Comparison: 2013 Audi RS 5 vs 2011 BMW M3 vs 2011 Cadillac CTS-V

didnt we go over this already

http://autospies.com/news/Car-and-Driver-Audi-RS5-vs-BMW-M3-vs-Cadillac-CTS-V-and-the-winner-is-56224/

oh by the way BMW M3 wins yet AGAIN.....Its the complete package like i always say and it drives like it. You gotta give respect where its due Audi has a great car with the AWD system but its a little heavy but Im sure some of that is due to the AWD system.

This is motor trend, not the car and driver one from a few days ago.

give me the RS5

IAmEvilHomer, what kind of employee deal would you get on one since you work for Audi?

@ IAmEvilHomer.....lemme know the deal on an 2010 S6 just say im your cousin so i can get the family discount....lolol

Not having AWD on the M3 is a plus not a negative(It snows bad maybe a handful of days i New England). It gives the car better balance, and makes the car lighter. NO vehicle is good on ice, and in the snow ground clearance is the deciding factor.

The RS5 will bottom out and get stuck in 6 inches of snow just like an M3, b/c they are only about 4 inches off the ground, and in anything less then 6 inches the M3 can get around b/c the traction control system are so good these days..and racing in the snow is not the brightest idea.

Back to the article. Congrats to the M3, its the best car in the group.

Patrick, the RS5 has max performance summer tires on it. They're going to suck in winter. It doesn't matter if you have a two wheel drive or ten wheel drive, max performance summer tires aren't designed to function in snow.

I really hope people don't believe their shiny new RS5 is going to be an "ideal winter car" just because of all-wheel drive. Anyone who believes that is going to find out really quickly that while all-wheel drive on a vehicle with those max performance summer tires might barely, BARELY help them scratch and crawl their way from stopped to moving, once they are moving that all-wheel drive system will provide absolutely zero assistance in the other two important functions of driving, namely "turning" and "stopping". Those are functions of traction, and performance summer tires won't have any, and all-wheel drive doesn't do anything when you're not on the gas. Those people will be the first ones piloting their "ideal winter vehicles" into ditches, or worse, into other people.

You're buying a $90K Audi and worrying about the cost of insurance on an old Jeep?

Does it even rain where you guys live? The M3 is a winner on a dry track. In the real world where roads are less than perfect and not always dry, the results might be different.

I say let there be an AWD M3 just for snow's sake. Outsource that from NISSAN though PLEEZ...... :)

"The "balance and weight" obviously doesn't hurt the Audi's performance"

Direct quote from C&D issue sitting on my lap for there verdict on the RS5 that placed third "Attractive and powerful, but a bit too front-wheel-drive-like and detached to win"..."The CTS-V and the M3 don't understeer as much or try to pound their front tiers into dust"....apparently it does affect it.

I live in Boston Patrice.. i know what the winters are like.

"we get anywhere from 50 to 100 feet a season, we don't get 3 storms of 15 feet, it's more like 8-10 a good 6 times."

Well with 4-5 inches of ground clearance the RS5 isnt going anywhere with "8-10" on the ground. Its common sense.

Yes, the RS5 would be a little better in a few inches, but this doesn't render the M3 obsolete, it will still get you around, and to think otherwise is irrational.

Patrick, I've had rear drive and awd BMW's, an awd Audi, and grew up with a 500hp supercharged Mustang (which I once actually drove 90 miles home on the performance tires in a blizzard in what was the most hair raising two and a half hours of my life). Snow tires would be required on any of them in winter. An M3 with snows and an RS5 with snows would both get around in small amounts of snow. Again, the awd on the S5 would only benefit it in getting from stopped to moving, once you're moving the awd system offers no benefits in stopping and turning. In fact, the added weight would hamper it on both fronts, especially since it's not only heavier but much more nose-heavy. In anything more than light snow neither car would be of much use, awd or not. An awd sports car isn't an SUV. If I had to give a slight nod to the RS5 in that circumstance that's fine, but with snow tires both would drivable in light snow, and both would be compromised. In that case the question becomes whether to sacrifice 11 months of one car being more enjoyable for the one month where neither are enjoyable but one is marginally more useful. And to me that answer is "no".

Wheres Germannut? He talked the RS5 up so much, and it lost its first 3 comparisons. I guess he just cares about sales figures, not how the cars are perceived.

Just giving Nut a hard time. Have you seen some of the crap he posts? Your dismissing the M3s achievement, are you not? Looks like were all guilty.

The M3 sounds sooo good on the video for this review.

One thing's for certain, Agent 009 could never have posted this. Anyone else notice how the M3 mauls the RS5 by 2.1 seconds to 120 mph even though it's giving up 30 bhp? To sum up then, the RS5 is 297 pounds heavier and slower than the three year old M3 and when it finally arrives in 2012 be prepared to pay $10 000 more for a car that's inferior to the then five year old M3.

Makes sense I suppose.

Would you think that there is more to a car than its 0-120mph time? These are not exotic cars that are going to be driven on the track a few times a year. These are cars that would be daily drivers, rain snow or shine.

