Vs Auto Motor und Sport: Audi A8 3.2 vs BMW 730i vs MB S350

[Merc1]

I agree but even without quattro A8 is superior to the other two in driving capabilities (as the testers say).

Nah can't go with that one Yannis. There is no way a FWD A8 or A6 is a better drivers car than a rwd BMW or Mercedes. No way. Audis need quattro to compensate for having most of, if not all of their engine's mass hanging out over the front axle line.

M

 

[cawimmer430]

baised just like us

Ya!

 

[cawimmer430]

Meh, and what are some supposed to be BMW biased German magazines?

BTW, they now have AutoZeitung and AMS translated into Dutch (but for the rest identical) in the store here now. Great, although my German is pretty decent

BMW Magazin...

 

[Zafiro]

Ya!

However, I dont like that there are baised carmags. There are always people choosing their car depending on what the carmags says. Some people believe everything they read

 

[cawimmer430]

However, I dont like that there are baised carmags. There are always people choosing their car depending on what the carmags says. Some people believe everything they read

That's true. Car magazines should be objective in the end. For example, Car and Driver is quite pro-BMW and will usually pick the BMW over its Japanese rivals. I know that C&D isn't very pro-Mercedes, so even if the SLK for example was more than a match for the Z4, the Z4 would win not only because it's a good car, but also because of C&D's bias.

And you experience this on car forums all the time.

"Car and Driver said the Corvette ZO6 was better than the Hyundai Elantra 1.2, so I will pick a Corvette ZO6 anyday over some underpowered POS Elantra."

I really don't have a problem most of the time with how car magazines rank cars. Every car is good for something and has a pre-determined target market.

 

[Yperion]

Nah can't go with that one Yannis. There is no way a FWD A8 or A6 is a better drivers car than a rwd BMW or Mercedes. No way. Audis need quattro to compensate for having most of, if not all of their engine's mass hanging out over the front axle line.

FWD Audi A4 is more of a driver's car than C class and the same goes for A6 and E class. C class understeers more than A4 and the ESP works all the time when you try to do something with the RWD spoiling all the fun. Mercedes have the engine over the front axle also just like Audi. Only BMW puts the engine far to the rear in the engine bay.

For example E350:

 

[Merc1]

FWD Audi A4 is more of a driver's car than C class and the same goes for A6 and E class. C class understeers more than A4 and the ESP works all the time when you try to do something with the RWD spoiling all the fun. Mercedes have the engine over the front axle also just like Audi. Only BMW puts the engine far to the rear in the engine bay.

For example E350:

Are you serious Yannis? I hope you aren't. Mercedes have nearly 50/50 weight distrubution just like a BMWs. Mercedes' DO NOT have their engines hanging over the front axle line like an Audis do. A picture of the engine cover does not show you were the engine is mounted or where most of its mass is. I can't believe you think that about a Mercedes. A Mercedes is RWD in its basic form, not front wheel drive like an Audi.

In my previous post I said the A6 and A8, not the A4. I might believe that the A4 is more playful than a C-Class, but when it comes to the mid level cars a fwd A8 and A6 aren't going to handle like a RWD Mercedes or BMW no matter what their stability controls do. Doesn't matter how restrictive their stability systems are, the RWD cars are more balanced by design than a fwd 60/40 weight distrubuted Audi is. Any Mercedes sedan is in the 55/45 to 51/49 percent range, not the 60/40 like the fwd-biased Audis are.

The problem with a car like the A8 or A6 is that the ENTIRE engine is ahead of the front axle line. No rwd Mercedes are built this way.

Actually scratch the above. I've driven a fwd A4 before with the sport package and the CVT (the only way we can get a fwd A4 in the U.S.) and a C230 Sport. The A4 is no more of a drivers car than the C is in the case either.

M

 

[Yperion]

Last time i checked C class had 54/46 front/rear distribution

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merc....html;_ylt=AiTyDnjCh_Z_kJL8vkG2t53tm8kF?p=all

and not 50/50 same for E class.
Even most BMWs don't have 50/50. For example 650 has 52/48.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/bmw_....html;_ylt=AiTyDnjCh_Z_kJL8vkG2t50xdMsF?p=all

How a car drives has not only to do with weight distribution or else Lexus IS would be the driver's car in it's segment with 49/51 which is simply not the case. Mercedes always are comfort oriented with softer suspension setups and little feedback from steering and brakes and that doens't help.

 

[Merc1]

Last time i checked C class had 54/46 front/rear distribution

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merc....html;_ylt=AiTyDnjCh_Z_kJL8vkG2t53tm8kF?p=all

and not 50/50 same for E class.
Even most BMWs don't have 50/50. For example 650 has 52/48.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/bmw_....html;_ylt=AiTyDnjCh_Z_kJL8vkG2t50xdMsF?p=all

Did you read what I said about that in previous post. I said that every rwd Mercedes was in the 55/45 to 51/49 range not in the 60/40 range like Audis are. I didn't say that they had exactly 50/50, only that they are much closer to that than any Audi. That was my point, and that Mercedes do not have their engine's mass hanging over the front axle.

Your basic Audi no sportier than a Mercedes, at least in the U.S. market and when you push them a Mercedes is better balanced because of the weight distrubution and because of rwd. No way I'll ever buy that or have I experienced a FWD Audi that is sportier than a Mercedes. Audis need Quattro just as much as a Mercedes needs a sport package to be sportier, and in their basic forms Audis are just fwd cars. Hardly sporting.

You're actually twisting what I said about weight Yannis. I didn't state that 50/50 or close to 50/50 means automatic handling. I said that that plus rwd makes a better handling car - in most cases. Lexus doesn't have a clue about German dynamics, but we're talking about Mercedes and Audi.

M

 

[Yperion]

No Audi has 60/40. The worse i have seen is 58/42 in an A8 (can't remember with which engine) but the A8 has the advantage of being lightweight when compared to it's rivals so that doesn't mean anything since the front axle has less weight to carry that an equivalent S class for example. Some versions of A6 have 55/45 distribution and when Torsen C based quattro spreads across the range (now it's used in RS4, Q7, S8) the engine will be moved to the back. Starting from next generation of A4 and A5 we will see more balanced Audis with less extra weight due to quattro thanks to Torsen C.

 

[Merc1]

No Audi has 60/40. The worse i have seen is 58/42 in an A8 (can't remember with which engine) but the A8 has the advantage of being lightweight when compared to it's rivals so that doesn't mean anything since the front axle has less weight to carry that an equivalent S class for example. Some versions of A6 have 55/45 distribution and when Torsen C based quattro spreads across the range (now it's used in RS4, Q7, S8) the engine will be moved to the back. Starting from next generation of A4 and A5 we will see more balanced Audis with less extra weight due to quattro thanks to Torsen C.

A weight spread of 58/42 is the same a fwd car like the previous generation Cadillac STS and it is much closer to 60/40 than any Mercedes. Not buying anything about a fwd A8 outhandling a rwd S-Class. Never. I'll need to see proof of that, especially compared to the new S-Class.

The stuff about the Quattro Audis was never in debate only that claim about the fwd Audis.

M

 

[Yperion]

What you say that a RWD car is always handling better than FWD one simply has no scientific basis.

Check Top Gear lap times with various cars for example:

http://www.topgear.co.uk/special-features/Powerlaps/

Ford Focus RS - 1.32.2
Mercedes SL 55 AMG - 1.33.2

Ford Focus RS which is FWD and only has 215 hp is one second faster than SL55 AMG which is RWD and has twice as much power. Your theory just collapsed sorry.

 

[LaArtist]

LOL.. you are to funny.. are you comparing a 2000KG SL luxury roadster.. with a 1200kg ford that is smaller than the bonnet of the SL??

Please im gonna tell you when your theory is valid.. when all motorsports.. and REAL sports car makers make FWD cars instead of RWD..and make em go faster.. that will be the day .. until that.. im sorry..

 

[Zafiro]

RWD vs FWD isnt all about handling. With RWD you put the power to tires easier and it gives you more grip. A powerful car with FWD isnt as good as a powerful car with RWD. Also you feel a lot in the steering wheel if you drive a powerful FWD car. A FWD Formula1 would never work

 

[Yperion]

Please im gonna tell you when your theory is valid.. when all motorsports.. and REAL sports car makers make FWD cars instead of RWD..and make em go faster.. that will be the day .. until that.. im sorry..

I didn't said that FWD is better than RWD. For some aplication it is , for some it's not. Have you ever wondered why 90% of all cars are FWD? I guess not. And don't mention cost cause it's certainly not that.

AWD, RWD, FWD all have advantages and disadvantages to say that one is better than the other in every aspect it's a shallow approach to the matter.

 

[LaArtist]

Im gonna tell you why many cars are FWD ( not 90% but many)..
Thats cause you get better fuel economy.. better grip during slippery conditions..
And the fact that most cars sold are small.. and small cars work very well with FWD..
Most cars sold are bought by ppl that hold economy as their first priority.. and to bring them what they want.. you need FWD...

 

[Merc1]

What you say that a RWD car is always handling better than FWD one simply has no scientific basis.

Check Top Gear lap times with various cars for example:

http://www.topgear.co.uk/special-features/Powerlaps/

Ford Focus RS - 1.32.2
Mercedes SL 55 AMG - 1.33.2

Ford Focus RS which is FWD and only has 215 hp is one second faster than SL55 AMG which is RWD and has twice as much power. Your theory just collapsed sorry.

You initially stated that FWD Audis were better drivers cars than Mercedes and BMWs. I stated that they aren't because of how their weight is spread out and because of which wheels are doing the driving. You then stated that Mercedes' had their weight spread out the same way and that their engines were also in front of the front axle center line - both of which I proved to be false statements. Now let me get this straight you're comparing a Focus to a SL55 AMG to make the point that a fwd car can outhandle a rwd when a) they aren't even remotely competitors and b) I never at any time said in plain terms that rwd equals a better handling car compared to fwd in all cases. Now you say that my theory collapsed because a Focus can get around a track better than heavy GT car like the SL55? Are you serious? To even make such a comparison shows clearly who's theory has "collapsed" and who is ridicoulsly and desperately reaching for anything now to back up a point that was false in the first place. We were talking about competitive cars between two German luxury brands, and you bring up a Ford Focus hot-hatch. What next a Honda Civic Si vs the CL500? Totally stupid and irrelevent comparo Yannis that only goes to prove you have no basis for your initial claim in the first place. Now if you have proof of your original claim concerning FWD Audis and rwd Mercedes' I' love to see it otherwise you're just reaching now.

You're good at twisting around what someone initially says I see in order to make if fit your agenda because at no point did I say that rwd automatcially = better handling and I certainly didn't state anything as foolish in the form of comparing two incomparable cars like a Focus and SL55.

M

 

[Yperion]

You initially stated that FWD Audis were better drivers cars than Mercedes and BMWs.

BMW and Mercedes are not in the same league when it comes to driving.
I never said that a FWD Audi is a better driver's car than any BMW. I said that FWD A4 and A6 are better driver's cars than Mercedes C class and E class cause they have better feedback from steering and brakes and understeer less plus the ESP doesn't work unless it's needed. What i 'm saying is no different than what most car journalists say in the tests.

 

[martinbo]

BMW and Mercedes are not in the same league when it comes to driving.

You'd be surprised, the gap these days is much closer than most motoring hacks are prepared to articulate. In October's SA Car Magazine they pit the 320d against the C220 CDI with interesting results. Surprisingly, steering feel on the Bimmer is numb just off centre and only weights up with a bit more lock. Whilst the Mercedes was felt to be a little light at the helm, the accuracy of the steering couldn't be faulted and the Merc was deemed to be the easier car to drive precisely with. So, despite the BMW winning out in the handling evaluation the result was terribly close.

Yes, Merc's nannying electronics do spoil the fun but then that's entirely in keeping with Merc's values. When it comes to public responsibility, a safe handling car is a great handling car and with the prevalence of ESP and other stability aids, no manufacturer has a distinct advantage over another.

...so, it's all down to the ethereal concept of driver involvement.

I never said that a FWD Audi is a better driver's car than any BMW. I said that FWD A4 and A6 are better driver's cars than Mercedes C class and E class cause they have better feedback from steering and brakes and understeer less plus the ESP doesn't work unless it's needed...

I've yet to drive a FWD car that has better steering feel than an equivalent RWD car. Fact is, driveshafts have an influence on steering forces even in brilliant AWD cars like STI's. Fortunately, in proper AWD cars, the drive forces directed to the wheels are halved, lessening the influence of torque markedly. Even a fabulous STI though, can't compete with the ultimate feedback of an M or AMG car. So how on earth will a FWD car ever come close to a run of the mill RWD? Unlikely, in my opinion.

Yes, FWD has its place and there are tons of great FWD cars out there - but all of them follow a consistent trait: they're small, compact, lightweight and have a max of around 200 bhp. Cars like the Clio 182 Trophy, Cooper S Works, Golf GTI, Honda Civic and Integra Type R's.

The French in particular have an illustrious track record when it comes to producing fantastic FWD hot hatches. But that's where it ends...

Notice how French manufacturer's forays into medium and large sized sedans invariably end up in products with lacklustre dynamics? Cars like the 407, 607 and Vel Satis spring to mind. Big cars just aren't suited to FWD - there's simply too much mass aft of the front wheels. Any hint of acceleration in such large cars sees them squatting heavily on their haunches and in a rear wheel drive car this simply improves the grip at the rear axle. In a FWD car the exact opposite takes place and you get 330 Nm spinning through the front wheels in a quick getaway. Very, very uncool for a car of that stature.

So in my basic appreciation of things automotive, FWD in an A8 is just not proper. In fact, it's a fundamental flaw.

 

[klier]

I didn't said that FWD is better than RWD. For some aplication it is , for some it's not. Have you ever wondered why 90% of all cars are FWD? I guess not. And don't mention cost cause it's certainly not that.

AWD, RWD, FWD all have advantages and disadvantages to say that one is better than the other in every aspect it's a shallow approach to the matter.

Yannis, give it a rest will you. 90% of all cars have FWD because it is cheaper, easier and takes less space in the car.
RWD is better in every way driving wise. It sucks Audi still makes FWD cars besides the A3. Really terrible imho