TOP GEAR BATTLE OF THE SALOONS: BMW M3, MERCEDES C63, AUDI RS4, LEXUS IS-F

aston_martin submitted on 04/20/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 1:31 AM
from: www.topgear.com

[75] user comments | category: Reviews

Tags: BMW M3, MERCEDES C63, AUDI RS4, LEXUS IS-F

Tag Links:

BMW M3

MERCEDES C63

AUDI RS4

LEXUS IS-F

TOP GEAR BATTLE OF THE SALOONS: BMW M3, MERCEDES C63, AUDI RS4, LEXUS IS-F

It is with that in mind that you realise none of these cars looks particularly Rampton day-release, even though each one is fast enough to make your ears clap around the back of your head. So we get subtle(ish) bonnet bulges, wheel arch flares, larger diameter wheels, bigger exhausts and deeper scoops, but no massive spoilers or visually lurid splitters to give the game away. All have put on lean muscle without falling into the caricature styling trap and ending up with a bodybuilder's waddle.

Out of all four, the Lexus with its black wheels, big arches, engine-bay cooling front wheel arch vents and quad-piggyback exhaust tips is the most aggressive.

The C63 is a good thing, a recognisable thing, but not a neon advert. Those half-submerged torpedo-shaped bulges in the bonnet mark the C-Class's potential, but really there's very little anger in it, even though the four exhausts are a little more explicit.

The BMW is similarly restrained, and even though we have the coupe version here, there's something über-normal about it that means while it's easy to overlook, if you linger, there's a wealth of gorgeous performance detail to absorb.

As always, the RS4 tucks away in the background, confident, subtle and muscular, wheel arch flares and distinctive wheels complementing the twin-oval exhausts that state the nature of the V8's business. There isn't much visual pork on any of the cars, and every single one looks the better for it - Bruce Lee rather than Incredible Hulk........... 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]

528i - 4/20/2008 1:59:49 AMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

where is the M3 sedan?

all of them are great cars.

reply to this comment

TheBoss - 4/22/2008 1:49:07 PM

-1 Boost

There's nothing Bruce Lee or incredible Hulk about these bloated luxury cars.

utahnkid - 4/20/2008 2:16:23 AM

+1 Boost

Ok look at the picture gallery on the top gear website, now look at the last picture taken inside the C63. Where did the RS4 come from??

reply to this comment

528i - 4/20/2008 2:20:43 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I don't get it??

utahnkid - 4/20/2008 3:49:25 PM

+1 Boost

There is an Audi RS4 out his window and it doesnt appear in any other pictures. They werent even supposed to be testing any Audi's that day.

simmonsdp - 4/20/2008 2:48:39 AM

+1 Boost

??? what???

reply to this comment

aston_martin - 4/20/2008 3:12:57 AM

+10 Boost

The conclusion from the Top Gear article is probably the best I've heard yet, all of these cars are meant for different people,

"Well, after much deliberation, endless circular conversation and several pints of strong cider, the answer is: nobody. There is no 'best' in this group. I've tried to isolate a winner, but it just can't be done. Each has strengths and weaknesses, some that you'd be prepared to live with more than others, but they're not necessarily deal-breakers.

For me it goes like this: I want a C63 to play with, because it makes me feel like a 17-year-old, but it'd tire me out if I drove it everyday. I want an RS4 day-to-day, but think I'd hanker after something more throttle-adjustable now and again. The M3 is the best all-rounder, but I'm not really into the M3 image and ubiquity.

So there's the Lexus. Brilliant, exciting, slightly mad Lexus. It's flawed. It's not for the hardcore among us. But for some reason I'm drawn to it. Drawn to the technology, drawn to the fact there'll only be 150 in the UK per year. Drawn to its oddness."

reply to this comment

MattB - 4/20/2008 11:43:28 AM

+8 Boost

Very true. They're all great cars, it's just a matter of personal preference as to which you'd want.

KZ258 - 4/20/2008 7:57:20 AM

+7 Boost

i agree with the conclusion of this article. there is no real winner

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 4/20/2008 10:50:38 AM

Show Comment -22 Boost

EL44 - 4/20/2008 10:55:13 AMView My AgentSpace

+10 Boost

Stop being such stupid. You're a shame for BMW fans. And open your eyes!!

MattB - 4/20/2008 11:42:40 AM

+8 Boost

Calling something with a 400+ horsepower V8 "green" is questionable at best. Stop repeating the same few lines in every post and think for yourself.

enthusiastx11 - 4/20/2008 12:03:26 PM

+5 Boost

clueless as usual go obama.
you work for lexus right?

kablaam - 4/20/2008 11:58:58 PM

+2 Boost

GoObama: "BMWs are for badge whores. The real winner here is hands down the Lexus. This is Lexus first attempt and they're so close to dethroning BMW (the IS-F already kills the Audi and Benz).

I would take the IS-F. So much more reliable, best interior, great handling, 8 speed automatic and so many cool features plus the best gas mileage. The IS-F is powerful and also a green car. It's good for the environment. Lexus cares about the environment unlike the Germans."

How is the BMW M3 for "badge whores". I categorize badge whores as someone who purchases something just for it's name. BMW wins pretty much every test there is, subjective and objective. I've test driven the M3 coupe, ISF and I can't wait to test drive the C63. IMO the M3 is a better all around vehicle. The ISF is an absolute dream, no doubt about it, but to say one buys an M3 just because it's a BMW is obsurd.

Jump in an E60 BMW M5, if it's in your price range, I guarantee once you do you will buy it on the spot, it is that great of a vehicle. It could be made by Tata for all I care, a good car is a good car.

P.S. The M3 has better gas mileage then the ISF.

stash84 - 4/21/2008 9:06:42 PM

+2 Boost

i got my isf a few days ago and its so much better than i imagined. in person, it looks like a is350 on steroids. the exhaust sounds great and the 8 spd transmission is impressive. its quiet and great on gas, when u want it to be. its loud and aggressive when u step on it. the blue stitching, the new seats, the rims, are all a great addition and the handling and suspension are like no other lexus. its not a sport car/m3/gtr, but its a true LUXURY sports sedan.

S4cabriofoxone - 4/23/2008 12:51:39 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

If you actually did, congrats. Enjoy it.

EL44 - 4/20/2008 11:43:17 AMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

And you GoObama, stop these kind of comments. I'm starting to believe that you hate Lexus and that why you're doing all taht everybody hates it.

reply to this comment

EL34 - 4/20/2008 12:06:23 PM

-3 Boost

The IS-F is the trendy looking car of the lot.

Me no likey trendy :-\

reply to this comment

EL44 - 4/20/2008 12:10:05 PMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

Good for you. I love it.

simmonsdp - 4/21/2008 3:46:29 AM

+3 Boost

EL34,, you crack me up........

amazinBimmer - 4/20/2008 12:11:12 PM

-14 Boost

EL34/ 44, the moron convention is down the street, you seemed to have missed it.

are you telling me the m3 isnt the best?
before you answer.. what do you drive? prius? or yaris?

reply to this comment

EL44 - 4/20/2008 12:15:07 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

yes the M3 is not the best as you can read and as i've driven all of them. I drive a S4 cabriolet.

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 4/20/2008 12:25:55 PM

-7 Boost

s4? poor guy.. sorry your vw doesnt match up. maybe to the passat. not to my m5 anyways.

i did read it. you should.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 4/20/2008 2:06:03 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

Shh--your insecurity is more transparent than ever.

You're right, the RS4 is such a terrible car. That's why he enjoyed it so much.

Your life must be so satisfying. You have a 1" dick and buy a used 323i, and then you come on car forums and say how much Audi sucks in every BMW article. Good job, keep it up; you get a lot of respect on this website.

Rupert - 4/20/2008 4:06:19 PMView My AgentSpace

-2 Boost

Your '99 M5 - good on you, with your 9 year old car.

Rupert - 4/20/2008 4:07:05 PMView My AgentSpace

-3 Boost

The RS4 also has more power than your M5.

amazinBimmer - 4/20/2008 12:28:41 PM

0 Boost

and how does the fwd feel?

reply to this comment

MookGmbH - 4/20/2008 1:11:27 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Uh. ***amazinBimmer***

The S4 Cab is quattro. Not FWD. Just think a longitudinal mounted V8 and FWD. Now I know that Audi can engineer some crazy engine-trans layouts (VR6, W12, W16.4) and so on. But man, think of the torque steer. Audi would never brand an S car in the States without quattro.

