Sunday 17th April 2016

New Audi RS4 Avant spy pics

Why losing the V8 is nothing to mourn in the new RS4 Avant

---

Fewer cylinders, smaller engines, more turbos - the pattern is being repeated across the fast car world and causing a fair amount of anguish as it goes. See the 400-odd comments on the new four-cylinder 718 Boxster S as the most recent example.

There must be some relief at Quattro GmbH that, unlike M and AMG, things are simply coming full circle. Sure, there will be a degree of outpouring when the previous high-revving naturally aspirated V8 is replaced with a smaller twin-turbo V6. But given the original B5 RS4 was squeezing 381hp out of such an engine 15 years ago (with a little help from Cosworth) Audi doesn't have the same emotional baggage to contend with and can simply boast of being true to its traditions. That car still feels fast now, the benchmark for the new RS4 Avant being set very high by both this and its two V8-powered successors.

So what do we have for the new one? Erm, being completely honest nothing additional in hard facts over the last time we shared some spy shots. That won't stop us speculating though. Especially given the love in the PH office for a fast estate car; as discussed last week when we saw first shots of the new E63 AMG it's just a relief in this day and crossover age folk like Quattro and AMG are still willing to build such cars.

Fanboys will clock the large oval tailpipes, this being the traditional marker separating RS models from their quad-piped S equivalants. The subtle arch flare is another welcome distinguishing feature but even with the disguise it's obvious this will be a stealth performance car in the best of fast Audi tradition. Well, assuming you can de-badge the shouty Quattro script on the front valance recent RS models have carried. We'll work on the basis the full cage is a 'ring testing safety precaution and not being homolgated for production too.

In terms of performance and set-up we'll have to work on new S4 and then some. Starting points there are a 354hp single turbo 3.0-litre V6 with 368lb ft - already more than the outgoing V8 RS4. Gearbox on the S is an eight-speed auto; a punchier dual-clutch would set the RS apart and it'll have to beat the S4 Avant's 4.9 seconds to 62mph by a suitable margin. In the S4 this engine drives through a permanent four-wheel drive chassis with optional active locking rear Sport Differential - you'd have to hope this or something like it would be standard on the RS.

Audi can get a little carried away with the configurable options - check out the multitude of modes on the new R8 - so we'll be hoping within them there's something to satisfy, especially on the steering front. The disappointing Dynamic Steering is optional on the S4; if as you might expect it's fitted to the RS4 let's hope it at least gets the R8's 'locked out' setting that fixes the variable ratio for a more predictable feel. We can but hope.

Engine-wise the S4's new 2,995cc V6 is what you'd expect to be the basis of the RS's new motor following Audi doctrine by being undersquare and tuned for low-end grunt and flexibility. That will at least address the chronic torque shortage in the otherwise lovely 4.2-litre V8 - 4,000rpm for your 317lb ft is, by modern standards, peaky beyond belief. The S4's single twin-scroll turbo - positioned between the cylinder banks - means peak torque in that engine from just 1,350rpm. This 'inside out' format shared with the 4.0-litre in the RS6 (and AMG's latest V8) should accommodate an additional turbo and suitable bottom line increase; if the power output starts with anything less than a '5' we'd be surprised.

So. Torquey turbo power from a small capacity twin-turbo V6, four-wheel drive, flared arches and a nicely understated appearance? Like we said, full circle. Nothing to moan about in the RS4 Avant's case though!

Search for Audi RS4s in the PH classifieds here

[Photos: S. Baldauf/SB-Medien]

[Sam All]

BMW M3 and M4 have enjoyed luke warm response to their 3 litre twin turbo.

This RS also has big boots to fill.

[MDMA .]

" In terms of performance and set-up we'll have to work on new S4 and then some. Starting points there are a 354hp single turbo 3.0-litre V6 with 368lb ft - "

S4 is twin turbo.

[Waitey]

Considering my bone stock RS3 just put out 397bhp this should be way over 500....

[smilo996]

Well you can get 500 reliable horses out of the 2.7 V6 B5 so it cannot be a problem to get the new one to be fast.

No issue with a twin turbo either, as they have done it before.

Is it me or does the RS4 look more like the size of an older RS6 these days.

The numbers will be interesting.

[MrBarry123]

It doesn't look as beefy as previous cars.

[Roscco]

"In terms of performance and set-up we'll have to work on new S4 and then some. Starting points there are a 354hp single turbo 3.0-litre V6 with 368lb ft - already more than the outgoing V8 RS4. "

Apart from the S4 being twin turbo... What's already more than the outgoing RS4??

[Meridius]

It looks piggish, like all of the new Audi S and RS do, and most of the BMW M and Merc AMG range for that matter.

Car designers must love pigs.

[SuperVM]

Roscco said:

"In terms of performance and set-up we'll have to work on new S4 and then some. Starting points there are a 354hp single turbo 3.0-litre V6 with 368lb ft - already more than the outgoing V8 RS4. "

Apart from the S4 being twin turbo... What's already more than the outgoing RS4??

Torque I think.

[Resolutionary]

As an avid fan of the original RS4 (and pretty much all things Avant), I'm really looking forward to this latest model. I wish Audi stuck to their 'roots' in the mid-2000s and simply revised / updated the V6 2.7TT block from the B5 generation - perhaps just sorting out some of the issues known to plague early motors, increasing displacement and revising / upgrading the fun stuff.

