EVO: RS5, M3 Comp, C63 powerkit, IS F
12-28-10, 05:24 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
EVO: RS5, M3 Comp, C63 powerkit, IS F
I won't spoil (since the article is not online) but this is one of the most intense reviews I've read and they tested on the road, then went to the track with all 4. Tons of data! Its issue 151 with the Bugatti on the cover.
Don't worry everything was flattering about the IS F except the interior.
The article was similar to the one in CAR a few months ago (hint hint).
Don't worry everything was flattering about the IS F except the interior.
The article was similar to the one in CAR a few months ago (hint hint).
12-28-10, 10:42 PM
#4
alright, seems like everything is still new and can't find any scan online yet. but here are the results i got from another forum. i am just the messenger:
-----------------
Results are below
4 - RS5 - 3.5/5. Basically saying that there are so many adjustable features but none work...at all
3 - ISF - 4.5/5
2 - C63 - 5/5
1 - M3 - 5/5
Also had a track test
Bedford Autodrome West circuit
4 - C63 - 1:28.8
3 - IS-F - 1:28.1
2 - M3 - 1:27.0
1 - RS5 - 1:26.9
M3 got 1:27.0 because they used their long-termer and the brakes had already faded by the time they did their flying lap causing them to make a mistake in a certain section.
-----------------
very interesting. the rs5 came out first on the track, but it actually got the worst score. that very weird (stuff must be falling apart). i don't know how true is the last claim on the m3, maybe mike can spill some info. if that's the case, i don't know what they mean by long-termer and how that would affect the results
but then again, brakes have always been the very weak link for most m cars anyway
from the results, i think isf didn't do bad at all
-----------------
Results are below
4 - RS5 - 3.5/5. Basically saying that there are so many adjustable features but none work...at all
3 - ISF - 4.5/5
2 - C63 - 5/5
1 - M3 - 5/5
Also had a track test
Bedford Autodrome West circuit
4 - C63 - 1:28.8
3 - IS-F - 1:28.1
2 - M3 - 1:27.0
1 - RS5 - 1:26.9
M3 got 1:27.0 because they used their long-termer and the brakes had already faded by the time they did their flying lap causing them to make a mistake in a certain section.
-----------------
very interesting. the rs5 came out first on the track, but it actually got the worst score. that very weird (stuff must be falling apart). i don't know how true is the last claim on the m3, maybe mike can spill some info. if that's the case, i don't know what they mean by long-termer and how that would affect the results
but then again, brakes have always been the very weak link for most m cars anyway
from the results, i think isf didn't do bad at all
Last edited by rominl; 12-28-10 at 10:54 PM.
12-28-10, 10:48 PM
#5
more info from another site
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2010/11...s-c63-amg.html
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2010/11...s-c63-amg.html
Audi RS5 vs BMW M3 vs Mercedes C63 AMG vs Lexus ISF in evo Issue 151
Brit auto enthusiast magazine evo tested two V8 coupes and two V8 sedans - all directly comparable - for issue 151. The whole issue, in fact, was obsessed with speed, so a comparison test with an average horsepower output of 439 seemed fitting. As you'd expect, evo's editors favoured the BMW M3 Competition, but the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG was well-loved. Surprisingly, the 2011 Lexus ISF has always been well-received by evo, surprising if only because Lexus has really only ever attempted to do hardcore sportiness twice; once with this car and once with the Lexus LFA. Placing fourth in a comparison test of four cars isn't flattering, but the 2011 Audi RS5 was lauded for its engine and terrific build quality.
More curious than the RS5's last-place finish in the road test was its first-place finish on the Bedford Autodrome's West Circuit. Besting the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG by about two seconds on a short "1.8 miles of fast and technical tarmac" isn't easy for a less-powerful car. Moreover, beating the 2011 BMW M3 Competition (Frozen Gray, remember?), even by a tenth of a second, is equal to usurping the Crown.
But hold on one second. The text of evo's laptime article, written by Roger Green, is consequential. Words like, "It's last, by a long way", from John Barker's comparison test fade into the background as Green complements the Audi RS5's brakes and transmission and its speed through O'Rouge and Tower corners. But Green also states that the RS5 cedes poise and fluidity to lateral grip and traction, that it lacks adjustability and is slow through hairpin turns because of the heavy front end.
With the Lexus and Mercedes-Benz bagged, the BMW M3 Competition's "balance is just so", the steering said to be best-in-test, and the sort of adjustability and grip "that means you never need miss an apex." So how did the very fast and very capable BMW M3 fail to lap faster than the Audi RS5? Blame it on brakes.
Ah, but hasn't BMW been keen to improve the brakes of their M-badged cars of late? Indeed, but these brakes are fitted to the hard-driven evo long-term M3. They were fading on lap one. evo has lapped a BMW M3 a whole second faster than the Audi RS5 in the past.
Most assuredly then, a fine-fettled BMW M3 Competition would likely take the Audi RS5 by a hefty measure. Before you look at the laptimes and performance data, keep prices in mind. The Audi RS5's price-as-tested in the UK was £74,510. evo's BMW M3 Competition is a £64,885 car, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG slightly less-expensive at £64,025. These three make the Lexus ISF look like a bargain at £56,540.
0-60 mph figures and laptimes can be seen after the jump.
Audi RS5: 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds
Audi RS5: 0-100 mph in 10.6 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-100 mph in 10.3 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-100 mph in 10.9 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-100 mph in 9.7 seconds
Audi RS5: 0-140 mph in 23.6 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-140 mph in 22 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-140 mph in 23.6 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-140 mph in 19.1 seconds
Audi RS5: 100-0 in 4.2 seconds/285 feet
BMW M3 Competition: 100-0 in 4.3 seconds/300 feet
Lexus ISF: 100-0 in 4.4 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 100-0 in 4.5 seconds/321 feet
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit Laptimes
Audi RS5 - 1:26.9
BMW M3 Competition - 1:27
Lexus ISF - 1:28.1
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG - 1:28.8
Brit auto enthusiast magazine evo tested two V8 coupes and two V8 sedans - all directly comparable - for issue 151. The whole issue, in fact, was obsessed with speed, so a comparison test with an average horsepower output of 439 seemed fitting. As you'd expect, evo's editors favoured the BMW M3 Competition, but the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG was well-loved. Surprisingly, the 2011 Lexus ISF has always been well-received by evo, surprising if only because Lexus has really only ever attempted to do hardcore sportiness twice; once with this car and once with the Lexus LFA. Placing fourth in a comparison test of four cars isn't flattering, but the 2011 Audi RS5 was lauded for its engine and terrific build quality.
More curious than the RS5's last-place finish in the road test was its first-place finish on the Bedford Autodrome's West Circuit. Besting the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG by about two seconds on a short "1.8 miles of fast and technical tarmac" isn't easy for a less-powerful car. Moreover, beating the 2011 BMW M3 Competition (Frozen Gray, remember?), even by a tenth of a second, is equal to usurping the Crown.
But hold on one second. The text of evo's laptime article, written by Roger Green, is consequential. Words like, "It's last, by a long way", from John Barker's comparison test fade into the background as Green complements the Audi RS5's brakes and transmission and its speed through O'Rouge and Tower corners. But Green also states that the RS5 cedes poise and fluidity to lateral grip and traction, that it lacks adjustability and is slow through hairpin turns because of the heavy front end.
With the Lexus and Mercedes-Benz bagged, the BMW M3 Competition's "balance is just so", the steering said to be best-in-test, and the sort of adjustability and grip "that means you never need miss an apex." So how did the very fast and very capable BMW M3 fail to lap faster than the Audi RS5? Blame it on brakes.
