RE: Chris Harris video: BMW M135i vs Audi RS3
Discussion
It's a very strange review. Did one of the Autocar roadtest team have their dog run over by one? I don't recall Autocar being so determinedly lukewarm about a car before. Sounds rather like the author made up his mind in advance that he disapproved of it but is having, through gritted teeth, to admit that it's actually good.
Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
Wolands Advocate said:
It's a very strange review. Did one of the Autocar roadtest team have their dog run over by one? I don't recall Autocar being so determinedly lukewarm about a car before. Sounds rather like the author made up his mind in advance that he disapproved of it but is having, through gritted teeth, to admit that it's actually good.
Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
I was thinking exactly the same when I read the review today. Their "first drive" a few weeks ago was much more praiseworthy, and they put it on the front cover. Probably on the website....Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
I think the only thing you can say is the looks could be better, an maybe some options penny pinch a little.
Surely won't be long until Birds UK offer a Quaife LSD upgrade....
Wolands Advocate said:
It's a very strange review. Did one of the Autocar roadtest team have their dog run over by one? I don't recall Autocar being so determinedly lukewarm about a car before. Sounds rather like the author made up his mind in advance that he disapproved of it but is having, through gritted teeth, to admit that it's actually good.
Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
I consider Autocar as objective as the Daily Mail. The best example was Sutcliffe's first review of the Ferrari California (where he slated it), and two weeks later a huge corrigendum (Ferrari insisted he tested the car again) where he loved it. Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
this is as bad.
Wolands Advocate said:
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable...
Sounds like PH when anyone dares mention it in the M Power forum. 
urquattroGus said:
I was thinking exactly the same when I read the review today. Their "first drive" a few weeks ago was much more praiseworthy, and they put it on the front cover. Probably on the website....
They do this quite a lot - their reviewers often get very excited about cars' handling on first drives on some nice foreign tarmac, then road test them in the UK and moan about the ride on our roads. RenOHH said:
HighwayStar said:
Maldini35 said:
Laptimes are a total irrelevance....but.....according to Autocar
In the wet - BMW 135i slower than the RS3 by nearly 10 seconds a lap!!!!
10 secs wouldn't be enough to sway me in the slightest!In the wet - BMW 135i slower than the RS3 by nearly 10 seconds a lap!!!!
Probably equates to a couple of minutes at the ring. Or the BMW being lapped twice around the Brands Indy circuit in a 15 minute (wet) race.
I agree that a quick wet lap doesn't necessarily equate to fun but if you want to go fast.....
As a company car prospective buyer for the M135i, one thing that I did notice was that the Auto has lower CO2, however, when you add the £1600 or so on it costs on, the taxble benefit level is almost the same, so it doesnt really make much difference!
I'm mad enough to be paying company car tax on my RS at the moment. I really should be using a diesel shopping trolley.
I'm mad enough to be paying company car tax on my RS at the moment. I really should be using a diesel shopping trolley.
urquattroGus said:
As a company car prospective buyer for the M135i, one thing that I did notice was that the Auto has lower CO2, however, when you add the £1600 or so on it costs on, the taxble benefit level is almost the same, so it doesnt really make much difference!
I'm mad enough to be paying company car tax on my RS at the moment. I really should be using a diesel shopping trolley.
That's a mistake by autocar. The Audi doesn't have a C02 of 119g!I'm mad enough to be paying company car tax on my RS at the moment. I really should be using a diesel shopping trolley.
JonRB said:
Maldini35 said:
I agree that a quick wet lap doesn't necessarily equate to fun but if you want to go fast.....
... you'd buy a second-hand Nissan GT-R for the same money. 
At £16k for a replacement gearbox and no spare parts from Nissan to rebuild the old one the question you have to ask yourself is "do you feel lucky punk?"
Wolands Advocate said:
It's a very strange review. Did one of the Autocar roadtest team have their dog run over by one? I don't recall Autocar being so determinedly lukewarm about a car before. Sounds rather like the author made up his mind in advance that he disapproved of it but is having, through gritted teeth, to admit that it's actually good.
Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
Agreed a really odd review, they loved it on the first drive then despite the high star ratings given in the various benchmarks in the full test, they manage to damn the car with faint praise. Case in point: it get 5 stars for performance but they wrap that section up with the thoroughly tepid statement "certainly the drivetrain is as compelling as any in a direct competitor's vehicle and, truth be told, you can't ask for much more than that". Hardly the sort of comment that usually accompanies a 5* performance rating from a magazine that's supposed to be more about driving and less about the "What Car?" aspects.
It's also peppered with slightly snide comments ("we think M135i owners would prefer two rear seats instead of three" - huh, what on earth for?). And given it comes with standard leather and xenons (both optional on most competitors bar the much pricier RS3), to whinge about it being sparsely equipped for not having an auto-dim rear view mirror (can't say that I've noticed whether mine does or doesn't) seems like searching for faults.
Their main beef, reading between the lines, seems to be that it isn't a full M car and therefore somehow not quite acceptable - it gets a slippering for not having an LSD.
Is this the same car that Evo saw fit to rate up there with the Porsches and Lotuses of this world in their recent eCOTY?
Very strange.
Wills2 said:
Agreed a really odd review, they loved it on the first drive then despite the high star ratings given in the various benchmarks in the full test, they manage to damn the car with faint praise.
Very strange.
Where the two reviews by the same reviewer or two different people? You have to remember that each reviewer is an individual and will therefore somewhat unavoidably bring their own perspective, priorities and bias along with them. This will naturally effect the tone of the article, much like the review here on PH ;-)Very strange.
Digger said:
A certain Mr Clarkson has witten a piece in todays Sunday Times!
Not very much on the car itself, but I enjoyed the write up. Mine arrives on 3rd December 
Have yet to see an overly negative review. With the exception of perhaps the looks, which are clearly down to the individual, everything i've read has only made me more impatient.
Petoz said:
Digger said:
A certain Mr Clarkson has witten a piece in todays Sunday Times!
Not very much on the car itself, but I enjoyed the write up. Mine arrives on 3rd December Have yet to see an overly negative review. With the exception of perhaps the looks, which are clearly down to the individual, everything i've read has only made me more impatient.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff