Again this is you reading into the quotes what you what to justify you view, I've already said that only you are giving each of these factors equal weighting. I would also ask how exactly you know the RS4 will win, are you saying that the outcome of the piece was determined before the test was carried out?

I'll agree with you up until the magazine. Autocar is far from one of the most respected. The U.K. one is most indeed better, but even I find confusion in how they determine who's better i.e. the Ford Mondeo being a better car in nearly every way compared to a BMW 3 Series. I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Sorry but that is complete bull, the road test team at Autocar is one of the best around, Chris Harris regularly writes for a number of Porsche magazines around the world and has competed regularly (including the ADAC 24hrs), Steve Sutcliffe (who wrote this particular article) has held a number of automotive world records and is one of the most respected testers in the UK. Autocar itself runs a regular number of track days in the UK, including regular drift schools (and its the road testers that run and teach at these events) and an annual drift competition (which attracts competitors from around the world).

Simply put you dismiss these people based on nothing but your own opinion, an opinion that does not stand up to even quick scrutiny.

Have you personally ever seen any of them drive? Well I have at race event and track days around the UK and on numerous videos, and I would take their opinion on a car over most. I would however take it as just that, an opinion.

As far as the Mondeo goes, your comments sound like those of a stat and badge junkie, the truth of the matter is that in the real world the Mondeo is a far better car for 90%+ of people looking to buy a car in that class. That the 3-series would almost certainly hammer it around a track and is a more entertaining drive on the limit is simply not enough to make it a better car overall. Now keep in mind that the person saying all of this owns a 3-series and went for it over the new Mondeo and would also (despite the article) still go for the M3 over an RS4.

That does not mean that I think Autocar are wrong on either the new M3 or the Mondeo, simply that I am able to read an opinion piece as just that, an opinion. One that is however written by people who have far more experience in evaluating cars than you or I (and I've spend most of my adult life in the motor industry).


Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

Brilliant post Scaff, I agree on all couts. I would give you rep for it, but I can't yet.

McLaren, I thin you just need to sit back, take a deep breath and think about the article in question. Why is it so unbelievalbe that the RS4 won? I'm suprised it did, I really didn't expect it but I never thought it would be out of the question.

You talk about it having less room in the back being obvious because it's a coupe, yes it is. But that doesn't change the fact that it does have less room. The M3 saloon will be a closer match I'm sure, andwhen the M3 saloon is ready and the keys are handed to the testers we can find out how that compares.

And to reiterate what Scaff said about Autocars testers, they are very highly acclaimed, very qualified to report on a car and they know what they'er doing a tad better than the vast majority of other testers. That doesn't mean you opinion has to match thier, it just means that thier views hold a level of weight in them and are respected.

 

[forza2.0]

Why? If they corner well and go like stink, why is the weight (which is added luxury and/or safety) a bad thing?

Because it means tyres wear out quicker, brakes wear out quicker, and both brakes and tyres will be very expensive to replace as the car requires such big ones to handle the vehicles weight in the first place. Weight is a vehicles biggest enemy. Just imagine how fast these cars woul;d be if they lost 300kg

BMW 335i coupe faster than audi RS4


around virginia raceway the 335ci takes 3:10.5 while the RS4 does it in 3:11.2.

Yes but what you forget to mention is that the 335ci is also faster than the Z4M round that track. Make of it what you want.


How BMW rates themselves against the competition. Taken from the M3 brochure.

Image too big to put into thread so there is the link!

http://www.automotorsport.se/bigpix/2007/M3_broschyr_konkur_stor.jpg

 

[forza2.0]

sorry

 

[Dave A]

Because it means tyres wear out quicker, brakes wear out quicker, and both brakes and tyres will be very expensive to replace as the car requires such big ones to handle the vehicles weight in the first place. Weight is a vehicles biggest enemy. Just imagine how fast these cars woul;d be if they lost 300kg

Amazingly, extended track use isn't on top of the vast majority of drivers requirments.

You answer why a car being 1-2 seconds faster round my local track is more beneficial to me than added safety and/or luxury, especially in a car that is supposed to offer a decent level of both, when even with that luxury and safety the car still goes like stink and puts a grin on your face?

Brakes and tyres don't wear every 6 months you know, yes they can be expensive to replace at times, but there's a gap of time between changing them. It's not like having a car that's unreliable.

 

[forza2.0]

Amazingly, extended track use isn't on top of the vast majority of drivers requirments.

You answer why a car being 1-2 seconds faster round my local track is more beneficial to me than added safety and/or luxury, especially in a car that is supposed to offer a decent level of both, when even with that luxury and safety the car still goes like stink and puts a grin on your face?

Brakes and tyres don't wear every 6 months you know, yes they can be expensive to replace at times, but there's a gap of time between changing them. It's not like having a car that's unreliable.

I disagree. I know guys with ibiza cupras which have 4 pot AP racing brakes as standard that require new pads and discs regularly after some track use and they weigh around 1200-1300kg. As for tyre wear that all depends on the usage. But the heavier a vehicle is the quicker the tyres will wear out and its not like cars such as the M3 will have long life hard compound tyres.

Infact in some reviews they actually mention about how quickly the new m3 eats tyres and fuel.

All im saying is that in a perfect world the new M3 would remain exactly how it is now minus 300kg. And going by early reviews evidently this new M3 doesnt put as big a smile on testers face as the E46 did.

 

[Tornado]

I'll agree with you up until the magazine. Autocar is far from one of the most respected.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. You read a conclusion of an article. You complained that it mentioned some things but not others. You are basing not only the entire validity of the test on the conclusion of the article, but you are also trying to say that the entire magazine is discredited because of the lack of figures/comparisons/etc that the conclusion (not the entire article, which you have admitted to not reading) has?
Its an effing conclusion, for chrissakes. Its not supposed to have 0-60 times or lateral g's. Its supposed to sum up the article based on those things when they were mentioned in the article. You are supposed to read it after reading the rest of the article, and then base your opinion on the whole deal. Not base your opinion on the conclusion alone.
Furthermore, nonone else seems to have missed the fact that it was merely a conclusion; now has anyone so vehemently denied the possibility that Autocar was right. And for that matter, its not up to Scaff to post the entire article just so you can get a bunch of figures that probably had little to actually do with the Audi's win anyways.