BMW M4 vs Audi RS5 vs Porsche Cayman S Comparison Review (Auto Express)

[3M TAPE]

So what's the news?

[Prazision]

I think another thing to take into account is the sheer fact that the Audi is the oldest platform by a large margin. I would be curious to see what they have in store for the next Audi A5 platform. I haven't heard anything. They have definitely been milking the A5 for all it is worth.

[OverDriven]

Now compare them to the Cayman GTS and watch them both get shredded.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by OverDriven

Now compare them to the Cayman GTS and watch them both get shredded.

Why? The Cayman S is a more track focused car than the M3/4 and the GTS even more so.

The Cayman didn't lose because it needed to be a better track car, it lost because it's still less of an all-around car.

[modkrazy]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Which category would that be?

Erm, the part where they say it's still the benchmark for driver involvement? You, know, motorsport and such? I don't see what is unclear.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by OverDriven

Now compare them to the Cayman GTS and watch them both get shredded.

Originally Posted by Jockey

Why? The Cayman S is a more track focused car than the M3/4 and the GTS even more so.

The Cayman didn't lose because it needed to be a better track car, it lost because it's still less of an all-around car.

Agreed... very different purpose cars and both great at what they do but they just do it slightly differently.

P.S. The GTS is still slower (7:53) at the 'Ring than the M4 (7:52) It might "feel" better and be more balanced but it's slower too.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by modkrazy

Erm, the part where they say it's still the benchmark for driver involvement? You, know, motorsport and such? I don't see what is unclear.

Well, if it was clear I wouldn't have asked the question, now would I?

The Cayman is a more track oriented car, I don't think anyone is arguing that, not in the very least.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Does anyone else find the comparisons to the Cayman a little weird? I would have expected a 911 in this comparo - and totally unfair to the Audi, which is what, 6 years old at this point?

I would expect it to go Cayman S vs. M2 (next year or whenever) and M4 vs pick your version of 911...

Good article regardless - the M4 seems to be an awesome performance machine that's wrapped up in everyday usability goodness.

M2 is gonna destroy a cayman S if it get the 360 hp rumored engine and <3300 lbs

[elrey21]

Originally Posted by JS919

Yea I guess that makes since. I have one on order too. I also used to have an RS5, it didn't do whole lot for me. I'm not going dispute what your opinion of the car is with 1000 word essay to prove why I'm right though.
I don't think what I said in my original post was offensive. It was my true feeling after reading half of his post.

Current BMWs - 2014 Mineral White M235i - 2014 Mineral White X5 35d
Future BMW - 2015 M4 Mineral Gray/Silverstone
Notable past BMWs - 2008 M3 Coupe - 2009 M3 Coupe - 2011 1-Series M - 2012 335is - 2013 M5 - 2013 M6 - 2014 M5 Competition Package



I Want your life.... all those cars

[John Tanglewood]

Originally Posted by modkrazy

If you read the review, the Porsche really won, just like in the previous comparo. BMW edges out overall for flexibility, but Porsche wins the categories that matter most.

The porsche actually doesn't win at all. It has no backseats and no 4-door variant.

It really doesn't belong in the comparison period as it's a completely different car.

But in reality, everyone loves comparing them so there you have it!

[bradleyland]

Fuck, this post is too long.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Wow. RS5 MMI has Google Street View and Google Earth that looks crisp as fck. You can knock the MMI for being slow, but looking dated? hell no.

Whether Google Earth looks crisp has nothing to do with whether an interface looks dated. When an interface is criticized for looking dated, it means that the design looks like it is from another time period. Sharpness has nothing to do with that.

MMI does look dated. I was designing "multimedia CD-ROM discs" back when you could count the number of Internet nodes on your fingers and toes. Lots of them looked very much Audi's MMI. I don't know what it is, but the designers at Audi have managed to make MMI look like the menu from a DVD sold in the 1990's. Is this subjective? Sure, but I'm a fucking expert (clearly), so my opinion is right (obvs)

Originally Posted by trinim3

Lastly,there seems to be quite a few edits to the online version than what was printed in the magazine. The online versions is much less biased sounding, more accurate, and less enthusiastic about the M4 than what was printed in the magazine

I agree. It's interesting, because while your gut reaction might be that they're contradictions, many of them are not. They're just two ways to see the same objective reality. One favors the BMW more than the other though, so ultimately, I agree.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Example 1:
Online version for RS5:

Residual values should be quite strong - the RS5 is relatively rare, keeping second hand prices high.

Magazine for RS5:
Making matters worse, its [RS5] predicted residuals of 41.6 percent are the worst here

Both of these may be true. Yes, the RS5 is relatively rare, so the second hand market will probably support higher prices. However, there's a difference between the second hand market and "predicted residuals". Prediction residuals are a very specific thing. They're published by lease financing companies. They're not really open to debate. What we have here is a case of cherry picking. If you want to favor the RS5, you point out its rarity, and predict that the second hand market will out perform the lease financiers' predictions. If you want too favor the BMW, you stick to the lease residuals.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Example 2:
The online version also completely leaves out this part which was printed in the magazine which I think is a bit overblown:

Magazine for M4 (left out of online):

NO matter what angle you view it from, you're unlikely to mistake the M4 for an ordinary 4 series Coupe.

What's overblown about that? Can you direct me to an angle at which the M4 could be mistaken for the 4-series coupe? There are so many extra ducts, flares, and fins on the surface of the M4, many of my "IRL" friends (non-enthusiasts) have turned their nose up at it. They're a bunch of fucking idiots, but they -- being the ignorant laymen that they are -- like the regular 4-series much better, and would never mistake the two. I guarantee that.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Example 3
Here's another contraction for the M4:
Online for M4

Then there’s the way it revs. While it may rev almost as high as the V8 with a redline of 7,300rpm, after 5,500rpm you have already reached the full 425bhp. This means that for the next 2,000rpm there is no more sensation of power building so you don’t get the urge to chase the red-line

contrast that with

Magazine for M4 (no mention of the above quote)

Like its predecessors, the BMW's straight six rips round to is 7300 rpm redline with incredible ferocity

I think you meant contradiction, but I'm not one to split hairs

Again, this is a case of looking at the same thing two different ways. It is true that the S55 makes and holds peak power for longer than any M-engine before it. Is that a bad thing? Well, you lose that building feeling that you get with the S65, but you get more performance. It's fair to say that it rips to redline with incredible ferocity, and it's also fair to say that above 5,500 RPM, there is no increase in power.

Originally Posted by trinim3

Now all that said the rest of the comments are fairly accurate and the M4 won fair and square (probably not as a big a margin as the read suggests though). Is the M4 a better car than the RS5? CHYEAH It BETTER BE since it's the new cycle. Now pick on someone else's car to compare ya selves too until the B9 comes out

I love that you're such a good sport about this stuff. Too many people take this shit too seriously. I've always been a fan of the A5 body in the right trim. The RS5 looks like the car Darth Vader would drive. Who can't love that? Yeah, it's getting a little old, but I think the RS5 is going to age as well as the many other Audis that still look good (B4, B5, and B6 S4 come to mind).

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by modkrazy

Erm, the part where they say it's still the benchmark for driver involvement? You, know, motorsport and such? I don't see what is unclear.

The problem is, everyone has different priorities. This comes up any time a magazine does a comparo between a P-car and anything with more than two seats. Their respective clans cry out:

The P-car has better driver involvement!

I can put my kids in the back of the super saloon!

Meanwhile, neither camp gives a shit about the other's argument. They're too busy playing the leading role in the blockbuster film that is their own life to take 30 seconds and contemplate why someone else might hold a different viewpoint.

[3M TAPE]

Originally Posted by OverDriven

Now compare them to the Cayman GTS and watch them both get shredded.

Really? Why not just compare with the GT3 and watch them get destroyed.
What's the point?

[Drizz]

Originally Posted by E92LNGCGY

Good result for M4. However it seems reviews from each magazine varies quite a bit.

It's almost like these reviews are entirely subjective! Who would have thought!?

[Madders]

Of the 3 cars tested - if I needed back seats it's the M4.

But if I didn't it's the Cayman. But I do need back seats so I chose.... a 911. It's BS to say a Cayman isn't an everyday car. I've had one and an E92 M3 and both were great everyday cars, but one was pre-kids and one was after.

[Viking123]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Weird that they say the Porsche and BMW do 30-70mph in the same 3.5 seconds but then say 30-50mph in 3rd and 4th gear is massively faster in the BMW

It must be due to the increased torque, by forcing a higher gear than what you'd normally would use, you'd expect the car with more torque to have the advantage

[cs4444]

Originally Posted by Double Bubble

Really? Why not just compare with the GT3 and watch them get destroyed.
What's the point?

The GT3 is an incredible machine, but from an engineering standpoint I do not think the M4 is inferior in any way. The GT3 is much lighter, and Porsches in general have a lot of rubber for their size. The GT3 has 12 inch wide rears and 9s up front with semi cup tires. So it has the same contact area up front and an extra 4 inches in the rear with less mass so it's going to kill an M4. But say you put 9.5 up front and 11s on the rear with the same compound, and drop 100lbs on the m4 (take out the rear seats, CF hood, CF wheels) it will be much closer to a GT3 (hopefully the CSL is like this). Gt3 will still be quicker b/c it will still have more grip and less mass. Porsches are quick b/c they have wide tires for there size ,just rambling blah blah.

[PeterK916]

Wow has the Cayman S 0-60 at 4.0 seconds, was not aware it was that quick, nice!

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Weird that they say the Porsche and BMW do 30-70mph in the same 3.5 seconds but then say 30-50mph in 3rd and 4th gear is massively faster in the BMW

The 30-70 figure is during a WOT acceleration run, shifting normally. The 30-50 MPH in 3/4 gear is an "in-gear" acceleration test, which tests engine flexibility. They do not shift during the in-gear acceleration test, so you have to rely entirely on the range of your torque plateau to accelerate the car.

Forced-induction motors always dominate the in-gear tests, because their torque comes on so low, and a turbocharger's entire life purpose is to generate boost under the exact conditions present in that test: WOT, maximum power demand, extended time under load. The turbo spools up and starts doing its job. Then it's a countdown timer until the intercooler heat soaks and power starts dropping.

[pkimM3r]

i don't even understand the point in that test. i mean if you are shifting manually, i would think the driver will be in the right gear. if its in automatic mode, i would think the software would be in a decent gear.

[BKMK5]

Originally Posted by M3OW

No one (except maybe a pro) is going to record a sub 4 second 0-60 with the m3 m4. It simply has too much torque and power being fed to the rear wheels and not enough traction. I had a apr tuned b8 s4 that would consistently hit 4.1 seconds because of the power was distributed between all 4 wheels. The m3 m4 will not produce impressive 0 to 60 times in a consistent manner.

Here is an example of your AWD claim:

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by SlowSaloonM3

i don't even understand the point in that test. i mean if you are shifting manually, i would think the driver will be in the right gear. if its in automatic mode, i would think the software would be in a decent gear.

The point of the test is to illustrate the difference in flexibility between two cars. As you can see by that test, the engine in the M4 is a lot more flexible. This means that, for example, if you need to pass someone on the highway, the M4 is able to do that more effortlessly than the Cayman S. That's something that a lot of people care about.