[devo]

I think the S5 alone will kill the M3.

I could see the RS5 coming close to 100k if it tracks between the RS4 and RS6.

I wish this thing would come out already, it's the car I've been waiting for!

I would think that the S5 will be priced in the mid $50's; maybe I am too optimistic, but I can hope. If it is, I am getting one.

As far as the S5 being able to "kill" the new M3...well, sorry but either you're really blindly brand loyal or not too informed about cars. The new M will run circles around the S5. It will be lighter, have less parasitic hp loss due to having one less diff., have 60 hp more, better brakes and a sportier suspension. The S5 albiet, likely, a great car is marketed as a direct competitor to the 335xi, not the new M.

As much as I love the idea of the S5, it better be in the upper fifties or less, or the 335xi with better resale and a much lower cost of admission -with better gas mileage to boot- will be a better value.

Audi even claims only 5.1 0-62 when BMW is claiming 4.8 for the same run. It will get worse as the speed increases. And, the M will simply crush the S5 in the twisties.

 

[devo]

from what ive read the RS5 will be in close pricing with the RS4 but just a bit more, not to mention the two turbos that boost it to 450bhp and 500lb-ft so i think the rs5 will be that "m3 killer"

Agreed, the RS5 is likely to put a hurt on the M3. Hopefully, Audi can keep the weight low. I have heard that their target weight is about 3600+ lbs. (As a matter of reference, the M is 3483 lbs.) With all that torque and hp it will still scream, even if it is a little porky. I really like the new M3, but if the RS5 is priced within the M's range, I'll go that route instead. (In the interim, I am first on my dealer's list for the M) I hope to get the S5 as my daily driver. I just wish Audi would release pricing.

 

[devo]

Agree with this and devo's comment.

The new M3 is also way over-priced in my opinion, if Audi keeps the RS5 below (I don't think they will) then this will put a dent in the M3s sales.

Anyone know if Audi plans to race this car?

The M3 doesn't have a price yet in the states. Personally, I think a well optioned one will be no more than $65,000.00, which I think is fair. Any higher -imo- would then be priced too high.

 

[devo]

I have heard $70k which is why I think it is over priced.

Just rumor.

 

[devo]

lol no RS5 just yet, they have to do an RS version of something a little bigger... hint hint. and in case u dont already know they've killed the RS4 already. so yeah there might be a hot version of the A5 to nail the coffins for M3s

I don't really understand what it is, that you are trying to convey. If you are referring to the RS5. Yes, it will be a threat to the M3; but a different kind of threat. The S5 won't do any harm to the M.

I would condiser the M a tad heavy, so the RS5 will be a pig; albiet a very fast one, but not very agile.

All cool cars, though.

 

[devo]

You give far too much credit to the M3. The M3 is only fractionally faster in the straights due to the low torque (295 versus 325 lbs feet for the S5) and through the twisties -- who knows yet. Top Gear was able to beat the old M3 on the track with the B6 S4. It's more about driver skill and knowing the differences between the car's dynamics.

But even if the M3 gets to 60 in .1 or .2 seconds faster and is a fraction faster in the quarter mile.. who cares? It looks hideous and every douchebag with 60K who wants some kind of bragging rights will buy one. Who wants to be a member of that club?

There is also a video showing that the E46 beat the RS4.

Believe what you want, but a S5 will not be a competitor to the E92 M3; simple facts. It's a pig with far less HP and another diff; which will sustain more of a parasitic loss.

Your words, but every "douchebag" with 50k something can have one. It's a fast family sedan. Get real. Now the RS5 is another story, except that THAT very fast PIG will be about $15k more than the M3 and it won't be nearly as nimble.

Lastly, all Audi's typically have terrbile residuals; these cars will be more of the same. Keep kidding yourself.

 

[devo]

I recently watched a video test of the S5 (beautiful car), where the tester stated the it was nice but no BMW 335.

 

[devo]

Agreed. The M3 is a chavs car. I see so many of them driven by nob'eds who have no idea how to drive, but they want it for the name. To be honest, I would never buy a BMW purely for that reason.. I wouldn't want to be associated with a large portion of BMWs demographic. Now that may sound snobbish, but unfortunately that really is how I feel about them.

Under normal driving conditions (not on a race track etc) the S4 has been proven to be quicker than the M3. That leads me to believe that the S5 will do even better. The RS4 has proven quicker than the new not yet for sale M3 coupe, so I can only imagine that the new RS4 and the RS5 will blow it out of the water on the track as well as continue to do so on the roads.

You give far too much credit to the M3. The M3 is only fractionally faster in the straights due to the low torque (295 versus 325 lbs feet for the S5) and through the twisties -- who knows yet. Top Gear was able to beat the old M3 on the track with the B6 S4. It's more about driver skill and knowing the differences between the car's dynamics.

