Audi vs BMW And Keep It Clean Guys
Discussion
soxboy said:
swiftwill said:
Fox- said:
Nors said:
I agree however, that the RS4 was indeed brought out during the production of the E46, and BMW had to respond with the E90.
BMW introduced the E90 because the E46 came to the end of its 7 year old model cycle. By the time the E90 M3 was released the RS4 was no longer a threat as production was ending!
ksIt strikes me that you are getting confused with your model numbers and what they refer to. E90 refers to the whole of the 3-series range, not just the M-models. Do you seriously think that all those guys at Munich suddenly thought 'f
k me, that RS4 that sells a few thousand a year is pretty good, we'd better wheel out a whole new range of cars from the 316 to the 335 in case people stop buying them because they've seen an RS4'??The RS4 is only a small part of a large range of cars, yes it is a halo model but the big money is made on the bread and butter 2.0TDi models. If Audi were beating BMW on these then BM may be a little concerned, but given that the 320Ed etc trounce the A4 I doubt they care too much.
As said above, the E46 was replaced pure and simply because it was getting to the end of its 7 year model cycle. Nothing to do with the RS4.
t about the 316 to 335.I might be able to offer a real word comparison here. I had a 320d estate - it blew up with a mashed DM fly wheel and the crankshaft problem that some of them seem to be afflicted with. I now have an A4 avant 2.0T s-line quattro
I thought that the BM was a very well thought out car. the interior was a nice place to be and the engine was amazingly frugal
The two problems with the beemer were firstly it felt really, really heavy. I couldn't believe how much more lithe the audi felt - I even googled the kerb weights, there is only about 50kg in it, but the audi feels really light and nimble.
The run flat thing was also terrible - although I know it's easily fixed.
secondly - I hated the engine after a while. I had an initial period of enjoying the "waftyness" - and feeling smug doing 0.8 leptons at 800rpm in 6th - but diesel is just so heavy and boring.
In comparison, the Audi is perhaps a smidge more ordinary with it's interior - although the sporty s-line seats are much nicer. Coming from the diesel, I'm much more friendly with the people at BP - but it's so worth it (for the 5k miles I do a year) - it's "rorty" engine is really addictive and the handling is a million times better.
perhaps the comparison is slightly unfair, as I bought the sporty audi and the basic beemer, but the audi was 2k less, and much more fun to drive.
HTH
-ace
I thought that the BM was a very well thought out car. the interior was a nice place to be and the engine was amazingly frugal
The two problems with the beemer were firstly it felt really, really heavy. I couldn't believe how much more lithe the audi felt - I even googled the kerb weights, there is only about 50kg in it, but the audi feels really light and nimble.
The run flat thing was also terrible - although I know it's easily fixed.
secondly - I hated the engine after a while. I had an initial period of enjoying the "waftyness" - and feeling smug doing 0.8 leptons at 800rpm in 6th - but diesel is just so heavy and boring.
In comparison, the Audi is perhaps a smidge more ordinary with it's interior - although the sporty s-line seats are much nicer. Coming from the diesel, I'm much more friendly with the people at BP - but it's so worth it (for the 5k miles I do a year) - it's "rorty" engine is really addictive and the handling is a million times better.
perhaps the comparison is slightly unfair, as I bought the sporty audi and the basic beemer, but the audi was 2k less, and much more fun to drive.
HTH
-ace
I've had a few of both and overall I'd simplify it as, when comparing like for like car models
1. BMW is a better engineered car, with more thought and design to put things where they should be
2. Audi interiors are much more modern/younger and more pleasing to the eye
3. Both are visually poor to look at compared with cars designed to loom nice (like Alfas)
4. BMWs are a better driving experience for this that like to drive spiritedly with involvement
1. BMW is a better engineered car, with more thought and design to put things where they should be
2. Audi interiors are much more modern/younger and more pleasing to the eye
3. Both are visually poor to look at compared with cars designed to loom nice (like Alfas)
4. BMWs are a better driving experience for this that like to drive spiritedly with involvement
shim said:
I've had a few of both and overall I'd simplify it as, when comparing like for like car models
1. BMW is a better engineered car, with more thought and design to put things where they should be
2. Audi interiors are much more modern/younger and more pleasing to the eye
3. Both are visually poor to look at compared with cars designed to loom nice (like Alfas)
4. BMWs are a better driving experience for this that like to drive spiritedly with involvement
Refreshing.1. BMW is a better engineered car, with more thought and design to put things where they should be
2. Audi interiors are much more modern/younger and more pleasing to the eye
3. Both are visually poor to look at compared with cars designed to loom nice (like Alfas)
4. BMWs are a better driving experience for this that like to drive spiritedly with involvement
Fox- said:
phatmanace said:
perhaps the comparison is slightly unfair, as I bought the sporty audi and the basic beemer, but the audi was 2k less, and much more fun to drive.
You bought a 320d.320d's are for company car drivers. Car enthusiasts buy the petrol.
Fox- said:
phatmanace said:
perhaps the comparison is slightly unfair, as I bought the sporty audi and the basic beemer, but the audi was 2k less, and much more fun to drive.
You bought a 320d.320d's are for company car drivers. Car enthusiasts buy the petrol.
Fox- said:
StottyZr said:
Why comments like this? How narrow minded are you? Or are you just trolling?
He is saying his petrol Audi feels more fun and sporty. I was offering a view as to why, having driven many 320d.The engine layout of the A4 / A6 platform (last generation), with the engine longitudinal over the front axle whilst being FF (I haven't driven a quattro model), felt compromised for me. When cornering, the pivot point felt too far ahead of me with an unnerving CoG.
I currently drive a E91 and the "pivot point" is much, much further back - due to the weight distribution and the location of the driven wheels. That, for me, is the key difference, and one which gives me much more confidence in everyday driving as I have a much closer connection with how the car will react in a given situation.. Not a new conclusion I admit...
Do BMWs depreciate more than their equivalent Audi counterparts however? When I was looking, the S4 and RS4 all seemed significantly more expensive, like-for-like, than their BMW 335i / M3 counterpart.
I currently drive a E91 and the "pivot point" is much, much further back - due to the weight distribution and the location of the driven wheels. That, for me, is the key difference, and one which gives me much more confidence in everyday driving as I have a much closer connection with how the car will react in a given situation.. Not a new conclusion I admit...
Do BMWs depreciate more than their equivalent Audi counterparts however? When I was looking, the S4 and RS4 all seemed significantly more expensive, like-for-like, than their BMW 335i / M3 counterpart.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff