RE: PH Blog: Audi calls a truce
Discussion
I'm intrigued rather than dissappointed by the new RS4. My current S4 in certainly quick enough for the real world and feels punchier than the quoted 333bhp but I wouldn't take it on track - it's just not that kind of car.
I've had quite a few 'PH' cars over the years (Clio Cup, Caterham, Elise, 964 C2 etc.) but the S4 can certainly put a smile on my face on the drive home from the office so I wouldn't rule out this few RS4 just yet.
Fast Audi's do get some stick for not being as playful or having the same tactile feel as their M equivalents but they simply offer something different - safe all weather performance. At the end of a long day at work on a damp February night I just want to get home as quickly as possible without any drama. Having had a some unwanted 'moments' in the wet driving BMW's previously I'm now an Audi convert.
Not for everyone perhaps but plenty of people seem to agree with me judging by the sales figures.
Maybe i'm just getting old...
I've had quite a few 'PH' cars over the years (Clio Cup, Caterham, Elise, 964 C2 etc.) but the S4 can certainly put a smile on my face on the drive home from the office so I wouldn't rule out this few RS4 just yet.
Fast Audi's do get some stick for not being as playful or having the same tactile feel as their M equivalents but they simply offer something different - safe all weather performance. At the end of a long day at work on a damp February night I just want to get home as quickly as possible without any drama. Having had a some unwanted 'moments' in the wet driving BMW's previously I'm now an Audi convert.
Not for everyone perhaps but plenty of people seem to agree with me judging by the sales figures.
Maybe i'm just getting old...
All this talk of a power truce I think is not the case.
It's due to road cars having to abide by certain rules, emissions, reliability, driveability, exclusivity, fashion, safety and at a price that fits.
F1 engines are putting out 750bhp but are designed for purpose and certainly will not do 1000's of miles and would be all but undriveable around town.
I think it's just a reality check.
It's due to road cars having to abide by certain rules, emissions, reliability, driveability, exclusivity, fashion, safety and at a price that fits.
F1 engines are putting out 750bhp but are designed for purpose and certainly will not do 1000's of miles and would be all but undriveable around town.
I think it's just a reality check.
LuS1fer said:
Props to Audi. This is the first recent car launch where the car doesn't look like it has been inflated by the "Zeppelin safety and uglifying pump" like BMW. Less is more in both senses.
ah, you mean the way this will weigh more than the last RS4 and the new 3 series is lighter than the previous 3 series? 
Who cares about power anyway?
The delivery, way you can put it down, the sound, all those types of things become just as important when you are adding extra power that will be increasingly rarely used anyway.
400bhp fast spinning V8 with a fantastic noise sounds like the perfect recipe full stop. Why try change what is already so good to add something no one cares about?
Dave
The delivery, way you can put it down, the sound, all those types of things become just as important when you are adding extra power that will be increasingly rarely used anyway.
400bhp fast spinning V8 with a fantastic noise sounds like the perfect recipe full stop. Why try change what is already so good to add something no one cares about?
Dave
Audi were stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea:
If they produced a a twin turbo/supercharged V6 with 450PS and then BMW produced an M3 with another V8, everyone would have said, "pfff, the Audi's only got a V6 and it doesn't handle, it's lost it's character".
If Audi had produced a twin turbo/supercharged V8 with 500PS and the new M3 was a twin turbo straight 6 with 450PS then people would have said, "the BMW's more appropriate for the current economic climate and is more responsible towards the planet".
That's the problem with playing the first card, you don't know what your opponent has in their hand and Audi were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The route they've gone is a happy medium and unfortunately that's what modern day fast Audi's represent, to much of a "it does most things ok", but when you're spending £50k+ on a high performance car you expect it to be the perfect creation, not a car build by bean counters and marketing men, a car build by enthusiasts who love driving, you want the power to be appropriate for the chassis, for the steering inputs to be well mated to the torque curve, you want the car to excite you every time you sit in it and twist the key......what you don't want is a car that 'Klaus Van Winke' said needs to be build like this or like that to sound good in the marketing blurb.........and that's why a modern Audi RS will never make your heart skip a beat with excitement in the way a car build by M division or at Affalterbach will.
Having said that, Audi does always uses the RS6 to truly flex it's muscles so maybe we can expect a 650PS twin turbo V10 RS6 which when delimited can smash 200mph.....we can but hope.
C
If they produced a a twin turbo/supercharged V6 with 450PS and then BMW produced an M3 with another V8, everyone would have said, "pfff, the Audi's only got a V6 and it doesn't handle, it's lost it's character".
If Audi had produced a twin turbo/supercharged V8 with 500PS and the new M3 was a twin turbo straight 6 with 450PS then people would have said, "the BMW's more appropriate for the current economic climate and is more responsible towards the planet".
That's the problem with playing the first card, you don't know what your opponent has in their hand and Audi were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The route they've gone is a happy medium and unfortunately that's what modern day fast Audi's represent, to much of a "it does most things ok", but when you're spending £50k+ on a high performance car you expect it to be the perfect creation, not a car build by bean counters and marketing men, a car build by enthusiasts who love driving, you want the power to be appropriate for the chassis, for the steering inputs to be well mated to the torque curve, you want the car to excite you every time you sit in it and twist the key......what you don't want is a car that 'Klaus Van Winke' said needs to be build like this or like that to sound good in the marketing blurb.........and that's why a modern Audi RS will never make your heart skip a beat with excitement in the way a car build by M division or at Affalterbach will.
Having said that, Audi does always uses the RS6 to truly flex it's muscles so maybe we can expect a 650PS twin turbo V10 RS6 which when delimited can smash 200mph.....we can but hope.
C
AKA8 said:
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!guess it shows dynamically just how much weaker the RS5 is.
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.
I think the issue is simular to the discussion about wheels in the ride quality thread, mr average believes, or at least the manufacturers perceive him to believe, bigger or more is always automatically better. The idea of say, Roy James choosing a 3.4 jag over the 3.8 for a getaway, would just puzzle these people. Well that's not true- they'd understand the theory, then go right ahead and select the 3.8 anyway.
The B8 RS4 rocking up with the same engine as the RS5 and the B7 RS4 is really quite logical if rather sad. Audi couldn't put a developed version of the S4/S5 3L V6 in the RS4 and not then have to "improve" the current RS5 to have the same engine unless they wanted sales to tank even further.
Power war over? no we're just back to economics deciding model development see BMW using developed "N series" engines again in new M range. F10 M5/M6 S63tu > improved N63... F30 M3 improved N55??
I'd bet the B9 RS5/4 comes with a higher specific output smaller displacement engine based on something that shifts in volume...
Power war over? no we're just back to economics deciding model development see BMW using developed "N series" engines again in new M range. F10 M5/M6 S63tu > improved N63... F30 M3 improved N55??
I'd bet the B9 RS5/4 comes with a higher specific output smaller displacement engine based on something that shifts in volume...
Pauly-b said:
I guess the use of the engine is to save funds with x amount being ordered for the RS5 - Still a little disappointed in this, not sure there's anything here to get me out of my B7 RS4 if I'm honest sadly...
+10 The original was the best in terms of liveability ie incl fuel consumption...once you had replaced the soft wheels for the umpteenth time :-))
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!guess it shows dynamically just how much weaker the RS5 is.
I think Harris is right...and about time too. The power produced by so many modern fast saloons corrputs their driving experience and is often an irrelevance.
On another note, why do so many articles about performance cars make reference to 'driving to Geneva?' Why would you want to drive to Geneva?
On another note, why do so many articles about performance cars make reference to 'driving to Geneva?' Why would you want to drive to Geneva?
Mermaid said:
Power has gone up far more than driver abilities/training.
Absolutely. Any fool can use 450 horses in a straight line. It was a comparitively low 200HP TDi Quattro that put me in a position where I felt I wasn't in control in a corner. The ESP saving me from potential embarrassment and wallet lightening metal rearranging. Since that time nearly 9 years ago, I always advocate to take instruction in car control at least once a year. The old smoker and it's newer auto (non-tiptronic) replacement more than capable of embarrassing rather more exotic machinery on a certain de-restricted toll road. As another poster stated on this thread, from Pirelli - "Power is nothing without control".
Mermaid said:
NA to compete with the outgoing M3. And will the F10 M3 also be NA?
Or are Audi simply using up the spare engines they will no longer need for the RS5 since that is a sales flop?
Effort to read through the whole thread to see if this has already been answered, but to my knowledge the next M3 will have a tri-turbo engine, in a similar vein to their M Performance Vehicle diesels and the new 911 Turbo Or are Audi simply using up the spare engines they will no longer need for the RS5 since that is a sales flop?
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.
I paid the extra for the sports differential but don't usually drive in dynamic (as they call it) because the ride's too stiff, and to be fair I don't think it does actually under steer that much, it just feels like it does. I recall driving my first quattro and discovering that the understeer could be cured by large amounts of right foot and clenched buttocks. As for looks, I prefer them to look discrete and then disappear like the Millenium Falcon leaving a crowd of slightly bewildered white rep mobiles behind. (until you get to 70mph, when you have to stop accelerating by law)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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff