Top Gear: BMW E92 M3 ZCP vs Audi RS5

[south]

I agree regarding pretty much everything but the lap times on the TG track. They have the Stig for a reason, and that's to document the fastest possible time on that day under that circumstances. There's really no reason to make anything up about them.


Best regards,
south

 

[MoSs]

This is really going nowhere, all of u are fighting like children, common guys lighten up and act mature, such discussions are not healthy for this place, this forums is for Germans car fans not just BMW or audi, or mercedes...

Honestly when the rs5 was reveiled I thought that it will beat the m3 but it's sad to say that it didn't, in most tests the m3 is winning, not by far, but it is, doesn't mean that the rs5 is a bad car, and I'd still take it over the m3, but it's just not what we expected it to be...

 

[footie]

I agree regarding pretty much everything but the lap times on the TG track. They have the Stig for a reason, and that's to document the fastest possible time on that day under that circumstances. There's really no reason to make anything up about them.


Best regards,
south

I use to feel the same way but after checking Sportauto wet lap board or even Autocar's equivalent you have to come to the conclusion that there was no way the RS5 could possibly lose so much time to an M3 in such conditions as the RS4 was in it's element in the wet and the basic formula hasn't changed with the new one.

@ coolraoul, I do realise the entertainment factor of Topgear, it's part of the reason I enjoy it so much, though this season so far has been the worst with generally stupid elements taking up too much time IMO.

 

[mini_cooper4]

What a stupid debate.
Put the RS5 in M3's price range and then say they are both good.
RS5 is one of the worst cars to buy because it's price. It's not comfy enough, not sporty enough and even not fast enough for what it has to be after paying for a spacecraft...
One of the worst Audis ever in my opinion. On the other hand there is the R8 which makes no sense how this both can exist under one brand ??
A4 and A5 doesn't feel good at all on the road it's a simple fact and a lot of people trade their cars very soon after their purchase because of that.
I'm a car dealer, I know what I'm talking about.

The best choice here would be the S4/S5! If you are in need for an Audi

 

[Mr Robert]

It's pricy, but to say its the worst Audi ever, that seems a bit harsh.

 

[martinbo]

... Or maybe it's just Topgear cutting to the chase and telling it like it needs to be told in a 15 min insert: the RS5 is a disappointment after the RS4, the M3 CP is superior and yet worse value for money than the good old standard M3. What are we expecting an entertainment program like Topgear to do? Stick their necks out and declare the RS5 better against the grain of established opinion out there?

No chance. They just went to greater lengths to prove their point.

Also, as Clarkson's script writer has a staffing position with EVO - imagine the stick he'd be in for from his colleagues in the office.

As for the TG lap times, with good timing equipment, consistent driving ability and loads of experience - the lap times do carry some relevance and credibility. I mean c'mon, it's not like their results are inconsistent with other publications.

We're going to end up arguing about nothing.

 

[mini_cooper4]

It's pricy, but to say its the worst Audi ever, that seems a bit harsh.

Taking in consideration the price it pobably isn't harsh at all

 

[south]

I use to feel the same way but after checking Sportauto wet lap board or even Autocar's equivalent you have to come to the conclusion that there was no way the RS5 could possibly lose so much time to an M3 in such conditions as the RS4 was in it's element in the wet and the basic formula hasn't changed with the new one.

As for the TG lap times, with good timing equipment, consistent driving ability and loads of experience - the lap times do carry some relevance and credibility. I mean c'mon, it's not like their results are inconsistent with other publications.

I can't decide which of you to agree with.


Best regards,
south

 

[330CIZHP]

Dunno. I think it was quite irresponsible in the way Jeremy Clarkson reviewed the RS5. I think the way he presented the car (or exaggerated) in how it understeer (for great television or his personal prejudices against Audi?) really must have deterred a lot of perspective buyers from the RS5.

While his review for the RS4 was great several years ago, but he seems to have now gone cuckoo for television ratings. I still enjoy his old RS4 review to this day yet, I refuse to accept RS5 objectively understeers more/is worse than the old RS4:

 

[Guibo]

I use to feel the same way but after checking Sportauto wet lap board or even Autocar's equivalent you have to come to the conclusion that there was no way the RS5 could possibly lose so much time to an M3 in such conditions as the RS4 was in it's element in the wet and the basic formula hasn't changed with the new one.

You can't really look at wet handling laps from one source and automatically make meaningful assumptions about another. There are too many variables involved: drivers (racing driver vs mag journalist and their preferences of suspension settings), magnitude of damp/wet, track layout, stability control systems (some are more lenient than others), etc. Even between Sport Auto's and Autocar's wet handling laps, there are strange discrepancies. What we can look at is the M3's performance in this TopGear test with similar performances in the backs of our minds: the M3 CSL was very fast despite Cup tires on a wet track. The LFA was also very fast on a wet track.
These examples support Autocar's conclusion about the old M3 vs S4 dry/wet handling test: a naturally understeering AWD car can have its understeer exacerbated in wet conditions, while a RWD car can be more neutral/adjustable/pointable in wet conditions. And the normal weight, which can aid traction between tire surface and dry surface, seems to become more of a liability when those surfaces are separated by a thin layer of water and grime: the car's mass wants to pull to the outside of the turn radius.
The TopGear LFA example also points to Clarkson's minimal impact on lap times: he didn't seem impressed with that car and pretty much slagged it off as a joke at that price. Yet The Stig put in a good wet lap.

 

[Sunny]

Also, as Clarkson's script writer has a staffing position with EVO - imagine the stick he'd be in for from his colleagues in the office.

I was wondering about that and I called my sources and they confirmed this . This confirms my doubts, Evo hates Audis and now that they have infiltrated Top Gear, to make RS5 loose there too .

Also have I told you guys, I was born with this unique ability to tell from looking at grainy You tube videos which car is faster and RS5 is clearly faster, but yet the stopwatch shows M3 is faster. Obviously my internal clock is more accurate than their timing equipment, so again more proof RS5 was sabotaged. .

You can't really look at wet handling laps from one source and automatically make meaningful assumptions about another. There are too many variables involved: drivers (racing driver vs mag journalist and their preferences of suspension settings), magnitude of damp/wet, track layout, stability control systems (some are more lenient than others), etc. Even between Sport Auto's and Autocar's wet handling laps, there are strange discrepancies. What we can look at is the M3's performance in this TopGear test with similar performances in the backs of our minds: the M3 CSL was very fast despite Cup tires on a wet track. The LFA was also very fast on a wet track.
These examples support Autocar's conclusion about the old M3 vs S4 dry/wet handling test: a naturally understeering AWD car can have its understeer exacerbated in wet conditions, while a RWD car can be more neutral/adjustable/pointable in wet conditions. And the normal weight, which can aid traction between tire surface and dry surface, seems to become more of a liability when those surfaces are separated by a thin layer of water and grime: the car's mass wants to pull to the outside of the turn radius.
The TopGear LFA example also points to Clarkson's minimal impact on lap times: he didn't seem impressed with that car and pretty much slagged it off as a joke at that price. Yet The Stig put in a good wet lap.

What? you mean all wet laps are not wet exactly to the same degree? Blasphemy!

 

[mini_cooper4]

hahahah Sunny that was a nice one

 

[DOMINUS]

Footie these cars (C63, IS-F, M3 and RS4/RS5) are in the same class and will always be compared. They all have V8's in similar sized bodies with 420hp-460hp, they all come in at more or less the same price point, and they are all "intended" to be track cars. Be it road course or whatever but they are all a step up from their lesser siblings for the enthusiast. I think we all agree on this. 3 of these cars are RWD and 2 are AWD. We all agree on this as well. I would agree with Footie in that, for example, take the M3 and the C63. Both RWD but the C63 is down right scary as opposed to the M3 being more composed. Does that mean the C63 is better than the M3 because that scary feeling translates into fun? The same can be said about the M3 and the RS5. In this case the M3 would classify as the C63 being the "hooligan" of the two. You will certainly be more scared/challenged driving the M3 but that alone doesn't make it better.

That being said though, people want excitement. We want to have memorable experiences and fear can spark those memories especially when it comes to cars. The reason why the M3 is the best or most memorable is because you can control that fear. In the hands of a good driver, the M3 becomes a tool as opposed to the C63 which leaves you nervous and frustrated from repeatedly being bitten by it.

We also talk about traction and it is generally accepted that AWD has more traction than RWD. We automatically assume that as soon as you put a RWD car on a track, the tail will be stepping out at 5mph. The M3 can be driven without stepping out the tail and achieve very fast lap times. There is a point where too much tail out action hampers lap times but a little bit assures the driver that he has maximum speed out of a corner not necessarily hurting his lap time. So the M3 uses what it has to it's advantage and the same can be said of the RS5. When he can get on the gas quicker out of corners with AWD, the M3 can brake later with less weight and with light oversteer enter a corner quicker and pretty much keep the same speed throughout the corner. The RS5 has to slow down a little to avoid understeer but he can get on the gas earlier. The M3 is quicker on the straightaway and with better braking it all adds up to better lap times.

The bottom line is the M3 is still on top in this class regardless of what or how one tries to spin it. It's not the quickest off the line, nor is it the fastest in a straight line. It's doesn't have the most traction but when everything comes together the M3 puts out performance that's greater than the sum of it's parts.

 

[TheDriver]

DOMINUS and footie are both right here, they may be competitors through the fact that they are the pinnacle of their breed though as each brand has executed these philosophies differently this has in turn made them very different animals to drive. The three rwd cars will give the more memorable journey and depending on your ability as a driver those memories will either be sheer pleasure or sheer terror and no small mercies for stability control. Of these three it's the M3 that's best suit to the track, party due it's inherent weight balance of each axle and partly it's engine characteristics which is geared to finer throttle control, it's the driver's choice no doubt, it demands skill to explore it potential but the rewards are superior adjustability compared to the others. Of the two RS cars, their quattro system seems to major on harnessing and controlling the available power in a way most morals can use at a whime, might not be that exciting or all that pretty to watch but it sure is efficient, as for which it better between the RS4 and RS5, the very fact that one can actually powerslide and has some form of throttle adjustment shows that Audi have started to listen to cristicisms levelled at their products, though in the case of the RS5 it's weight has undone any of the good work poured on to it's chassis which is a shame.