OFFICIAL: Audi's REVAMPED R8 Finally Hits Dealers And Is On Sale NOW — Click HERE For Pricing

Listen to the sound of the Audi R8 V10 Plus (550HP and 398 lb-ft, 50kg lighter, different suspension set up than the standard R8 V10).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0gvqLZIQss

Yes, the Audi R8 is a great all –round product with great driving dynamics.. The Audi R8 GT was the sixth fastest through the slalom course of all cars tested in Sport Auto’s Supertests since 1997 (which tested almost all of the very best cars in the world during this period). The other cars in the top ten were seven Porsche (mostly 911 GT3s), one Nissan GT-R and one Corvette ZR1. No Ferraris and other super cars were fast enough to make the top ten list. Certainly not any BMW.
http://tinyurl.com/c4gx8ep

The Audi R8, especially the V10 and GT coupes, has proven itself on the track. In future, the faster R8 V10 Plus should exceed the R8 GT’s lap times. [Despite the myths about BMW's M cars, it is simply unable to perform at the very highest levels].

- Nurburgring Nordschleife track: Three Audi R8 placed within the 104 fastest lap times -- R8 GT (7:34 --r 33); R8 V10 (7:44 -- 52); R8 V8 (8:04 – 104, not listed), all driven by Horst von Saurma. An Audi R8 e-tron was clocked at 8:09.1. von Saurma’s test report of the R8 V10 is linked further below.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

- Hockenheim Short course: Four Audi R8 placed within the 71 fastest lap times -- R8 GT coupe (1:09.6 – 19), R8 V10 coupe (1:10.9 – tied 36), R8 V8 coupe (1:12.7 – tied 71), R8 V10 Spyder (1:12.7 – tied 71st place), all driven by Horst von Saurma.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim_short.html

- Vairano Handling Course, Italy: Three Audi R8 were among the 33 fastest cars.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/vairano_handling_course.html

Audi R8 V10: Supertest (score 63) by Horst von Saurma, former chief editor of German car mag Sport Auto. von Saurma is considered one of the Nurburgring’s best drivers, having set Nurburgring overall lap records for production cars and really understands what he is talking about. Von Saurma's lap times are taken as benchmark times for the cars he tests. Sport Auto’s “Supertests" – where von Saurma tests the cars at their limit on the tracks at the Nürburgring and Hockenheim – are arguably the world’s best car test reports.
http://tinyurl.com/blj94vg

None of von Saurma’s reports on the various R8 complained of its transmission as not great. Horst von Saurma knows how to use the Audi R8 transmission. As a highly experienced supercar driver, he has handled a variety of transmissions while driving the cars at their limits. In his report on the 2009 R8 V10, he noted that its transmission was better than the 2007 R8 V8 he had tested and explains how to deal with the transmission.

BMW M3 Supertest (score 58)
http://tinyurl.com/cstq4qz

Audi RS5 Supertest (score 56; the RS5 should have scored higher than the M3 if not for the surprising 3/10 score for wet handling -- even though the Audi S5 had previously scored 10/10 f

Audi RS5 Supertest (score 56; the RS5 should have scored higher than the M3 if not for the surprising 3/10 score for wet handling -- even though the Audi S5 had previously scored 10/10 for wet handling). Not surprising, given that von Saurnma has supertested both the RS5 and M3 at the Nurburgring -- and was six seconds faster in the RS5.
http://tinyurl.com/bp6mbaq

i love the fact that the article is about the R8 enhancements and you can't wait to throw the RS5 into the mix with the M3. You just can't wait to beat a dead horse ...

On the flip side, I really like the R8 as it is an awesome car & now has the performance to match the looks. Good job Audi!!

There is a long thread on the most active R8 website about the R-tronic (single clutch) transmission. The overwhelming concensus of owners is that they love the r-tronic exactly because it takes a bit of user involvement to use it correctly. R-tronic owners believe that the auto journalists crapped on the R-tronic because they don't have the time or interest to learn how to use it. Early reports by r-tronic owners who have driven the new dual clutch (S-tronic) equipped cars so they it is incredibly smooth when placed in automatic mode - just like Porsche's PDK. They also fear that it will be boring. Only way to solve the problem, is to do what I did - get the fantastic manual transmission and save $9000 (gulp) on the automatics.

BTW, because of all the damning of the r-tronic transmission, R8 sales stagnated over the past year as buyers waited for the s-tronic. This resulted in Audi of America giving the dealers "trunk money" to move out the remaining 2012 R8's in inventory, even on manual transmission cars. I bought a new 2012 V10 spyder with manual for $142K. Sticker on the car was $176K and they gave me a terrific trade-in price for my 2011 spyder. This is my second R8 and I believe that it is the best street car I have ever owned.

BMW4me4ever: I put the M3 and RS5 supertest reports there as two comparable yet different test reports to give readers other supertest reports to compare the R8 supertest report against. But I love the fact that you reacted to what I posted because you're so hyper-sensitive that expert tester Horst von Saurma – who knows what he’s talking about – contradicts your limited, close-minded views about the RS5. The problem with most reviewers and laypeople like you is that their (in)experience and biases prejudice them towards certain cars over other cars. But hey, if you think that your views are the last word, don't let von Saurma's comments change them :)

Hold up crazy.

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 2007 to times set by a 2012 car 5 years later, show nothing of substance. The UNKNOWN variables are transmission (manual or DCT?),weather/time of year (cold, hot, wet, damp, dry?).

The review link you posted for the M3 was done in 12/2007, and it is for a 6 speed manual M3.

The review link you posted for the RS5 was done in 6/2012, and is for a DSG RS5.

You need to compare relevant and comparable cars....same transmission, same time. So stating the RS5 laps the ring 6 seconds faster than an M3 is FALSE when they were tested 5 years apart and had different transmissions!!! That may be what each car did on a certain day, but no way concludes one is faster than the other.

It just so happens that on 7/2010 Sportauto.de the very site you clipped these little reviews from actually tested a DSG equipped M3 vs a DSC equipped RS5 together, and track tested them together. Funny you missed that, but were able to find a 2007 M3 review.

http://www.sportauto.de/vergleichstest/audi-rs5-gegen-bmw-m3-coupe-im-test-vergleich-potente-v8-sportwagen-im-duell-1921007.html

Results of the review...the M3 lapped Hockenheim 1.1 seconds faster than the RS5, and won the review with an overall higher score while costing 10K less than the more expense RS5, and returned better fuel economy than the RS5.

M5twinturbo: Funny you omitted to mention that the RS5 is heavier due to all-wheel drive while the M3 is lighter due to rear-wheel drive. Obviously same drivetrain is not important to you when it helps the M3, lol.

Your dubious insistence on same transmission is just a red herring. At the Hockenheim Short track, von Saurma drove both the Audi RS5 dual clutch and the M3 manual in identical times -- 1 min 14.3 seconds. So von Saurma should have been able to drive the M3 manual as fast as the RS5 on the Nurburgring track as well. But he was unable -- he was six seconds slower in the M3. The Nurbringring Nordschleife is not only almost 10 times longer than Hockenheim Short but considered the toughest and most demanding race track in the world. On the toughest track conditions of the Nurburgring -- considered the performance benchmark for the best cars -- that's where the RS5 shines.

Rather than argue why the concept of trying to ensure "consistency" of "controllable variables" is so impractical as to be ridiculous (even when Top Gear's The Stig drives cars back to back the variables are rarely 'consistent')... let me just say that you have absolutely zero credibility to decide what is acceptable comparison. On the other hand, Horst von Saurma has credibility. It's delusional to keep imagining that you are a bigger expert than Horst von Saurma on such matters.

While Horst von Saurma was chief editor of Sport Auto, the magazine made several comparisons of cars using the results of the supertests conducted over a span of sveral years. For example:

In 2008, Sport Auto magazine compared their supertests between 2006 to 2008 to determine the 'King of the Hill'
http://tinyurl.com/clexpkj

Sport Auto magazine even analyzed 6 different versions of the M3 -- from 1989's E30 M3 to the 2010 E92 M3 GTS -- based on comparing their supertests by Horst von Saurma over 14 years between 1997 and 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/d4ljhu7

I've already provided 18 links to 18 different race track results showing that consistently the RS5 (8T3) was faster than the M3 in about 90% of those tests.

Of course I'm not interested in Anja Wassertheurer's 7/2010 Sport Auto article comparing the M3 and RS5 because it's not a Sports Auto 'Supertest' conducted by the Nurburgring expert Horst von Saurma himself. She (Anja) is not as competent and renown a track driver and tester as Horst von Saurma. At the Hockenheim Short, von Saurma drove the Audi RS5 in 1:14.3 seconds, while Anja took one second longer. von Saurma also drove the M3 manual in 14.3 seconds (almost identical to Anja's 14.2 seconds with M3 dual clutch). Every car that both drivers drove at Hockenheim, Horst drove it faster. Example, the Alpina B3 GT3: Horst von Saurma drove it in 1:12.20, but Anja took two seconds longer 1:14.20.

Horst von Saurma tested the cars at two tracks -- both the Nurburgring and Hockenheim (Anja did not test the cars on the Nurburgring). But hey, don't let me stop you from han

"Your dubious insistence on same transmission is just a red herring"

Lol, no it's called comparing apples to apples, two equally equipped vehicles, at least to the closest point as they possible could be. Yes the rs5 doesn't come in RWD so it weighs more, but it has more power and torque, carbon ceramic brakes and cost $10K more. Obviously all things can't be made equal like the number of drive wheels, but that is what makes them different, and one maybe better than other...but both cars offer DCT transmissions, and a DCT is definitely advantageous with the faster shift times, and the fact a driver can keep both hands on the wheel 100% of the time, especially on a fast sweeping track like the ring.

