RE: Rear-drive R8 returns as 'RWD' series run model

[Midgster]

Barry Homo said:

Mackofthejungle said:

Inflation is inflation. I don't know anyone who's wage has increased nearly 40% in the last 12 years, do you?

Hmm good point why isn't an M3 £25,000 anymore?!

But the cheapest M3 you could buy 12 years ago in 2007, according to Autocar was £51,440 whereas a 2019 M3 apparently starts at £57,905 which is only about 12% increase.

[nickfrog]

wab172uk said:

I completely agree. The Original R8 was a handsome car. This MKII version isn't. It went too square.

The original R8 had a lovely V8 engine and a manual gearbox, and cost around £85k. This doesn't.

So it's the same price in real terms, has a V10 instead of a V8, RWD instead of 4wd but because you prefer your mid engine supercars with a manual and the way the mk1 looked (subjectively), then this is no good. Have you driven one?

[bigmowley]

I have one of the first generation RWS and it will be interesting to see how this one has evolved. I love mine to bits but I have spent a few quid to tweek it to where I think Audi should position the car. I've made mine a lot more hardcore, more of a GT3RS / AMG GTR competitor.




Its got Audisport coilovers with a track based geometry set up, AP brakes, Audi Sport Aerokit with the LMS GT4 rear spoiler, bespoke harness bar, harnesses and lightweight seats, Cup 2 tyres and the R8 Plus chip.

Its very quick on track, but still good on the road, quiet and smooth when you want it to be and loud, lairy and a bit feral when you give it the beans.

Assuming Audi can sell a few RWS models then a factory "RS" style halo model would be lovely. No intention of trading mine in for the new one as there are very few if any worthwhile changes Gen 1 to Gen 2. As for "Drift mode" just turn all the electrons off FFS, mine will drift all day long if I want it to.

[nickfrog]

Awesome car. Must be a lot of fun as aggressively set up. Is that 2.5 deg of front camber?

[cerb4.5lee]

wab172uk said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

just needs a 6 speed manual now

Agree.

This would make it pretty perfect I agree!

I still have manual V10 R8's saved in my classified search for whenever(if) I can afford one!

[bigmowley]

nickfrog said:

Awesome car. Must be a lot of fun as aggressively set up. Is that 2.5 deg of front camber?

I have not got the spec sheet to hand but its about that all round. I had to buy all the wishbone shims that the Audi dealer had in stock to get it to there, It could stand a little bit more on the front but its pretty much maxed out at the moment without changing arms and things.

[gigglebug]

Am I missing something obvious? Why would removing drive to the front axle shed more weight from the coupe than the convertible? Do any components differ between the two, I would have expected it to be exactly the same.

[nickfrog]

I thought that too but didn't want to sound too much like an imbecile in case there is an obvious reason...

[ZX10R NIN]

The guys at Sheepy Race will be rejoicing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8B84TERR0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9FsH-_0Gmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jss00tZTusQ

[T1berious]

Zygot said:

Does anyone recall the ad for the previous V10, where to get around the advertising rules where you can't "glorify speed", they ran it through the gears on a rolling road, with the engine exposed?
A V10 at full chat should be enjoyed with the roof down, surely.

one of my favourite ads

[jontykint]

T1berious said:

one of my favourite ads

Agreed, but slightly marred when I watch it again after seeing the RS3 “birth” thing !!

[Sandpit Steve]

Park-ut4ry said:

RWD NA V10 in the days of everything being turbos/hybrids and people aren't impressed. And as for those saying it should be manual... I guarantee if a manual was offered less than 10% would be actually ordered with one.

Great cars, moaned at a lot of the time by people who have never driven one.

Sadly that’s right, the evidence is there from a decade ago when various crappy ‘flappy paddle gearboxes’, mostly poorly automated manuals, were chosen by well over 90% of new buyers when they could have had a stick and three pedals.