Your right Dhkss2002, by the time the RS5 gets to the US, the fifth generation M3 will be just around the corner. I was also impressed by the M3's 0 to 120 time compared to the RS5's. At higher speeds rwd has an advantage because all of the engines power can be focused to two wheels instead of being broken up between four. I bet the M3 could get to 150 faster then the R8 V8 because of this.

"And for a heavier car it also brakes better and has better gas mileage which is pretty impressive. Both of those criteria I would've bet to be in BMW's favor."

You may want to check your facts in the Car and Driver, and motor trend reviews the M3 achieved better economy.

The RS5 stopped shorter in the motor trend comparison because it was equipped with carbon ceramic brakes that are a $6000 option. In the Car and Driver comparison the M3 actually stopped shorter. The RS5 also costs 10K more then the M3.

You could buy some snow tires with that money. : )

I understand that the RS5 is a bit slower & heavier, but did it seriously outhandle both the M and the V?

BMW stays true to their slogan... "The ultimate driving machine."

Why am I not surprised that Audi is last in a Comparison test? Gone are the days when an RS model (RS4) could beat the M3. The RS model Audis seem to be going backwards.

I think they're just holding the line and it's a perfectly good strategy. Why duke it out with BMW when you don't really depend, like they do, on consumers who demand a level of performance that generally exceeds their skills or needs? In the end, designing a production performance car is more a marketing exercise than an engineering one. BMW has staked their reputation on performance and I would bet that it's been partly at the expense of profitability. If Audi does begin to outperform BMW in sales and profit, it will be interesting to see how it affects BMW's performance trajectory.

I get what your saying. But its just sad to watch Audi roll out an "RS" model that doesn't really perform any better than the S5. And performance does come at the expense of profitability perhaps. But if profitability was the main point, then all car brands will eventually end up with a lineup similar to Toyota's. BMW caters to a certain niche (which is also profitable). Audi on the other hand seems confused. Audi does indeed market certain models as performance models, which always turn out to be slower and more expensive. In the end it just makes them (Audi) look second rate IMO.

Thank you for the civilized response on a forum that has long become the place to voice knee-jerk emotional responses to trite rivalries. First of all, profitability IS the main point. That said, though, you can achieve it through high volume (the Toyota way) or through high percentage (in general, the luxury-segment way). And, of course, you can opt for some balance between the extremes.

Timing may be the key to the RS5's apparent disappointment. I think that that it reflects, to some degree, a shift towards moderation brought on by the recession and changing environmental attitudes. We'll get a good answer when BMW updates the M3. If the global economy is still in a funk, I think the chances are that they will only improve the performance numbers very slightly over the current generation with some improvements in fuel economy. This argument that Audi had 3 years to best the performance of the M3, but failed, ignores the realities of the marketplace. The idea that they're moving backwards is nonsense, as the new S4 is an improvement from the old S4 in every way. The RS5, no matter what anyone's perception is, is a slightly better performer than the RS4.

He was probably referring to the Car and Driver comparo where the RS5 finished 3rd.

94geo,

Thanks! LOL!!! LOL!!

I'm kind of wonerding what the result of the test in terms of 0-60 time,race track time etc would be.
sometiems the fastest car might not be the best car, but still wondering who is the fastest.

The Cadillac was the Fastest followed by the M3 than the RS5, on a side note the CTSV looks alot better in real life shots it has alot of presence it sounds like if it had a more advanced and better transmission it might would have walked away with this test, a poor transimission is a bad showing in this company of cars. The M3 being the better car here is no surprise Audi in test always bets on the all around winner title to win, the S4 doesnt handle as well as the 335i or perform as good for that matter, same goes for the S5 vs 335i, it was no surprise the class benchmark wouldnt be toppled by a car thats confused on what its trying to be....

The Cadillac was the Fastest followed by the M3 than the RS5, on a side note the CTSV looks alot better in real life shots it has alot of presence it sounds like if it had a more advanced and better transmission it might would have walked away with this test, a poor transimission is a bad showing in this company of cars. The M3 being the better car here is no surprise Audi in test always bets on the all around winner title to win, the S4 doesnt handle as well as the 335i or perform as good for that matter, same goes for the S5 vs 335i, it was no surprise the class benchmark wouldnt be toppled by a car thats confused on what its trying to be....

I concur with you bmwdrvr on the looks on the new Cadillac CTS-V. I really didn't know that it has that much of an immense presence about itself. Furthermore, I would probably choose the caddy with a manny over the M3, because of the uniqueness of it and the refresh design qualities that it has about itself.

Also people, the thing with Audi is that they are sending a message about meeting the benchmark by being subtle. What they are stating with this design is that it is a balance of luxury and performance. For them its not all about being the "fastest," because in that case they could have actually chosen to make it faster than the M3. And please my friends don't doubt that they could, but they rather chose to make a statement about have purity and balance in their design. Nevertheless, its more of a connoisseur's car than a speed freak's car. Of course the BMW will win that round against Audi. For crying out loud its Motortrend. Probably the most bought out and sold bias publications out there.

All three vehicles are great. But when I push the "M" button on the steering wheel and cruise the A5 Autobahn its the Ultimate Driving Machine.