more s4 vs m3 and c43amg...

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

further to the anaysis from 'car' magazine which i just posted, i should make a
couple of things clear.

1) the anaysis was of the handling of the 3 cars.  there was separate analysis
of performance, and the usual other things.

2) overall a win in the test for the s4 easily over the c43 with the m3 last.

3) in the performance analysis, although the s4 had the lowest power of the
three, it was the fastest car, due to it's abundance of low-down torque and
good throttle response (no lag).  the tester (georg kacher) accused the c43 of
lag due to it's poor throttle response!  the m3 has 321hp @7,400 (limit 7,400)
and 253lb ft @3,250, the amg 306hp @5,850 (limit 6,500) and 297lb ft
@3,250-5,000, while the s4 has 265hp @5,800 (6,900 limit) and 289lb ft
@1,850-3,600.

3) the s4 was the cheapest of the 3 cars (37k gbp), the m3 was 38k gbp, and the
c43 was 42k gbp!  the m3 had few extras (eg no air-con) so got more expensive
fast.

other conclusions from the test were:-

m3) poor quality (badly closing rear doors, rattling front windows,
transmission whine and driveline shunt).  the m3's sequential gearship was also
completely panned, the engine/chassis praised.  very ppor headlights, and 56
switches on the central console! poor rear seats.  14.9-21.7 mpg.  overall
"wonderful car, dodgy transmission.  best handler on a dry road, but pricier
and ultimately less sure footed than the s4".

c43) expensive.  2-piece disks, brake assist.  reasonable rear seats. 11-16mpg.
overall "power, poise and pedigree in abundance.  safe, comfortable, competent
but puritanical.  thirsty and expensive too".

s4) fully equiped.  ride not as good as the c43.  rubbery shift action.
14.8-20mpg. overall "great engine, great chassis, great drive.  less
challenging than the m3, but just as rewarding.  faster and cheaper too."

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q