You were going good there for a moment.

reply to this comment

EL44 - 4/20/2008 2:02:58 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Thanks

S4cabriofoxone - 4/20/2008 2:07:03 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Don't even respond to him. I don't know why I did.

EL44, nice car.

EL44 - 4/20/2008 2:10:31 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

It's great and beautiful. Love it.

lexusis350 - 4/20/2008 2:41:22 PM

-6 Boost

What?! Do my eyes deceive me? Did the IS-F actually come out as the favorite? Obviously this article is biased. I mean, everyone knows that the IS-F is the crappiest of the lot.

reply to this comment

Threepoint1415926 - 4/20/2008 3:45:28 PM

+1 Boost

I think your eyes do deceive you... No where that I can recall did the Lexus come out as a favorite.

LexusKindaGuy12 - 4/20/2008 5:23:13 PM

0 Boost

well it is implied that he liked it the best, the last paragraph does prove it. he just didnt want to create havoc by actually typing it

Threepoint1415926 - 4/20/2008 6:21:20 PM

+4 Boost

"So there's the Lexus. Brilliant, exciting, slightly mad Lexus. It's flawed. It's not for the hardcore among us. But for some reason I'm drawn to it. Drawn to the technology, drawn to the fact there'll only be 150 in the UK per year. Drawn to its oddness."

I think you're getting out of the article and specifically that paragraph what you want to hear. Sounds to me that he likes it, just like he liked every car there. He said he's drawn to it despite its shortcomings. The writer had similar kind words for every other car in the test.

09CTSVforMe - 4/20/2008 3:21:29 PM

-10 Boost

Good thing they're getting all of these comparisons out of the way before the CTS-V comes around to take them all.

reply to this comment

Willis - 4/20/2008 4:18:59 PM

+1 Boost

"I agree about the M3 interior. One reason I'd never consider buying one. Just look at the plastic around the stereo-area. Might as well be the middle of the dash in a VW Polo or some cheap car like that."

You know, the Lexus IS/IS-F also has a lot of plastic that feels cheap. Just thought I'd let you two retards know.

reply to this comment

MattB - 4/20/2008 9:41:52 PM

+1 Boost

GoObama, what are you going to change your name to when your preferred candidate loses badly? Let us know so we know who to ignore in the future.

reply to this comment

Spoonie_G - 4/21/2008 12:25:05 PM

+1 Boost

The Lexus IS-F interior is no better than a Camry Interior. Lexus fools people by only making the Dash area available only in black. I'm not sure why folks are saying that this IS-F has the best interior. Its doesn't. The IS-F's radio looks like the same exact Radio that's found in the Prius and Camry. The IS'F's interior isn't worthy of a sixty thousand dollar car IM0.

reply to this comment

stash84 - 4/21/2008 9:19:36 PM

-2 Boost

"You know, the Lexus IS/IS-F also has a lot of plastic that feels cheap. Just thought I'd let you two retards know."

why do u care so much about how much the actual pieces cost? is it the ONLY positive thing u can say about the bmws interior? -that they cost more to make? lol

is that why they are considered "luxury"? ..because they cost more??

id rather have my is/isf interior that costs 50 bux than a bmw interior that costs 5k and STILL looks like SH..

reply to this comment

Denali - 4/20/2008 5:23:42 PM

+1 Boost

wow, good article, nothing new,

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 4/20/2008 7:41:27 PM

-2 Boost

actually 02, with dinan stage 2. stil beats the crap out of a fwd derived s4 convertible. and the s has 354hp or something low like that.. trust the college dropouts not to be able to do 4th grade math..

and all you morons.. the s4 is STILL based oan FWD chassis. it is AWD but it is still fundamentally a FWD derived nosel heavy pig.. its why audi loses every dynamic test to BMW. but dont worry.. things will get better..

it is amusing jousting with you guys.. seriously, get a better job or do better in school. the perks in life are worth the hard work.

reply to this comment

abcd - 4/21/2008 10:10:16 AM

+1 Boost

amazinBimmer:
"and all you morons.. the s4 is STILL based oan FWD chassis. it is AWD but it is still fundamentally a FWD derived nosel heavy pig.. its why audi loses every dynamic test to BMW. but dont worry.. things will get better.."
from where know you that s4 is based on FWD a4 ? i thing a4 is rather based on AWD s4 becouse not from every FWD car you can do AWD but from every AWD you can do FWD . so it was rather first designed for AWD . fact is that quattro isn`t good AWD (torsen center and imitation of LSD on axles) but yes you have right :things will get better in this or next year when audi change to torque vectoring AWD .

