C4S vs RS4 - latest R&T
#1
06-22-2006, 03:18 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Age: 61
Posts: 200
Rep Power: 28 
C4S vs RS4 - latest R&T
The latest R&T has a comparison between the C4S and RS4. I had also considered the new RS4 when I ordered my C4S as I had really liked the quality of my old Audi TT. The RS4 is really fast,...almost identical times in acceleration vs the C4S - so, if you find yourself in a race, go for the 155-mph governed speed against the Audi!
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
#2
06-22-2006, 04:10 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kuwait City,Kuwait
Posts: 7,734
Rep Power: 333
#4
06-22-2006, 05:02 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kuwait City,Kuwait
Posts: 7,734
Rep Power: 333
Originally Posted by pilone
Thanks for the review...I red one on Evo Mag few days ago...The C4S has less explosive power kick but is more enjoyable on track! 
Porsche rules again
Porsche rules again
#6
06-22-2006, 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel
It's easy, if you can afford only one good car and you are single, get the C2S (C4s if you face winter), if you are married with kids get the RS4.
Hi Gabe :wave:
Trending Topics
#10
06-26-2006, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by MeanMachine
It lacks torque, Trust me , I have driven one and the SLK'er kicks in quicker especially at 4,000rpm!
#11
06-26-2006, 10:37 PM
I drove one this weekend. Great car, but hardly a substitute for my C2S. Less visceral, floaty. Felt quite a bit more disconnected.
Steering was light. Engine note in Sport was to die for. Fit/finish awesome. Some plastic-y ness though along the dash and center console. Not a big fan of CF, would get the Al trim.
4000 lbs cannot and is not a sports car, and as R&T reported, it is a full 2.5 seconds slower on a short track, which is an asskicking.
Thought the interior quietness and space were awesome. Love the styling.
If you have kids, I'd get a low mileage E39 M5 over the RS4.
Steering was light. Engine note in Sport was to die for. Fit/finish awesome. Some plastic-y ness though along the dash and center console. Not a big fan of CF, would get the Al trim.
4000 lbs cannot and is not a sports car, and as R&T reported, it is a full 2.5 seconds slower on a short track, which is an asskicking.
Thought the interior quietness and space were awesome. Love the styling.
If you have kids, I'd get a low mileage E39 M5 over the RS4.
#12
06-27-2006, 07:07 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pescara, Italy
Age: 37
Posts: 3,493
Rep Power: 162
Originally Posted by MeanMachine
It lacks torque, Trust me , I have driven one and the SLK'er kicks in quicker especially at 4,000rpm!
Anyway your wonderful SLK could not be as quick as 4S on track...the weight is the worst thing for supercars!
Don't misuderstand me...I love your car pretty much Mohammed..
#13
07-11-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by frayed
I drove one this weekend. Great car, but hardly a substitute for my C2S. Less visceral, floaty. Felt quite a bit more disconnected.
Steering was light. Engine note in Sport was to die for. Fit/finish awesome. Some plastic-y ness though along the dash and center console. Not a big fan of CF, would get the Al trim.
4000 lbs cannot and is not a sports car, and as R&T reported, it is a full 2.5 seconds slower on a short track, which is an asskicking.
Thought the interior quietness and space were awesome. Love the styling.
If you have kids, I'd get a low mileage E39 M5 over the RS4.
Steering was light. Engine note in Sport was to die for. Fit/finish awesome. Some plastic-y ness though along the dash and center console. Not a big fan of CF, would get the Al trim.
4000 lbs cannot and is not a sports car, and as R&T reported, it is a full 2.5 seconds slower on a short track, which is an asskicking.
Thought the interior quietness and space were awesome. Love the styling.
If you have kids, I'd get a low mileage E39 M5 over the RS4.
