Check those numbers again, and compare AWD to AWD and non-AWD to non-AWD, and manual tranny to manual tranny, and auto to auto, as an example, manual BMW 328i weights 3340lbs, Audi A4 2.0T weights in at 3428 (both are non-AWD and both manual trannies).
I double checked them before I posted them. They are like for like, and I have tried to match as closely as possible the specifications of each cars e,g the displacement, level spec, transmission, drive etc. which is something you have not done.
For example... it would be much more fair to compare the 335xi Saloon, 3 litres, 6 cylinders, 6 speed manual, 4WD. Which weighs in at a hefty 1730kg.
And Audi's 3.2 FSI, 3.2 litres, 6 cylinders, 6 speed manual, 4WD. Which weighs a comparatively lithe 1655kg in comparison.
Of course the weight of various models are going to differentiate, something as trivial as the speaker package could quite easily make the difference, I wouldn't dispute that, but then neither would I make such spurious claims either. It does however, along with the figures I gave in my previous post, illustrate that your statement...
and as far as weight is concerned, compare comparable BMW to Audi models and you'll see what I mean.
...
is erroneous.
as far as other comments go, motorsports are all about competition and innovation, once in the rallies Audi dominated, then there were the Japanese, now it's Ford and the French, so it's not a good measure of actual production cars.
Actually, it is a good measure of actual production cars, because Touring Car racing was production based, and required homologation for participation.
And I am more than sure Autoweek has sponsors,
Autoweek may well have sponsors.
Autocar however, does not.
every magazine/website has sponsors, thats how they make most of their revenue, and currently I can't think of one magazine/website that isn't biased towards/against some auto manufacturer.
Something tells me you're not differentiating between
sponsors and
advertisers and as such, inevitably raises the question as to whether you're aware of the differences between the two.
Earendil said:
That is truly a powerful engine.
So, it used to be that BMW produced engines that did not rely on turbos or other such additional devices to increase the HP of the engine. I always respected BMW for this purest attitude. Is this not the case for BMW any more? If I wasn't allowed an M3 with the money I don't have, I'd be looking strong and hard at the Audi's, they are great cars.
I believe BMW's decision to employ the use of turbochargers on their engines was based on several factors.
Not only because of the increased efficiency of the modern turbo, but also that a smaller capacity turbocharged engine produces less CO2 emissions than a larger capacity naturally aspirated engine, as well as producing similar outputs whilst being more efficient, not to mention the weight saving benefits.
As far as I understand though, the M cars will always be naturally aspirated.
And Audi should've kept to their new found naturally aspirated goodness with a 6.5 litre V10.