Do Car Magazine's skew reality?

[dgszweda]

One of the things that has been bugging me over the last few years is the focus that car magazines have increasingly had, is on the track performance of a car. I guess I really saw this in reality when I drove the latest BMW M4 for a weekend. The car reviews have always criticized Audi's for understeer and poor steering feel. While the new BMW has had its detractors, many people have considered it superior to the RS5. And then everyone on the forums tend to just repeat what the car magazines say.

Well I drove the BMW M4 for quite a bit of time. I am an individual who can afford some expensive cars, but I drive a RS5. I typically like to change cars every year, so this was a good time to shop. I always wanted a BMW to try out and I really wanted to like the M4, but I just couldn't. The reality for almost all of us is that we will 1) never track our car or 2) if we do, it would be quite minimal in the big scheme of things. In fact, if I really wanted to track a car, I wouldn't buy an M4, I would buy a more track focused car. So while all of those lap times, and feedback from Randy Probst and others is awesome to read, the reality is that the information is irrelevant. I know that some people will say that seeing the cars pushed, give us insight to the road feel, but how many of us come close to doing power slides on an entrance ramp of the highway. Cars are getting so fast that even many of our performance cars will reach the legal speed limit from a stop sign in 2 seconds.

So to the BMW M4. I wanted to like this car but it was tough. I have been using an F10 BMW M5 every weekend for the last few months, so I knew to a degree what I would be getting. The CF roof was cool, some of the interior features were cool, such as the extended leather, but I was left a bit disappointed. In general the power in the car was useless. Any punch of the throttle left wheelspin. So while the magazines will tout that the M4 is quicker than the RS5 to 60, for all intents and purposes, the RS5 will not only feel quicker but be quicker in most scenarios on the street. The constant wheelspin got to be a pain in the but. In terms of steering, the BMW had a little better steering feel, but it wasn't that much different. In terms of feeling on the road, the RS5 just feels a lot more planted. And while the car magazines may tout the understeer, lets be honest, almost none of us have felt this. You really have to push the car beyond what you would do on the street to feel this. In the BMW the rear keeps feeling like it is going to slip out until the electronic gizmos kick in. The engine sound was awful in the M4.

So while the car magazines continue to criticize the RS5 and escalate the M4, I just don't feel this is reality for almost all of their customers. While I like to bench race all of these brands, in the end I still find it very hard to beat the RS5 for a 4-seater two door coupe. The engine in the RS5 is way better than the M4, the styling in my opinion is classic and will not really age, the handling is more confidence inspiring and the acceleration in real world results is better. Despite the car magazines telling us otherwise. So while I really, really wanted to try something else, I am keeping the RS5, I still have not found a car in this space that is as good as it.

[VanquisherRS5]

Well said man.

[SMike]

Nice view point, thanks for that read.

[GSS5]

you're missing point of magazine reviews. publications like c&d, road & track, automobile, car, evo etc. emphasize factors such as driver engagement, vehicle responsiveness, fun factor, value and all-around practicality, not just track performance. if you've actually bothered to read those articles comparing road cars, most of the time they are testing on public roads, not on racetracks.

-the 'rs' and 'm' badges represent the ultimate performance offerings from audi and bmw respectively. why should it come as a surprise that these cars are being reviewed from a dynamic standpoint?

-if you frequent canyon roads and twisties, you will feel the understeer that characterizes audis.

-if you mash the throttle on a 400+hp/lb-ft rwd car, you will get wheelspin. my friend's 300hp mazdaspeed3 generates wheelspin very well too. this doesn't mean the power is useless. it means you aren't controlling the power and torque that the engine is capable of producing.

-the engine in the rs5 is way better how? it's less powerful, less torquey, heavier and generally less efficient. it sounds better and may feel a little smoother, but that's where its advantages end from an objective standpoint.

-the m4 is about 500lbs lighter than the rs5 and it will out-accelerate and dynamically outperform the rs5 in pretty much any given performance situation. It also starts at about $7k less.

if you want a fast, beautiful, car that's easy to drive, the rs5 is for you. if you want a luxury cruiser loaded to the brim with tech, that is also challenging, engaging and bat shit fast, yet daily driveable when you need it to be, you get a m4. this isn't to say that one car is better than the other. i think i would have a hard time choosing between the two, but in the end i would probably go with the m4 simply because it's available with a manual transmission. the rs5 is a great car, but let's stick to facts here.

[jetRS5]

Siding with dgszweda here

[dgszweda]

you're missing point of magazine reviews. publications like c&d, road & track, automobile, car, evo etc. emphasize factors such as driver engagement, vehicle responsiveness, fun factor, value and all-around practicality, not just track performance. if you've actually bothered to read those articles comparing road cars, most of the time they are testing on public roads, not on racetracks.

-the 'rs' and 'm' badges represent the ultimate performance offerings from audi and bmw respectively. why should it come as a surprise that these cars are being reviewed from a dynamic standpoint?

-if you frequent canyon roads and twisties, you will feel the understeer that characterizes audis.

Yes, I do read them. And yes, I have driven roads that challenge the cars. But if driven properly, you just don't get the understeer. At first, I thought it was just me, but when you listen to Matt Farah and others driving the cars through the canyons, they almost comment that on the street you just don't feel it.

-if you mash the throttle on a 400+hp/lb-ft rwd car, you will get wheelspin. my friend's 300hp mazdaspeed3 generates wheelspin very well too. this doesn't mean the power is useless. it means you aren't controlling the power and torque that the engine is capable of producing.

The point that I am getting here, is that I can just mash the throttle on the RS5 and I get all 450hp to the ground, no wheelspin and instant go. Whereas, I have to feather the throttle on the BMW. While yes the BMW is more powerful, it is not as satisfying in everyday driving. In addition, I have seen the vBox numbers of several of my friends who have trouble just getting a 0-60 time of 4.4 out of the BMW, yet in the RS5 you can consistently always get 4.1-4.2 all day regardless of skill or technique.

-the engine in the rs5 is way better how? it's less powerful, less torquey, heavier and generally less efficient. it sounds better and may feel a little smoother, but that's where its advantages end from an objective standpoint.

It has more hp than the M4, it is very smooth, high redline driving in a V8 is a dream to drive and the noise is better. Yes the M4 is more torquey.

-the m4 is about 500lbs lighter than the rs5 and it will out-accelerate and dynamically outperform the rs5 in pretty much any given performance situation. It also starts at about $7k less.

if you want a fast, beautiful, car that's easy to drive, the rs5 is for you. if you want a luxury cruiser loaded to the brim with tech, that is also challenging, engaging and bat shit fast, yet daily driveable when you need it to be, you get a m4. this isn't to say that one car is better than the other. i think i would have a hard time choosing between the two, but in the end i would probably go with the m4 simply because it's available with a manual transmission. the rs5 is a great car, but let's stick to facts here.

I am not ripping on the M4. I am a car guy and to tell you the truth, I love most all cars. I had fun in the M4 and I like it. The point that I am trying to make is that for the vast majority of people and for the vast majority of the road conditions, the RS5 isn't this stupid poor car. It still holds it own against the M4, in my opinion, for what we would see as real driving conditions, which to me is where I get my enjoyment. Again, not ripping apart the M4, it has some great attributes, including the huge weight advantage. There is something truly enjoyable mashing the throttle on the RS5, everything sticks and it just goes out of the pocket while the engine winds it way all the way up to 8500 rpm singing a great song, while in the M4, you have to feather the throttle as the wheels are spinning, listening to a turbo V6, with this nasty sound coming through the speakers. Take it on the track, no doubt the M4 will win.

If someone likes the M4 better, awesome. All the power to them and they are getting a great car.

[AudiYes]

Screw the magazines and anyone who doesn't own the actual cars being compared.
Under steer is load of crap, my back end kicks out all the time. Can I do crazy drifts? No because its dangerous and you are slower around the corner. But what my car can do is drive fast or drive at all in any weather 24/7.
You technically can't conpare these two cars. Ones AWD with high revving V8, other is blown 6 cyclinder on RWD. Two completely different cars. BMW made (4 series) to compete with A5/S5/Rs5, not the other way around. rs5 is 8 years older than current M4 you are comparing did you know that?

Did you also know if you want more track oriented car, Audi has Porsche?! Which is the correct comparison, Rwd 6 cylinder. And guess who will win on the track? Audi is limited to how well their cars can perform because they can't out perform Porsche.
Have a lot more to add but no point really.

[LINDW4LL]

The point that I am getting here, is that I can just mash the throttle on the RS5 and I get all 450hp to the ground, no wheelspin and instant go. Whereas, I have to feather the throttle on the BMW. While yes the BMW is more powerful, it is not as satisfying in everyday driving. In addition, I have seen the vBox numbers of several of my friends who have trouble just getting a 0-60 time of 4.4 out of the BMW, yet in the RS5 you can consistently always get 4.1-4.2 all day regardless of skill or technique.


It has more hp than the M4, it is very smooth, high redline driving in a V8 is a dream to drive and the noise is better. Yes the M4 is more torquey.

Despite the stated horsepower figures, the M4 puts down WAY more power than the RS 5. It has an extra 75hp at the wheels, essentially, plus the fact that it has 30% more torque.

I do agree with your comments in that the RS 5's power delivery through the quattro drivetrain is very satisfying. Having the ability to extract most all of the car's power, even in suboptimal conditions, is a great feeling.

[mozman68]

I prefer the S5 to both.... ;)

...but seriously, which one drives better in Michigan winters?

[dgszweda]

Despite the stated horsepower figures, the M4 puts down WAY more power than the RS 5. It has an extra 75hp at the wheels, essentially, plus the fact that it has 30% more torque.

I do agree with your comments in that the RS 5's power delivery through the quattro drivetrain is very satisfying. Having the ability to extract most all of the car's power, even in suboptimal conditions, is a great feeling.

Yes I have seen the BMW M4's dyno numbers from a bunch of examples. I have driven or owned a lot more performance oriented cars than either of these, including a Ferrari 458. So I definitely know what high performance feels like, and I definitely understand that neither of these cars are at the top of any list in terms of raw performance.

I tried and tried to get the M4 to "feel" quicker, but in the end, for 90% of our driving, the RS5 just felt quicker. I know, and felt it, that having a 1 mile stretch the BMW was going to leave the Audi behind. I know that a lot of people complain about the torque of the RS5, but off the line where torque is important, the better traction compensates for the lower torque. And at higher speeds like 6,000 rpm, the RS5 has plenty of torque to feel nearly as quick as the M4. I know dyno numbers and car journalists in ideal track conditions with lots of experience, show different results.

AudiYes, I agree I can get my backend to break a bit as well. I think what journalist are describing is not that the RS5 understeers, but that because cars like the M4 can more easily break away, that because that feeling isn't there, they are interpreting that lack of oversteer tendency to be understeer. After driving the M4, you definitely get a sense of that, but the reality is, that the understeer is not there. If you want understeer drive a Mini Cooper or a Honda Fit around a canyon road. You can get plenty of plowing there.

Again, I am not trying to say one is better than the other, because that would be impossible, they just fit different purposes. I am definitely trying to shed this car magazine culture that has created this unnecessary or unreal auro around these cars. And what is getting crazy is that car manufacturers are building cars not to be excellent, but to do well in reviews. Those are two different beasts.

One last point, I know that car magazines like to make mention that a certain model is showing its age. That to me is a bunch of hogwash. Why, because I guarantee you, given a choice between an E30 M3 or the new M4 to drive around a track, most journalists would choose the E30. I know I would. It is not as fast, but it is a dream to drive.

[essfour]

Personally I'm just sick of people comparing the RS5 to the F chassis M3/4.

I agree with many of dgszweda's points in that the RS5 does have some advantages over high hp rwd cars such as the F80/82 on normal streets in the real world. And on a personal note I prefer the high rpm N/A V8 and it is the reason I purchased the RS5.

But the F80/2 M3/4 is going to be superior on most levels in terms of performance and tech when compared to the RS5, just as the new M3 is superior to the E90 M3...

[dgszweda]

essfour,

Good points. I would say on the F80/F82 the tech has been refreshed, but not really new. The M4 does not offer Google maps or wifi service through the car. It offers a wider screen for nav, but it sits ackwardly on top the dash. It is hard to say if their MMI equivalent is better or not. It is just different. Some things are to like, some things are not. It does offer side and top view cameras, which are found on the A6 and higher at Audi. It also offers full LED headlights and a headsup display. Other than that, the tech is not really that superior, with the M4 missing some things and gaining some things.

A fully loaded RS5 is $88,100 with very little wiggle room on price and the M4 is $89,225 fully loaded.

[doug97gxe]

it all depends on what you're used to, the RS5 has you feeling comfy, cushy and some what lazy, that's why the power of the M4 scares you and it seems useless. With the RS5 you can cruise around and feel comfy and luxurious and mash the pedal when you feel it and pass slower cars with ease. The M4 is a drivers car, it causes you to be engaged, there is no sleeping, no napping.. no sitting back and mashing the gas.. it wants you to control it, it wants you to know what you are doing at every point of driving... it is as you say a drivers car. That is what the RS model should be and what it intended to be.. that's what the RS4 was .. the RS5 as we have seen with the removal of the manual is for the lazy comfy driver who wants to go fast every now and then but sit on the highway doing 60 in the fast lane. Nothing wrong with that, some of us are at that time in life when that's all we want to do.

- Doug former owner of a 600hp Twin Turbo 350z non-useless power

[doug97gxe]

essfour,

Good points. I would say on the F80/F82 the tech has been refreshed, but not really new. The M4 does not offer Google maps or wifi service through the car. It offers a wider screen for nav, but it sits ackwardly on top the dash. It is hard to say if their MMI equivalent is better or not. It is just different. Some things are to like, some things are not. It does offer side and top view cameras, which are found on the A6 and higher at Audi. It also offers full LED headlights and a headsup display. Other than that, the tech is not really that superior, with the M4 missing some things and gaining some things.

A fully loaded RS5 is $88,100 with very little wiggle room on price and the M4 is $89,225 fully loaded.

that's because its a drivers car.. its not a luxury boat for you to sit back and enjoy the ride..

[KmorgsRS5]

I test drove the M4 and didn't think it was worth selling the RS5 for. The RS5 has a great high revving V8 which not many companies are making anymore. However, i did like the mid range torque the M4 had. All in all i didn't think it was worth selling the RS5 for. Plus the exhaust sound was horrible.

[Brava]

I drove an E92 M3 for more than four years. Very difficult to put the power down, it felt like a waste of the 414 hp it had, much less powerful cars were making better progress than my M3 at stop lights. Very frustrating. And the M3 does understeer as well, believe me, too much entry speed in a corner and it keeps straight....
Two years on my ownership and didn't know how to get rid of it faster, exactly for the lack of traction. Don't even want to imagine how an M4 with much more torque would fight for traction and go nowhere.

I couldn't be happier with my RS5, it's like the perfect car. Stopped by the BMW dealer today, they have an M4 on display....didn't ring any bell for me.....and when I returned to the parking lot and saw the red RS5 waiting for me I said, oh my gosh, what a car!!!

[dgszweda]

it wants you to control it, it wants you to know what you are doing at every point of driving... it is as you say a drivers car. That is what the RS model should be and what it intended to be.. that's what the RS4 was .. the RS5 as we have seen with the removal of the manual is for the lazy comfy driver who wants to go fast every now and then but sit on the highway doing 60 in the fast lane. Nothing wrong with that, some of us are at that time in life when that's all we want to do.

Really? The difference between the RS4 and RS5 is a manual transmission, which makes the RS5 comfy? I had an RS4 and I disagree. I have also driven a 458 extensively throughout Europe, and have driven a new 911 GT3. Both do not have a manual, and I think someone would call you crazy if you said that the 458 was just a comfy highway cruiser, while a miata with a manual would be a crazy wicked car. The fact is that manuals are dying, and if you drive a dual clutch properly, it can be quite engaging.

Granted you have to be more engaged to drive harder in the M4, but that is fun for part of the time, if overtime you get in your car you have to be fully engaged, may get tiring. This is a good reason why the GT3 is not a great daily driver. It is rough to be on the edge and working for control all the time.

[doug97gxe]

Really? The difference between the RS4 and RS5 is a manual transmission, which makes the RS5 comfy? I had an RS4 and I disagree. I have also driven a 458 extensively throughout Europe, and have driven a new 911 GT3. Both do not have a manual, and I think someone would call you crazy if you said that the 458 was just a comfy highway cruiser, while a miata with a manual would be a crazy wicked car. The fact is that manuals are dying, and if you drive a dual clutch properly, it can be quite engaging.

