Top Gear RS4 vs M3

[SR71]

http://fastestlaps.com/track59.html

Only car faster?

C6 RS6 which surprised me.

Can't find a map of the circuit...

Just goes to show that Audi is king once there is s**t on the road surface...which is 95% of the time in Northern Europe!

[ArthurPE]

didn't the Stig also time the RS4 in the episode where they compared the C63, e92 M3 & RS4?...albeit different track...~2:43 avg lap
the C63 was 0.4 sec faster than the RS4 (2:43.9) and the M3 was ~5 sec faster...

they just aired the episode here in the States on BBC America (I'm watching it right now, different episode, Ford hotrod p/u truck)
you tube link, whole clip is good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaZExdTHHjY

[P_G]

That was done on the Ascari circuit which has a long back straight with one kink in it and a couple of other short straights where the C63's power makes the difference, hence why 0.4 secs quicker.

Plus the Stig was driving. If we were all tame professional racing drivers we would probably all go for the M3 but in real world terms, I doubt the M3's track advantage would be translated on to the road and when it gets greasy, they would all be much of a muchness.

[SR71]

Plus the Stig was driving. If we were all tame professional racing drivers we would probably all go for the M3 but in real world terms, I doubt the M3's track advantage would be translated on to the road and when it gets greasy, they would all be much of a muchness.

"...much of a muchness?!"

I suggest "No way!"....although I concur it does depend on the track somewhat...

If the roads are wet, as the lap times I posted suggest, the Merc and BM would be the proverbial mile behind. Getting 200+hp/wheel down is tricky...especially if you have huge amounts of torque coming on line like the Merc.

The BM would be better than the Merc..its more like the GT3 with its stats although this obviously bucks the trend somewhat.

I have to say, for me, the "wet" performance has been a factor in my consideration of vehicles for the last 10+ years, with all previous vehicles during this period having 4WD.

That said I can't comment from personal experience what its like to drive a 996C2 series car (or similar) fast in the wet when there is mud all over the road....

Seems like a recipe for disaster....

[P_G]

I'm not so sure on the M3, but then that is why everyone has their own opinion. I agree the C63 would be a handful, but then like you I drive an RS4 and don't see the need to change as neither of the other two represent a significant change in performance what what I have and the 4WD grip in the wet as opposed to just greasy conditions gives me added piece of mind.

Interesting that on the EVO Bedford West Circuit test the M3 is a second and a half quicker than the RS4 but the C63 is a second and a quarter slower than the RS4 and no IS-F

[SR71]

Of course, I'm biased...



I think its probably always possible to find a track in any condition which justifies your point of view!

What I found strange is the RS4 outperforms the R8 in the wet...

I'm sure a vehicle dynamicist can explain it to me...

All I know is the RS4 gives me a kick every time I get in it. My neighbour had a CSL and on the roads round here it just wasn't possible to exploit its performance...so he got rid of it. Got a 118d instead. He figured at least it wasn't going to kill him.

[PetrolDave]

Look at the times in the 17/24 December Autocar on page 113...

in the wet the two fastest cars are the RS4 and the RS6.

As SR71 said above

the "wet" performance has been a factor in my consideration of vehicles for the last 10+ years

On a typical wet, greasy, oily British road the RS4 would be my choice every time, to give me more safety margin.

[P_G]

I don't disagree Dave, but also like SR71 said you can get a particular track and driver to justify the times you want for your point of view. I know the old M3 is a handful in the wet however I have also been told by a current an E92 M3 driver that the wet handling in the new one is far improved. Freakishly GT3 type characteristics.

Still would trade my RS4 up though. Interesting that the RS6 and RS4 outperform the R8, perhaps the weight has something to do with it?

[NGS521]

can someone point out where the RS4 beats the R8 please? My boss has an R8 I'd love to throw that at him!

[SR71]

If you check fastestlaps.com and check any of the "wet" tracks - either Sport Auto or Autocar - the RS4 beats the R8.

[P_G]

I imagine it has something to do with the extra weight of the RS4 and that distributed through the contact patch, i.e. the tyres. IIRC the R8 weighs 1560kgs and the RS4 between 1710 and 1845 kgs dependent on style, saloon lightest, cab heaviest. The R8 also has larger rear tyres at 305/30 on 11Jx19 wheels albeit the fronts are 235/35's on 8.5Jx19 rims

Something along the lines of why skinny tyres are better in winter, more weight per square cm of contact patch pushing the tyre on to the surface to give it better grip.