Comparison of M4,RS5 and RCF by EVO
01-29-15, 10:07 PM
#32
Lexus Champion
They like to mention the weight of the RC F throughout but hardly a whisper about the Audi's. Euro mags do these things often to Japanese cars. If it wore a European badge, I bet the story would be different.
01-30-15, 12:25 AM
#33
Pole Position
This is somehow an irrelevant statement from the magazine if its true. Why is it not "bad" for RC-F or Audi ? A good car "handles well" in snow, thunderstorms and on dry summer roads. Of course there is an huge advantage for Audi , but it should at least be equally worse for Lexus. It should handle a lot worse in this kind of conditions as well. Note that RC-F and M4 had the same tyres in this test
All cars faces this kind of weather ( nothing extreme at all in this case ), and its raining every other day even during spring/summer/autumn in Europe ( where this test was made ) So you could actually use the perfomance of the M3/4 every second week or so
Thats simply not good enough, they are still normal road cars based on family cars, not F1 racers.
All cars faces this kind of weather ( nothing extreme at all in this case ), and its raining every other day even during spring/summer/autumn in Europe ( where this test was made ) So you could actually use the perfomance of the M3/4 every second week or so
Thats simply not good enough, they are still normal road cars based on family cars, not F1 racers.Truth be told, it seems like EVO was making excuses for the M4 in order to justify why they rated the M4 better than the RCF even when the RCF was objectively faster.
You know what? I bet they had the same reaction as Motortrend except even more pronounced effect : Motortrend comparo rated the RCF harshly due to its paper specs : less torque, less hp/weight ratio, heavier, slower in a straightline, slower figure 8 etc etc but were almost embarrassed when real life testing on the track showed that the RCF was almost faster than the M4 despite being easier to drive.
The same thing happened to EVO : they underrated the RCF based on paper specs and came into the comparo with their verdict predetermined : the lighter,torquier,more "track-focused", better weight distribution, better pedigree M4 would be the winner. Imagine their shock when the more benign RCF proved faster on the track. Cue EVO writers scrambling to be apologists for the M4 and start making nonsensical excuses like the wet track was unfair for the M4 despite both M4 and RCF being RWD with similar compound tires.
The Eurocentricity here stinks to high heavens...
01-30-15, 12:44 AM
#34
Pole Position
We have read more than once that the M4 is difficult to manage and unsettling with regard to the driver experience. Did BMW rush this car to market?
I am not interested in any car that is unmanageable at high speed. My idea of engagement with a car is not to ward off a Sumo wrestler at each turn of the wheel.
We are also seeing more lap times favoring the RC-F. Yes, we will see what follows.
I believe the order HAS been changed--time and testing will tell.
I am not interested in any car that is unmanageable at high speed. My idea of engagement with a car is not to ward off a Sumo wrestler at each turn of the wheel.
We are also seeing more lap times favoring the RC-F. Yes, we will see what follows.
I believe the order HAS been changed--time and testing will tell.
01-30-15, 05:13 AM
#35
if the DSC is off yes, which is what that driver did. Also people looked up his previous posts and he was a grade A douche bragging about how he got a ticket after driving away from the dealer, and how he keeps DSC off all the time. Also his post about the crash he did not apologize once to the event, just talked about how leet he was and all the driving classes he took.
Evo isnt the only reviewer to complain about the M4s grip issues
Evo isnt the only reviewer to complain about the M4s grip issues
01-30-15, 07:23 AM
#36
Why would you ever want 400TQ at 1500 RPM unless you want to light up the tires off every red light.
Now in a truck or towing something that's different but in a performance car I don't see why.
Now in a truck or towing something that's different but in a performance car I don't see why.
01-30-15, 07:52 AM
#37
High torque at lower rpms also lets you use taller gears for better mpg
01-30-15, 10:09 AM
#38
01-30-15, 10:11 AM
#39
apples to apples...wouldnt you expect a car with awd to weigh more than a rwd car?
01-30-15, 10:39 AM
#40
sometimes i find it funny
- when m3 was on high rev na engine, their tq numbers were always on the "low" side. people complain about not enough tq on the low end (but obviously they didn't even drive the car since i owned an e93 m3 and that thing flies)
- when m3 is on turbo now with a lot of low end tq, people complain that so much tq and it's hard to control and who needs that much
honestly, i see this kind of pattern all over, on all brands, from all brands.
- when m3 was on high rev na engine, their tq numbers were always on the "low" side. people complain about not enough tq on the low end (but obviously they didn't even drive the car since i owned an e93 m3 and that thing flies)
- when m3 is on turbo now with a lot of low end tq, people complain that so much tq and it's hard to control and who needs that much
honestly, i see this kind of pattern all over, on all brands, from all brands.
01-30-15, 11:53 AM
#41
Lexus Test Driver
What he is saying is, he would trade low end rpm torque for more high end torque/horsepower. The BMW turbos are small in size and are intended to make the turbo lag minimized, which is why they deliver a lot of torque really early with not a lot of turbo lag, but as dynos show, the engine is completely gassed out by 6500 rpm. After that, the torque curve is in free fall. BMW put a 7500 rpm redline merely for marketing purposes.
Certainly, in the case of Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series, AMG realized the chassis with RWD could not handle a lot of torque at the low end like the standard SLS AMG GT so they ended up reducing the low end torque and changed the internals (pistons, valves, springs etc.) to gain more power at the upper reaches of the torque band by raising the redline to 8000 rpm by sacrificing the low end and midrange torque.
As a result, the SLS AMG Black Series is quicker in every measurable way than the standard SLS AMG despite making less torque (except maybe part throttle every day driving where the standard SLS AMG GT might require less downshifts).
Certainly, in the case of Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series, AMG realized the chassis with RWD could not handle a lot of torque at the low end like the standard SLS AMG GT so they ended up reducing the low end torque and changed the internals (pistons, valves, springs etc.) to gain more power at the upper reaches of the torque band by raising the redline to 8000 rpm by sacrificing the low end and midrange torque.
As a result, the SLS AMG Black Series is quicker in every measurable way than the standard SLS AMG despite making less torque (except maybe part throttle every day driving where the standard SLS AMG GT might require less downshifts).
01-30-15, 12:56 PM
#42
What he is saying is, he would trade low end rpm torque for more high end torque/horsepower. The BMW turbos are small in size and are intended to make the turbo lag minimized, which is why they deliver a lot of torque really early with not a lot of turbo lag, but as dynos show, the engine is completely gassed out by 6500 rpm. After that, the torque curve is in free fall. BMW put a 7500 rpm redline merely for marketing purposes.
Certainly, in the case of Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series, AMG realized the chassis with RWD could not handle a lot of torque at the low end like the standard SLS AMG GT so they ended up reducing the low end torque and changed the internals (pistons, valves, springs etc.) to gain more power at the upper reaches of the torque band by raising the redline to 8000 rpm by sacrificing the low end and midrange torque.
As a result, the SLS AMG Black Series is quicker in every measurable way than the standard SLS AMG despite making less torque (except maybe part throttle every day driving where the standard SLS AMG GT might require less downshifts).
Certainly, in the case of Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series, AMG realized the chassis with RWD could not handle a lot of torque at the low end like the standard SLS AMG GT so they ended up reducing the low end torque and changed the internals (pistons, valves, springs etc.) to gain more power at the upper reaches of the torque band by raising the redline to 8000 rpm by sacrificing the low end and midrange torque.
As a result, the SLS AMG Black Series is quicker in every measurable way than the standard SLS AMG despite making less torque (except maybe part throttle every day driving where the standard SLS AMG GT might require less downshifts).
methinks you left out quite a few important things that actually make the Black quicker....39 more horsepower, only 11 less lb/ft of torque, it weighs 154 lbs less and, most importantly, dropping the final drive from 3.67:1 to an almost drag racer-like 4.44:1. who WOULDNT expect it to be quicker?
those things make a MUCH bigger difference than shifting the peak torque 750 rpm higher...
01-30-15, 01:12 PM
#43
sometimes i find it funny
- when m3 was on high rev na engine, their tq numbers were always on the "low" side. people complain about not enough tq on the low end (but obviously they didn't even drive the car since i owned an e93 m3 and that thing flies)
- when m3 is on turbo now with a lot of low end tq, people complain that so much tq and it's hard to control and who needs that much
honestly, i see this kind of pattern all over, on all brands, from all brands.
- when m3 was on high rev na engine, their tq numbers were always on the "low" side. people complain about not enough tq on the low end (but obviously they didn't even drive the car since i owned an e93 m3 and that thing flies)
- when m3 is on turbo now with a lot of low end tq, people complain that so much tq and it's hard to control and who needs that much
honestly, i see this kind of pattern all over, on all brands, from all brands.
i grew up on big V8's. so the engine in the new M3 is no different than the tq monsters from back in the days. its not like the boost is coming on suddenly and overwhelming the driver. that driver in the oft-posted video was just a crap driver...
01-30-15, 01:28 PM
#44
methinks you left out quite a few important things that actually make the Black quicker....39 more horsepower, only 11 less lb/ft of torque, it weighs 154 lbs less and, most importantly, dropping the final drive from 3.67:1 to an almost drag racer-like 4.44:1. who WOULDNT expect it to be quicker?
those things make a MUCH bigger difference than shifting the peak torque 750 rpm higher...
those things make a MUCH bigger difference than shifting the peak torque 750 rpm higher...
its entertaining. but we all find things to justify what we like.
i grew up on big V8's. so the engine in the new M3 is no different than the tq monsters from back in the days. its not like the boost is coming on suddenly and overwhelming the driver. that driver in the oft-posted video was just a crap driver...
i grew up on big V8's. so the engine in the new M3 is no different than the tq monsters from back in the days. its not like the boost is coming on suddenly and overwhelming the driver. that driver in the oft-posted video was just a crap driver...
bottom line, both cars are good cars. there are things i like and don't like about either cars, and i think lexus put up a good competitor against the m4. i do think the rcf could have been better (if lexus doesn't look at money as heavily), and bmw is no longer as pure as before (thank god i had the last na v8 m3), but i do believe it comes down to preference
trying to defend and justify one car is the winner because of a review or two or some at-the-limit advantage that hardly anyone here can experience is too much
agreed in some of the videos, i go huh?! totally reminds me of the motortrend video reviewing the lfa vs nsx. clearly the reviewer wasn't "big" enough for the power in the lfa and said that car was all over the place
i am still trying to find a good way for me to compare the two cars carefully, granted i have some negative views on both cars
01-30-15, 01:53 PM
#45
Lexus Champion
Thats exactly why these bias, bought-out magazine comparisons are pointless. The only thing I look forward to is their lap time.