evo Magazine Supertest: M4 CP vs RS5 vs C63 S

[///MPE]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

The Verdict:

1- M4 CP
2- RS5
3- C63 S

The C63 S is last with its inferior transmission, heavy weight, and poor quality cabin build per the review. It also had CCB in the test while both the Audi and BMW beat its stopping distance with cast iron brakes.

Full review: http://www.evo.co.uk/group-tests/202...pertest-review

[Ghosn]

CCBs are not just about stopping distance. Their main benefit is durability and sustainability.

On the C63, I'm pretty sure they are selling better than the other two? Being the heaviest doesn't help it's cause either.

[///MPE]

Originally Posted by Ghosn

CCBs are not just about stopping distance. Their main benefit is durability and sustainability.

On the C63, I'm pretty sure they are selling better than the other two? Being the heaviest doesn't help it's cause either.

Im stating facts not being blinded by a brand name

[4everkidd]

Originally Posted by ///MPE

Im stating facts not being blinded by a brand name

and which of these three are not "brand names" ?

[///MPE]

Originally Posted by 4everkidd

and which of these three are not "brand names" ?

All brand names but one brand gives you a true sports car

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by ///MPE

All brand names but one brand gives you a true sports car

Is it Porsche? No? But was I close?

All three of the cars in the test are sport coupes which are based on sport sedans that are meant for daily commuting and family carrying. None of these are pure sports cars. The differences among them come down to each brand's interpretation of what a high performance sport coupe should be. Each have finished first in some of the many tests that have compared the three (and other competitors), so there is not necessarily a clear winner among them. And while each individual may have one or more they are partial to or prefer for one reason or another, none of these would make for an outright miserable experience. It is hard to go wrong in this class of vehicle.

[///MPE]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Is it Porsche? No? But was I close?

All three of the cars in the test are sport coupes which are based on sport sedans that are meant for daily commuting and family carrying. None of these are pure sports cars. The differences among them come down to each brand's interpretation of what a high performance sport coupe should be. Each have finished first in some of the many tests that have compared the three (and other competitors), so there is not necessarily a clear winner among them. And while each individual may have one or more they are partial to or prefer for one reason or another, none of these would make for an outright miserable experience. It is hard to go wrong in this class of vehicle.

Well if you think the C63 and the RS5 is on the same level you havent driven both.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by ///MPE

Well if you think the C63 and the RS5 is on the same level you havent driven both.

I've driven neither - so you are correct about that particular point.

But they are objectively on the same level where being a $70k+, 450hp+ luxury sports coupe is concerned.

Your statement implies that you believe anyone who test drives both would choose the RS5. I think that would prove to be untrue if we were to get enough people together with varied priorities and differing values in a performance car and allow them to compare the two. In fact, I'll bet you can even find media coverage in this forum where the C63 was preferred to the RS5 by the reviewer(s).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring one particular make or model of vehicle over another. But statements like "one brand gives you a true sports car" are automatic credibility killers. If you don't particularly care about credibility, hey, that's your prerogative. However, its only fair to point out that in the context of an online community, you are treading dangerously near troll territory if you choose to conduct yourself in that manner. Just saying.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by ///MPE

Well if you think the C63 and the RS5 is on the same level you havent driven both.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I've driven neither - so you are correct about that particular point.

But they are objectively on the same level where being a $70k+, 450hp+ luxury sports coupe is concerned.

Your statement implies that you believe anyone who test drives both would choose the RS5. I think that would prove to be untrue if we were to get enough people together with varied priorities and differing values in a performance car and allow them to compare the two. In fact, I'll bet you can even find media coverage in this forum where the C63 was preferred to the RS5 by the reviewer(s).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring one particular make or model of vehicle over another. But statements like "one brand gives you a true sports car" are automatic credibility killers. If you don't particularly care about credibility, hey, that's your prerogative. However, its only fair to point out that in the context of an online community, you are treading dangerously near troll territory if you choose to conduct yourself in that manner. Just saying.

in fact, to toot my own horn (toot toot!) you can find a list here: http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1067504 of professionals who have, among many other cars, driven all 3 of those and variously preferred the M4 or C63S

(note: I don't think I have yet come across a pro reviewer that chose the Audi over the other 2....not to say it can't or won't happen or that a non-pro might prefer the RS over the others, just that I haven't come across it in my quest to be up to date on the reviews)

[Parabolica]

Originally Posted by ///MPE

Well if you think the C63 and the RS5 is on the same level you havent driven both.

Agreed. Neither the AMG nor the RS5 are on the same level as M4 CP.

[No Boost]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Your statement implies that you believe anyone who test drives both would choose the RS5.

His statement implies that the RS and AMG are not on the same level as the M, which on a race track (and the thread topic being discussed), is probably accurate.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Stage IV

His statement implies that the RS and AMG are not on the same level as the M, which on a race track (and the thread topic being discussed), is probably accurate.

That's plainly false. His statement covered only the C63 and RS5. Thanks in advance for re-reading the thread carefully.

[dkhm3]

nice read, nicer to see the f8x come in first on a uk mag.

What's interesting is the only slight difference between zcp and non zcp cars. lap times do show a rather minimal improvement for the zcp. I've driven one at a bmw sponsored event and I am not sure I can tell much of a difference. But these mags think that it has what was "missing".

[Chicken_Joe]

Why is there no 911 in there 🤔

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by Chicken_Joe

Why is there no 911 in there 🤔

Because BMW have no competitor to it

Can you imagine 911 vs new baby R8 vs entry level GT vs M4 ?!

[Chicken_Joe]

Originally Posted by clbmw

Because BMW have no competitor to it

I know lol it's too good <3

[rjd598]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I've driven neither - so you are correct about that particular point.

But they are objectively on the same level where being a $70k+, 450hp+ luxury sports coupe is concerned.

Your statement implies that you believe anyone who test drives both would choose the RS5. I think that would prove to be untrue if we were to get enough people together with varied priorities and differing values in a performance car and allow them to compare the two. In fact, I'll bet you can even find media coverage in this forum where the C63 was preferred to the RS5 by the reviewer(s).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring one particular make or model of vehicle over another. But statements like "one brand gives you a true sports car" are automatic credibility killers. If you don't particularly care about credibility, hey, that's your prerogative. However, its only fair to point out that in the context of an online community, you are treading dangerously near troll territory if you choose to conduct yourself in that manner. Just saying.

chill the fuck out

[Sedan_Clan]

I have my popcorn ready.

[WWM3]

F82 had the 19s for this particular test. One of the first comparisons with an M4 CP fitted with those wheels that I?ve seen at least. Probably the best choice for the track I imagine.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

That's plainly false. His statement covered only the C63 and RS5. Thanks in advance for re-reading the thread carefully.

His statement was a direct response to your post where you talked about all three brands.

Allthough his post being a bit ambigous, I also understood it to mean that he thought neither of the two cars compared favourably to the M. An understanding which also makes sense considering the topic of the thread and the verdict of the EVO test with the M heading the pack...

And if it was meant to be just about the RS and AMG, I certainly couldnt see that he implied that the RS5 was the better car?

[GMe90]

Is it me, or has BMW started to fare a lot better in car comparisons recently? Back in 2012-2015, all the car magazines were talking trash about BMWs. Now, BMW is winning again. Makes me wonder if BMW started buying magazine ads again.

[613Bimmer]

Kinda surprised about the mention of poor cabin build quality in the C63S... isn't the cabin what it's usually praised for among the competition?