Sweden magazine tests the new M3 against the Audi RS4 and Porsche 911 Carrera S

rg12345 submitted on 10/17/2007 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 4:12 PM
from: rs6.com

[49] user comments | category: Reviews

Tags: m3, rs4, carrera, bmw, audi, porsche

Tag Links:

rs4

carrera

bmw

audi

porsche

Sweden magazine tests the new M3 against the Audi RS4 and Porsche 911 Carrera S

One of the best magazine from Sweden compared all three cars at the track. Results:

BMW M3 E92
0-100 km/h - 5.1
0-200 km/h - 16.7
402 m - 13,3 @ 178.1 km/h
Laptime: 54,6
(New) Jarlmark's opinion : 6.5 / 10

vs.

Audi RS4 B7
0-100 km/h - 4.6
0-200 km/h - 15.8
402 m - 12,8 @ 180.3 km/h
Laptime: 54,5

vs.

Porsche 911 Carrera S
0-100 km/h - 4.8
0-200 km/h - 16.2
402 m - 13,0 @ 181.1 km/h
Laptime: 53,2

As I understand the Audi RS4 is declared the winner. Do not have scans, hopefully someone from Sweden will help us with that.

Source: http://www.automobil.se/

Other times for the M3 0-200km/h:
* BMW E92 M3: 15.7s (Autobild&Sportatuo)
* BMW E92 M3: 15.8s (BMW)
* BMW E92 M3: 16.0s (Dutch Mag)
* BMW E92 M3: 16.7s (AM&S) Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

DaHarder - 10/17/2007 4:24:59 PM

-1 Boost

Looks like the ol' M3 took quite a spanking here...

Don't tell the guys at AUTOMOBILE magazine though.

reply to this comment

DaHarder - 10/17/2007 4:39:43 PM

-5 Boost

BTW - You can also save all the 'Well the M3 costs less blah-blah-blah' rhetoric as well.

Because the FACT is: In this comparison, on this day, under these conditions, the E92/M3 was not the victor.

Hantra - 10/17/2007 4:37:57 PM

+1 Boost

I'm sure the M3 times are a result of the learning curve. I know it's ridiculous to have to do this, but people need to make sure the car is on optimum settings for the best performance.

Again, I know how lame it is to have to RTFM to get the best performance from a car, but if you're a reviewer, or magazine, it's your obligation.

reply to this comment

IamEvilHomer - 10/18/2007 2:04:09 PM

+1 Boost

but in the Audi you just get in a drive
in the BMW you have to have the idrive set right/hold your hand in the air/ and know the special handshake

Yonder7 - 10/17/2007 4:40:20 PM

+2 Boost

Thats normal with that weak engine that needs to cry get something from it. I'll wait untill the new RS4 comes out, that will be very interesting.

reply to this comment

MaindrianPace - 10/17/2007 4:54:30 PM

+1 Boost

the RS4 vs. the M3...

Okay. So the Audi boys are loving this because the RS4 "wins"... So the Audi's slightly faster in a straightline (according to the results from this test - but not for instance if we took the Autobild time?) --- this must be because of the amazing engine and the quattro.... oh wait, on the whole lap it was only one tenth of a second faster! I know Number-junky Audi fan-boys will be creaming themselves over this, but seriously - I'm happy to loose that 0.2% (mental arithmatic - not accurate) - because the M3 probably did it with the tail-end hanging out, and in my book thats more fun!!

This article doesnt prove much other than the Porsche is probably a better drivers car than the Audi or the BMW

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/17/2007 5:11:09 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Isn't that obvious? The Porsche is $15K more expensive. I'd hope it would be better to drive. And it's a 911-- not a re-tuned Audi A4 or BMW 3 Series.

As for the RS4 vs. M3...

Okay, so it was only 0.1 sec quicker on the track, which is nothing (though if it was the other way around, the BMW fanboys would be crowing about it). But 0.5 sec quicker is actually significant. If you can't admit that...

Obviously, both the RS4 and M3 are excellent performance. If I had to have one car, right now, though, it would be the RS4. I could have two cars, it would be the RS4 sedan and the M3 coupe (or convertible?).

Lemantech - 10/17/2007 5:33:03 PM

+3 Boost

yeah the carrera is also way lighter better center of gravity and has better steering.

reply to this comment

IS3andME - 10/17/2007 5:16:16 PM

+2 Boost

They either don't don't how to drive or something is fishy. 0-62 in 5.1 secs for the M3, and 0-62 in 4.6 secs for the RS4, and 0-62 in 4.8 secs for the 911 CS. The RS4 has been clocked at doing 0-60 in 4.2 secs, the 922 in 4.1 secs and the M3, supposedly will match both. I guess they're just used to driving Volvos, because those are some seriously weak times altogether.

reply to this comment

Heyhuub - 10/17/2007 5:24:17 PM

+4 Boost

Not everyone tests their cars on dragstrips.

germeezy2 - 10/17/2007 5:28:59 PM

+3 Boost

The quickest I have seen for the M3 is 4.4 seconds and thats close to the best times for the RS4....remember this is 0-62 and 0-60 times don't mean anything....especially in a situation where one cars has more traction.

reply to this comment

GermanNut - 10/17/2007 7:30:12 PM

-1 Boost

This is absolutely great news for Audi. The RS4 B7 has already defeated the new V8 BMW M3 in at least 3 comparison tests and has only been defeated by the new M3 in, I believe 2 comparisons.

I eagerly anticipate the Audi RS6 with its 580 horsepower, the RS5 which should have more horsepower output than the RS4 and possibly two turbos to create around 500 nm of torque, the Audi R8 with V10 and 500 horsepower and the TT-S and TT-RS.

Additionally the A7, S7 and RS7 should give the BMW 650i/M6 and Mercedes CLS550/CLS63 AMG a wonderful battle

Audi is officially white hote and I won't be surprised if Audi sees at least another 15 consecutive years of record setting sales, profit and growth.

reply to this comment

Will_ - 10/18/2007 12:44:56 AM

+2 Boost

At this point, I'd honestly put my money on the C63 as well. That combination of horsepower and torque should give it the fastest 0-60 time at least, and AMG has reportedly upped the ante with their handling.

reply to this comment

bmwpowerf1 - 10/17/2007 9:37:50 PM

+2 Boost

drivers didnt know to how launch the SMG properly, and now they cant launch the manuel properly. BMW M are only for REAL drivers

reply to this comment

chewy - 10/17/2007 10:09:59 PM

+1 Boost

Yet they somehow managed to work the Audi gearbox just fine.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 12:02:45 AMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

The new M3 has a six-speed manual transmission.

SMG is an embarrassment. BMW is scrambling to replace it with DSG.

bmwpowerf1 - 10/18/2007 3:16:08 AM

+2 Boost

nah nah. the smg is the best thing bmw created. its just that some idiots dont know how to use it.

Neverfollow - 10/18/2007 11:34:47 AM

+1 Boost

You guys are hilarious. I haven't seen this much "defending" since my wife was accused once of carrying a fake LV hand bag (It wasn't).

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:18:31 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Then why ARE they replacing it with DSG? What's your excuse?

And why was I de-boosted for saying the M3 has a manual transmission? It does.

M53R - 10/18/2007 6:23:57 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

What? The SMG is an embarassment? Get real S4, the SMG was amazing, even better than the manual! But DSG is better, and they want to move to the better, but saying the SMG is bad shows your ignorance about it. Did you drive an M5/M6 before? If not please do before you say something like that. Shifting gears on an M5 was fun!

minimalist - 10/18/2007 7:58:51 PM

+2 Boost

do you realize how absurd that statement is considering that bmw na offered a manual due to consumer demand which includes the majority of bmw enthusiasts including me? not to mention the same reason it is offering a dct for not only the new m3 but proposed will be offered in the 09 m5/m6 of the same e60 body. half the m5 community is in outrage if their cars of the same generation becomes outdated and lower in value with the already horrible resale.

evo magazine (nov 07) includes a comparison of all m cars of all time including the new m3, m5 and m6. the m5/m6 were sent home. the e90 m3 came 5th in back of the m1, e30 m3, e46 m3 csl and e39 m5. this review is from over 12 enthusiasts & owners whom were almost all unanimous. those whom know what a real m car is all about.

great article for true bmw enthusiasts. i guess that means its not for some of you guys.

"(e60 m5 motor) that's only 100kg more than the v8 m5, but it doesnt take long to discover that the new car isn't as rounded in its abilities."

"the 30 wins because it does more with less and destroys the idea that if power is good, more power must be better. if that were the case, the e92 m3 - which, on paper, is a best-of-all worlds solution, with its old-school m5-esque v8, m3 size and supercar pace - would represent the very pinnacle of the m division's achievements. but the touch of the master belongs to a different era."

iamdabest1 - 10/18/2007 12:27:20 AM

+5 Boost

i love bmw's in overall, and i currently drive a 2005 m3. i think its really sad that the 2008 m3 is really a great car overall, but an underachiever in general.
losing to an rs4 isnt necessarily a bad thing because not many cars can really beat it, in fact 0-60 times i dont think the 2009 will even do much better, the numbers the rs4 hit raised the bar TOO high/there comes a point where a car wont do 0-60 in 1 second.
horsepower is high enough, reduce weight and then ull see improvements. 400,420,450,500,600hp who cares !!

lotus elise 190hp 0-60 in 4.8 !!!!

reply to this comment

DaHarder - 10/18/2007 1:14:37 AM

+2 Boost

Thank You So Much!

