RE: All-weather fast saloons | Six of the Best

[Marquezs Stabilisers]

Appreciate it has to be for sale on PH Classifieds bit that's not a good example of an Impreza (Blobeye WRX owner) - that generation aren't as reliable. Subaru lost their way with the styling - they're not subtle cars and they ought to have embraced it as Mitsubishi did.

Saying that I don't like that generation of Evo and would rather have a Tommi Makinen. I also remember when Xr4x4s were £1,500...paying that much for a Ford it would have to be an Escort Cosworth although those are now £££££££££.

Would take the BMW of that lot.

[Skeptisk]

How much would that M5 have been new? Seems like it has lost a lot. Almost seems like good value.

I wanted an RS4 but at that time my wife would have had to use it and as she is tiny she needs an automatic. The gave the R8 the same engine with an automated clutch so not sure why they couldn’t have offered it in the RS4.

[Hairymonster]

That'll be the M5 please.

[MickyveloceClassic]

Surprising how plentiful the M5s are - 285 currently on Autotrader. Just over £40k looks to buy a great low mileage reasonably new car, which has got to be tremendous value.

The Brabus (even as a fast-Mercedes fan), is all a bit overblown.

I had Sierra engine (without the 4wd) in a works Transit back in the early 1990s. It was absolutely brilliant fun, even at 9-10 mpg.

As usual though, a well-written and enjoyable read.

[cerb4.5lee]

Marquezs Stabilisers said:

I also remember when Xr4x4s were £1,500...paying that much for a Ford it would have to be an Escort Cosworth although those are now £££££££££.

I remember paying £3,300 for my first one back in 1994, and I paid £3000 for my second one about 18 months later IIRC. I'd love another one now in fairness, so I could make it a hattrick of them.

I'm getting a bit tight for space now cars wise though, plus my eldest daughter will be driving next year, so we'll need another car for that too.

[Bobupndown]

rallycross said:

Some nice choices above but the world has gone mad if an old Xr4x4 with no real service history is worth anything close to the suggested price ( it probably did 100,000 miles in its first 3 years use if there is no genuine history to prove otherwise).

I say it's condition isn't that of a 30+ year old car having done 100k early in its life. Out of all on the list I'd have the humble Sierra in a heartbeat. Given the crazy prices fast ford's attract this is not altogether ott.

[TameRacingDriver]

RS4 for me, and I'm not even much of an Audi fan, such a good looking car, and by all accounts great to drive. The BMW may drive well, but is butt ugly, and the Sierra does nothing for me looks wise either (although appreciate it was decent looking in its day, hasn't aged too well though). The Scooby is also a no, horrible looking thing, the older generations were so much nicer. The Evo looks fun, but too high maintenance most likely and a GR Yaris would probably keep it honest while costing half as much to run. The Brabus, I like it, although it seems a little too 'try hard' for me, and the sort of car a drug lord would drive.

[donkmeister]

Firebobby said:

119 said:

Firebobby said:

S We were left for dead in a 123d 1 series as he spotted us in his RV mirror and floored it, leaving us struggling to get anywhere near him at legal Rd speeds. Needless to say the RS was quickly sold on.

Reads like your friend needs to learn how to use an N/A engine.

Anyhoo, M5 for me.

Err! Not really unless you suggest driving around with 5k on the rev counter? just a slug of car unless its high up in the rev band.

A thing that annoys me about modern white goods cars like the 123d, petrol turbo cars too - they're mapped for a big dollop of torque low down so you think "ooh, this has some grunt!" but when you try to press on a bit you find you've been using 90% of the performance just going to the shops.

Whereas with something like the NA V8 in an RS4 you have an elegant sufficiency of torque for wafting and bumbling through town using 10% of the performance, then when you have had enough of the 123d that's been up your chuff in the 30 you get it in the right gear pass the derestricter and make the BMW get small, quickly.

If your mate was actually trying to have a play he should have been in the right gear for some acceleration!

[cerb4.5lee]

donkmeister said:

A thing that annoys me about modern white goods cars like the 123d, petrol turbo cars too - they're mapped for a big dollop of torque low down so you think "ooh, this has some grunt!" but when you try to press on a bit you find you've been using 90% of the performance just going to the shops.

Whereas with something like the NA V8 in an RS4 you have an elegant sufficiency of torque for wafting and bumbling through town using 10% of the performance, then when you have had enough of the 123d that's been up your chuff in the 30 you get it in the right gear pass the derestricter and make the BMW get small, quickly.

If your mate was actually trying to have a play he should have been in the right gear for some acceleration!

Having had both twin turbo diesels, and a few higher revving NA engines, they are the complete opposite of each other as you say.

The NA engines have nothing on the bottom end of the revs, but they have loads at the top end of the revs though. Whereas the diesels are the complete opposite to that, with loads at the bottom end of the revs, but not a lot at the top of the revs though.

I've also noticed that the NA engines just start to really get going at a 100mph plus, whereas the diesels start to tail off at that speed in comparison though.

