how can the e92 m3 be this much quicker??

[dlextreme1977]

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

R&T 911 comparo
RS4 12.8 sec 1/4 mile
wt 3920 (4110 loaded)

as fast, yet 400 lbs heavier, and with double the driveline losses
what makes the M3 so slow?

for reference R&T different test:
M3 13 flat 3585 (3765)

0.2 faster, yet 345 lbs heavier
the RS4 had no sunroof or nav

seriously...wow, are you still quoting magazine figures. What is not clear about the videos that i posted in the first instance. In what way are they not supporting my original question? I dont want to read all the magazine figures from every battle ever published. You can see fromthe videos why i am asking this question it is clear as day

[P_G]

And your query was answered with a number of permutations which would account for it. 4 stone difference in driver and passenger between the cars is 25 kgs more. Half a tank of petrol difference is about the same weight. Club the two together and there you have an RS4 that is 50kg heavier. Or vice versa and then the M3 is heaps better. Who knows. More importantly, who cares (that is rhetorical)?

Why is it so important to know? And again like said, when are you ever going to be in a situation where that is going to make a difference? Anyone on here with real world experience of running against an M3 has suggested there is little in it. Go to a BMW board and I'm sure most will say they leave an RS4 wiht a clean pair of heals.

It's been done to death and to date on this forum I only know of one person who has traded up their RS4 for an M3 (chemical ali) and the best of luck to them. That is why we have choice.

[ArthurPE]

do you expect anyone to believe you OP was genuine & sincere? or a (poorly, childish) veiled attempt to troll...
1st post, in an RS4 forum, you post a link to a BMW website, asking why the RS4 is so slow...

we have a saying " don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining "
what is most insulting is that you take us for morons...

[P_G]

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

R&T 911 comparo
RS4 12.8 sec 1/4 mile
wt 3920 (4110 loaded)

as fast, yet 400 lbs heavier, and with double the driveline losses
what makes the M3 so slow?

for reference R&T different test:
M3 13 flat 3585 (3765)

0.2 faster, yet 345 lbs heavier
the RS4 had no sunroof or nav

seriously...wow, are you still quoting magazine figures. What is not clear about the videos that i posted in the first instance. In what way are they not supporting my original question? I dont want to read all the magazine figures from every battle ever published. You can see fromthe videos why i am asking this question it is clear as day

But there you are wrong because it is not clear as day because you are assuming the weights in the cars are the same. How do you know?

[ArthurPE]

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

R&T 911 comparo
RS4 12.8 sec 1/4 mile
wt 3920 (4110 loaded)

as fast, yet 400 lbs heavier, and with double the driveline losses
what makes the M3 so slow?

for reference R&T different test:
M3 13 flat 3585 (3765)

0.2 faster, yet 345 lbs heavier
the RS4 had no sunroof or nav

seriously...wow, are you still quoting magazine figures. What is not clear about the videos that i posted in the first instance. In what way are they not supporting my original question? I dont want to read all the magazine figures from every battle ever published. You can see fromthe videos why i am asking this question it is clear as day

in the second run, the cars were even...
in the first video, the RS4 was not run to redline, and bogged at the launch...
1 to 1, even

magazine tests are done with the same driver, under controlled conditions, with accurate test equipment...
the RS4 is faster despite being 400 lbs heavier and having a much high driveline loss due to awd...
BMW missed the boat on this one...and I've owned various since 1980

[dlextreme1977]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VQUUjokbM m5 less power more weight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLToziJ96eI m3 csl (much less power/slightly less weight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrJjJp ... re=channel e46 m3??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBZN29-nZZE z4m?!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABPPDYkB9Z8 ml63? these weigh about 4 tonnes!!!

seriously, if for everyone of these videos you have an excuse then like you said, there really is no point in me even bothering to try to gauge a civil response. ON PAPER the rs4 should be quicker than all these. Why is this not the case?