Ah, but hasn't BMW been keen to improve the brakes of their M-badged cars of late? Indeed, but these brakes are fitted to the hard-driven evo long-term M3. They were fading on lap one. evo has lapped a BMW M3 a whole second faster than the Audi RS5 in the past.
Most assuredly then, a fine-fettled BMW M3 Competition would likely take the Audi RS5 by a hefty measure. Before you look at the laptimes and performance data, keep prices in mind. The Audi RS5's price-as-tested in the UK was £74,510. evo's BMW M3 Competition is a £64,885 car, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG slightly less-expensive at £64,025. These three make the Lexus ISF look like a bargain at £56,540.
0-60 mph figures and laptimes can be seen after the jump.
Audi RS5: 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds
Audi RS5: 0-100 mph in 10.6 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-100 mph in 10.3 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-100 mph in 10.9 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-100 mph in 9.7 seconds
Audi RS5: 0-140 mph in 23.6 seconds
BMW M3 Competition: 0-140 mph in 22 seconds
Lexus ISF: 0-140 mph in 23.6 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 0-140 mph in 19.1 seconds
Audi RS5: 100-0 in 4.2 seconds/285 feet
BMW M3 Competition: 100-0 in 4.3 seconds/300 feet
Lexus ISF: 100-0 in 4.4 seconds
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: 100-0 in 4.5 seconds/321 feet
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit Laptimes
Audi RS5 - 1:26.9
BMW M3 Competition - 1:27
Lexus ISF - 1:28.1
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG - 1:28.8
12-28-10, 11:03 PM
#6
looking at the article on goodcarbadcar, seems like it's been a very good hard fight in the evo mag.
1) i am very surprised that the m3 came out first in 0-60, even beating the c63? that must be one hell of a launch (rs5 has quattro). isf seems slow on the 0-60
2) looks like c63 totally makes up on the highend. the 0-100 and 0-140 results, the c63 is crushing the competitions, it's just a pure rocket.
3) braking results, a bit surprising again. i wonder how many tests they did on this one. i expected m3 to get worse results and better results on isf (no idea what the distance is)
4) i am glad they looked at prices. the rs5 is just ridiculous expensive for not much reasons. the car is almost £20 more expensive than the isf tested
1) i am very surprised that the m3 came out first in 0-60, even beating the c63? that must be one hell of a launch (rs5 has quattro). isf seems slow on the 0-60
2) looks like c63 totally makes up on the highend. the 0-100 and 0-140 results, the c63 is crushing the competitions, it's just a pure rocket.
3) braking results, a bit surprising again. i wonder how many tests they did on this one. i expected m3 to get worse results and better results on isf (no idea what the distance is)
4) i am glad they looked at prices. the rs5 is just ridiculous expensive for not much reasons. the car is almost £20 more expensive than the isf tested
12-28-10, 11:04 PM
#7
"Before you look at the laptimes and performance data, keep prices in mind. The Audi RS5's price-as-tested in the UK was £74,510. evo's BMW M3 Competition is a £64,885 car, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG slightly less-expensive at £64,025. These three make the Lexus ISF look like a bargain at £56,540."
I think the price / performance is a key factor here also. It was priced well below the others tested.
I think the price / performance is a key factor here also. It was priced well below the others tested.
Trending Topics
12-29-10, 04:21 AM
#10
Racer
"Before you look at the laptimes and performance data, keep prices in mind. The Audi RS5's price-as-tested in the UK was £74,510. evo's BMW M3 Competition is a £64,885 car, the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG slightly less-expensive at £64,025. These three make the Lexus ISF look like a bargain at £56,540."
I think the price / performance is a key factor here also. It was priced well below the others tested.
I think the price / performance is a key factor here also. It was priced well below the others tested.
12-29-10, 05:31 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lol, nice finds Henry.
The RS5 lost for the same reasons it lost in the CAR comparo. The steering isn't very good and the ride isn't as good as the others and even with all the multiple settings no one can find one that works. It lacks co-cohesiveness. It was by far the worst liked car here.
Seems to me the IS F and C63 was pretty much a tie. They main thing they didn't seem to like was the interior which they felt wasn't as good as the others.
What I find truly odd is EVO had rated the IS F at 5 stars BEFORE the LSD. Now they get a IS F with the LSD, they rave about it, then give it 4.5 stars. lol
The C63 they liked as well for having more power. (but note it lose to the IS F on the track)
The M3 was the most balanced car here and amazingly was the swiftest initially.
The RS5 lost for the same reasons it lost in the CAR comparo. The steering isn't very good and the ride isn't as good as the others and even with all the multiple settings no one can find one that works. It lacks co-cohesiveness. It was by far the worst liked car here.
Seems to me the IS F and C63 was pretty much a tie. They main thing they didn't seem to like was the interior which they felt wasn't as good as the others.
What I find truly odd is EVO had rated the IS F at 5 stars BEFORE the LSD. Now they get a IS F with the LSD, they rave about it, then give it 4.5 stars. lol
The C63 they liked as well for having more power. (but note it lose to the IS F on the track)
The M3 was the most balanced car here and amazingly was the swiftest initially.
12-29-10, 05:49 AM
#12
Great read! I love each of these cars, so this was awesome to read!
I recently looked into the C63 AMG. It possesses considerably more HP (over 450), so I'm not surprised by the top end speed. I was surprised by the 4.4 0-60mph though b/c a couple of articles I read had it tested at 3.9. However, those same articles tested the ISF at 4.2.
I'm not sure about the interior comments (compared to the M, anyway). I looked into M's (M3 and M5) before purchasing the ISF, and I believe the interior is much nicer in the F. I have a friend who has a 2008 M3, and he loves the F interior compared to his M. The Mercedes is really, really nice, so I understand that one.
I recently looked into the C63 AMG. It possesses considerably more HP (over 450), so I'm not surprised by the top end speed. I was surprised by the 4.4 0-60mph though b/c a couple of articles I read had it tested at 3.9. However, those same articles tested the ISF at 4.2.
I'm not sure about the interior comments (compared to the M, anyway). I looked into M's (M3 and M5) before purchasing the ISF, and I believe the interior is much nicer in the F. I have a friend who has a 2008 M3, and he loves the F interior compared to his M. The Mercedes is really, really nice, so I understand that one.
12-29-10, 06:02 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great read! I love each of these cars, so this was awesome to read!
I recently looked into the C63 AMG. It possesses considerably more HP (over 450), so I'm not surprised by the top end speed. I was surprised by the 4.4 0-60mph though b/c a couple of articles I read had it tested at 3.9. However, those same articles tested the ISF at 4.2.
I'm not sure about the interior comments (compared to the M, anyway). I looked into M's (M3 and M5) before purchasing the ISF, and I believe the interior is much nicer in the F. I have a friend who has a 2008 M3, and he loves the F interior compared to his M. The Mercedes is really, really nice, so I understand that one.
I recently looked into the C63 AMG. It possesses considerably more HP (over 450), so I'm not surprised by the top end speed. I was surprised by the 4.4 0-60mph though b/c a couple of articles I read had it tested at 3.9. However, those same articles tested the ISF at 4.2.
I'm not sure about the interior comments (compared to the M, anyway). I looked into M's (M3 and M5) before purchasing the ISF, and I believe the interior is much nicer in the F. I have a friend who has a 2008 M3, and he loves the F interior compared to his M. The Mercedes is really, really nice, so I understand that one.
The interior comments puzzle me, they agreed the RS5 had by far the best interior but not sure how the IS F is worse than the other two.
12-29-10, 06:59 AM
#14
I have not seen the RS5 interior in person, but I know the F's is better than the M3's. It sounds like there were too many gadgets in the RS5 to really make in easily functional (?), or am I misunderstanding it?