But even if the M3 gets to 60 in .1 or .2 seconds faster and is a fraction faster in the quarter mile.. who cares? It looks hideous and every douchebag with 60K who wants some kind of bragging rights will buy one. Who wants to be a member of that club?

If you believe that the Audi's torque advantage with make it a faster car in the STRAIGHTS, you are very ill-informed about high performance cars. 30 lb/ft of torque will not make a heavier car accelerate from a standstill any faster. The extra HP of the M, WILL. Also, you don't mention that the M's torque -albiet- low, has an excellent, usable, broad range.

The 0-60 and 0-62 sprint data is for people like you, that can't comprehend what it takes to propel a car forward with such velocity. The HP of the M vs. the lack of it on the S5 (414 vs. 354; with a greater disparity to the wheels because of Audi's extra diff.-and their inability to build a proper rwd car.) will make for a faster straight line acceleration. The lower weight and attention BMW has given to create a center mass between the bumpers, with far less overhang weight, currently yields a car as close to a mid engine car, without going to a mid-engine design.

The real test of a car's HP is the standard 1/4 mile. The S5 barely matches the E46's 1/4 mile times and trap speeds; the E92 M will simply WALK away from it. A car's trap speed, in the 1/4 mile is a true indicator of a car's horsepower. The M's trap speed is much greater than the S5.

Even the 0-100 is indicative of a car's HP. The M has run that sprint in the low 10 sec. range. The only advantage the S5 has is it's launch by virtue of it's AWD. After the launch, the M will spank it. The RS5 IS another story, but as I mentionead above, it's going to be too expensive. And, it's more of a GT car than the M will be. It's not really fair to compare an $80 something car with twin turbos to a $60 something car, which is naturally aspirated. Of course, Audi can't seem to get the same power per liter that BMW can.

In the end, they are all beautiful cars, but, this BLINDLY BRAND LOYAL crap clearly illustrates what limited insight and/or foresight you have.

 

[devo]

Devo, interesting viewpoint in your post.

How is it that the M3 is going to be "running circles" around an S5?

First look at past history... The last M3 lost to the last S4 on the track. The M3 never ran circles over the S4, it was slightly faster and more of a drivers car but both the B5 and B6 S4s took the top spot in numerous magazines. Recently, the current M5 lost to the S6 on the track even though it was down 65bhp.

Fast-forward to today's facts:

The M3 weighs slightly more than the S5 AND this is with the Audi having AWD...
The Convertible (and heavier) RS4 beat the New M3
The S5 has more torque than the M3 (325ft/lbs vs. 295ft/lbs)
The S5 has better brakes than the M3.

The 335 is rated by BMW at 5.3 sec to 62 and best was 4.8 running tweeked boost for a magazine test
The S5 is rated by Audi at 5.1 sec to 62 and has posted a 4.5 and recently a 4.9 in nearly 100 degree heat.

Resale: Many magazines are already saying that the S5 will have excellent resale value, and there's no reason to think it won't hold it's value better than an everyday 335i at the very least. The S5 is easily better than the 335 but admittedly not as hard-edged as the M3. I do agree with you saying that the S5 won't kill the M3, this is left for the 450bhp/500 ft/lbs 5.0 liter twin-turbo RS5

The S5 has worse brakes than the M3; what are you smoking? They are not even cross drilled.

The S5 weighs MORE than the M; do some more research.

The torque advantage is greatly dimished by virtue of the extra weight AND extra diff; did you forget that the M has 60 more HP?

The M3 recently posted a 4.4 and they had poor road conditions.

Compare 1/4 mile times.

I'll bet you my house that the stock M3 will beat a stock S5 in any 1/4 mile run.

 

[devo]

&

You can't afford either car so keep dreaming. Too bad you don't get paid to spread the BMW gospel. LOL.

I don't but I should get paid; LOL.

You might be right, my 997 tt put a little dent in my spending, but an S5 or M3 DD, might make me jump in again.

 

[devo]

Well anyway one thing I think we can agree on is that the S5 isn't really a vehicle for you. It's not a mass appeal kind of car. For more raw sports car qualities there are other things out there like an M3 or a Cayman. I personally am fine with slightly less rough edge and more comfort, plus an elegant design. And if there are faster things that pull up beside me at a red light, I really couldn't care less. It's an extremely nice package from bumper to bumper.

Good points. I agree with many of them. I also like to have one of my cars to be a GT type fast sedan, like the S5. I love the S5 for what it is. It's not a M3and it isn't marketed to beat one; no problem. Great car nonetheless.

I just don't tolerate people who claim Audi, BMW or whatever, is the BEST; none of them are. It is what one looks for in a car that makes a car special to that person. I appreciate most of the Euro sports type cars; Porsche, BMW and the aforementioned Audi.

