Photo Comparison: BMW M4 vs Audi RS5 - Which Is The Better Looking Beast?

Yawn...Mercedes please put a rush order on the next Gen C63 coupe and show your German neighbors how its done

The BMW looks better than the Audi, but that isn't saying much. I think their competitors are better looking.

the RS5 is a beautiful car. The new BMW's front end looks like a 60-ish year old woman with her face pulled way too far back by a bad plastic surgeon.

I like the RS5's cleaner, sleeker approach, but I also like the M4's more aggressive look. The RS5's interior is still better. Kind of a toss-up for me.

While still beautiful the RS5 is looking it's age.

Both are rather uninspiring. One vote for Car4Life's comments.

Awesome and yet the RS5 is outdated. Surprised as to the 200kg + weight difference as well as the 90 lbs of torque difference between the 2 cars. That is going to be one very quick M3 somewhere in the mid-3's for only about a $75k cars ....

Can anyone tell from behind the difference between one BMW model from another or one Audi model from another ? At best the tail pipes help distinguish one from another...what's up with that ! What I'm saying
is that both these brands are marginalizing or over harmonizing all their models into the same repetitive look that its becoming boring.
To stand out from the crowd it may be best to look elsewhere. While not a big Lexus fan its strategy of producing a daring design and to move up market and not dilute its brand by moving down market like BMW, Audi and MB may in a few years make them more desireable.

Of course, one could tell the difference between Audi models by looking at the rear end styling. Same for BMW. Requires greater attention to smaller details but they definitely are different. See these cars all over the DC and NYC areas which creates a familiarity and ability to distinguish. The Lexus IS is now better distinguished from other Lexus models because, aside from the grill, it looks completely different from the other Lexus models, which is a very good thing.

Pugproud, to increase revenue and profit the German 3 have no choice but to move downmarket. At the end of the day, it's a business decision. Cheaper cars = likely increase in sales = increase in revenue = increase in profit (assuming costs hold constant).

Thank you GermanNut for reminding me of the economic realities of the car business. While I totally understand and fully agree with you I'm not totally convinced that in the long run going down market will be the best profit generator. Recognizing that one must fight to live another day it will be interesting to see which strategy prevails. BMW I believe is diluting its brand strength and image as is MB. High end buyers may look elsewhere to be different and to be treated as special
rather than be one of the pack with those paying much much less...its all about status at the top end. VW/Audi has great multiple brands but may find it increasingly difficult to compete against itself as its size increases...brand GM's want the best for their brands (and their personal future) and will get recalcitrant if sister brands get the better of them within the company or in the market. As you correctly point out the search for revenues and profits is fierce and the industry is choking on overcapacity and costs. While these factors cannot be denied I believe it is the customers and their perceptions of the brand that will seperate the winners from the losers in time and that clear cut lines between brands versus overlap within an organization will prevail. Just one man's opinion.

PUGPROUD makes great points. But I think the company that's doing the "downmarket" move right is Mercedes. While they are expanding their brand to more attainable price levels for the masses, their key models are moving upwards. The C-Class appears to be moving upmarket a bit with its redesign, and the S-Class has increased its prestigious image significantly with its new generation. And the S-Class coupe is going to take that one step further to be a more formidable and desirable option to the Bentley GT. Audi helped its own cause with the intro of the R8 to the supercar arena but now with the new A3 (which will probably be viewed as a brand new entry-level offering to many buyers who weren't familiar with the previous A3 wagon), there's no new models at the upper end of the range to offset its perceived move downmarket.

The Audi looks long in the tooth. And even when it was fresh it always looked "Chunky". The BMW doesn't look like a $75,000 car. It looks nice, but $75,000 is Porsche 911 territory. $75,000+ is a bit too much to ask for a heavily modified 3-series coupe imo. Looks wise? BMW hands down. The Audi looks played out.

it's expensive, sure, but it still starts around $20k less than a base 911 and $30k less than a Carrera S, which is the most direct competitor in the 911 lineup. Should make for an entertaining comparison test.

Don't worry, these come in pedal car versions for you two.

Clams, Why are you riding my Jock strap?

...wouldn't that require you to actually have a penis to begin with? Maybe you meant "chastity belt"?

A base 911 starts at $85K. BMW is pricing the M3 and M4 wayyyyyy too high if they are thinking of $70K for the M3 and $75K for the M4.

It would be entertaining to see BMW price the M3 and M4 at such lofty levels because they would have a sales disaster on their hands.

A base RS5 coupe starts at $69,600 with the convertible starting at just under $78K. How are BMW's new M3 and M4 priced way too high given this information? And honestly, if you want a Porsche 911, are you really going to cross shop against Audi RS5 or BMW M3/M4? Definitely an R8, but not an RS5. Unfortunately, BMW doesn't offer anything in that league of automobile.

THE NEW BMW M3 & M4 LOOK BETTER, LOVE THE NEW COLORS , BUT THE AUDI RS5 IS NICE ALSO, NO LOSERS HERE

Moving "downmarket" will allow these car companies to sell more fuel efficient cars alongside their more luxurious and higher performance (I.e., less fuel efficient) models in the US. It is imperative that they do this. Ever hear of the CAFE standards? The average fuel economy for a given carmaker company (comprised of all models it sells in the US) must meet the 37.8 mpg requirement by 2016. If the standards are not met by a car company, guess what they have to remove from their US offerings? So, while more revenue is the obvious benefit of selling more downmarket models, the CAFE standards can be just as big, if not a more important motivator for offering lower priced, more fuel efficient cars, or in other words, going "downmarket."