Funny how these things do indeed go full circle. I doubt we'll ever see a ludicrous 5.2TT V10 again (C6 RS6), or anything remotely like it in estate offering from Audi (or any of the big German manufacturers), what with the legislation choke-hold and an ever increasing importance in emissions / efficiency. No-gress like progress eh!

[White_Streak]

Fake exhaust sound piped in through the stereo then?

[SuperchargedVR6]

Waitey said:

Considering my bone stock RS3 just put out 397bhp this should be way over 500....

I doubt it did. Either the dyno calcs were duff or the car is running more boost than specified. +10% is too much to be an anomaly.

[MDMA .]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Waitey said:

Considering my bone stock RS3 just put out 397bhp this should be way over 500....

I doubt it did. Either the dyno calcs were duff or the car is running more boost than specified.

Revo re-mapped ?

[PhantomPH]

I always assumed they were testing handling as part of any 'Ring tests - but surely a full cage will add to structural rigidity and give false results when looking at load test output after a fast lap?

Put it another way - the data they get from that car, will be different to a car without a cage...unless the cage adds zero structural rigidity...which renders it a little pointless, doesn't it?

[SuperchargedVR6]

MDMA . said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Waitey said:

Considering my bone stock RS3 just put out 397bhp this should be way over 500....

I doubt it did. Either the dyno calcs were duff or the car is running more boost than specified.

Revo re-mapped ?

That engine has a fair bit more than +10% headroom, so probably not revo'd. Ex press car or something, who knows, but it isn't right if claiming to be standard.

I've been in the VAG 'scene' for years now and seen plenty of people say things like "My stock Golf GTI just put down 220bhp. 23 more than standard" almost like their car is somehow a bit more special than the others, but when you dig into it a bit more, it's usually on a stinkingly cold day, on the first pull when intake and exhaust gas temps are low.

And then I've seen lazy boost control allowing a temporary over-boost. My car is mapped to request 1.3 bar (0.9 bar standard) but in my data logs I've seen it rise to 1.4 bar because the boost control maps can't pull it back fast enough. The standard boost mapping has a much tighter grip on it, so odds are some cars out there have been played with, either that or the boost solenoid isn't very responsive to commands.

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Tuesday 12th April 16:13

[Dave Hedgehog]

I find the RS4's V8 a terrible engine for a daily driver (its great when you are on it), its fine in an R8 but for me a daily RS needs to pull hard from very low down and then scream up the top end, the RS6's engine is just fantastic for this (as is the RS3).

So going back to a bi-turbo V6 is a big plus in my books, doubly so if they are the electric "instant on" type

[HJMS123]

Waitey said:

Considering my bone stock RS3 just put out 397bhp this should be way over 500....

I doubt it tbh, that would be a big step up from the figures of the previous gen and also be stepping on the toes of the RS6.

It could put out the same bhp as the previous gen and the torque alone would make it faster/more usable.

[Jackspistonheadsaccount]

Wasn't the QUATTRO script of the front grille optional on the previous fast audis? Quattro pack or something, just a fair few people specced it

[hoegaardenruls]

Dave Hedgehog said:

I find the RS4's V8 a terrible engine for a daily driver (its great when you are on it), its fine in an R8 but for me a daily RS needs to pull hard from very low down and then scream up the top end, the RS6's engine is just fantastic for this (as is the RS3).

So going back to a bi-turbo V6 is a big plus in my books, doubly so if they are the electric "instant on" type

That pretty much ties in with my opinion, as it's why I didn't replace my B5 RS4 with a V8 RS4 or 5.

The engine was stunning higher up in the rev-range on country roads (and sounded great), but round town just felt like it was missing the low-down torque of the 2.7TT of the B5. I do like the looks of the current B8 RS, so this might just tempt me back to RS4 ownership..

[Cassius81]

hoegaardenruls said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

I find the RS4's V8 a terrible engine for a daily driver (its great when you are on it), its fine in an R8 but for me a daily RS needs to pull hard from very low down and then scream up the top end, the RS6's engine is just fantastic for this (as is the RS3).

So going back to a bi-turbo V6 is a big plus in my books, doubly so if they are the electric "instant on" type

That pretty much ties in with my opinion, as it's why I didn't replace my B5 RS4 with a V8 RS4 or 5.

The engine was stunning higher up in the rev-range on country roads (and sounded great), but round town just felt like it was missing the low-down torque of the 2.7TT of the B5. I do like the looks of the current B8 RS, so this might just tempt me back to RS4 ownership..

As someone who runs a B7 RS4, I can only agree with this. The lack of low down torque is probably my main issue with the car. On open roads it is wonderful - around town it just doesn't feel as effortless as a car of that output should.

[Kawasicki]

PhantomPH said:

I always assumed they were testing handling as part of any 'Ring tests - but surely a full cage will add to structural rigidity and give false results when looking at load test output after a fast lap?

Put it another way - the data they get from that car, will be different to a car without a cage...unless the cage adds zero structural rigidity...which renders it a little pointless, doesn't it?

Yes you are correct. But handling is only one reason to use the ring, it's also used for development of brakes, durability, thermal management, and a load of other stuff...including driver training!