RE: Audi RS5: Review

[silentbrown]

TheLordJohn said:

Au contraire, the logical thing is to have at least 2 cars.
One fun weekend car you can cherish and one you don't mind scrotes parking next to in the supermarket.
And if you run a fleet, you always have at least one you can use in case of failure of another!

That depends. For me, "weekends" are normally when the practical aspects of the S4 are needed most - and driving "fun" just happens when it happens, in the course of getting from A to B. Plenty of decent roads near here without needing to make special trips.

And, based on experience, a "weekend" car spends most of it's life off the road being fettled and the days when I actually enjoyed that are in the past!

[RSbandit]

haven't seen such a divisive car on here in a long time!

[TomScrut]

TheLordJohn said:

Au contraire, the logical thing is to have at least 2 cars.
One fun weekend car you can cherish and one you don't mind scrotes parking next to in the supermarket.
And if you run a fleet, you always have at least one you can use in case of failure of another!

Not logical if you don't have space for 2 cars, or should I say space for three cars as we have two cars already and I don't have much of a say in what one of them is.

Also, the opportunities to have a good drive are often spontaneous, around here at least if I wanted to go for a decent drive on a weekend I'd just get stuck behind caravans!

[RadQuinn]

Rated a 3/10 for the car, not quality of article. ^_^

The one thing Audi had going for them was that their cars were beautiful compared to the over-muscular M and AMGs. This must have been their checklist for the new RS5:

1. Make it look worse.
2. Steal most of BMW's interior. Yes, just straight up copy it.
3. ...side note to 2, take Mercedes-Benz' gear shifter.
4. Continue to have manual mode shift in the incorrect direction.
5. Use as many parts as possible from our lowest tier cars.
6. Refuse to balance it properly.
7. ????
8. Profit.

[Ares]

TheLordJohn said:

silentbrown said:

Circumstances (and common sense!) mean I have just one car.

Au contraire, the logical thing is to have at least 2 cars.
One fun weekend car you can cherish and one you don't mind scrotes parking next to in the supermarket.
And if you run a fleet, you always have at least one you can use in case of failure of another!

I did that for years, then realised I had a fairly poor family car, that I did 95% of my driving in, and a fabulous near track car that I spent 5% of my driving time in.

I loved loved loved every mile in my fun car, but in 4 years, I did 5,000 miles, half track/half road.
Meanwhile I spent c120,000miles in my everyday car.

I ended up getting pissed off that my driving experienced was hugely compromised either by driving a less than ideal car, or driving a 100% focus/10-tenths car.

I soon sold the track car and moved onto more enjoyable 100% use cars. One day I'll get a track car again, but only when I can maintain a good everyday car.

[Ares]

kambites said:

Ares said:

An M4 is angry, goading and only comes to life when you go at at least 8/10ths. A GT should be a comfortable, swift, mile muncher. The M4 is definitely NOT a GT ;-)

So it's completely different in character than the E92 M3 then? Fair enough.

That's a shame though, because the E46 and E92 were wonderful mile-munchers without feeling tooooo out of their depth on a twisty road. The new car sounds like my idea of an appalling road car and a 1500kg saloon is hardly the sort of thing you'd buy as a track toy.

Sounds to me as if it's Audi who have got the right idea here. Different strokes...

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th July 14:06

Yes. Very - especially in Competition Guise.

As for Audi having it right, I disagree - people want sports saloons/sports saloons to be sporty and fairly raw.
This sounds like it could easier have a 400bhp/600lb ft Diesel engine in it.

[Craig-m7sdv]

Yes, yes all of the above comments do apply, however I do not believe that any "petrol head" would buy one of these, new anyway. Is it just me, or when a new model line axe their V8, you get a deep feeling of sadness and farewell. There's already plenty of eco cars, which do have so-called engines (three cylinder ones) with turbo chargers for improved efficiency. It is this that makes me feel saddened, that despite this we're at a stage were your V8 engine is still becoming evermore so the Green Peace anti-Christ.

Still, I'd to think that extreme measure were taken to stop this....?!? And at least the boys at the Affalterbach factory are keeping this going for us!

[macky17]

davidcharles said:

macky17 said:

Audi have managed to squeeze every single thing that's wrong with modern cars into a single vehicle.

Impressive.

like what?...lovely interior?... hugely fast?...full of tech ? (its 2017, times have changed)... not sure why its hated so much

Let's see:
Numb steering
Too heavy
Too complicated
Sacrifices interaction in the interest of more speed than you can use
Oversized wheels
Uncomfortable ride
Black, dull interior
Pretentious colour
Overstyled
Too expensive
Devoid of character
Turbo-charged

I could probably go on.

[Manners2001]

Very sad to see V8s disappearing.

Having driven the previous model of the RS5 on an extended TD I was left cold. It doesn't appear that Audi have improved things here.

Lets be honest, if you were going into the dealer to buy one of these new, you would probably have to look at specifying some of the options and, even if you didn't go too mad, it's probably knocking on the door of £70k. £70k will buy you a lot of very 'nearly new' fun (Supercharged Jag F-Type/C63/Aston Vantage anyone?) without such an initial stonking hit of depreciation.

I think the green looks OK, but I was always told that green was an 'unlucky' colour for a car. Does anybody know where that particular old wives tale may have sprung from?

[mrnoisy78]

Manners2001 said:

Very sad to see V8s disappearing.

Having driven the previous model of the RS5 on an extended TD I was left cold. It doesn't appear that Audi have improved things here.

Lets be honest, if you were going into the dealer to buy one of these new, you would probably have to look at specifying some of the options and, even if you didn't go too mad, it's probably knocking on the door of £70k. £70k will buy you a lot of very 'nearly new' fun (Supercharged Jag F-Type/C63/Aston Vantage anyone?) without such an initial stonking hit of depreciation.

I think the green looks OK, but I was always told that green was an 'unlucky' colour for a car. Does anybody know where that particular old wives tale may have sprung from?

I agree with this. Having owned the v8 M3 I got a little tired of having to thrash it to get the best out of it, thought I'd try and v8 Audi RS5 and drove it back to back, and the M3 walked it; unfortunately it looks like Audi haven't learned the lessons from their previous mistakes:
- Manual shifter goes the wrong way (I also noted this in the RS3 and it irritated me; the M3's stubby shifter did too but it's better than the Audi)
- Ride is WAY too hard, and almost bouncy with DRC on 20's - I see they haven't fixed this either
- Car was nose heavy and felt slower (sounded better though) - looks like this may be the only one they've addressed, but sacrificed the interior doing so.

I actually went for a new Focus RS after this (long story - short version, stupid and costly mistake), but having seen and experienced a few of the issues with them, sold up and bought a v8 C63.
Hands down best all round car I've owned for fun, practicality and above all that brutal v8 sound.
M3 is a brilliant car but a bit too clinical for my liking, didn't really set my world on fire as a daily but would imagine as a weekend car it'd be a great investment. Way more character than the F8x cars.
New C63S looks far more purposeful than the Audi too. Saw the RS5 at Goodwood FOS and it really wasn't all that special to look at. If anything it was almost eclipsed by the RS3 :x
Looks like the Audi loses out again.

Edited by mrnoisy78 on Friday 7th July 12:10

[Wills2]

kambites said:

Ares said:

An M4 is angry, goading and only comes to life when you go at at least 8/10ths. A GT should be a comfortable, swift, mile muncher. The M4 is definitely NOT a GT ;-)

So it's completely different in character than the E92 M3 then? Fair enough.

That's a shame though, because the E46 and E92 were wonderful mile-munchers without feeling tooooo out of their depth on a twisty road. The new car sounds like my idea of an appalling road car and a 1500kg saloon is hardly the sort of thing you'd buy as a track toy.

Sounds to me as if it's Audi who have got the right idea here. Different strokes...

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th July 14:06

F80 is more comfortable than the either e46 and e92 in the softest settings, turn up everything up and it's more aggressive than the e46 and e92.

I do 35k per year in my F80 and regularly drive 400-500 miles in a day it just eats up the miles in comfort.

[briang9]

AshBurrows said:

I don't understand the customer base of Audis S/RS cars.
I know it's a trope but the whole "interior is well made and lovely" thing cannot be it.
Kinda just seems the Focus RS owners' choice, a couple of segments up.
We must have some owners in here. What drew you to it?

the V10 twin turbo engine had a bit to do with why I bought my RS

[Manners2001]

AshBurrows said:

I don't understand the customer base of Audis S/RS cars.
I know it's a trope but the whole "interior is well made and lovely" thing cannot be it.
Kinda just seems the Focus RS owners' choice, a couple of segments up.
We must have some owners in here. What drew you to it?

I've just had almost 3 years in a 2011 S6 which I picked up at 3yrs old and 37k on the clock. What drew me to it? Well the V10 for one - it was a superb engine (apart from when it was popping coil packs just before I sold it - not connected!) that seemed happy enough to pootle when needed and then really shift with a gorgeous roar. It was smart enough to impress but subtle enough that it wasn't a target for jealous scroats - a bit of a wolf in sheeps clothing. It was also very practical, the interior wore well and it was very reliable. I didn't think the servicing/maintenance bills were ridiculous (coming out of a BMW 650i and an M3 though!) and it handled well, very planted but chuckable for such a large car. The Bose sound system was awesome as well.

Did it depreciate - heck yes! But did I resent it - not really! I have no idea what 'image' it sold of me, although I am not really bothered. Perhaps just another Audi w@nker with more money than sense. Still, I enjoyed my time and 32k miles in it

[Ho Lee Kau]

Burwood said:

Dafuq said:

Bit underwhelming that.

There was a time when the RS badge stood for pure bonkerness.

This doesn't even have the 'appearance' theatre, could be any area manager/rep mobile in profile.

Shame.

Agreed. Not just that but it is clear from the review it isn't even as good as the F80 M3 which is 3.5 years old. It should have had close to 500hp. The 3.9 62mph is only achieved by short gearing and AWD. I expect the M3 to muller it at speeds above that. Options price list is suitably ridiculous too. 80k. This thing will depreciate like a stone

When you say "like a stone" you mean like an M3? Or like a Giulia QV? Because these depreciate just as fast. Same goes for C63AMG as well.

I think Audi just follows its philosophy, which is different from M3 or C63 philosophy, so RS will never drive like M or AMG.
Some people like Audi approach, some don't.

[Ho Lee Kau]

GTEYE said:

TomScrut said:

Grantstown said:

There should probably be an article on the best sports cars available without having to spec more than 5K worth of options.

Oddly enough I went on the configuratior to spec what I would want up and put about £3.8k on. Paint, Matrix lights, B&O, privacy glass and the sports exhaust.

Its a shame they don't give the reviewers bog standard cars to review though. Seems a bit silly doing a review of a £62k car priced at £80k with lots of things that (it would seem) make the car worse rather than better (steering, suspension and wheel options) that add up to a lot of money.

The trouble is having "minimised" the options spend....you'd then be irritated every day you owned the damned thing that you didn't have auto lights, wipers, interior lights, storage compartments etc etc all of which SHOULD be standard on a £60k car and ARE standard on a £15k Ford Fiesta.....

I can understand them charging for carbon brakes, sports exhaust, even the fancy seats but in some areas Audi really do take the piss!

Well, Porsche charges for floor mats...in 150k Turbo S.

[Ho Lee Kau]

jakesmith said:

£81k... I don't want to be one of those people who compares new to used but F me that is a lot of dosh. Just think for that money you could have 3x 5 year old cars, a Boxster S, 5 year old RS5, plus a 530d for the family / dog etc. The running costs would be lower than the depreciation on that new RS5. Doesn't make sense to me

Same as BMW M3/M4 and MB AMG, they, just like Audi RS, drop in value like bricks in the water, if you buy them new.

[TomScrut]

Ho Lee Kau said:

GTEYE said:

TomScrut said:

Grantstown said:

There should probably be an article on the best sports cars available without having to spec more than 5K worth of options.

Oddly enough I went on the configuratior to spec what I would want up and put about £3.8k on. Paint, Matrix lights, B&O, privacy glass and the sports exhaust.

Its a shame they don't give the reviewers bog standard cars to review though. Seems a bit silly doing a review of a £62k car priced at £80k with lots of things that (it would seem) make the car worse rather than better (steering, suspension and wheel options) that add up to a lot of money.

The trouble is having "minimised" the options spend....you'd then be irritated every day you owned the damned thing that you didn't have auto lights, wipers, interior lights, storage compartments etc etc all of which SHOULD be standard on a £60k car and ARE standard on a £15k Ford Fiesta.....

I can understand them charging for carbon brakes, sports exhaust, even the fancy seats but in some areas Audi really do take the piss!

Well, Porsche charges for floor mats...in 150k Turbo S.

Porsche are the worst for speccing things. Its good and bad that it is that way. Very customisable but you feel like some of the stuff should be either standard or cheaper (as a paid option)

[Chestrockwell]

I sat in a clients RS5 earlier in nardo grey with the black pack and frankly it’s the best looking car in its class, interior and exterior, C63, too much bling and the M4 is too dated.

Went to the Audi website to look at offers and configure one and none available?! On AT they seem to hold their value well but all either have everything on them with a silly price tag or they’re poorly specced.

Surely if a manufacturer takes a car off sale because of the new WTLP whatever means none of the previous ones are road worthy emissions wise.

This isn’t the same but here’s an analogy that should have the same reaction.

Airport letting people in with a crappy security system, a man walks up, sees a new security firm then runs off, he can’t just escape, someone should stop him and see what he was carrying.

Same thing here, surely?

[Krikkit]

Chestrockwell said:

Surely if a manufacturer takes a car off sale because of the new WTLP whatever means none of the previous ones are road worthy emissions wise.

We should crush all those 60s Ferraris that don't have a GPF as well... Emissions changes all have a cutoff date.

[Chestrockwell]

Krikkit said:

Chestrockwell said:

Surely if a manufacturer takes a car off sale because of the new WTLP whatever means none of the previous ones are road worthy emissions wise.

We should crush all those 60s Ferraris that don't have a GPF as well... Emissions changes all have a cutoff date.

A bit of a reach but I’m sure you get my point