Vs Sport Auto Comparison Test: M3 vs. Audi RS5 review

[ree]

Haha, considering Footie probably canceled his internet subscription and disappeared, I doubt there will be much to discus. Just kidding, I am sure there will be other tests that will probably show the RS5 in better light.

But, as for roll on acceleration figures, it is horrendous, forget M3, even mundane 335s will humiliate it. If you are in a RS5 on a freeway, better be ready to drop all the way down to 3rd at the first sign of anything this side of a golf GTI. And all this to get better gar mileage which it anyway fails to get (at least in real world).

Data by Sportauto for the 335i with PDK and with 6speed manual:







Interesting to see that the 335i has at lower speeds better acceleration data then M3…maybe there were better weather conditions etc…

 

[braaf]

I think Audi try too hard to 1 up BMW, adding all the handling trickery has cost Audi in this battle. Like JC once said, it's a brilliant copy but still just a copy. Long live the king.

 

[Iamnotme]

Kudos for BMW for the Competition Pack, wich allows the M3 with standard tires to achieve better times around Hockenheim than a normal M3 with race tires (1:14,2 vs 1:14,3).

As for the RS5, it may not be very impressive when compared with the BMW M3 with the CP, but despite weighting almost 200 kg more, it was still able to achieve similar times to a normal M3 with standard tires (RS5 =1:15,3 ; M3=1:15,2), wich is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm sure both cars will be quite more impressive when tested with race tires.

 

[braaf]

Damn, could these cars be any closer in this photo. Probably photoshopped.

 

[Mr Robert]

Damn, could these cars be any closer in this photo. Probably photoshopped.

I was thinking the same regarding the gap between the cars. I guess they are driving really slow with a long shutter time.

The hard facts are on the table, do we have a translation of the magazine's findings?

 

[footie]

I will be very quiet for the next three weeks or so as family dutes at this time of the year take priority, so after today knock yourself out discussing these results but do so without my input.

OK, firstly congrats to BMW the work they did on the CP did indeed improve the car considerably and if you had been following what I had been saying about the Competition Package over the last few months would now have realised that the information I get is generally very accurate.

Now to the test itself, I know there will be some head scratching going on at quattroGmbH, not so much that the M3 did so well on the track (As I said above this was to be expected) but that the RS5 performed so badly. The acceleration times are well off what is expected, 4.7s is a full 0.5s off unofficial times, likewise it's 0-200km/h time is dreadfully slow, it's the track performance that is the real killer, the car is and has been much much better than this.

4th and 5th gear times should have been reversed between these two but wasn't, why I honestly don't have a clue and I am sure quattroGmbH will be asking the same questions.

For those of you interest in the RS5, may I suggest a wait to see it this result is repeated else where, according to everything I have been told prior to these results should have shown a different outcome.

P.S.
The reason I am questioning this result is the fact that the TT-RS has already done the same Hockenheim short course in 1:14.3 (PS2) and has also done the 0-100 and 0-200 in 4.5s and 15.9s. So if I were someone not needed the space of either the RS5 or M3 it would be this car that I would be placing my money, but I have been told that Audi developed the RS5 to warrant the extra cost over the TT-RS and this includes being quicker at everything.

 

[Levi68]

"M3 still KING",
even a BMW-hater has to agree with that. Yet it does not mean that M3 is better than RS5. M3, RS5 (RS4), C63 AMG and IS-F (even if they have for doors), are "practical daily drivable performance cars". So in some way performance is a creteria, and by this creteria M3 wins. If the M3 deserves so much praise, it is not because it is so good by itself, it is thanks to its rivals that gave everything to beat it, but failed. Neither RS5 (RS4), C 63 AMG nor IS-F should ashamed to have failed.

But to say the truth, neither of them failed, because every of these cars is diferent, what is a good thing, as customers also are diferent. Why the M3 has won, everybody knows and we do not need to repete it. And please, no need to go off-topic by saying "but RS5 look better", "RS5 can drive on snow" or "R8 handles like no other BMW can". Here it is spoken about performance, and here the M3 wins. Whether the M3 is better than RS5 is another question, which IMO is 100% subjective as both cars, M3 and RS5, or even C 63 AMG are very good cars, I would say they are equal, with a very light superiority of M3, not because it is better, but because of all the history there is behind it, like it would be with 911 Turbo vs. R8 V10, but this is only psychological superiority. The same could be said in the US about the RS5 about its exclusivity, as they are rare.

We can really thank Audi and Mercedes for making BMW build better and better cars.
IMO, it would have been better for Audi to put the 4.0 TFSI, to have more torque, and so really beat the M3. I admire Audi's courage in trying the beat the M3 on its own battlefield, but I hope it will not go further in such a way, and that Audi will build their own and not some BMW with Audi badge.

 

[Tarek]

Audi should have given the RS5 a TT V8 instead of a high revving one,a heavy car needs lots fo torque to move as quick,look at how MB deals with torque..always more torque than any other.

The C63 is faster than both for a reason.

 

[Tumbo]

I have to say that Im really disapointed that the RS5 didnt beat the ass out of the M3, as the RS4 B7 did with it. They have to get rid of that weight!

As far the looks, and the "I want" factor, the RS5 wins by a mile!

 

[south]

As far the looks, and the "I want" factor, the RS5 wins by a mile!

Why am I not surprised?


Best regards,
south

 

[Poverty]

Audi should have given the RS5 a TT V8 instead of a high revving one,a heavy car needs lots fo torque to move as quick,look at how MB deals with torque..always more torque than any other.

The C63 is faster than both for a reason.

RS5 with the C63 engine would be a winner!

 

[footie]

There were quite a few who questioned the engine choice (myself included) but the decision rightly or wrongly was made to release the car now rather than later.

This new 4.2FSI in the RS5 is exceptional in it's own right but the weight will always be the limiting factor and the annoying thing is that there's a truly brilliant 4.0TFSI waiting in the wings that according to what I have heard would have all the power and torque one could ever ask for.

On a brighter note, this is one test and far too early to make a decision on whether Sportauto's results are typical or not.

 

[Tarek]

RS5 with the C63 engine would be a winner!

Yeah..too bad the RS5 is an Audi lol.

 

[DeDe]

The C63 is faster than both for a reason.

You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!

 

[Poverty]

You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!

me too actually

 

[Tarek]

You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!

You know what?..definitely me too.

 

[Zafiro]

You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!

me too actually

You know what?..definitely me too.

I won't
I've driven both C63 and M3, only RS5 left

 

[Tarek]

I won't

Of course u won't,to each his own.

 

[donkeykong]

Prefer RS5's looks for all you want, but the difference in performance is far from negligible. Half a sec at 200kmph is huge - almost 100 feet. So is a sec around a short track like that - for comparison, it is more than the difference between Hamilton's Mclaren in pole and Adrian Sutil's Force India in the ninth or tenth at Montreal GP qualifying. And all this for a not so insignificant amount of more money.

you make seem as if your track warrior your more than likely will never hit those speeds anyways ill will admit that according to this magazines test results the bmw is faster at higher speeds congrats bmw..

 

[donkeykong]

Haha, considering Footie probably canceled his internet subscription and disappeared, I doubt there will be much to discus. Just kidding, I am sure there will be other tests that will probably show the RS5 in better light.

But, as for roll on acceleration figures, it is horrendous, forget M3, even mundane 335s will humiliate it. If you are in a RS5 on a freeway, better be ready to drop all the way down to 3rd at the first sign of anything this side of a golf GTI. And all this to get better gar mileage which it anyway fails to get (at least in real world).