Granted you have to be more engaged to drive harder in the M4, but that is fun for part of the time, if overtime you get in your car you have to be fully engaged, may get tiring. This is a good reason why the GT3 is not a great daily driver. It is rough to be on the edge and working for control all the time.

my comparison of RS4/RS5 wasn't of transmission but more so of demographic .. the RS4 seemed to be more geared towards the tuner/racer/DIY'er crowd where the RS5 seem to be more geared towards the elegant/luxury/weekend cruiser crowd.

the BMW M3/M4 is not geared towards the weekend cruiser crowd.. the luxury crowd.. none of that.. when you think of an RS5 you think class, luxury, speed, elegance .. take my time.. power is there when i need it, pass me the grey poupon crowd .. its as if the RS5 is the 2 door version of the RS7..

the M3/M4 is raw power.. it begs to be beaten on.. no luxury.. no taking your time.. you have some where to go and you're going to get there like you stole it.. this is why mag comparisons as you described test them this way... its like the Dodge Hellcat series.. you don't buy it to drive it slow.. you drive it to beat on it.. its not for the faint of heart its not for people who can't handle the power..

Some people the RS5 is suited better for.. Some people the M4 is suited better for.. but more than likely the things you love ur RS5 for are things the M4 will be lacking

[dgszweda]

my comparison of RS4/RS5 wasn't of transmission but more so of demographic .. the RS4 seemed to be more geared towards the tuner/racer/DIY'er crowd where the RS5 seem to be more geared towards the elegant/luxury/weekend cruiser crowd.

You have to be careful here, because you are viewing it thru your culture's eyes. I have lived throughout Europe and everyone has a different view. For example, the RS5 in the Netherlands is viewed as a young professional with quick upward mobility and highly successful, whereas the BMW is viewed as a teenager's car. In Germany the Audi is viewed as a car for an old man and the BMW is viewed as a car for a sophisticated sports car guy who has some money, but not enough for the Porsche. In the US, it is even more different. So each culture paints a view on a brand and model differently. A Boxster is a pretty good sports car in the US, but in Germany it is for cleaning ladies.

[Johnhanson]

OP is bang on. I was incredibly disappointed with the M4. Admittedly on a track at 10/10 with an experienced driver it will be a far superior car. In town, cruising on the highway, mountain runs at 7/10, an on any road surface with gravel, rain, or snow, the RS5 will destroy it. Hands down.

Respect M4 power. Yes, +75whp (and judging by how hard it pulls - probably more), but only useable at triple digit speeds. I probably left about 1000km worth of the dealers' rear tire tread on the road the day I had the car, and I wasn't even trying to be a jackass.

The RS5 is far more planted. Does that mean that it's less fun/easy/challenging to slide around a figure of 8? I'll admit, I can't light up my tires when warm on clean tarmac....but doing that skillfully in the M4 with it's terrible turbo lag is something I am not capable of. Maybe some of the other posters here have actually driven an RS5 and an M4 and can objectively say it's better, and that perhaps I am just a poor driver - but an M4 with DSC off on a public road is terrifying.

The interior of the M4 is quite disappointing - it looks very boy racer and far inferior to the somewhat dated RS5 interior - and I'm not just being an Audi fanboy here, I still buy BMWs. The engine note is atrocious as well - however I will admit full bias as I think my Capristo sounds better than anything on the road today....under $200k ;) Seriously though. M4 sounds like a sewing machine up to 3000 rpm, then it sounds a bit like an angry senior with emphysema.

One other point - I only ever note the people harping about RS5 understeer are R8 and S5 drivers. Of the Audis I've driven (S4/S5/RS5/S6/S7/RS7/R8 V8) the RS5 underteers the least. In fact around town it behaves *almost* as I would expect a proper RWD car to - but it does start to plow at triple digit speeds - and I'm ok with that. While the tuned S4/S5s will put down similar or better performance figures, they will not handle the same around a corner. Not trying to sound uppity, maybe only justifying the step and brainwashed by marketers, but there is a huge leap from S5 to RS5. And yes, I'm still waiting to pilot an R8 V10.

[AWD4WheelSpin]

What do you think of the RCF? Some reviewers put the RCF above the M4

[LINDW4LL]

What do you think of the RCF? Some reviewers put the RCF above the M4

Not sure on performance, but I hate that the dash/interior looks like it's 10 years old. I rarely hear the RC-F mentioned on the forums, oddly. I don't think euro buyers are likely to buy a Lexus. Just seems boring.

[superswiss]

This thread reminds me of the recent Cars & Coffee incident out here.

[doug97gxe]

You have to be careful here, because you are viewing it thru your culture's eyes. I have lived throughout Europe and everyone has a different view. For example, the RS5 in the Netherlands is viewed as a young professional with quick upward mobility and highly successful, whereas the BMW is viewed as a teenager's car. In Germany the Audi is viewed as a car for an old man and the BMW is viewed as a car for a sophisticated sports car guy who has some money, but not enough for the Porsche. In the US, it is even more different. So each culture paints a view on a brand and model differently. A Boxster is a pretty good sports car in the US, but in Germany it is for cleaning ladies.

i need to move to Germany

[doug97gxe]

What do you think of the RCF? Some reviewers put the RCF above the M4

I actually watched this video and was pretty impressed with the RCF .. only wish it came with a manual

[AWD4WheelSpin]

I actually drove a RCF at one of their driving events...I was really impressed...it handled well, it felt solidly built like a tank, acceleration good....but I've never driven RS5 to compare

[DSC447]

I went from a nicely modified 2013 TT RS to a 2015 RS5. My short list for a new daily driver was comprised of the R8, Nissan GT-R, 911 4S, M4, and Boxster GTS. The R8 was too impractical, the 911 was too similar in size (and subjective feel) to my TT RS and had less power, and in my opinion, which is all that matters to me, the M4 and Boxster are not practical year round daily drivers if you live in the northeast (and I do use snow tires in the winter). I really thought the GT-R was the one for me until I drove it. I didn't like it, not for a DD. I too have read countless articles about how the M4 is superior to the RS5. My last 3 out of 4 cars were BMW's (M3, M Coupe and 435xi), so I am a Beemer fan. I am a die hard stick fan. However, I never track my vehicles. I need something good in the snow and rain, which means AWD. I wanted something that looks stylish, which generally means two doors. I wanted something fast. I have been intrigued by the clutchless manual since the SMG transmission was an option in the M3. So I chose the RS5 as my DD. All I can say is that the car is wonderful to drive. It feels a bit portly compared to the TT RS, but feels much lighter on its feet if you control the transmission manually. I do take note of what the car magazines have to say, and I am willing to listen to what people have to say IF they have actually driven both, but in the end, I think most of what the OP said is on point.

[dgszweda]

but an M4 with DSC off on a public road is terrifying.

This is a good point. When I drove the M4 hard on curvy roads, the electronics kept kicking in, unless I disabled them entirely. Driving on a road with electronics kicking in, is not nearly as satisfying as a car that can do it without any intervention. Turning them off entirely in all reality is just not prudent on public roads.

[essfour]

In addition to my RS5 I own a fully restored e30 325is and an X3 35i M sport - so I am a big fan of BMW - personally I am also a big fan of teetering on the edge of too much power and just enough power. So I dont view the "usability" or lack there of for the M3/4 to be an issue really - it just sounds fun and something that must be mastered to enjoy - learning how to master such a car is a pleasure in it's own right.

While slower and of an older generation the the new F82, I am confident that the RS5 is a superior car when it comes to an all weather daily driver. I also love the uniqueness of the motor. I love looking at Ferrari motors from the past and seeing them make less hp per liter and having lower red lines than the RS5 - it is a special motor and one that I needed to take advantage of while it was around.

But the M3/4 is a phenomenal car in it's own right - it has some flaws, just as the RS5 has it's flaws. But right now it is the best performance sedan/coupe among MB, Audi, BMW and Lexus.

Further - I say screw all of the aforementioned models and make the jump to the new Jaguar F-Type AWD R... 550 hp V8 and all weather capability... sign me up for the RS replacement.

[dgszweda]

essfour,

I would say that no one is really knocking the M4, it is more along the fact that car magazines will lay out a superior reason to purchase a car, but in reality for real world driving it may not be the best car. Forget the AWD for all weather. Most hyper cars and super cars are going to AWD. Even if you look at the Z06, they are done for a RWD platform, you cannot really extract much more out of that car in its platform. The "RS5 is for winter because it is all wheel drive" has been a label that has been attached to this car, which I think is a result of individuals not thinking through the label. But no one says if you are looking for an AWD hypercar, get the Porsche 918 Spyder, but for summer or winter climate get the 458.

One other thing that car magazines don't get is when they are comparing cars. Yes, it is great to compare similar cars. I love reading those stories. But the reality is that most people don't really cross shop so linearly unless they are buying a Toyota Corolla. When I was looking that RS5, I was looking at a Z06, M4, 911, Jag, RS7 and even a used Ferrari. Much of us are all over the place, because each of these cars have various values that we are either looking for or just want to try out. I hate it when people say, "You can't compare the S5 to the M4". Well why the hell not! Tell me a good reason, besides some marketing schlep that says that a RS model has to compare to a M model, or an AMG model. I was comparing a 911 Carrera (non-AWD) with an RS5, "Ohhhh the horrors of it!"

Anyway, I say all this not to say the M4 is inferior or the RS5 is a better car. Just to continue to point out that magazines focus on a singular view of a car. If you are a fan of teetering on the edge, than definitely get an M4, it is not a bad car.

[essfour]

essfour,

I would say that no one is really knocking the M4, it is more along the fact that car magazines will lay out a superior reason to purchase a car, but in reality for real world driving it may not be the best car. Forget the AWD for all weather. Most hyper cars and super cars are going to AWD. Even if you look at the Z06, they are done for a RWD platform, you cannot really extract much more out of that car in its platform. The "RS5 is for winter because it is all wheel drive" has been a label that has been attached to this car, which I think is a result of individuals not thinking through the label. But no one says if you are looking for an AWD hypercar, get the Porsche 918 Spyder, but for summer or winter climate get the 458.

One other thing that car magazines don't get is when they are comparing cars. Yes, it is great to compare similar cars. I love reading those stories. But the reality is that most people don't really cross shop so linearly unless they are buying a Toyota Corolla. When I was looking that RS5, I was looking at a Z06, M4, 911, Jag, RS7 and even a used Ferrari. Much of us are all over the place, because each of these cars have various values that we are either looking for or just want to try out. I hate it when people say, "You can't compare the S5 to the M4". Well why the hell not! Tell me a good reason, besides some marketing schlep that says that a RS model has to compare to a M model, or an AMG model. I was comparing a 911 Carrera (non-AWD) with an RS5, "Ohhhh the horrors of it!"

Anyway, I say all this not to say the M4 is inferior or the RS5 is a better car. Just to continue to point out that magazines focus on a singular view of a car. If you are a fan of teetering on the edge, than definitely get an M4, it is not a bad car.

I completely agree with the point to your original post by the way. Car magazines skew much to far to the track orientation rather than the feel you get when behind the wheel. If you are comparing how different cars feel to you then it is totally reasonable to try out a host of different models and brands - such as comparing a 911 to the RS5 - totally get it - and I do the same thing. It's not about lining up direct comps but rather finding which car across a broad spectrum of options feels best to you. And with that in mind I believe you and I landed on the RS5 for similar reasons.

The hard part for car magazines is that writing about this this would make for phenomenally subjective journalism because the "feel of a car" exists within the ether of an individual - it would be difficult to quantify. I think reading archived articals of C&D or Dan Hampton, or even Jeremy Clarkson do a great job of conveying the feel of the car rather than criticizing them for being .02 mph behind a competitor in corner exit speed.

[dgszweda]

essfour,

I agree. Everytime someone gets subjective in a review there are invariably a ton of mail saying why the car is better because of numbers. But I am not sure why they can't do both. I love Top Gear in the UK. They send the car around a track that was designed by Lotus to robustly test most of the performance of a car with a "tame racing driver", so you can see an overall single performance score, and then they really talk about the car. They will rip it apart if they don't like it or sing praises if they do. Does Jeremy Clarkson have the corner on opinions? No. With that said the only problem again with the Top Gear show is that the opinions are also done from a track perspective most of the time. Yes power slides are gobs of fun, but you wouldn't responsibly do this on the street, or spend the money to constantly get new tires every few weeks. I want car editors to tell me how the car will perform in every day situations, not just from a pure performance perspective. Don't tell me the car or platform is aging, because that is a bunch of nonsense. Just because you are tired of driving it every year for your annual road test, doesn't mean the platform is aging, especially when in the same breath you are singing praises for a car that is 20 years old. A platform doesn't age, others advance. So tell me the details on where it is lacking compared to its competition. Give me details about the interior being cheap. They spend more time on how to enable launch control or lack of steering feel (which who knows what they means quantitatively), then they do on other elements that matter just as much.

