RE: Audi RS5 TDI: Driven

[Lost soul]

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

that engine is anything but dull

[dukebox9reg]

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

Not in my books, diesels have their place but the limitations (of which have been described in this thread) set them apart from the RS philosophy.

Of course Audi are working away at diluting the RS brand so the likes of a diesel can be added into the mix. As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

You would think like BMW they wouldn't give it the full RS treatment. Like the M's they have obviously made a new sub brand.

I can't see the issue with having a S5 petrol and diesel. Obviously SD and DS5 are already in use.

[vz-r_dave]

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

that engine is anything but dull

The technology is far from dull I agree but the characteristics are very very dull. If you find having an RPM ceiling of 5k and a droning diesel sound track exciting I am very confused.

[micawrx]

Escort Si-130 said:

WRONG, soon the EU will clamp down on diesels due to the amount of particulate matter; which is far worse for humans than petrol.

micawrx said:

As much as I hated diesel cars for most of my life...
If you don't like fast diesels, think you are going to have to move countries as petrol imports are dropping even more - year on year.

....new Passat, they aren't even bothering...

Fantastic News, Wow, where did you hear that? A man in the know.

[Citman]

I have to wonder just what progress needs to be made for some people to be impressed. When I passed my test in '92, diesels were things like the 2.3D Sierra, shoving out something woeful like 68bhp, and they only ever came in base spec. State of the art was something like the 1.9TD PSA lump with a whole 90bhp. 100bhp per litre was the stuff of very expensive cars indeed.

Now your bog standard 2.0 diesel repmobile routinely punts out close to 200 bhp and can realistically sip a gallon of fuel only every 50 miles.

Get a grip. No one is forcing anyone to buy it, there are still petrol options for all bar a few middling rep hatches and saloons. Petrol and diesel tech is becoming increasingly interchangeable, both borrowing off each other in the pursuit of eeking out another few years of green acceptability for the internal combustion engine - yes, they're incredibly complicated now, but 30 years ago, it was rust that would kill them off after relatively short lives, and used cars are now so cheap as to be almost disposable anyway.

[Atmospheric]

Its good technology, but sorry if you think this engine is exciting, you are completely delusional.

[Lost soul]

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

that engine is anything but dull

The technology is far from dull I agree but the characteristics are very very dull. If you find having an RPM ceiling of 5k and a droning diesel sound track exciting I am very confused.

rev limit is irrelevant , and under load even as standard they sound ok

just sit back and ride the tsunami of torque

[Lost soul]

Citman said:

I have to wonder just what progress needs to be made for some people to be impressed. When I passed my test in '92, diesels were things like the 2.3D Sierra, shoving out something woeful like 68bhp, and they only ever came in base spec. State of the art was something like the 1.9TD PSA lump with a whole 90bhp. 100bhp per litre was the stuff of very expensive cars indeed.

Now your bog standard 2.0 diesel repmobile routinely punts out close to 200 bhp and can realistically sip a gallon of fuel only every 50 miles.

Get a grip. No one is forcing anyone to buy it, there are still petrol options for all bar a few middling rep hatches and saloons. Petrol and diesel tech is becoming increasingly interchangeable, both borrowing off each other in the pursuit of eeking out another few years of green acceptability for the internal combustion engine - yes, they're incredibly complicated now, but 30 years ago, it was rust that would kill them off after relatively short lives, and used cars are now so cheap as to be almost disposable anyway.

[AlpinaB5s]

unpc said:

andy97 said:

Hackney said:

Oh god, sporty diesels. Depressing.

I drive a BMW 123D M Sport - twin turbos, 207 Bhp and 350 lb/ft torque. Not depressing at all. A real GTi type car and I enjoy driving it.

I have an Alpina D3 with the same engine and I'm sorry, it is depressing. Don't get me wrong, I like the car. The engine just ruins it.

Oh really?

The car in your profile (if that is yours) suggests you dont have that engine.........

The D3Bi-turbo has the 123d engine. You appear to have the older mono-turbo car..............

