Fifth Gear Audi S5 vs 335i on a track.

[565]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0zbhjLZI

[Raghavan]

The Audi's too heavy, plus the AWD makes it understeer.
Still, really close competition. I expected the BMW to win though.

[850CSi]

If the 335i is faster around the track, what will an M3 do to an S5, with a V8 and LSD? I'd bet that an E46 M3 would kill it as well.

[Raghavan]

If the 335i is faster around the track, what will an M3 do to an S5, with a V8 and LSD? I'd bet that an E46 M3 would kill it as well.

That's what the RS5 is for.

[850CSi]

That's what the RS5 is for.

The RS 5 will likely cost $10K more than an M3.

[SJ_GTI]

The RS 5 will likely cost $10K more than an M3.

And the M3 will likely cost 10k more than an S5.

The S5 and 335i are really close on performance. The S5 is more expensive, but not as outrageous as the base prices make it seem. Add AWD to the mix (the only reason to choos an Audi over a BMW) and its even closer.

[Minpin]

And the M3 will likely cost 10k more than an S5.

The S5 and 335i are really close on performance. The S5 is more expensive, but not as outrageous as the base prices make it seem. Add AWD to the mix (the only reason to choos an Audi over a BMW) and its even closer.

That statement makes me think that BMW>Audi atm. BMW has two cars that perform better and are cheaper than Audi's.

[r0tor]

If the 335i is faster around the track, what will an M3 do to an S5, with a V8 and LSD? I'd bet that an E46 M3 would kill it as well.

oh wow, it won by .06 sec ... clearly thats outside the margin of error of a driver 

[sandertheshark]

That statement makes me think that BMW>Audi atm. BMW has two cars that perform better and are cheaper than Audi's.

"atm" as in "At the moment?"  Name one production Audi that has ever been better than its contemporary BMW counterpart.

[TBR]

You don't have to look too far back or stray too far from the cars at hand. RS4>S4>M3 (assuming we're using the cars for what they're designed for, daily driving with occassional track usage).

[sandertheshark]

You don't have to look too far back or stray too far from the cars at hand. RS4>S4>M3 (assuming we're using the cars for what they're designed for, daily driving with occassional track usage).

S4 > E46 M3?  Nnno.  Not even.
RS4 > M3?  In many performance categories sure, but not in passing speeds or lane-change maneuvers, and that's where it really counts for daily driving.

[565]

"atm" as in "At the moment?"? Name one production Audi that has ever been better than its contemporary BMW counterpart.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/6568/2003-audi-s4-v-bmw-m3-v-m-b-c32-amg.html

The S4 beat the M3 in driving dynamics, and we all know C&D loves BMW's. 

"Unlike other BMWs, the M3 is never the silky, whirring machine. It?s raw in its engine noises, interior booms, gear whines, tire songs, and pipe-organ resonances. Raw and quite loud. Always the jock. And sometimes rude. We noticed an odd ?death rattle? from the engine room each time the ignition was switched off. And the bixenon headlights sound a bad-mannered grunt as they rotate through their alignment ritual on startup.

A hormone-injected 3-series BMW sounds as if it would be a frisky, flingable sportster. In fact, the M3 feels heavy and reserved. Steering effort increases very little as you bite into a turn. Some drivers read that as ?effort too low.? All agree that communication is a bit aloof. The M3 also needs more turning of the wheel than the others, so direction changes seem less eager. The clutch is a workout. Some of us complained mildly about the driving position; for example, the left-foot rest seems too close to the driver relative to the pedals.

The cloth bucket seat, with numerous mechanical adjusters including one for height, seemed rather stingy at the $50-thou mark, but it?s very effective at holding the driver in place when the scenery starts to blur. On the skidpad, grip topped all the others at 0.87 g. This car is reliable for its understeer, and it?s not at all twitchy as you probe for its limits. It always feels trusty, but hardly spirited."

"Out on the twisty roads, the S4 quickly became the favorite. The firm Recaro bucket keeps the driver in place without straining. The stability control is so subtle in its operation that you never feel it intrude (unless you?ve made a big mistake). Chassis dynamics are simply superb. As you brake deep into a turn, the S4 puts its belly to the ground and maintains amazing stability as you pick up the arc toward the exit and squeeze on the power. Roll angles are tightly controlled. The shocks keep body motions on a short leash. You can feel the tires scratching and straining for grip as the front and rear electronic differential locks respond to the V-8 torque. The Quattro?s stern discipline keeps redistributing the driving forces, allowing you to get the throttle open early yet cling confidently to your intended line. This is a car that?ll work with you! Few sporting cars are this open in their communication, and so disinclined to mischief. Of this trio, the S4 is in a class by itself, scoring the full 10 points in our handling rating, two above the M3 and three above the C32. It also earned a 10 in fun to drive, decisively above the others. Would the throaty motor music be worth a point all by itself? It might."



The RS6 also beat the M5 in a C&D comparo.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/6567/2003-audi-rs-6-v-bmw-m5-v-jaguar-s-type-r-v-m-b-e55-amg.html




The S4 was also quicker than the M3 in the Top Gear comparo when driven by the stig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5tOSu25C4

[TBR]

S4 > E46 M3?  Nnno.  Not even.
RS4 > M3?  In many performance categories sure, but not in passing speeds or lane-change maneuvers, and that's where it really counts for daily driving.

Because things like ride, a useable rear seat, etc don't count for daily driving.

There is more to a car than its specifications, something BMW fans like to bring up whenever the G35 or IS350 are mentioned but then seem to forget whenever it is convenient.

[850CSi]

And the M3 will likely cost 10k more than an S5.

The S5 is going to cost $50K and change. The M3 is going to start at around $53K according to this: http://www.leftlanenews.com/2007-bmw-m3-e92-pricing-leaked.html


Easy choice, that.

[850CSi]

oh wow, it won by .06 sec ... clearly thats outside the margin of error of a driver?

If I was paying $10K more, I wouldn't want to be neck and neck.

[cawimmer430]

I love both of these babies. I'm a Benz guy but I can't look at the CLK anymore with these two next to it. Gimme the Audi first, then the BMW. 

[r0tor]

If I was paying $10K more, I wouldn't want to be neck and neck.

if your paying $10k more, its because you comparing a stripper RWD car to a loaded AWD car...

[850CSi]

if your paying $10k more, its because you comparing a stripper RWD car to a loaded AWD car...

How do you figure? Those are both base prices. The S5 will probably come with a few more standard features (in addition to AWD), but not $10Ks worth. And it's not like a base 335i has a short list of standard features.

[TBR]

Once you equip the cars comparably there is a small difference, Ron did the research in a previous post.

And I would happily pay $10k extra for a car that may not be any faster but looks infinitely better, inside and out.

[sportyaccordy]

The Audi looks much better in motion.

Still, the BMW does what the Audi does with about 300# less weight, much lower fuel consumption, and IMO slightly better looks.

[TBR]

Why does the weight matter if the car performs just as well and if you are citing fuel economy separately?

Obsessing over weight for weight's sake is ridiculous, obsessing over weight for better performance makes sense, but that isn't the case here.

[850CSi]

And I would happily pay $10k extra for a car that may not be any faster but looks infinitely better, inside and out.

Subjective.

[nickdrinkwater]

I've not seen a new M3 yet but the S5 looks absolutely sensational on the road.

[saxonyron]

I love both of these babies. I'm a Benz guy but I can't look at the CLK anymore with these two next to it. Gimme the Audi first, then the BMW. 

Wow!  Considering that Christian is the source of this post, this is high praise indeed!!  

[omicron]

Enough with this talk of numbers and whatnot; my goodness, a red S5 in motion is astoundingly elegant.

[TBR]

Subjective.

Certainly, but the fact that there isn't actually a 10k price gap when the cars are equipped comparably isn't.

[Tave]

I've not seen a new M3 yet but the S5 looks absolutely sensational on the road.

Just saw my first 335 the other day. Still thinks it's gorgeous, though I thought the rear end a little bland. Like how the handled the rear part of the roof, unlike Audi.

I think both look great, and I still can't understand why someone would love one and hate the other. Makes not one whit of sense.

[Raza]

Just saw my first 335 the other day. Still thinks it's gorgeous, though I thought the rear end a little bland. Like how the handled the rear part of the roof, unlike Audi.

I think both look great, and I still can't understand why someone would love one and hate the other. Makes not one whit of sense.

I saw a 335i CC the other day.  Even more hideous than coupe and its neverending rear end.

[sportyaccordy]

Why does the weight matter if the car performs just as well and if you are citing fuel economy separately?

Obsessing over weight for weight's sake is ridiculous, obsessing over weight for better performance makes sense, but that isn't the case here.

I don't understand what you mean by 'citing fuel economy separately'...

The Bimmer is as fast and practical as the Audi, but costs less to buy and operate. Unless you are really that swayed by the styling or AWD the Bimmer just seems like the better car.

[r0tor]

Unless you are really that swayed by the styling or AWD the Bimmer just seems like the better car.

normally for a car like this the AWD wouldn't sway me as much... but when the alternative to the AWD is attempting to put 300hp through and open differential and do gigantic one-leggers in your $45k car - umm, no thank you