RS246.com Forum :: The World's #1 Audi R, S and RS Enthusiast Community

You've probably all read this latest review by now, but just in case ...here it is again:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80742

I have no doubt about the E92 M3's performance prowess, but I will say that the interior is definitely NOT one of the aspects I'm jealous of. It is butt ugly!

Also fairly unimpressive 0.93g in skidpan. I suppose I'll make my mind up when I drive it.

Also here is an interesting video of the E92 M3 and E46 M3 CSL...it is in dutch so I have no clue what they are saying...but it is quite interesting to get an idea of the E92's dynamics. For those who have been saying the V8 sound of the E92 is "better" than an RS4...I really don't hear that to be honest. It sounds fairly bland and like a very wheezy/blowy V8 version of the M5's V10 (which is a fairly good sound). Again, I'll reserve full judgement until I drive it.

http://www.petrolhead.nl/2007/08/video_ ... m3_csl.php

So far it isn't jumping out and drawing me towards BMW showrooms, I have to say. The forthcoming saloon version is bound to be lardier and dynamically more compromised...which will re-highlight just how good the RS4 (the E92 M3 saloon's direct rival) really is.

FINALLY Audi gets 1 on the M3

It's more than 1 for Audi, as i know Auto Express gave the RS4 the win as well.

Generally & so as not to light anymore fires, me thinks the decision between the 2 cars will no doubt stand with personal choice, as their appears to be very little in it between the 2 cars. if you want the slightly better all-rounder it's the RS4, if you want something a tad more frisky then it's the M3. Both cars seem to be aligned for day to day performance, so it's down to which one you'd prefer to live with overall.

+1

Yay, I have number 1 and number 2 in their "Top 5 Drivers Cars"

Jack

W8PMC wrote:It's more than 1 for Audi, as i know Auto Express gave the RS4 the win as well.

Generally & so as not to light anymore fires, me thinks the decision between the 2 cars will no doubt stand with personal choice, as their appears to be very little in it between the 2 cars. if you want the slightly better all-rounder it's the RS4, if you want something a tad more frisky then it's the M3. Both cars seem to be aligned for day to day performance, so it's down to which one you'd prefer to live with overall.

Exactly. I drove the E92 M3 on a more extended group test just over a week ago (as part of another EVO test), and it was better than the car I drove at launch in Marbella. This time it was closer to the RS4 in terms of everyday civility. Knowing that I had already bought an RS4, I started to have serious second-thoughts but at least I have a CSL on pre-order.

Inspite of the fact that my brother has 2, I've never understood the attraction with BMW's.

Even in South Wales, everyone has one. They're ubiquitous.

The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Similarly, I'll never drive a C63 even if it is quicker because I don't think I've ever seen a Merc driven by someone who isn't a geriatric. Its a car for coffin dodgers whose sophisticated pacemakers can just about cope with some longitudinal G...

But then again I spend my working life at 40000ft doing 550+ or on my days off pulling substantially more than 1G inverted so 1/10ths here and there don't impress me.

Each to their own.

SR71 wrote:Inspite of the fact that my brother has 2, I've never understood the attraction with BMW's.

Even in South Wales, everyone has one. They're ubiquitous.

The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Similarly, I'll never drive a C63 even if it is quicker because I don't think I've ever seen a Merc driven by someone who isn't a geriatric. Its a car for coffin dodgers whose sophisticated pacemakers can just about cope with some longitudinal G...

But then again I spend my working life at 40000ft doing 550+ or on my days off pulling substantially more than 1G inverted so 1/10ths here and there don't impress me.

Each to their own.

Oh! your an air stewardess then!!

A trolly dolly???

Jezzer wrote:

SR71 wrote:Inspite of the fact that my brother has 2, I've never understood the attraction with BMW's.

Even in South Wales, everyone has one. They're ubiquitous.

The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Similarly, I'll never drive a C63 even if it is quicker because I don't think I've ever seen a Merc driven by someone who isn't a geriatric. Its a car for coffin dodgers whose sophisticated pacemakers can just about cope with some longitudinal G...

But then again I spend my working life at 40000ft doing 550+ or on my days off pulling substantially more than 1G inverted so 1/10ths here and there don't impress me.

Each to their own.

Oh! your an air stewardess then!!

PMSL

SR71 wrote:
The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Don't be so quick to dismiss other's views - they are not always tainted by an agenda.

Different cars will naturally appeal to different people, but the difference between an M3 and RS4 is entirely justifiable as a reason to choose the more common BMW if that's what turns someone on.

I'm sure I said in one of earlier reports that despite the M3 being quicker than the RS4 (when we drove them at launch), this didn't really matter, however they 'way it went about being quicker' was enough for me to give it the nod. Go find the 'agenda' in that.

It's a good job I don't take myself too seriously isn't it....

I was a cart tart for a while but then post 9/11 all kinds of strange things happened in the industry...

I could have gone back to flight control software engineering (of which I did 10 years) but going through a divorce at the time, the appeal of working with a load of cute women was irrisistable.



My (new) wife lost her job at the pointy end as well but she went back to ground ops for a while....

DoctorD,

Not dismissing others views at all. Just expressing mine like everybody else!

I didn't have you in mind when I made my comment at all.

Personally I'd trade a dip in performance for a degree of exclusivity, but not vice versa as you suggest.

But then I have got three Audis so I'm died in the wool so to speak.

I'd be interested to know whether if you increased your RS4 rev limit to 8500rpm whether you'd still feel the M3 had the edge? Many owners here feel the difference this makes is substantial....



I wouldn't take anything I say too seriously. I certainly don't.

SR71 wrote:Inspite of the fact that my brother has 2, I've never understood the attraction with BMW's.

Even in South Wales, everyone has one. They're ubiquitous.

The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Similarly, I'll never drive a C63 even if it is quicker because I don't think I've ever seen a Merc driven by someone who isn't a geriatric. Its a car for coffin dodgers whose sophisticated pacemakers can just about cope with some longitudinal G...

But then again I spend my working life at 40000ft doing 550+ or on my days off pulling substantially more than 1G inverted so 1/10ths here and there don't impress me.

Each to their own.

Agreed

SR71 wrote:Inspite of the fact that my brother has 2, I've never understood the attraction with BMW's.

Even in South Wales, everyone has one. They're ubiquitous.

The new M3 may or may not have a performance advantage but you're talking about 1/10'ths of a second up to 150mph. Thats negligible - only of significance to a journalist with an agenda.

I guess its the herd instinct....

Similarly, I'll never drive a C63 even if it is quicker because I don't think I've ever seen a Merc driven by someone who isn't a geriatric. Its a car for coffin dodgers whose sophisticated pacemakers can just about cope with some longitudinal G...

But then again I spend my working life at 40000ft doing 550+ or on my days off pulling substantially more than 1G inverted so 1/10ths here and there don't impress me.

Each to their own.

I agree. The performance difference (in a straight line) between the 2 cars is negligible (0.3s difference in 0-150mph dash). How the E92 M3 compares to the RS4 on track remains to be discovered, although I have a feeling they'll also be similarly matched there. The RS4 does have around 20 lb ft more torque which would make it slightly faster in gear. For example 30-70 in 4th = 7.2sec for the RS4 vs 8.3sec in the M3...as per autocar's review. The latter is pretty good for town driving and making effortless progress.

Anyone who buys the M3 thinking it is the "faster" car when compared to the RS4 is quite deluded. The decision between the 2 would largely be based on individual preference of the 2 cars' dynamics. I'll be finding out next week whether the E92 is as frustrating a car as the E46 M3 was for me (I quite simply hated it...whereas I found the CSL a joy to drive).

going off track a bit but where do they get their depreciation figures from for the rs4 in the autocar article - sub 30,000 after one yaer??? i am looking to buy one at the moment but even with retail mark up that means i should be able pick a year old model up for about 33,000 tops, if anyones got one a that price let me know. what car quotes similar figures as well.