Anyone gone from an RS4 to E92 M3
Discussion
Following on from this thread about 997 to RS4, has anyone made the transition from an Audi RS4 to an E92 M3, and what are your observations. 
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
There are a few threads on here if the search function is working.
I have had an M3 since June '09 and my brother bought his RS a few months before.
RS4 - on anything other than bone dry roads, this is the quicker car. The performance is easy to exploit and it is very well balanced. I find it to be a little too easy to drive fast. Steering feel is better than the M3. Engine is fantastic in isolation but hope back into one after having driven an M3 hard, I found it to be lacking. Brakes are astounding and I have not experienced fade on track or on the 'ring.
M3 - it takes time to bond with the car. At 'normal' speeds, it does not feel as special as the RS4 but on track/mountain passes/twisty B roads it really comes into its own. The chassis is set up for initial understeer but the grip from the front is so high it only ever becomes a problem on track. Can be steered on the throttle fairly easily and oversteer can easily managed due to the predictable chassis. Brakes are good for day to day but become useless on track in a short period of time.
Both need regular top ups of oil. Normally 1 litre every 6000 miles or so.
Either is a fantastic car to own as it just comes down to your personal preference.
Pete
I have had an M3 since June '09 and my brother bought his RS a few months before.
RS4 - on anything other than bone dry roads, this is the quicker car. The performance is easy to exploit and it is very well balanced. I find it to be a little too easy to drive fast. Steering feel is better than the M3. Engine is fantastic in isolation but hope back into one after having driven an M3 hard, I found it to be lacking. Brakes are astounding and I have not experienced fade on track or on the 'ring.
M3 - it takes time to bond with the car. At 'normal' speeds, it does not feel as special as the RS4 but on track/mountain passes/twisty B roads it really comes into its own. The chassis is set up for initial understeer but the grip from the front is so high it only ever becomes a problem on track. Can be steered on the throttle fairly easily and oversteer can easily managed due to the predictable chassis. Brakes are good for day to day but become useless on track in a short period of time.
Both need regular top ups of oil. Normally 1 litre every 6000 miles or so.
Either is a fantastic car to own as it just comes down to your personal preference.
Pete
You forgot to mention the RS4 engine is flawed by poor inlet design and most perform well below the stated 414bhp. In fact MRC have only ever seen 400bph+ on cars that have just had their inlets stripped and cleaned. Otherwise they are pretty damn good. M3 would be the 'drivers' choice in my opinion.
ecain63 said:
You forgot to mention the RS4 engine is flawed by poor inlet design and most perform well below the stated 414bhp. In fact MRC have only ever seen 400bph+ on cars that have just had their inlets stripped and cleaned. Otherwise they are pretty damn good. M3 would be the 'drivers' choice in my opinion.
You say that, but my brother's RS is just as quick as my M3 in a straight line up to around 130mph. As far as I am aware, as long as the RS's engine is given a regular good thrashing, coke build up is negligible. I agree about the M3 being the drivers' choice.Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff