Vs Test: M3 vs. Audi RS5 review
- Thread starter Zafiro
- Start date
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.
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.
Mr Robert
Kraftwagen König
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
south
Vorsprung Visionary
Poverty
Oversteer Expert
RS5 with the C63 engine would be a winner!
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.
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
Cornering Kingpin
DeDe
Subscriber
Poverty
Oversteer Expert
You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!
me too actually
Tarek
Cornering Kingpin
Zafiro
Supreme Roadmaster
You know what? I would take it over the M3 or RS5!
You know what?..definitely me too.
I won't
I've driven both C63 and M3, only RS5 left
Tarek
Cornering Kingpin
donkeykong
Track Technician
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
Track Technician
Similar threads
A5/S5/RS5
Audi RS5 Test
