M4 (MT) vs RS5 (DSG) comparison review by Auto Bild

[JS919]

Originally Posted by trinim3

Fair point. But if we do a little exercise just for fun:

Let's score the styling 8-8 instead of 9-7 for the M4. That brings the M4 from to 236 to 235 and RS5 from 228 to 229. (Some would even argue if the RS5 wasn't 6 yrs old it might actually be better styling)
Then let's flip the sound score from 8-6 to 6-8. That brings the M4 to 233 and the RS5 to 231. Much closer. The m4 would still have the edge but mainly due to its track performance. That's how I would score it but I of course am biased.

Anyways all I'm saying is bias/opinion/preference comes into play for subjective ratings which then appear as an objective overall score.

Sidenote: the Audis weight and aero drag really affect its top speed performance. I would not want to race a M4 at speed if I were in my RS5...it would be quite embarrassing.

Let's say you go get a job as an editor for a car magazine and you can score cars the way your bias sees fit.

I've owned an RS5 and if the all new M4 isn't substantially better I will be disappointed.

[ToyotaBMW]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

The best is the quotes on the interior:

BMW Brings DTM feeling on the road.

Audi is a GT, not a racer.

I would agree but I don't think Audi is aiming the RS5 as a sports car as it has the R8 to do that job, while BMW has nothing to fill that gap.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Yeah when I see slow lap times in the RS5 it just doesn't add up. Better traction, better braking, and better cornering G, there's no reason it couldn't beat an e92 m3 or at least match it. (I've owned both and I am faster in the RS5). The reason why journalists tend to hate the RS5 and get slow lap times is because most journalists like to dive bomb corners and trail brake...which renders the RS5s torque vectoring useless and will give you lots of understeer. If however you do a proper slow-in-fast-out method the magic begins and you can apply the throttle early with torque vectoring rotating the car and you'll slingshot out of the corner.

Anyways I would expect the M4 to be quite a bit quicker than the RS5 but the e92 isn't "noticeably quicker"

I am willing to be 9 out of 10 people will be able to drive the RS5 around the track faster than the M3/M4. Unless you are a phenomenal/professional driver you won't be able to get everything out of the M3/M4. You can see how hard it was to put the power down in the Tiff video. I think that is why BMW M division is considering AWD for future M cars.

[clbmw]

Well the M4 and RS5 are a closer match than Germany and Brazil

[BlackSaphire]

Originally Posted by clbmw

Well the M4 and RS5 are a closer match than Germany and Brazil

Probably has something to do with the fact that they are both German

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Paul-Bracq-BMW

Also found this interesting onboard video for the Supertest on the Sachenring: http://www.autobild.de/videos/video-...4-5139032.html

Best time: 1:37,74

Audi R5: 1:40, 81
M6: 1:37,67
M3 GTS: 1:37,17

Other Sachenring times: http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/sachsenring.html

Interesting the non CP M6 was actually faster around a relatively small track .

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Rupes

Did ya happen to notice the car that was just one car below the new M4 on this track?

1:34,41 min BMW M4 Manual
1:35,04 min - BMW M3 Coupe (E92) DCT

I'd say that's pretty close.

Noticed and I was expecting more, but that small of a gap seems to be an outlier.

[FogCityM3]

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).

Originally Posted by coloradoe92m3

Given e92 M3 is niticablu quicker than rs5, Id hope for more significant win for m4. Why is nobody putting up an e92 vs f80 M3 test in a big mag???

[Crusader]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

Think poor launch / traction.

It's telling that the m3 is .4 secs behind at 100km / hour but .7 ahead by 200km/hr

4wd versus 2wd?

[Imola3]

Originally Posted by ss134

Tested on different days, different conditions and possibly with different drivers. All of these comparative lap times are what they are, they don't prove much and are not 100% proof or gospel that car A is faster than car B unless the time differences are huge.

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?

[Imola3]

Originally Posted by clbmw

Well the M4 and RS5 are a closer match than Germany and Brazil

[NAV8TT]

The Audi looks like a 777 Boeing
The BMW looks so slick and perfect
M3 has beating RS5 for 2 generations

[FogCityM3]

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.

Originally Posted by ToyotaBMW

I am willing to be 9 out of 10 people will be able to drive the RS5 around the track faster than the M3/M4. Unless you are a phenomenal/professional driver you won't be able to get everything out of the M3/M4. You can see how hard it was to put the power down in the Tiff video. I think that is why BMW M division is considering AWD for future M cars.

[FogCityM3]

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

Originally Posted by Rupes

Did ya happen to notice the car that was just one car below the new M4 on this track?

1:34,41 min BMW M4 Manual
1:35,04 min - BMW M3 Coupe (E92) DCT

I'd say that's pretty close.

[Transfer]

Still waiting for the E92 vs F82 track battle.

[chrisny]

Originally Posted by Andrew115

huh.. didn't expect this. Maybe they are talking about volume of sound? I saw that it was a few db louder. More noise doesn't always mean better? Weird.

I think he was referring to the fact that "sound" was the only category listed in English.

Edit: so was handling.

[dbudh001]

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

[The long haul]

Originally Posted by BMWFB02

The Audi looks like a 777 Boeing
The BMW looks so slick and perfect
M3 has beating RS5 for 2 generations

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.

[flea333]

WTH... how did the M4 time go from 3.9s to 4.5s on 0-60? Manual should be 4.1 i thought.

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by ToyotaBMW

I would agree but I don't think Audi is aiming the RS5 as a sports car as it has the R8 to do that job, while BMW has nothing to fill that gap.

I am willing to be 9 out of 10 people will be able to drive the RS5 around the track faster than the M3/M4. Unless you are a phenomenal/professional driver you won't be able to get everything out of the M3/M4. You can see how hard it was to put the power down in the Tiff video. I think that is why BMW M division is considering AWD for future M cars.

Yup there is nothing by BMW (again) in the top 10 lap times listed... The R8 is a great example of 4WD implementation but if ///M do xdrive then it would have to be optional surely... Perhaps they could get a way with developing a new 4WD vehicle like we all mention now and again, but it won't get under the radar with an M3, M4, M5 or M6.

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:

[M3 n X5M]

Originally Posted by Transfer

Still waiting for the E92 vs F82 track battle.

In other threads, the reports suggest the F8x is faster.

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.

[Pure]

The power in the streets!

[Slow///1]

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.