Top Gear on 23/12/08
Discussion
taffyracer said:
Once again people not actually reading what is written and distorting it to try and enforce their own arguments. You should read my post again mate, it is quite clear what i said, the 4wd systems on rally cars are not OEM systems and the suspension, geometry and all other associated parts are very very different, don't think for 1 minute that an RS4 has anything in common with a WRC or Group B rally car, if you think otherwise then you need a reality check. I never once said that rally drivers drive 4wd because they don't know how to drive rwd cars, I said that if a rwd drive (road going) car is driven by someone that knows how to drive a RWD in the wet then that car will be faster than a similar powered 4wd road car, when we are talking 250k rally cars then the situation might be somewhat different, but in a road car it is not
And Casey Stoner can ride a Moto GP bike in the pissing rain quick as well!..arent we supposed to be talking about amatuer drivers driving on shit uk roads in bad weather conditions where a good 4wd car will be easier to drive quick than its comparable 2wd competitor..dont you find it a little strange that Porsche's flagship road car the Turbo has been 4wd since 1995? and its track biased cars are 2wd?Edited by taffyracer on Thursday 3rd January 09:05
taffyracer said:
Once again people not actually reading what is written and distorting it to try and enforce their own arguments. You should read my post again mate, it is quite clear what i said, the 4wd systems on rally cars are not OEM systems and the suspension, geometry and all other associated parts are very very different, don't think for 1 minute that an RS4 has anything in common with a WRC or Group B rally car, if you think otherwise then you need a reality check. I never once said that rally drivers drive 4wd because they don't know how to drive rwd cars, I said that if a rwd drive (road going) car is driven by someone that knows how to drive a RWD in the wet then that car will be faster than a similar powered 4wd RS4 road car, when we are talking 250k rally cars then the situation might be somewhat different, but in a relatively basic Audi road car it is not and the skill of the driver has far more to do with it
"4WD is only any use to those that do not know how to drive a RWD" is what you said. Edited by taffyracer on Thursday 3rd January 09:05
Edited by taffyracer on Thursday 3rd January 09:13
My point is, regardless of how good a driver you are if the grip is not there you cannot put the power down. Modern 4wd systems use differentials that can shift power between axles depending on grip and with 4 tyres sharing the power and grip available on a slippy surface where you cannot use anywhere near all the power available anyway it is obviously going to have an advantage.
The RS4 is a well sorted chassis, excellent power train and a very good 4wd system. In slippery conditions power being distributed to 4 tyres utilising all the grip available is always going give a significsnt advantage over an M3 trying to stick it all into 2 tyres. Even the weight distribution advantage is minimised when the RS4 can use the front wheels with the associated front weight bias.
As I said before, I agree with you on the feel and balance - I drive 911's and prefer the feel of the 2wd models over the 4wd models, but even with the 911's significant advantage of having the bulk of its weight right over the top of the driven axle I am stil pretty confident a 911 Turbo will outrun at GT2 on a slippery wet muddy A road with even very competent drivers behind the wheel.
taffyracer said:
That's EU weights mind you, which means it allows for a passenger and tank of fuel and some luggage, not sure on the specifics but it's about 150kgs less when in nett weight, so is actually substantially lighter than the RS4
Genuine enquiry from an RS4 owning M3 Fan! I'm Confused about the EU weight comment...Is one car quoted EU and one not ?I noticed a while ago that a couple of the web sites have the M3coupe at 1655Kg and the RS4 saloon at 1650Kg. I was surprised as I expected the M3 to be lighter. Now i've been up close and and personal with the M3 coupe I can see how it may be that heavy. The first thing that struck me was how big it is. Maybe it's better performance it more to do with balance and less transmission loss?
obes said:
taffyracer said:
That's EU weights mind you, which means it allows for a passenger and tank of fuel and some luggage, not sure on the specifics but it's about 150kgs less when in nett weight, so is actually substantially lighter than the RS4
Genuine enquiry from an RS4 owning M3 Fan! I'm Confused about the EU weight comment...Is one car quoted EU and one not ?I noticed a while ago that a couple of the web sites have the M3coupe at 1655Kg and the RS4 saloon at 1650Kg. I was surprised as I expected the M3 to be lighter. Now i've been up close and and personal with the M3 coupe I can see how it may be that heavy. The first thing that struck me was how big it is. Maybe it's better performance it more to do with balance and less transmission loss?
Edited by kayc on Thursday 3rd January 11:25
kayc said:
obes said:
taffyracer said:
That's EU weights mind you, which means it allows for a passenger and tank of fuel and some luggage, not sure on the specifics but it's about 150kgs less when in nett weight, so is actually substantially lighter than the RS4
Genuine enquiry from an RS4 owning M3 Fan! I'm Confused about the EU weight comment...Is one car quoted EU and one not ?I noticed a while ago that a couple of the web sites have the M3coupe at 1655Kg and the RS4 saloon at 1650Kg. I was surprised as I expected the M3 to be lighter. Now i've been up close and and personal with the M3 coupe I can see how it may be that heavy. The first thing that struck me was how big it is. Maybe it's better performance it more to do with balance and less transmission loss?
Edited by kayc on Thursday 3rd January 11:25
[quote=jonlwright][quote=taffyracer]
"4WD is only any use to those that do not know how to drive a RWD" is what you said.
That was taken out of context, it is clear what i was referring to and it was clear that i was making no comparison with full on rally cars or the drivers that drive them, if anything my point was that road going 4wd cars share precious little with rally cars and that is why they are not the advantage that most people like to think they are.
"4WD is only any use to those that do not know how to drive a RWD" is what you said.
That was taken out of context, it is clear what i was referring to and it was clear that i was making no comparison with full on rally cars or the drivers that drive them, if anything my point was that road going 4wd cars share precious little with rally cars and that is why they are not the advantage that most people like to think they are.
jonlwright said:
taffyracer said:
Once again people not actually reading what is written and distorting it to try and enforce their own arguments. You should read my post again mate, it is quite clear what i said, the 4wd systems on rally cars are not OEM systems and the suspension, geometry and all other associated parts are very very different, don't think for 1 minute that an RS4 has anything in common with a WRC or Group B rally car, if you think otherwise then you need a reality check. I never once said that rally drivers drive 4wd because they don't know how to drive rwd cars, I said that if a rwd drive (road going) car is driven by someone that knows how to drive a RWD in the wet then that car will be faster than a similar powered 4wd RS4 road car, when we are talking 250k rally cars then the situation might be somewhat different, but in a relatively basic Audi road car it is not and the skill of the driver has far more to do with it
"4WD is only any use to those that do not know how to drive a RWD" is what you said. Edited by taffyracer on Thursday 3rd January 09:05
Edited by taffyracer on Thursday 3rd January 09:13
My point is, regardless of how good a driver you are if the grip is not there you cannot put the power down. Modern 4wd systems use differentials that can shift power between axles depending on grip and with 4 tyres sharing the power and grip available on a slippy surface where you cannot use anywhere near all the power available anyway it is obviously going to have an advantage.
The RS4 is a well sorted chassis, excellent power train and a very good 4wd system. In slippery conditions power being distributed to 4 tyres utilising all the grip available is always going give a significsnt advantage over an M3 trying to stick it all into 2 tyres. Even the weight distribution advantage is minimised when the RS4 can use the front wheels with the associated front weight bias.
As I said before, I agree with you on the feel and balance - I drive 911's and prefer the feel of the 2wd models over the 4wd models, but even with the 911's significant advantage of having the bulk of its weight right over the top of the driven axle I am stil pretty confident a 911 Turbo will outrun at GT2 on a slippery wet muddy A road with even very competent drivers behind the wheel.
All IMO/experience of course!
Edited by Pugsey on Thursday 3rd January 12:56
Pugsey said:
As an owner of an E92 M3 and having driven the RS4 extensively - and in fact back to backed the cars - I tried to give my impressions of how the two cars stacked up against each other in the wet a few pages back. IMHO of course! To repeat - given your third para - IMO there is nothing between the cars in wet conditions although personally the M3 gave me MORE confidence as it seemed to find more grip and be more stable both through medium/quick corners (where traction isn't an issue anyway) and under braking. The slight advantage that you suggest 4wd confers to the Audi is only under initial power application on leaving a corner - 4wd doesn't assist under braking, on approach to the corner, turn in (the Audi understeers and looses out here too), or in medium to fast corners where traction is not an issue either. Through say 60+mph corners on a steady throttle the M3's greater grip (due to tyres/suspension/whatever) gives it a further advantage as it's limit always seems a feww mph higher than the Audis.