 

[devo]

Actually the S5 and RS4 brakes outperform the M3 brakes. I the most recent EVO review of the new M3 v's the RS4 (The RS4 won by the way), they slated the M3 brakes even with the race pads that BWM sneakily supplied it with.

The Audis are quicker not purely for their increased torque, but the Quattro system allows that torque to be laid down more efficiently than a rear wheel drive system. In a 1/4 mile, the new M3 is a good 3 car lengths behind the RS4.

I don't really see the S5 as a true M3 competitor. I'll leave that to the RS5 to shame the bimmer. But I still think that most S5 drivers will be able to out drive most M3 drivers due to the S5's increased traction and drivability.

Your blind exuberance is hilarious.

The RS4 runs the 1/4 in something like 13.3 @ 106.5. The M runs the same tarmac in 12.9 @111. Any advantage any of these Audi's have from the dig (due to the AWD) is lost after the HP of the M overpowers them.

More tests have favored the M. It doesn't matter, however, because they are fighting for tenths of a second to 60/62, which is meaningless.

Your statement about torque as it relates to speed is funny. These Audi's are not quicker due to their increased torque. Torque doesn't help with these type of speed contests; HP does. A roll-on test will favor a higher torque car, not a race from a stand still. And, any minimal torque advantage is lost in the driveline and due to the EXTRA weight of the Audis. (In the S5 a higher torque engine is favorable because it is intened for highway type blasting, with canyon carving secondary.) Try comparing the EU standards and not selectively comparing weights.

Shame the Bimmer; funny. For $20k more the RS5 freaking better shame it. SHAME on Audi if it doesn't. I leave my 997tt to shame the RS5. It's 50k more and not a competitor, but what the hell.

Lastly, in regards to your statement about most S5 driver's being able to out drive M owner's. Maybe you and those driver's need a good driving school if you can't handle a lively rwd car. Basically, awd CAN be a band-aid for the less than confident and accomplished drivers. I will agree that for lesser experienced driver's, the Audi will make them feel more confident.

 

[devo]

Devo, Since you like to throw in the personal attacks, I wouldn't doubt that you were some BMW troll that is rolling though the Audi forums to start something.

Even BMW fanboys admit to M3 and BMW brakes being not that great. In the past it didn't even have 4 pot brakes. Since you define "good brakes" by specifically identifying rotors with holes, I can see where you are clueless.

Yes the S5 is lighter than the M3. Why don't you do youself a favor and look it up instead of talking out of your A$$? Magazines put the weight close to that of the current RS4 which as reported by Automobile magazine is 3700lbs+. FYI - The S5 curbweight is 3594 lbs as tested by Edmunds...

Well, nobody said that the S5 was as fast as the M3 in the 1/4 mile. We are talking 0-60 where it is clear that AWD and better torque will if not match the M3, will BARELY be that far behind even with the 65+ bhp handicap. Sorry but .1 - .2 tenths isn't considered "RUNNING CIRCLES AROUND IT" You forget that your precious M3 didn't even beat the Convertible RS4 that it was directly tested against. What was that again 0-60 in 4.8 sec? Oh ya running circles - I forgot...

In the end, it's worthless talking sense to people like you, you're obviously single minded and the S5 has already lost before it was even tested. We weren't saying that the S5 is a better car, it is you who said the M3 would RUN CIRCLES AROUND the S5 with no factual basis. Next time, have some facts behind your words, or even better appreciate both cars for what they are, excellent German Vehicles...

I guess that you are missing my point.

I'll put it this way. I like the S5 very much and will likely buy one. I also plan on buying the M3. The S5 is a fantastic GT type, fast, capable car, with a rich interior. I do think that Audi leads the pack with their interiors. BMW should take note. Some on this board have claimed that the S5 will beat the M3; so maybe you should read again.

The unladen M3 weighs 3483. The unladen S5 is rumored to weigh 3700 +/-. Sorry your data is flawed. It's not a personal attack; it's just a fact. It cracks me up how you can suggest that the S5 weighs less than the M3. Compare unladen OR EU weights.

I am on this board because I like the car and like the idea of a RS5. I have said before, that I like all these cars. I am not trolling as you say.

The RS5 will be a fantastic car, but again, I can't compare it to the M3 when it will be so much more; sorry. Just like I won't compare the 911S to a M3; like the BMW boys do. Many times in life you get what you pay for. These cars are an example of that. Is the RS5 worth 15-20k more than a M3; to the buyer maybe so. Same with the 911S; is it worth 5K more than the RS5; depends on what you like.

Read any of the road tests ( I believe there are some on this very board) which reveal that the S5 will run slower than the M3. I don't have a problem with that. I love it for what it is.

As far as general attacks; look at who called BMW M buyers "doochbags".
If I offended anyone personally; I am sorry. Just compare apples to apples.

