# Car and Driver test - M3 v RS4 v C63 [Also Autocar test too]



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Car and Driver comparison test of M3, C63 AMG and RS4 â€" OK the M3 wins, but look at that straight-line performance from the Benz.

[smiley=sweetheart.gif] [smiley=iloveyou.gif]

*0-60*
M3 4.3
RS4 4.5
C63 3.9

*0-100*
M3 9.8
RS4 11.3
C63 9.2

*0-150*
M3 24.3
RS4 29.2
C63 22.8


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Sorry to burst your bubble (i'm not really), but using Car & Driver as a benchmark is like saying Big Macs are a healthfood :lol:

It's an American Rag & afraid to say for some yet unknown reason, the US RS4 is nearly 200KG heavier than the European variant :? Perhaps the Yanks can only do Phat motors :lol:

The European Journals all have the balance either bang on equal or tipped in the RS4's favour. As for out & out performance, their is nothing whatsoever in it, however the extra Burgers in the US RS4 will slow that fat puppy down. Over on RS246, one of the Test Drivers for Car & Evo (he was actually involved in the recent head to head M3 vs RS4 in Spain), has some detailed feedback on both cars & it's well worth a read. For the record he's just bought an RS4 8).

Also some recent sprint tests with a data logger & a standard RS4, has managed 4.2 secs at best, with an average over 10 attempts of either 4.3 or 4.4secs.

Agree the C63 is going to be a great weapon.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

200KG? 

Where does all that weight go on? What specs would load up that much?

I guess if it is dry weight UK compared to US car plus passenger and driver and tank of fuel, then +200kg is easily found - from the burger-laden passenger alone.

That C63 is one quick heavy and thirsty machine.

I'd be happy with any of them. although I have only driven one.

I do think it odd that the RS4 is still seen as better than the later S5, which will spawn next RS4.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

A key reason I chose the excellent M3 over the equally excellent RS4 was the way it handled. Although I have no doubt that on a wet, British country road the RS4 would prove difficult to keep up with for an M3 the very fact that an M3 would prove challenging and would try to catch me out was the attraction. For me the competition for the M3 is me, not the other cars on the road but my ability and what I get out of it. I also didnt want 4 doors and, to be fair to the RS4, just wanted a change from looking at 4 rings on the steering wheel.

I wouldnt touch a C63 though, even if I put the '4 doors' aside. The fact that it is an automatic is a complete none starter for me and with that huge engine it is reportedly too heavy up front and prone to understeer. It looks rank too, trying too hard IMO.

Also, in the end straight line speed is irrelivent and you can only use so much of it on the road anyway, especially in the UK. How the car goes around corners is the real issue. The lairy handling that the m3 delivers is just the ticket for me this time round. Next time I may well move onto something a whole lot more civilised (I really did like the XKR but I'm not old enough yet ;-) )


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> 200KG?
> 
> Where does all that weight go on? What specs would load up that much?
> 
> ...


I was a tad OTT, it's actually 186KG & only 50KG could be attributable to the difference between Kerb & Dry weights. The Yanks are busy working out why their cars are like for like over 100kg heavier & as of yet no answer has been found. :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Leg said:


> A key reason I chose the excellent M3 over the equally excellent RS4 was the way it handled. Although I have no doubt that on a wet, British country road the RS4 would prove difficult to keep up with for an M3 the very fact that an M3 would prove challenging and would try to catch me out was the attraction. For me the competition for the M3 is me, not the other cars on the road but my ability and what I get out of it. I also didnt want 4 doors and, to be fair to the RS4, just wanted a change from looking at 4 rings on the steering wheel.
> 
> I wouldnt touch a C63 though, even if I put the '4 doors' aside. The fact that it is an automatic is a complete none starter for me and with that huge engine it is reportedly too heavy up front and prone to understeer. It looks rank too, trying too hard IMO.
> 
> Also, in the end straight line speed is irrelivent and you can only use so much of it on the road anyway, especially in the UK. How the car goes around corners is the real issue. The lairy handling that the m3 delivers is just the ticket for me this time round. Next time I may well move onto something a whole lot more civilised (I really did like the XKR but I'm not old enough yet ;-) )


All the right reasons to go for the M3  .

As the UK & European press have said till it's done a death, the gap between the new M3 & the RS4 is too close to call, so image, body design & personal taste are all that really separate these cars.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> ...As the UK & European press have said till it's done a death, the gap between the new M3 & the RS4 is too close to call, so image, body design & personal taste are all that really separate these cars.


Possibly the best comment re the M3 and RS4 debate I've read. Both cars have their merits and as Paul has said, I think it's down to personal taste for what you want out of the car in the end.

How you want to drive the car and what you expect out of the car is of prime importance along with the style and 'goodies' will make you decide between the two and sign on the dotted line.

If there is a 0.2 sec difference in straight line performance between one car and another then so what? Road conditions and driver awareness can negate that especially on our UK roads.

Personally, I would still choose the RS4 over the BMW but I would, wouldn't I, :wink: but at least there is the choice which can only be a good thing.