[Prawnboy]

Citman said:

Now your bog standard 2.0 diesel repmobile routinely punts out close to 200 bhp and can realistically sip a gallon of fuel only every 50 miles.

lovely speech but none of your rep mobiles are 200bhp

ps co2 mpg ved BIK price
2.0 TDIe 136 6 speed 112 65.7 C 18% £27,300
2.0 TDI ultra 163 6 speed 109 67.3 B 17% £28,320
2.0 TDI 150 multitro 127 58.9 D 21% £28,855
2.0 TDI quattro 177 6 speed 134 55.4 E 22% £29,880
2.0 TDI quattro 177 S tronic 139 53.3 E 23% £31,360

Maybe you were thinking of the 2.0 petrol that makes 225 :wink:


1.8 TFSI 120 6 speed 151 43.5 G 23% £24,385
1.8 TFSI 170 6 speed 134 49.6 E 19% £26,000
1.8 TFSI 170 multitro134 48.7 E 19% £27,480
2.0 TFSI quattr 225 S tronic155 42.2 G 24% £31,645

the only reason to but the TDI over the petrol is to save money on fuel & tax, that means it's a slightly duller car.


http://www.audi.co.uk/new-cars/a4/a4-saloon/specif...

[vz-r_dave]

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

that engine is anything but dull

The technology is far from dull I agree but the characteristics are very very dull. If you find having an RPM ceiling of 5k and a droning diesel sound track exciting I am very confused.

rev limit is irrelevant , and under load even as standard they sound ok

just sit back and ride the tsunami of torque

'rev limit is irrelevant' if that is your way of thinking there is no need to carry on the discussion.

[Citman]

Um, I wasn't specifically referring to Audi. and I said "close to" 200bhp.

177PS from a 2.0 oil burner isn't that far off, and of course VW have the 184PS version - the same figure BMW quote for their standard 2.0 - they also have the 25d variants, of course, which make 218bhp from that same capacity...

[Wills2]

dukebox9reg said:

You would think like BMW they wouldn't give it the full RS treatment. Like the M's they have obviously made a new sub brand.

I can't see the issue with having a S5 petrol and diesel. Obviously SD and DS5 are already in use.

They've done it with the SQ5 their first diesel "S" brand car and my all accounts it's very good.

I have no empirical data to back the next bit, but...

I think there is a move away from RS4/C63/M3 cars towards powerful diesels and the oil burner is no longer the preserve of the middle manager/rep's company car list.

With many people who traditionally would have bought an M/RS/AMG car choosing a fast diesel instead, it won't be long before we see an m3/450d etc...

Witness the recent crazy deals on the aforementioned "halo" cars as a guide to what the brands have to do to shift them also see the popularity of the diesel S Macan etc...

Of course they're not as exciting but you no longer need to suffer 20mpg to get strong performance.

I'm sure there are loads of holes in the above, just my thoughts as someone who is on his third M3.

[dukebox9reg]

Prawnboy said:

Citman said:

Now your bog standard 2.0 diesel repmobile routinely punts out close to 200 bhp and can realistically sip a gallon of fuel only every 50 miles.

lovely speech but none of your rep mobiles are 200bhp

ps co2 mpg ved BIK price
2.0 TDIe 136 6 speed 112 65.7 C 18% £27,300
2.0 TDI ultra 163 6 speed 109 67.3 B 17% £28,320
2.0 TDI 150 multitro 127 58.9 D 21% £28,855
2.0 TDI quattro 177 6 speed 134 55.4 E 22% £29,880
2.0 TDI quattro 177 S tronic 139 53.3 E 23% £31,360

Maybe you were thinking of the 2.0 petrol that makes 225 :wink:


1.8 TFSI 120 6 speed 151 43.5 G 23% £24,385
1.8 TFSI 170 6 speed 134 49.6 E 19% £26,000
1.8 TFSI 170 multitro134 48.7 E 19% £27,480
2.0 TFSI quattr 225 S tronic155 42.2 G 24% £31,645

the only reason to but the TDI over the petrol is to save money on fuel & tax, that means it's a slightly duller car.


http://www.audi.co.uk/new-cars/a4/a4-saloon/specif...

Insignia Bi-Turbo, used to be the avg mans rep-mob and that has 200bhp (give or take a few)

Mondeo has a 2.2 diesel.

I see plenty of people with Jag XFs as a rep car and the same 2.2 with 200bhp let alone the V6.

Again anything above the *20d in the BMW range has over 200bhp from an oil burner.

So just listing some Audi's is cheating

[Lost soul]

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

Lost soul said:

vz-r_dave said:

but putting diesel and RS in the same sentence is wrong on so many levels.

How very narrow minded

As what seems an old school petrol head I don't feel that such a dull engine should feature in any manufactures halo sports/racing/tuner brand.

that engine is anything but dull

The technology is far from dull I agree but the characteristics are very very dull. If you find having an RPM ceiling of 5k and a droning diesel sound track exciting I am very confused.

rev limit is irrelevant , and under load even as standard they sound ok

just sit back and ride the tsunami of torque

'rev limit is irrelevant' if that is your way of thinking there is no need to carry on the discussion.

And vice versa

[Prawnboy]

dukebox9reg said:

Insignia Bi-Turbo, used to be the avg mans rep-mob and that has 200bhp (give or take a few)

Mondeo has a 2.2 diesel.

I see plenty of people with Jag XFs as a rep car and the same 2.2 with 200bhp let alone the V6.

Again anything above the *20d in the BMW range has over 200bhp from an oil burner.

So just listing some Audi's is cheating

well it would be cheating even more to quote 2 different car companies.

on to your examples

insignia bi-turbo diesel 195BHP: the petrol 250hp, better except for the fuel.
jag v6 diesel 275ps: v6 petrol 340ps, better except for fuel.
bmw 325d 218: 328 245bhp (2ltr four pot). closer but guess what.

so to bring it back on topic, performance cars should have fuel consumption down the list of wants, by making a diesel performance car you are raising MPG up the list and therefore pushing other considerations down.
so not as good.
except at saving money on tax and fuel, the derv option is inferior to a petrol engine of the same size.

[unpc]

AlpinaB5s said:

Oh really?

The car in your profile (if that is yours) suggests you dont have that engine.........

The D3Bi-turbo has the 123d engine. You appear to have the older mono-turbo car..............

You are correct. However, I've driven the bi turbo as well and it is still awful. If I didn't do mega miles there's no way I'd have another diesel.

[jamieduff1981]

JonnyVTEC said:

dlockhart said:

Can someone tell me when this engine redlines? if you get a high level of torque from 1,250 rpm and have it until 5 or 6,000rpm then this is an exciting diesel/ chassis combo

Looks like 5k

Personally I think these styles of torque curves are good for pulling caravans but are thoroughly unrewarding to drive in a sporty manner.

The BMW 123d torque curve is a similar shape.

The front loaded torque is handy for getting a heavy load moving, but it is utterly soul destroying - even with a modern automatic - to feel the torque dying a slow, painful death towards the change-up point.

That engine may have a 5,000rpm redline, but it will feel like it's punishing you if you try to take it beyond that 4,000rpm cliff edge.

Leaving aside all that Walter Mitty fake noise nonsense for a moment, when driving sporty cars, a key aspect of the enjoyment is an engine which encourages you to rev it. This torque curve below is the sort of delivery I find a prerequisite for sporty driving:



The actual numbers themselves are less important - that's why cars like the S2000, E46 M3, Elise and even the little MX-5 are so popular as sporty propositions - they reward a bit of thuggery.

Granted the A5 derivatives are not sporty at all. I thought they were a handsome car. I was irremedially put off even trying one by this quote from their website:

"Safe, accurate turning
The sports differential enables the quattro system to not only transfer torque between the front and rear axles to counter traction losses, but also between the rear wheels. When cornering, power is redirected to the outside rear wheel, literally pushing the car through the corner. The driver benefits from feeling more in control and the need to make small steering corrections, so familiar in an ordinary car, become a thing of the past."

It sounds like the furthest thing from rewarding to drive based upon that alone. Nevertheless, I think a performance barge should have an engine that is equally willing to work pretty much anywhere in the rev range. The electric compressor mitigates the usual complain of turbo threshold and lag, but this engine fails to address the punitive characteristics of diesel engines from their huge rotational mass and the fuel's reluctance to burn - both conspiring to make an engine that simply doesn't want to play.

