RE: m5 competition is ??

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

yes, you're right, it's flame bait.

the new s4 is preferred by most magazines over the 321hp m3 (car & autocar
notably).  at this point in time, it's the closest most of us are going to
get to a real comparison.

i've not driven the new m3 or the new s4.  my business partner had a evo 1
(286hp) m3 which i drove extensively.  nice engine, but peaky.  unstable at
speed, poor steering and good brakes.  overall a handful to drive fast.
certainly not as fast point-to-point as my old s2 in real-world conditions.
on the motorway the m3 would be the better car except for poor high speed
stability and apalling quality.  my business partner sold it in disgust
after the rear air dam fell off.  he now drives a f355.

the 321hp m3 against the rs2 would be interesting.  the rs2 is as powerful,
has good brakes and the same or better tyres.  it also has quattro.  when
the road is or could be wet, the m3 wouldn't know which way it went.  a
recent quote from a handling test the ozzie "wheels" magazine did comes to
mind.  they use the ozzie champion (a4q) touring car pilot (mcconville) to
test their handling cars (10 of them).  his comments on the m3 are
interesting.  complained about the braking performance, understeer and high
speed oversteer.  the wrx won his comparison, and the 996 was up there (2nd)
as well, although it had the best stats.  very interesting statistics with
the wrx, especially given the relative size of it's tyres (205/50's) against
the big rubber fitted to the m3 and 996.

having said all this, it's common knowledge that on a twisty "b" road, my
preferred car would be the ur-quattro.  220hp, low down grunt.  no body
roll, fantastic handling.  razor sharp.  and a hell of a lot of fun.

just like most testers are now (finally) with the advent of cars such as the
wrx, acknowledging the advantages of awd in driveabliity and handling, i
would not consider the m3 effective as a point-to-point machine against an
suitable awd machine.  autocar calls the wrx the "m3-beater", although it's
giving away over 100hp.  as does the ozzie "wheels" magazine.  needless to
say the m3 is over double the price of a wrx.  the new s4 is also
significantly cheaper as well.

the rs2 certainly has lag, but the m3 doesn't have heaps of low-down grunt
either. the s4 has neither lack of low-down torque, nor lag.  i use the rs2
in city traffic all the time.  it's quiet, comfortable, safe and fast. it's
turbo allows you to poodle around in the knowledge that 3k opens the door to
another world.  and, unlike the old audi turbo motors (my old wr comes to
mind), the effective rev range extends all the way to 7k.  beautifully.
reliably.  and often :-)

now, the old m5 was a fabulous car....

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

On Friday, October 02, 1998 11:26 AM, Joe Rae [SMTP:quattro@ptinet.net]
wrote:
> I had a nice little chat with Gustav about his flame and about things in
> general.... below is the letter he wrote back to me.... Hey dave, is it
true
> about the RS2?
> Later Joe
> 
> >I have to just clear some clouds regarding BMW.
> 
> >The BMW M5 had itīs debut in 1985 with 286 HP, obviously faster
> >and more sportier than a Audi 5000 Turbo Quattro. To anwer your
> >question if Iīve ever driven a M5;  Iīve driven the 315 HP M5, the
> >340 HP M5, the 321 HP M3 Coupe and convertible and will drive
> >the new M5 this year.
> >Also, regarding the S2 and S4 they arenīt  even comparable with
> >M3 and M5. While the the RS2 indeed is a nice car, itīs almost
> >undrivable because itīs large turbo lag. The RS2 is the best
> >example of an undrivable Audi car. Try to go from A to B in city
> >traffic with the RS2!