Interesting Vid - CSL vs RS4
Discussion
nickyandsi said:
Oh yeah and in the words of clarkson himself,when driving the Audi RS4,he claimed to
be sitting about 3feet from the best engine ever made. He did mention the M3 but still said he would rather have the RS4.
be sitting about 3feet from the best engine ever made. He did mention the M3 but still said he would rather have the RS4.
You 'appear' to be confused between an M3 and a CSL.
I'm sure the RS4 would perform very well as Chris Harris recently found when he fitted his with Corsas at the 'ring, but you're still comparing it with a CSL which lapped the 'Ring at 7:50 and has recorded 1.4g laterally.
A few years ago when I used to track mine regularly we were managing 1:19s around Donington, which would qualify on the back row of a BTCC grid...
A good CSL will do a little over 10 seconds to 100mph and around 16 to 120mph, which is not supercar quick but still pretty respectable for what it is. I have seen RS4s tested at between mid-15s to 120 right up to late 16s, so they should be comparable in most respects - apart from on track where an RS4 would be heavily penalised by its weight after a few laps.
p.s. interesting reaction over on RS246.com
www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=59629&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Edited by DoctorD on Sunday 4th March 13:20
m3evo2 said:
Audi's stated power outputs have been off the mark to the point of making it up on the RS4. Many have not reached anywhere near the claimed standard BHP.
That's a shame to hear. I seem to remember them having problems (i.e. delaying the launch of the RS4) due to gearbox or clutch issues (??). Do you suspect they detuned the engine for launch? Is there any evidence that later cars are developing more realistic power figures?
I came across an RS4 on two seperate occasions in my old 4.8is X5 and was 'surprised' how hard they had to work to pull away. Perhaps a shortage of horses explains it. I also came across one last week in my Z4M Coupe and closed on him at the top-end, so my experience of RS4s is that they are clearly M3-quick or above, but not in a different league. Judging by what we already know about the forthcoming E92 M3, BMW are going to be feeling pretty confident.
I hear that RS4 production will be stopping in April this year to make way for RS6 production. That's one of the things that put me off buying an RS4, they emerge late in the model-lifecycle hence feel a little dated straight away. I guess Audi has its reasons for this, but it certainly puts me off.
I hear that RS4 production will be stopping in April this year to make way for RS6 production. That's one of the things that put me off buying an RS4, they emerge late in the model-lifecycle hence feel a little dated straight away. I guess Audi has its reasons for this, but it certainly puts me off.
Not all the luxuries, but most of them. In practice it weighs around 140kg less than an M3 and yet has a good 20-30bhp more power. It uses a large quantity of aluminim and carbon fibre in its construction (i.e. the roof is made of carbon fibre, the boot is essentially plastic, the rear window uses thinner glass etc, etc.)
nickyandsi said:
But the video does not look genuine. As i said before,its debatable in my opinion and even if the CSL is quicker or not id still rather have the Audi for many reasons.
Just my opinion
Just my opinion
In the first run, the RS4 driver appears to concede early but in the 2nd run it looks like both drivers are committed until the end. The CSL looks and sounds exactly as they normally do, and you would never hear the RS4 when along side a CSL. It's an interweb video not a peer-reviewed scientific study, so take away what you want from it..
nickyandsi said:
’04 M3 CSL
Fuel Delivery Injection BHP 343.0 Torque (lbs feet) 272.9 RPM to which the Torque refers 4900 Maximum Speed 155 Acceleration (0-60) 4.9
Length (mm) 4492 Width (mm) 1780 Height (mm) 1365 Unladen weight 1570 Boot Capacity (litres) 411
£58,357
Fuel Delivery Injection BHP 343.0 Torque (lbs feet) 272.9 RPM to which the Torque refers 4900 Maximum Speed 155 Acceleration (0-60) 4.9
Length (mm) 4492 Width (mm) 1780 Height (mm) 1365 Unladen weight 1570 Boot Capacity (litres) 411
£58,357
Unfortunately you've got the numbers completely wrong (apart from the price!). Suggest you take another look.
I guess if that makes you feel more comfortable with your choice of car, but having a 4WD chassis only confers an advantage in terms of traction (usually at low speeds) - Note: I also own a 4wd car, but one that is considerably more powerful than an RS4.
Once up at speed the only advantage your 4WD provides you with is 'perceived' confidence - which perhaps is something you're telling us that you need?. True advantages in wet weather come down to mechanical grip which has more to do with tyres than how many wheels are being driven. I love driving my BMWs in wet conditions since I can really enjoy the kind of tail-out antics that a balanced chassis can provide. How are you finding that in your Audi?
Once up at speed the only advantage your 4WD provides you with is 'perceived' confidence - which perhaps is something you're telling us that you need?. True advantages in wet weather come down to mechanical grip which has more to do with tyres than how many wheels are being driven. I love driving my BMWs in wet conditions since I can really enjoy the kind of tail-out antics that a balanced chassis can provide. How are you finding that in your Audi?
From what I understand from good journalist friends of mine the RS4 is actually quite a fun car to drive day-to-day, so not the usual understeer oriented 4WD fare.
But I really do feel sorry for people who believe that having 4WD is the only way you can travel quickly or have fun in the wet. I was browsing through the forum RS6.com and came across a thread about the new M3 with one of the leading members stating the following "..To me it will be like so many rwd sportscar a one trick pony, entertaining but only in the dry.".
Sad isn't it. They're missing out on so many great sports cars because they've convinced themselves that RWD is dangerous. There must be a whole generation of younger drivers who have never experienced the pleasure of balancing a chassis on the limit ... using their right foot. Instead they've risen up through a series of FWD cars and hold tightly to the perceived safety net of 4WD like a novice swimmer clings to the side of a swimming pool.
But I really do feel sorry for people who believe that having 4WD is the only way you can travel quickly or have fun in the wet. I was browsing through the forum RS6.com and came across a thread about the new M3 with one of the leading members stating the following "..To me it will be like so many rwd sportscar a one trick pony, entertaining but only in the dry.".
Sad isn't it. They're missing out on so many great sports cars because they've convinced themselves that RWD is dangerous. There must be a whole generation of younger drivers who have never experienced the pleasure of balancing a chassis on the limit ... using their right foot. Instead they've risen up through a series of FWD cars and hold tightly to the perceived safety net of 4WD like a novice swimmer clings to the side of a swimming pool.
Beemer-5 said:
I just checked, it varies from 2310kgs (Mercedes' figure) to 2370kgs (two road tests' figures).
Great power figure, but that sort of weight will dumb down the performance quite a lot, i guess.
Great power figure, but that sort of weight will dumb down the performance quite a lot, i guess.
Off topic - but that's not how much the car actually weighs, that figure includes 70 litres of fuel, a driver and some luggage (i.e. an extra 150kg or so). Most manufacturers quote vehicle weights without taking these into consideration - hence the reason why you cannot compare manufacturer quoted unladed weights of Porsche & Audi etc with those of BMW or Mercedes.
Same problem arises when comparing the carrying capacity of vehicles, Land Rover for instance quotes luggage capacity from floor to ceiling whilst most other manufacturers only quote from floor to luggage cover.
Anyway, back on topic...
I must say I had hoped for some insightful discussion on this thread from both pro-RS4 and pro-CSL people, instead we ended up distracted by what must surely have been a yung'un...
For the record, most people seem to have observed that the CSL did indeed cover the ground more quickly, although the second run looked more true to form than the first. Nevertheless the RS4 looked a little slower than we would have thought, and someone interjected that apparently quite a few RS4s have been found to produce less than the 414 ponies that Herr Audi had promised.
I suspect most of us have a sensible level of admiration for the RS4 and clearly Audi are encroaching on BMW's space by building cars that are actually enjoyable to drive for a change.
I myself considered buying an Avant recently, not as replacement for my CSL but actually to replace my X5. Unfortunately I found it too small (to carry 4 full-sized people) and it somehow felt dated next to all the other Audis in the showroom (mainly the interior).
Audi will shortly stop making the B7 RS4, so I do wonder what its legacy shall be - the car that finally turned the tide? or a blip in Audi's more indigenous nose-heavy dynamic.
For the record, most people seem to have observed that the CSL did indeed cover the ground more quickly, although the second run looked more true to form than the first. Nevertheless the RS4 looked a little slower than we would have thought, and someone interjected that apparently quite a few RS4s have been found to produce less than the 414 ponies that Herr Audi had promised.
I suspect most of us have a sensible level of admiration for the RS4 and clearly Audi are encroaching on BMW's space by building cars that are actually enjoyable to drive for a change.
I myself considered buying an Avant recently, not as replacement for my CSL but actually to replace my X5. Unfortunately I found it too small (to carry 4 full-sized people) and it somehow felt dated next to all the other Audis in the showroom (mainly the interior).
Audi will shortly stop making the B7 RS4, so I do wonder what its legacy shall be - the car that finally turned the tide? or a blip in Audi's more indigenous nose-heavy dynamic.
nickyandsi said:
Oh and to M12 nathan,i would read that thread again,seems you have trouble reading Sir.Ive never driven a Porsche 911,and as a matter of fact,it was a rather nice gentleman that wrote on the thread that he now has a 911,after owning an S4,but now feels he would rather have another Audi. No more to say.Im loving this though 
Step away from the keyboard and take one step backwards.
m3evo2 said:
With all this chat about CSL's I am seriously considering buying one, black preferably but not too fussy. Do you PHers stick with the Cup tyres or anybody experimented with another spec. Also how much for the AP break upgrade?
I prefer driving it on Cup tyres, which are great in the rain - just avoid deep puddles. Unfortunately Cups don't wear too well and at £1100 a set they can prove a little too costly if just going from A to B. Best alternative would be Michelin PS2 which are constructed with the same compound as Cup tyres on part of the tyre face. There are no other track spec tyre in the CSLs sizes, so it's either Cups or a high-performance tyre such as the PS2, Pirelli Nero or Goodyear GSD3.
AP Brakes were around £2k for the fronts (including braided hoses for all four wheels). There's no point changing the rear brakes unless you want red calipers in which case aesthetically you would need to change rears to match the fronts. Plenty more info over on BM3W's tuning section.
Gassing Station | CSL | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff