RE: Estate Of Play: Fast Wagons
Discussion
George H said:
I'll take the RS2 please 
I have an original RS2, undamaged etc etc and its a pleasure to own/drive and is very practical, tape over the rear badges and nobody knows what has just vanished. Was not an expensive issue to get it spot on and after 7 years or so I would not sell it.Just bought a BMW 540 touring for not much money, good service history, good condition, spend £400 on bits and pieces and another quick load lugger in collection. Another 280 bhp veteran from 2000 model.
Love V8's almost as much as turbocharged straight five - the RS2 leaves most ur's etc cold, had a 1983 urq for 19 good years but the RS2 is the car within the Audi fwd range of the 1980/1990.
I'd have any of the fast wagons to be honest.
I've not driven the Volvo, Merc or the MG but I have owned an RS2 and I've driven the RS4 (as well as an RS6 not tested here).
So, what do I think of the RS4? A truly great car and so much more refined than the RS2. And that's what puts some people off these later RS's I think - they're just so capable without any fuss at all and this, for some, borders on being boring and unfeeling! I still like them, but they really are expensive and I know that they're not at all without their mechanical gliches - RS6 active suspension troubles for example.
The RS2? Having owned one for a couple of years I can base any comment on first hand experience. It was one of those cars that was on my "to own some day" list, and I went looking for one regularly on and off for a few years. Based in Northern Ireland the choice of any specialist vehicle is limited in number let alone one that only had a very short production run and even less available in RHD form.
When I located the my RS Blue car(and yes that is the correct name for the colour if you have a look at the original brochure!) I travelled to Yorkshire to see it. Not a wasted journey and we (my son, his girlfriend and I) made our way back home smiling all the way at the new purchase.
However, as with some ambitions/dreams they have a habit of NOT living up to expectations. The RS2 didn't quite live up to the dream but (I hasten very quickly to add) that didn't stop me really liking the car for all its faults. The main fault or let down really was the performance delivery. That engine sounding so good promised much. But it only came on song at about 2900rpm. Below that everything was so lazy and slow if I'm honest. That was the biggest disappointment.
After that came the disappointing brake system - having been adapted from Porsche (Brembo design therefore), I'd expected superb stopping power. Not so, especially as on our way home we were coming up to a mini roundabout on the A75 near Dumfries, expecting to be slowed down at the last moment and get around nice and quick, when we just had to go through on a wing and a prayer virtually as the brakes seemed to fade. So that was something to have a look at when we got home. Sure enough the mechanic diagnosed a couple of problems, mainly that the pads and holders had reacted with each other (different metals etc) and so weren't as effective as they should have been. Also, a Porsche mechanic did say that although the system worked well on the 911's of the day, when planted on the Audi they just didn't work as well in his experience. Anyway we got them sorted by replacing pads and plates within the callipers and reconditioning the callipers just to make sure. Result? A lot better, but not up to the 911 standards (and yes I had one of those at the same time - 964 C4)
So, any good points? Oh yes! And that's why I still like these cars. The handling is just pure joy. They're so well set up. The transmission is such a good match for the engine, it encourages chaning gear to make use of the handling and power. I know I said I didn't like the way the power was delivered, but that's just me. I like torque from low down the revs and the turbo is 90's technology so has lag. That's why the V8 in the RS4 is so appealing. Out and out performance? If driven using the revs and keeping engine/turbos "on song" it's amazing and as good as ANY of the other cars here (maybe not the Merc, although I think it would make up for that by being better handling and nimbler).
Finally, it's the ONLY Audi taken by Porsche and tuned etc. The later ones don't have anything of Porsche on them (I could be wrong but I don't think so). So the RS2 is unique in this respect and for that reason will retain somewhat of an icon status, despite its faults.
see pictures on www.countryporsche.com
I've not driven the Volvo, Merc or the MG but I have owned an RS2 and I've driven the RS4 (as well as an RS6 not tested here).
So, what do I think of the RS4? A truly great car and so much more refined than the RS2. And that's what puts some people off these later RS's I think - they're just so capable without any fuss at all and this, for some, borders on being boring and unfeeling! I still like them, but they really are expensive and I know that they're not at all without their mechanical gliches - RS6 active suspension troubles for example.
The RS2? Having owned one for a couple of years I can base any comment on first hand experience. It was one of those cars that was on my "to own some day" list, and I went looking for one regularly on and off for a few years. Based in Northern Ireland the choice of any specialist vehicle is limited in number let alone one that only had a very short production run and even less available in RHD form.
When I located the my RS Blue car(and yes that is the correct name for the colour if you have a look at the original brochure!) I travelled to Yorkshire to see it. Not a wasted journey and we (my son, his girlfriend and I) made our way back home smiling all the way at the new purchase.
However, as with some ambitions/dreams they have a habit of NOT living up to expectations. The RS2 didn't quite live up to the dream but (I hasten very quickly to add) that didn't stop me really liking the car for all its faults. The main fault or let down really was the performance delivery. That engine sounding so good promised much. But it only came on song at about 2900rpm. Below that everything was so lazy and slow if I'm honest. That was the biggest disappointment.
After that came the disappointing brake system - having been adapted from Porsche (Brembo design therefore), I'd expected superb stopping power. Not so, especially as on our way home we were coming up to a mini roundabout on the A75 near Dumfries, expecting to be slowed down at the last moment and get around nice and quick, when we just had to go through on a wing and a prayer virtually as the brakes seemed to fade. So that was something to have a look at when we got home. Sure enough the mechanic diagnosed a couple of problems, mainly that the pads and holders had reacted with each other (different metals etc) and so weren't as effective as they should have been. Also, a Porsche mechanic did say that although the system worked well on the 911's of the day, when planted on the Audi they just didn't work as well in his experience. Anyway we got them sorted by replacing pads and plates within the callipers and reconditioning the callipers just to make sure. Result? A lot better, but not up to the 911 standards (and yes I had one of those at the same time - 964 C4)
So, any good points? Oh yes! And that's why I still like these cars. The handling is just pure joy. They're so well set up. The transmission is such a good match for the engine, it encourages chaning gear to make use of the handling and power. I know I said I didn't like the way the power was delivered, but that's just me. I like torque from low down the revs and the turbo is 90's technology so has lag. That's why the V8 in the RS4 is so appealing. Out and out performance? If driven using the revs and keeping engine/turbos "on song" it's amazing and as good as ANY of the other cars here (maybe not the Merc, although I think it would make up for that by being better handling and nimbler).
Finally, it's the ONLY Audi taken by Porsche and tuned etc. The later ones don't have anything of Porsche on them (I could be wrong but I don't think so). So the RS2 is unique in this respect and for that reason will retain somewhat of an icon status, despite its faults.
see pictures on www.countryporsche.com
FIK said:
I've read somewhere that there were only 30 of the v8 zt-t ever made. Does this make it the rarest?
There were, iirc, 27 of the pre-facelift tourers, including any that might've been written off as part of the development process. There were rather more facelift cars, but still not all that many, as the sum total of all V8 models was (again iirc) 887.The rarest of all of them was the Rover 75 V8 tourer, of which there were at most 10. They all had sequentially numbered VIN codes, regardless of the actual derivative. Mine (the one in the article) was therefore the 19th one made. Maybe unsurprisingly, it is the only one of any variant in this colour!
thoasha said:
So, what do I think of the RS4? A truly great car and so much more refined than the RS2. And that's what puts some people off these later RS's I think - they're just so capable without any fuss at all and this, for some, borders on being boring and unfeeling!
I agree the RS4 is a great street/highway car. However, For track days & fun driving especially at the 'Ring, I prefer a RWD car - far more dynamic & involving.It was great to compare my RS4 to the other cars that day.
jeremyc said:
Nice work on the pictures George. 'Twas a good day, and really interesting to compare to the other manic wagons. What Riggers failed to mention is that all were road tested four-up, naturally.
Im torn* between M5 E60, RS6+(old Shape), RS4 Avant, VXR8,
The year legroom is important for European holiday duty!
oh and nice photos George
- When I say torn - read daydreaming about getting one
Nors said:
IIRC, Audi were first with Turbo & 4WD on an Estate 182 bhp (long before Subaru)with the 1986 200 Avant quattro Turbo. I'm sure I'll be corrected though if wrong!
Yep, Subaru did it with the '84 Leone IIRC (and rallying with 4wd from '82 as well from memory). In reality they still weren't that fast as standard (170ish bhp perhaps? I forget), but a mate had one with the boost wound up to 17psi which was a WRX-beater. The '89 Legacy RS / GT with 220bhp stock go quite well too
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 24th May 13:00
thoasha said:
However, as with some ambitions/dreams they have a habit of NOT living up to expectations. The RS2 didn't quite live up to the dream but (I hasten very quickly to add) that didn't stop me really liking the car for all its faults. The main fault or let down really was the performance delivery. That engine sounding so good promised much. But it only came on song at about 2900rpm. Below that everything was so lazy and slow if I'm honest. That was the biggest disappointment.
FPMSL 2900rpm is good for an old school turbo, dare I say it even a new school turbo!TX.
GravelBen said:
Yep, Subaru did it with the '84 Leone IIRC (and rallying with 4wd from '82 as well from memory). In reality they still weren't that fast as standard (170ish bhp perhaps? I forget), but a mate had one with the boost wound up to 17psi which was a WRX-beater. The '89 Legacy RS / GT with 220bhp stock go quite well too
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 24th May 13:00
Was that available in uk though?
simonigrale said:
been looking at Alfa GTAs over the last few days.
Q2 diff and 330mm brakes are apparently the bits you need to make them sweet.
8k seems to be the price for good ones but are they that much better than a 2.5 V6 which you can pick up for £2500?
My daily drive is a 156 2.5 V6 Veloce.Q2 diff and 330mm brakes are apparently the bits you need to make them sweet.
8k seems to be the price for good ones but are they that much better than a 2.5 V6 which you can pick up for £2500?
It replaced a GTV 3.2.
The 3.2 is in a completely different league in terms of torque, horsepower and, therefore, performance. It has almost an extra litre capacity and a 50bhp advantage.
But the 2.5 sounds just as good and feels just as special. In fact, the 2.5 is more pleasant to drive because the chassis isn't quite so overwhelmed by the power.
My 156 is a bit lacking in the handling department and the brakes aren't really up to the job. But it is still a wonderful car.
If it was to be my only car, I would definitely hang out for a GTA. But mine is just a daily hack.
As the 2.5 provides three quarters of the performance for less than half the price, it is a pretty good compromise.
Pedant mode...
The T-5R (not T5-R) was no more hardcore than the 850R, in fact all the earlier models, man and auto are 240 bhp, where as the 850R reportedly had 250 on the manual cars. The most significant difference aside from the choice of colours is the swapping of alcantara and leather panels on the seats....
Loved my old Gul yellow T-5R. A car I wish I'd not sold!
The T-5R (not T5-R) was no more hardcore than the 850R, in fact all the earlier models, man and auto are 240 bhp, where as the 850R reportedly had 250 on the manual cars. The most significant difference aside from the choice of colours is the swapping of alcantara and leather panels on the seats....
Loved my old Gul yellow T-5R. A car I wish I'd not sold!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff