RS4 vs M5 (Manual (US))
Discussion
There's always this old chestnut...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc
IMHO the RS4 DID win here, but it was tweaked
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc
IMHO the RS4 DID win here, but it was tweaked
Edited by brisel on Friday 20th April 22:51
olf said:
When did being slower mean you win?
Hmm, it could be where that article linked to says right at the start:
1st Place: Audi RS4
2nd Place: BMW M5
I don't think they decide their winner based purely on a 0-60 or 1/4 mile time either
article said:
Press on harder and the BMW M5's Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) takes hold smoothly yet sternly, and finally the fun bleeds away just when the going gets good....
...More disturbing than the stability control was the warning that flashed up on the iDrive screen after just 12 miles of fast driving. Transmission temperature was escalating, so the M5 announced that it was taking matters into its own circuits by reducing engine output. The redline then steadily crept down. And down. By the time we got fed up and pulled over to let it cool, the redline had dropped to 6,000. Apparently the manual transmission just doesn't have the cooling capacity to deal with 500 hp....
...The M5 manual achieved 0.83g on the skid pad and 68.4 mph in the slalom, 0.1g and 0.8 mph shy of the performance achieved by the SMG-equipped M5 we tested a year ago.
These are decent results, but the Audi did better. The RS 4 posted 0.88g on the skid pad and turned 69.0 mph through the slalom cones...
...the 420-hp RS 4 had almost no trouble keeping up with the 500-hp M5 on the real-world roads of our mountain test loop. More grip and confidence in the Audi's chassis is part of the reason; the other is the combination of all-wheel drive and a stability control system that can be fully switched off when you like....
...The RS 4 is enormous fun, and a much more engaging drive on our favorite roads than the M5....
...More disturbing than the stability control was the warning that flashed up on the iDrive screen after just 12 miles of fast driving. Transmission temperature was escalating, so the M5 announced that it was taking matters into its own circuits by reducing engine output. The redline then steadily crept down. And down. By the time we got fed up and pulled over to let it cool, the redline had dropped to 6,000. Apparently the manual transmission just doesn't have the cooling capacity to deal with 500 hp....
...The M5 manual achieved 0.83g on the skid pad and 68.4 mph in the slalom, 0.1g and 0.8 mph shy of the performance achieved by the SMG-equipped M5 we tested a year ago.
These are decent results, but the Audi did better. The RS 4 posted 0.88g on the skid pad and turned 69.0 mph through the slalom cones...
...the 420-hp RS 4 had almost no trouble keeping up with the 500-hp M5 on the real-world roads of our mountain test loop. More grip and confidence in the Audi's chassis is part of the reason; the other is the combination of all-wheel drive and a stability control system that can be fully switched off when you like....
...The RS 4 is enormous fun, and a much more engaging drive on our favorite roads than the M5....
That would be when you win despite being slightly slower.
Edited by GravelBen on Saturday 21st April 05:49
olf said:
Thorny said:
olf said:
When did being slower mean you win?
What GravelBen said
So why compare the M5 to a RS4. Not really fair competition if reviewers main concern is how nimble the car is. Where's the RS6?
Ah ha ! exactly
. The S4/RS4 have always been compared the the M3. But that's never quite right as the 4's are always that bit more of a "proper" 4 door saloon. Then the 5 series really goes up against the A6/S6/RS6. There's never quite the right matchup. .....mind you, when's that ever stopped journo's doing xxxx vs xxxx !
damn good for us car lovers that there's all these options to choose from, that's what I say
olf said:
Thorny said:
olf said:
When did being slower mean you win?
What GravelBen said
So why compare the M5 to a RS4. Not really fair competition if reviewers main concern is how nimble the car is. Where's the RS6?
If you bothered reading the article it says they compared them because they're the only German sedans on the market with over 400bhp and proper manual gearboxes. They do discuss the RS4 being a bit 'in-between' the M3 and M5, and may well have tested the SMG M5 against the RS6 previously.
GravelBen said:
olf said:
Thorny said:
olf said:
When did being slower mean you win?
What GravelBen said
So why compare the M5 to a RS4. Not really fair competition if reviewers main concern is how nimble the car is. Where's the RS6?
If you bothered reading the article it says they compared them because they're the only German sedans on the market with over 400bhp and proper manual gearboxes. They do discuss the RS4 being a bit 'in-between' the M3 and M5, and may well have tested the SMG M5 against the RS6 previously.
If you bothered taking your blinkers off I think you'd agree it's a pretty pointless article given that the 'amazing' outcome was that when you comapre a less powerful, smaller RS4 to a bigger, heavier, faster M5, the bigger, heavier, faster M5 is bigger heavier and faster than the less powerful, smaller RS4.
I don't think winning comes into it do you?
"blinkered" says the guy with 2 BMWs to the guy with no Audis... I don't have any agenda here, I quite like most quick Audis and most quick BMWs (thought not a fan of bangle styling I'll freely admit). They called it "winning" because they thought the RS4 was clearly a better car than the manual M5 (which should I remind you again has traction control which can't be disabled, and cooked its gearbox after 12 miles of fast driving, after which it cut its power and was most definitely not faster than the RS4)
Is that clear enough for you yet?
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff