[Suave]

Originally Posted by auf Deutsche

Dealers are starting to order their inventory units with the PPK and MPE. My dealer has a fully loaded 435 with carbon fiber everything and digital alcantera steering wheel for over $71k.

Why anybody who is so concerned about performance would spend 71k on 435 when you can buy a nicely optioned M4 for same price should have their head examined

[Batmobile]

Originally Posted by Suave

Why anybody who is so concerned about performance would spend 71k on 435 when you can buy a nicely optioned M4 for same price should have their head examined

Lets not start that debate again.... M4 vs 435xi.

[///Mikey F80]

I was going to post a thread about this because I found it so aggravating, but then I figured I was probably not the only one so I looked in the 4 series forums and here I am...

Something I find especially hilarious is how Car & Dumber said:

"we lined up the baddest example available--a 435i with... the $1000 Dynamic Handling pack adds variable-ratio steering..." and then they go on to say "the driver is isolated from the wheel and suspension movements, and the slow steering seems so numb that it's the pulsing of the inside-front brake rather than any feedback through the wheel that indicates you've reached the cornering limit."

I don't know about anyone else, but from what I've read just about everywhere is that the variable rate steering completely kills steering feel and makes it feel artificial and "numb". I figured it was a widely known fact among car enthusiasts... Apparently I was wrong, because C&D don't seem to understand this. When you add all sorts of stuff to ARTIFICIALLY alter the speed of the steering, maybe, just maybe, it will make the steering seem distant and artificial. Hmmm, who would have thought?

Also they said they opted for the baddest example available, but then went on to say "The only pricier stripper is the one who phones your wife" Huh?? You were just talking about how many packages you opted for but then say it was a stripped out car? Oh, and since when has Audi's MMI system become the industry "gold standard"? Everything I've ever read about it in every other magazine says it's just an iDrive pretender?

Call me a fanboy all you like, but I really don't care..

[RockyTop]

Originally Posted by ToyotaBMW

So much wrong here.
S5 at $66k and comparably equipped 435i at $61K? How can it be comparable when the S5 is AWD and you are comparing it to a RWD 435i? Why don't you compare it to the 435Xdrive? Second they are not comparably equipped either as the S5 has the sport diff and the 435i does not. Also the S5 has the dual clutch transmission and the 435i does not. So these are not comparable cars as you say.
The mouse clicks is not because it is cheap it is so that you know that the cursor has moved to the next item without the need to look at the screen.
Does it matter if the BMW is wider if it doesn't perform better? If it doesn't corner better or hold more g's than who cares if it is wider?

In the end the S5 is an older car and the newer BMW should have been able to kick it's butt. That said we won't know if the new S5 will a lot better or only a little better. In the end both are fairly competitive cars and as consumers we have the luxury to choose which ever one we like more and none are greatly better than the other.

ah, so much wrong there as well

Of course they are not an exact replica of each other. BMWs and Audis are fundamentally different in several ways, of which you just called out many. But when it comes to deciding which to buy, you have to "comparably equip" them as much as possible. I prefer the feel of a rear wheel drive vehicle to AWD, so I would never want to compare the S5 to an Xdrive BMW, never even considered it.

Regarding the Gs, take the run flats off (which I intend to do) and I would venture to say these vehicles post similar G figures. And if you add the ppk ecu upgrade to the 435i, then the horsepower figures get closer and you can revaluate all of your performance metrics....besides, these magazines aren't the most scientific of testers. Not sure how much credence I lend to their posted results.

BMW has always allowed a significant amount of flexibility in configuring your car. Audi does not, their option list is more rigid...yet their cars aren't any cheaper.

An LSD would have been nice, but honestly I don't track my car. I currently have an LSD in my AWD G35, and the LSD almost never kicks in (except when I lived up north). Why would I want to add weight and mechanical complexity to my car for something I don't actually have a need for?

I don't care why Audi decided to make their nav keys "click"...it sounds cheap to me regardless. You can't rationalize "feel" for a consumer, it's one's own perspective. Stop trying.

8spd ZF is a nice transmission, it shifts so quickly that there is no need for a DCT...and all it's added weight. Chris Harris has mentioned his appreciation for the N55/ZF combo plenty.

For every review that claims the S5 is better than the 435i, I can find another review that claims the opposite.
Case in point: http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/75421...00-vs-audi-s5/

Let's face it, these cars are very close. Slight variations and personal preferences are what will tip a buyers hand, and for me it tipped to the 4er.

[Mik3ymomo]

Originally Posted by ToyotaBMW

Seems like you are the one running your mouth. Even say your car is 4.56 and say the S5 is 4.8 that is still a drivers race and that means that your car may be faster but it doesn't mean the S5 is a old ladies slow car.
Second why should we take your number of 4.56 when C&D had two cars tested the same day same conditions. Yes maybe BMW should have given them a different car but even if BMW did it would only be slightly fast either to match the S5 or beat it slightly. That would not make the S5 a slow car as you say running your mouth.

When you guys test both equivilent cars get back to me.

I ran an equivalent car, what is funny is I bought it for my wife and ran it for fun because mine is in the shop. Why would I be butt hurt?
If anything I am amused that you guys prefer arm chair bench racing discussions to determine what is better. I've said I drove both cars.
I also proved the 435xi was faster from my drives and I think the track results have been established that the car likely is faster even under the same conditions.

Btw I tested the S5 in similar environmental conditions.

Also a drivers race for AWD auto cars? Lmao...ok...

[xDrive35i]

Originally Posted by drob23

Oh he did! Feel you on the B8 chassis. Rock solid.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by drob23

Why does everyone get so hung up on 0-60?!?! I don't get it, such a flawed metric of any kind of tangible performance...I understand it's easier for every day Joe to make sense of it, but why on a car enthusiast board? There are far better scores such as 1/4 mile et/trap-> 1/8 mile et/trap -> 60ft. Then there is standard 60-130 pull.

I agree. I used to have an M Sport F30 335i with the M Performance Power Kit, Exhaust, Brakes, etc. There were things about the car that concerned me but the 0-60 time was not one of them. The unpleasant attributes included: inconsistent steering feel, floaty suspension (it felt like the car's stability could be upset relatively easily), noticeable body roll during everyday driving.

As far as driving dynamics go, my two E90 335i sedans (one an '07 with RWD and the other a '10 with M Sport and xDrive) felt more "dialed-in" than my F30 ever did. I'm not bashing the F30, but the fact is that it is not without its flaws. The motor and the 8-speed "Sport Auto." transmission were both a joy.

All that said, even at 5.2 to 60, that is still very quick. In 2006, a "standard" Porsche 911 was hitting 60 in around 4.5 seconds. If you're rolling in either a 328i/335i or a 428i/435i, chances are you're faster than most of the other cars out there on the road (depending on where you reside, of course). Besides, the bottom line is that almost everyone agrees that the new M Sport 3ers and 4ers are absolutely gorgeous.

On a side note, I just don't get why everyone expects BMW to win every comparison test now. Those days of complete and utter domination are gone. We need to accept that. The competition is just flat-out better than ever today. That doesn't mean BMW has all of a sudden failed to produce great cars. It means than the playing field is starting to level because BMW's rivals have copied its recipe.

Furthermore, BMW is now more of a mainstream car company. BMW is starting to broaden its appeal. I mean there are all sorts of new models now: X1, 2-Series, 4-Series, X6, etc. And let's not forget the 3er Gran Turismo.

BMW is still a great brand but companies like Audi and Mercedes-Benz are catching up. For example, the W205 C400 is going to be debuting about 1.5 years into the F30's life cycle. It is going to be lighter than the previous generation C-Class and it is going to have more power stock than the F30 335i/435i with its new turbocharged V6. The car "rags"" have already started drooling over it's supposedly "world-class" interior (despite the iPad-looking multimedia display).

There's just no sense in being down on your car if it loses a comparison test. I hope no one bought his or her car solely based on how it stacked up in comparison tests. I don't think anyone did. You buy it for a variety of reasons: you like the way it drives, you like the way it looks, it's comfortable, it fulfills your needs because of the technology it possess (navigation, etc.).

My C63 has taken down some brilliant cars recently (Audi RS5 being one of them) but even the Black Series gets its ass kicked by the Porsche 911 every time lol. I'm not mad about it. I'm happy that there are more choices than ever because ultimately it's going to prevent BMW from straying too far from it's principles as it goes through this transition phase of trying to cater to everyone (instead of just solely driving enthusiasts).

For example, the "M Performance" line of products was a brilliant move by BMW. I think we'll start to see more factory "M Performance" cars like the M235i. A move like that would give BMW the "upper hand" again, so to speak. Let's hope that something like the M235i is a sign of more good things to come.

[Phaeron]

Originally Posted by HouseMusicRules

Just got my Car & Driver Apr '14 issue yesterday. In it comes an another interesting comparison... this time between the BMW F32 435i M Sport, and the Audi S5. Both in manual transmissions.

A few interesting developments...

1) The Bimmer pulled off a 0-60mph in 5.2 secs, compared to 4.6 for the S5.
2) Handling... 0.90g vs 0.95g for the S5.
3) Bimmer finishing behind the (7yr old design) S5.

Check out the PDF attached attached for the full 6 page review.

Regards,
HMR.

The Handling part is bullshit. The S5 comes with Michelin Pilot Sport 3s which are an infinitely better tire than the Potenza 500 RFT. Also the 0-60 time is bullshit.. You are telling me they got 4.6 seconds on the manual transmission when the DCT equipped RS5 is 4.5 seconds 0-60 and Motortrend has the S5 with a DCT at 4.9.

Either Car and Driver has the Stig behind the wheel or they are bullshitting,

[ZCD1]

Originally Posted by Phaeron

T...Either Car and Driver has the Stig behind the wheel or they are bullshitting,

It's sad that some can't accept an opinion or results that don't align perfectly with their own perceptions.

The S5 (and S4) have won just about (but not absolutely) every comparison with the 335i since the B8 chassis was introduced. I would have expected the 435i to fare better, but BMW appears to be dumbing down their handling and driver connection in the interest of increasing sales. Can't blame them for chasing the money, but with Audi and MB both upping their game on the performance and handling fronts, these types of results shouldn't be surprising.

Also, FWIW, Motor Trend measured the RS5 at 3.9 0-60 - AWD+big tires+launch control = quick off the line. Same rules apply to the S5...

[RoundelM3]

I don't really care what some car magazine says about my car or another car. It's irrational to be concerned that your car doesn't compare favorably to another car according to someone else. Personally, I wouldn't buy an Audi or any other VW product if it were that or walk. I've had some really bad experiences with VW and Audi vehicles and their customer service is pretty much nonexistent. But then, that's my personal experience. Whether or not somebody's Audi can "outperform" my BMW is of no concern to me - it's an immature reaction to get your mind all warped about it. When you grow up, it ceases to be relevant.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo

My car is considerably faster.. How do we account for that? And my drive in the Audi is also real world. Its also a better comparison of an AWD vs an AWD car.
What else is there to go on?
Their test is flawed by at least not running a 435xi against the Audi.

I've proven my point at the track already. There really isn't an argument.

Not speaking to you specifically as you are just pointing out C&D's flawed results but we have a saying in my circles about such debates...

"Run your car...not your mouth."

BMW would have faired worse if they compared S5 and xdrive. No sport suspension on xdrive and higher center of gravity.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by Phaeron

The Handling part is bullshit. The S5 comes with Michelin Pilot Sport 3s which are an infinitely better tire than the Potenza 500 RFT. Also the 0-60 time is bullshit.. You are telling me they got 4.6 seconds on the manual transmission when the DCT equipped RS5 is 4.5 seconds 0-60 and Motortrend has the S5 with a DCT at 4.9.

Either Car and Driver has the Stig behind the wheel or they are bullshitting,

How is it BS? The manufacturers delivered the cars as they come from the factory. How many people are going to spend another $1500 to swap out the RFT and then have no spare(I did but I'm sure not many others will)?
0-60 times vary from location to location. The only fair comparison is side by side. You cant go through every mag and select the lowest #s. Weather, surface conditions etc all play a part in varying results. Incredible how defensive people get about this. Cracks me up.

[ToyotaBMW]

Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo

When you guys test both equivilent cars get back to me.

I ran an equivalent car, what is funny is I bought it for my wife and ran it for fun because mine is in the shop. Why would I be butt hurt?
If anything I am amused that you guys prefer arm chair bench racing discussions to determine what is better. I've said I drove both cars.
I also proved the 435xi was faster from my drives and I think the track results have been established that the car likely is faster even under the same conditions.

Btw I tested the S5 in similar environmental conditions.

Also a drivers race for AWD auto cars? Lmao...ok...

LMAO Obviously you have a problem with comprehension. When someone says the cars are close enough to be a drivers race it doesn't mean it is a sports car. It means that both cars can win a race because the are equally matched and that it is up to the better driver to win the race. This is in response to you saying the S5 is an old ladies car and your supercar 435xi is much faster.
You can believe what ever you want but it is obvious that you are delusional and can't read.

Also please let us know how you proved the F30 was faster? I got to hear this since you think C&D and other magazine so called "bench racing numbers" don't match your one of a kind supercar 435i numbers.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo

I also proved the 435xi was faster from my drives and I think the track results have been established that the car likely is faster even under the same conditions.

Oh when you simply said "derp derp my [wife's] car is faster, derp derp derp" (I'm paraphrasing what you said)?

That's "proof" now? Gotcha, well looks like we can wrap this up fellas. @Mik3ymomo has this all sorted out. We can grab our pitchforks now and storm the Car and Driver headquarters to get our sweet revenge.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Oh when you simply said "derp derp my [wife's] car is faster, derp derp derp" (I'm paraphrasing what you said)?

That's "proof" now? Gotcha, well looks like we can wrap this up fellas. @Mik3ymomo has this all sorted out. We can grab our pitchforks now and storm the Car and Driver headquarters to get our sweet revenge.

I agree. C&D should hire this guy. He seems way more competent and they would save a lot of dough having him test cars as he doesnt need any electronics.

[ToyotaBMW]

Originally Posted by RockyTop

ah, so much wrong there as well

Of course they are not an exact replica of each other. BMWs and Audis are fundamentally different in several ways, of which you just called out many. But when it comes to deciding which to buy, you have to "comparably equip" them as much as possible. I prefer the feel of a rear wheel drive vehicle to AWD, so I would never want to compare the S5 to an Xdrive BMW, never even considered it.

Regarding the Gs, take the run flats off (which I intend to do) and I would venture to say these vehicles post similar G figures. And if you add the ppk ecu upgrade to the 435i, then the horsepower figures get closer and you can revaluate all of your performance metrics....besides, these magazines aren't the most scientific of testers. Not sure how much credence I lend to their posted results.

BMW has always allowed a significant amount of flexibility in configuring your car. Audi does not, their option list is more rigid...yet their cars aren't any cheaper.

An LSD would have been nice, but honestly I don't track my car. I currently have an LSD in my AWD G35, and the LSD almost never kicks in (except when I lived up north). Why would I want to add weight and mechanical complexity to my car for something I don't actually have a need for?

I don't care why Audi decided to make their nav keys "click"...it sounds cheap to me regardless. You can't rationalize "feel" for a consumer, it's one's own perspective. Stop trying.

8spd ZF is a nice transmission, it shifts so quickly that there is no need for a DCT...and all it's added weight. Chris Harris has mentioned his appreciation for the N55/ZF combo plenty.

For every review that claims the S5 is better than the 435i, I can find another review that claims the opposite.
Case in point: http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/75421...00-vs-audi-s5/

Let's face it, these cars are very close. Slight variations and personal preferences are what will tip a buyers hand, and for me it tipped to the 4er.

Nope the only wrong is that you said that there is a $5k difference between the S5 and 435i when comparing similiar vehicles. Others here already have said that the S5 is not the same as the 435i and that you need to add the other options to compare similiar vehicles.

Again you may not need the items I specified that are different in those two vehicles but the fact remain that those items (DSG, Sport diff, AWD vs RWD) are huge mechanical differences which account for the $5K difference and makes the two vehicles not similiar especially once you added in the pricing.
Secondly if you don't like AWD why even consider the S5?

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by RockyTop

ah, so much wrong there as well

Of course they are not an exact replica of each other. BMWs and Audis are fundamentally different in several ways, of which you just called out many. But when it comes to deciding which to buy, you have to "comparably equip" them as much as possible. I prefer the feel of a rear wheel drive vehicle to AWD, so I would never want to compare the S5 to an Xdrive BMW, never even considered it.

Regarding the Gs, take the run flats off (which I intend to do) and I would venture to say these vehicles post similar G figures. And if you add the ppk ecu upgrade to the 435i, then the horsepower figures get closer and you can revaluate all of your performance metrics....besides, these magazines aren't the most scientific of testers. Not sure how much credence I lend to their posted results.

BMW has always allowed a significant amount of flexibility in configuring your car. Audi does not, their option list is more rigid...yet their cars aren't any cheaper.

An LSD would have been nice, but honestly I don't track my car. I currently have an LSD in my AWD G35, and the LSD almost never kicks in (except when I lived up north). Why would I want to add weight and mechanical complexity to my car for something I don't actually have a need for?

I don't care why Audi decided to make their nav keys "click"...it sounds cheap to me regardless. You can't rationalize "feel" for a consumer, it's one's own perspective. Stop trying.

8spd ZF is a nice transmission, it shifts so quickly that there is no need for a DCT...and all it's added weight. Chris Harris has mentioned his appreciation for the N55/ZF combo plenty.

For every review that claims the S5 is better than the 435i, I can find another review that claims the opposite.
Case in point: http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/75421...00-vs-audi-s5/

Let's face it, these cars are very close. Slight variations and personal preferences are what will tip a buyers hand, and for me it tipped to the 4er.

I had an S5 sideways, steering with gas pedal. Rear bias makes it feel like rwd. Can do donuts in the snow.

[RockyTop]

Originally Posted by ToyotaBMW

Nope the only wrong is that you said that there is a $5k difference between the S5 and 435i when comparing similiar vehicles. Others here already have said that the S5 is not the same as the 435i and that you need to add the other options to compare similiar vehicles.

Again you may not need the items I specified that are different in those two vehicles but the fact remain that those items (DSG, Sport diff, AWD vs RWD) are huge mechanical differences which account for the $5K difference and makes the two vehicles not similiar especially once you added in the pricing.
Secondly if you don't like AWD why even consider the S5?

Never said I didn't like awd, said I prefer rwd if I'm living in the south. But if the rest of the Audi sufficiently impressed me, the awd would not have deterred me from choosing the s5.

Again, when making a choice on what car to buy, you have to compare them as best you can despite the fact the cars are fundamentally different. In that scenario, you build the car you would consider in that model, and then compare costs. The BMW build I would be happy with was 61k. The Audi build, given the options and customization available was 66k. End of story. I didn't feel the Audi added sufficient value over the BMW for me at that price. The BMW may not have been "cheaper" than the Audi when you spec them to be mechanical clones, but when you spec them for purchase comparison, it WAS cheaper for me to get into the BMW. You seem to have confused the intent of my original post. Hopefully this clarifies it for you.

[RockyTop]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

I had an S5 sideways, steering with gas pedal. Rear bias makes it feel like rwd. Can do donuts in the snow.

Sounds fun....never said the s5 wasn't an awesome machine. Wouldn't have considered it so closely were it not.

[shivaswrath]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

First of all - the 435i should have been equipped with the MPPK and MPE installed which is what most enthusiasts would order the car with. Also it should have the adaptive suspension. BMW press people should make sure that the car rags get the best BMW for their comparison tests.

Other than that, they are just car rags - better information found elsewhere - like on this forum.

^^^^^^^

that's the target, S5 vs. MPPK.

Having driven a before and after PPK and test driven an S4, you can't compare the two without a PPK. Otherwise it's like a A4 V6 vs. 335i.

[DrivenByE30]

As far as i am concerned, you just cannot go wrong with either one...

I would be happy to have either one of them.

[ToyotaBMW]

Originally Posted by RockyTop

Never said I didn't like awd, said I prefer rwd if I'm living in the south. But if the rest of the Audi sufficiently impressed me, the awd would not have deterred me from choosing the s5.

Again, when making a choice on what car to buy, you have to compare them as best you can despite the fact the cars are fundamentally different. In that scenario, you build the car you would consider in that model, and then compare costs. The BMW build I would be happy with was 61k. The Audi build, given the options and customization available was 66k. End of story. I didn't feel the Audi added sufficient value over the BMW for me at that price. The BMW may not have been "cheaper" than the Audi when you spec them to be mechanical clones, but when you spec them for purchase comparison, it WAS cheaper for me to get into the BMW. You seem to have confused the intent of my original post. Hopefully this clarifies it for you.

Ok now I get it, just that you were harping that the S5 was $5k more for a comparable vehicle which is not the case. This is much different than what you were saying before.