Hypothetical question - Audi RS4 v's BMW M3 (E92)

SuprSi

This is just a question to satisfy my curiousity rather than decide which car I'm going to buy (I wish!).

I've seen loads of press about these two cars, in terms of handling and performance. The new M3 is quicker than the RS4 around a track, to 100, etc, but it's only got two-wheel drive. In the wet, which is what most people in Ireland drive in, would the RS4 be quicker on a track? And for general day-to-day road driving, realistically, is there any benefit in having 4-wheel drive? I think both cars are amazing but most track tests or sprints are done in the dry and I would've thought the extra grip in the Audi would make it more of a beast in the wet.

Biro

Ya, wet is a different ball game. Audi should be quicker. Autocar regularly do tests that show wet and dry times.

Lord Nikon

Audi Rs4 beats the M3 hands down.

High&Low

I've driven both and prefer the M3

Victor_M

I was wathcing the episode of top gear last night with the M3, RS4 and C63AMG, general concencous is that they are all magnificent cars and there is no clear winner, you would have to be pushing the RS and the M pretty hard to lose either, and it would be fairly reckless to drive either of them that hard in the wet.

The Merc on the other hand, it seems to just want to kill the driver!

I think you'd be pretty happy with either:D

Victor_M

neuromancer wrote: »

Audi Rs4 beats the M3 hands down.

No it doesn't!

Balfa

4WD tends to have a track advantage in the wet. Without actually seeing a test, that's all I can say.

With regards to everyday driving, I've had my 325i for about three weeks now and I've had one semi-hairy situation in the wet. Even with traction control, it's not difficult to slide the rear end coming out of a hairpin in the wet. If this happens in a front-wheel drive car, you just plough straight and it's easy to control but in RWD, it can surprise you how quickly the car spins. I can only imagine it'd be much worse in snow/ice.

That said, I'm not sure what sort of 4WD system the RS4 uses. Many performance-oriented 4WDs run almost entirely in RWD in normal conditions, and only shift power toward the front when they sense the rear wheels might be starting to slip. If that system doesn't respond any quicker than my BMW's traction control, it might not be much different to a RWD car. It may actually be worse if you're trying to correct the front end and those wheels get a sudden surge of power!

Keep in mind that all this is said with no actual experience driving an Audi.


On a side note, in terms of which is "better", much of what I've heard about any BMW compared to other cars is, regardless of the track times or what-have-you, there's just a better "feel" with the BMW. It gives you more feedback and let's you know when it's on the limit... stuff like that's why they're considered wonderful "driver's cars"

Of course I don't get any of that feel, because my control arm bushings are worn to nothing

TommyT

This is Top Gears take on you hypothetical question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5nzEax87lw

Mena

TommyT wrote: »

This is Top Gears take on you hypothetical question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5nzEax87lw

You neglected the NSFW tag on that... metallic porn

Plug

Balfa wrote: »

That said, I'm not sure what sort of 4WD system the RS4 uses. Many performance-oriented 4WDs run almost entirely in RWD in normal conditions, and only shift power toward the front when they sense the rear wheels might be starting to slip. If that system doesn't respond any quicker than my BMW's traction control, it might not be much different to a RWD car. It may actually be worse if you're trying to correct the front end and those wheels get a sudden surge of power!

I think its 40/60 bias, 40% of the power goes to the front wheels and 60 goes to the back.

Now which is quicker people. I really do think the BMW is quicker in a straight line but around the track its a different ball game.
Heres 2 times posted on the top gear track by an Audi RS4(1.25.6) and a BMW M5(1.26.2). They never had the M3 on the track but look at it this way, the M5 has to be quicker so not to effect sales.

Balfa

Plug wrote: »

They never had the M3 on the track but look at it this way, the M5 has to be quicker so not to effect sales.

Not at all... the M5 is much more powerful so it's faster in a straight line, but the M3's weight could certainly give it an advantage on a track, especially a short, twisty track.

On a similar note, it's common for the V8 Ferraris to outpace their bigger, more expensive V12 counterparts on test tracks.

The bigger cars are for cruising. Sure the M5 is probably faster around a track than any other four-door car its size, but it's also elegant and comfortable and luxurious.

It's not all about laptimes, otherwise BMW's most expensive product, the new Rolls Royce, would pummell the M3 in a race, and that's just not going to happen

Plug

Balfa wrote: »

Not at all... the M5 is much more powerful so it's faster in a straight line, but the M3's weight could certainly give it an advantage on a track, especially a short, twisty track.

Ok the M3csl did a 1.28.00, about 2 and a half seconds slower than the M5. The Csl is 9 seconds quicker than the new m3 around the ring.

Balfa

Should we mention that it was very wet when the stig drove the M3 CSL?

The CSL is practically a race car. I'd be very surprised if it was slower than an RS4 in a fair matchup.

MSporty

Ive driven both, considering speed, handling, interior and looks, i opted for an RS4.

Plug

Balfa wrote: »

Should we mention that it was very wet when the stig drove the M3 CSL?

The CSL is practically a race car. I'd be very surprised if it was slower than an RS4 in a fair matchup.

It wasent very wet. You take maybe 2 seconds off.

Lord Nikon

The Rs4 is all round great

-Chris-

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6696

Balfa

Plug wrote: »

It wasent very wet. You take maybe 2 seconds off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDuWrTQ7ik
There's standing water and puddles on the track! And it's running almost on slicks.

Wikipedia obviously can't be considered gospel on the matter, but it says "very wet" for the CSL, and claims this is worth about 6 seconds off the 1:28.

But of course, this thread isn't about the CSL
It's about the M3 and RS4. So here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5nzEax87lw
(to sum it up, the Audi's a shade under 2:44, and the Beemer cracks 2:39).

But then that's not in the wet, so it's a little off topic, too!