07-08-2014, 05:10 PM | #67 | |
First Lieutenant
97
Rep 380
Posts
Drives: M3 CS
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Henderson, NV
|
Quote:
I've owned an RS5 and if the all new M4 isn't substantially better I will be disappointed. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 05:18 PM | #68 | ||
Lieutenant
8
Rep 420
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 05:30 PM | #70 |
New Member
2
Rep 19
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 05:41 PM | #71 | |
Colonel
352
Rep 2,176
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 05:43 PM | #72 |
Brigadier General
3663
Rep 3,422
Posts |
Noticed and I was expecting more, but that small of a gap seems to be an outlier.
__________________
M4 GTS, GT3, C63 S | E90 M3s, E39 M5
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 05:50 PM | #73 |
Colonel
499
Rep 2,400
Posts |
Really surprised how well the E92 M3 is holding up in these comparos. Also, in the 3-4 tests that were done head-to-head with the RS5 (same driver, same day) E9x M3 was faster in each case. There’s this one vid that Bruce A. was referencing, but both guys were clearly not pro drivers and wasn’t timed. Also, think that for the differential, chassis improvements, 100 lb weight advantage, MUCH better stock brakes (forget CCB) and 50+ bhp advantage that the F8x beat the E92 by .5+ secs on short track and should have blasted the N-ring time by hitting the mid 7:40s with a low 7 weight/power ratio (vs 8.6 for E9x). Would be great to see a head to head, as I think the E9x is making up time in the corners, but obviously losing on power (not only the 50 bhp peak deficiency, but 50-80+ bhp over the powerband in comparing the vehicles power curves).
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 07:49 PM | #74 | |
Private First Class
15
Rep 157
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 07:55 PM | #75 |
Second Lieutenant
324
Rep 237
Posts |
So you're saying this also applies to the e92 being less than a second slower than the F82? If you're implying that the M4 could be quicker than the cayman (which we all know it is) than by using the same logic you could say the E92 could be quicker than the M4. See what I mean?
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 09:02 PM | #78 | |
Colonel
499
Rep 2,400
Posts |
Agree, even Audi S-cars are very fast around tracks and I've had a difficult time when encountering those guys. Some cars are much easier to drive fast on tracks than others, for the average amateur tracker.
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 09:30 PM | #79 |
Colonel
499
Rep 2,400
Posts |
Actually the OP had it wrong. the 1:35,04 time was achieved in a 2007 test of the E92 M3 with a MANUAL transmission and prior to the introduction of DCT and ZCP.
Source: http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-...m3-416315.html In this comparo, the regular S5 won, due to price/value |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 11:25 PM | #81 | |
Brigadier General
547
Rep 3,307
Posts |
Quote:
Edit: so was handling. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 11:49 PM | #82 |
Lieutenant
87
Rep 555
Posts |
The scoring is not biased. What you would need to do is go back in their archive and review other cars they have scored and gauge how accurate you believe them to be based on personal experience with the same car, if your views coincide with theirs then you can defiantly take this review and run with it. If not Throw it out the window - in my opinion and based on my experience with some of the cars they have tested in the past, id say they get it right most times
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 11:55 PM | #83 |
Hi
92
Rep 280
Posts
Drives: Maserati Ghibli, E92m, FTR
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Throughout the country
|
Looks are subjective but to me the M4 looks like a souped up M Sport 435i whereas the RS5 has a certain novelty and definitely a lot more class and swagger. I'm all for BMW but 9/10 people not being on this site would choose the RS5 looks wise every time. Plus half the people on here think they're Senna and most couldn't possibly ever drive a M3 at the limit, whereas the RS5 is much easier to drive fast without looking like a douchebag wannabe tanner foust.
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2014, 12:50 AM | #84 |
Lieutenant
76
Rep 490
Posts |
WTH... how did the M4 time go from 3.9s to 4.5s on 0-60? Manual should be 4.1 i thought.
__________________
2013 M3 LMB, DCT, ZCP, Premium, EPS, Bamboo Beige, Apps, sunroof
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2014, 02:27 AM | #85 | |||
Major
633
Rep 1,483
Posts |
Quote:
In fact given how strong the reaction was to turbo charging M vehicles I can imagine pitchforks and torches outside Bimmerpost HQ if M became xdrive only! Ps where is an angry mob emoticon? :angrymob: :angry: |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2014, 04:50 AM | #86 | |
Lieutenant
172
Rep 436
Posts |
Quote:
I mentioned the new m4 could probably be up there with a 911 Turbo and was criticized for that in another thread. And now looking at Karrussel's experience at the Nord he was beating a 997 turbo. In contrast, The E9x does not come near a 997 turbo. I expect the e9X to be slower in all tests. As I understood, BMW expects the new M3/M4 to be just shy of the outgoing M3 GTS. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2014, 07:56 AM | #88 |
Second Lieutenant
68
Rep 254
Posts |
At the end of the day, the RS5 is 2 pedal only... therefore off the list for me. I couldn't care less if it's a few seconds faster/slower around a track I'll go to twice a year. I'm looking for an involving experience that I can enjoy every day and for me that doesn't exist with an auto/dsg/pdk/dct.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|