BMW M4 vs Audi RS5 Compared on Nurburgring GP track by Autozeitung (Update)

[FogCityM3]

No, and neither did it have PSS. PSS, DCT, Comp Pack IMO may make it pretty close contest between E9x and M3/4 in a track situation and has been said before, apples to apples is different story on track where the S65's linear power, broad powerband, ability to stay high in the powerband on the upshft, and throttle smoothness are advantages. Ultimately M3/4 will still be faster on a track, but probably not as much as ppl think.

Also the lack of weight difference between the F80 and E9x is not surprising, due to more options that didn't exist on the E9x. By BMW hammering the weight thing over and over again, prior to car's launch, was clear to me and many others that you don't keep over-touting something unless you want a certain message to get across...a message which may not be clearly supported by fact. In this case, on a true apples to apples basis, it probably does weigh less but there are other tech/gadgets in all these test vehicle models that will result in higher weight and not make them appear to weigh much less than the prior gen. Much more difficult message to communicate when you get the cars on the scales, therefore made a lot of sense for BMW to throw out ultra-low stripper numbers and keep repeating them over and over again.

Originally Posted by BMWFB02

Was the M3 a DCT? Comp package?

[vladberca]

With these cars it's better to improve your lap times
What others have done is just for statistics..

[Jadar]

3 seconds faster than the Audi. And this is a surprise lol. M division will always own GmbH Quattro!!!!

[Bahn360Photo]

You are right, I raced one in my z4 35is and heard enormous blow off valve, I had him by half car to 100 which makes sense for a stock car, but turbo that block he should have walked me....

[TeutonicFlight]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Does this confuse you even more with your colour choice

And 1

[Holset]

Whoho! My post on the first page!

Just to be clear i have not read the article (i would not understand it anyway because German language) i just quoted the times posted on a another forum.
Also i see that my original post has been slightly altered.

I hope the full scans can come out on the net so we can clear some things out.

[TeutonicFlight]

Originally Posted by Hedoniste

OMG that's fast...

Try this :

http://m.autozeitung.de/tuning-news/...ung-chip-umbau

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by Mako

disappointing 0-100 km/h times! only 0.1 faster than the RS5, with similar power and less weight? And the RS5 times are pretty accurate as Car and Driver tested it 0-60 mp/h in 4.4. Really thought with DCT the M3 would easily break 4.0 seconds this time (maybe 3.8). Car and Driver even tested the E92 M3 at 4.0 in one of their articles (with rollout of course, although 5-60 was 4.4).

C&D did 0-60 in 3.9 with a DCT...

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Zundefolge

Try this :

http://m.autozeitung.de/tuning-news/...ung-chip-umbau

Yes i saw that too ! This "235i" tuned by "Manhart" is able to smoke our ///M3's and that all day long !

[bimmerj]

Originally Posted by m3ct

wow 0-100 in 8.5....ahh this wait is kililng me!!

Despite its light weight, the C63 kills it at 8.3.

[Braap]

Originally Posted by racedoc11

This doesn't make sense to me comparing V6 to V8? The Rs5 is a competitor to the E92 M3 not the M4. If the next generation Rs5 get a v6 twin turbo as the rumors say then the comparison will be ligit.
If I'm in the market for RS5 I wouldn’t be looking at the M4 and vice versa....

Lmao really bro?

[Loft23]

I sure hope the M4 wins. It's competing against an RS5 which was first introduced and little changed in 2010. The BMW is lighter and is 4 years newer in development. I still think that the RS5 is the sexier looking car despite its age.

[tooch]

Nice article thanks for sharing

[duk]

RS5 can't compare... it's too old. It's not even on E9x M3 levels.

[bradleyland]

Folks comparing lap times for the Autozeitung test track on fastestlaptimes.com should note:

* The #26 time for the BMW M3 at 1:38.70 is for an E90 M3.
* The E92 time is further down at #45, 1:40.10.

Lap times around the same track by different drivers on different days in different conditions will be... wait for it... different. The E90 and E92 perform very similarly, yet we see a difference of 1.4s in this list. That should illustrate why you have to be careful about comparing lap times like this.

As someone else has already said, the most relevant comparison here is to the RS5 that was run on the track on the same day by the same driver, and in that comparison, it smoked the RS5 pretty badly.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by racedoc11

This doesn't make sense to me comparing V6 to V8? The Rs5 is a competitor to the E92 M3 not the M4. If the next generation Rs5 get a v6 twin turbo as the rumors say then the comparison will be ligit.
If I'm in the market for RS5 I wouldn’t be looking at the M4 and vice versa....

This isn't homologation racing. Just because they run different engine configurations doesn't make them incomparable. The RS5 and M3 Coupe (now M4) have been class competitors for as long as the RS5 has existed. They're similarly priced, have similar power, and both are coupes.

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

This!

No you are absolutely wrong!
it means RS5 has Quattro system and:

The Torsen-based quattro system also offers an advantage, in the opposite function of distributing torque to the road wheels, namely engine braking. When engine braking is used to slow the car down, with Torsen-based systems, the resulting "reverse-torque" loads on the front and rear axle are equally stabilised, in exactly the same way that engine "propulsion" torque is apportioned fully mechanically autonomously. This allows the spreading of the engine braking effect to all four wheels and tyres. The Torsen-based quattro-equipped vehicle is able to execute a more stable high-speed turn under deceleration, with less risk of losing control due to loss of grip in the front or rear axles.


