&
You can't afford either car so keep dreaming. Too bad you don't get paid to spread the BMW gospel. LOL.
S5 Coming to America (?)
41 - 60 of 61 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
318 Posts
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$$? Magazines put the weight close to that of the current RS4 which as reported by Automobile magazine is 3700lbs+. FYI - The S5 curbweight is 3594 lbs as tested by Edmunds...
Well, nobody said that the S5 was as fast as the M3 in the 1/4 mile. We are talking 0-60 where it is clear that AWD and better torque will if not match the M3, will BARELY be that far behind even with the 65+ bhp handicap. Sorry but .1 - .2 tenths isn't considered "RUNNING CIRCLES AROUND IT" You forget that your precious M3 didn't even beat the Convertible RS4 that it was directly tested against. What was that again 0-60 in 4.8 sec? Oh ya running circles - I forgot...
In the end, it's worthless talking sense to people like you, you're obviously single minded and the S5 has already lost before it was even tested. We weren't saying that the S5 is a better car, it is you who said the M3 would RUN CIRCLES AROUND the S5 with no factual basis. Next time, have some facts behind your words, or even better appreciate both cars for what they are, excellent German Vehicles...
Even BMW fanboys admit to M3 and BMW brakes being not that great. In the past it didn't even have 4 pot brakes. Since you define "good brakes" by specifically identifying rotors with holes, I can see where you are clueless.
Yes the S5 is lighter than the M3. Why don't you do youself a favor and look it up instead of talking out of your A$$? 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.
Joined
·
318 Posts
I'm not concerned with an unladen weight. Curb weight is what matters and with this in mind the M3 is 3650lbs (mfr)
The S5 doesn't weighs in at 3594 lbs at the curb. With driver, of course the weight increases and so does the M3. Point is, the are very close to each other and torque comes into play for off the line acceleration. If you don't care about 60mph acceleration maybe you live in an area of the world where hitting 100mph+ in the quarter mile is more convenient. I personally find the 60mph time significant and IMO this is one area that places these car's in a similar arena.
I like the M3, and I like the S5. The S5 is for me because I believe that tests will show that it has similar performance to an M3 in may areas while having much better interior appointments, exclusivity, and IMO better build quality. I'm sure the RS5 will be the car to have out of the three but it won't be along for awhile...
The S5 doesn't weighs in at 3594 lbs at the curb. With driver, of course the weight increases and so does the M3. Point is, the are very close to each other and torque comes into play for off the line acceleration. If you don't care about 60mph acceleration maybe you live in an area of the world where hitting 100mph+ in the quarter mile is more convenient. I personally find the 60mph time significant and IMO this is one area that places these car's in a similar arena.
I like the M3, and I like the S5. The S5 is for me because I believe that tests will show that it has similar performance to an M3 in may areas while having much better interior appointments, exclusivity, and IMO better build quality. I'm sure the RS5 will be the car to have out of the three but it won't be along for awhile...
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.
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.
That was me that make the "douchebag" comment, and for the record I did not call YOU a douchebag... I merely stated that a high number of M3 owners where I live in CA are total and utter douchebags. But it's not just my opinion, I've talked to so many people who think that. I know that many BMW owners are intelligent successful people -- but since there are so many more bmw owners statistically there is a higher quantity of every type of person that owns them, including the douches. However, there is also a certain segment of the market that aspire to a higher social level and do in fact buy a certain vehicle based on the perception of it's status value. And there are some non car enthusiasts that buy a car like an M3 purely for that reason and perceived bragging rights. Many of those gelled hair and chain wearing goobers are the ones cutting through lanes without signaling and driving like A-holes. That is what people notice.
In the late 80's and much of the 90's the BMW 3 series was THE sports sedan benchmark. They were head and shoulders above most competition but times have changed.. a lot. People however still think like it's the 90's. Infinity, Lexus, Audi... they've all improved significantly. Performance can be put into tables and charts, but design is subjective and matter of personal opinion.
And also for the record, I never said an S5 outperforms the new M3 -- I simply disagreed that an M3 could "run circles" around such a car as the S5. If a couple tenths of a second on a track means running circles around another car you're perfectly welcome to that opinion. Nothing personal. In fact I hope you could come to the conclusion that maybe interior design and things like 4 wheel drive can be things worth considering over stopwatch results and what the Jones' think. Okay I'm done on this thread! Bring on October and my Meteor Gray S5.
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.
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.
Joined
·
163 Posts
a few tenth could be the driver too in either direction, slower or faster.
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.
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?!
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?!
Joined
·
677 Posts
Yes it is true. (39,900 for the A5.) Fully loaded is about $57,000.
Joined
·
493 Posts
WHY ARE THE CARS CHEAPER THAN THE CARS IN EUROPE OR THAN THE CARS IN BULGARIA... N/C.. if i want to buy an S5 i have to pay about 80 000 euros in bulgaria for a fully loaded S5.. just N/C!!!
41 - 60 of 61 Posts
