how can the e92 m3 be this much quicker??

[dlextreme1977]

no they don't

M3 3570
RS4 3980

magazine scale weights

my bad then... i was going by autocar- m3 1655kg, rs4 1650kg

incorrect
the 1655 includes a driver and baggage, the 1650 does not...and both are incorrect
weighed cars
M3 ~3570
RS4 close to 4000 lbs

i stand corrected then, most of the mags in the uk quote the weights that i had

[ArthurPE]

What are you confused about? How a coupe version of the M3 with same power output as an RS4 but lighter is quicker than the RS4 saloon?

And then an M-DCT M3 with remap is quicker than a stock RS4.

Jog on.

aye? remap/exhaust makes next to no difference, there are some rs4's on here with these mods and the gains seem pretty negligible. also the weights are near as damn it the same

the wts are 400 lb different

[ArthurPE]

my bad then... i was going by autocar- m3 1655kg, rs4 1650kg

incorrect
the 1655 includes a driver and baggage, the 1650 does not...and both are incorrect
weighed cars
M3 ~3570
RS4 close to 4000 lbs

i stand corrected then, most of the mags in the uk quote the weights that i had

incorrect again

R&T M3 3571

[ArthurPE]

R&T April 2008
1/4 mile M3 & RS4 both 13.0, trap 111/110

wts
RS4 3980
M3 3570

I want to know how a car 400 lbs lighter, with much less driveline losses (awd vs 2wd), can be so slow?

[dlextreme1977]

incorrect
the 1655 includes a driver and baggage, the 1650 does not...and both are incorrect
weighed cars
M3 ~3570
RS4 close to 4000 lbs

i stand corrected then, most of the mags in the uk quote the weights that i had

incorrect again

R&T M3 3571

im going by uk mags. evo quote rs4 1650kg, 255bhp/tonne and m3 1655kg 254 bhp /tonne. something doesn;t add up. Rs4 has a better ratio going by this?

[ArthurPE]

i stand corrected then, most of the mags in the uk quote the weights that i had

incorrect again

R&T M3 3571

im going by uk mags. evo quote rs4 1650kg, 255bhp/tonne and m3 1655kg 254 bhp /tonne. something doesn;t add up. Rs4 has a better ratio going by this?

that is incorrect...you are comparing DIN unladen (which includes a driver/luggage) with curb...apples to oranges

actually weighed cars
M3 <3600
RS4 close to 4000

so despite being 400 lbs heaver and having higher losses, it's as fast

Ring
RS4 7:56
M3 8:05

[dlextreme1977]

R&T April 2008
1/4 mile M3 & RS4 both 13.0, trap 111/110

wts
RS4 3980
M3 3570

I want to know how a car 400 lbs lighter, with much less driveline losses (awd vs 2wd), can be so slow?

I dont know the answer. Doesn not coincide with this though

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_ ... 66cb00.pdf

rs4 13.1 - 108mph
m3 12.8- 113mph

0-100mph rs4 11.3 vs m3 9.8

[ArthurPE]

R&T April 2008
1/4 mile M3 & RS4 both 13.0, trap 111/110

wts
RS4 3980
M3 3570

I want to know how a car 400 lbs lighter, with much less driveline losses (awd vs 2wd), can be so slow?

I dont know the answer. Doesn not coincide with this though

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_ ... 66cb00.pdf

rs4 13.1 - 108mph
m3 12.8- 113mph

0-100mph rs4 11.3 vs m3 9.8

the cars were tested on different days

what are the weights for that test?

[approved]

[ArthurPE]

again, 400 lbs heavier, more driveline losses, and yet ~ the same speed range, slower sometimes, faster sometimes...
and faster ALL the time where it counts, the road, under real world conditions....9 sec around the Ring is huge...and the M3 was on sport tires to boot...
it must have been a herculean effort to make that car slower than the RS4 given it's wt and power loss advantage

[dlextreme1977]

incorrect again

R&T M3 3571

im going by uk mags. evo quote rs4 1650kg, 255bhp/tonne and m3 1655kg 254 bhp /tonne. something doesn;t add up. Rs4 has a better ratio going by this?

that is incorrect...you are comparing DIN unladen (which includes a driver/luggage) with curb...apples to oranges

actually weighed cars
M3 <3600
RS4 close to 4000

so despite being 400 lbs heaver and having higher losses, it's as fast

Ring
RS4 7:56
M3 8:05

I get

Ring

rs4 8:09
m3 8:05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times

anyway both fast cars granted, and i dont want a bun fight, just wondering how 2 cars with very similar specs on paper can be quite different in a straight line

[ArthurPE]

im going by uk mags. evo quote rs4 1650kg, 255bhp/tonne and m3 1655kg 254 bhp /tonne. something doesn;t add up. Rs4 has a better ratio going by this?

that is incorrect...you are comparing DIN unladen (which includes a driver/luggage) with curb...apples to oranges

actually weighed cars
M3 <3600
RS4 close to 4000

so despite being 400 lbs heaver and having higher losses, it's as fast

Ring
RS4 7:56
M3 8:05

I get

Ring

rs4 8:09
m3 8:05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times

anyway both fast cars granted, and i dont want a bun fight, just wondering how 2 cars with very similar specs on paper can be quite different in a straight line

wrong, you are being selective...not 7:56, but 7:58
still faster than a car that weighs 400 lbs less, and has much lower losses on sport tires
7:58 --- 156.66 km/h - Audi RS4 4.2 V8 FSI, 420 PS/ 1650 kg, Frank Stippler, (10/05) www.8200rpm.com/forum/read.php?f=10&i=16841&t=16841\

I also wonder how the RS4 can be as fast, considering the 400 lb difference
in the 2nd run, the RS4 beat it...until he let off

[P_G]

Weight of people on board, fuel on board, driving style, take your pick.

And on Fastestlaps.com Audi B7 RS4 7.58 with Frank Stippler on board and 8.05 for the E92 M3 by Autosport

[dlextreme1977]

that is incorrect...you are comparing DIN unladen (which includes a driver/luggage) with curb...apples to oranges

actually weighed cars
M3 <3600
RS4 close to 4000

so despite being 400 lbs heaver and having higher losses, it's as fast

Ring
RS4 7:56
M3 8:05

I get

Ring

rs4 8:09
m3 8:05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times

anyway both fast cars granted, and i dont want a bun fight, just wondering how 2 cars with very similar specs on paper can be quite different in a straight line

wrong, you are being selective...not 7:56, but 7:58
still faster than a car that weighs 400 lbs less, and has much lower losses on sport tires
7:58 --- 156.66 km/h - Audi RS4 4.2 V8 FSI, 420 PS/ 1650 kg, Frank Stippler, (10/05) www.8200rpm.com/forum/read.php?f=10&i=16841&t=16841\

you are a very defensive person, understandable given some random comes on here posting videos etc etc. However it is not my intention to spout boring figures about this and that. I was just wondering how 1 car with the same power to weight ratio can be much slower than the other. I have my answer the uk magazines are wrong with their published weight figures by the looks of it...

[zorbs]

I drove the M3 virtually back to back with the RS4 (within an hour).

If it's quicker on paper or a few car lengths over a 1/4 mile then I'll just wave happily as the BMW driver goes past because I bought what was the better car with the better engine for me!

I'm sure the M3 is a great car but I just didn't get it at all. I found it had a bone hard ride, notchy gearbox and felt flat until after 6,000 rpm. Oh, and it didn't sound as nice either. I'll stop there....