Audi Planning To Obliterate BMW’s M Series With 4 New RS Models This Year Alone

Extremely smart strategic move by Audi to offer more RS models and bring them to market more quickly. This will give Audi much greater visibility in the high-performance crowd.

10-min video clip: RS 6 Avant driving, sound, exterior design and interior styling. This looks like the base RS6 Avant, so not included are several pricey options such as: ceramic brakes, RS sports suspension plus with Dynamic Ride Control, carbon under the grille, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFY3DsmYh6E

If the Audi S6 already beat the BMW M5 and Merc E63 AMG in Car and Driver's comparo for the "world's best sedan" issue, just imagine how much better the RS6 will be.
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

Now imagine something similar, possibly slightly more sporty, for the RS7 in a few months.

Audi's past strategy of releasing RS cars in the final two years of a product's life cycle was dumb. Finally Audi has found the common sense to introduce RS models within 2.5 years of a product launch. The S version will probably be released within one year of product launch. Audi's Quattro GmbH had better maintain the quality of its RS vehicles, now that so many are being produced -- and guard against turning into an AMG factory.

At least they have a good grill and badge for them. Yawn.

"Audi Planning To Obliterate BMW’s M Series With 4 New RS Models This Year Alone"

Yes because BMW has no new M models coming out, except for M6 Grand Coupe, M3, M4, M4 Convert, and most likely a M2 and a M4 GC.
BMW should be terrified.

Audi is not reacting to BMW's M series cars. Audi is setting its own path to high performance. Unlike Audi, BMW may have reached its in-house limits in developing performance cars with high power/torque (that's perhaps why BMW today has no successful supercar or large luxury performance car, unlike Audi). On the other hand, Audi is able to exploit the performance and luxury knowledge and technology available in the VW stable (i.e., Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley) to keep pushing the limits, particularly for the mid-size, large and supercar luxury segments. Yet the Audi S3 seems to show that Audi can compete in the smallest segments as well.

Already Audi's S-level cars have been good enough to give several M cars a run for their money (as I showed with the S6 in my first post and the S4 (B6) versus M3 (E46) in link below) -- this has been happening for some years already. So Audi does not even need the RS car to compete with its BMW M counterpart where Audi's S car is already competitive.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-audi-s4-vs-bmw-m3_644906.htm

In future years, Audi -- if it does not squander its opportunities for quick profit -- should be accepted more and more as the benchmark for performance cars at this luxury level. Meanwhile BMW's M division will probably deteriorate and become like AMG: diluting its quality by slapping on M badges on vehicles upgraded with a few new parts but with insufficient thought into transforming its performance. In other words, in the big picture, BMW 'M' will probably become more and more yesterday's news.

Audi does not have to obliterate BMW's M series. BMW will probably self-destruct from trying to grow by becoming all things to all customers.

BMW4me4ever, how can the "M" division still be the benchmark when you yourself said, "The M6 is not pushing the envelope or the M5."?

Well, if the M6 and M5 are not pushing the envelope, the BMW "M" division is certainly not the benchmark.

And like the RS5 is? The last Audi that was truly a "Great" car was the RS4! How is the R8 pushing the envelope as it is not a leader in any performance category. At least the "M" models are whether it is the 1M, M3 or M5 and M6. The prior RS6 was a very good car, yet suffers from similar things as the M5 due to heft of the car.

In addition to the RS6, Audi will offer a 600bhp RS6 'Plus' for 2014
"An RS Plus model could have more power, or less weight, and a Plus model should always handle differently to the standard car," said Stephan Reil, boss of Audi's Quattro division. That's why the R8 V10 Plus is 50kg lighter than the standard R8 V10, and why it has a unique suspension set-up too. Audi is planning a whole range of tweaked and tuned 'RS Plus' models for those who want more. The first 'RS Plus' came out in 2004 – it improved the first-generation RS6 by adding an extra 30bhp (for a 480bhp total) along with uprated brakes, a 10mm ride height drop, firmer damping and bespoke exterior and interior trim options.
http://tinyurl.com/a6bht4u

Audi can keep pushing the envelop because of the high power, high performance capabilities it has in the VW family. BMW does not have that luxury.

I find the whole comment laughable at best. I love how you compare the S4 to a E46. Yet in recent tests the New RS5 has lost every comparison test to the 5 year old E92 M3. That won't change in the comparison to the M3 conv vs. the RS5. You mention that BMW "M" division is becoming more of yesterday news, yet the division is still the benchmark and very relevant in the market. The M6 is not pushing the envelope or the M5. Yes the S6 equals the performance 0 to 60 of the M5 and for less money, yet it loses at every other comparable stat and by a Wide margin.

Wow, the R8 V10 plus was 50Kg lighter than a regular R8 V10!? The M3 GTS was 160kg lighter than the regular M3..and the next generation M3 will be 300lb lighter than the current car.

Have you seen the first reviews for the RS6? Autocar gave it 3 1/2 stars stating it has numb steering and communicates very little to the driver. Evo mag also gave it 3 1/2 stars, stiff ride, not interactive. Car mag and Autoexpress were a little more positive giving 4 stars. But all of those publications gave the M5 5 stars..

Oh, now BMW will be "obliterated." Guess your computer dictionary is working overtime.

How can you make such absolute statements? AutoSpies articles are laughable and lack credibility due to such outrageous unsubstantiated dogmatic writing. Is the author foaming at the mouth yet???

