RS6 v M5 or 635 csi vs urq?

[Kwattro at aol.com]

In a message dated 02-07-05 06:18:04 EDT, you write:

<< Anyway, bet the 635 would take the urq
 on the track - or at the very least, it would be a close thing. Didn't
 stop the urq being one of the iconic cars of the 80s though. Back then
 *everyone* in the market for one of those cars knew what quattro was cos
 of the rallying dominance:) Nowadays I have to explain to a worrying
 number of people that my car is 4wd! "Quattro.... it means four... what do
 you mean, `what about a Fiat uno...' oh, sod off;)"

 Still, who would prefer the 635 in everyday driving? Making safe fast
 progress on a wet UK A or B road... not me that's for sure. Does it really
 matter which car has the fastest track ability? Surely the selling point
 of the RS6 is, even with traction control, it is much more able to put
 its 440 horses down onto the tarmac, than the BMW. We surely don't pretend
 that these cars are the fastest out there, they're not (ok, maybe the
 RS6 is;), but they are pretty well up there, particularly when the
 conditions aren't a sunny day, and a dry racetrack. >>


Hi Graham,
My family has owned several BMW's - 1982 633CSi, 1985 635CSi, 1988 M5 (still
have) and a 1995 525i 5 speed.  The 6's are wonderful touring cars, fun to
drive, and highly capable.  In terms of handleing, in stock form I would
drive the Audi.  My quattro (4000CSQ) and my GT (Coupe, non-q) in stock form
were considerably more reassuring than both of the 6's.  The 6 could get up
and boogie, for sure, but being heavy and underbraked, they don't feel as
tossable as the audis.  The gearing issue that you spoke of was an early one
for the car - the 82 633CSi that we had ran lower on the highway in 4th than
my GT does in 5th.  Those early 6's (like the early coupes) did not have a
close ratio 5 speed, but rather a 5 speed derived originally for economy (in
the 6's case, the original gearbox was out of the pre-E28 5 series).  Now,
BMW did have two trump cards - the M635CSi and the M6.  Both are rockets,
both will outhandel everything short of the last 20V-Ur's, and you're right -
they would probably win in a straight track battle.  They wouldn't be easier
to drive, though :-)

As for the M5/RS6 thing, look at it this way.  The M5 has been, and continues
to be, the benchmark for mid-sized performance sedans.  It has been so for
the last 14 years, with the 1987 introduction of the E28 M5 which re-wrote
the rulebook on what a fast car was.  With the exception of a few
ultra-limited performance specials, audi has not been able to match the
performance of its closest rival, BMW, to this point (talk all you want about
the S4/M3 thing, but the E36 M3 was old when the S4 was released here, and
the new M3 kicks tail).  Now, a similarly priced, similarly performing car is
being released by audi to directly compete with the M5, a car that dominates
the market because it is a near super-car in terms of on-track performance.
If audi comes out and says, "well, gee, you can drive ours all year round!"
no one will care, because anyone who can afford an M5 usually has some other
car than they can drive in the winter.  A lot of them own X5's.

Soooooooo.....

To make a long story short, Audi's been playing catch-up in performance image
to BMW for 23 years that I count.  Probably longer.  But it's going to take
quite a lot to convince the public (who is very sure that BMW manufactures
ultimate driving machines) that Audi is a viable performance option to BMW,
and not just a stylistic equal.  And in America, it's pretty important to say
"We've got the fastest production sedan available" if you want to convey
performance image.  Mostly this is due to the fact that Americans are
inherently stupid, and do very little overall research on all cars, but
rather focus of the car that they initially want and then research it just
enough to justify their purchace.  Because, as everyone knows, if you want
maximum performance for around 50,000$, the last thing you would buy would be
an M5 or an RS6 - you'd buy a Corvette ZO6.

Later!
Carter J
Kwattro at aol.com