Infiniti Q60 vs BMW M Models

What's the difference?

Beautiful looks, good handling, but the driving experience of the Q60 GT is let down by a numbness and disconnection relative to what's happening under you. Refinement isn't on the same level as its BMW and Benz rivals, but the GT is a perfect match for the RC 200t, while remaining good value for money. If you have your heart set on an Infiniti Q60 then I'd skip straight to the top and opt for the Red Sport.

Brutal, bruising and utterly brilliant, the M4 CS will be an acquired taste due to its no-compromise approach, but those willing to take the leap will find a performance car like few others at their disposal.

The Q60 GT is a head turner – literally. Whenever I was driving slow enough to notice, people were rubbernecking to look at the long, low-slung coupe. I'm sure most had no idea what brand of car it was, but in its 'Iridium Blue' paint the Q60 looked amazing with its curvy, sleek profile.

There's only one small issue – the RC 200t and Q60 GT are way too similar looking, right down to their 'signature' shaped c-pillars. I prefer the grille of the Lexus but the rear of the Q60. While there might be a bit of copy-catting going on, both are prettier than their BMW or Benz rivals.

The Q60 GT feels fairly large to drive and the dimensions don't lie – 4690mm end-to-end, 2052mm across with the wing mirrors unfurled, but low at 1395mm.

The cabin treatment is just as emotional as the exterior, with its dual screens, swoopy dashboard and sectioned off driver and passenger cells.

The M4 CS is familiar in all the right ways, but definitely looks significantly jacked up compared to its lesser siblings.

Part of that is the extensive use of carbon everywhere, from its bonnet panels to its roof, front lip, side skirting and boot spoiler. But also because of its super-muscular angles and creases, including the huge dome in its bonnet.

Also exclusive to this M4 CS is the light treatment, with the front LEDs lighting up with yellow highlights the brand says are supposed to be reminiscent of GT racing cars.

At the back, the rear lights are flush with fibre optic lighting, lending a flowing and unique light signature that looks epic at night.

Inside, it's a sea of carbon, with the lightweight racing seats, the dash inserts and the centre console all lined in it. It is a perfectly finished space, though, and one that's also flecked with red, including a 12 o'clock band on the thick-rimmed steering wheel, the seat backs, the contrast stitching and the paddle shifts.

Be warned, though, it takes some acrobatics to climb into or out of the CS. The seat bottoms have these super high edges that double as grab handles, but require some awkward contortions to navigate.

In short, it looks angry, this M4 CS, inside and out.

The short answer is not very practical - but then no two-door sports car really is. So while the front two seats are roomy (although the optional sunroof restricts headroom) the same can't be said for the back seats – at 191cm tall, not only can I not sit up straight (because of the sloping roofline), I can't fit my legs in behind my driving position.

While those large doors open wide the roofline and the lack of rear doors means trying to insert a toddler into his car seat was painful and involved kneeling in the street, there were days we took our much less fancy SUV just because it was easier.

This is a four seater – with two cupholders in between the rear seats and two more cupholders up front. Storage elsewhere is limited, with tiny pockets in the front doors and a small centre console bin to hide your phone and wallet.

The boot is also on the small side at 341 litres – don't compare this to the 423 litre of cargo capacity in the RC 200t which is measured in VDA litres. That said, there was more than enough room for our weekly shop which fitted in snugly, although you have to hoist your shopping bags high to clear that boot lip.

It all boils down to how you classify practicality in a car like this. I mean, the basic stuff is all there – it's got two doors, four seats and a boot capacity of 440 litres.

It measures 4801mm in length, 1918mm in width and 1399mm in height, and room for front seat riders is good, but less so for anyone you squeeze into the back. There are even ISOFIX points for a child seat.

But if you consider practicality the practical pursuit of performance, then the M4 CS has plenty of perks.

We're talking a $254,900 entry price for the M4 CS, which – despite my attempts at justification – is a lot. Remember, the regular M4 is $168,700, and the M4 Competition is $186,500, so we're talking a sizeable premium here.

BMW justifies that price increase in two ways. The first is scarcity, with the M4 CS limited to just 50 examples in Australia. And the second is by dialling up every aspect of the M4's performance to terrifying levels.

The engine outputs are up, the weight is 20kg down, there are better brakes, better seats, a louder exhaust, a stiffer chassis – it goes on and on.

We'll get to some of the performance stuff in a moment, but here's what else your money buys you with the M4 CS.

It starts outside with staggered alloys, 19-inch up front and 20-inch at the rear, wrapped in track-ready rubber. There's also hi-po 'M Compound' brakes with red calipers, lightweight carbon racing seats that are heated up front, an Alcantara-trimmed steering wheel, the 'M Carbon' exterior package with carbon bonnet and roof, adaptive 'M Suspension' and a titanium exhaust that howls like the winds of hell.

The less performance-focused stuff is similar enough to the other M4 models including a 12.3-inch centre screen with digital radio, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, a second 14.9-inch screen that handles your driving data and a head-up display. There's also twin-zone climate control, Merino leather upholstery and ambient interior lighting.

But all of that is secondary, really. This is about performance, specifically of the brutal kind.

The Q60 GT has a 155kW/350Nm 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol engine with drive being sent to the rear wheels through a seven-speed automatic transmission. The same engine is also in the Q60 Sport Premium, while the Red Sport packs a twin-turbo V6.

BMW has found yet more grunt lurking in its trusty 3.0-litre 'M TwinPower' six-cylinder petrol engine, with the M4 CS now pumping out 405kW and 650Nm.

That's a decent jump from the 390kW and 620Nm served up by the M4 Competition, and a giant leap from the outputs of the 'base' M4 – 353kW and 550Nm.

Predictably, then, the CS is the fastest of the lot, knocking off the run from 0-100km/h in 3.4 seconds, compared to 3.5 and 4.2 in the Competition and M4, respectively. The top speed is also dialled up to 302km/h.

All that power is channeled through an eight-speed automatic and sent to all four wheels on demand, with the help of an 'Active M Differential'.

An official combined fuel consumption figure of 7.7L/100km is fairly optimistic and our combination of urban, city and highway running saw the trip computer reporting back to us with 9.1L/100km. Still, that's not too bad considering how much time was spent in city traffic.

The M4 CS is fitted with a 59-litre fuel tank, which – given the BMW's official fuel claim of 10.2 litres per hundred kilometres – should deliver a driving range on a full tank of 541 kilometres.

But... BMW also says the regular M4 – you know, the one that makes 52 fewer kilowatts and 55Nm less torque – uses 10.1L/100km, so do with that information what you will.

I had a feeling this would happen - the GT was disappointing to drive after the Red Sport with the latter's twin-turbo V6, sports suspension, better steering and excellent Sport + drive mode. There's lots to like about the GT, though – the grip is great from the wide Dunlop SP rubber (235 40 R19 front and 255 40 R19 rear), the chassis feels taught, acceleration is good and it's a gorgeous looking car.

But there's a sense of disconnection from the driving experience I couldn't get past, such as the numb feeling in the steering which needed constant re-adjustment. I also think the suspension felt over sprung and lacked composure over small bumps in the road.

The GT and all Q60s don't have the same level of refinement as the C200 Coupe or 420i, evident from the clunky feel of the door handles to the road noise intruding into the cabin.

That 2.0-litre engine is great, but the transmission is a mood killer with it wanting to change up gears quickly to save fuel.

I'm not a fan of the cockpit. Sure it's brave and expressively designed, but the double-deck screens are confusing, there's one for nav, while the other's for media... I think. Then there are things you don't need, such as a digital compass – actually there are two, one on the display and another in the instrument cluster, but there's no digital speedo.

That 2.0-litre engine is great, but the transmission is a mood killer with it wanting to change up gears quickly to save fuel, even in 'Sport' mode.

Here's a curve ball call for you – I've just stepped out of a, Alfa Giulia Super. Close in price to the Infiniti, same sized engine, but infinitely more rewarding and fun to drive – plus you get an extra two doors.

The hardest and angriest M4 of all time is, perhaps unsurprisingly, hard and angry. This is a race track specialist, but because I don't happen to own one of those, my first experience with the barking (and barking mad) M4 CS was navigating my way back from BMW's inner-city dealership.

Like it or lump it, you're going to read some Porsche comparisons here, because you're talking not too far off base 911 Carrera money, and suddenly I find the two Germans doing battle for a spot in my dream garage.

First things first, the BMW won't be much chop for daily driving for most people. Happily, I have a sickness for uncomfortable sports cars. It tells me that no compromises have been made in the pursuit of punishing performance.

A good thing, too, because the BMW, at city speeds, can be punishing. Everything feels heavy, the seats aren't overly comfortable – especially the hard bits that tend to dig in when cornering – and it stiff-arms its way over road imperfections, that exhaust booming and barking as it does.

Again, I loved it, and you probably will, too. But it's still not the kind of car I'd relish sitting in the morning peak hour rush in.

But escape the confines of the city and the BMW M4 CS suddenly makes a whole heap of sense. The acceleration is genuinely brutal, and wonderfully theatrical, with that quad-tipped titanium exhaust barking and snarling as you rocket towards 100km/h.

The steering is brilliant, with feedback fed to your wrists via that thick-rimmed wheel, and the entire experience feels sharp, super engaging and edgy.

You can push the M4 hard and fast, and I'm certain my limited talents would run out far before the BMW's would, but there's this thrilling sense of peril sparked by the aggression of the experience, that I love.

It's like the magic of a roller-coaster, I guess. Even if you know nothing is going to happen, you never really know, right? And in that lies the magic.

But back to original question, this or a Porsche 911? There's no doubt a Carrera is a better all-rounder, in terms of comfy commuting and race track fun, but this angry M4 is all shouty theatrics, all of the time.

I bloody love it.

Expect no ANCAP rating here, I'm afraid. But the BMW 4 Series does wear a five-star rating from 2019.

The M4 CS gets six airbags (driver and passenger, side airbags, head airbags), along with what BMW calls its 'Driving Assistant Professional', which bundles active cruise control (with stop and go function), front and rear cross-traffic warning, 'Steering & Lane Control' and 'Lane Keeping with Side Collision Warning'.

The Q60 GT is covered by Infiniti's four-year/100,000km warranty.

Servicing is recommended every 12 months/25,000km. Servicing is capped at $538 for the first, then $643 and then $849 for the third.

The M4 CS is covered by BMW's five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty, with condition-based servicing available in packs, which will cost you $3530 over five years/80,000km, or $2900 over four years/60,000km.