[2GPP]

This weeks Autocar...reckons all round the RS4 is the better car!
Getting the power down was a big issue in the M3! No runflats though!
Worth a read...if I had £50k+ to spend on a car I think the RS4 would be high on my shopping list!

[rjs]

Can you still buy the RS4? My friend was gonna get one later on this year but the Audi dealer said they were stopping production soon so he got one a couple of months ago, i think it was one of the last ones coming into the country??

[sheps]

Originally Posted by rjs

Can you still buy the RS4? My friend was gonna get one later on this year but the Audi dealer said they were stopping production soon so he got one a couple of months ago, i think it was one of the last ones coming into the country??

Audi are not taking any more orders in the UK.
Current production is to satisfy UK orders on the system and US destined cars.
Audi have stated they will only ever produce 1 RS car at a time, so presumably production is swapping to RS6 before that gives way to RS5

[dxb335d]

To be honest, from a rolling start, 40mph on the M3 will beat it, less trans losses than the 4wd audi etc!!!

dont know about any other stats tho


right considering the book figure for the m3 is 0-60 in 4.8 (same as the rs4)
its quite obvious to see once again bmw have been conservaive with there claims...

go into the US secion on here, some of the boys are getting a 300bhp 3 series to to 0-60 in 4.8


NOW THEN a 400bhp 3 series is going to do it somewhat quicker than 4.8

to me that says the RS4 has 'been done'

[330cdsport]

Originally Posted by sheps

Audi are not taking any more orders in the UK.
Current production is to satisfy UK orders on the system and US destined cars.
Audi have stated they will only ever produce 1 RS car at a time, so presumably production is swapping to RS6 before that gives way to RS5

Thats got to be great news for current owners and residuals!!

[335MSportVert]

I have to say, having seen the new M3 in the flesh it is a nice car but I think that I would actually opt for the RS4 if spending that amount of money.

A mate of mine has an '06 RS4 convertible and it sounds awesome. We took both of our cars out last weekend and attracted quite a lot of attention between the two of us. I hope that I am not being biased but, I actually think that the beemer got much more looks! Maybe just because there aren't very many about at the moment.

[rjs]

Originally Posted by 330cdsport

Thats got to be great news for current owners and residuals!!

Indeed, when the dealer took delivery of my friends, he was offered 6k over list by someone for it!

[rjs]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

go into the US secion on here, some of the boys are getting a 300bhp 3 series to to 0-60 in 4.8

NOW THEN a 400bhp 3 series is going to do it somewhat quicker than 4.8

to me that says the RS4 has 'been done'

It's only going to be faster if you can actually use all that power, and get it down on the road, which is what autocar had big issues in doing.

[2GPP]

Originally Posted by rjs

It's only going to be faster if you can actually use all that power, and get it down on the road, which is what autocar had big issues in doing.

I agree, RWD can be good fun when you want it but there are many situations I find in everyday driving when you need to get the power down and it either spins or the traction control kills off the power!

Both the RS4 and M3 cost the same (£75 in it!) and both quote 0-60 in 4.4, both have V8 4litre+ motors...very similar but the article says they couldn't be any different in the way they drive and get the power down!

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by rjs

It's only going to be faster if you can actually use all that power, and get it down on the road, which is what autocar had big issues in doing.

if thats the case then maybe the RS will beat the m3 to 60mph ater that i would say the m3 would reel the audi in and pass it and go on to pull a significant advantage from 100mph on and on to the 155mph limiter

[Cafe.Racer]

Why would you say that Carl, does the M3 have a significant power advantage (and it would have to be SIGNIFICANT)?

[rjs]

One thing that car mags never seem to really mention with the RS4 is the downsides of day-to-day ownership of a street-legal race machine.

If you make lots of short journeys like myself there are some issues.

If the engine is not warm enough, it is electronically limited from revving to high It's also 'lumpy' (quote from RS4 owner) and not too great to drive.

The manual box is also a bit 'hard going' through the traffic apparantly.

It's sounds nice though

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Cafe.Racer

Why would you say that Carl, does the M3 have a significant power advantage (and it would have to be SIGNIFICANT)?

no it doesnt

but it is 2wd not 4wd, so has less, MUCH less transmission losses so therefore with the same power and close weight will romp away once rolling
its a well known fact

a example would be the sierra sapphire cosworth

in standard trim

2wd 204bhp 0-60 in 6.1
4x 220bhp 0-60 in 6.6 (that was due not only to trans losses but extra weight)

even with tuned cosworths, the 4x4 will gain an advantage at the 'off' due to far superior traction but once rolling the 2wd with the same power will be quicker

[Cafe.Racer]

Yes, but, if the RS4 pulls away from the M3 off the line, the M3 would have a hard job to then reel it in and pass it.

