RE: Driven: Audi RS4

[Terminator X]

mat430 said:

not sure about that

Agreed, this must be the single "bad" review that the car has ever had!

TX.

[B.J.W]

The B7 RS4 was a car I lusted after and 'wanted' - so I bought one, ran it for a year, and loved every minute of it. Although (for me) it fell just short of the mark for me in terms of its ability to be a 'special' weekend car as well as a daily driver, fitted with the milltek exhaust it sounded amazing and 8k + RPM in a V8 saloon was an experience I never tired of. Point to point, I still maintain that it was more than a match for all but the best pedalled GTR, and combined with the aggressive (understated) stance it looked the business too (even more so in Misano Red).

The overiding memory for me was the formation driving of myself and 2 other B7 RS4 drivers on the Evo Triangle 2 years ago - quite a sight, and an experience I will never forget

Fast forward a few years and this current edition has left me a bit cold. I'd never buy a new one, but in 3 years time could I see myself having the same level of lust for the new car when compared to the B7..... No! It all seems a bit complicated to me...... and if things are complicated they tend to dilute the driving experience. Equally, I am not sold on the looks - I still much prefer the shape of the B7 when compared to the current model.

I did have a serious think about trying to find a low mileage B7 RS4 Avant a few months back - the first time I have ever contemplated buying the same car twice, and proof of just how good my previous RS4 was. I noticed that average mileage saloons were well under 20k - which makes them a bargain in my book.

I'll make a proper call when I see one in the metal.....but I have to say after reading the review I am left feeling a bit......underwhelmed!

[Johnnytheboy]

Autocar review is broadly similar in its conclusions.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/audi/rs4/first...

Headlines it as excellent but says all the same negatives.

[adz13091982]

Lookswise i'm not sure its enough different from the S4, i'm sure it will be a great all round car but it seems from this review Audi is diluting the RS formula from focused driving pleasure.

[TomTVR500]

I would still much much much much much rather have a B7 with a proper gearbox, the B7 looks about a million times better too.

I am starting the get extremely concerned about the death of the manual gearbox. The new GT3 PDK only, the new RS Clio DSG (possibly only) and the new RS4 S-Tronic only.

[anonymous-user]

adz13091982 said:

Lookswise i'm not sure its enough different from the S4, i'm sure it will be a great all round car but it seems from this review Audi is diluting the RS formula from focused driving pleasure.

I would say that they look different enough!

[jatinder]

Erm it just looks like every other Audi model to me, or am I the only one.

[_Neal_]

Not a car I could see myself ever lusting after. I don't even agree it looks good - the outgoing model is much more handsome and has a more aggressive stance. That side-on pic in the article makes it look under-wheeled, and much more S-Line than RS.

Unconvinced.

[CJP80]

E38Ross said:

hmmmmmm, a bit underwhelming then. doesn't seem like they've actually moved the game on a all to be honest.

i also much prefer the styling of the last one.

oh - WTF is it with an above poster saying it's weedy on torque? clearly hasn't driven something like the old RS4.

It's all about torque to weight ratio and the rev range it is produced. 430NM is not much when you weigh 1,800Kg.

Below 4000rpm, lots of 'normal' cars have higher torque to weight ratios, like an A3 2.0TDI for example...means you need to rev the st out of it.

[NGK210]

TomTVR500 said:

I would still much much much much much rather have a B7 with a proper gearbox, the B7 looks about a million times better too.

I am starting the get extremely concerned about the death of the manual gearbox. The new GT3 PDK only, the new RS Clio DSG (possibly only) and the new RS4 S-Tronic only.

FWIW, I prefer a DSG-type box's 'auto in town, manual(-esque) for A/B-roads' option/compromise.

However, once these DSG-type boxes start requiring inevitable clutch replacement, how much is it going to cost to replace two clutches in one hit??

[anonymous-user]

jatinder said:

Erm it just looks like every other Audi model to me, or am I the only one.

No more similar to BMW, Merc, Ford or Aston to name a few

[E38Ross]

CJP80 said:

E38Ross said:

hmmmmmm, a bit underwhelming then. doesn't seem like they've actually moved the game on a all to be honest.

i also much prefer the styling of the last one.

oh - WTF is it with an above poster saying it's weedy on torque? clearly hasn't driven something like the old RS4.

It's all about torque to weight ratio and the rev range it is produced. 430NM is not much when you weigh 1,800Kg.

Below 4000rpm, lots of 'normal' cars have higher torque to weight ratios, like an A3 2.0TDI for example...means you need to rev the st out of it.

torque is meaningless without rpm in mind though. at 4000rpm most cars will be doing approx 2/3 max rpm, this won't be doing 1/2. if it's all about torque to weight ratio, how come this is faster than a 330d?

for instance, if you rev to 5000rpm that's pushing most engines reasonably hard, but it's not in this. if you talk of it in terms of "percentage of max rpm" it makes a lot more sense. i've been in the old RS4 and an M3 and it still makes me laugh when people say they're weedy on torque.

2 cars driving along doing 70mph in 6th gear, say that gear is geared to 200mph, the RS4 is doing 3000rpm, a car revving to 6500rpm is doing just over 2250rpm......so the car which revs less but has more torque needs to be making approx 1/3 more torque to make the same power at those road speeds in that gear.

[McSam]

The whole thing reads like you feel the engine should be turbocharged, when in reality I'm sure all of us are overwhelmingly glad that it's not.

Comparing torque per tonne? Come off it. And shock horror, a massive and far lazier AMG engine makes more peak torque, who'd have thought it? Write enough reviews like this and everything will drive like a turbodiesel..

[Dagnut]

Wasn't the B7 rear biased?

[jeremyc]

Dagnut said:

Wasn't the B7 rear biased?

60% to the rear under normal conditions.

[Scuffers]

Niffty951 said:

This car could so easily have been great. Match the looks and cabin quality to a heavily worked version of the 3.0 turbo in the S4,

Blown2CV said:

that would appear to be a V8 rather than the V6 turbo... whatsatallabout?

Err?

the S4 (B8) is a 3.0l Supercharged V6, turbo's have not been on S4's for a while now.

[urquattroGus]

There's not much thats lazy about a C63 engine with powerpack (lighter internals than standard), it revs savagely to 7200rpm.

Big displacement and short stroke so still revs quite nicely. Have drive the B7 RS4, C63 Estate with powerpack, and V8 RS6 avant.

[Dagnut]

jeremyc said:

yes: 60% to the rear under normal conditions.

So what is Harris on about?

"It's not a drift king, but this car doesn't feel front-driven - and that's the biggest advantage it holds over the B7 RS4."

Doesn't the RS5 and this new car use the front biased Haldex?

[red355]

Good initial review but I think I'll be keeping our RS4 B7 for a while longer......its surely a future classic (so worth paying the bar bills)

This line worries me

"Ride comfort will be marginal in the UK too - even on the softest setting"
The B7s DRC is much maligned but it provides a ride quality that even my mates boggo B7 1.9 diesel (non-sline) on the smallest wheels fails to provide.

[Carfolio]

CO2 is not N/A, it's 249 g/km.