I still think the RS5 is going to go down as a classic. I love power and I know that new engines will come out making more power, new features will come out that will compete with the new competition and the cars will be superior in many cases. But the thing about Audis is that they age well. I can get in a B5 and it doesn't look nearly as bad as other cars from the time period, and sometimes ones in perfect condition have you pausing for a second that it looks quite modern. The engine in the RS5 is soon be the last of the breed of high strung V-8s that are just a dream to drive, and S-Tronic is really at the top of its game right now. I still miss my RS4.

[AirmattRS5]

I think the point to drive home here is that magazines keep on touting the m4 as the benchmark because of its track pedigree. The fact if the matter is, probably less than 1% of m4 owners will ever track their cars, while the other 99% will likely upgrade their exhaust so it doesn't sound like an $80k neutered dog.

James May was right when he shown his disdain for 'Ring times. It put a dark cloud on some rather undeserving awesome cars.

[dgszweda]

I think the point to drive home here is that magazines keep on touting the m4 as the benchmark because of its track pedigree. The fact if the matter is, probably less than 1% of m4 owners will ever track their cars, while the other 99% will likely upgrade their exhaust so it doesn't sound like an $80k neutered dog.

James May was right when he shown his disdain for 'Ring times. It put a dark cloud on some rather undeserving awesome cars.

Agree, and to carry this a bit further, do you feel car manufacturers are not necessarily making the best car, but the car to beat a certain test level, or ring time.... I would also assume that car manufacturers find it tough to build a "good" car, but is much easier to build a car that meets a certain number of benchmarks.

[AirmattRS5]

Agree, and to carry this a bit further, do you feel car manufacturers are not necessarily making the best car, but the car to beat a certain test level, or ring time.... I would also assume that car manufacturers find it tough to build a "good" car, but is much easier to build a car that meets a certain number of benchmarks.

That's kind of a gray area when you have a business to run. I don't doubt any mfgrs from building the best car there is, but you have to think from a business standpoint of where their profitability lies for the next year and the foreseeable future. If they give us a v8tt with 500hp/500tq, AWD, $70k and a 30mpg highway, they wouldnt be seeing a dime from me for the next 10yrs.

Though I agree with your second point, mfgrs do chase after certain benchmark stats rather than focusing on the total package, but hey we wouldn't be watching top gear or reading magazines if that's not the case. It's sad, really.

[DSC447]

That's kind of a gray area when you have a business to run. I don't doubt any mfgrs from building the best car there is, but you have to think from a business standpoint of where their profitability lies for the next year and the foreseeable future. If they give us a v8tt with 500hp/500tq, AWD, $70k and a 30mpg highway, they wouldnt be seeing a dime from me for the next 10yrs.

Though I agree with your second point, mfgrs do chase after certain benchmark stats rather than focusing on the total package, but hey we wouldn't be watching top gear or reading magazines if that's not the case. It's sad, really.

It's only sad if you allow your decision to be driven by what someone else thinks is best. Otherwise, it makes for interesting reading and serves as a point of reference. My wife asked my what I want for Valentine's Day, so I told her a used Boxster S would be nice. She said, "sure". Woo-hoo!

[SliverJay]

dgszweda have you tested the water of the C63?

[essfour]

dgszweda have you tested the water of the C63?

off topic but you have the most insane car-line up ever... like wtf man that is awesome. R63... they made like 3 of them ever!

[doug97gxe]

That's kind of a gray area when you have a business to run. I don't doubt any mfgrs from building the best car there is, but you have to think from a business standpoint of where their profitability lies for the next year and the foreseeable future. If they give us a v8tt with 500hp/500tq, AWD, $70k and a 30mpg highway, they wouldnt be seeing a dime from me for the next 10yrs.

Though I agree with your second point, mfgrs do chase after certain benchmark stats rather than focusing on the total package, but hey we wouldn't be watching top gear or reading magazines if that's not the case. It's sad, really.

apart from the v8 .. the RS5 TDI Concept is pretty darn close

[Beast]

I seriously considered the M4 before I bought the RS5, but unfortunately IMO it lacked interior quality, sound, and exclusivity. I see so many 4 series compared to A5/S5s in my area so that was a big factor. Plus the color choices are pretty bad on the M4, the only color not including black/white that I would choose would be Yas Blue. For me the RS wins hands down for my needs. No doubt the m4 is a great car, and I loved the instant torque and raw power, but it was not what I was looking for. If I wanted a RWD car i'd pick up the new C63 coupe (when it is released), Ftype, Z06 Stingray or even a GTR (AWD) over the M4...


To each their own.