"Rather than argue why the concept of trying to ensure "consistency" of "controllable variables" is so impractical as to be ridiculous (even when Top Gear's The Stig drives cars back to back the variables are rarely 'consistent"

Umm its not a " concept" it's called scientific method, and a little common sense. If a DTM team was to test a new tire they would test it back to back same day same car and record the data..when magazines to comparison test...they test the cars together, not use data from 5 years ago..

"even when Top Gear's The Stig drives cars back to back the variables are rarely 'consistent'"

Yes they are rarely consistent, and there for not reliable, Top gear is pure entertainment, and in no way do they try to claim the times the stig set are "official". Half the cars times are set in the rain or in the damp which they disclose. Including both M3 times.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top_gear_track.html

"Of course I'm not interested in Anja Wassertheurer's 7/2010 Sport Auto article comparing the M3 and RS5 because it's not a Sports Auto 'Supertest' conducted by the Nurburgring expert Horst von Saurma himself. She (Anja) is not as competent and renown a track driver and tester as Horst von Saurma. At the Hockenheim Short, von Saurma drove the Audi RS5 in 1:14.3 seconds, while Anja took one second longer. "

Yes, of course you would discredit a test that proves you wrong. lol. The thing is it doesn't matter if Saurma can drive a car faster. Its Hilarious that you label Anja "incompetent" when she was able to lap a track within ONE second of Sauram...She CAN obviously drive...Maybe your just a sexist loser? Anyway YOUR incompetence aside, what matters is both cars were tested by the same person on the same day, in as close to equal spec as they come. NOT 5 years apart with different transmissions, and spec cars. The DCT M3 was faster, less expensive, and more fuel efficient.

Also you forgot to mention when Samura drove a B3 GT3 it was equipped with a $5500 euro GT3 cup tire package giving the car WIDER wheels, and sets the suspension at a more aggressive camber which would increase a cars cornering speed.. and they were set 2 years apart. But that doesn't matter since you don't care about facts.

M5twinturbo: "it's called comparing apples to apples, two equally equipped vehicles... a DCT is definitely advantageous with the faster shift times, and the fact a driver can keep both hands on the wheel 100% of the time, especially on a fast sweeping track like the ring."

Let's use common sense to blow away the smoke of your self-denial and incompetence:

- The fastest lap time at the Nurburgring Nordschleife by a standard M3 was by the manual version. Since breaking Nurburrgring's 8-minute barrier is every performance car's dream, BMW surely would have sent a race driver with a double-clutch M3. Yet no double-clutch transmission M3 has been able to beat the manual M3's lap time even though the double-clutch M3 was available since Spring 2008. On the other hand, both the 2005 Audi RS4 and 2012 RS5 were able to break the 8 min barrier.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

- Why is it that no M3 double-clutch transmission had its lap time posted for the Nurburgring? Could it be that there is not much difference in overall speed between the manual and dual-clutch versions, or that the dual-clutch version is actually slower?

- The M3 manual is as quick or quicker as the double-clutch M3 even when driven by Car and Driver's reviewers, lol. Car And Driver mag test of both versions of the M3 (2008 BMW M3 with M DCT seven-speed Double-Clutch Transmission as well as 2008 BMW M3 with six-speed Manual): "The rapid-shifting, seven-speed automated manual is as quick as, but no quicker than, the base six-speed... But Is (the Double-Clutch Transmission M3) Quicker? After scouring the test results for some useful conclusion, the answer is “not really.” The M DCT car hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, cleared the quarter-mile in 12.7 at 113 mph, and achieved 150 mph in 26 seconds flat. Compare that to the six-speed manual’s numbers of 4.3, 12.8 at 113, and 24.3, respectively. If you zoom in even closer and look at each 10-mph increment, the two cars trade off which is quicker until 120 mph, when the manual starts pulling away. Still No Replacement for the Manual. M DCT is no doubt a technical marvel, but we don’t yet prefer it to a traditional manual."
http://tinyurl.com/dx8cv87

- Thus the M5 manual was probably the faster car especially to Horst von Saurma. He is one of the Ring's most competent and experienced drivers -- he can probably drive a manual on the Ring with one hand on the wheel while smoking a cigar and talking to a passenger at the same time. BMW M GmbH chief Gerhard Richter probably can do the same.

Scientific method (I could post medical journal articles showing the flaws of 'scientific method' in practice)? Tire testing? Lol. Many major car magazines have comparison articles based on tests done over a span of several years. It is an accepted practice. I've already given two examples from Sport Auto mag'. Here is another example from Car and Driver:
http://tinyurl.com/a5axdqb

Bottom line, Anja Wassertheurer's comparison test is irrelevant because it is not a Supertest and this is the R8 thread -- not a thread for Bimmer fanboys to try to establish the M3 as superior over the RS5. I used the Horst von Saurma's Supertests to put the R8 in context because (a) this is a gold standard of car tests; (b) it tests the cars on the benchmark Nurburgring by a renown expert Nurburgring driver; and (c) I had already posted the Supertest for the Audi R8... and I used the M3 and RS5 Supertests as examples of supertests on two similar yet different cars that people here know.

M5twinturbo: "Its Hilarious that you label Anja "incompetent" "

It's far more hilarious that you keep twisting what I say. I never said Anja was 'incompetent'. What I said is completely true: "She (Anja) is not as competent and renown a track driver and tester as Horst von Saurma." Given his experience, von Saurma's assessment has the highest credibility to the auto industry leaders. Anja does not have the same level of credibility -- and no amount of smoke from you will change this fact. This link will give you an idea about the credibility of von Saurma and the context of his Supertests.
http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/magazine/3300.asp?id=12186

I clearly stated I'm not interested in Anja's comparison test because it's not a 'Supertest' conducted by Horst von Saurma. Yet even Anja's test (see link) rated the two cars very close. Anja gave 53 points to the M3 and 50 points to the RS5 -- both RS5 and M3 got the same ratings on 7 of the 9 dimensions (both cars got 9 out of 10 for fun). The M3 got its 3 extra points on the twom dimensions: Hockenheim Short and Slalom. Had the expert Horst von Saurma driven the RS5, it's likely he would have had a better result on Hockenheim Short.
http://tinyurl.com/ch3pgfn

M5twinturbo: "she was able to lap a track within ONE second of Sauram"
You keep twisting the facts. On Hockenheim Short (Sport Auto's testing track), the expert Horst von Saurma drove the RS5 in 1 min 14.0 sec while Anja took 1.3 seconds longer -- 1:15.3. The 1.3 seconds on the short Hockenheim Short track is an eternity: there are over 55 other cars which had lap times between these two cars!

Are you sure you've actually driven on a track with other amateurs?

- The M3 manual is as quick or quicker as the double-clutch M3 even when driven by Car and Driver's reviewers, lol. Car And Driver mag test of both versions of the M3 (2008 BMW M3 with M DCT seven-speed Double-Clutch Transmission as well as 2008 BMW M3 with six-speed Manual): "The rapid-shifting, seven-speed automated manual is as quick as, but no quicker than, the base six-speed... But Is (the Double-Clutch Transmission M3) Quicker? After scouring the test results for some useful conclusion, the answer is “not really.” The M DCT car hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, cleared the quarter-mile in 12.7 at 113 mph, and achieved 150 mph in 26 seconds flat. Compare that to the six-speed manual’s numbers of 4.3, 12.8 at 113, and 24.3, respectively. If you zoom in even closer and look at each 10-mph increment, the two cars trade off which is quicker until 120 mph, when the manual starts pulling away. Still No Replacement for the Manual. M DCT is no doubt a technical marvel, but we don’t yet prefer it to a traditional manual."

Funny thing is they tested the M3 DCT, and used numbers from a previous test of a manual M3 to compare it to, but when Motor Trend tested the DCT M3, and compared it to the previously tested manual M3 they had DIFFERENT results.

"The DCT car is a tenth of a second slower than the regular six-speed manual version to 30 mph, even to 40 mph, and then it's all over. Zip to 60 mph in the M3 DCT takes 4.1 sec, two tenths quicker than in the stick version, and by 100 mph,the gap has stretched to four tenths of a second. The standing quarter mile comes up in 12.6 sec at 113.3 mph versus 12.7 sec at 111.3 mph."

The DCT was nearly half a second faster to 100mph. This just solidifies the FACT that comparing data from two cars tested at different times return varying results, and are UNRELIABLE. The fact is DCT cars are faster and superior around a track which is why every race car uses them. lol.

"I clearly stated I'm not interested in Anja's comparison test because it's not a 'Supertest' conducted by Horst von Saurma. Yet even Anja's test (see link) rated the two cars very close."

Yes you have clearly stated, and we have established you do not care about facts. Also it bewilders me you can not grasp that it does not matter which driver is faster, it matters that the SAME driver, and a consistent driver test the two cars back to back. Anja is consistent, while not as fast which is irrelevant she is consistently around 1 second off Saurma. IF you are going to try an pull some BS diversion that only certain drivers are credible, its complete nonsense, and in that case I only trust times Michael Schumacher post..lol. I guess by your logic if Anja was "not as competent" she would be able to drive the more predictable, and "secure" AWD Audi faster around a track than a "wild" RWD BMW. Hahah. Regardless of your weak excused Anja is a credible driver, or else they would not have her track testing cars, for "Sport Auto" the magazine your reg

you regard so highly.

Anyway regardless of who drives the car, when the M3 is driven back to back with the RS5 the M3 has overwhelmingly come out on top. Sport Auto also emphasizes the importance of tire specs, and I guarantee if Saurma drove two 2012 equal spec versions of the M3 and RS5 back to back tomorrow (NOT 5 years apart with Different transmissions), and they both had equal and current tires the M3 would come out on top like it has repeatedly, while costing thousands less.

The bottom line: M3>RS5, none of your nonsense has but that into question. End of story. When compared at the same time together M3 wins.

M5twinturbo: "when the M3 is driven back to back with the RS5 the M3 has overwhelmingly come out on top."

Utter nonsense. Earlier I gave links of results on about 18 different tracks: in about 90% of those tracks the standard RS5 beat the standard M3 E92 coupe and/or E90 sedan. This happened not just at world's most demanding track the Nuburgring Nordschleife, but also on the vast majority of other tracks.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html

M5twinturbo: "but when Motor Trend tested the DCT M3, and compared it to the previously tested manual M3 they had DIFFERENT results."

Car and Driver is a bigger-selling car magazine than Motor Trend. The fact that Car and Driver's testers consistently got better results with the M3 manual than the double clutch -- despite different times and model years -- indicates that (a) the results are reliable and (b) their testers were relatively more skilled in using the manual transmission than Motor Trend's testers.

Yet the results were consistent when Car and Driver tested both versions of the M3 months/years apart and even different model years (which discredits your argument):

- In June 2008 Car and Driver test, the 2008 M3 dual-clutch car hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, cleared the quarter-mile in 12.7 seconds at 113 mph, and achieved 150 mph in 26 seconds. In July 2009 final test of the same car, yielded 4.2, 12.7 at 113, and 26.1 respectively. In November 2009 test, the 2009 M3 double clutch did it in 4.1 seconds, 12.6 at 113 and 25.9. Relatively consistent, despite the differences in time and model year.
http://tinyurl.com/cukbe8g
http://tinyurl.com/c4kxnpr
http://tinyurl.com/cps5psk

- In December 2007 Car and Driver test, the 2008 M3 manual hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, quarter-mile in 12.8 at 113 mph, 150 mph in 24.3 seconds. In February 2008 test of the 2008 M3 manual was 4.1 seconds, 12.6 seconds at 113 mph, 150 mph in 24.9 sec respectively. In January 2012, the 2012 M3 manual’s numbers were 4.3, 12.7 at 114, and 23.9, respectively. Relatively consistent, despite the differences in time and model year.

In any case, you can test the exact same car back-to-back with the same driver yet get slightly different numbers.

M5twinturbo: "The fact is DCT cars are faster and superior around a track which is why every race car uses them. lol."

The C&D testers preferred the 6-speed manual over the 7-speed dual clutch and were able to get overall better results with it -- and no doubt the Nurburgring expert Horst von Saurma felt that way as well. We're talking specifically about the BMW M3's transmission, not race cars and high performance cars that are able to break the 8-second barrier at Nurburgring (unlike the M3, lol).

Btw, at the famed 24-hour race at Nurburgring, the Audi R8 LMS Ultra came in first, second and fifth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_24_Hours_of_N%C3%BCrburgring

M5twinturbo: "I guarantee if Saurma drove two 2012 equal spec versions of the M3 and RS

M5twinturbo: "I guarantee if Saurma drove two 2012 equal spec versions of the M3 and RS5 back to back tomorrow (NOT 5 years apart with Different transmissions), and they both had equal and current tires the M3 would come out on top"

Are you serious? Anyone who understands car basics knows that testing cars with equal specs is silly. Each different car has a different optimum set up -- certain tire sizes and models that work optimally for one car may not be the best for another car. The cars should be tested as sold by the manufacturers, otherwise the tests have little practical value to the buyers.

Car and Driver, like other testing magazines, often compare cars with different transmissions and other features (they've used both M3 manual and M3 double clutch in comparison tests against dual clutch Audi and automatic transmission Cadillac and Mercedes).

M5twinturbo: "Also it bewilders me you can not grasp that it does not matter which driver is faster, it matters that the SAME driver, and a consistent driver test the two cars back to back...she is consistently around 1 second off Saurma"

She (Anja) is consistently 1 to 4 seconds off Saurma on the short Hockenheim track

It bewilders me even more that you keep wasting our time about Anja's tests. Anja did not test the Audi R8 and her tests you keep referring to are not Supertests that tested the cars at Nurburgring. Therefore her tests are irrelevant to this thread topic about the Audi R8 and my original post. Furthermore, we already have more than enough data that shows the M3 Manual is as fast or faster than the M3 dual clutch.

Your arguments are just 'red herrings' and 'smoke and mirrors' to obfuscate my arguments about the issues.

"Your arguments are just 'red herrings' and 'smoke and mirrors' to obfuscate my arguments about the issues."

Oh dear, my argument has been consistent, and logical. You refuse to acknowledge then when these two cars have been historically tested together in comparable spec the BMW has overwhelmingly WON. End of Story. Your "red herring" littered, and inconsistent ramble has NO argument other to try put whatever is say into question, because YOU cannot admit the M3 has OVERWHLMINGLY beat the RS5 when they have been tested together in similar spec.

Let’s list your attempts to evade the truth.

You have claimed only certain drivers are credible, which is nonsense, anyone who works for a magazine PROFESSIONALLLY will conduct a test PROFESSIONALLY, it does not matter if another driver is Faster, it matters that the driver testing is consistent. Anja clearly is, they have her review cars for a reason. End of story. When she has driven one car faster than another around a track, Saurma has had the same result...even thought is time is faster, the result is the same when similar cars have been tested.

Then you claim only certain magazines are credible based on publication numbers. Once again nonsense, you yourself have quoted motor trend numerous times in other posts.. All magazines use conducts these tests in a professional and consistent manner with instruments, But obviously comparing data from two DIFFERENT tests by different testers or period in time is UNRELIABLE because that is an inconsistency.
Satriani1: "Are you serious? Anyone who understands car basics knows that testing cars with equal specs is silly. Each different car has a different optimum set up -- certain tire sizes and models that work optimally for one car may not be the best for another car. The cars should be tested as sold by the manufacturers, otherwise the tests have little practical value to the buyers."

Correct the cars have different options, but they offer similar transmissions. What IS silly is comparing a 5 year old M3 time with a manual transmission to a 2012 RS5 DCT time, with carbon ceramic brakes, and trying to pass it off as an absolute truth the RS5 is faster than the M3 around the ring no matter what. You match them as closely as they can like similar transmission, and the variables other than that are what make the cars unique and one better than the other...awd or rwd, steel or ceramic brakes ect. The current M3 offers a competition package, which is NOT a limited edition or a special track package, since it DOES NOT affect the cars weight or power at all. It is available on all M3's and is the equivalent to sport package for an M3, and a $2500 cost. which still makes the M3 cost considerably LESS than the RS5 even when the RS5 has a $6000 ceramic brake package. The competition package only lowers the car a half inch, and gives it a half inch wider rear tire. These two minor changes is all BMW had to do to make the 3 year older M3 beat the RS

..the 3 year older M3 beat the RS5 every time they have been compared together..Put every factory option the RS5, and every factory option on the M3 including the same transmission, the M3 will win, and cost less.

Then out of nowhere you bring up Audis victory at the nurburgring 24. LOl. Irrelevant? Quite so...but just for humor, BMW has more over all victories at the nurburging 24 hours than any other manufacture. Most recent was in 2010, and last year would have been a repeat, they dominated qualifying, and controlled the race with unrivaled pace, including fastest lap, but luck was not on their side that time, and Audi got its first victory.. and that’s great for Audi, they won it fair and square, but not sure what you point is considering BMW has won over 20 times, and actually won the season opener in the VLN series this year on the nurburring, using the and racing the same spec Z4 gt3 that contest the ring 24, and beat the R8 LMS..

Anyways back on topic...and frankly this discussion is over, b/c all you have done is try to Change the topic.

When tested together in equal spec.

M3>RS5

M5twinturbo: Bottom line, Bimmer fanboys love to claim that the M3 is the better car on track. Yet the overwhelming evidence proves otherwise: the standard Audi RS5 was quicker than the standard BMW M3 (E92 coupe or E90 sedan) in the overwhelming majority (73%) of all their listed track results (where the cars lapped the same track), including on the benchmark Nurburgring Nordschleife track. It is embarrassing that the BMW M3 has been unable to break the 8-minute barrier at the Nurburgring, while the Audi RS5 has not just broken the 8 minute barrier but is 6 seconds faster than the standard M3. Obviously if the standard M3 dual clutch was really faster than the standard M3 manual, BMW had almost six years to race the M3 dual clutch on these tracks since 2007. Even the 2005 Audi RS4, from the generation before the 2007 M3, was able to break the 8 minute barrier at the Nurburgring.

The hard facts and truth of track results: standard Audi RS5 vs standard BMW M3
21 results where the Audi RS5 (2010 or 2012) was quicker than one or both M3 (2007 E92 coupe and/or 2007 E90 sedan).
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html (6 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim_short.html (0.3 seconds and 1.2 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/virginia_international_raceway.html (1.1 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/grattan_raceway.html (2.05 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/vairano_handling_course.html (1.54 sec and 1.72 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/sachsenring.html (0.9 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/fuji_speedway_post_2005.html (1.1 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/haute_saintonge.html (0.23 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/millbrook_alpine_hill_route.html (0.25 sec and 2.25 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/anglesey_national.html (0.6 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/ring_knutstrop_conf_2.html (1.8 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/balocco.html (0.9 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html (0.7 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/circuit_de_nevers_magny-cours_club.html (0.11 sec and 1 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/inta.html (0.8 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html (0.8 secs)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/folembray.html (0.32 sec)

8 results where one or both 2007 M3 (E92 coupe and/or E90 sedan) was quicker than the 2010 RS5
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/balocco.html (1.38 seconds)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autozeitung_test_track.html (0.6 sec and 2 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top_gear_track.html (1 sec and 2.2 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html (0.3 sec)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/inta.html (0.36)
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html (0.3 sec)

Obviously the standard RS5 is quicker than the standard M3. Unlike the M3, the standard RS5 does not need a co

Like I said when the same the cars are equally speced and tested at the same time.

M3 wins. All you little fast lap times were set by different people at different times, with unknown variables. Pit 2010 m3 up against a 2010 rs5. The m3 wins. Just google m3 vs rs5. You will see all the m3 wins popup.....

And the kicker is the M3 costs less is 3 years older, and still wins the comparison tests.

Unlike the standard M3, the standard RS5 does not need to change its characteristics by adding a special ‘competition package’ or limited edition to deliver those 21 track results where it was quicker than a standard M3. Bottom line, the standard RS5 has superior track results over the standard M3.

- M5twinturbo: “The current M3 offers a competition package, which is NOT a limited edition or a special track package, since it DOES NOT affect the cars weight or power at all… The competition package only lowers the car a half inch, and gives it a half inch wider rear tire. These two minor changes is all BMW had to do to make the 3 year older M3 beat the RS”
The M3 ZCP competition package changes certain characteristics of the standard M3 in order to overcome certain deficiencies and help it compete better on the race track.
- Dynamic Stability Control (M Dynamic Mode) has been modified to allow larger angles of slip in heavy cornering (the rear end can slide out further than allowed on a standard M3 before the traction control stops the tail slide). Once the traction control does kick in, it does not cut power to the wheels in order to correct the slide (which happens on standard M3), but instead applies the brakes to individual wheels in order to keep the car from spinning too much.
- Suspension has been lowered by half inch, thus improving the aerodynamics, traction, handling, roll and center of gravity especially in track speeds compared to the standard M3.
- Electronic Damper Control (Sport Mode) has been modified to support a stiffer ride and heavy cornering on a track (on the downside, less ride comfort on a normal road).
- 19 inch wheels are wider by a half-inch and pushed to the outermost extremities of the inner fender wells for a stance better suited for the race track.
Despite these changes, no BMW M3 with Competition Package has been able to break the 8 min barrier at Nurburgring. At Hockenheim Short the M3 needed the competition package just to tie the RS5 at 1 min 14 sec (just 0.3 sec faster than the standard M3 without competition package). Based on Horst von Saurma’s results at both tracks, the M3 with competition package is unlikely to be as quick as the RS5 on the Nurburgring.

- M5twinturbo: “(I) refuse to acknowledge”
Stop twisting what I said. It was I who provided the links to Horst von Saurma’s Supertests as well as Anja’s comparison test – so how could I refuse to acknowledge articles I provided. I also pointed out that, in most of the top comparison tests, only a small difference in final total score separates both cars (and in most dimensions both cars are tied, e.g, sport auto tests). The two cars have close test results, and the Audi RS5 has proven consistent performance on the track over the BMW M3 (especially the Nurburgring) – yet you refuse to acknowledge the standard RS5’s superiority over the M3 due to your monumental self-denial.

- M5twinturbo: “you have claimed only certain drivers are credible,

- M5twinturbo: “you have claimed only certain drivers are credible, which is nonsense”
What is greater nonsense is your twisting of what I said. My argument is completely true: that some testers (e.g., Horst von Saurma) are relatively more credible than other testers (e.g., Anja). In human life, such as the courtroom, people pay more attention and trust in the assessment of the expert who has more credibility. But incredibly you have it backwards – you insist that we must pay more attention to the expert with less credibility, lol.

- M5twinturbo: “anyone who works for a magazine PROFESSIONALLLY will conduct a test PROFESSIONALLY”.
Lol, of course anyone who is a professional house painter will paint your house professionally – but the best master painters will tend to do a better job of painting and get better results.

- M5twinturbo: “When she has driven one car faster than another around a track, Saurma has had the same result...even thought is time is faster, the result is the same when similar cars have been tested.”
Your rambling and twisting is not consistent with the facts: Horst von Saurma drove the RS5 double clutch and M3 manual in the same time – 1 min 14.3 sec (Car and Driver testers showed the M3 manual and M3 double clutch have similar overall speed). Furthermore, the Hockenheim Short lap results show that there is an RS5 result 0.3 sec faster than von Saurma’s. However, no standard M3 has tied or been faster than the RS5’s 1 min 14 sec flat, even though many more standard M3 cars lap these tracks than the rarer RS5 cars. That’s why it is surprising that Anja drove one car 1.1 second faster than the other car.

- M5twinturbo: “comparing data from two DIFFERENT tests by different testers or period in time is UNRELIABLE because that is an inconsistency”
You don’t have the credibility to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable. If what you say is true, then why don’t you prove it by posting links of experts supporting your argument. After all, I have posted many comparison articles by experts involving different testers and over different periods of time -- ultimately, because of the variables involved – whether in back to back testing or at separate times -- the experts in practice accept the results of tests done by different testers and over different periods in time. Regardless, your argument does not change the fact that (a) Car and Driver testers consistently replicated their results on the M3 manual and M3 double clutch over several months/years and model years and (b) even the same tester testing the same car consistently back to back will get some variances in results.

- M5twinturbo: “even thought is time is faster, the result is the same when similar cars have been tested… What IS silly is comparing a 5 year old M3 time with a manual transmission to a 2012 RS5 DCT time, with carbon ceramic brakes, and trying to pass it off as an absolute truth the RS5 is faster than the M3 around the ring no matter what

Lol, Competition package is not a "special package" its the equivalent to a sport package. Read Above. $2500 option lets the less expensive M3 beat the newer more expensive RS5 in every comparison test, and when the Same model year, and transmissioned car are track tested M3 wins. Keep the excuses coming. lol.

///M3>RS5

- M5twinturbo: “even thought is time is faster, the result is the same when similar cars have been tested… What IS silly is comparing a 5 year old M3 time with a manual transmission to a 2012 RS5 DCT time, with carbon ceramic brakes, and trying to pass it off as an absolute truth the RS5 is faster than the M3 around the ring no matter what.”
I guess we should stop comparing Usain Bolt with previous world record sprinters. As well, we should disqualify Usain Bolt’s sprint records because of his long limbs or running shoes he wears.
Even debates over the world’s fastest production car – Bugatto Veyron, etc – or best supercar are not as defensive, convoluted and ridiculous as several of your arguments. At this level, the cars tested are typically packaged with many differences. Objective and reasonable people have the common sense to accept that the cars provided for testing are what each manufacturer determines is the best set up for their car.

M5twinturbo: “when the same the cars are equally speced and tested at the same time M3 wins. All you little fast lap times were set by different people at different times, with unknown variables. Pit 2010 m3 up against a 2010 rs5. “
Like I said, you lack credibility because you are a nobody. You haven’t provided a single expert’s opinion who supports your view that a valid test requires both cars to be “equally speced and tested at the same time”. On the other hand I have provided several experts and highly credible sources that routinely test and compare cars that are not “equally spec’d” and tested at different times – indicating that this is accepted practice in this industry. Furthermore, it’s naïve to believe that even two equally spec’d M3 tested at the same time will yield exactly the same results.
Truth is you have absolutely no idea (a) of all the specs on those cars on the track and (b) of all the comparison tests of both cars by testers throughout the world. No comparison test is “equally spec’d”: you are simply referring to a small sample of tests which have similar specs in some equipment – even though there still are some differences in other specs – and pretending that this sample supports your view.

M5twinturbo: “And the kicker is the M3 costs less is 3 years older”
Audi’s beautiful exterior styling and higher quality interior alone is worth the extra cost.
And the 3-years older Audi RS4 already broke the 8 minute barrier at Nurburgring which the standard M3 still failed to do.

- M5twinturbo: “last year would have been a repeat, they dominated qualifying, and controlled the race with unrivaled pace, including fastest lap, but luck was not on their side that time”
This is a 24 hour race -- what the two BMW did by overpushing their cars up to the halfway mark they suffered in mechanical problems and repairs (ended up in 7th and 8th positions). Audi could have finished 1-2-3 had the fifth placed team (then in lead position) not been involved in an accident that required a

M3>RS5

"I guess we should stop comparing Usain Bolt with previous world record sprinters. As well, we should disqualify Usain Bolt’s sprint records because of his long limbs or running shoes he wears."

LOL, Usain Bolt doesn't get a gold metal based on the last Olympics times, he gets a gold medal based on who be beat THAT DAY.

"This is a 24 hour race -- what the two BMW did by overpushing their cars up to the halfway mark they suffered in mechanical problems and repairs (ended up in 7th and 8th positions). "

Like I said above they had bad luck last year, but BMW has more over all victories at the nurburging 24 hours than any other manufacture. More recently BMW won the season opener in the VLN series this year on the nurburring, using the and racing the same spec Z4 gt3 that contest the ring 24, and beat the R8 LMS..

Or maybe they were just busy winning 3 titles in DTM in their rookie year back. Beating Audi, and Mercedes who have raced the sport for the last 10 years lol.

Im not denying that some of the RS5's lap times are faster than an OLDER M3's which were set years before the Audi's which all of your times above represent. BUT when they are tested together same model year and spec. M3 beats the RS5!!

What will you boys do when the 'ring is turned into a beer garden

Audi R8 GT: Horst von Saurma's supertest gave it a score of 69 out of 70. No BMW car scored so high.
http://tinyurl.com/ccxeaeh