[dukebox9reg]

Prawnboy said:

dukebox9reg said:

Insignia Bi-Turbo, used to be the avg mans rep-mob and that has 200bhp (give or take a few)

Mondeo has a 2.2 diesel.

I see plenty of people with Jag XFs as a rep car and the same 2.2 with 200bhp let alone the V6.

Again anything above the *20d in the BMW range has over 200bhp from an oil burner.

So just listing some Audi's is cheating

well it would be cheating even more to quote 2 different car companies.

on to your examples

insignia bi-turbo diesel 195BHP: the petrol 250hp, better except for the fuel.
jag v6 diesel 275ps: v6 petrol 340ps, better except for fuel.
bmw 325d 218: 328 245bhp (2ltr four pot). closer but guess what.

so to bring it back on topic, performance cars should have fuel consumption down the list of wants, by making a diesel performance car you are raising MPG up the list and therefore pushing other considerations down.
so not as good.
except at saving money on tax and fuel, the derv option is inferior to a petrol engine of the same size.

For starters you are only comparing power and not tq and in the case of the Jag an engine that isn't even available in the UK.

If you take in-gear acceleration

325d 50-70 in 5th 5.1, 50-90 through gears 8.3
328i 50-70 in 5th 6.2, 50-90 Through gears 7.6

So yes down on power but not performance.

The rest of the examples aren't exactly on par with each other.

Best example I can think of is the Mk4 golf. The 1.9tdi matched the GTI for power and because of that was quicker in gear because of the tq advantage. Obviously slightly slower to 60 and the weight of the nose made it understeer a bit more but depending how you measured performance surely the diesel was also classed as a sports hatch (I say sports rather than hot as it was naff, but best example I could think of)

I think for an out and out sports car like a boxster, MR2 etc the diesel hasn't really got its place but for something that straddles sports/GT like the A5, why not. 80-90% of the same B road steer as the petrol but can romp down the motorway at 'respectable' speeds and still get 40mpg rather than 20mpg.

[jamieduff1981]

dukebox9reg said:

Prawnboy said:

dukebox9reg said:

Insignia Bi-Turbo, used to be the avg mans rep-mob and that has 200bhp (give or take a few)

Mondeo has a 2.2 diesel.

I see plenty of people with Jag XFs as a rep car and the same 2.2 with 200bhp let alone the V6.

Again anything above the *20d in the BMW range has over 200bhp from an oil burner.

So just listing some Audi's is cheating

well it would be cheating even more to quote 2 different car companies.

on to your examples

insignia bi-turbo diesel 195BHP: the petrol 250hp, better except for the fuel.
jag v6 diesel 275ps: v6 petrol 340ps, better except for fuel.
bmw 325d 218: 328 245bhp (2ltr four pot). closer but guess what.

so to bring it back on topic, performance cars should have fuel consumption down the list of wants, by making a diesel performance car you are raising MPG up the list and therefore pushing other considerations down.
so not as good.
except at saving money on tax and fuel, the derv option is inferior to a petrol engine of the same size.

For starters you are only comparing power and not tq and in the case of the Jag an engine that isn't even available in the UK.

If you take in-gear acceleration

325d 50-70 in 5th 5.1, 50-90 through gears 8.3
328i 50-70 in 5th 6.2, 50-90 Through gears 7.6

So yes down on power but not performance.

The rest of the examples aren't exactly on par with each other.

Best example I can think of is the Mk4 golf. The 1.9tdi matched the GTI for power and because of that was quicker in gear because of the tq advantage. Obviously slightly slower to 60 and the weight of the nose made it understeer a bit more but depending how you measured performance surely the diesel was also classed as a sports hatch (I say sports rather than hot as it was naff, but best example I could think of)

I think for an out and out sports car like a boxster, MR2 etc the diesel hasn't really got its place but for something that straddles sports/GT like the A5, why not. 80-90% of the same B road steer as the petrol but can romp down the motorway at 'respectable' speeds and still get 40mpg rather than 20mpg.

That engine is available in the UK. It's on their website and configurator. I've no idea why everyone is convinced you have to buy a 5.0 V8 to run on petrol with an XF.