In fact Quattro helps the braking system ... it's not anything about better CCB

[Kadema]

Originally Posted by BimmerNFS

So from the Picture the M4 has carbon brakes... How does the RS5 stop in less distance, does the RS5 also have a carbon option? I'm not very up to date on Audi's options.

I think that's not because of the brakes but due to the audi's wider front tires.

[Ulmi]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

No you are absolutely wrong!
it means RS5 has Quattro system and:

The Torsen-based quattro system also offers an advantage, in the opposite function of distributing torque to the road wheels, namely engine braking. When engine braking is used to slow the car down, with Torsen-based systems, the resulting "reverse-torque" loads on the front and rear axle are equally stabilised, in exactly the same way that engine "propulsion" torque is apportioned fully mechanically autonomously. This allows the spreading of the engine braking effect to all four wheels and tyres. The Torsen-based quattro-equipped vehicle is able to execute a more stable high-speed turn under deceleration, with less risk of losing control due to loss of grip in the front or rear axles.


In fact Quattro helps the braking system ... it's not anything about better CCB

Calm down, I have quoted the article...

"...Mit seiner Allrad-Antriebstechnik stürmt der RS5 ohne Traktionsverluste nach vorn. Zudem markieren die enorm standfesten Bremsen bei der Verzögerung absolute Bestwerte. Da muss selbst der BMW, der wie der Auto mit optionaler Karbon-Keramik-Bremsanlage ausgestattet ist, passen und unterm Strich den Kapitelsieg- wenn auch knapp - dem RS5 überlassen"

"...Thanks to its four wheel drive system the RS5 jumps off the line without any lack of traction. In addition the incredibly fade resistant brakes score benchmark values on deceleration. The BMW, also equipped with CCB, draws a blank on that one and the Audi wins the driving dynamic chapter.
787 points vs 783points

----
Back to your Audi marketing hoax. It is true to a certain point but for example:
Porsche disengages the AWD clutch to the front wheels when braking in order to reduce the interference of the 4wheel drive system.
It is pretty impossible the disengage the AWD on a torsen based system...

I don't think the wider tires help a lot here... the Audi is 180kg heavier!

Lets agree on the fact that:
100km/h - 0 (cold) 33,9m Audi
100km/h - 0 (cold) 34,3m BMW

100km/h - 0 (warm) 32,8m Audi
100km/h - 0 (warm) 33,3m BMW

For the Americans:
62mph - 0 (cold) 111,2ft Audi
62mph - 0 (cold) 112,5ft BMW

62mph - 0 (warm) 107,6ft Audi
62mph - 0 (warm) 109,25ft BMW

[///FCB]

Originally Posted by Powaup

Nice!

I like the whole point system with different variables

As for the laptime.. that's bonkers.. faster than 997 GT2 RS, Turbo S, Nissan GTR.... Lost to the Aventador by 0.10 sec....

and you got this from...?

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Ulmi

Calm down, I have quoted the article...

"...Mit seiner Allrad-Antriebstechnik stürmt der RS5 ohne Traktionsverluste nach vorn. Zudem markieren die enorm standfesten Bremsen bei der Verzögerung absolute Bestwerte. Da muss selbst der BMW, der wie der Auto mit optionaler Karbon-Keramik-Bremsanlage ausgestattet ist, passen und unterm Strich den Kapitelsieg- wenn auch knapp - dem RS5 überlassen"

"...Thanks to its four wheel drive system the RS5 jumps off the line without any lack of traction. In addition the incredibly fade resistant brakes score benchmark values on deceleration. The BMW, also equipped with CCB, draws a blank on that one and the Audi wins the driving dynamic chapter.
787 points vs 783points

----
Back to your Audi marketing hoax. It is true to a certain point but for example:
Porsche disengages the AWD clutch to the front wheels when braking in order to reduce the interference of the 4wheel drive system.
It is pretty impossible the disengage the AWD on a torsen based system...

I don't think the wider tires help a lot here... the Audi is 180kg heavier!

Lets agree on the fact that:
100km/h - 0 (cold) 33,9m Audi
100km/h - 0 (cold) 34,3m BMW

100km/h - 0 (warm) 32,8m Audi
100km/h - 0 (warm) 33,3m BMW

For the Americans:
62mph - 0 (cold) 111,2ft Audi
62mph - 0 (cold) 112,5ft BMW

62mph - 0 (warm) 107,6ft Audi
62mph - 0 (warm) 109,25ft BMW

what's your point?
Porsche is mid-engine (Cayman) or rear-engine (911) and Audi and BMW are front engine with reverse weight distribution!! why do you compare Porsche to Audi or BMW??!!
and why it's important to you that Porsche disengages the AWD and Audi does not???
you quoted on CCB that Audi has better CCB because has shorter stop and I said it's because of Quattro (or whatever you call marketing hoax) and I know Audi stops shorter!

[qbix]

M4 faster than 997 GT2 and Nissan GT-R. Yeah, sure! The fastest car in the whole galaxy. Fanboys.