Normally, Car and Driver gets slated for gaming their comparos in BMW’s favor. In its November issue (har-har), the buff book pits the Audi S4 Quattro against the BMW 335i. The S4 pips the Bimmer at the post, taking first place, racking-up 229 vs. 223 points. The Audi wins even if you discount two “extra” points in the mag’s justly maligned “gotta have it” and “fun to drive” categories. But here’s the thing: the Audi S4 Quattro would have trounced the 335i if Car and Driver had matched the cars’ drivetrains (S4 has all wheel-drive vs. the Bimmer’s rear wheel-drive). It’s such a glaring inconsistency that K.C. Colwell pens a three ‘graph mea culpa sidebar. “Before you start cranking out toxic verbiage about our selection process, listen to our side of it. Audi’s competitive target for this S4 is BMW’s 335i xDrive (the all-wheel-drive variant). Don’t we, by the natural laws of the universe, have to compare the AWD S4 with BMW’s AWD version of the 335i, the so-called xDrive?” Minus the reader-dissing sarcasm, it’s a good question. The answer in two words: “We don’t.” The money shot (so to speak): “We think the 335i in rear-wheel-drive mode is the more compelling package. So why penalize the BMW just because the S4 only comes in all-wheel-drive?” Yeah, that wouldn’t be fair! Would it?
Here’s the thing – the bimmer lost in its most compelling package anyway. And they did say that the bimmer is aging and ready for a reboot.
Surprisingly, C&D didn’t make a big point of the S4’s two ton curb weight. A few issues ago, they went on and on how the Cadi SRX is overweight, yet it’s only a few hundred pounds more than this supposedly compact sedan.
Absofrigginglutely.
It is not BMW’s fault that some retarded people actually want AWD to spoil their perfectly good 3er. And like they said, it is not BMW fault that Audi does not offer rear wheel drive.
Subject for TTAC’s Best and Brightest: Just when did Car + Driver jump the shark?
“November” so that means it was written in March? April?
Girl could use a few pounds upstairs but she gets 229 points for being hot anyway.
The previous 3 looked much better from an exterior styling POV than the Bangled 3 of Today.
I also was given a 3 (328Xi, I believe) to drive overnight once, when the dealer was not able to finish something in my 7, and did not like it one bit (while I am in 9th heaven in the 95-01 7)
Isn’t an Audi just a Volkswagen with lock washers?
The old twin-turbo S4 crushed the 330xi in a comparo many years ago. This comparison makes more sense – no sidebar necessary. Now I’m going to grab the issue off my toilet tank and reread the article to see for myself if this so-called mea culpa is for real…
i kinda wonder why audi doesn’t just give us a RWD S4 and stop forcing something on us we don’t want
Really, the comparo should be M3 vs. S4, that’s what consumers are most likely going to be comparing.
+1 superbadd
The 335 is the top of the “normal” line, so it should go against the A4 (do they still make the 3.2?). The “S” line is Audi’s performance brand – so it goes up against the M3.
So they put a performance-tuned S4 against a normal 335, and you claim a BMW bias?!!!
BTW, if it were a real straight-up match, I also have no problem comparing the “best” version of each car. Audi totes its AWD as a performance benefit, not just a poor-weather feature, so if that’s the way they define it, OK.
Really, the comparo should be M3 vs. S4
Not really. The S4 is the mid-tier offering, while the M3 is the top of the 3-series range.
The comparison of M3 vs. RS4 would be more reasonable, because each should be best in breed for each of the lines. It’s fair to compare the S4 with the 335i, because they’re both mid-tier offerings by these companies. If C/D prefers RWD just because, then I suppose that’s their right, even if I don’t quite agree with it.
Ehh, it’s defensible, and I say this as someone with a 2010 S4 on order.
Defining a true “apples-to-apples” comparison is difficult with any cars because people don’t necessarily want or appreciate the same options. The BMW 335(x)i base price is lower than that of the S4, but it comes with fewer options. If you make the 3er “comparably equipped,” then the S4 is cheaper. Good if you want all those options, but a pointless distinction if you don’t.
That’s a problem that comes up all the time in cars, because bundling options into packages and into the base price generally means that each option is cheaper than it would be a la carte (thanks to economies of scale). Yet, if you don’t want the option even for the cheaper price, it’s still not worth it to you.
Comparing the S4 to the 335xi makes sense if you want AWD. If you live in CA and couldn’t care less, then the C&D comparison makes sense.
This is clearly and apples to peanuts comparison. Dedicated RWD vs p1mped up golf chassis?
I really don’t care what C&D says…I form my own opinion after I read the review.
And with that, I would take the proper RWD BMW. It’s less expensive too.
I will admit though…the new Audi’s look fantastic.
How about you guys go after some automotive journalists your own size. Like, say, the blog that decided to have a porschephile review a 370Z, a car which will dismantle his beloved Cayman for $20K less (if you can even find one without fine Porsche options such as a $5K stainless exhaust). This blog then proceeded to provide this reviewer with grist for the mill: a non-sport package automatic, one which he doesn’t even bother to take on the twisties before criticizing.
Our blog’s intrepid reviewer then proceeds to “suspect” comparison about how the car performs against his other (more than twice as expensive when new) cars. He also claims that the Z will generally cost enthusiasts $40K when – sorry – real enthusiasts are going to go for the 50 lbs. lighter base car with a sport package at an MSRP of $33K.
I’m sorry, but that is a sham review, and you, TTAC, showed Car and Driver how it’s done. Please at least get off the pot if you’re going to call out the kettle.
They did that whole 3-paragraph sidebar because someone forgot, or bmw could not provide, a 335xi. They admit it would be faster and the only way they would know if it handles worse is by testing it (maybe the grip of all wheel drive would overcome the lack of sport suspension?)
Either way they werent upfront and honest with us like jeremy clarkson was when he said “oh we forgot about the Fiat 500” in a test of small cars this season.
C&D jumped the shark for me with the V6 Genesis Coupe vs V6 Camaro…comparo. The Hyundai completely owned the Camaro in nearly every catergory (even in “fun to drive”) only to lose by some 2-3 points…thanks to the Camaro getting some 20-23 points in the idiotic “Gotta have it” score. I almost burned the magazine.
At least MT had some sort of phantasm of testicles when they performed the same comparison and stated the obvious. The Genesis Coupe was a better car.
Audi currently has some advertising dollars to spend as they are launching the new S4 while BMW probably doesn’t – so it should come as no surprise to anyone that C/D loves the Audi.
Just get over it; C&D is ridiculous anymore. Their comparos are almost all flawed in some glaring way, the points system they have is a joke, and they can’t write an honest, direct line that isn’t word-smithed to not upset either manufacturer for fear of losing advertising revenue.
“The Genesis Coupe was a better car.”
First of, the so-called “Genesis” coupe is not even a Genesis.
Hyundai cynically and misleadingly tried to capitalize on whatever success the totally different Genesis Sedan had, by calling its coupe by the same name.
The two vehicles could not be any more different. The coupe is a cheapo POS with 4 and 6 engines only, while the sedan only has the 6 and the v8. The coupe is far, far tinier and 500 lbs less heavy than the sedan, and is really NOT a “Luxury” or “near Luxury” vehicle. And its price proves it, it starts at almost HALF the price of a v8 Sedan TRUE Genesis.
Hence why it is compared to the Camaro (and maybe the Mustang) and not to a 3 series coupe or a Porsche Cayman or…
I must confess, it has been a while since I looked, but aren’t reviews of BMW’s 335i xdrive very hard to find ? When I was looking a few months back, I couldn’t find any such reviews (there were plenty of the RWD version). I consequently found myself idly wondering if BMW were deliberately witholding the cars from reviewers in favour of the RWD version, and if so, why ?
The only theory I could come up with was that the sports suspension package is only available on the RWD vehicle which may mean that, comparatively, the AWD one lacks some of BMW’s trademark handling finesse and that it consequently might not score as favourably in a test. From memory, most of the 335i (RWD) reviews I have seen, featured vehicles equipped with sports suspension.
In other words BMW is only making its strongest vehicles available to testers. It’s just a theory.
What we need is a TTAC comparison to see how the 335i xDrive compares against some other AWD sport sedan ‘handlers’ like the G37 and the Legacy GT. I suspect that price point disparity will put the kibosh on that from the get go.
@Pch101: +1. The RS4 is the one to put against the M3.
I think C&D did readers a favor by explaining why they didn’t use a 335xi in the test. However, a better comparison would have included the 335xi as well as the rwd 335i so that readers could compare the merits of both awd and rwd layouts in the car versus the Audi.
I’d take either 335 and reflash the car to make a nice 400hp. Bingo!
I’ve owned a 330xi, a 330i, a v8 s4 and have tested the new s4. First and foremost, the xi suspension truly does suck. The latest iteration of x-drive is good for snow no doubt, but turn-in delay and lean are marked. The AWD 3-series do have decent steering feel (sorely lacking on the audis) and have ok lateral grip after the suspension achieving a “set”. However, transitions and initial responses are slow. It loses quite a bit of the “bmw-ness”, hence I’ll be going to back to audi for awd.
I think C&D did do bmw a favor by testing the 335i. On the other hand the 335xi is hobbled to the point that the handling portion of the comparison against the s4 would not be meaningful. They did bmw more of a favor when they did not emphasize how much better the new s4 is than the 335i.
The comparison of M3 vs. RS4 would be more reasonable, because each should be best in breed for each of the lines. It’s fair to compare the S4 with the 335i, because they’re both mid-tier offerings by these companies.
Not exactly how I see it. It’s fair to compare either the cars of similar cost or cars of similar power. A few years ago, right before the 335, the old S4 and the old M3 had the same amount of power, and BMW had nothing close to the RS4. Then the 335 came along, making power similar to the S4, and the M3 boosted its power.
Audi doesn’t offer a new RS4 right now on the current platform. (There’s rumors that they won’t offer it at all, at least not as a sedan, instead offering RS5 coupes and convertibles, and maybe a RS4 wagon for Europe. The M3 sedan is supposedly being dropped by BMW due to awful sales compared to the coupes and convertibles, too.) That means that the S4 is currently top of the line– but it doesn’t mean that it makes sense to match it up to the M3.
If the piece was biased, why did C/D bother to explain their reasoning for picking the RWD BMW?
This is a test of high-performance cars, aimed at car nuts. What’s wrong with picking the highest-performance variants?
Makes perfect sense to me.
FreedMike :
October 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If the piece was biased, why did C/D bother to explain their reasoning for picking the RWD BMW?
This is a test of high-performance cars, aimed at car nuts. What’s wrong with picking the highest-performance variants?
Makes perfect sense to me.
Agree completely.
That is why I can never take any of their comparison data seriously. They even tell you at the end of each comparo that objectivity takes a back seat to the writers’ personal preferences. So what is the point of doing them if you’ve already decided the results based on your personal likes and dislikes???
A 335xi to S4 comparison is a reasonable deal, but so the non awd 335i vs. S4 comparison, as Audi does not offer anything else. A 3 way battle would be my favorite. I’d even through in some coupes and see how if living with them is worth the doors. I don’t mind the review.
I think TTAC needs to lighten up a bit. A appreciate the observation, but I’d prefer a kinder (more enlightened) take on this.
No they just have to admit their Honda bias, too.
Lucky for them they never have to test a Honda against a Bimmer. Their heads would explode.
I didn’t mind that C/D selected the RWD 335i since they were forthright about why they chose it. And I think the reasoning they gave for that choice is legitimate.
What really grinds my gears (sorry, Robert) is that C/D does SO MANY damned comparison tests. It seems like every issue has at least one, more likely two. They do it because it’s less likely to offend the advertising manufacturers, which is precisely why I find the tests so offensive.
Now, PJ O’Rourke’s take-(downish) on the Roller drophead coupe in the same issue? That’s much closer to the old, irreverent C/D that I remember and used to love.
Really? No response to my suggestion that you guys might have some bias of your own?
I’m not trying to flame the site, but really: reviews are subjective by their very nature. The fun part is reading about what a (presumably knowledgeable) person thinks about the car. My disappointment about the 370Z review was that it committed every one of the sins you have singled out about C&D’s review and added a few to boot. In spite of that, you seem awfully willing to throw stones.
I have to say, I’m curious about your justification.
I also have to say in C&D’s defense that, while the prose has been like dishwater for years, under Alterman the writing seems to be picking up. Their editorial on Piech was flat-out decent.
imag :
October 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Really? No response to my suggestion that you guys might have some bias of your own?
I’m not trying to flame the site, but really: reviews are subjective by their very nature. The fun part is reading about what a (presumably knowledgeable) person thinks about the car. My disappointment about the 370Z review was that it committed every one of the sins you have singled out about C&D’s review and added a few to boot. In spite of that, you seem awfully willing to throw stones.
I agree. There was a story not too long ago about GMC raising prices, the implication being that it was being done for the hell of it. In fact, they raised prices to include more standard equipment on their trucks.
That fact was never included in the story. And even after several posters (including me) pointed that out, there wasn’t a correction or clarification.
I think that’s the kind of thing that might turn people off to this site. And that’s not meant as a flame – it’s meant as a suggestion from someone who cares about the site.
Huh? So Audi can’t/won’t make a RWD system and BMW has to be penalized for this by having the inferior drivetrain represent them at an enthusiast’s comparison? I have yet to experience an AWD drivetrain that is an improvement on RWD (subjectively), it’s simply a compromise up from FWD unless you’re putting down ridiculous power. BTW, I really like Audi’s, and am currently shopping them for my gf, but I’d still say it’s an inferior, and needlessly complex, set-up.
The whole “but the numbers don’t add up!” sour grapes seems ridiculous to me. Why would anyone in their right mind pick a car on the basis of a .01g skidpad discrepancy, or .5 cubic feet truck space difference? All that matters here, as in food reviews, is the informed opinions of experienced tasters. To this day, that remains the overwhelming advantage of car magazines vs. blogs, we all know just how informed a palate the magazine guys have, b/c we see right there what they’ve been driving recently and in what circumstances.
This S5 (old V8 engine) vs 335i is the best review I’ve seen with these cars – i’ve driven both and I agree with 5th gear 100%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0zbhjLZI
In Europe S4 is much more expensive than similary equipped 335i – about 10-15%.
The 335xi has lower performance suspension than the rwd version. It’s just for people who have to sacrifice rwd for better snow performance. Again- it isn’t BMW’s fault that Audi decided to make their performance models AWD.
Also, the S4 was significantly more expensive than the 335…it’s almost getting closer to entry level M3 price.
I own a 335, and nearly bought an A4 for my wife a few months back (it’s probably a better daily driver- softer). They’re both superb cars, and the S4 is a bit better. However, considering the current 3 series is nearing the end of it’s design life while the Audi is brand new, and considering the 335i starts at about $10k cheaper, the 335i did remarkably well. Pretty amazing the S4 barely won with all those advantages.
I think you’ve got a C/D obsession. Lighten up. First, any comparo is going to have compromises. What about the Corvette v. Shelby Mustang? Pretty ridiculous inasmuch as the two cover different territory. But it’s a read, and highlights two American icons. Their explanation of the Audi/BMW “mismatch” was straightforward, and pretty much rationalized upfront that apples to apples would have disfavored the BMW, even more. Besides, Audi is known for AWD, whereas BMW has always been known as a rear drive platform. So it makes sense. My only complaint–they criticized the rather reserved but nicely laid out interior of the BMW, stating it was too retro looking. The subdued interior is one of its best features, whereas Audi, usually a company with interior design taste, fell a bit flat in the latest S.
drifter :This is clearly and apples to peanuts comparison. Dedicated RWD vs p1mped up golf chassis?
Why would you call the A4 PL-46 platform a Golf derivative? Perhaps you are confusing it with the PQ46 (latest Passat/CC) platform which is related to the Golf Mk5 platform (albeit larger). Or perhaps you just don’t know what you are talking about.