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

[gthal]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

so what do you expect if a car with DCT catches 200 km/h in 13.7 and the same car with manual transmission catches that distance in 14.1 second? you need 3 manual gearshifts correct? For sure you know how fast the DCT is

Ahhh... didn't notice the tested car was MT.

[FTS]

I am more surprised that the M4 is about the same around the track with both the 987.2 and 981.1 Caymans , I would have hoped for 0.3-0.5 secs better times, hmmm.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by gthal

Ahhh... didn't notice the tested car was MT.

Makes quite a difference, no launch control means you're relying on the car tester to get a decent launch not withstanding the shifts in every gear as well. The M4 was 0.5 seconds down on the RS5 by the 30kph point, that's a significant gap that it hauls in impressively proving it's straight line speed advantage.

With a good launch with DCT I wouldn't think 13.5 sec to 200kph is unrealistic.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by FTS

I am more surprised that the M4 is about the same around the track with both the 987.2 and 981.1 Caymans , I would have hoped for 0.3-0.5 secs better times, hmmm.

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.

[KevinM]

Interesting that despite the early reports of the S55's power being under-rated by BMW, the 0-100 kph times that we have seen are pretty much spot on what BMW claims. I seem to recall that, at least in US mags, most BMW's times (most recently the M235i) were faster than the official numbers.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

so what do you expect if a car with DCT catches 200 km/h in 13.7 and the same car with manual transmission catches that speed in 14.1 second? you need 3 manual gearshifts correct? For sure you know how fast the DCT is

Auto Motor & Sport did 13.7 0-200km/h with a 6MT...

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Auto Motor & Sport did 13.7 0-200km/h with a 6MT...

and Sportauto supertest did 13.7 0-200 km/h with DCT and CCB
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=997051

That's why I always say "do not rely too much on numbers"...
The same car, different people, different conditions, different results

[Art__Vandelay]

Hmm, the M4 had the higher fuel consumption, not much but still, that's quite disappointing (I6 turbo vs V8 NA, and the RS6 with about 500 lbs more).

[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???

[Never Convicted]

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???

Ummm...because it wouldn't be much of a test?

[coloradoe92m3]

Why not? If e92 is faster than rs5 than how is the rs5 a better test?

[SOM3]

Originally Posted by coloradoe92m3

Why not? If e92 is faster than rs5 than how is the rs5 a better test?

Exactly neither E92 or RS5 can come close to the new beast.

[tallshortguy]

Originally Posted by coloradoe92m3

Why not? If e92 is faster than rs5 than how is the rs5 a better test?

The e92 is faster on tracks than the RS5, it gets smoked in a straight line. Besides, most people would rather see comparos against competition and not the last generation of the car which we know is slower. I'm sure the e92 tests will come out in time.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by tallshortguy

The e92 is faster on tracks than the RS5, it gets smoked in a straight line. Besides, most people would rather see comparos against competition and not the last generation of the car which we know is slower. I'm sure the e92 tests will come out in time.

Actually, the RS5 has been tested faster on more tracks... check out Fastlaps.

[coloradoe92m3]

Originally Posted by tallshortguy

The e92 is faster on tracks than the RS5, it gets smoked in a straight line. Besides, most people would rather see comparos against competition and not the last generation of the car which we know is slower. I'm sure the e92 tests will come out in time.

Actually I've never seen a video of an M3 not beating rs5. Rs5 weighs 400 pounds more and only has 40bhp more but who really sucks with quattro sucking power and it puts down same whp as M3. So other than a standing start where quattro help, the e92 should win

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by gthal

Actually, the RS5 has been tested faster on more tracks... check out Fastlaps.

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"

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by gthal

Actually, the RS5 has been tested faster on more tracks... check out Fastlaps.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by coloradoe92m3

Actually I've never seen a video of an M3 not beating rs5. Rs5 weighs 400 pounds more and only has 40bhp more but who really sucks with quattro sucking power and it puts down same whp as M3. So other than a standing start where quattro help, the e92 should win

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...o-2013-page-10

Scroll down to their all time laptimes list.

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...ion/specs.html

Grattan Raceway

[FogCityM3]

Agree, but just wondering whether the high torque of the M4 is just so limited by traction to 40-50 mph. Beyond a certain point the bhp being in excess of what the rear tires can handle isn't going to help. 40-100, 60-120+, 1/4 trap speed much better indicators of car being fast.

Originally Posted by KevinM

Interesting that despite the early reports of the S55's power being under-rated by BMW, the 0-100 kph times that we have seen are pretty much spot on what BMW claims. I seem to recall that, at least in US mags, most BMW's times (most recently the M235i) were faster than the official numbers.

[FogCityM3]

Not so sure. In 2007, on the Autozeitung config Nurburgring GP course, an E90 M3 Sedan (MT) had a faster time than either the RS5 or M4 at 1:38.7 Obviously was different day, but time is close enough to be interesting in a head-to-head. Agree with above comment that a mag should do outgoing 2013 model vs incoming 2015 model, think it would be really interesting on tracks where the 60+ bhp @ crank and 70+ bhp at the wheel advantage (as seen from underrating on dynos) comes less into play.

Originally Posted by SOM3

Exactly neither E92 or RS5 can come close to the new beast.

[SOM3]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Not so sure. In 2007, on the Autozeitung config Nurburgring GP course, an E90 M3 Sedan (MT) had a faster time than either the RS5 or M4 at 1:38.7 Obviously was different day, but time is close enough to be interesting in a head-to-head. Agree with above comment that a mag should do outgoing 2013 model vs incoming 2015 model, think it would be really interesting on tracks where the 60+ bhp @ crank and 70+ bhp at the wheel advantage (as seen from underrating on dynos) comes less into play.

Ok so if E90 M3 is faster on one track than the M4 you still have to look at the overall package and there is no question M4 wins.

BTW I find it very hard to believe that E90 M3 had a faster time on N-ring GP track, there must some kind of mistake. That track is very hard on heavy cars with weak brakes to boot.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Agree, but just wondering whether the high torque of the M4 is just so limited by traction to 40-50 mph. Beyond a certain point the bhp being in excess of what the rear tires can handle isn't going to help. 40-100, 60-120+, 1/4 trap speed much better indicators of car being fast.

Was thinking the same thing; traction is king for the 0-100 kph run (as we have seen with various all-wheel drive Audis). Maybe the M235i hit the "sweet spot" in regards to this. Just thinking out loud - I'm committed to the F80!