You guys are too funny.

I was merely surprised that I didn't get beat like I expected. Yes, I agree I think it is a neat car, although not for the money. Yes I shouldn't be driving how I do but I do on a public freeway. Yes I have been to many racing schools and own 2 race cars and have been to the aforementioned tracks as well as numerous others throughout the country. Yes, I do own a 996 that was basically a track car also. Who cares?

That being said. In regards to my class, the mere fact that I interjected a joke for levity albeit collateral; it has nothing to do with my class, so come on. If you didn't find it funny then that is simply your matter of subjective taste and I could care less about what anyone thinks of me in a "forum".


Now back onto topic:
My reason for posting the topic was that I thought an RS4 would pull me greatly on the freeway and that I was surprised that it didn't. I don't think my car is that great, as it is my commuter car.

The jaunts that we undertook were from about 60-130, as traffic and safety were limitations. I cannot comment what the outcome would be from any other speeds or from a standstill. As I mentioned previously the driver did know how to drive and shift competently as was doing so in earnest as I could tell when he did so directly beside me a few times etc.

 

The numbers on the RS4 show that it should clearly pull away from a C55 so it sounds like either the RS4 driver wasn't very good at shifting or you were much better..

 

Let's be clear about the "numbers" here before jumping to any conclusions about whether spr's story is legit or not.

The previous link to C&D's test of the M3 vs RS4 vs C55 is not a good one to gauge performance times because C&D did NOT conduct any test on the RS4 for that article. Rather, they just used the estimates from the manufacturer for the acceleration numbers of the RS4.

In Sept. 2006, C&D finally tested the RS4. Here are the numbers compared to the C55 from the Nov. 2004 issue.

RS4/C55
0-60mph (s): 4.6/4.7
1/4mile (s@mph): 13.2@109/13.3@108
5-60mph (s): 4.9/5.4

What is interesting is the rolling 5-60mph time. Without a high rpm launch, the RS4 loses the race to 60mph pretty badly. In other words, a race from a rolling start really may be a driver's race, depending on the speeds where you start the race and whether the RS4 is in the right gear. If the RS4 is not in its peak powerband, it COULD seriously fall behind a C55. That's what 5.4 litres of displacement gives you.....lots of torque, and plenty of it low in the rpm range, meaning you can pull away from cars without reving the engine to the heavens.....instant acceleration, which is a feature of all AMG cars.

With regards to laptimes around the Nurburgring, Sport Auto is the resource to go by as they use the same pro driver for all of their Supertests. Both the M3 and C55 did it in 8:22 minutes with stock street tires that came from the factory (keep in mind that the poor C55 has no LSD and had narrower tires than the M3). The RS4 tested by Sport Auto had a laptime of 8:09 minutes, but the RS4 WAS FITTED WITH CUP RACING TIRES for that test.

To give you an example of how tires can make a difference, the Aston Martin V8 Vantage was tested twice by Sport Auto on the Nuburgring...once with standard street tires, and another time with cup racing tires. The car with the standard street tires had a laptime of 8:13 minutes, while the car with the cup racing tires had a laptime of 8:03 minutes. That's a 10 second difference with grippier racing tires.

So if you deduct about 10 seconds from the RS4's time of 8:09 minutes, you get around 8:19 minutes, which suddenly is not that much faster than the M3 and C55's time of 8:22 minutes.

Having said all this, I still think the RS4 is a faster track car than the M3 and C55. With rear biased quattro and a mechanical active suspension system, it just grips like mad around the corners.

 

Another note given the rolling start conditions- if you check the difference between the m3 and c55 from 40-60 and the like the c55 is enormously faster. Maybe that was the deal, and the lack of the peak torque. Cool data about the lap times.

 

thought RS4 was faster than that, maybe cause it's heavy and quetrro

 

I just love the RS4, and would likely buy one in a heartbeat if I had the money. That said, all of my friends and acquaintances who own new Audis complain incessantly about build quality and every little thing breaking all of the time. I'm not saying that the W203 is some model of quality, but I wonder if the RS4 might share the niggling problems with its lesser chassis-mates. Who cares how fast you can lap Nurburgring, if you're always unhappy with the car?

 

I guess it is a wait and see how this (or any other) new model will hold up in its first year.

 

RS4 bulid quality is the best I have own, compare to my E46 M3 and C55,
the leather is not as good as the C55 in my view but the fit and comfort is better. Everything feel so solid, the best way to test is turn up the bass
and you will know. I didn't intended to get the RS4, it's was by accident actually, but it was a very good accident.