If manufacturers were truly focused on actual performance, they'd go the minimalist route like Lotus did with the brilliant Elise/Exige.

These horsepower wars have to reach some kind of breaking point...

It really is getting ridiculous, and with oil prices increasing daily, we'll all pay (literally) in the end.

AlexTx - 10/18/2007 1:20:04 AM

+4 Boost

Surprising results I must say.
All 3 cars are amazing, but what really amazes me is how good the RS4 when you consider that it's chassis has been around since 2002!!!!
I can only imagine once it will be on the new B8 body!
Wow!!

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 10/18/2007 7:24:28 AM

0 Boost

biased results....

m3 will win everytime, other than random "swedish magazines". m3 is waay cooler to own.

reply to this comment

r15mohd - 10/18/2007 8:12:59 AM

+5 Boost

^^^ a true brand whore here!!!

you should take off the blinders, because in reality...BMW's arent as superior as you make them to be.

rg12345 - 10/18/2007 9:20:52 AM

+3 Boost

what a loser, can't see the facts, real facts .. your problem boy ..

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:20:55 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

See this article:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123039?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..3.*

The new M3 can't stand up to older M models.

JRobUSC - 10/18/2007 7:23:50 PM

+1 Boost

to be fair S4 I think if they threw the RS or AMG models in that same Emunds test the "old" M's would have still won. They were looking for a "pure" driving experience, something the older, lighter, less techno-laden vehicles had. For what it's worth both Automobile Magazine and Road & Track said this was the best M3 ever.

Anyway, the figures in this Swedish test are significantly slower than every other one I've seen. BMW is saying 4.8 seconds, every test I've seen where they actually test the car instead of just quoting BMW's figures has gotten 4.5 or less, the best being 4.1 or 4.2 (R&T got 4.2 for sure, the article is in front of me. I thought I saw 4.1 somewhere else).

minimalist - 10/18/2007 8:30:15 PM

+1 Boost

the edmunds review by john barker posted by s4 is the same article in the evo magazine, nov edition. great read.

xxxxG37 - 10/18/2007 10:29:46 AM

-4 Boost

Have you ever heard "THE KING IS DEATH".
M3: 0-60 in 5.1
335: 0-60 in 4.8
135: 0-60 in ???
Can someone fill in the blank?

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:21:24 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

This test uses 0-100km/h, not 0-60.

xxxxG37 - 10/18/2007 10:49:57 AM

0 Boost

By the way, does anyone know 135 mean?
1+3 = 4 (leave number 5 alone)
Now what?
45 = 4.5
Mean: 0-60 in 4.5 seconds

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:22:06 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

???

GermanNut - 10/18/2007 11:11:57 AM

-4 Boost

AmazinBimmer is going to say that all three publications that placed the Audi RS4 ahead of the BMW M3 are biased.

Accept it, the M3's reign as king of the sports-sedan segment is officially OVER.

reply to this comment

E46_ImolaRed - 10/18/2007 11:27:44 AM

+1 Boost

Hopefully the New MDCT can improve the performance.

reply to this comment

GermanNut - 10/18/2007 11:42:04 AM

-2 Boost

Number of losses the E46 M3 suffered to the Audi RS4: 0

Number of losses the new V8 M3 has suffered to the same Audi RS4: At least 3

reply to this comment

DaHarder - 10/18/2007 12:33:17 PM

+1 Boost

Something certainly seems amiss... doesn't it?

Larry - 10/18/2007 1:02:10 PM

-2 Boost

yes, the Audi Rs4 can win a magazine comparison the M3`is different than the RS4 because of the 4 wheel drive, I am interested in seeing how the New Nissan Gt-R compares for just $68k.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:23:04 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Since when is "crappy FWD based AWD" better than your beloved RWD M3? What does that mean about the GT-R? You basically implied that it will leave the M3 for dead.

cs4444 - 10/18/2007 1:32:09 PM

+1 Boost

i like the source of this article an audi fan site..lol what a joke.

reply to this comment

Star - 10/18/2007 3:32:05 PM

+4 Boost

Indeed...

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:23:33 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

What are you talking about? It's a Swedish automotive magazine.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/18/2007 5:24:23 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

OH, now I see what you're talking about--the link. That's not the source of the article at all; that's just a blog that posted it. The SOURCE is a magazine.

M53R - 10/18/2007 6:38:42 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I see all you Audi fans are having a feast. Well dont get too excited guys, because Im quite sure they either cant drive the car, or it wasnt put on M mode. 5,1 seconds to 100km/hr in an M3, thats unrealistic. Shouldnt you people feel bad the RS4 needs AWD, 0.2 more litres to achieve identical acceleration times?!

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).