# M3 vs RS4 on Fifth Gear NOW!



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

The Audi has already won 7 out of 7 drag races 8)

...plus the Alfa Brera 8)


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

wicked drift action, good effort in the quattro as well


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Missed the last 10 minutes. What happened on the track?


----------



## John (Oct 30, 2004)

p1tse said:


> wicked drift action, good effort in the quattro as well


A pointless exercise..

If the drag had been done in the dry, I would have expected the Beemer to be a bit closer - same with the laptimes.

A useful comparision would have been to swap drivers and run the tests again.

J


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

But isn't a damp track more realistic for this country? They should have done it in the dry as well - would have been a darn side more interesting than Tiff trying to drift the RS4.


----------



## forzaf1 (Nov 14, 2004)

RS4 kicked the M3 ass during one lap around Castle Combe.


----------



## Soulctrla (Jan 30, 2006)

gutted i so wanted to see that

Although the RS4 is just a monster so no shocks there


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

What did you expect? The M3 is almost 5 years old now.

Wait till the new M3 comes next and then you will see which car wins. :wink:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

The RS4 didn't kick butt! 

The 5 year old Â£7.5k cheaper M3 was more fun and only just behind.

I'm waiting for more reviews coz it should have been much further in front. Something didn't add up!


----------



## ceedubya (Mar 10, 2005)

at croft on saturday a ickle mk1 golf gti 8v was quicker ( and overtaking) a m3 when we got there at 11am :lol:

towards the end of the day the m3 was quicker but still had a mk1 about 6ft off his rear bumper for 90% of the lap :lol:


----------



## Niko (May 10, 2005)

scoTTy said:


> The RS4 didn't kick butt!
> 
> The 5 year old Â£7.5k cheaper M3 was more fun and only just behind.
> 
> I'm waiting for more reviews coz it should have been much further in front. Something didn't add up!





> What did you expect? The M3 is almost 5 years old now.
> 
> Wait till the new M3 comes next and then you will see which car wins.


both correct points, bit hard to call it a victory when the new m3 is just round the corner. has new audi rs4 bar been set at the older M3 and not what bmw might be releasing? if true then that is a bif problem.

niko


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

I was impressed with it.  Makes me want the car even more now.

Was it Plato that drove the M3. If it was he said he hadt to work bloody hard to keep the M3 in touching distance where as Tiff looked like he was on a Sunday afternnon stroll. Also the fact its easier to follow than to lead no matter what car he was in. The drift comparison i thought was pointless and just for the cameras. The only tests that matter are straight line speed and what track time is set. If it was done in the dry you would just get the same results. The M3 just didnt have the power to keep up with it coming out of the bends.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Was fun to watch, but i feel it proved that aged old point, of weight & traction.

Straight line drag the RS4 won, but it had better traction off the line & around 70BHP extra. The drifting was a gimme to the M3 & the full lap was were i was surprised as the RS4 defo did not kick the M3's arse, again it got better traction off the line, but remove that & it would have been a draw.

If i had Â£50K & it was a choice of the M3 & RS4, i'd probably sway towards the RS4 however the new M3 given how close that race was with the ild M3, is likely to be the better & quicker of the 2 cars & would still cost less than the RS4 so i'd probably lean towards the new M3.

Bear in mind as has already been said, the cars tested were over Â£15K apart on list price & over 70BHP power difference.

Why did they not put the CSL up against the RS4??? I think we know the reason why :wink:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Bear in mind as has already been said, the cars tested were over Â£15K apart on list price & over 70BHP power difference.
> 
> Why did they not put the CSL up against the RS4??? I think we know the reason why :wink:


I missed the first part so didn't realise the price difference was twice what I thought!

Since the S4 laps (depening on which review you read) quicker or slower by not a lot than an M3, then the RS4 should have had a bigger lead. I don't think it should have been as close as it was.

That pesky understeer will be the issue until they get it sorted. Fingers crossed the B8 version is better balanced.


----------



## damo (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Why did they not put the CSL up against the RS4??? I think we know the reason why :wink:


Maybe because you can't buy one new any longer.


----------



## Soulctrla (Jan 30, 2006)

I am not sure that i care how good the new M3 is......

I feel there are a cetain type of person who goes for the M3.... drug dealers etc.

I love the M3 - i think its a mega car but i wouldnt have one myself... i think it looks like a scrote dun gud ! car.

There are some "choice" folk I see around driving them - they will struggle to shake off that thug image im afraid..

THE RS4 ON THE OTHER HAND is just sheer class. its sooo understated


----------



## rx8_chap (Mar 14, 2006)

Not a proper comparison because (a) a wet track will favour the 4WD car and (b) The Audi was being driven by an ex racing driver.

Fun though. Tiff made the RS4 move sideways. Not diagonal, but truly sideways, ninety degrees.


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

rx8_chap said:


> Not a proper comparison because (a) a wet track will favour the 4WD car and (b) *The Audi was being driven by an ex racing driver.*
> .......


Erm - So what do you think Jason Plato is :?


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

rx8_chap said:


> Not a proper comparison because (a) a wet track will favour the 4WD car and (b) The Audi was being driven by an ex racing driver.


very 'ex' and not much 'racing', otherwise he'd have been more sucessful and probably still at it.



rx8_chap said:


> Fun though. Tiff made the RS4 move sideways. Not diagonal, but truly sideways, ninety degrees.


yep, but antics like that on the public road would land you in jail (if not in a bodybag) and probably disqualified for life.

John


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Soulctrla said:


> gutted i so wanted to see that
> 
> Although the RS4 is just a monster so no shocks there


it's repeated on a Saturday morning about lunchtime


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Both great cars, one at it's infancy, one outside the oap home. M3 did startlingly well given its relative vintage and cost and power/traction disadvantages. It would have done even better on flying laps and on a drier day.

Both great cars.

RS4 faster. M3 better handler. Period.

Well 'til next gen e91 M3 ups the ante...


----------



## Niko (May 10, 2005)

Soulctrla said:


> I am not sure that i care how good the new M3 is......
> 
> I feel there are a cetain type of person who goes for the M3.... drug dealers etc.
> 
> I love the M3 - i think its a mega car but i wouldnt have one myself... i think it looks like a scrote dun gud ! car.


Love your posts mate!! lol so true, all M3 drivers seem to have half thier face hidden and always ducking in and out of trafic!

niko


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

Soulctrla said:


> gutted i so wanted to see that
> 
> Although the RS4 is just a monster so no shocks there


Get it using bit torrent: 
http://www.mininova.org/get/298122

J


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

Niko said:


> Soulctrla said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure that i care how good the new M3 is......
> ...


As an M3 driver, I'd have to luk at wevver this is a case of pot callin kettel blak


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Both great cars, one at it's infancy, one outside the oap home. M3 did startlingly well given its relative vintage and cost and power/traction disadvantages. It would have done even better on flying laps and on a drier day.
> 
> Both great cars.
> 
> ...


 I agree with your assessment. Audi have put a lot of effort in to the RS4 of that there is no doubt, but i think that it's now become clear that, they have only just produced a car, Slightly better, than a 5yr old bench mark. In other words not good enough. In fact, on a different track, with the same driver testing both (Sutcliffe in Auto-car mag) the BMW set a faster time, with Sutcliffe commenting that he couldnt belive the data, even though it was he that had generated it. The RS4 is a great car, problem is, it's been brought out five years to late.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

stephengreen said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Both great cars, one at it's infancy, one outside the oap home. M3 did startlingly well given its relative vintage and cost and power/traction disadvantages. It would have done even better on flying laps and on a drier day.
> ...


There's an implication here, in that case, that the new RS4 is barely faster than an S4. Lets not forget the S4 was quicker than the M3 around the Top Gear test track, albeit (again) without the ability to go sideways...

If it can't lap quicker than an S4, it CERTAINLY can't lap quicker than my (or ScoTTy's) tweaked version (in the same hands) so definately isn't worth Â£25k of my money to change.

Uprate the suspension on the bus with some H&Rs, and I've probably got something that isn't far off the mark.

Still interested to compare with the BMW M3 (new one in the pipeline) as I've a feeling BMW might compromise the handling to fit a heavier engine into the front, in the question for my cylinders. We'll see...


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Well if your pushing out around 400BHP from the S4, then you aint that far off the new RS4 mark. I assume the S4 is slightly lighter than the new RS4 (could be wrong) so that would bring them totally into line.

That's my reckoning/understanding anyway


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

The Bimmer they tested wasa Cs though wasn't it?

I know it's not as outrageous as the CSL, but is it lightened in any way over and above compared to a norma M3?

Not trying to take anything away from it. It held its head up very well and I think the points about doing it in the dry and on flying/more than one lap would see a different result.

PS - they're testign the new S6 next week. Hopefully we'll get some aural sex out of that show.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> The Bimmer they tested wasa Cs though wasn't it?
> 
> I know it's not as outrageous as the CSL, but is it lightened in any way over and above compared to a norma M3?
> 
> ...


M3 CS does without csl carbon roof and lightweight wings and I think the lighter weight wheels/trick tyres too. In essence it is the stock MÂ£ but with furthr fettled suspension, quicker steering and a nominal power increase.

I think that BMW/Audi deliberately keep their model cycles apart - one rising, one falling. Thats a good thing for people like us since we can play both cycles. Both models have positive drivers car image for me, although I preferred my mki RS4 to my e46 M3, I can appreciate and am pleased that Audi have raised their game.

On the new M3 with a V8 - I read that the new V8 will be lighter than the classic motorsport six and the M3 e91 will be lighter than the M3 E46. With the new TT being lighter than the Mki, this may mark the signs of change for the germans. I'll take lighter with a little less power any day.

BMW have really made things hard for themselves with teh advent of the new 335i turbo six - the new M3 will really have it work cut out to significantly outpace the 335i on the road.

Audi should enjoy the RS4 success while they can - I should imagine they are already hard at work at 'something' with which to answer BMW e91.

But they need the new platform with the better weight distribution.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > The Bimmer they tested wasa Cs though wasn't it?
> ...


Just put W7PMC's wallet in the boot of the RS4, and you'll get immediate 60:40 rear weight bias. :wink:


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Also both of the drivers of the cars are/were proffesional racing drivers. The M3 may have kept with it when it came to the bends. But in the hands of us mere mortals. There would be no chance the M3 would keep up with it in the bends. The likely hood would be either the M3 driver would bottle it or end up going onto the grass. The RS4 for us commoners would give you far more confidence hacking into a bend. As Plato said he had to work hard to keep up with Tiff but it looked like Tiff was just going for a stroll. As im no racing car driver but do like to drive fast. I'd rather a car thats more forgiving and has a slight tendency to understeer. Rather than a car where i could get the back end out and possibly find myself parking on a tyre wall.

Also im guessing the RS4 had just the standard suspension rather then the sports suspenion plus.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Kell said:
> ...


Feck off, it's all notes & therefore weighs nothing :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Jesus thats alot of notes then


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

genocidalduck said:


> ... I'd rather a car thats more forgiving and has a slight tendency to understeer. Rather than a car where i could get the back end out and possibly find myself parking on a tyre wall.


Remember these cars are designed for road use, and you don't find many 'tyre walls' going down to the shops...

John


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

MacBuff said:


> genocidalduck said:
> 
> 
> > ... I'd rather a car thats more forgiving and has a slight tendency to understeer. Rather than a car where i could get the back end out and possibly find myself parking on a tyre wall.
> ...


Yes but you will find tyre walls if you want to track it. Plus on the road you really do want a car that has a tendency to understeer.


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

genocidalduck said:


> MacBuff said:
> 
> 
> > genocidalduck said:
> ...


If I'd spent RS4 levels of cash, the car
would never get onto a track..

John


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

MacBuff said:


> genocidalduck said:
> 
> 
> > MacBuff said:
> ...


Whats the point of having that sort of performance and never getting to use it?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Kell said:
> ...


PMSL :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

genocidalduck said:


> Also both of the drivers of the cars are/were proffesional racing drivers. The M3 may have kept with it when it came to the bends. But in the hands of us mere mortals. There would be no chance the M3 would keep up with it in the bends.
> Can see your point but not sure i understand it. What matters surely is that both drivers are of equal ability, and therefore doesn't matter whether they are professional or "mere mortals" as the gap would be the same.
> 
> The likely hood would be either the M3 driver would bottle it or end up going onto the grass. The RS4 for us commoners would give you far more confidence hacking into a bend.
> ...


As Ive already stated the RS is on balance a MATCH for the M3, which really isn't good enough. The Audi already has build quality and the fact it's not a BMW on it's side that its a shame that they didn't match that dynamically as well. Considering that the BMW CSL is an insight to whats possible with tweaking the basic concept ,a complete redesign with new lighter, shorter, more powerful engine, will I'm sure, be nothing less than sensational. Hopefully next time Audi will address weight distribution issues and engine position in the next RS and give Audi fans such as myself something to cheer.


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> M3 CS does without csl carbon roof and lightweight wings and I think the lighter weight wheels/trick tyres too. In essence it is the stock MÂ£ but with furthr fettled suspension, quicker steering and a nominal power increase.


There's no difference in power, weight or suspension between M3 and CS. IIRC the main differences were the steering rack and brakes from the CSL. Wheels are 'CSL-style' but heavier and in the case of the fronts, narrower.

Regards
Rob


----------

