Wonderful article RS4 v M3 V C63

[tartan_rob]

I could use the gas to help it turn in a tight corner without even braking traction. .

How the hell do you do that? Interesting laws of physics and adhesion. If you ain't braking traction at all then the back ain't sliding and you are not benefiting from the RWD oversteer...

[W8PMC]

I still disagree with several of CAR's conclusions, but then we drove different cars so maybe that counts for some of our differences.

Firstly the conclusion about the RS4 being quicker than the M3. It's not in my experience, the difference is not great (as they say in their article) but the M3 puts down more power at the wheels (although similar peak torque) and yet weighs nigh on 100kg less. And no, traction is not an issue, not on a dry road anyway.

Secondly the tail-out capabilities of the M3 are not about hooning or showboating. Chris Harris captured it beautifully in a recent Autocar article, it's about being able to 'adjust' the cornering line on the limit. The RS4 is a great car to drive at 9/10ths, and I accept that most drivers won't even get it up to that level of effort, but on the limit the RS4 speaks in monosyllabic simplicity (i.e. back off please), whereas the M3 presents the driver with many more options and interacts in a way that is foreign the the front-axle biased RS4.

Like the reviewer in CAR I prefer the M3 for outright driving, but chose the RS4 for its wider range of talents and easier day-to-day livability. But I would also acknowledge that for the typical consumer, the RS4 will offer more appeal and reassurance. It's just rather dangerous to conclude about which is better, without setting the context of that evaluation out very clearly.

I also own an AMG 63 model (ML) and can easily envisage how the C63 will be less drivable in a range of conditions than the RS4. But even my 63 is quicker than my RS4, so the C63 will most definitely be so and there are times when I prefer to drive it than my RS4, so yet again I am sure that a conclusion over which is better will require careful setting out of the evaluation criteria.

One thing we can conclude though, that never has there been so much choice in this sector. We are truly lucky.

Only 2 points.

1. I thought the RS4 was Rear Axle Biaise, not front as you say. the split is 60% rear & 40% front.

2. Is the ML 63 really quicker than the RS4 as i can't find any stats that back up that claim for straight line speed & having driven a couple of ML 63's, i'd agree they're quick but a fair wedge behind an RS4, more TT performance (no mean thing for a tractor). Also they don't like to stop quickly & bodyroll even in the AMG would reduce it's corner pace significantly.

I to am looking forward to seeing & driving the new C63. Any accurate info yet as to it's release date in the UK?

[RS4Molar]

Got onto the forum, joined the forum, but can't locate read the article. ?? Probably my great inability to funciton on computers Any suggestions

[Ozrs4]

RS4Molar, you can read it here too... http://www.cartoday.com/content/blog...age.asp?id=130

[Ozrs4]

and if that link is dead..go to this forum thread http://www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13395

[alex_123_fra]

Quite a good review. One fundamental mistake however. The M3 will not "devour" an RS4 on a track in the hands of any driver. The reality is that the 2 cars will be very similarly matched on the limit, regardless of which is more "fun". When will people realise that oversteering/sliding around corners is not the fastest way to travel on or off a track.

[SR71]

ML63 ~500hp, weight ~2300kg, power:weight ratio =~220hp/ton which is somewhat below the RS4's 254hp/ton...

8:32 around the Nurburgring though which compares somewhat favourably with 7:58 or 8:09 for the RS4 (depending on which figures you want to quote)

[t_urbo]

ML63 ~500hp, weight ~2300kg, power:weight ratio =~220hp/ton which is somewhat below the RS4's 254hp/ton...

8:32 around the Nurburgring though which compares somewhat favourably with 7:58 or 8:09 for the RS4 (depending on which figures you want to quote)

Thats a bloody quick time for a 4-door.

6:55* - 178.699 km/h - Radical SR8, 360 PS/650 kg, Michael Vergers (sep,28 05)
7:12* - 173.600 km/h - Radical SR3 Turbo, 320 PS/500 kg (test drive 07/03) (*mfr.)
7:28 - 166.652 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Roehrl, (Autobild 07/04)
7:32* - 164.071 km/h – Pagani Zonda F, 650 PS/ 1230 kg, (*mfr.)
7:34 - 163.586 km/h - Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1418 kg, Horst von Saurma (sport auto), oct,17-18 05
7:36 - 162.631 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, factory test driver Walther Röhrl (02)
7.39* - 161.575 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:40 - 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40 - 161.217 km/h - Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40 - 161.217 km/h - Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:42* - 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h - Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05),
7:43 - 160.173 km/h - Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h - Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:45* - 159.484 km/h - McLaren F1,
7:46 - 159.142 km/h - Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/01)
7:48 - 158.463 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1440kg (sport auto 07/06)
7.49 - 158.124 km/h - Porsche 996 GT3, 392 PS (AutoBild 2004),
7:49 - 158.124 km/h - Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/99)
7:50 - 157.787 km/h - BMW E46 M3 CSL, 360 PS/1421 kg (sport auto 08/03)
7:50 - 157.787 km/h - Lamborghini Murcielago, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/02)
7:52 - 157.119 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/1599 kg (sport auto 02/06),
7:52 - 157.119 km/h - Lamborghini Gallardo E-gear, 493 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 12/03)
7:52 - 157.119 km/h - Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (sport auto 06/04)
7:54 - 156.456 km/h - Porsche 996 GT3 (sport auto 06/03)
7:55 - 156.126 km/h - Caterham R500 Superlight, Robert Nearn (EVO magazine 07/00)
7:55 - 156.126 km/h – Ferrari F430 F1, 490 PS/1493 kg (sport auto 01/06),
7:56 - 155.798 km/h - Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 425 PS/1387 kg (sport auto 02/04)
7:56 - 155.798 km/h - Porsche 996 Turbo, 420 PS/1569 kg (sport auto 06/00)
7:56.65 155.569 km/h – Lamborghini Gallardo SE, 520 PS/1560 kg, Tom Kristensen (AutoBild 02/06)
7:58 - 156.652 km/h - Audi RS4 4.2 V8 FSI, 420 PS/ 1650 kg, Frank Stippler, (10/05)

[sykotoy]

yeah great time,the rs4 owns the ml 63 dude, are you on drugs lol. the beemer fags always quote the other time for the ring, they must be destroyed at the final outcome of the M3 lol

[RS4Molar]

luv your stats on the ring turbo. get into the ML and "fag" BM's sykotoy, just love it.

[RussianM3_dude]

I could use the gas to help it turn in a tight corner without even braking traction. .

How the hell do you do that? Interesting laws of physics and adhesion. If you ain't braking traction at all then the back ain't sliding and you are not benefiting from the RWD oversteer...

It still helps you turn. There is a corner near my parents house where that is very obvious. Sometimes I could get the car to turn better without breaking traction, a bit tricky.

[RussianM3_dude]

Quite a good review. One fundamental mistake however. The M3 will not "devour" an RS4 on a track in the hands of any driver. The reality is that the 2 cars will be very similarly matched on the limit, regardless of which is more "fun". When will people realise that oversteering/sliding around corners is not the fastest way to travel on or off a track.

Well, obviously. Both are sedan based, similiar weight and similiar power.

[SimonFV8]

I could use the gas to help it turn in a tight corner without even braking traction. .

How the hell do you do that? Interesting laws of physics and adhesion. If you ain't braking traction at all then the back ain't sliding and you are not benefiting from the RWD oversteer...

It still helps you turn. There is a corner near my parents house where that is very obvious. Sometimes I could get the car to turn better without breaking traction, a bit tricky.

Was this in your peddle car on your way back from school?????

[W8PMC]

BMW is better balanced... almost 50/50, it's kinder on it's tires.

Bu11shit, it may be 50/50 weight, but with all the power coming via the rear wheels, any M car will go through roughly 2 sets of rears for every set of fronts. My M5 did exactly this, fronts lasted 16K miles & the rears just under 8K miles. Hardly kind on tires.

[W8PMC]

& without raising the couple of threads were the RS4 is un-favourably compared to the Porsches, please note the RS4 is only 2 seconds slower round Nordschleife than a 996 Turbo & the 997S & 4S are a good few seconds further down the list, so an RS4 will never be shamed by a Carrera/S on the road/track & a 996 Turbo would not devour an RS4. The 997 Turbo would & so would either a 996 or 997 GT3.

IIRC an R8 times at 7:54 so only 4 seconds quicker than the RS4. Also, the new M3 is 8:04 & the old M3 (non CSL) is about 8:15ish.

Bit of cock waving, my best BTG on stock tyres, full tank & a modest driver (me) is 8:33 solo & 8:54 with 4 up (the passengers giggled the entire lap), however i think the times in t urbo's post are full laps not BTG (i could be wrong) so to align you'd need to add another 20secs ish to my best time.