M&M

I can't remember who, but we had an argument with an Audi fan on here a while back. Well the numbers are out.



Same mag (AMS) tested the C32 a while back:



I guess drivetrain loss & weight are killers.

2QUIK4U

What do you mean the C32 is faster??? The C32 does 0-100 in 5.0 and the RS4 in 4.7 according to ams.

SoulBladeZA

Check the 0-200 times. Do you stop racing someone EXACTLY when you hit 62mph? Didn't think so. C32 might be behind for the first bit, but it will pass the RS4 = win.

Check the 1/4 mile times too. The C32 is just 0.1 second behind, which means it has already begun to catch up and will pass shortly.

IdriveFast

0-200 16.9 for C32, 17.2 for RS4


lol...audi got owned

Vomit

Am I the only one who sees right through the stated purpose of this post?

While M&M claims to be posting to show how the C32 is faster than the Audi, isn't it coincidental that the stats posted show the M3 womping the C32?

Your charades are childishly transparent. Please, M&M, go elsewhere.

elbimmer

Are all of you blind or what? Don't you see that the only AUDI is S4 over here? Not RS4!!!!!

reggid

i don't see the rs4 test either but theres a thumbnail that says it has been removed, i guess thats where the data was. It doesn't look like its a head to head test on the same day so its probably not conclusive either

2QUIK4U

Just because the 0-200 time is lower for the C32 does not in my opinion justify the statement "the C32 is faster than the RS4". I would agree that the C32 is faster than the RS4 in terms of 0-200. However, if you look at the times individually (i.e. 0-100, 0-120, 0-130,.....), the Audi is faster in more categories. Above and beyond that, the real test in determining which car is actually "faster" can only be done at the race track. So when you provide me with the information that shows that the C32 has better lap times than the RS4 on Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, I might give your statement a little bit more credence.

Bilal

The point is, this car has 420hp, an extra gear, 4WD, yet its performance is bested by the SLK55, and it only barely beats the C55/M3. Its not much of a yardstick with regards to out and out performance. The upcoming M3 V8 and C63 should be very potent cars.

BoBcanada

it would still be a great car if it had twin turbos like previous generation, now with NA its gonna be boring non tunable car.... i love the previous RS4!

M&M

OK whatever ulterior motives you way think I have here's the RS4 test. How about we don't even mention the word M3 in this thread? Will that be OK?

pointman

he posted the same thing on an audi forum.

GDawgC220

I was just about to post that...saw the post there earlier today.

M&M

Well I'm on the list for the E60 M5. I was eagerly waiting for the 1st tests to come out. I would go to the BMWforums often to check for tests.

So I would assume I am doing our Audi brethren a favour by giving them the test results from a respected mag like AMS. They don't have to thank me though. I did itfor the love of high octane.

Vomit

When I see you post tests in which the BMW loses, then I will believe that your postings are the result of objective love of motorsports generally, rather than BMW-love specifically.

Until then,

r3v1ls

The RS4 would smoke the c32 on a track. 0 to 200 i dunno, aren't these cars limited to 155? Maybe once it finally comes out in the states some magazine will do a comparison... just looking at dif #'s from dif magazines isn't going to tell you anything

M&M

Numbers are from the same mag. And I would have posted no matter who won.

J Irwan

Are you kidding me.

This gotta to be the most igorant and stupid response I've read so far.

Comparing the performance number doesn't mean jack****.

You run different day, different elevation, different temp and humidity by the same mag and same driver ....prove... what..???


You want more accurate result....wait till they did back to back test
all on the same day....



Frankly I see a lot of pointless post......on the topic.......



Regardz,


J Irwan

M&M

YEah true. Lucky for us the temps & barometric pressures are listed on the test. There was only a few deg difference. The venue is the same as its the same mag testing. The driver is the same - a professional test driver. The test technique is the same. The fuel is the same. The timing is the same (Racelogic -Vox). The surface is the same but on different days. 4WD takes the surface out of the equation anyway. Wind doesn't affect it as the test venue is sheltered. I'm really struggling to see why the results aren't vaguely comparable. Under such similar conditions, there will onlt be a 2-3% different in performance.

Will it help if I post Sport Auto's test which was also released today?

M&M

Irwan, next time don't assume you know more than everyone else.

JDM

I love audi's! always have, but that grill!.......now that grill is igorant!

J Irwan

I didn't say that..

Its only a fact that the same car don't even perform consistently on tests peformed on different days, elevation, humidity and temp by the same driver, same technique......etc...etc...


just FYI. I am a fan on Audi, BMW and MB..
so I am neutral.. (I am not taking side
Personally I could care less about 1 or 2 sec performance difference..


Regardz,

M&M

J, I keep telling you the 1st 2 tests I posted where from the same mag - AMS. I don't think the elevation on their test track changed between in that time, unless they had an earthquake & there test track got elevated 1000ft. That would make a 3% difference anyway. 8 deg temp difference makes 1hp. Even if there conditions were different, the RS4 isn't fast. We have 2 tests that got 4.8 & 4.9 to 62. 17.1 & 17.2 to 124. 13.1 1/4 mile.

It weighs 3900lbs & has 420hp, but only around 340 of that gets to the wheels. I'm sure it will be a great car, but for $70K I'd want a great car AND I want to blow 5 year old C32's away. Is that too much to ask?

EKaru

This is the part I don't understand... Why does a quicker car translate to a better car? The C55 is quicker than the S4 in most car mag comparisons... Does that mean that it's necessarily better? no....
Eric...

caliboy

HEy guys I was the Audi fan you argued with a while back and I have already had this conversation with Coolcarc43 about this matter. First of all the article or numbers shown in the Opening post say S4 not RS4 and I don't think the tests were done on the same day. However, Car and Driver magazine already posted up a good comparison and overall the Audi won, although not as overwhelmingly as I expected it to be. It was the faster and better car around the track. However, the C55 mentioned,not the C32, had better acceleration.

So My calculations were correct except for one thing. It's the C55 that is closer to the RS4 and not the M3 as I had predicted it would, but in the end I am disappointed with those results because the RS4 is a car with alot more hp and it should have beat those other two cars by a higher margin. The M3 and the C32/C55 are 4-5 year old platforms that will be redone very soon. If the RS4 with 420hp is this close to a 333hp M3 and a 357 hp C55 then what do you think will happen when the two newer versions come out>>>>>>>>>>

MAJOR OWNAGE IS WHAT's Gonna happen. I new this car would beat out the current M3 and C55 overall, but the marginal victory is a real bummer. Oh well, I don't know what I was thinking........I am an MB fan all the way and I should have known better than to get caught up in all the RS4 hype.
I just thought audi would bring something special to the table and don't get me wrong it did, but it definitely will fall short again in the long run. MB and BMW will always rule and that is fine by me.