NACRO

Very interesting and exactly what I would have expected. The S4 times in the dry were a lot closer to the M3 than I thought though.

Shame you didn't scan the rest of the mag! I've moved to France and
don't have a subscription yet.

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

I am suprised that the BM was quicker in the wet what do they say on here about 4 wheel drive and "twisties" etc

Gren

Maybe its down to the driver in the article having (very) extensive experience driving M3s and none driving the new S4.

Then again, lets be up front and honest about this. Just take the 'maybe' from the front of the last sentence.

Gren

Dracoro

Argue the toss all you like about which is fastest but it's clear from the wet photo which is more FUN

Now, if only they can get rid of the badge

Skittles

Gren:

Not so sure about that. I accept your point in the dry where the times are close, and it could have been a second either way. But look at the difference in wet times - the shocking thing is that its in the WET where there should be a massive difference between the two cars.

It kind of makes sense too due to the understeering.

jonathanf

the same thing happens on wet trackdays when M3's driven by competent drivers take on Impreza's

who needs 4wd?

NACRO

What happens when a competent driver in M3 meets competent driver in an Impreza and the rain is coming down? Last time I was at the Nurburgring I overtook a new M3 when it was sheeting it down- in the dry he kept just driving away from me.A lot of it comes down to nerve.
In fact the day after I was overtaken by one of the local nutters in a stripped out E30 M3 in streaming rain. The driver makes the difference not the car.

jonathanf

a very good answer....

must try harder next time when fishing

CarpetCleaner

who cares I've got an M3 and I love it, the Audi is for older people the M3 is for younger people

I love looking at my engine BMW M Power

advevo

4wd on the ring in rain give big advantages every bad driver can go fast with it.

i have had it with 4wd.

4wd belongs on a rallycar on gravel roads.

RWD belongs to the track even in wet.

full lock? Yes sir

cucumber

Was it 1996 in the BTCC that they kept adding weight to the A4 quattros in order to try and make it more competative for the others cars.....the quattro's kept winning and in the end they just banned them! (tarmac,dry conditions etc)
Can you imagine a 2WD car trying to compete against the 4WD cars in the WRC....it would get slaughtered!
Its a proven fact 4WD is quicker than 2WD given equal performance cars and equal driver ability.
On the road it tends to be the drivers bottle and ego that raises these issues.

Skittles

"Its a proven fact 4WD is quicker than 2WD given equal performance cars and equal driver ability"

Eh? This test was all of the above.... and it got beat!

"On the road it tends to be the drivers bottle and ego that raises these issues"

Agreed, but this was not on a road.


By the way - why would you race a RWD car in WRC? Its totally inappropriate. Seems a bit of a non point. Its like saying that on a dry track, a F1 car with wets is slower than one on slicks.


[Edited by Skittles - 7/9/2003 2:39:59 PM]

cucumber

Are the cars truly equal in terms of weight,power,gearing,tyres etc?.... I doubt it.

I thought all rally cars were 2WD prior to the Audi quattro?

My point is that only in competative sport where rules generally ensure cars are equal can these points really be proven, and 4WD is an advancement over 2WD, thats a fact. I mean a Venus Williams could start playing tennis with a wooden racket, she'd still be a decent player but she wouldn't win anything.

mik

The only proven fact is that 4wd offers greater traction.

If you are in a situation where traction improvements outweigh added weight, inertia etc then it's an advantage. This is generally true in rallying.

If traction gains do not outweigh losses - it's not an advantage. Hence 4wd F1 didn't really work.

If the above test had been on a different wet circuit with tighter turns leading onto straights, traction would have been a higher priority - hence the S4 would probably have won (IMHO).

Jeff Wiltshire

I think that if you re-read the article it says that the Audis Stability control program could not be switched off....I think the times are an indication this rather than RWD verses 4WD

moses

s4 is a better looking car but m3 anyday its a masterpeice

Veracocha

Top gear found the S4 to be a second faster in the dry - whats the difference? They used a proven racing driver (Perry McCarthy) to test the cars. They also said the S4 handling is sublime, if not uninvolving at times.

So Autocar use Sutcliffe who is so blatantly against Audi's it is astonishing! Just read the article and you will realise that it oozes with anti Audi comments.

Either way I love both cars. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and I am not going to listen to a **** like Sutcliffe.

Dracoro

I've never known any motoring journo to talk as much garbage as Sutcliffe.

Back On Topic, I'll re-instate(?) what is important about a car. It's not how fast it actually is, but how much fun it is. The RWD will normally be much more fun than the 4WD (just see the wet corner pic with the M3 going sideways). The S4 will be less involving but easier to drive fast.

dsmith

Why should 4wd be an advantage on a Tarmac rally, where WRCcars have v stiff suspension and fat wide tyres, but not on a track ???

Either it is an advantage or it isnt....

Deano

Midmotorsteve

At combe in the dry the other day 3 x Audi S3's on track with me, all they did between sessions was go on about who's was best modded etc, they even got told off for racing. They still had the flag waved at them to let me pass as they were holding me up - REAR WHEEL DRIVE RULES! i was at least 90bhp down on them possible 130bhp, still quicker! Whilst driving i thought they were noticably slow round the bends pushing the nose wide constantly. This 4 wheel drive thing, unless with a heavy rear drive bias isn't for the track.

mik

Normally it isn't The 2wd cars usually keep up on tarmac (or lead due to lighter weight).

Unless it's tarmac with loads of low speed hairpins where traction is at a premium.

Also bear in mind that current WRC cars have restrictors which limit outright engine breathing, hence power. They tune them for massive low rpm boost and therefore massive low rpm torque (making them act a bit like a TDI) which means they can still spin fat slicks at low speeds.

Veracocha

Mid motor steve. Interesting comments regarding the 3 S3's. I had a couple of sessions in Simons S3 and I you were the blue MR2 behind us?

If so you seemed like a competant enough driver but out of the chicanes we were pulling a decent distance from the MR2 even though overall it kept up well.

You obviously don't have much clue about the differences between cars on track. Did you expect the quattros to just disappear off into the distance? Get real - the driver counts every bit as much as the car. We were stuck behind and Exige at one point which with a competant driver would have mullered us! Obviously that means the Exige is slow right Steve?

DuncS3

Steve - MR2

You are talking about the bookatrack day right? You were in the light blue MR2? Sorry mate you see things totally different to me
The last session of the day when we went out on the circuit I recall you were directly behind me leaving the pits (black S3). I also recall pulling at least a quarter of a circuit lead on your car (which I would expect given the power differences) after a few laps, and the only time I can recall you going past was when I basically stopped as I was signalling to the yellow S3 in front that it had its light hanging out (!).
I went round with the Red S3 all day and the only car that went past us that day was the Exige on one of the sessions and yes we did get told off, not for racing but for getting impatient with the guy in the standard Nissan Almera(!), who wouldnt pull over for overtaking (but yeah I was a impatient so my fault).

You mention about blue flags? Funny that because there was no sign of marshalls when 5 cars were stuck behind the Almera???

Also I overtook a NSX in our session (and he wasnt trying obviously) - now we all know a NSX would murder a S3 - down to the driver then isn't it?

Lastly - perhaps we did talk about our cars - we are car enthusiasts who happened to be on a trackday!

Dunc

Editted to say my car was recently RR'd at Interpro at 254bhp/268Ib/ft

[Edited by DuncS3 - 11/07/2003 16:06:17]

[Edited by DuncS3 - 11/07/2003 17:09:07]

M3 Evo

Oh god here we go "my dick is bigger than yours"

Unfair comments on Sutcliffe IMO, he may not be the best or most honest of journalists but this guy has immense car control and has proven himself time after time in a variety of races.

Midmotorsteve

Hum, i passed the yellow s3 in almost every session, absolutely sure about that, one audi was quicker than the other two, and didn't see much of him on track as we were all spread out. As for pulling away ,..no sat on bumper all the way round, after the coned S audis pulled a little distance on straight but i'd recaught by the end of the straight in breaking and was pushing round each bend, and was having to back off as i was getting to close, i was getting annoyed at being held up. As as you stated you had 100bhp more than me so obviously i couldn't pull out and pass you on the straight.

I posted as i keep an eye on whats said about Audis as my last car was an AMD modded 80, i was surprised (shocked) the s3's wern't any quicker round a track, than a £3500 MR2..also would previously been surprised that an M3 was quicker than s4.

Didn't mean to cause offence

Phil M

I heard that the WRC cars were kickin out near 500lb fts of torque from like 2500 rpm! even though they *only* have 300hp...
This true anyone?

Dracoro

So, what's unfair?? As you said, he's not the best or most honest. Not heard anyone criticise his driving ability.
He puts himself up as a 'motoring journalist' and that's what I'll criticise him for - what he says (which is very often complete crap).


[Edited by Dracoro - 7/14/2003 10:24:55 PM]

Veracocha

No probs Steve but your tone just comes across as a bit arrogant and I know from my experience at the track that some of what you are saying isn't 100% true.

Credit where it is due - your car is fast round the track. Simon in the red S3 was pretty fast and was pulling away from us.

What I don't understand in what you say is that you were disappointed by how slow the S3's were but surely the driver is the key factor here. We were being held up by the brand new red NSX at times but I am not disappointed by how slow it was because I know the NSX would spank a modded S3 round the track no problems.

We had a great day and enjoyed a bit of light hearted chat about our cars.

I understand you probably got a bit carried away because you would not have expected us to find this site. I don't have a problem with you Steve and I can see you are a good driver. But if you don't want to cause offence don't say offensive things.

[Edited by Veracocha - 7/14/2003 10:27:58 PM]

mik

Sounds about right ~ for reasons I mentioned above.

Last figures I saw was 450lbs.ft, but that was a couple of years ago.

image doctor

WRC cars would produce around 600bhp if they were not restricted.

However the way they are restricted still keeps much of the torque.

......or something like that.