[ArthurPE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VQUUjokbM m5 less power more weight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLToziJ96eI m3 csl (much less power/slightly less weight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrJjJp ... re=channel e46 m3??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBZN29-nZZE z4m?!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABPPDYkB9Z8 ml63? these weigh about 4 tonnes!!!

seriously, if for everyone of these videos you have an excuse then like you said, there really is no point in me even bothering to try to gauge a civil response. ON PAPER the rs4 should be quicker than all these. Why is this not the case?

the RS4 is quicker ON THE ROAD and on paper...
7:58 < 8:05 the ultimate test, and the M3 was on semi-slick sport tires...wow
12.8 < 13
yet 400 lbs heavier...plus twice the drivetrain losses
the M3's power must be over-rated, because it sure is a slug
probably can't get out of its own way, lol
throw the bangle uglies into the mix and bow wow, dog

[P_G]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VQUUjokbM m5 less power more weight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLToziJ96eI m3 csl (much less power/slightly less weight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrJjJp ... re=channel e46 m3??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBZN29-nZZE z4m?!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABPPDYkB9Z8 ml63? these weigh about 4 tonnes!!!

seriously, if for everyone of these videos you have an excuse then like you said, there really is no point in me even bothering to try to gauge a civil response. ON PAPER the rs4 should be quicker than all these. Why is this not the case?

You are laughable with your 'point of discussion'

E39 M5 394 bhp but 368 ft/lbs of torque, 55 more than an RS4 and a larger N/A engine less prone to heat unlike compact V8 as pointed out in the test video
M3 CSL is 300+kgs lighter than an RS4 and not that much less on power.
A chipped E46M3 vs RS4. So what?
RS4 is quicker than the Z4M
And an ML63 has near 100bhp more and 130 ft lbs (41%) more which in a rolling test will always count.

[ArthurPE]

You are laughable with your 'point of discussion'

E39 M5 394 bhp but 368 ft/lbs of torque, 55 more than an RS4 and a larger N/A engine less prone to heat unlike compact V8 as pointed out in the test video
M3 CSL is 300+kgs lighter than an RS4 and not that much less on power.
A chipped E46M3 vs RS4. So what?
RS4 is quicker than the Z4M
And an ML63 has near 100bhp more and 130 ft lbs (41%) more which in a rolling test will always count.

this guy has an agenda P_G, and he's not going to let facts get in his way...

the RS4 weighs 30% more than the CSL, yet only has 15% more HP
and he wonders why?

[ArthurPE]

EVO 0-60
M3 4.8/4.9 coupe/sedan
RS4 4.5
CSL 5.3

0-100
RS4 10.9
CSL 12

[dlextreme1977]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VQUUjokbM m5 less power more weight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLToziJ96eI m3 csl (much less power/slightly less weight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrJjJp ... re=channel e46 m3??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBZN29-nZZE z4m?!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABPPDYkB9Z8 ml63? these weigh about 4 tonnes!!!

seriously, if for everyone of these videos you have an excuse then like you said, there really is no point in me even bothering to try to gauge a civil response. ON PAPER the rs4 should be quicker than all these. Why is this not the case?

You are laughable with your 'point of discussion'

E39 M5 394 bhp but 368 ft/lbs of torque, 55 more than an RS4 and a larger N/A engine less prone to heat unlike compact V8 as pointed out in the test video
M3 CSL is 300+kgs lighter than an RS4 and not that much less on power.
A chipped E46M3 vs RS4. So what?
RS4 is quicker than the Z4M
And an ML63 has near 100bhp more and 130 ft lbs (41%) more which in a rolling test will always count.

Ok, i might as well give it one last try. Whilst the american dude runs off to find a couple more select figures for the rs4 that are few and far between, let me put it to you this way.

My 'point of discussion' is that it doesnt matter if the american dude finds a magazine quoting 2.5 seconds 0-60 for an rs4, I dont care if an m3 is quicker than a rocketship, but why cant an rs4 with the same or better power to weight ratio beat any of the other cars ive mentioned. I've read on here that they are down on power. Is that a reason? Are they clogging up with carbon on top of this. If so most rs4's now must be what 350hp. Is that why they keep losing in the videos. What about this one- 220bhp per tonne and the aerodynamics of a brick and yet it is still reeling in a 414hp car with a better power to weight ratio

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

Instead of banging on about rs4 magazine figures which if nothing else further confuses my point (if you say it does xyz why is it not doing this in the videos) can somebody please explain why rs4's do not deliver in a straight line. what wheel horsepower do they putdown in your experience, are they slowing down as the engines get older? do they have a poor drag coefficient? etc etc what is it? i dont care if you think an rs4 is 10 times better than an m3- heck i will even agree with you if it means somebody would just answer my simple question...please

[Sims]

If the OP is trolling, he has been well fed. If not, the hostility will not have made him feel welcome as a newbie and that is unfortunate.

There are people in the BMW camp, and most here are in the Audi camp. And a few in both, and more.

What really matters is that these are both really super fine cars, and there is hardly a cigarette paper between them.Wiki states a 'Ring time of 8:05 for the E92 M3 with Cups & 8:09 for the RS4 with Ceramics.

They are nearly the same in how they perform in the hands of a professional driver, and ordinary motorists would only be able to detect differences based on their driving ability & preference (FWD,AWD,RWD). & how many of the people here drive on 'Ring frequently enough for it to matter.

There are hundreds of Youtube clips around - how many of these tests have been professionally monitered?

Rather than compare the ability of these nearly equal competitor cars, it is far better to improve your driving ability.

[Sims]

...I dont care if an m3 is quicker than a rocketship, but why cant an rs4 with the same or better power to weight ratio beat any of the other cars ive mentioned. I've read on here that they are down on power.

The two cars claim the same PS, but there are differences and you allude to drag, weight + a hundred other variables.

The cars you mention are all different,and they all perform differently. Also, neither of us know if all the cars are performing to 100% efficiency, or are using the same fuel. But the 'Ring times (run under similar parameters) help us to establish that they are all nearly the same.

Would two motorcycles, both with 100ps, but different weight, fairings, tyres,riders be exactly the same? That's my understanding of this issue i.e. there are many differences and miraculously they are nearly the same.

The RS4 is a wonderful package, as is the E92 M3.

[ArthurPE]

what I can't believe is that the RS4 is as fast, or faster when considering the actual wt/whp ratio's

RS4 3980/328 ~ 12.13 lb/HP
M3 3544/373 ~ 9.50
numbers from rototest
a 28% difference!!!
yet the RS4 is as fast, or faster...unbelievable...
BMW really screwed the pooch on this one, deep and hard

the only real test: Ring 7:58 vs 8:05 faster with a 28% wt/HP disadvantage
1/4 mile 12.8 vs 13, same test, same magazine...faster, yet 14% LESS delivered HP and 12+% MORE weight...

hard to believe, but when you consider the engine was designed by the same guy who did the M3, and possibly the best engine BMW ever made, the e30 M3 (S30), it is understandable

with a 28% wt/power advantage it should be 13% faster...
so if the RS4 ran 13, the M3 should run 11.3, but yet depending on test, the RS4 is faster, or the M3 by a few 10'ths, call it even...

[ArthurPE]

your basic assumptions are flawed and incorrect and strictly proffered in a false and misleading manner for disingenuous reasons, to 'troll'

but I will try to set you straight one more time:
1) the M3 is not faster, the RS4 is, but close enough to call even
2) the delivered power is not the same 370 vs 330 advantage M3
it's all that counts, what gets to the road...
3) the weight is not the same ~4000 vs < 3600

despite all these 'advantages' the RS4 is as fast, or faster, depending on test...

Ok, i might as well give it one last try. Whilst the american dude runs off to find a couple more select figures for the rs4 that are few and far between, let me put it to you this way.

My 'point of discussion' is that it doesnt matter if the american dude finds a magazine quoting 2.5 seconds 0-60 for an rs4, I dont care if an m3 is quicker than a rocketship, but why cant an rs4 with the same or better power to weight ratio beat any of the other cars ive mentioned. I've read on here that they are down on power. Is that a reason? Are they clogging up with carbon on top of this. If so most rs4's now must be what 350hp. Is that why they keep losing in the videos. What about this one- 220bhp per tonne and the aerodynamics of a brick and yet it is still reeling in a 414hp car with a better power to weight ratio

Instead of banging on about rs4 magazine figures which if nothing else further confuses my point (if you say it does xyz why is it not doing this in the videos) can somebody please explain why rs4's do not deliver in a straight line. what wheel horsepower do they putdown in your experience, are they slowing down as the engines get older? do they have a poor drag coefficient? etc etc what is it? i dont care if you think an rs4 is 10 times better than an m3- heck i will even agree with you if it means somebody would just answer my simple question...please