nugent

i've test driven 2, still in the break-in period, but even below 5K RPM, the thing does not feel fast. it's down right slow in fact. for various reasons, i am thinking of making move to m3, but after the test drives, i'm really reconsidering. thoughts?

STALKIN RS4

Its funny, I feel the exact opposite. The M3 motor needs to be reved, but when you get on it, it rips through the rev band harder and faster then my RS4 did.
The RS4 motor def has more power down low and its more usable for daily driving.

Plus the M3 is lighter.

RS Maniac

I passed on the M3 for the same reason (and about 10 more - and this while having my beloved M5 and being a huge bimmer guy!) No joke, I was not in the Audi camp just yet, so it tells you how much the RS4 did for me to jump across to the 'dark' side ;-o). In fact, there are at least 3 other former M5 owners on this board alone who made the transtion from the E39 M5 to the RS4 (me, ELEVENS, Jenner, GreatWhite).

The M3 felt seriously underpowered, no sign of tq until 5K rpm, and the V8 exhaust note didn't even sound muscular or visceral relative to the RS4. I liked the design of the coupe (especially in white or LeMans Blue with the carbon roof), but coupes almost always look better than their 4-door sedan brethren, so passing on the E90 M3 was an easy choice. The hood scoops as seen from the driver's viewpoint reminded me of sitting...in a Mustang! Too much in your face and downright tacky from my perspective. I am more about the power of understatement and a wolf in sheep's clothing guy, hence why both the E39 M5 and RS4 were my toy. Needless creases, vents, side grills, air scoops/gills, etc. - no value for me. For example, one vent on the hood is non-functional (like the RS4 the E9x M3 has one intake) and purely cosmetic, which I felt was tacky and just wrong for an ///M (bling like that is more suited for an Evo or STI IMO).

I ended up getting a 135i which in fuly stock form makes more tq than the M3 (300lbs vs. 295). In fact, that number is under-rated, dynoes show these cars to be making right around 290 tq at the wheel, vs. 270 for the RS4 which is rated at 317tq at the crank. What's even better - max tq is achieved at a low 1500 RPM, while the M3 is pointless to drive under 4500RPM. A simple Dinan or Vishnu chip gets you right about the 400hp category for the N54 engine (3.0TT), there are a lot of 335i's out there giving the M3 more than a run for it's money. The M3 engine is pretty much maxed out (as is the RS4 or any N/A engine producing 100hp per liter), the N54 is just a start IMO ;-o)

I am sure member Nicht will chime in, he is the best person to give you a real life comparo as he has had both the RS4 and E90 M3 (DSG) in his stable. As much as I am a stick guy, the truth is the E9x M3 and E60M5 are better suited for the DSG/SMG tranny than a manual. So on that principle alone the M3 lost for me. Add the exclusivity (or lack thereof for the M3), I was sold on the RS4. Total imported RS4s over the 2 model yrs stand at under 2300 (sedans, not counting verts), while the annual production run of the M3 is a shade under 5000. That explains why in my metro area there are so many of them, literally for every RS4 I see about 10 M3s, not exaggerating. If I were to consider a car today and the RS4 was unavailable, I may even prefer the CTS-V over the M3 (something I never thought I would live the day to say - a Caddy over a Bimmer!)

JMSIV

I had a friend visiting this weekend with a new M3 sedan with the DCT. I thought is was a fabulous car (though it needs a Tubi just like the RS4 does). The seats are great, the steering is great, the package is really nice.

Remember to hit the M button, or you do not have full power. It's not like the S button for us, you truly do not have all the beans without it.

I thought the transmission when used in anger was incredibly fast. If you are just driving about there is some lag when you pull the paddle until things start to happen that imparts a "paddle shifter auto" feel to the box. This disappears at high throttle inputs where the shifts seem almost instantaneous. The engine does feel like it needs higher revs, something I find easier to do in a paddle shift car. It's a great package.

STALKIN RS4

I prefer the manual over the DCT. I prefer to be more involved, but the DCT is good fun when you are at the track.

My issue right now, is that I can get a brand new M3 for the same price or even less then a used RS4 in Canada, plus the whole FSI issue is of great concern, so not sure if I want to get another RS4 now. Both are fantastic cars.

ArthurPE

the sport button on an e9x M3 does not increase HP, only the throttle curve...

it does go from 400 to 500 HP on the e60 M5

the M3 is by no means a 'down right slow' car

it's a good bit faster from 60 to 100 than the RS4, maybe as much as 1.5 to 2 seconds...

it's torque is comparable...295 vs 315, and the M has a wide band 90% from 2000 to redline iirc...similar to the RS4...plus it's 300 lbs lighter, almost 8%, which offsets the T difference...

all that can be manipulated with gearing and power band...

the M3 is an amazing car, 50/50 wt dist and pristine handling...
but imho the RS4 is a better all around package and daily driver and gives up very little in performance in the dry, and pulls ahead in less than ideal conditions...

JMSIV

Looking into it, seems you are right. But gee, they make it look more like that than even the S button. It even has a "power" setting in the menu.

I will say it FEELS faster with the quickened throttle response (especially if you are driving a friends new car...). Adds more support to my theory that many chip tuners do little more than ramp up throttle response on NA engines.

Side by side, the RS4 and the M3 are both just fantastic cars. We should all count ourselves lucky.

absoluteis

Yea I agree. I know the numbers, but when I drove it, it felt pretty relatively weak under 5k (yes I had everything set up correctly). I know its fast, but I just didn't feel it.

I thought it was pretty interesting.

raptorduck

I have owned 7 BMW's including my share of M3's and an E39 M5 and have been a BMW lover. My M Roadster is my 2nd favorite car of all time. While I did not jump from the E39 to the RS4 like others here (I jumped from a W208 CLK55, my favorite all time car), I found the RS4 to be most like the E39 of any other car I have ever driven, particlarly as to the suspension, only better. I loved my M3's, but my love for BMW's stops around 2002, when Bangle took over. While I have not driven the current M3, I am no longer a fan of BMW design and that simple fact stops me from even wanting to test drive an M3 or M5 or M Roadster. On design alone, I would rather buy a used pre Bangle BMW, regardless of performance differences. That is why I went to Audi, in part. I still like Mercedes designs, but Audi gave me BMW like performance with Benz design sophistication. Right now, Audi is the leader in the marriage of design and performance IMHO.

SilverCanuckTT

I've driven both, and they are different and fine cars. They are close enough that ultimately it's the skill of the driver that determines which outperforms. I needed 4 doors and 6 months of the year I'm on winter rubber, so for me the choice was obvious. Own an RS4 and enjoy it all year, or own the M3 and spend half the year sulking in the frigid snow in a winter beater.

Besides, my highly modified Triumph Thruxton with 2 carburetted cylinders outperforms any of the cars mentioned here, so when I feel the need to accelerate, there's always that.