Both types of engines have their place I think, but they both suit different circumstances though I reckon.

[TameRacingDriver]

cerb4.5lee said:

Having had both twin turbo diesels, and a few higher revving NA engines, they are the complete opposite of each other as you say.

The NA engines have nothing on the bottom end of the revs, but they have loads at the top end of the revs though. Whereas the diesels are the complete opposite to that, with loads at the bottom end of the revs, but not a lot at the top of the revs though.

I've also noticed that the NA engines just start to really get going at a 100mph plus, whereas the diesels start to tail off at that speed in comparison though.

Both types of engines have their place I think, but they both suit different circumstances though I reckon.

I feel like my JCW (2.0 Turbo Petrol) is a little 'diesel like' in its delivery at times. It seems to feel more vigorous surfing along between 2,000 and 5,000 revs than it does when you extend it to 6,000 revs. I'm hoping to eventually get it remapped so it still has the same sort of low end urgency but rewards you for revving it out more.

Though overall I'd have to say that while I used to be a big N/A proponent, I'm actually enjoying having a gutsy midrange on a car, considering the type of roads I drive on, usually pretty twisty, having a car that doesn't need 5 seconds of WOT before it wakes up is quite nice I have to say.

[Baldchap]

The V8 in the RS4 was (sadly) utterly outclassed by the twin turbo V6 that replaced it. Same headline output but they couldn't be more different to drive. The V6 delivers more of everything pretty much all the time, with the exception of noise.

Lovely sounding thing, the V8, but truthfully not a particularly good *engine*, when all is said and done.

My B9 certainly wouldn't have been left for dead by a 1 Series no matter how badly you drove it.

[chirurgus]

donkmeister said:

Firebobby said:

119 said:

Firebobby said:

S We were left for dead in a 123d 1 series as he spotted us in his RV mirror and floored it, leaving us struggling to get anywhere near him at legal Rd speeds. Needless to say the RS was quickly sold on.

Reads like your friend needs to learn how to use an N/A engine.

Anyhoo, M5 for me.

Err! Not really unless you suggest driving around with 5k on the rev counter? just a slug of car unless its high up in the rev band.

A thing that annoys me about modern white goods cars like the 123d, petrol turbo cars too - they're mapped for a big dollop of torque low down so you think "ooh, this has some grunt!" but when you try to press on a bit you find you've been using 90% of the performance just going to the shops.

Whereas with something like the NA V8 in an RS4 you have an elegant sufficiency of torque for wafting and bumbling through town using 10% of the performance, then when you have had enough of the 123d that's been up your chuff in the 30 you get it in the right gear pass the derestricter and make the BMW get small, quickly.

If your mate was actually trying to have a play he should have been in the right gear for some acceleration!

Exactly this. Understanding the characteristics of an engine is the key to accessing its performance.

[JAMSXR]

Baldchap said:

The V8 in the RS4 was (sadly) utterly outclassed by the twin turbo V6 that replaced it. Same headline output but they couldn't be more different to drive. The V6 delivers more of everything pretty much all the time, with the exception of noise.

Lovely sounding thing, the V8, but truthfully not a particularly good *engine*, when all is said and done.

My B9 certainly wouldn't have been left for dead by a 1 Series no matter how badly you drove it.

How does the B9 compare to the B5 touring?

[leef44]

donkmeister said:

Firebobby said:

119 said:

Firebobby said:

S We were left for dead in a 123d 1 series as he spotted us in his RV mirror and floored it, leaving us struggling to get anywhere near him at legal Rd speeds. Needless to say the RS was quickly sold on.

Reads like your friend needs to learn how to use an N/A engine.

Anyhoo, M5 for me.

Err! Not really unless you suggest driving around with 5k on the rev counter? just a slug of car unless its high up in the rev band.

A thing that annoys me about modern white goods cars like the 123d, petrol turbo cars too - they're mapped for a big dollop of torque low down so you think "ooh, this has some grunt!" but when you try to press on a bit you find you've been using 90% of the performance just going to the shops.

Whereas with something like the NA V8 in an RS4 you have an elegant sufficiency of torque for wafting and bumbling through town using 10% of the performance, then when you have had enough of the 123d that's been up your chuff in the 30 you get it in the right gear pass the derestricter and make the BMW get small, quickly.

If your mate was actually trying to have a play he should have been in the right gear for some acceleration!

Yes it is a strange comparison. The 123d was in front and floored it. It probably took 2 seconds to wind up then that boost means it shoots off. So effectively the 123d can blast off against a larger NA engined car when it has a two second head start.

Had it been the other way round and the NA driver changed down, hit the revs then shot off, it would leave the 123d for dead because that car would have needed two seconds get to optimum boost to catch up.

[Pica-Pica]

chirurgus said:

donkmeister said:

Firebobby said:

119 said:

Firebobby said:

S We were left for dead in a 123d 1 series as he spotted us in his RV mirror and floored it, leaving us struggling to get anywhere near him at legal Rd speeds. Needless to say the RS was quickly sold on.

Reads like your friend needs to learn how to use an N/A engine.

Anyhoo, M5 for me.

Err! Not really unless you suggest driving around with 5k on the rev counter? just a slug of car unless its high up in the rev band.

A thing that annoys me about modern white goods cars like the 123d, petrol turbo cars too - they're mapped for a big dollop of torque low down so you think "ooh, this has some grunt!" but when you try to press on a bit you find you've been using 90% of the performance just going to the shops.

Whereas with something like the NA V8 in an RS4 you have an elegant sufficiency of torque for wafting and bumbling through town using 10% of the performance, then when you have had enough of the 123d that's been up your chuff in the 30 you get it in the right gear pass the derestricter and make the BMW get small, quickly.

If your mate was actually trying to have a play he should have been in the right gear for some acceleration!

Exactly this. Understanding the characteristics of an engine is the key to accessing its performance.

Correct that from ‘engine’ to ‘power-train’, for a true understanding of performance characteristics.

[cerb4.5lee]

TameRacingDriver said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Having had both twin turbo diesels, and a few higher revving NA engines, they are the complete opposite of each other as you say.

The NA engines have nothing on the bottom end of the revs, but they have loads at the top end of the revs though. Whereas the diesels are the complete opposite to that, with loads at the bottom end of the revs, but not a lot at the top of the revs though.

I've also noticed that the NA engines just start to really get going at a 100mph plus, whereas the diesels start to tail off at that speed in comparison though.

Both types of engines have their place I think, but they both suit different circumstances though I reckon.

I feel like my JCW (2.0 Turbo Petrol) is a little 'diesel like' in its delivery at times. It seems to feel more vigorous surfing along between 2,000 and 5,000 revs than it does when you extend it to 6,000 revs. I'm hoping to eventually get it remapped so it still has the same sort of low end urgency but rewards you for revving it out more.

Though overall I'd have to say that while I used to be a big N/A proponent, I'm actually enjoying having a gutsy midrange on a car, considering the type of roads I drive on, usually pretty twisty, having a car that doesn't need 5 seconds of WOT before it wakes up is quite nice I have to say.

As you know TRD...I swapped the E90 330i auto(6 cylinder 3.0 NA) for the F56 MCS manual with the 2.0 Turbo Petrol, and I was really happy with it for 3.5 years. A great fun car I thought.

I really liked the diesel like delivery of the B48 engine, and it really suited me as my daily driver at the time for sure. The N52 NA engine in the 330i was lovely don't get me wrong, but it didn't do a lot for me low in the revs though. In a daily driver I much prefer more get up and go lower down, and I'm not as interested in having to work an engine really hard to get the performance in that situation. That is me anyway.

[RSstuff]

I knew someone that had a very similar B7 RS4 saloon, it was worth £10k 4 or 5 years ago. Relatively gutless at low revs for a big engine. And very shouty when it did get going. The B9 version is a much better car by most accounts.

[GTRene]

hm, the red Evo say look take me... its tempting, but would love a ride in such Brabus 800, the Brute.

[TameRacingDriver]

cerb4.5lee said:

As you know TRD...I swapped the E90 330i auto(6 cylinder 3.0 NA) for the F56 MCS manual with the 2.0 Turbo Petrol, and I was really happy with it for 3.5 years. A great fun car I thought.

I really liked the diesel like delivery of the B48 engine, and it really suited me as my daily driver at the time for sure. The N52 NA engine in the 330i was lovely don't get me wrong, but it didn't do a lot for me low in the revs though. In a daily driver I much prefer more get up and go lower down, and I'm not as interested in having to work an engine really hard to get the performance in that situation. That is me anyway.

I had the same N52 engine and auto in the Z4 coupe, it was a very nice engine, I found it to be surprisingly pokey for an NA at low revs but it really was nice to rev out too. I bet the lighter weight of the Z4 over the E90 probably didn't do it any harm.

I think the mini feels faster than it is due to its ample low down torque, and has low/short gearing so even though it's flexible, it's a also a car you can have fun rowing the gearbox.

[Dombilano]

RSstuff said:

I knew someone that had a very similar B7 RS4 saloon, it was worth £10k 4 or 5 years ago. Relatively gutless at low revs for a big engine. And very shouty when it did get going. The B9 version is a much better car by most accounts.

My experience exactly, below 5k revs the RS4 was slow and unresponsive, above 5k to 8k+ it was loud, and fast, but not explosive by modern turbo standards.

And before the naysayers start, it was dyno'd at just under 400bhp after I fitted new exhaust flexi pipes and an inlet clean. The airbox opened normally at 5.5k revs, so mechanically its a fair representation of what to expect.

My current cars (bmw b58 engines) are faster, and feel smoother, with mpg realistically double that of the RS4.

I've owned fast diesels in the past, including a 123d, and yes it's fast initially because the 295lb/ft of torque hits at such low rpm, rolling at 40mph I can believe it would leave an RS4 for dead up to 80mph.