I don't remember saying that the M would run circles around a RS4; a S5, yes. If you want to take my "circles" word and create a buz, so be it. I won't compare 0-60/62 times, they are meaningless. Let the car's HP reveal what a 0-100 or 1/4 run will do. It separates the cars. The M runs about 7-8 more MPH in the traps and .4-.5 secs. quicker E.T.

If you read my posts and didn't disect the parts you didn't like, you'd see where I have repeatedly said how much I like all of these cars.

 

[devo]

From what I have seen, the S5 appears to be roughly 150-200 lbs. heavier than the M3; all considerations being equal.

I will correct my sentence re: 0-60 times. They do matter to me in the real world, just not in rag road tests, where they are considered gospel by some. A couple of tenths in a 0-60 run is usually indicative of a lot more power to come.

It's hard to compare models with Audi. I.E. the RS5 will be priced competitively with the M5, yet provide equal, if not better performance; in car sized somewhere between the M3 and M5. In that $ range it would be my only choice, in part because I am not a Bangle fan. To me the 3 series is the only good car to come from him.

The S5 and M3 are both great cars, with slighly different aggendas.

 

[devo]

I was responding general replies; not to specific member's responses. I should have hit the "reply" button and not "quote'.

Anyway, I don't care what the Jones' think. I do think that the interiors are a better, more refined design, but I also think that the M3 is more of a driver's car; IMO. It's a little more raw, with the high RPM ceiling and a little less weight. Plus I prefer a rear wheel drive car.

The S5 will serve me very well as a daily driver that I can drive and enjoy throughout the year; even through the NY winters. To me it is more of a refined GT type car than the M is. It's excellent power and torquey engine, together with the refined look will be enjoyable on a regular basis.

A couple of tenths don't really matter to me. But, I do believe that the M is a much faster car. What you define a "much" faster is up to you. My aforementioned posts regarding 1/4 mle and 0-100 MPH times, are pretty consistent from what I have read. On a track, I do believe that the M will take more than a couple of seconds from the S5; not the RS5, of course. So, even though a couple of tenths 0-60 don't really matter, I believe that the M will show it's superior power to weight ratio as the speed increases. This does not diminish the Audi's attributes, as it is a different breed to me.

To me, the quality -other than the interior appointments- are on par with each other.

Here, in the upstate NY region, I don't see the gold chain, heavy mouse, macho male driving these cars. They exist -and are just as annoying- but I really don't find them in M cars. I would depise it as much as you if I saw that daily.

 

[devo]

Unfortunately this is true around the world and the reason why I would never by a BMW. In fact as good a car as the M3 is (I have never denied that), the reputation it has gained in the UK is not a good one. It is the choice of the yobbo drug dealer.. he thinks he's cool in his M3 and aftermarket ICE and exhaust thumping through the city streets, driving as close as he can to the car in front and paying no consideration to other road users and having little or no driving ability. Sadly this is the arrogant stereotype that BWM has been tainted with.

It was me who said that the RS4 is faster in the 1/4 mile than the M3. Now stats on paper may say different. I don't care about that. Audi a known for being rather conservative in their stats, often under stating their 0-60 and BHP stats. But every real world test that I have seen by many motoring magazines and TV programs (TopGear and EVO to name just 2) have proven the M3 slower than the Audi. This includes the new M3.

I have heard these hooligan stories by other European members on different forums. It is unfortunate for BMW.

As far as the speed contests, I can find evidence that the E46 M3 beats the S4; those cars were/are very close in performance. But I really doubt the S4 or S5 will beat the E92 M3, no matter what they show on TV.

I am not being rude, just stating what is reasonable. I think I'll put my role in this thread to bed, because we're going down the same road again. The numbers I got for the S5 above were from another member's post and attachment. They are indicative of the times a S5 runs. The 1/4 mile is far off of the M3's pace and the S4 is slower. (They are both ,still, fantastic cars of refined quality, but it is what it is.) Audi isn't the only one to undercut their performance numbers.

 

[devo]

I think some of the contradiction and perhaps confusion on all our parts may have come about with the difference between the RS4 and the S4. I have seen several tests where the S4 beats the M3 E46. The E46 only beat the S4 in 'perfect' conditions (strait track, warm weather, warm tires etc). In anything but these perfect conditions, the S4 was faster. I did refer, or at least meant to refer to this pair-off in one of my posts.

Another comparison I made was to the RS4 v's the E92 M3 and how the RS4 was still classed as the better all-round and faster car (albeit less 'fun' due to the back end action of the M3).

Now can we all be friends again?!

I agree with this.

Yes, of course, we can be friends again!

 

[devo]

I heard that Audi has set the base MSRP of the S5 @ $50,500.00. Any truth to that?