All IMO/experience of course!
All sounds fair enough to me. I guess it comes down to how slippy we are talking and how twisty the roads are. I think it is fair to say with minimal grip in a slow twisty B road the Audi may have a slight advantage getting away from the slow bends. Faster more sweeping A roads the BMs superior mechanical grip will beat the Audi.All IMO/experience of course!
And, of course, pretty much any modern 911 will annihalate either of them!
jonlwright said:
Pugsey said:
As an owner of an E92 M3 and having driven the RS4 extensively - and in fact back to backed the cars - I tried to give my impressions of how the two cars stacked up against each other in the wet a few pages back. IMHO of course! To repeat - given your third para - IMO there is nothing between the cars in wet conditions although personally the M3 gave me MORE confidence as it seemed to find more grip and be more stable both through medium/quick corners (where traction isn't an issue anyway) and under braking. The slight advantage that you suggest 4wd confers to the Audi is only under initial power application on leaving a corner - 4wd doesn't assist under braking, on approach to the corner, turn in (the Audi understeers and looses out here too), or in medium to fast corners where traction is not an issue either. Through say 60+mph corners on a steady throttle the M3's greater grip (due to tyres/suspension/whatever) gives it a further advantage as it's limit always seems a feww mph higher than the Audis.
All IMO/experience of course!
All sounds fair enough to me. I guess it comes down to how slippy we are talking and how twisty the roads are. I think it is fair to say with minimal grip in a slow twisty B road the Audi may have a slight advantage getting away from the slow bends. Faster more sweeping A roads the BMs superior mechanical grip will beat the Audi.All IMO/experience of course!
And, of course, pretty much any modern 911 will annihalate either of them!
kayc said:
jonlwright said:
Pugsey said:
As an owner of an E92 M3 and having driven the RS4 extensively - and in fact back to backed the cars - I tried to give my impressions of how the two cars stacked up against each other in the wet a few pages back. IMHO of course! To repeat - given your third para - IMO there is nothing between the cars in wet conditions although personally the M3 gave me MORE confidence as it seemed to find more grip and be more stable both through medium/quick corners (where traction isn't an issue anyway) and under braking. The slight advantage that you suggest 4wd confers to the Audi is only under initial power application on leaving a corner - 4wd doesn't assist under braking, on approach to the corner, turn in (the Audi understeers and looses out here too), or in medium to fast corners where traction is not an issue either. Through say 60+mph corners on a steady throttle the M3's greater grip (due to tyres/suspension/whatever) gives it a further advantage as it's limit always seems a feww mph higher than the Audis.
All IMO/experience of course!
All sounds fair enough to me. I guess it comes down to how slippy we are talking and how twisty the roads are. I think it is fair to say with minimal grip in a slow twisty B road the Audi may have a slight advantage getting away from the slow bends. Faster more sweeping A roads the BMs superior mechanical grip will beat the Audi.All IMO/experience of course!
And, of course, pretty much any modern 911 will annihalate either of them!
jonlwright said:
kayc said:
jonlwright said:
Pugsey said:
As an owner of an E92 M3 and having driven the RS4 extensively - and in fact back to backed the cars - I tried to give my impressions of how the two cars stacked up against each other in the wet a few pages back. IMHO of course! To repeat - given your third para - IMO there is nothing between the cars in wet conditions although personally the M3 gave me MORE confidence as it seemed to find more grip and be more stable both through medium/quick corners (where traction isn't an issue anyway) and under braking. The slight advantage that you suggest 4wd confers to the Audi is only under initial power application on leaving a corner - 4wd doesn't assist under braking, on approach to the corner, turn in (the Audi understeers and looses out here too), or in medium to fast corners where traction is not an issue either. Through say 60+mph corners on a steady throttle the M3's greater grip (due to tyres/suspension/whatever) gives it a further advantage as it's limit always seems a feww mph higher than the Audis.
All IMO/experience of course!
All sounds fair enough to me. I guess it comes down to how slippy we are talking and how twisty the roads are. I think it is fair to say with minimal grip in a slow twisty B road the Audi may have a slight advantage getting away from the slow bends. Faster more sweeping A roads the BMs superior mechanical grip will beat the Audi.All IMO/experience of course!
And, of course, pretty much any modern 911 will annihalate either of them!
Bottom line is that ALL the cars we're lucky enough to be driving and talking about here are pretty awesome and even driven at the absolute fastest safe road speeds on day to day UK roads I doubt any one of them with be very far behind the others on a decent a to b journey.
I am not good enough to drive near the limit of grip on the public road, so I don't think I ever benefit from 4wd on the public road. Having said that, I used to have an Evo 6; in that, I think the very high level of confidence that it would go where it was pointed may have encouraged me to push a little harder in the wet.
The only 911 I have owned was back in 1990. That was a C4, and I chose the 4 because I thought it would have a bit more stability and so I would be less likely to drive it through a hedge backwards. Nowadays, I would be more likely to choose a C2.
I have been on several ice driving courses with Volvo in Sweden, having the opportunity to jump backwards and forwards between rwd, fwd and 4wd. Things I discovered in Volvos were:
- 4wd has a massive advantage accelerating where there is not enough grip to use the power with 2wd
- 4wd may give a bit of stability, but it is much easier to lose control in a 4wd without traction control than in a 2wd with traction control
- the 4wd cars had lots of understeer, more so than the fwd cars. Due to the ability to accelerate fast and the reluctance to turn in the 4wd cars had the most offs.
- because of the above the 4wd cars were the least fun on the ice, the rwd cars the most fun
- winter tyres (the Swedes use studs) give excellent grip in the sort of conditions which bring the UK to a standstill.
The only 911 I have owned was back in 1990. That was a C4, and I chose the 4 because I thought it would have a bit more stability and so I would be less likely to drive it through a hedge backwards. Nowadays, I would be more likely to choose a C2.
I have been on several ice driving courses with Volvo in Sweden, having the opportunity to jump backwards and forwards between rwd, fwd and 4wd. Things I discovered in Volvos were:
- 4wd has a massive advantage accelerating where there is not enough grip to use the power with 2wd
- 4wd may give a bit of stability, but it is much easier to lose control in a 4wd without traction control than in a 2wd with traction control
- the 4wd cars had lots of understeer, more so than the fwd cars. Due to the ability to accelerate fast and the reluctance to turn in the 4wd cars had the most offs.
- because of the above the 4wd cars were the least fun on the ice, the rwd cars the most fun
- winter tyres (the Swedes use studs) give excellent grip in the sort of conditions which bring the UK to a standstill.
The RS4's real strength is in its ability to deal with wet and bumpy 'B' roads with little or no fuss, that is where it really shows its ace card, and in such conditions that is where it flatters an average driver. I can't think of any 4 door saloon that would get away from it in such conditions unless being driven as if it were a rally stage. The problem for me with the RS4, and this is something that many people will just not get or appreciate, is that in flattering the driver to this extent it makes for a boring and numb car to drive quickly. I swapped my GT3 for an RS4 as I needed a 4 door car but for me the RS4 misses something that both a CSL and GT3 have in spades, the thing I like to call "The getting up at 5am on a Sunday morning just to drive it!" syndrome! For me an RS4 is not a car I just want to take for a drive to enjoy. It is massively capable, truly an exceptional all round saloon car, no question of that, but its sterring (like the M3) and its brakes (like the M3) are not great, and it will understeer when really pushed hard, and understeer to me is not an endearing characeteristic.
On a dry smooth road it would not see where my GT3 went, KayC will of course disagree as to him the turbo is miles quicker than a GT3 and GT3's are poo on the road and though I agree in the conditions above he would be right, on a smooth road the GT3 would be quicker as my experience at Fighting Torque in my GT3 seemed to suggest, it was quicker in a straight line over 3/4's of a mile than the stock 996 Turbo's, including a standing start. Use a GT3 as it was intended, stir the box to keep it on cam it will easily be a match for a 996 Turbo and quicker on the right road, though if its soaking wet or very bumpy the turbo would have the edge no question, as its damping and set up is much more road focused.
What some people miss is that not everyone wants to be the quickest at all times. I did 20K miles in 14 months in my GT3, I was one of the rare people who used it day to day and at no time, not even when it was pissing down with rain, windy or generally crappy outside did I wish I were in a different car, and on a sunny Sunday morning I would have walked all over the RS4 to get to a GT3 or CSL because they have something that the RS4 and for me the 996 Turbo don't have, a sense of occasion and feeling which is made up of feeling and the viscral noise of their engines and throttle response. It is after all a personal decision, there are no right and wrongs with something so subjective, each to their own.
What was the question again
On a dry smooth road it would not see where my GT3 went, KayC will of course disagree as to him the turbo is miles quicker than a GT3 and GT3's are poo on the road and though I agree in the conditions above he would be right, on a smooth road the GT3 would be quicker as my experience at Fighting Torque in my GT3 seemed to suggest, it was quicker in a straight line over 3/4's of a mile than the stock 996 Turbo's, including a standing start. Use a GT3 as it was intended, stir the box to keep it on cam it will easily be a match for a 996 Turbo and quicker on the right road, though if its soaking wet or very bumpy the turbo would have the edge no question, as its damping and set up is much more road focused.
What some people miss is that not everyone wants to be the quickest at all times. I did 20K miles in 14 months in my GT3, I was one of the rare people who used it day to day and at no time, not even when it was pissing down with rain, windy or generally crappy outside did I wish I were in a different car, and on a sunny Sunday morning I would have walked all over the RS4 to get to a GT3 or CSL because they have something that the RS4 and for me the 996 Turbo don't have, a sense of occasion and feeling which is made up of feeling and the viscral noise of their engines and throttle response. It is after all a personal decision, there are no right and wrongs with something so subjective, each to their own.
What was the question again
, you're absolutely rightWell said housemaster. And there ladys and gents you have it - bugger the odd tenth of a second here or there etc. etc. blah blah blah - whats it like to DRIVE!!! That's what we're all about isn't it?
................er, which is why,despite the fact that IMO it's a better drivers car than the RS4 I'll be chopping my M3 in for something more interesting to drive shortly.
................er, which is why,despite the fact that IMO it's a better drivers car than the RS4 I'll be chopping my M3 in for something more interesting to drive shortly.
OK, so would I be an idiot looking at an M6 having just sold my X50?
Not really had much chance to 'experience' the M6 properly so would be interested in peoples opinion in how it compares as a drive? Is it more RS4 or 911 or somewhere in between? Obviously it is not GT3 level, but I need a back seat for kids!
Not really had much chance to 'experience' the M6 properly so would be interested in peoples opinion in how it compares as a drive? Is it more RS4 or 911 or somewhere in between? Obviously it is not GT3 level, but I need a back seat for kids!
Iv not been fortunate enough to drive an RS4...But i do own a 2.3 440bhp 460 ft lbs evo 8. And i can say, AWD is fantastic..but some people have said they can lack feel in the wet and i can honestly say they are spot on...Its strange..in the dry iv never driven a car that feels more connected to the road...and with the evo's electric trickery when it gets out of shape, it pulls itself straight back in. But...in the wet it feels the total opposite...it feels like its on ice. Once you get used to it and inflate the "go-nads" a bit and actually give it some..you realise it does still grip in the wet. Iv driven an e46 M3 in the wet and it was more inspiring, it gave more confidence than the evo does. And id imagine it would be the same between an rs4 and M3 in the wet...
Gues at the end of the day it comes down to who knows they're car best and who has the bigger set of bo
ocks..or the smallest brain capacity.
On the top gear side....I love top gear, i dont take it, or virtualy any of its results seriously, alot of results have been highly questionable. But i find it really entertaining, and if i can watch top gear and keep the mrs from watching eastenders for an hour...then god bless top gear lol.
Gues at the end of the day it comes down to who knows they're car best and who has the bigger set of bo
ocks..or the smallest brain capacity.On the top gear side....I love top gear, i dont take it, or virtualy any of its results seriously, alot of results have been highly questionable. But i find it really entertaining, and if i can watch top gear and keep the mrs from watching eastenders for an hour...then god bless top gear lol.
Edited by EvoJay on Sunday 3rd February 04:10
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff