Interior and exterior in relation to their other newer models. The M177 engine houses some dated design elements present in the C63 and you get the better and more efficient stuff in the higher models. The E and the S use the same engine, albeit revised for better performance and efficiency. If I were buying a sedan again and had a choice, the E63 S would be the wiser choice. Same engine as the C's, but it's been revised for better performance and efficiency. People whinge about efficiency, but it doesn't always mean saving gas. If there's performance losses all over the place due to bad design that's not been revised, well, you're in a pickle. That and the E uses the 9 gear multiclutch rather than the 7 which is also dated.
Yeah, I would love to get an S or an RS model to keep longer term (maintenance might kill me though). Part of what makes the S4 attractive is, despite some added features, it still looks like an A4. I find the A4 is about as much show as I want in a car. I could go with a bimmer, of course, but I had a pretty substandard experience at the dealership.
If they use a revised powerplant I can't imagine maintenance being too expensive, unless you opt for the front ceramics or full ceramics with the S4. And that's if you need them. The entry cost to get a ceramics equipped car is somewhat universal across the range of performance vehicles. It's the rotor job that makes people dizzy. Unless you're going to track it, I just don't see the point. It's available on the order sheet for my next car. CCB on a wagon.
Replacements happen at around 100K miles in typical street use by the big three, but I imagine that rate varies a lot depending on driving style and location. Either way, you're looking at spending at least $12,000 on hardware before labor comes in. Give me big steel rotors and strong pads that bite within an inch of their life.
If you read Porsche forums, you'll find a lot of the owners who get their cars with the CCBs swapping out for steel rotors. And when it comes to selling the car, they offer the CCBs in a box with the car.
The RS5 is nice to look at but those vents as a throwback to the really old Audis stick out unless you opt for a dark colored car.
Red interiors are just fantastic (on my 3rd vehicle with it), though I specifically prefer it with a neutral exterior: black, white, gray (basically anything on the gray-scale range).
Black/dark gray (ext) + any non-black interior is really fun too: yellow, blue. When you get into non-neutral exteriors, it gets a little busy with a non-black interior. It looks great when there's a nice, big, bold impact color that can be used to dress up other components (engine covers, calipers, etc.) Blue + Red is about the only non-neutral + non-neutral mix I like, specifically on an M-car.
Speaking of _bad_ color combos: yesterday I saw an M4 in baby poop ... I mean, Austin Yellow with a red interior.
Baby poop? Sounds like pus to me! Austin Yellow is possibly the most hideous color they've ever offered. Then again I think the Java Green is very nice to look at. I like some of the attention grabbing colors, but being someone who enjoys blending in when driving, I tend to opt for boring with a little flair. I think Miami Blue is incredible, but I wouldn't be caught dead driving a car in that color. Graphite Blue Metallic, OTOH, is a great neutral-esque color with some flair. With MBZ, I've only seen a handful of cardinal reds in the last 20 years, probably. It's a gorgeous color, but it's metallic red, and people don't like it. If I were more adventurous, I'd get that on the car with the cream/tan interior. But I'm not that adventurous and I've got kids. Kids and light interiors don't mix.
