^ But I have shown with a quick 30 second search on their own website that more often than not Audi don't win but when they do it's justified reasons for it to happen, same will go for any test where Audi lose. You seeing things that just aren't there my friend.
Buddy, you just show me 3 comparos, and pretty obvious ones. And I don't just mean Audi bias, I mean the whole VAG group. But please understand it's just not about AE. I'm a Merc fan and Car Magazine makes me sick with the bias towards Mercedes. I just can't tolerate all these partials magazines any longer. That's why I join GCF
I missed my best proof when I didn't made a caption of AE homepage. The "news reviews" in the front page was filled with VAG cars. I mean, every damm car on the list was a VAG product; it remained that way for a couple of weeks It was too obvious and they had changed ever since. Once again, if you follow AE closely you now what I mean....
Surprised to see the result. I haven't driven either, but will say that the front of the XFR puts the M5's snout to shame. Maybe that's why they picked it?
Jag's price and maybe looks are the only things better than the M5 Betty are you going to ask me about my opinion ?
I rest my case. And because of that you think the M5 should automatically win? Oh dear. :eusa_doh: Enjoying a car is a bit more than which goes the fastest. If that was the criteria then all a road tester would have to do is sit at his desk, look at the cars on paper, and decide which one was best because it was the fastest. What an immature point of view. I used to own a Porsche Boxster S and a BMW M3 at the same time. The M3 was quicker, and it would probably (in my hands at least), be quicker than the Porsche around a track too. Did that make it the better car? Did that make it the more satisfying drive? No, it certainly didn't. The noise of the Porsche, the steering feel, the overall experience was superior to that of the M3 in most situations. Your way of thinking I just cannot understand. But that's not why they picked the Jag. Good grief. I accept the tester's opinion because they've driven it and that's their job! I also realise that if I drove both cars I might think differently to them. It doesn't mean that the AE tester is biased because he doesn't agree with your already pre-determined opinion based on nothing but on paper facts, and that you just happen to like the BMW more! All these people crying AE is biased. Tell me. What is more biased? Somebody having an opinion on cars they've driven over hundreds of miles OR you, somebody who hasn't actually driven either car and has arrived at their decision based on nothing but stats and looking at photos? Good grief, I despair sometimes. :eusa_doh:
On VALUE FOR MONEY alone and only the Jag XF range will ALWAYS win deservedly so...And that is - as said on value alone. So the verdict from Auto Express is pointless in this comparison :eusa_doh: Value for money verdicts should be reserved for the entry level market, think KIA, Hyundai, Toyota, VW, PSA Citroen etc.
When the 3 series wins its comparison tests in AE which it will, then what will be everyones opinions be? I think Betty hit the nail on the head, someone who has tested both and given an opinion is far more valid than folk on a forum making a predetermined opinion who have driven neither. Who sounds the less biased of the two? P.S. The M5 isn't going to win every comparison test just but you prefer it more.
The F10 has been criticized for a too-serene feel and not enough sportsmanlike conduct, and the M5, although heavily worked to try and shake that, has as well too (I remember a Test giving the E63 the win due to a more connected and lively feel and experience). These Mag testers are gearheads first, they don't really care about the day to day stuff as much. IF the XFR is a more engaging drive and character, makes them feel more special and riveted when behind the wheel, is more pleasant and inspiring to look and and/or sit in, yet doesn't do the paper game as well, then it would make sense in their heads to give the XFR the win, perhaps.
Here is Autoexpress 700 mile review. He does like the M5. PS why all the fuss becuase M5 lost to a Jaguar. Another carmagazine had the same review and they put the M5 on first place. Sometimes you lose and sometimes you win.
Speaking of which, the M5 it is a tremendously fine piece of work. It may not be as eye-catching anymore as the Jaguar XFR (I just adore the Fl - XF's and their interiors) Yet IMHO The M5 interior is the best in this performance class bar-none. As to the performance itself the M5 delivers more that everyone expected from a turbocharged engine in terms of response and it's free-revving nature. The F10 M5 is faster, and its entry and exit characteristics in corners are simply beyond what was possible with the E60..... So, with extra help/choice given to the owner/driver i.e. M Dynamic Mode, throttle mapping, suspension feel via Electronic Damper Control (Comfort, Sport, and Sport Plus), and M Servotronic steering weight. Adding more choice and driver enjoyment (by choice) day to day. So much more than the E60's just firm/hard ride etc. The new M5 is all about the right balance. It still favors its racing edge but can now be a very sophisticated executive car, brilliant IMO. The XFR deserves it's rightful place in this company (i.e. M5, Panamera Turbo, E63 AMg etc.) I agree to the full because the XFR is the value alternative here NOT the better car.
Worth mention in their previous comparison between E63 AMG and CTS-V, AE also declared Jaguar as the winner. So people stop being sad to see the germans lose
Mat Watson repeats all that i have said in reply to Betty, yet he ends with value for money again in his verdict (comparing it to a 520d and 1M) surely by now the pattern emerges that the UK was hit hard, very hard by spending cuts and the banking crisis
Sunny this is a good thing, because hopefully he will stand by his words so we will see a lot lot less of this character.