M5twinturbo: Wait for the comparison tests. You need to stop quoting the first drive reports of Mickey Mouse magaines. Evo's circulation: 60,000. Autocar's circulation: 40,000. Car magazine: 70,000. Auto Express: 60,000. These are Mickey Mouse mags next to Europe's and Germany's largest car magazine -- Auto Bild has a worldwide circulation of 7 million each month. AutoBild's first drive report did not cite the issues of Auto Car or Evo. Second, you need to compare apples with apples: the RS6 Avant is a station wagon while the M5 is a sedan. Third, although some magazines gave the M5 five stars in 2011 (given what was available in 2011), there is no guarantee the M5 will get five stars in the context of 2013.
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/audi-rs-6-avant-fahrbericht-3939072.html

BMW4me4ever: "Yes the S6 equals the performance 0 to 60 of the M5 and for less money, yet it loses at every other comparable stat and by a Wide margin."
You obviously haven't read Car and Driver's cover story: "in search of the world's best sedan", which rated the Audi S6 first over the BMW M5 and Merc E63 AMG. Read the full report in C&D's July 2012 issue.
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu


BMW4me4ever: "I love how you compare the S4 to a E46."

First, let's have a laugh that the Audi S5 (not even the RS5) won an Autobild comparison test over the BMW M3 (Autobild is Germany and Europe's largest car magazine). Lol
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-audi-s5-bmw-m3-416315.html

Top Gear's 'The Stig' drove the current generation BMW M3 2007 M3 E90 sedan (1:25.30) as well as the previous generation 2005 Audi RS4 B7 (1:25.60). The E90 sedan was only 0.3 seconds faster than the old RS4 on Top Gear's track.

The current generation S4, M3 sedan and M3 coupe have lapped several of the same race tracks. The S4 was faster than the M3 on one of the tracks, and in other cases was only slightly slower.

2009 Audi S4 B8 sedan and 2007 BMW M3 E90 sedan:
- Kyalami new (2:03.30 v 2:05.70)
- Hockenheim Short (1:16.70 v 1:15.20)
- Autozeitung test track (1:41.80 v 1:38.70)

2009 Audi S4 B8 sedan and 2007 BMW M3 E92 coupe:
- Autozeitung test track (1:41.80 v 1:40.10)
- Kyalami new (2:03.30 v 2:02.20)
- ADM Miachkovo (1:57.80 v 1:56.27)
- Hockenheim Short (1:16.70 v 1:14.30)
- Sachsenring (1:42.39 v 1:40.90)
- Grattan Raceway (1:32.10 v 1:30.05)
- Virginia International Raceway (3:10.80 v 3:05.40)
- Fuji Speedway post 2005 (2:08.26 v 2:02.90)

The S4 has won every comparison test over the BMW 335i, including the German reviews -- but, unlike past generations, it is unfortunate that there are no major comparisons of the S4 (333hp supercharged V6) and the M3 (414 hp V8) for this generation since very little seperates both cars.
- The 2012 Audi S4 can more than hold its own against the BMW M3
http://tinyurl.com/c7zqv6b
- 2011 Audi S4 Review: Does it one-up the M3?
http://www.clutchdump.com/?p=60

It's unfortunate that this is the first generation of A4/S4 wh

Mickey Mouse magazines? Lol autocar is the oldest car publication in the world, and guess what autobild the magazine you hold so highly is sold In the uk under the name of on of your Mickey Mouse magazines Auto express... They are one in the same. Lol. Autobild is the German language publication, and autoexpress is the English edition....so yeah 3 1/2 stars.

Obviously you have never driven either car. That part is clear and you apparently have alot of time on your hands to try and justify your stance, yet the truth of the matter is the M3 is the "Benchmark" and has bested the S5 and the New RS5 in each comparison test. I could go and paste every article and highlight the benefits towards the M3 as you have selectedly done in favor of the S5 and RS5. Yet I have driven both on a race track at Road Amercia and the Autobahn Club in Joliet, IL. From the reviews I have read and own personal experience I was able to verify the nose heavy and upsrpung weight that the S5 and RS5 deal with on a race track.

I love the lap times as they prove the point even more to the M3 Superiority.

2009 Audi S4 B8 sedan and 2007 BMW M3 E92 coupe:
- Autozeitung test track (1:41.80 v 1:40.10)
- Kyalami new (2:03.30 v 2:02.20)
- ADM Miachkovo (1:57.80 v 1:56.27)
- Hockenheim Short (1:16.70 v 1:14.30)
- Sachsenring (1:42.39 v 1:40.90)
- Grattan Raceway (1:32.10 v 1:30.05)
- Virginia International Raceway (3:10.80 v 3:05.40)
- Fuji Speedway post 2005 (2:08.26 v 2:02.90)

Average lap gap is 2.62 seconds which is HUGE on a racetrack when the average speed is about 95 to 105 mph. That is the equivalent as I am exiting turn 2 and you are just crossing the finish line. Yet by your arguement they are close enough to argue? Huh ?

Now go on the same racetrack with a Competition M3 and the gap widens by over another 2 seconds. So I am leaving turn 5 and you just crossed the finish line. Any closer and you will see me in your rear view mirror. lol .....

Here are your links of the RS5 vs M3 since you enjoy these so much :

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2011-audi-rs5-vs-2010-bmw-m3-2011-cadillac-cts-v-comparison-tests

1) M3 2) CTSV 3) RS5

http://www.europeancarweb.com/featuredcars/epcp_1302_2013_audi_rs5_vs_2013_bmw_m3/viewall.html

1) M3 2) RS5

http://www.topgear.com/au/videos/the-audi-rs5-vs-bmw-m3-competition-pack

In the Wet no less the M3 wins at 1:26.9 vs RS5 1:27.9

I could keep this up all day as it is fun. Just face it the last Great "RS" was the RS4. All the others are just souped up versions of the "S" line which is a shame as I would have hoped Audi would have brought more to the table ....

- The 2012 Audi S4 can more than hold its own against the BMW M3
http://tinyurl.com/c7zqv6b
- 2011 Audi S4 Review: Does it one-up the M3?
http://www.clutchdump.com/?p=60

Great comparison tests as both are not a comparison at all, just a title misleading you into believeing the S4 drives well enough to be considered when they are not even in the same ballpark. Laughable at best. Let me know when you actually can find a S4 article that says it bested a M3.

And the second article you posted, Did you even Read it? LOL .... It clearly states the S4 is as fast as the 335i & Nowhere close to the M3.
1.) The S4 is faster than a 335, but not as fast as an M3, and certainly not as fast around a track.

2.) The DSG transmission is a GREAT transmission, but it is not the M-DCT. The DSG has silky smooth shifts, but it doesn’t give that same sense of “kick” and feel that the M does. Also the “manual” mode is still automatic in the sense that it upshifts at readline – and most of the time annoyingly well before redline.

3.) The S4's steering feel is not on-par with BMW. The M3 feels like you are really DRIVING the car. However, to quote Family Guy, “In Audi S4, CAR drives YOU!” In the S4, it is almost as if you simply tell the car what to do then it’s hands-off: “voice activation on – now take this S-curve at 53.7 MPH – engage” and the car does it flawlessly. When you are in the M3, however, it is a visceral experience with road, car, and driver connected.

4.) AWD is fun especially in the snow but RWD is really where its at for raw driving experience


Great way to prove your point. So since Audi doesnt have a car to best the M3 you decide to take the fight between the 335i sedan. pathetic ...

M5twinturbo: Top Gear gave the RS6 Avant 9 out of 10 -- basically a 5 star rating.

It's revealing that you conveniently omitted the review of Top Gear (UK's largest car magazine with 5 times more circulation than Autocar mag's 40,000) while mentioning the reviews of Britain's Mickey Mouse car magazines.

Top Gear's Tom Ford: "First drive: the new Audi RS6 Avant... We've only driven it on home turf in Germany so far, but the first impressions have left us grinning... In a word: brilliant... The new one is lots of fun to drive nearly all the time. The optional sports exhaust is worth the price of entry alone, and sounds like a strafing run from a Spitfire. The balance of the car is better, the electronics are less synthetic, and it shows the RS Dept has a sense of humour –- it can be made to go completely bonkers. And that 8-spd auto ‘box (lifted straight from the A6, incidentally), means that everything is repeatable and easy -- standing starts, corner exits... just floor it and it works. It's a real weapon. Not a ‘driver's car' as such, but I defy you not to have a smile on your face... The Audi RS6 is back on form after a slightly lost couple of generations. This car has a huge sense of humour, looks ace, goes indecently fast and makes a good case for being your only car. It's a very attractive proposition. As long as you option that sports exhaust... Really.Verdict: Laugh-out-loud fun that's practical, too. As long as you option the sports exhaust and hate your labradoodle. 9/10"
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/First-drive-the-new-Audi-RS6-Avant-2013-04-09

Autozeitung's review of RS6 (Autozeitung is Germany's third largest car magzine with 200,000 circulation and has its own test track).
http://www.autozeitung.de/auto-fahrbericht/audi-rs6-avant-bilder-und-technische-daten

Auto Express is the UK edition of Autobild but the two magzines do not always publish translated versions of the same stories. If you understand German, a quick comparison shows that my Autobild article (this unrated basic first drive report's only complaint was the engine sound does not compare with the previous V-10 RS6 -- possibly because his test car did not have the Sports exhaust option) is DIFFERENT from your Auto Express article (which gave it 4 out of 5 stars, NOT 3.5 stars). The Auto Express writer Juergen Zoellter is a freelance car journalist, and his article does not appear in the main AutoBild magazine. AutoBild's circulation is Germany is 550,000.
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/audi-rs-6-avant-fahrbericht-3939072.html
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/rs6/63432/audi-rs6-avant

what are you actually comparing as those links are not comarison tests? they are a review on what they think it will compare to in regards to a M5, yet nowhere on there is there a direct head-to-head comparison test. I love how you take an article and already saying that is bests the BMW, when you have Zero proof.

Anyways in other news the sky is still Blue

So you are justifying your use of Autobild magazine as a reference? lol

BMW4me4ever: "what are you actually comparing as those links are not comarison tests... nowhere on there is there a direct head-to-head comparison test."
The very first sentence I posted was: "Wait for the comparison tests." I never said it was a direct H2H comparo. But since I criticized M5twinturbo for using reviews from Mickey Mouse car mags, I had to add first drive reviews from the larger car mags such as Auto Bild, Top gear and Autozeitung.

BMW4me4ever: "I love how you take an article and already saying that is bests the BMW, when you have Zero proof."
It's the Car and Driver -- the largest selling car magazine in USA (circulation 1.2 milion) -- that ranked BMW M5 in THIRD place while it ranked the Audi S6 in FIRST place. Lol, if you thnk C&D has zero proof, take your argument to the C&D. "So color us pissed that the M5 suffers shortfalls in three areas where an M usually excels: steering, suspension, and brakes. We noticed this while tackling fast bends on Bavarian back roads. The calipers supplied a cold, weak bite. There was too much up-and-down bobbing of the body, and the relatively slow, remote steering wasn’t always able to place the front tires exactly where we wanted them. To drive in haste, you must trust the machine, and the M5, capable as it is, keeps secrets. Playing with the vaunted buttons didn’t produce the needed medicine. The gradations are subtle, even to high-fidelity hands and butts. Turn up the steering setting from “comfort” to “sport plus,” for example, and the wheel just feels a bit heavier. Do the same to the shock absorbers, and the nervous up-down is more clipped, but it doesn’t disappear. And don’t get us started on that chrome drip of a gear selector, which seems like it needs to be asked twice to do anything. Returning to the Audi’s old-fashioned PRNDL was a relief. In some respects, the story of this car isn’t about what BMW got so wrong because, by itself, the M5 is a dazzling and beautiful vehicle. It’s about what others are getting so right."
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

BMW4me4ever: "So you are justifying your use of Autobild magazine as a reference? lol"
Common sense tells me that German car reviewers who own, drive and review more German cars than anyone else on this planet probably know more about German cars than anyone else on the planet. Common sense also tells me that Autobild is the largest car magazine in Germany because it has proven itself as a good source of competent information. Lol

It's the Car and Driver -- the largest selling car magazine in USA (circulation 1.2 milion) -- that ranked BMW M5 in THIRD place while it ranked the Audi S6 in FIRST place. Lol, if you thnk C&D has zero proof, take your argument to the C&D. "So color us pissed that the M5 suffers shortfalls in three areas where an M usually excels: steering, suspension, and brakes. We noticed this while tackling fast bends on Bavarian back roads. The calipers supplied a cold, weak bite. There was too much up-and-down bobbing of the body, and the relatively slow, remote steering wasn’t always able to place the front tires exactly where we wanted them. To drive in haste, you must trust the machine, and the M5, capable as it is, keeps secrets. Playing with the vaunted buttons didn’t produce the needed medicine. The gradations are subtle, even to high-fidelity hands and butts. Turn up the steering setting from “comfort” to “sport plus,” for example, and the wheel just feels a bit heavier. Do the same to the shock absorbers, and the nervous up-down is more clipped, but it doesn’t disappear. And don’t get us started on that chrome drip of a gear selector, which seems like it needs to be asked twice to do anything. Returning to the Audi’s old-fashioned PRNDL was a relief. In some respects, the story of this car isn’t about what BMW got so wrong because, by itself, the M5 is a dazzling and beautiful vehicle. It’s about what others are getting so right."


PSST we just talked about this. The S6 didn't win due to a faster, better handling car or drivers car. It won due to being almost as good performance wise as the M5, yet for about $30k less ....

" paragraph of a comparison test musing about how the Audi offers comparable or better features, only slightly reduced performance, and a significantly lower price. Bavarians aren’t big on change, but down here, old regimes are rapidly being overthrown"

basically it wins not based on performance. And it is being compared to a the M5 & E63 in the performance category and not the cheaper cost wise.

That is okay to win on a subjective manner. I guess you are done trying to take down the M3 and thought about comparing a less expensive Sport Saloon to an actual Racing bred sport sedan. On a track the S6 is not in the same ballpark as the handling is inferior ( as it should be ) and doesnt have the gear on throttle response.

Next

BMW4me4ever, I apppreciate that you drive with amateurs on amateur tracks, I really do. But ultimately, performance is proven on the famed and tough Nurburgring (Nordschleife) benchmark track. On its 100 fastest lap times: there are more and faster Audis than there are BMWs -- the two Audi R8s were 4 to 14 seconds faster than the very fastest BMW (the M3 GTS is the limited edition, track-biased version of the current E92 M3 -- it is 300 pounds lighter amd 30 hp more than the standard M3). The standard 2012 RS5 and standard 2005 RS4 were among the 94 cars that broke the 8 minute barrier. All four Audis are/were sold in North America, only two of the BMWs are/were sold here (M3 CSL was not sold here).
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

So much for BMW's M3 being the performance benchmark. Bottom line, the standard 2012 RS5 was 6 seconds faster than the standard 2007 E92 M3 on the Nürburgring -- even though the same driver Horst von Saurma drove both cars.

Like you would say, a SIX SECOND gap is MASSIVELY HUGE on a racetrack! No wonder the standard M3 failed to make the top 100 list. Only the limited edition, track biased M3 GTS and M3 CSL made the list.

No doubt the new RS6 and RS7 will be significantly faster than the M5 on the Nurburgring as well.

BMW4me4ever: "Obviously you have never driven either car. That part is clear and you apparently have alot of time on your hands to try and justify your stance..."
Obviously what is clear is that -- in your deparation to make up for your questionable arguments -- you have to start off your post by making irrelevant personal attacks ("you apparently have alot of time on your hands" and "Obviously you have never driven either car. That part is clear") even though you have no idea of what you're talking about. I've owned or driven all the cars I've talked about -- except the unavailable RS6 and RS7.

BMW4me4ever: "I have driven both on a race track at Road Amercia and the Autobahn Club in Joliet, IL. From the reviews I have read and own personal experience I was able to verify the nose heavy and upsrpung weight that the S5 and RS5 deal with on a race track."
Lol, you're just one of hundreds of thousands of amateurs with some track experience who think they're suddenly experts on a car they've driven for a few minutes. I've owned the S5 and now own the S6, both with sports rear differential (the S6 also has the adaptive suspension). Yes the old V-8 S5 is nose heavy but the optional sports rear differential (when set in dynamic ) gives the perception that the car is smaller, lighter, more agile and reduces understeer. If the S5 you drove did not have the sports rear differential, if you did not know how to set up and activate the Drive Select program (many drivers make the mistake of leaving it in Auto mode) on the S5 and RS5, and if you tried to drive like a typical Bimmer driver with the Audi especially at launch and in cornering -- then you don't know what you're talking ab

BMW4me4ever, Bottom line, the standard RS5 consistently beats the standard M3 on the track. In other words, it doesn't matter that the RS5's unsprung weight is greater than the M3. Bottom line, the RS5's overall advantages/disadvantages give it superior performance over the M3's disadvantages/advantages on the toughest benchmark track, the Nurburgring (Nordschleife).

The 2013 facelifted S5 (with the same supercharged V-6 as the S4) should be faster and better than the old V-8 S5.
http://tinyurl.com/cea9c9d
http://tinyurl.com/clq2o2o

BMW4me4ever: "I love the lap times as they prove the point even more to the M3 Superiority."
2009 Audi S4 B8 sedan (2:03.30) was faster than the 2007 BMW M3 E90 sedan (2:05.70) at Kyalami new. Despite the M3's big power gap (V8, 420 HP) over the S4 (V6, 333 HP), the S4 was only about 1 to 3 seconds slower than the M3 in the other races. Wow, what superiority, lol. With a 450 HP V8, the RS4 sedan would have been faster than the RS5 on track -- and we know the RS5 is already faster than the M3 on track. Audi lost an opportunity when it chose not to make an RS4 sedan, as it probably would have been even better than the RS5. [I've already said earlier that the S4 is a better car than the S5, regardless of engine -- the 2007 V8 S5 was slower than the 2009 S4 (supercharged V-6) in all tracks that both cars lapped.]

