Comparison tests BMW 335i vs Audi S4!

[south]

I cant recall that far back but I do remember complaining about it when I had mine so it must have been sometime in 2008 I guess. Point remains that IMHO it felt weak low down which was probably due to how strong it was up high.

Could you provide a link to Lucid's post because I'm sure we all would love to read it once again.

I won't provide a link for your own sake. But here's the deduction graph lucid made:

Best regards,
south

 

[Deckhook]

Thanks though I did a search myself on the forum and found the thread and link but once again thanks all the same.

 

[Zafiro]

Oh come on mate, you know full well PTW has a huge bearing on whether two cars will be competitive with each other, if their PTW is within a few percent of each other then you look at gearing, etc.

I question whether the S3 will even weigh a little as the M135i never mind the fact it will probably be down upwards on 35hp. lol

There isnt a rule written about PTW, thats lame. S3 and M135i are true condenders just like S4 and 335i.

 

[Sunny]

What I meant was in the higher gears where the M3 stays longer in its powerband

Again, not an accurate statement. A M3 that is shifted at red line or close to it never drops out it's power band in any of the gears - lower or higher. The way M3 is geared and S65's very broad power band (for a high revving NA engine) - all the way from 3500 rpm to 7000 rpm, a M3 that is shifted at red line (or close to it) never drops out it's power band in any of the gears.

Here are rpm of the manual M3 engine after an upshift at the red line in the various gears (not my math, but seems accurate) -

2nd 4900
3rd 5600
4th 6300
5th 7000
6th 7300

Same for the DCT -

2nd 5200
3rd 6200
4th 6500
5th 6900
6th 7300
7th 7000

And here is S65's power band -

As you can see, a M3 that is driven properly never really drops out of it's power band, irrespective of the gear.

 

[Deckhook]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying here Sunny. The first three gears are all but over in a flash where as the higher gears the engine gets to use it's power and torque longer, especially the fact that it's torque lasts unusually long and higher than most engines not only FI ones.

 

[Guibo]

Isn't an S4 like 10k more expensive than a 335i?
And the 335i in this test is a 'plain Jane' 335i, without M pack, and without M performance parts.
Bottom line, a 335i with M pack and performance parts (will cost the same as a standard S4) will kill off an S4 with no problem.

Might not be a safe assumption. M pack won't likely do much for the steering issue. The 335i may benefit from a performance exhaust (another complaint), but may take a step back in ride quality with the M pack.

P.S.
When you sit on something wet is it a calculator or sliderule that tells you it's wet or is it your butt?

You may need some other device to determine the magnitude of that wetness. This appears to be the issue of debate. Not whether one is fast while the other one isn't.

The M3 feels weak low down, whether this is factual or not I can't confirm or deny but due to the way it behaves higher up the rev range it's the impression is gives off.

Just because the M3 is maniacal at the top end doesn't mean it feels weak low down. It could feel every bit as fast as the 335i/S5 at the bottom end, yet deranged at the top end. AutoExpress seemed to think it was a match for the S5: "But you expect mighty top-end punch from such a rev-hungry engine. What’s arguably more impressive is the coupé’s ability to surge forwards from little more than 2,000rpm. Even though the BMW engine trails the other V8 cars for torque, with its 400Nm output, neither the Vauxhall nor the Audi was as quick in-gear."
If the M3 is feels weak low down, then it stands to reason that the S5 feels weak too. Only it doesn't have the benefit of that deranged top end.
I would add that perhaps the M3 could be slower than the 335i at higher altitudes, where naturally aspirated engines can suffer.

 

[Deckhook]

^I keep saying this but still too many ignore this. I am not saying to slower, only that it doesn't feel as potent compared to else where in the rev range, Autoexpress/Autocar etc can easily say its as strong or stronger when they have to luxury to compare side by side and do the measurements.

Showing facts and figures do nothing to how a car feels. A good example of this is M-DCT setting S1 vs S5, the latter felt way quicker because of the kick it gave during shift yet a difference wasn't present.

 

[Sunny]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying here Sunny. .

Am I?

This is what you said first -

This is a car and engine design for speed rather than a short sprint where low end torque is more beneficial.

Which is just flatly wrong and I explained why. At which point you changed your position to this -

What I meant was in the higher gears where the M3 stays longer in its powerband

Which again is inaccurate, and I proved with numbers, at which point you changed your position to this -

The first three gears are all but over in a flash where as the higher gears the engine gets to use it's power and torque longer, especially the fact that it's torque lasts unusually long and higher than most engines not only FI ones.

Fine, but what does that even remotely have to do with your initial statement that M3 is not suited for 'short sprints' is beyond me. Maybe you should just learn to articulate yourself better in the first place. But then again it is typical of you, you keep changing your position every time someone proves what you stated is inaccurate (and this is usually where I get frustrated and cuss you out, but I am going to desist). But you should really either learn to articulate yourself better in the first place or not make grossly inaccurate statements. Feel free to pontificate as much as you want to how BMW sucks or is overpriced, that is your subjective opinion. But when you make a seemingly factual statement like "this is a car and engine design for speed rather than a short sprint where low end torque is more beneficial", people will point that it is wrong. Either back it up with valid arguments or show the decency to admit your mistake when someone else does, instead of keeping on changing positions and wasting other's and this forum's time. It is frustrating and uncalled for.

 

[Sunny]

^I keep saying this but still too many ignore this. I am not saying to slower, only that it doesn't feel as potent compared to else where in the rev range, Autoexpress/Autocar etc can easily say its as strong or stronger when they have to luxury to compare side by side and do the measurements.

Showing facts and figures do nothing to how a car feels. A good example of this is M-DCT setting S1 vs S5, the latter felt way quicker because of the kick it gave during shift yet a difference wasn't present.

You were clearly not giving your subjective opinion on how M3 felt in isolation when you made the statement -

This is a car and engine design for speed rather than a short sprint where low end torque is more beneficial.

To most people with some basic understanding of English and logic, that is, you making a factual proclamation. And when people point out it's fallacy, you hide under the 'oh, that is my subjective opinion' argument. If it really was that, you really need to learn to express yourself better.

 

[Deckhook]

^Maybe I do but it's still my opinion that the M3 is even better suited to a race that extends well into triple figures than below this point.

P.S.
BTW when I said short sprints I didn't mean short races which is probably what you thought, no what I meant was overtaking in-gear rather than extending the engine, relying on the low end torque to do the job.

 

[Guibo]

^I keep saying this but still too many ignore this. I am not saying to slower, only that it doesn't feel as potent compared to else where in the rev range, Autoexpress/Autocar etc can easily say its as strong or stronger when they have to luxury to compare side by side and do the measurements.

Uh, you might want to check that second sentence of the passage:
"But you expect mighty top-end punch from such a rev-hungry engine. What’s arguably more impressive is the coupé’s ability to surge forwards from little more than 2,000rpm."

Does that sound like it feels weak to you at the low end? And saying the M3 is weak at the low end because it has such a potent top end is sort of like saying a world class runner is "weak" in the 100m dash (despite the fact that matched/bettered Husain Bolt in tip-top 100% condition running right beside him), simply because he has a wider margin in a 200m run. That an M3 might be better suited for long runs doesn't mean it's "weak" in low runs.

 

[Deckhook]

^Thats their opinion and I respect that but you need to check out what fellow M3 owners say, people who own and drive them on a daily basis instead of testing for a few hours.


I'm not saying everyone agrees on this subject but quite a few felt the same way as I.

 

[Giannis]

Com' on guys, this is not about the M3. Let's stick to the 335i vs S4 issue.