RE: 2019 Audi S4 | Driven

[Muzzer79]

I like this

350bhp with 40mpg? It will be interesting to see real-world figures but I'm liking what I see. I was expecting it to be more expensive too.

The estate will be preferable but this is definitely a candidate to replace the current wagon when the time comes.

[Shiv_P]

pilotdan said:

I think this is a real shame and shows an equal amount of both laziness and complacency from Audi.

Clearly there is an issue with emissions regs and the petrol V6 Turbo in the S4, S5, SQ5 etc - see the suspension of production last year - but rather than attempting to fix it they have decided to take an engine they had sitting on a shelf, put up the price and foist it upon customers who have no idea where diesel taxation will be in 6 months time. I wont have another with a diesel engine in it

S cars were always more GT cars than all out sports cars, but I cant help but think that this devalues the S badge.

S cars should be petrol. They always have been and should have remained the same.

Interesting numbers on the Tesla...

Obviously not. The engine is available in the A6, A7, A8 and the VW Touareg etc.

[thiscocks]

janesmith1950 said:

thiscocks said:

Have you ever driven an Alpina D3 (3.0 litre)? Pretty sure one could keep up with a C63. Very quick car.

Really? What's the horsepower/weight difference?

C63 (2016) : 274 bhp / tonne, 280 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-9sec, 1/4 mile-12.1sec, 0-1 km 22sec. 50-90mph through gears-4.2 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.8, 50-70 in 4th-2.9, 50-70 in 5th-4.1, 50-70 in 6th-5.2.
D3 (2016): 208 bhp / tonne, 311 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-11.5 sec, 1/4 mile-13.3sec, 0-1 km 24.2sec. 50-90mph through gears-5.9 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.1, 50-70 in 4th-2.3, 50-70 in 5th-2.8, 50-70 in 6th-3.6.

So yes the Merc would beat it in a straight line but not massively faster. In gear times are quicker from the D3 though so would even things up on the road.

[9k rpm]

Muzzer79 said:

I like this

350bhp with 40mpg? It will be interesting to see real-world figures but I'm liking what I see. I was expecting it to be more expensive too.

The estate will be preferable but this is definitely a candidate to replace the current wagon when the time comes.

I think with the modern tech 40mpg should be easily achieved. I’ve got a 435d which is a bit down on power compared to this S4 but is old tech and is averaging just under 40mpg with mixed driving and I definitely use the performance. It’s about 150kg lighter than this S4 though.

[Doesnotcompute]

thiscocks said:

C63 (2016) : 274 bhp / tonne, 280 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-9sec, 1/4 mile-12.1sec, 0-1 km 22sec. 50-90mph through gears-4.2 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.8, 50-70 in 4th-2.9, 50-70 in 5th-4.1, 50-70 in 6th-5.2.
D3 (2016): 208 bhp / tonne, 311 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-11.5 sec, 1/4 mile-13.3sec, 0-1 km 24.2sec. 50-90mph through gears-5.9 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.1, 50-70 in 4th-2.3, 50-70 in 5th-2.8, 50-70 in 6th-3.6.

So yes the Merc would beat it in a straight line but not massively faster. In gear times are quicker from the D3 though so would even things up on the road.

I would class that as much faster to be honest. In gear times largely pointless.

[MOBB]

thiscocks said:

janesmith1950 said:

thiscocks said:

Have you ever driven an Alpina D3 (3.0 litre)? Pretty sure one could keep up with a C63. Very quick car.

Really? What's the horsepower/weight difference?

C63 (2016) : 274 bhp / tonne, 280 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-9sec, 1/4 mile-12.1sec, 0-1 km 22sec. 50-90mph through gears-4.2 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.8, 50-70 in 4th-2.9, 50-70 in 5th-4.1, 50-70 in 6th-5.2.
D3 (2016): 208 bhp / tonne, 311 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-11.5 sec, 1/4 mile-13.3sec, 0-1 km 24.2sec. 50-90mph through gears-5.9 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.1, 50-70 in 4th-2.3, 50-70 in 5th-2.8, 50-70 in 6th-3.6.

So yes the Merc would beat it in a straight line but not massively faster. In gear times are quicker from the D3 though so would even things up on the road.

At 10/10ths flat out driving, assuming the C63 could get traction, the C63 would annihilate the D3

More realistic day to day driving they would be similar

The C63 would grab me by the heart, the D3 would grab me by the head (oo-er)

All IMO

[Cupramax]

Shiv_P said:

pilotdan said:

I think this is a real shame and shows an equal amount of both laziness and complacency from Audi.

Clearly there is an issue with emissions regs and the petrol V6 Turbo in the S4, S5, SQ5 etc - see the suspension of production last year - but rather than attempting to fix it they have decided to take an engine they had sitting on a shelf, put up the price and foist it upon customers who have no idea where diesel taxation will be in 6 months time. I wont have another with a diesel engine in it

S cars were always more GT cars than all out sports cars, but I cant help but think that this devalues the S badge.

S cars should be petrol. They always have been and should have remained the same.

Interesting numbers on the Tesla...

Obviously not. The engine is available in the A6, A7, A8 and the VW Touareg etc.

The problem is emissions across the range, not the V6’s specifically, as above they wouldn’t be putting the V6’s into various Pork and VW SUV’s otherwise.

[RemyMartin81D]

I sort of like the Audi attitude of fk it towards the turning tide of diesel. They MUST know their numbers and demand, I'll be interested to see the sales figures for it year on year. I would imagine lots will be sold.

[Inky81]

That's no good, steering wheel's on the wrong side...

[slipstream 1985]

nigh on 1800KG!!!

[Muzzer79]

slipstream 1985 said:

nigh on 1800KG!!!

I did clock that it was getting near to two tons and it's an A4....

But when you think it's got 4wd and hybrid gubbins that sort of explains it.

Still a lot to be lugging about though.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Muzzer79 said:

I did clock that it was getting near to two tons and it's an A4....

But when you think it's got 4wd and hybrid gubbins that sort of explains it.

Still a lot to be lugging about though.

and 300lbs of pig iron under the bonnet

[Burnham]

MOBB said:

thiscocks said:

janesmith1950 said:

thiscocks said:

Have you ever driven an Alpina D3 (3.0 litre)? Pretty sure one could keep up with a C63. Very quick car.

Really? What's the horsepower/weight difference?

C63 (2016) : 274 bhp / tonne, 280 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-9sec, 1/4 mile-12.1sec, 0-1 km 22sec. 50-90mph through gears-4.2 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.8, 50-70 in 4th-2.9, 50-70 in 5th-4.1, 50-70 in 6th-5.2.
D3 (2016): 208 bhp / tonne, 311 lb/ft / tonne, 0-100-11.5 sec, 1/4 mile-13.3sec, 0-1 km 24.2sec. 50-90mph through gears-5.9 sec.40-60mph in 4th-2.1, 50-70 in 4th-2.3, 50-70 in 5th-2.8, 50-70 in 6th-3.6.

So yes the Merc would beat it in a straight line but not massively faster. In gear times are quicker from the D3 though so would even things up on the road.

At 10/10ths flat out driving, assuming the C63 could get traction, the C63 would annihilate the D3

More realistic day to day driving they would be similar

The C63 would grab me by the heart, the D3 would grab me by the head (oo-er)

All IMO

I was only basing this on experience, as the C63 is the only thing I've compared it too head-to-head. Granted, it was on a motorway at higher speeds and thats where the D3 is at its best. If its any consolation to those who refuse to believe it, the C63 obviously sounded much better

[Robert-nszl1]

RobDickinson said:

SPECIFICATION - AUDI S4 TDI
Engine: 2,967cc, V6 plus starter generator
Transmission: Eight-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
Power (hp): 347@3,850rpm
Torque (lb ft): 516@2,500-3,100rpm
0-62mph: 4.8sec
Top speed: 155mph (electronically limited)
Weight: 1,785kg
MPG: 40.9
CO2: 164g/km
Price: £48,000 (est)

Tesla model 3 Performance
Dual motor
Transmission: nope
Power (hp): 473
Torque (lb ft): 471
0-62mph: 3.4sec
Top speed: 162mph
Weight: 1,847kg
MPG: 120
CO2: 0g/km
Price: £49,000 (this week)

How much bik would the s4 attract at 40%? £6k a year?

Edit - £5,619 a year so £15k more expensive to just own than the model 3

Edited by RobDickinson on Wednesday 17th July 02:12

This is indeed an interesting comparison, but isn't all a it seems (yet). I'm on my summer break (no I'm not going to make the point about my daily drive being London to Edinburgh, and how a battery powered car would add 2 hours charging time) and have seen a few Teslas on the autoroutes/ autobahns. None have been travelling at over 80mph. My question is, what is the range of these things if they drive at prolonged 90-110mph, assuming their 'normal' range is 250-300 miles? Because these are now so often suggested as performance cars, even if they are far from being sports cars, and do seem to have very impressive straight line speed.

If that range is more like 150-200 miles in those circumstances, then they are a long way from being able to take the place of the Audi (say). Almost everyone I know will do one or two trips like this a year, and hard as it is to justify car ownership for this alone, like all aspects of man maths, it's these trips that make these cars worth owning. Otherwise, yes we'd all be driving Leafs, or indeed not owning cars at all.

Secondly build quality. Top end Teslas have had some pretty heavy criticism in this regard. The Model 3, one would assume, is built to a much lower cost; so this doesn't bode well. Anyone actually seen one yet in the metal/, plastic?

I'm very open minded to different drive trains, and really enjoyed a hybrid Panamera recently in electric only mode. But for me these cars need range. I know this is debated endlessly, but as we all know, bare performance stats never tell the whole story.

[SOL111]

RobDickinson said:

SPECIFICATION - AUDI S4 TDI
Engine: 2,967cc, V6 plus starter generator
Transmission: Eight-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
Power (hp): 347@3,850rpm
Torque (lb ft): 516@2,500-3,100rpm
0-62mph: 4.8sec
Top speed: 155mph (electronically limited)
Weight: 1,785kg
MPG: 40.9
CO2: 164g/km
Price: £48,000 (est)

Tesla model 3 Performance
Dual motor
Transmission: nope
Power (hp): 473
Torque (lb ft): 471
0-62mph: 3.4sec
Top speed: 162mph
Weight: 1,847kg
MPG: 120
CO2: 0g/km
Price: £49,000 (this week)

How much bik would the s4 attract at 40%? £6k a year?

Edit - £5,619 a year so £15k more expensive to just own than the model 3

Edited by RobDickinson on Wednesday 17th July 02:12

This, all day long.

If you're remotely worried about economy then it's not worth pissing about with derv.

If you're not worried about economy then buy a petrol performance saloon.

[belleair302]

With 90.2 % of ALL cars in the UK being leased or purchased via finance the actual price is insignificant. Will these find space on a company lease scheme, maybe, for private purchase new, unlikely. It works for VW and Audi but for those who actually enjoy driving both along motorways and in towns it is catnip. For an enthusiast the money will go elsewhere even used I fear.

[David87]

Robert-nszl1 said:

This is indeed an interesting comparison, but isn't all a it seems (yet). I'm on my summer break (no I'm not going to make the point about my daily drive being London to Edinburgh, and how a battery powered car would add 2 hours charging time) and have seen a few Teslas on the autoroutes/ autobahns. None have been travelling at over 80mph. My question is, what is the range of these things if they drive at prolonged 90-110mph, assuming their 'normal' range is 250-300 miles? Because these are now so often suggested as performance cars, even if they are far from being sports cars, and do seem to have very impressive straight line speed.

If that range is more like 150-200 miles in those circumstances, then they are a long way from being able to take the place of the Audi (say). Almost everyone I know will do one or two trips like this a year, and hard as it is to justify car ownership for this alone, like all aspects of man maths, it's these trips that make these cars worth owning. Otherwise, yes we'd all be driving Leafs, or indeed not owning cars at all.

Secondly build quality. Top end Teslas have had some pretty heavy criticism in this regard. The Model 3, one would assume, is built to a much lower cost; so this doesn't bode well. Anyone actually seen one yet in the metal/, plastic?

I'm very open minded to different drive trains, and really enjoyed a hybrid Panamera recently in electric only mode. But for me these cars need range. I know this is debated endlessly, but as we all know, bare performance stats never tell the whole story.

Have a read of this. Quite interesting. https://teslamotorsclub.com/blog/2019/06/23/optima...

[CraigV6]

Audi’s are so bland these days.

[Robert-nszl1]

David87 said:

Have a read of this. Quite interesting. https://teslamotorsclub.com/blog/2019/06/23/optima...

Genuinely impressed, and slightly surprised. That looks maybe 10kph slower inc charging than an Ice. OK over 600km say of cross Europe driving that's a biggish time difference, but not as much as I thought. Any comments on charging point availability on these cross Europe drives? I can't help but think Germany and Scandi are probably ahead of Italy and Spain (say)

[ZX10R NIN]

StuH said:

Quite. Why do people who completely fail to grasp what a performance is decide to post on Pistonheads?

Performance diesels - An oxymoron for morons.

I suggest you drive an Alpina D3 then you'll have to taste some humble pie.