Bottom line, the standard Audi RS5 (2010 or 2012) laps faster than the standard M3 E90 sedan (2007) and/or E92 coupe (2007) in the vast majority (16 or 17) of the 18 tracks where these cars lapped. The M3 needs the track-biased competition package to keep up or the track-biased limited edition M3 GTS to beat the RS5.

- Standard Audi RS5 (2012) vs standard M3 E90 sedan or E92 coupe (2007)
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/audi_rs5.html

- Standard Audi RS5 (2010) vs standard M3 E90 sedan or E92 coupe (2007)
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/audi_rs_5.html


BMW4me4ever: "PSST we just talked about this. The S6 didn't win due to a faster, better handling car or drivers car. It won due to being almost as good performance wise as the M5, yet for about $30k less"
Which part did you not understand?
That the Audi was only $18,000 cheaper than the M5 as tested (not $30,000 as you claim)
That the Audi S6 was first place while the BMW M5 was third place?
That Car and Driver magazine concluded the Audi S6 was more Fun To Drive than the M5?
Or that these were the C&D test results: Audi S6 versus BMW M5:
- FUN TO DRIVE: S6 gets 20 vs M5 gets 18
- Steering feel: 8 vs 7
- Transmission: 9 vs 8
- Brake feel: 8 vs 7
- Handling : 8 vs 8
- Ride 9 vs 9
- Engine: 9 vs 9
- Fuel economy: 10 vs 8
- Top speed: 155 mph vs 155 mph
- 0 to 30 mph: 1.2 seconds vs 1.6 seconds
- 0 to 60 mph: 3.7 seconds vs 3.7 seconds
- Performance: 18 vs 19
- 1/4 mile acceleration: 19 vs 20
- Grand Total: 213 points vs 193 points (out of maximum 240 points)
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

Even though C& D said the S6 had "only slig

It's unfortunate that this is the first generation of A4/S4 where Audi decided not to produce the RS4 sedan. Had Audi turned this S4 sedan into an RS4 sedan (instead of RS4 Avant station wagon), it would probably be superior to the RS5 coupe and M3. In late 2009 I test-drove the 2010 S4 and S5 back to back, it was clear to me that the S4 sedan was obviously the better car, regardless of engine (though I ended up byng the S5 because it was a beautiful coupe).

BMW4me4ever: "I find the whole comment laughable at best... Yet in recent tests the New RS5 has lost every comparison test to the 5 year old E92 M3."

Let's have a bigger laugh at the fact that the RS5 is still good enough that it has consistently been faster the M3 (E90/E92) on the track. The 2010 Audi RS5, 2007 BMW M3 E90 and 2007 M3 E92 all lapped on 15 race tracks. In 14 of those 15 race tracks, the RS5 was faster than at least one of the two M3 cars (on most tracks, the RS5 was faster than both M3 cars; on a few tracks, the RS5 was faster than one of the two M3 cars). Most drivers don't realize how fast they are going because the RS5 does its job more effortlessly and efficiently and with less drama than the M3.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim_short.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/vairano_handling_course.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/ring_knutstrop_conf_2.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/anglesey_national.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/millbrook_alpine_hill_route.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/haute_saintonge.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/sachsenring.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/fuji_speedway_post_2005.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/circuit_de_nevers_magny-cours_club.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/inta.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/folembray.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/balocco.html

Autobild Comparison test: Audi RS5, BMW M3, Porsche Carrera 4S
The Germans, who understand their cars better than anyone else, noted that the RS5 and M3 were close and that choice for one car over the other ultimately depends on personal philospohy and preferences.
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/audi-rs-5-bmw-m3-911-carrera-4s-test-1302937.html

In recent American comparison tests, the reviewers grudgingly admit the RS5 is overall good enough to have a technical knockout over the M3 but ultimately chose the M3 due to their subjective biases and preferences.

- Automobile mag: "The RS5 walked away with the quickest lap time by more than 0.6 second, putting more than 1.5 seconds on both the Mercedes and the BMW. The Audi is unbelievably quick -- literally. "There is no way the RS5 was that fast," Noordeloos gaped. But the numbers don't lie. Every single lap we recorded in the RS5 was quicker than anything the other cars could muster. This leaves us with a moral dilemma of re

Your fast lap times are fairly irrelevant they are set years apart, different drivers, weather ect..also in 2010 BMW released the competition package which improved track performance, compare a 2010 m3 to a 2010 rs5, not a 2007 m3. Also 99 percent if all comparisons between the rs5 and m3, the m3 has one. C&D, MT, Evo, Europeancar, automobile mag all picked the m3 as the clear winner, and in the C&D and Mt comparison the m3 posted better numbers in every category including acceleration. When clarkson tested the m3 against the rs4 in the video review of the cars the M3 was 3 seconds a lap faster.


"ultimately chose the M3 due to their subjective biases and preferences."

Lol!!! But yet if someone said that about the s6 beating the m5 in C&D I'm sure you would discredit it right? What a joke. The M5 easily out performed the s6 on every objective performance category. Any they we're the same to 60. Everything else the s6 scored higher in was subjective.

M5twinturbo: "Your fast lap times are fairly irrelevant they are set years apart, different drivers, weather ect.."
And yet some BMW fanboy tried to discredit my video showing a BMW enthusiast's video of the same driver (Top Gear's The Stig) driving the Audi S4 almost one second faster than the M3 in a back to back test
http://www.streetfire.net/video/bmw-m3-vs-audi-s4-topgear_145952.htm

M5twinturbo: "When clarkson tested the m3 against the rs4 in the video review of the cars the M3 was 3 seconds a lap faster."
Jeremy Clarkson: "you may have thought that the BMW M3 was a quick car but this is just in a different league... this car really handles and really goes...this is the bargain of the century... this is better than the M3". "No doubt about it, it is biblically good (when compared against the M3)... you know we put (the RS4) around the track this morning, with the Stig driving it, OK, 1:25-point-something... it is over a second quicker than the Cayman [Porsche Cayman S, 1.26.7]", so the RS4 is at least 1:25.6 or faster around the track. Go to segment 5 of this video (see the numbers 1 to 6 on the right hand side of video window), then start at 5:45 (it automatically goes to segment 6).
http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-season-7-episode-2-full-episode_part-1_203611.htm

So although I had said that the newer M3 E90 sedan in 2007 was only 0.3 seconds faster than the old RS4 B7 in 2005 on Top Gear's track, it is quite possible that the RS4 was as fast or faster.

M5twinturbo: "in 2010 BMW released the competition package which improved track performance, compare a 2010 m3 to a 2010 rs5, not a 2007 m3."
It's telling that the RS5 was consistently faster than the M3 in 14 of 15 tracks where the cars lapped, despite the different times. The only track where the RS5 was slower than both M3s was Autozeitung's test track -- but not by much. Second, we are comparing the original 2010 RS5 with the original 2007 M3 of this current generation -- the 2013 base RS5 has improvements which make it a better base car and options (ceramic brakes, dynamic steering, wheels/tires, etc) or tuner mods are available to make it a better car on the track -- so no point comparing the M3 competition package.

But since you insist on comparing, the 2010 M3 needs the competition package to tie the original RS5 at 1:14.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim_short.html

Once the RS5 Plus comes out, it will outgun the M3 Competition Package, like the Audi TTRS Plus has already done.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nurburgring_gp_5_1_km.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/eurospeedway_lausitz_3478.html

How representative are the bias and preferences of car reviewers compared to the majority of drivers who can afford to buy and drive these cars? It's like comparing two expensive bicycles: the reviewers choose the slower bike while the majority of car buyers prefer the faster bike that is was more easier, smoother, more efficient and controlled. I gu

I guess Audi will have to build 'defects' into its test products to give the minority of reviewers the type of 'driver involvement' and 'fun' they crave.

M5twinturbo: "The M5 easily out performed the s6 on every objective performance category."
C&D characterized the S6 as only "slight reduced performance" compared to the M5 -- in every category that the M5 was better, the S7 was very close behind (e.g., steering feel: S7 was 8 vs M5 was 9; brake feel: 8 vs 9; transmission: 9 vs 10; handling: 8 vs 10; ; performance 18 vs 20; fun to drive: 20 vs 23). I'm looking at my C&D magazine hard copy of the S6/M5 comparo: e.g., S6 was faster than M5 in 0 to 30 mph acceleration (1.2 sec vs 1.6 sec); top speed same as M5; ride same as M5; S6 better fuel economy than M5; etc.

ClevelandSteamer: You're right.

BMW4me4ever: The very best BMWs are unable to compete with the Audi R8 V-10 Plus and R8 V10 5.2 FSI Coupe. It takes the very best Porsches to compete with these Audis.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/circuit_de_nevers_magny-cours_club.html

It's actually nonsense to claim that the M5 easily out performed the S6 on every objective performance category. Here are several pertinent C&D's results: C&D concluded the Audi S6 was more Fun To Drive than the M5!

Audi S6 versus BMW M5:
- FUN TO DRIVE: 20 vs 18
- Steering feel: 8 vs 7
- Transmission: 9 s 8
- Brake feel: 8 vs 7
- Handling : 8 vs 8

- Ride 9 vs 9
- Engine: 9 vs 9
- Fuel economy: 10 vs 8
- Top speed: 155 mph vs 155 mph
- 0 to 30 mph: 1.2 seconds vs 1.6 seconds
- 0 to 60 mph: 3.7 seconds vs 3.7 seconds
- Performance: 18 vs 19
- 1/4 mile acceleration: 19 vs 20
- Grand Total: 213 points vs 193 points (out of maximum 240 points)
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

I was wrong in what I had said above (Satriani1: "C&D characterized the S6 as only "slight reduced performance" compared to the M5 -- in every category that the M5 was better, , the S7 was very close behind.... ). The numbers I quoted as M5 numbers were actually Mercedes E63 AMG's numbers that I had misread. The M5 was rated worse worse than what I said: the M5 ended up in last place -- third).

- Automobile mag: "The RS5 walked away with the quickest lap time by more than 0.6 second, putting more than 1.5 seconds on both the Mercedes and the BMW. The Audi is unbelievably quick -- literally. "There is no way the RS5 was that fast," Noordeloos gaped. But the numbers don't lie. Every single lap we recorded in the RS5 was quicker than anything the other cars could muster. This leaves us with a moral dilemma of recognizing achievement or rewarding personality. The Audi and the BMW could have easily swapped places in the final standings. Yet we can't in good conscience put the RS5 ahead of a car that we find more desirable. Before we had a clear picture of the lap-time pecking order, it was the M3 that we were fawning over in the pits. Attractive, comfortable, and wickedly fast, the RS5 is lovable for everything it does on the road, but we don't lust after it because of what it does on the track."

- Motor Trend mag: "The Audi RS 5 doesn't win, either. It's a beautifully built car with an interior that's easily the classiest of this bunch. The 4.2-liter V-8 purrs like a lion on ecstasy, the dual-clutch transmission is smoother than a politician's smile, and all that chassis technology makes it the most confidence-inspiring of the three to drive flat-out over unfamiliar roads. But there's a curiously artificial feel to almost every touch-point in this car; you're always faintly aware that, somewhere underneath you, a bunch of electrons is swarming furiously to make sure that the RS 5 defies the laws of physics. And all that engineering is expensive. As optioned, our tester would cost at least 10 grand more than the other two. BMW's M3 has long been the segment's benchmark, but it's not perfect. Left to shift itself, the seven-speed transmission is clunkier than the Audi's. The steering-wheel rim feels fat and clumsy, and these days Hyundais have better-looking interiors (our car's all-black interior looked particularly cheap and nasty)... 1st Place: BMW M3 The oldest car here, but like a good red wine, it's getting better with age. Driver-focused powertrain and chassis make it a scalpel among sledgehammers. 2nd Place: AUDI RS5 Supremely confidence-inspiring and easy to drive fast, the RS 5 delivers a technical knockout, but at the price of driver involvement."

Pot calling the kettle black?

Psst read above as Audi has yet to come up with a car to best the M3. The closest and best car they have ever had was the RS4. The RS5 not even close, the S5 not in the same arena. You may say that the a couple seconds on a track isnt alot, yet in fact that is a huge gap in racing. On an Oval track in a Nascar 2 seconds is about 150 car lengths .... Yet that is close. Close is a few tenths of a second.

Don't get me wrong as I like Audi's as everyday driver cars that have character, yet not as a performance car. That they are not. They just don't have the chassis to take on the M Division of BMW and that is mostly due to the fact they are based on FWD chassis. The best balance car they have is the R8, yet on a track against over performance cars like porsche and BMW it fails to compete. Looks wise the R8 is stunning as a boulevard cruiser.

paragraph of a comparison test musing about how the Audi offers comparable or better features, only slightly reduced performance, and a significantly lower price. Bavarians aren’t big on change, but down here, old regimes are rapidly being overthrown

what an amusing thread today. Here is an idea, why not go and actually drive the both cars and use the information to find your own opinion? Yet you will end up seeing that the M5 is in a different league. The RS6 is coming soon and hopefully, they will bring a better version out than last time. In regards to the RS5, Audi should have done more to seperate it from a a regular "S5" in regards to performance and handling. Heck, they have had 5 years to come up with a car to compete against the M3 & still not in the same league when it comes to handling, performance, racing on a track ....

BMW4me4ever: "In regards to the RS5... still not in the same league when it comes to handling, performance, racing on a track"

Lol, and yet on the benchmark Nurburgring (Nordschleife) track there are more Audis and faster Audis than there are BMWs among the cars that broke the 8 minute barrier -- including the standard RS5. The standard E92 M3 failed to break the 8 minute barier, and was SIX SECONDS slower than the standard RS5 -- even though the same driver Horst von Saurma drove both cars. (the M3 GTS is the limited edition, track-biased version that is 300 pounds lighter and 30 hp more than the standard M3; the M3 CSL is also another limited edition, track biased version but it was not sold in North America). All four Audis are/were sold in North America, only two of the BMWs are/were sold here.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

Indeed, the standard Audi RS5 (2010 or 2012) laps faster than the standard M3 E90 sedan (2007) and/or E92 coupe (2007) in the vast majority (16 or 17) of the 18 tracks where these cars lapped.

- Standard Audi RS5 (2012) vs standard M3 E90 sedan or E92 coupe (2007)
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/audi_rs5.html

- Standard Audi RS5 (2010) vs standard M3 E90 sedan or E92 coupe (2007)
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/audi_rs_5.html

So much for BMW's M division being the performance benchmark. The standard Audi RS5 does not need limited edition specs or track packages to beat the standard BMW M3. On the other hand, the standard BMW M3 needs limited edition specs or track packages to beat the standard Audi RS5. The standard M3 is simply not in the same league on the track as the RS5.

Your logic or should I say lack of logic is comical. Since when does publication numbers render one reviews option more valid than another? hahah, It doesn't. Also the Autobild article on the site is a summary, of what will be published in the magazine, so to say they had no problems with the RS6 is False. The facts are Autocar, and evo gave it 3 1/2 stars, and CAR/Autoexpress gave it 4. And Top Gear, Autocar, and evo all commented on its lack of steering feel, driving involvement, and harsh ride. Basically a fast appliance. Where is the fun in that? Someone who enjoys driving cars and is a fan of cars wants to fell in control, not like a passenger. All those publications gave the M5 4 1/2 or 5 stars....Just saying.

Top Gear: you conveniently omitted...

"Bad bits?

The steering. As with all fast Audis, it just feels a bit odd. Numb but direct, it works, but it¹s the least satisfying aspect of the car by some margin. You can play with it via the Drive Select system, but it never quite gets there..."

Autocar:

"But if your relationship with cars (and roads) is a little less one-dimensional, a little less concerned with outright speed and a little more involved with the nuance, flavor and entertainment of actually driving, then, once again, your money is better parked elsewhere.
The duff Dynamic steering must shoulder some of the blame for this, but even beyond its ham-fistedness the RS6 does seem like a car intent on showing what it can do to you rather than what you can do with it. "

They did say the RS6 is a good car thought im not denying that, it will be fast to 60 in the quarter mile, but these alone to not make it better than another car. The RS6 is a fast appliance cold, and uncommunicative. The E63amg S will accelerate faster, and he the M5 will be more involving, and balanced..

Regarding your beloved C&D article, since when dose 0 to 30 decide which is the better car lol! Why did you stop you acceleration comparison at 60 mph?!?

Maybe its because the M5 hits 100mph over a full second faster, and hits 130mph 3 seconds faster!!! And traps the 1/4 mile 8mph faster...all of these gaps are significant, and considering the M5 can do this with "only" rwd for its size from a dead stop is staggering. Drag racing aside when you put a car on the track you can see all of the performance metrics working together, and the M5's superiority was evident in C&D's lightning lap where it was 5 seconds faster than the S6, and the S6 actually had such horrible under-steer it slid off the track!!! The S6 was actually closer to the 300hp BMW 335i in lap time than the M5. The S6 was only 3.4 sec faster than the 335i with the S6 having 120hp advantage. The M5 was 5 seconds faster than the S6 with a 140 hp advantage. I doubt 140hp extra in the RS6 over the S6 will overcome such poorly balanced chassis to make up 5 seconds considering with 120 over the 335 it was only 3.5 seconds faster, additional 20hp would not have made the S6 and additional 1.5 faster.

Also in the scoring section of C&D's comparison. Categories such as Ergonomics, rear seat comfort, interior/exterior styling, brake feel, steering feel, and fun to drive are ALL subjective, which are the categories the S6 scored higher. And naturally the S6 scored higher for price, not surprising considering it is a slower and cheaper car, and fuel economy b/c it obviously has a smaller less powerful engine. The conclusion of the C&D article is the S6 is a relative bargain, but its not a better or faster performance car. End of story. Also The E63 would have beat the S6 by a wide margin if not for the subjective styling...ect. categories.

But hey when an E63 or M5 smokes an S6 on the highway or at a track to bad holding up an issue of C&D and saying "but they said my car was better!!! See it scored higher!" ..... will not change anything LOL!!!!

Regarding the M3 vs the RS5. The M3 has come out on top of the RS5 in every comparison test, it has been chosen for being the superior balanced, and driving/performing car, in every comparison. You try do claim the S6 is better than an M5 based on ONE review, but the overwhelming evidence that the M3 is better than the RS5 based on an the countless victories from dozens of sources, and you still try to spin it lol!! This more than anything exposes you as the blind fanboy that you are. The facts are the M3 was released in 2007, 2 to 3 years BEFORE the RS5. You would think with that amount of time, nearly 3 years that Audi was able to see what the M3 was capable of they would have been able to build a car that was clearly better. But they didn't!!! They gave the Audi 450hp compared to the 414 in the M3 and despite the extra years of development time they still fell short.

Also if you care about accurate information you would realize the Fastlap.com times are a questionable source in drawing accurate information or conclusions from at best. They show what a car may have done on a given day wi

with a certain driver. But there are too many variables to draw an absolute and factual conclusion. When an experiment is conducted, the person conducing it always makes sure all controllable variables are consistent, to ensure objects being tested return accurate and consistent data.

So comparing times from a 2007 to times set by a 2010 car years later, show nothing of substance. The UNKNOWN variables are transmission (manual or DCT?), Driver (amateur or Pro?),weather (cold, hot, wet, damp, dry?). None of this info is disclosed on fastlaps, and the fact the times are set years apart, make it nothing more than a historical list or what a certain car did on a certain day, with unknown conditions, and spec or drive. But it is NOT a list of which any absolute or factual conclusion can be draws from.

This obviously ( which should have been apparent the whole time) leaves only comparison tests where the cars are tested together at the same time by the same drivers, as the closest to absolute and factual a car comparison can be. These are to comparison in which the M3 has overwhelmingly beat the RS5.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2011-audi-rs5-vs-2010-bmw-m3-2011-cadillac-cts-v-2.pdf

ACCELERATION TO MPH
Audi BMW
0-30 1.5 sec 1.8 sec
0-40 2.3 2.4
0-50 3.2 3.1
0-60 4.3 4.1
0-70 5.6 5.1
0-80 7.1 6.5
0-90 8.8 8.1
0-100 10.9 9.1
0-110 13.3 11.4
0-120 16.0 13.9
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.2 sec 1.9 sec
QUARTER MILE 12.8 sec @ 108.2 mph 12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 101 ft 110 ft
BRAKING, 100-0 MPH 295 ft 309 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.97 g (avg)0.95 g (avg)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1009_2010_audi_rs_5_vs_2011_bmw_m3_vs_2011_cadillac_cts_v_comparison/viewall.html

Satriani1 : " The standard Audi RS5 does not need limited edition specs or track packages to beat the standard BMW M3. On the other hand, the standard BMW M3 needs limited edition specs or track packages to beat the standard Audi RS5. The standard M3 is simply not in the same league on the track as the RS5."
Also the competition package is not a special or limited edition track package. The competition package is an option that is available on all M3's at a $2500 cost...like a sport package. It adds NO power or effects the cars weight in no way. It lowers the car by a half inch, gives it slightly wider tires, and a reprogrammed DSC. These minor changes alone are enough to make the less powerful older M3 more than compete with the newer RS5.

Not only does the M3 offer better performance, it also costs on average $8,000 less than a comparable RS5. Most BMW Ms do cost less than a comparable RS which is another reason BMW M is better. The RS5 starts at $ 69,700.00, and the M3 starts at $62,200.00. In addition if you look at the C&D number above the M3 out performed the RS5 in every category except braking

...(RS5 was equipped with $6000 carbon ceramic brakes), and there was only a two hundredths of a lateral G difference between the cars despite the Audi having AWD, and despite the Audi having AWD the BMW out accelerated it everywhere.

"I guess Audi will have to build 'defects' into its test products to give the minority of reviewers the type of 'driver involvement' and 'fun' they crave."
A MAJORITY of reviews WANT a PERFOMANCE car to be FUN, and involving! lol. If you don't your not a driving enthusiast your obviously a lounge chair enthusiest.. A car that communicates to the driver through the steering, braking, and suspension is a superior engineered car NOT one with a defect lol. A car is a machine, for a machine to be cold, calculated, and numb is easy. That is a machine by default. To make a machine which is engineered to communicate with a driver (a living thing) and let it feel the road, and what exactly that machine is doing to give the driver more confidence requires a superior level of engineering.

according to the headline, audi is going to launch 4 all-new cars (that nobody has driven yet) and they are immediately going to put M out of business? ok.

more like...audi is trying to catch up to the eight M models that are already on the market.