Try finding a manual Murcielago LP640, F430 or 997 Turbo,, they’re all as rare as hen’s teeth and holding their value much better than their automatic equivalents. The profile of people looking for second hand supercars is very different to that which buys new ones.

We should celebrate the Audi’s V10 though, the car isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but it’s fantastic to see that engine still in production for those who want it.

[Barry Homo]

bigmowley said:

I have one of the first generation RWS and it will be interesting to see how this one has evolved. I love mine to bits but I have spent a few quid to tweek it to where I think Audi should position the car. I've made mine a lot more hardcore, more of a GT3RS / AMG GTR competitor.




Its got Audisport coilovers with a track based geometry set up, AP brakes, Audi Sport Aerokit with the LMS GT4 rear spoiler, bespoke harness bar, harnesses and lightweight seats, Cup 2 tyres and the R8 Plus chip.

Its very quick on track, but still good on the road, quiet and smooth when you want it to be and loud, lairy and a bit feral when you give it the beans.

Assuming Audi can sell a few RWS models then a factory "RS" style halo model would be lovely. No intention of trading mine in for the new one as there are very few if any worthwhile changes Gen 1 to Gen 2. As for "Drift mode" just turn all the electrons off FFS, mine will drift all day long if I want it to.

Goodness me this is so, so good. I hope I bump into you on a track day so you can take me out!

[wab172uk]

nickfrog said:

wab172uk said:

I completely agree. The Original R8 was a handsome car. This MKII version isn't. It went too square.

The original R8 had a lovely V8 engine and a manual gearbox, and cost around £85k. This doesn't.

So it's the same price in real terms, has a V10 instead of a V8, RWD instead of 4wd but because you prefer your mid engine supercars with a manual and the way the mk1 looked (subjectively), then this is no good. Have you driven one?

It's not the same price in real terms at all. People wages haven't risen anywhere near what car prices have risen. I bet since 2007 most people wages are less than 10% higher.

And I've not driven MKII no. 2 reasons. 1) I can't afford a new one. 2) It's an auto. I don't want an auto.

I owned a Mk1 V8 manual for just over 3 years though. My next car will hopefully be a lightly used 991 Carrera T. Not too fast and a manual gearbox. Perfect.

[wab172uk]

Park-ut4ry said:

RWD NA V10 in the days of everything being turbos/hybrids and people aren't impressed. And as for those saying it should be manual... I guarantee if a manual was offered less than 10% would be actually ordered with one.

Great cars, moaned at a lot of the time by people who have never driven one.

But then those 10% of buyers would be happy knowing they have the car they want. Everyone's happy.

[RobM77]

wab172uk said:

It's not the same price in real terms at all. People wages haven't risen anywhere near what car prices have risen. I bet since 2007 most people wages are less than 10% higher.

Nope. See the graph I posted on this thread yesterday.

[hothatchery7]

I don’t know how people can moan about it being a ‘pointless’ car, too much money etc etc. I can’t think of any other car that offers the mix of build quality, power, all round capability, absolutely amazing engine for the same price. If anyone slating this car was an actual petrolhead, even just being passenger or standing listening to that glorious noise pass you by is enough to justify its existence in my eyes. I realise there are counter arguments to all my points however I am glad this car exists, to the point when one day within 5 years I will own one!

[nickfrog]

wab172uk said:

I bet since 2007 most people wages are less than 10% higher.

Thankfully this is not the case. It's over 30% average according to the ONS.

[Jim on the hill]

DaveH23 said:

Was I the only one who thought these were already RWD?

I think that would be a yes

[ziontrain]

gigglebug said:

Am I missing something obvious? Why would removing drive to the front axle shed more weight from the coupe than the convertible? Do any components differ between the two, I would have expected it to be exactly the same.

My very uneducated guess would be that the coupe needs more chassis reinforcement to cope with no roof, and somehow the drive to the front axle provided that. The convertible, therefore, needs an additional brace or something to rectify the situation?