Discussion
On my way home from work yesterday in my E46 M3 I noticed an RS4 ahead being driven pretty hard. Due to traffic lights I caught him up and he clearly wanted a play ( childish I know) I didn't bother at first but when we were on a quiet stretch of road we both nailed it in 2nd after exiting a roundabout. To my suprise the gap between the cars remained constant 'till we both slowed for the comind lights, probably for about 1/4 of a mile! When I told a mate about this, he reckoned it would have been an S4 (it wasn't) or I am lying! Could anyone back my story up from experience?
Put it this way my exige s would wipe the floor with a e46 m3....but when it comes to straight line speed against a rs4......watch the vid!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bSIXPm16A9k
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bSIXPm16A9k
Batster said:
He was either a) toying with you or b) a complete nonce or c)running it in
Well you don't have to look hard on the internet to see that an RS4 can't out run a CSL in a straight line. Hence if our man is in an SMG vs a manual RS4 or the RS4 owner wasn't too hot on the gears that day then it's quite likely a M3 could give him a good run. People don't seem to realise just how little difference a 0.5 sec faster 0-60 time makes on real roads. i.e. very little.
ETA if you check the regularly quoted figures you get RS4 at 4.6 secs and M3 at 4.8.
I doubt the RS4 would start to show any appreciable difference to the M3 until sheer brute force and extra cc's came into play as aerodynamic forces multiplied beyond 100mph.
Edited by Olf on Friday 18th April 08:21
Indeed - not exactly comparable but when me and my housemate drive out, he in his 125bhp 1.7 16v Puma and me in a very unsporty 90bhp 1.6 8v peugeot 206 5 door (a GLX with front fogs I'll have you know) he always comments how well it goes. The puma merely crawls ahead in a long drag down a dual carriageway. The difference in figures on these cars is probably 2 seconds in 0-60 time.
And yes, when it comes to the corners it would be totally different!
And yes, when it comes to the corners it would be totally different!
don't know if this skews things a bit.........
was in brother's e46 M3 Cab and had a fun time with [famous snooker player], 'The Rocket' in his new R8. Now this, unless I'm mistaken takes the RS4's engine......
For a good couple of miles, there was very little in it, and I have to go along with the comments that on a tight road, stop start scenario it's fairly even. Of course out on an open track, cabriolet vs supercar, it would become obvious, but everything shows [rightly] how highly rated the e46 M3 was/is....
in addition, i've drven both the RS4 and the e92 M3 and I would go with the M3 every time. I thought the RS4 fantastic and so capable, but the 4wd makes it seem a duller experience than the BMW....just what I think, i'm no expert.
was in brother's e46 M3 Cab and had a fun time with [famous snooker player], 'The Rocket' in his new R8. Now this, unless I'm mistaken takes the RS4's engine......
For a good couple of miles, there was very little in it, and I have to go along with the comments that on a tight road, stop start scenario it's fairly even. Of course out on an open track, cabriolet vs supercar, it would become obvious, but everything shows [rightly] how highly rated the e46 M3 was/is....
in addition, i've drven both the RS4 and the e92 M3 and I would go with the M3 every time. I thought the RS4 fantastic and so capable, but the 4wd makes it seem a duller experience than the BMW....just what I think, i'm no expert.
tigerkoi said:
the RS4 and the e92 M3 and I would go with the M3 every time. I thought the RS4 fantastic and so capable, but the 4wd makes it seem a duller experience than the BMW....just what I think, i'm no expert.
Not to mention the e92 M3 was a massive six seconds quicker round the track when tested against RS4 and C63 on Top Gear. 6 Seconds is a LOT!Not a lot of point really comparing the e46M3 with the RS4. The e46 came out much earlier and has almost a litre and 100bhp less.
E36GUY said:
Not to mention the e92 M3 was a massive six seconds quicker round the track when tested against RS4 and C63 on Top Gear. 6 Seconds is a LOT!
I would take that particular time with a major pinch of salt...I would expect and E92 to be quicker than an RS4, but not that much quicker.
housemaster said:
E36GUY said:
Not to mention the e92 M3 was a massive six seconds quicker round the track when tested against RS4 and C63 on Top Gear. 6 Seconds is a LOT!
I would take that particular time with a major pinch of salt...I would expect and E92 to be quicker than an RS4, but not that much quicker.
dan101smith said:
housemaster said:
E36GUY said:
Not to mention the e92 M3 was a massive six seconds quicker round the track when tested against RS4 and C63 on Top Gear. 6 Seconds is a LOT!
I would take that particular time with a major pinch of salt...I would expect and E92 to be quicker than an RS4, but not that much quicker.
"Quattro ist fur sissies"
Several different mags and TV shows all got similar results. IIRC the TG comparison was by the Stig (supposed to be a competent racer) at the Ascari circuit - seemed genuine enough to me.
One issue though is that you never know quite what spec is being tested - eg did the C63 have the optional LSD, and if not would that have made much difference?
One issue though is that you never know quite what spec is being tested - eg did the C63 have the optional LSD, and if not would that have made much difference?
Like said earlier an on the road the difference is so small. I had a raz against an m3 (not e92 or the last one, but the one before that). It was from the lights and I was slow away but even so once I got going although I went past (I have a B7RS4) the speed differentials are not massive. As long as it feels fast and is good fun wgaf?
I would think the previous M3 is pretty much the same as an B7RS4. The new one is clearly faster especially around a track but who would choose either as a track car?
I would think the previous M3 is pretty much the same as an B7RS4. The new one is clearly faster especially around a track but who would choose either as a track car?
Edited by baxster on Tuesday 22 April 15:56
dan101smith said:
housemaster said:
E36GUY said:
Not to mention the e92 M3 was a massive six seconds quicker round the track when tested against RS4 and C63 on Top Gear. 6 Seconds is a LOT!
I would take that particular time with a major pinch of salt...I would expect and E92 to be quicker than an RS4, but not that much quicker.
Did you see Fith Gear, they showed the RS4 to be a little quicker around the track than the E46, do you think the E46 is also 6 seconds slower? I am not, and I clearly said, debating that an M3 would be quicker, the RS4 has cronic understeer when pushed, the E92 doesn't. But I am also aware of how Top Gear is hardly scientific and am also aware of a number of guys who have tracked both........from the forum I mention below. I am suggesting nothing more than in the right circumstances the RS4 would not be 6 seconds slower around the Ascari circuit, no matter what the Stig (Ben Collins normally) might have done or been seen to have done. The Ring times I have seen are pretty close, and that is somewhat longer than the Ascari circuit. It astonishes me how much weight is given to Top Gear lap times when even the people who work on the show will tell you they are not very scientific...
E36GUY said:
[He's an RS4 driver according to his profile Dan
"Quattro ist fur sissies"
Don't be an idiot and show your own fanboy blinkers. I have been and continue to be a fairly well known contributor to BM3W/MTorque since 2002, and have had 10 BMW's including M3's and have driven the new one a couple of times. I am in fact off to my dealer this weekend to borrow the 4 door and I am selling the RS4 because its not my cup of tea for reasons you can read all about in the forum I just mentioned. You really let yourself down with stupid fanboy comments like that."Quattro ist fur sissies"
Edited by housemaster on Tuesday 22 April 21:37
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff