RE: PH Blog: Audi calls a truce

RE: PH Blog: Audi calls a truce

Author
Discussion

Nors

1,291 posts

155 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Mermaid said:
Don't forget the timeless A2 smile
I did!

Actually, (engines apart) they are still right up there with modern thinking! Styling a bit Marmite though I guess.

DutchSi

10 posts

146 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
When people ask whether we need more power in an estate - I would argue 'yes'. I was behind a really slowly driven Focus the other day - it took the driver over 1 minute to get to the 40mph speed limit. I didn't have an issue with the driver doing the speed limit. What got me was it took so long and because I knew I could have got there in a few seconds. I'm not supporting speeding, but getting to the speed limit of a road quickly cuts down my commuting time so would argue that the RS4 isn't too quick for roads - you can expolit the power more of the time without breaking any rules.

It is interesting reading about the Merc's performance in the wet as quite a few RS4 drivers (from rs246.com) had gone down that route recently. Wet roads, overtaking a lorry, full power - the RS4 is straight as a die and the only thing that kicks in is the rev limiter.

Personally I got fed up with having a nice motor for the weekends and run-about in the week - so the RS4 is ideal as it gets on with the weekly drive no problems and then you can enjoy it too at the weekends without having to leave the family behind. You know you have your priorities wrong when you spend hours trying to find out which car seats / pram fit in the back of your beloved 911, only then and then find out that you can't carry your bundle of joy and your wife at the same time.... (some people may think this was a bonus thought ;-))

Nors

1,291 posts

155 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
troc said:
On paper, yes. However it would appear that Audi have bee telling porkies or are using slightly fatter bhps than anyone else as the current S4 almost certainly puts out significantly more than the 330ish it's supposed to. Alternatively, the S4 quattro drivetrain is weirdly efficient.

The most obvious reason being that they needed to differentiate between the S4/5 and the Rs4/5. If they'd put the S4 down as 380bhp for example (not that people reckon it's this much - 360 is the usual guesstimation), the 450bhp of the RS4 would suddenly look even more unimpressive and they'd be forced to ramp it up to 500 which then means the RS6 needs more etc etc.
I've heard that the TTRS/RS3 5 cyl puts out more than quoted, but wasn't aware the S4 carried the same tag!

Would explain a few thing though when I recently encountered one, they are deceptively quick.


Moog72

1,598 posts

177 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Pittsy98 said:
Don't get me wrong, I love my C63. Im only in the 3rd month of ownership and I am in no way disspointed.
The sound alone (especially on cold start-up) is enough to keep me happy!
Interestingly, my brother has a Jaguar XFR, and he experiences the same problem. Realistically It's probably because we of 'average' driving ability, and so we leave the TC firmly set to the ON position, but I feel with an AWD setup, you could use more of the performance more of the time.
With this in mind, a Nissan R35 is next on the cards in a couple of years!
Exactly one of the reasons I moved from my XKR to the current S4 - in anything but bone dry and warm conditions, the rear just didn't feel planted when you tried to accelerate reasonably briskly (but not even full throttle). S4 may have less power, but so far I've found it much more usable more of the time.

Pittsy98

26 posts

152 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Moog72 said:
Exactly one of the reasons I moved from my XKR to the current S4 - in anything but bone dry and warm conditions, the rear just didn't feel planted when you tried to accelerate reasonably briskly (but not even full throttle). S4 may have less power, but so far I've found it much more usable more of the time.
I wonder if Chris-R experienced the lack of opportunity to exploit the performance from the Pistonheads fleet C63 estate as well?

- Compared to say how Riggers felt the Audi RS5 performed?

iain_thornton

17,540 posts

179 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
DutchSi said:
When people ask whether we need more power in an estate - I would argue 'yes'. I was behind a really slowly driven Focus the other day - it took the driver over 1 minute to get to the 40mph speed limit. I didn't have an issue with the driver doing the speed limit. What got me was it took so long and because I knew I could have got there in a few seconds. I'm not supporting speeding, but getting to the speed limit of a road quickly cuts down my commuting time so would argue that the RS4 isn't too quick for roads - you can expolit the power more of the time without breaking any rules.

It is interesting reading about the Merc's performance in the wet as quite a few RS4 drivers (from rs246.com) had gone down that route recently. Wet roads, overtaking a lorry, full power - the RS4 is straight as a die and the only thing that kicks in is the rev limiter.

Personally I got fed up with having a nice motor for the weekends and run-about in the week - so the RS4 is ideal as it gets on with the weekly drive no problems and then you can enjoy it too at the weekends without having to leave the family behind. You know you have your priorities wrong when you spend hours trying to find out which car seats / pram fit in the back of your beloved 911, only then and then find out that you can't carry your bundle of joy and your wife at the same time.... (some people may think this was a bonus thought ;-))
Are you sure? If you accelerate to the speed limit in a shorter period of time, then surely you are exploiting the power for less time than I would in my 78-horsepower Corsa?
I agree that your car is far more fun, but this doesn't ring true.

AKA8

1,739 posts

227 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Moog72 said:
Exactly one of the reasons I moved from my XKR to the current S4 - in anything but bone dry and warm conditions, the rear just didn't feel planted when you tried to accelerate reasonably briskly (but not even full throttle). S4 may have less power, but so far I've found it much more usable more of the time.
I went the opposite way last October - a 4.2 A8 petrol with AWD to a CLK63 AMG, whcih doesn't even have a slip diff! I keep telling people that I miss the driveability of the Audi, particularly at this time of year, and even though the bhp per tonne figure is poorer, the performance of the car was so easy to exploit. The fastest cars in the vast majority of real world conditions are AWD in my experience - but I'm amazed how many BMW owners disagree with that!

E38Ross

35,084 posts

212 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
AKA8 said:
Moog72 said:
Exactly one of the reasons I moved from my XKR to the current S4 - in anything but bone dry and warm conditions, the rear just didn't feel planted when you tried to accelerate reasonably briskly (but not even full throttle). S4 may have less power, but so far I've found it much more usable more of the time.
I went the opposite way last October - a 4.2 A8 petrol with AWD to a CLK63 AMG, whcih doesn't even have a slip diff! I keep telling people that I miss the driveability of the Audi, particularly at this time of year, and even though the bhp per tonne figure is poorer, the performance of the car was so easy to exploit. The fastest cars in the vast majority of real world conditions are AWD in my experience - but I'm amazed how many BMW owners disagree with that!
this is why i'm amazed the M3 was quicker around a rather damp/wet top gear track than the newer, more powerful RS5.

guess it shows dynamically just how much weaker the RS5 is.

f328nvl

507 posts

218 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Nors said:
I've heard that the TTRS/RS3 5 cyl puts out more than quoted, but wasn't aware the S4 carried the same tag!

Would explain a few thing though when I recently encountered one, they are deceptively quick.
I have an S4 (and have had 5 A4s inc the original S4 and RS4). After testing a C63, I was struck by the fact that my car felt underpowered driving home. It also understeers. However, when it snowed I know which I'd rather have on the drive (and yes, I do have a deposit down on an RS4, although, as the original article says, I am not salivating like I should do)

DutchSi

10 posts

146 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
iain_thornton said:
Are you sure? If you accelerate to the speed limit in a shorter period of time, then surely you are exploiting the power for less time than I would in my 78-horsepower Corsa?
I agree that your car is far more fun, but this doesn't ring true.
Sorry - I was mixing my topics there. I find I can exploit the power in more road conditions to get to right speed (and stay there) in the RS4. A 911 c2 traction in the dry is great - but scary in the wet. The RS4 has the same traction but in most road conditions (I was even surprised in the amount of grip in snow / slush / icy conditions). I had always thought 4wd would rob you of road feel, but the 60:40 split is spot on so it feels like a rwd most of the time...

AKA8

1,739 posts

227 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
E38Ross said:
AKA8 said:
Moog72 said:
Exactly one of the reasons I moved from my XKR to the current S4 - in anything but bone dry and warm conditions, the rear just didn't feel planted when you tried to accelerate reasonably briskly (but not even full throttle). S4 may have less power, but so far I've found it much more usable more of the time.
I went the opposite way last October - a 4.2 A8 petrol with AWD to a CLK63 AMG, whcih doesn't even have a slip diff! I keep telling people that I miss the driveability of the Audi, particularly at this time of year, and even though the bhp per tonne figure is poorer, the performance of the car was so easy to exploit. The fastest cars in the vast majority of real world conditions are AWD in my experience - but I'm amazed how many BMW owners disagree with that!
this is why i'm amazed the M3 was quicker around a rather damp/wet top gear track than the newer, more powerful RS5.

guess it shows dynamically just how much weaker the RS5 is.
If you look back to the Evo test between the C63 (or maybe the Lexus - I can't remember), RS5 and their own M3, admittedly with slightly worn tyres, the RS5 was actually faster round their circuit, albeit by a tiny margin. Obviously different circuits will favour different cars, but this wouldn't suggest the RS5 is poor dynamically, more that it is just boring to drive.

Regardless of its dynamics, I'm pretty sure the RS5 would deal with wet greasy roundabouts and overtaking far better than an M3 and for around half the year, those are the things that probably matter most.

I'm not turning this into a BMW v Audi debate - I nearly bought an M6 before getting my AMG, and I've enjoyed other M cars in the past, but I just don't find them that exploitable for the majority of the year - although they are without doubt easier to drive in less than perfect conditions than my AMG.

Nors

1,291 posts

155 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
f328nvl said:
I have an S4 (and have had 5 A4s inc the original S4 and RS4). After testing a C63, I was struck by the fact that my car felt underpowered driving home. It also understeers. However, when it snowed I know which I'd rather have on the drive (and yes, I do have a deposit down on an RS4, although, as the original article says, I am not salivating like I should do)
I thought the current S4 wasn't quite as prone to understeer, or at least it does have the ability to dial some of that out better than other Audi's? (with the help of the optional diff at the back)

Although you're not perhaps salivating, (the jury is out for me too) I think you will need to see it in the flesh and drive it before jumping to conclusions. I don't think the photos are doing it much justice, in the same way when I see a B7 RS4 in pictures, from certain angles (and colours), it can look almost identical to a stardard S-Line. However, in the flesh, you'd never mistake it for anything else other than a RS.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

171 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
AKA8 said:
Obviously different circuits will favour different cars, but this wouldn't suggest the RS5 is poor dynamically, more that it is just boring to drive.

Regardless of its dynamics, I'm pretty sure the RS5 would deal with wet greasy roundabouts and overtaking far better than an M3 and for around half the year, those are the things that probably matter most.

..
RS5 & M3 are good examples of two fine/fast cars. One is safe virtually all the time (condomed) and the other one is more fun quite a lot of the time but you do need to be careful certain times of the calender. wink

Dave Hedgehog

14,555 posts

204 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Nors said:
troc said:
On paper, yes. However it would appear that Audi have bee telling porkies or are using slightly fatter bhps than anyone else as the current S4 almost certainly puts out significantly more than the 330ish it's supposed to. Alternatively, the S4 quattro drivetrain is weirdly efficient.

The most obvious reason being that they needed to differentiate between the S4/5 and the Rs4/5. If they'd put the S4 down as 380bhp for example (not that people reckon it's this much - 360 is the usual guesstimation), the 450bhp of the RS4 would suddenly look even more unimpressive and they'd be forced to ramp it up to 500 which then means the RS6 needs more etc etc.
I've heard that the TTRS/RS3 5 cyl puts out more than quoted, but wasn't aware the S4 carried the same tag!

Would explain a few thing though when I recently encountered one, they are deceptively quick.
it appears there's 2 fuel maps for the i5 engine, it may be country specific which map they get, one of them is SUL, you can check on the build list for the car to see which it has.

i suspect the quoted power is for 95ron, they seam to dyno at around 350bhp on SUL

Moog72

1,598 posts

177 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
Nors said:
I thought the current S4 wasn't quite as prone to understeer, or at least it does have the ability to dial some of that out better than other Audi's? (with the help of the optional diff at the back)

Although you're not perhaps salivating, (the jury is out for me too) I think you will need to see it in the flesh and drive it before jumping to conclusions. I don't think the photos are doing it much justice, in the same way when I see a B7 RS4 in pictures, from certain angles (and colours), it can look almost identical to a stardard S-Line. However, in the flesh, you'd never mistake it for anything else other than a RS.
In my experience, if you charge into a corner carrying a bit too much speed, then it still understeers quite badly. Approach the corner a little more slowly and then feed in power smoothly through the bend, then you really can feel the sport diff kind of pushing you around the corner - it's quite impressive actually. More a question of adopting a different style to exploit the AWD grip.

goron59

397 posts

171 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
OK, now I want the 860hp RS6 spin

TheOrangePeril

778 posts

180 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
dasherdiablo1 said:
Itsallicanafford said:
IMO... I Love the way people are disappointed with only 450Bhp in the New RS4...you must really need to get your dog to the park of your kids to playgroup in a hurry to need more BHP...don't get me wrong, i am delighted that these models exist, but to me they seam alittle pointless...too fast for the road, too heavy for the track and massively overpriced (does an RS6 honestly cost more the 2.5 times to maufacture than a 2.0TDI A6?...add up the bits)... where does their natural habitat lie?
+1 ... perfectly put
Very much disagree with the price issue. Development costs increase exponentially the closer you get to the limits of a platform. The price of the parts is barely an issue, it's the amount of time and effort put into pushing the boundaries of performance that increases the costs involved. Consider, a 2.0l TDI A6 has had all the engineering done for it. Components already exist to enable the car to handle the power and torque, the improvements in an incoming vehicle compared to an outgoing one are comparatively marginal. To make a huge leap with a performance model, everything needs to be started again from scratch. For example - a 2.0 TDI A6 may use many similar transmission/suspension/whatever components as an older 6-pot model, they have been developed, tested and proven as fit for purpose. They only have to be honed and optimised for the latest application. If a company is adding 80bhp to a range-topper and expecting it to shave 15 seconds off the fastest ring-time the company has so far achieved, new parts and systems have to be engineered from the ground up. R&D is expensive and testing is hit-and-miss, often leading to more R&D and hence more cost!

n4aat

458 posts

212 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
I'm pretty sure last time I went to an investor presentation from BMW, VW(Audi) and Daimler (Merc) only BMW were going down the carbon fibre route for weight reduction. They were seeing an opportunity for them to put it into chassis' in the not too distant future.


ads_green

838 posts

232 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
It's not the power or performance figures that I was dissappointed with... more so the lack of imagination.

If they had put the brand new 4.0l v8 twin turbo with 450 bhp in the new RS4 instead then that would be a step forward.
That engine is one for 2012 with decent torque, good power and with all the cylinder deactivation good mpg and low co2.
The turbo low down would probably make more of a difference to performance and give it a respectable edge over the last model.

This one like Chris says in the article just leaves me, well, a little cold.

E38Ross

35,084 posts

212 months

Friday 17th February 2012
quotequote all
TheOrangePeril said:
dasherdiablo1 said:
Itsallicanafford said:
IMO... I Love the way people are disappointed with only 450Bhp in the New RS4...you must really need to get your dog to the park of your kids to playgroup in a hurry to need more BHP...don't get me wrong, i am delighted that these models exist, but to me they seam alittle pointless...too fast for the road, too heavy for the track and massively overpriced (does an RS6 honestly cost more the 2.5 times to maufacture than a 2.0TDI A6?...add up the bits)... where does their natural habitat lie?
+1 ... perfectly put
Very much disagree with the price issue. Development costs increase exponentially the closer you get to the limits of a platform. The price of the parts is barely an issue, it's the amount of time and effort put into pushing the boundaries of performance that increases the costs involved. Consider, a 2.0l TDI A6 has had all the engineering done for it. Components already exist to enable the car to handle the power and torque, the improvements in an incoming vehicle compared to an outgoing one are comparatively marginal. To make a huge leap with a performance model, everything needs to be started again from scratch. For example - a 2.0 TDI A6 may use many similar transmission/suspension/whatever components as an older 6-pot model, they have been developed, tested and proven as fit for purpose. They only have to be honed and optimised for the latest application. If a company is adding 80bhp to a range-topper and expecting it to shave 15 seconds off the fastest ring-time the company has so far achieved, new parts and systems have to be engineered from the ground up. R&D is expensive and testing is hit-and-miss, often leading to more R&D and hence more cost!
this exactly.

in reality, i'd be willing to bet my last penny that despite the massive difference in price, they still make more profit margins on the smaller engined cars once you take parts AND development costs into it.