Spoonie_G - 4/21/2008 12:29:52 PM

0 Boost

The A4/S4/RS4 is a FWD based car. Anyone else who thinks anything different is a fool. Look at it this way. The A4 is available in FWD Standard. FWD standard? AWD optional? Yup. It's a FWD based car.

abcd - 4/21/2008 4:43:45 PM

+1 Boost

Spoonie_G:
A4/S4/RS4 were construct as AWD cars not FWD . can`t be do in other way . and even when not what`s bad in FWD .

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:24:45 PM

+2 Boost

"what`s bad in FWD "

Are you for real?

This was jacked from the internet:

Car/sex metaphors are unavoidable, so let's get right to today's: Front-wheel drive cars are like bad sex. Rear-wheel drive cars are like good sex.

Let me explain!

Sometime in the early 1980s, I asked my friend Paul why he drove a crass Chevy Camaro. He said he liked the "balance" of a rear-wheel drive car. I nodded but secretly sneered at him. Everyone knew that front-wheel drive cars were the efficient, sophisticated wave of the future. Audis were front-wheel drive. Saabs were front-drive. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were about to embark on a massive shift to front-drive, resulting in the current Detroit product lineup, in which even the venerable Caddy DeVille is a front-drive car.

The advantages of front-wheel drive (FWD) seem self evident: By avoiding the need for a driveshaft connecting the engine in front with the rear wheels, front-drive cars save space. The entire drivetrain can be packed into a neat compartment in the front, leaving the rest of the car's volume for passengers and cargo. Plus, front-drive cars have better traction in slippery conditions (in part because the weight of the engine is on top of the wheels that are providing the power).

I should have realized the grim truth decades ago when I borrowed a friend's Audi 100 –- the first front-drive car I'd ever driven -- and took it out on Sunset Boulevard. In one of the curves leaving Beverly Hills, near the pink house that used to be owned by Jayne Mansfield, I mashed the throttle, expecting the satisfying "lock in" effect I got in my old rear-drive Volvo – the nose turning in, the car seeming to stop slipping, tightening its grip on the road even as it went around the corner faster. But that's not what happened. What happened is the front tires went all gooey and the car started to head for the living room of a nearby mansion. Only panicked braking calmed things down.

Naturally, my brain did what the human brain tends to do with a bit of aberrant data: I ignored it. All during the '80s and '90s the car magazines assured me, seemingly continually, that in sophisticated front-drive designs you couldn't even tell which set of tires was providing the power. Weren't front-drive Hondas the hippest cars around? Wasn't even Volvo switching, belatedly, to front drive? I also blamed the victim! I must just be a lousy or unsophisticated driver, I figured.

Then, a bit over a year ago, I conducted an abortive test drive of five convertibles. The idea was to sample cars that had at least a semblance of a rear seat. The entrants were Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, VW Cabriolet, Chrysler Sebring, and Toyota Solara. And that was the order of finishing (though the test was interrupted by 9/11 before I could drive a final production version of the Toyota). None of the cars was very good – you give up a lot in chassis stability when you chop off the roof, I discovered. But the old, junky, rear-drive For

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:26:40 PM

+2 Boost

Article continued:

Ford and Chevy pony cars were by far the most enjoyable – they rattled and guzzled, but at least they were a blast to drive around corners. The other three cars, all front-drive, were simply pleasant forms of transportation.

Why are rear-drive cars more fun? Every enthusiast may know the answer, but I didn't. So I called up a helpful GM suspension expert, Vehicle Chief Engineer Ed Zellner. There are, I learned, five basic reasons:

1) "Balance": The car rides on four patches of rubber, each about as big as your hand. An ideal car would distribute its weight evenly, so each tire had to bear the same load, and none would give way earlier than all the others. The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking). "A rear-drive car can typically approach that," says Zellner. Engineers can move the front wheels forward, so that the engine – which doesn't have to be connected to those wheels -- sits behind the front axle. Meanwhile, the driveshaft and rear differential (necessary to send power to the rear tires) add weight in the rear. Front-drive cars, which must connect the engine and transmission to the front axle, typically have their engines mounted way forward and can't do much better than a 60/40 front/rear weight distribution.

2) Center of Gravity: This is the point the car wants to "rotate around" in a turn. On a rear-drive car, it's "about where the driver sits," says Zellner. In a turn, in other words, the car seems to be rotating around you – you're at the center. It's a natural pleasant effect, suggesting you're in control, the way you're in control when you're walking or running around a corner and your weight is centered inside you. (Analogy No. 2: It's like wearing stereo headphones and having the sound centered between your ears!) A front-drive car, in contrast, with its massive front weight bias, wants to rotate around a point in front of the driver. So in a corner, the driver isn't just rotating around his spine. He's moving sideways, as if he were a tether ball on the end of a rope, or Linus being dragged when Snoopy gets hold of his blanket. Not such a pleasant feeling, or a feeling that gives you a sense of natural control.

3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the mo

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:28:10 PM

+2 Boost

More:

moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.)
Veer madness?Veer madness?

Engineers try various strategies to control this veering tendency, but even designing shafts of equal length (as in all Cadillacs) doesn't completely solve the problem because the engine still twists a bit in its mounts and alters the angles of the drive shafts. True, some manufacturers -- Audi, for example -- are said to do a particularly good job of repressing torque steer . But even a top-rank company such as Nissan has problems -- its otherwise appealing new front-drive Maxima is said to be plagued by big-time, uninhibited torque steer. Rear-drive cars, meanwhile, don't really have a torque-steer problem that needs repressing. Their power goes to the rear through one driveshaft to a center differential that can a) have equal-length shafts coming out from it and b) be more firmly mounted.

4) Weight Shift: Suppose you just want to go in a straight line. What's the best way to get traction? Answer: Have as much weight over the driving wheels as possible. Front-drive cars start with an advantage -- but when any car accelerates, the front end tips up, and the rear end squats down. This transfers weight to the rear wheels -- away from the driving wheels in a FWD car but toward the driving wheels in a rear-drive car, where it adds to available traction. In effect, the laws of physics conspire to give RWD cars a bit more grip where they need it when they need it. (This salutary effect is more than canceled out in slippery, wet conditions, where you aren't going to stomp on the accelerator. Then, FWD cars have the edge, in part, because they start out with so much more of their weight over both the driving and the turning wheels. Also, it's simply more stable to pull a heavy wheeled object than to push it -- as any hotel bellhop steering a loaded luggage cart knows. In snow, FWD cars have a third advantage in that they pull the car through the path the front tires create, instead of turning the front tires into mini-snowplows.)

5) "Oversteer" and the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-In Effect: In a rear-drive car, there's a division of labor -- the front tires basically steer the car, and the rear tires push the car down the road. In a FWD car, the front tires do all the work – both steering and applying the power to the road – while the rears are largely along for the ride. That, it turns out, is asking a lot of the front tires. Since the driving wheels tend to lose traction first, the front tires of front-drive cars invariably start slipping in a corner before the lightly loaded rear tires do -- a phenomenon known as "understeer." If you go too fast into a curve -- I mean really too fast -- the car will plow off the road front end first. In rear-drive cars, the rear wheels tend to lose traction first, and the rear o

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:29:50 PM

+2 Boost

More:
of the car threatens to swing around and pass the front end -- "oversteer." If you go too fast into a corner in an oversteering car, the car will tend to spin and fly off the road rear end first.

What's the best way to fly off the road? Safety types prefer frontwards -- understeer. Why? To control an oversteering skid, where the rear wheels are heading for the weeds, you have to both slow down and counterintuitively turn the wheel in the opposite of the direction you're turning. In a front-drive car, with the front wheels slipping, you slow down and keep turning the way you'd been turning to get around the corner in the first place -- a more natural maneuver, since you're pointing the car in the direction you want to go. This is why, for safety reasons, even rear-drive cars sold to average consumers tend to have their springs and other suspension bits set up to make them understeer -- to make the front tires slip first, despite the car's innate oversteering tendency. Only by applying lots of power in a corner can you actually break the rear end of a bread-and-butter rear-drive car like the Mustang loose -- a maneuver favored by sports car freaks, but one you try at your own peril.

Big American manufacturers (all heavily invested in front drive) like to say that for 99 percent of drivers, driving at normal speeds, FWD's inherent understeer and better traction in the wet makes it preferable -- both safer and easier to drive quickly. It's only the 1 percent of speed freaks who enjoy breaking the rear end loose and then catching it with a bit of "reverse lock." Here's where I emphatically dissent.

It's pretty clear to me, after driving hundreds of different vehicles over several decades, that rear drive offers a big aesthetic advantage to ordinary drivers at ordinary speeds in ordinary conditions. Why? The lock-in effect I mentioned earlier. Suppose you go into a corner in a rear-drive car at a reasonable, safe, legal speed. Nothing's about to skid. But you can still feel the front end starting to plow wide a bit. What to do? Step on the gas! Don't stomp on it -- but add a bit of power, and a miraculous thing happens. The front end swings back in, the car tightens its line. Cornering traction seems to increase. And the car feels locked into a groove, balanced between the motive power from the rear and the turning power in the front.
Hit the brake?Hit the brake?

You don't have to be a race driver to feel this. You can be a defensive driver and feel it. You can be driving a 1973 Ford Maverick with leaking shocks and you'll feel it. Accountants feel it on the way to the office and housewives feel it on the way to the Safeway. Even Ralph Nader probably feels it. It's a good part of what makes driving a car a sensual act. (What's happening, technically? None of the tires is at its limit of adhesion. But the added speed is making the front tires --which [since they are undriven] have plenty of surplus traction -- apply more force to the

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:31:38 PM

+2 Boost

More:

the road surface to change direction. Meanwhile, the rear of the car is shifting outward, ever so slightly -- not a Bullitt-style power slide, but a subtle attitude adjustment that cancels the plowing effect. The power "helps you through the corner," as Zellner puts it.)

This doesn't happen in a front-drive car. The best an ordinary driver can hope for in a FWD car is that it "corners as if on rails" -- no slippage at all. No plowing -- but also no semi-orgasmic "lock in." More typically, if you hit the accelerator in a fast corner, things get mushy up front (as they did that evening near Jayne Mansfield's house). The lesson the FWD car seems to be teaching is: Try to go faster, and you're punished. Front-drive cars are Puritans! In a rear-drive car, you hit the accelerator and things get better! Rear-drive cars are hedonists. (This is assuming you don't hit the accelerator too hard.)
No front-drive hereNo front-drive here

I'm not saying there aren't sophisticated techniques that allow FWD cars to do better. A recent issue of Grassroots Motorsports tested a humble FWD Acura RSX against a classy rear-drive BMW. The Acura actually turned laps a bit more quickly. How'd that happen? The Grassroots people realized that by stepping on the brake hard enough on entering a turn, the rear of the Acura could be made to swing wide, canceling out its inherent understeer. (This is the same effect you get by stepping on the gas in a rear-drive car.) But normal drivers aren't going to mash the brakes and go sliding through turns like a rally champion. Nor does braking to achieve "lock-in" seem as satisfying as accelerating to achieve lock in. I suppose I shouldn't knock it until I've tried it -- but I'm not going to try it! That's the point. Housewives heading to the Safeway aren't going to try it either. The joys of rear-drive are accessible to them -- it's the joys of FWD that are reserved for the skilled Grassroots Motorsport elite.

Explaining SUVs: Now that the goo-goo bien pensant scales have fallen from my eyes, and I recognize the front-drive-for-the-masses movement as the Carter-era energy crisis con it is, several previously inexplicable things become explicable. Why did truck-based SUVs suddenly become popular just as Detroit shifted to front-wheel drive for its passenger cars? Was it (as anti-SUV activists claim) because the SUVs were exempt from various safety and economy standards -- or because the SUVs still had rear-wheel drive, with all its subtle satisfactions? Why do all BMWs (and virtually all Mercedes-Benzes) persist in using rear-wheel drive? Why do my friends, who aren't fast drivers, say that BMWs just feel better?

It's also now clear to me why Acura is in trouble (it only offers FWD sedans), why GM is busy working on a new "Tubular" rear-drive chassis, why the Infiniti G-35 and Lexus IS-300 (both rear drive) are so popular, and why the RWD Cadillac CTS and Lincoln LS are so refreshing to drive.

I'm not saying tha

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 12:32:22 PM

+2 Boost

The rest:

I'm not saying that any rear-wheel-drive car is better than any front-wheel-drive car, the way, say, any car with plain black tires looks better than any car with whitewalls. But it's close! Front-drive cars can be fun. Even bad sex is fun. But why choose it? 3:39 A.M.

david999 - 4/20/2008 7:47:35 PM

+2 Boost

The writer seems to be surprised that he likes the Lexus so much. Slowly, but surely, as more people see and drive the
IS-F, they will come to the same conclusion.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 4/21/2008 9:21:51 AMView My AgentSpace

-3 Boost

Why do you think so?

What does the Lexus have that the M3, RS4 and C63 do not?

farabira1 - 4/21/2008 9:44:37 AM

+3 Boost

Clearly it is not because of anything extra that lexus possesses over the others, but rather, the Europeans never expected a lexus to drive so well, that is why they are surprised.

olscuul - 4/20/2008 8:25:14 PM

+2 Boost

from what i have read, bmw is going to be able to sell a lot of m3's in a lot of different markets.
the m3 has a lot to live up to, so to me, that makes it the winner.

reply to this comment

farabira1 - 4/21/2008 9:40:41 AM

+5 Boost

At last some publication had the deliberation to not compare the ISF spec per spec against the M3, but rather concentrated on the individual personality and strength of each car. The ISF is not an out and out competitor against the M3, it has a different flavour, it has a different customer base to attract, and certainly has a different driving experience, more brawny, more rude, and more aggressive type, compared to the precise and nimble M3.

The sale of the cars will boil down to the preference of the customers, because really both are are awesome but in different ways.

reply to this comment

amazinBimmer - 4/21/2008 12:09:33 PM

-1 Boost

abcd... get facts right.. go look at technical strip downs or detailed history when it was launched. the audi is fundamentally a flawed chassis. its why pischetrider got fired.. he wanted to go RWD (and then awd derivatives).

reply to this comment

MaindrianPace - 4/21/2008 12:14:30 PM

+4 Boost

My preference based on this article.

M4 or C63 tied in first place (I think I'd go for the M at the end of the day, I'd always regret not owning an M3). When I was 18 I thought I'd grow out of scary handling sideways cars, but I haven't yet.

Then probably the Audi in 2nd. It's the least fun, but I really don't like the looks of the Lexus enough to desire it over the others, so I'd take the ISF last.

I'm sure they are all good cars though.

reply to this comment

MaindrianPace - 4/21/2008 12:15:42 PM

+2 Boost

Actually having thought about it.. I'd just wait for the M3 CSL :)

reply to this comment

Designer1 - 4/21/2008 2:27:45 PM

-3 Boost

The IS-F as a first sport sedan from Lexus sits right next to the Germen rivals, I'm sure with future versions of the IS-F it will surpass them.

reply to this comment

Spoonie_G - 4/22/2008 7:12:37 PM

+2 Boost

Lexus has been out for 19 years. If they haven't surpassed the Germans yet, Why do you think that they will do so in the future.

autopro - 4/21/2008 4:23:47 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

These cars are all great,it like having playboy playmate's blonde,brunette,and a red head.

reply to this comment

GermanNut - 4/22/2008 2:41:26 PM

+2 Boost

Kudos to the BMW, but it will be only a matter of time (next generation) when Mercedes AMG gets their C-class dynamics even more refined than they are now.

With proper RWD, straight-line performance that already kills the M3, and improved dynamics....AMG will be a major force in the next redesign.

Same for Audi. Look at how vastly improved the RS4 is. It was expected to be a numb car but turned out to be a driver-oriented engaging driving experience. Audi's RS division was heralded because of it.

The new A4 platform presents even better handling over the B7. Combine that with more horsepower, better weight distribution, and a larger interior which also reduced front overhang, along with class leading interior quality and you have yourself a major, major competitor that BMW will have to do everything possible to defeat.

reply to this comment

RandyM - 4/23/2008 5:31:10 PM

+1 Boost

This article basically says exactly what I posted in a prior thread. The Audi RS4 is the best everyday whatever you throw at it vehicle of the lot.

reply to this comment

S2000VS911 - 4/23/2008 11:12:36 PM

0 Boost

I agree the conclusion, 4 brand they all great & hard to say which one is the best.

If u want AT sport sedan, go for IS-F or C63. Stick - M3 or RS4. End of discussion.

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!).

	aston_martin
	View My AgentPage