You make it sound like having Quattro is like pulling a dead elephant along behind you. It's not.

I remember top gear doing an S4 vs M3 some time back (when the newer s4 with the V8 came out) and the S4 won that aswell, as the car to "take home" and not just for track days/drag races. I believe it was faster around the track with the Stig driving, too.

Anyway, haven't driven either, and I don't have 50k to spend. But I'd choose the RS4 (Avant, actually).

[dxb335d]

for instance the m3 may have only 20% losses wheres as the rs4 might have 28-30% losses

so i am guestimating the audi would need another 40 odd bhp to live with the m3 from a rolling start from 60 mph onwards in a straight line

[rjs]

It may have slightly more transmision loss, but the big problem is getting the power from the wheels to the road, not from the engine to the wheels.

The RS4 uses twice as many wheels to do this.

[dxb335d]

and im sure once rolling the m3 will have plenty of traction, so therefore it may lose the 0-60 sprint but there after i feel it will have a better quartermile time and a higher trap speed!!


lets wait and see


Carl

[Steve A]

the RS4 is actually 65kgs lighter than the m3 the m3 is slower to 60 cause of traction issues and wont romp away. Ive driven an E60 m5 and that is not faster than an rs4 until it hits about 120 and it has about a 100bhp advantage...the m3 has the same power so it will NOT romp away..

Carl i know you like BMW we all do but blind faith is just silly.

[rjs]

All this talk of 'my car's betters than yours', 1/4 mile times & racing, this is beginning to sound like the american forum!

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Steve Ashton

the RS4 is actually 65kgs lighter than the m3 the m3 is slower to 60 cause of traction issues and wont romp away. Ive driven an E60 m5 and that is not faster than an rs4 until it hits about 120 and it has about a 100bhp advantage...the m3 has the same power so it will NOT romp away..

Carl i know you like BMW we all do but blind faith is just silly.

below is the fastest 1/4mile with its trap speed from dragtimes.com for a stock m5


1/4 Mile ET: 12.273
1/4 Mile MPH: 116.510
1/8 Mile ET: 8.008
1/8 Mile MPH: 90.030
0-60 Foot ET: 1.894
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: BMW
Car Model: M5
Car Type:
Car Year: 2006


now here is the fastest stock RS4
1/4 Mile ET: 13.010
1/4 Mile MPH: 102.110
1/8 Mile ET: 0.000
1/8 Mile MPH: 0.000
0-60 Foot ET: 0.000
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Audi
Car Model: RS-4
Car Type:
Car Year: 2007


now other drivers and other conditions may affect times etc

but its a clear indication that an m5 (e60) will kill an audi rs4 way before 120mph, as its not even touched 120 at the quarter

i would say the m5 would have even beaten the rs4 0-60

now these are actual true times with slips to prove it, they are the fastest stock examples i can find

thankyou


Carl


P.S the 46 m3 quarters mid to low 13's at 105 so that is therefore as quick as if not damn close enough as rs4, im sure the e9x m3 will quarter in the mid to high 12's with a trap of im guessing.... 110mph

[Steve A]

carl people dont drive on santa pod under perfect conditions.

on the road where us normal people live those figures mean f*&K ALL.

NO one else on the site is interested about 1/4mile this that and the other.

im giving you practical experience from cars ive driven....not read about ....its a big difference

and so what if the m5 is a car or two cars ahead that is the difference in some peoples reaction time.......and seeing as you miss the point in all threads yours is probbably 5 cars.....behind.

[dxb335d]

1/4mile is nothing to do with reaction time, your timed from the moment you move

if your saying that 1/4mile means jack shit your also saying 0-60 mean jack shit

but they do mean something as does the 1/4mile

ok on the road you may be half a second slower, but both cars will be slower


its all relative steve, think about it

both cars were quartered, one was quicker than the other

these are not random times i have found, but the quickst i could find for both cars, and the m5 is consistently ANNIHILATING the RS4

but as you can see 0.8 sec and 14 mph is a big big difference, i would say so even more on the road.... and would be more than a few cars lengths. when i beat cars by under a second at the pod and by only a few mph (not 14)and by half a second i was 5-6 car lenghts ahead ans still pulling
the m5 will leave an rs4 standing...


now the new m3 will be a closer fight but i feel will pull away marginally if not more once rolling, the 1/4mile has for years been a postive proving ground of how quick a car is


carl