Oh, and my avitar is for just tongue in cheek banter :wink:

Graham


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Hmmmm it's a tricky one 'cos obviously we're all going to root for our favourite car - some of you own it (RS4s), one is getting it (M3), and I just dream about it (C63), but 0-150mph at 22.8 compared to 29.2 is a huge difference. Even if the RS4 is an American fat pig version, what if the C63 is too, the times would all still be relative? As Gary said - I'd be happy with any of them.

All cars are equal. Some, though, are more equal than others.

8)


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> Hmmmm it's a tricky one 'cos obviously we're all going to root for our favourite car - some of you own it (RS4s), one is getting it (M3), and I just dream about it (C63), but 0-150mph at 22.8 compared to 29.2 is a huge difference. Even if the RS4 is an American fat pig version, what if the C63 is too, the times would all still be relative? As Gary said - I'd be happy with any of them.
> 
> All cars are equal. Some, though, are more equal than others.
> 
> 8)


Straight line performance is all it is about and it has an auto box. Put me right off. Bugger all use for Yorkshire. Only straight road we have is the M62 and plod is all over that!

I dont think the Romans could be @rsed building roads up here beyond getting to York and back. :lol:

As for 4 doors, last thing I want to do is encourage the kids to get in it. Have you seen the state of wifeys Merc? Why the f*ck I ordered it with a light grey interior Ill never know. Moment if idiocy. :roll:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Wondermikie said:


> Hmmmm it's a tricky one 'cos obviously we're all going to root for our favourite car - some of you own it (RS4s), one is getting it (M3), and I just dream about it (C63), but 0-150mph at 22.8 compared to 29.2 is a huge difference. Even if the RS4 is an American fat pig version, what if the C63 is too, the times would all still be relative? As Gary said - I'd be happy with any of them.
> 
> All cars are equal. Some, though, are more equal than others.
> 
> 8)


Totally agree, however according to Car & Driver, the C63 weight is in line with EuroLand, so I & the rest of the world have no idea why Audi decided to lard the US RS4's.

That said, i'd fully expect the C63 to be quicker in a straight line than the RS4, as for a start it's got an extra 60BHP & the engine is over 2.0 bigger, however the Car & Driver stats are out by 0.2sec 0-60 (no biggy really), but close to 2secs for 0-100, so using the same differences, i'd guess the 0-150 is around 4-5sec slower for a Euro example, but it's still a big margin.

One of the regulars on RS246 has posted some detailed data logs for all the above sprints & IIRC he got about 24 secs for 0-150, however he also managed a 4.2 0-60 which was a great effort


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

This video shows the difference. RS4 traction gives better starts and M3 has more oomph at the top end. C63 wasnt there as it ran out of petrol a mile down the road. ;-)

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showth ... p?t=106462


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Leg said:


> ...C63 wasnt there as it ran out of petrol a mile down the road. ;-)


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Graham


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Leg said:


> This video shows the difference. RS4 traction gives better starts and M3 has more oomph at the top end. C63 wasnt there as it ran out of petrol a mile down the road. ;-)
> 
> http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showth ... p?t=106462


Great vid. Balanced and impartial.

No doubt which one has better rolling and top end power despite cc disadvantage.

No doubt which one has better traction from standing.

M Power have done a great job with the 4.0 V8. We already know that the RS4 lump is a gem, but the way the M3 claw back at top end is impressive, as is RS4s intial orque advantage.

Leg. Gotta be white. It looks fab. White with dark blue interior. I am sold. You must be really looking forward to it.

So once BMW evo the M3 (as they did with 3.0 e36 m3) engine to 4.2L and 440hp....


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

garyc said:


> Leg. Gotta be white. It looks fab. White with dark blue interior. I am sold. You must be really looking forward to it.


Every time the TT puts a grin on my face, which it still does every day, I just think 'F*ck me that M3 is gonna be awesome' although in the back of my mind I also think 'I wonder if Ill smack it into something?' :lol:


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> ...C63 wasnt there as it ran out of petrol a mile down the road. ;-)


God damn it :lol:


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

C63 was fully road tested in Autocar this week [smiley=sweetheart.gif]

0-60 4.4s
0-100 9.7s
0-150 22.9s

30-70 3.4s

1/4 mile 12.9s @ 116mph



Autocar said:


> That the C63 is AMG's finest moment so far is not in any doubt. It has a completeness to its dynamic repertoire that has eluded all other AMG products. Apart from being shatteringly quick and beautifully made, it's also just a thumping good car to drive.
> 
> The not-so-good elements are the ride and the range (and they're both quite serious issues), but the big question is: is the C63 good enough to beat the M3 overall? We believe it is. While the BMW got the nod (by the slimmest of margins) when we first tested the two back in Germany (10 October), on British roads it's the C63 that has more strengths. The simple truth is that it is faster, steers better, feels more special and has a bigger, better appointed interior for just Â£692 more than the BMW.
> 
> We are smitten with this car, and no mistake.


http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/Roa ... MG/229555/


----------

