A4 faster than C350!!!!!
 

I was shocked too, but i guess its true, quote from C&D:

A4:

The major change to the engine for '09 is the addition of variable valve timing, which adds 11 horsepower and an impressive 51 pound-feet of torque. Although it's down 54 horsepower to the 3.2-liter V-6, the four-cylinder's 0-to-60 time of 5.7 seconds was quick enough to match the acceleration of the V-6 version.

C350:

Our '08 C350 Sport achieved 60 mph in 6.0 seconds and ran the quarter in 14.6 at 97 mph. How much of the disparity is attributable to manual versus automatic?

So, what's the point of getting a C350 then? It's smaller, more gas guzzling, and is slower. I guess you're just buying the badge then :nix:

And yes, i know these were probably done with crazy brake boosted launches or neutral drops...even with more power, its slower

I have an 09 A4 and an 08 C300 sitting in the driveway right now and I would choose the C class over the A4 any day. If I had to carry 5 people somewhere, I would probably take the Audi but it simply does not drive as well as the Mercedes.

Why would we buy our C Class? Well it's a benz for one thing. Also, It looks alot better... So basically your just into the 0-60 times. Which by the way 0.3 seconds of a difference is not that huge.

what Ive experienced, 09 A4 2.0t auto vs 08 C300 6-spd= 08 c300 all day

really? R&T also said the A4 handles like crazy, even better than 335i on slalom. quote: "The car's high limits are proven by its stellar 0.90g around the skidpad, while its ability to change directions is exhibited by a 69.1-mph run through the slalom cones — faster than the BMW 335i."

also, C300SPORT, what do u mean by the c-class driving better?

I'm currently deciding between the 300 4matic....
 

...and an A4 3.2. On paper, the A4 has more toys for the same price.

For the $46k (MSRP) you can get a loaded 300 4matic sport (MM, prem II, pano, wood) or for $50k (Audi pays first 3 months and $1500 conquest cash so it is about the same MSRP) you get the prestige package (blind spot assistant, B&O audio, parking sensors) Audi Drive Select (adaptive suspension and steering)navigation (including rear view camera).

On the MB side, the ride seems both tighter yet more compliant over bumps.

I'd be interested in your thoughts as you have both to compare....

... i sat in an A4 and it was much smaller then the C... especially the back... well at least it felt like

and WTF... WTF WTF WTF WTF

HOW CAN A 4 CYLINDER WITH 54 HP LESS BE AS FAST AS THEIR OWN V6, not to mention OURS...

maybe if the V6 a4 was a little faster then the C350 it would be okay... but what the hell with the four cylinder? i dont see how something with 54 less HP can pull the same mass in the same time as something with 54 more...

ahh... well... we shall always have more bling :D

Seriously, if you have to ask questions like this you really need to just go test drive one. There are numerous big and little things that make a car feel just right and it is a personal decision. The funny thing is that the A4 is my girlfriend's car...she bought it because she likes the look of the Audi...but she says my car is the "nicer" car...go figure??

It is extremely stout for a four cylinder but it is not very refined...

i just don't get the physics... except the V6 would be slightly heavier... but it shuoldn't be so much that it negates 54 HP

0-60 times do not accurately reflect how fast a car is. some cars like the STIs and EVOs have very low 0-60 times because they have great traction (from all-wheel drive) and have shorter gears.

a more accurate reflection of straight line quickness will be the trap speed in the 1/4 mile.

a .3 second difference in 0-60, like micropower99 stated, is nothing. That could be a mere traction problem.

And again, Audi vs MB?.....i think the picture in my sig should resolve that one.

works for me

funny that this is mentioned. i've noticed this with audi. i was really into the new Audi TT. they have a turbo'd I-4 FWD and a 6-cylinder that is AWD.......

.....they have the same 0-60 time. Again, this reflects traction, power, and weight. AWD is certainly going to be heavier which plays a big role, and b/c the turbo'd I-4 is FWD, it has to play catch-up b/c of traction issues.

If audi got their head's on straight and delivered a I-4 turbo TT with RWD, i would probably consider it. I just don't see the purpose of a turbo'd FWD car......srt-4, the s/c cobalt ss (old one now, new ones are turbo'd). heck, i why do they make the A3 FWD turbo? ughhh. end rant lol :topic:

*yawn*

if we all bought cars based on stats, then we'd probably all be driving Pontiac G8's.

After two problematic A4's in our family, I would never trust the reliability of an Audi ever again. And that's why I didn't bother with them when I considered my current car. Not to mention the poor sales and service experience at the local Audi dealership.

You guys are arguing over marketing numbers. If you honestly want to know which is faster, RACE one. BTW 0-60 numbers mean NOTHING but just that. It does not mean faster or even quicker. 1/4mile numbers would be more telling but the mags rarely run them all at the same time and under same conditions, since the manufacturers "donate" the cars.

The numbers are interesting, considering that on InsideLine they tested the Audi A4 3.2 V6 with 265hp and got a 6.9 Second 0-60mph time and yet in their Long-Term test of the C300 they also managed 0-60mph in 6.9 seconds with 230hp compared to the 265hp of the A4.

Here are the links:

2009 Audi A4 3.2V6 Test:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=126539

2008 Mercedes-Benz C300 Sport Test:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2...-scotland.html


Maybe it is just marketing?

which
 

if you think 0-60 times are the only important factor between cars, you are 15 years old.

There are plenty of cars that can kick any C-Class's ass including the C63. So what?

+1. I didn't buy my car just to brag about how fast it is. If that is your prerogative, then there is many more options.

My 02 WRX with 14k in mods is faster than the C63 in the 1/4(12.48 vs 12.50) so what? Does that mean my WRX was better because it has "ONLY 4 Cylinders and 2 liters of displacement?". No.

Forced Induction does wonders for some cars.

i test drove a a3 and a a4 and personally i liked the w204 spacious and comfortable ride overall. although i did enjoy the engines and drive of the a3 and a4 im still glad i got my car.

for some reason audi must be more expensive in canada. a fully loaded a3 with quattro and a 2.0T and all the packages that a normal c230 comes with was priced at around the same price. but the c competes with the a4. and the a4 was much more expensive and i thought it wasn't worth it.

+1

I found that the A4 without the S trim reminded me too much of the Volkswagen Passat, and I hate passat's because I've always felt cramped in them.

FWD = FTL! And Quattro is boring as ...

I also testdrove an A4
 

before I chose my C350. True story:
While I was in the car with the sales person having my test drive, my brother in law sends me a text message: "Dude, if you buy an A4, your new name is b itch"

While that wasn't the reason why I chose my C350 it made me laugh so hard and the salesperson was sitting there watching me lmao.

To me you just can't compare the looks or the feel of the C350...

The 2.0T may only have 211hp but it has 258lb-ft of torque, which matches the 3.5L V6's torque. Some people have dyno'd the new 2.0T engine and Audi underrated it on paper (like BMW did with the 3.0 TT). A simple software flash would bump that up nicely.

Both cars have their pros and cons and are unique in their own ways. I like the exterior styling of the w204 over the B8 A4 but prefer the interior of the A4...and the toys that are offered on the A4. You'll always have one magazine saying A is faster than B but then other magazine says B is faster than A...it's never ending.

As for the reliability comment, my '05 A4 is much more reliable than my previous C-Class. At 120k miles, there has been two unexpected repairs besides regular maintenance. Both MB and Audi are much more reliable today than they were in the late 90s/early-mid 2000s.

Yes, the A4 is faster. Now what? I don't get the point.

I don't either :nix: Can't we just enjoy the cars we drive?