Official Audi RS5 photos... finally
02-23-2010, 11:12 AM
#61
Registered User
I like the car, but I would rather save some coins and just grab an S5 and add a supercharger. I think the power is on the tame side. I was expecting a bit more, and I think it *needs* more torque and more power to set it apart from the S5. From what I have seen and read, the S5 actually has more torque 0.o.
02-23-2010, 09:10 PM
#62
Registered User
Originally Posted by Dr. WOT,Feb 23 2010, 05:30 PM
I respectfully disagree. Most of the v10 R8 reviews I've read say the extra power doesn't make for a better car. And how many choose the C63 over the M3 despite a similar power deficit? I'd guess I see the BMW 5:1 over the MB.
The (brilliant) M3 is obviously this is a high bar to set for Audi, but they damn near did it with the B7 RS4, and now this is their first RS model to ride on the B8 platform, which is considerably better balanced. Add that trick new differential and if this thing can dance like I hope it will, 450 NA horses will make for more than enough performance.
How fast do you guys need to go anyway?
IMHO, unless we're talking supercars, once you get over 400hp power figures become marketing copy rather than performance metrics.
The (brilliant) M3 is obviously this is a high bar to set for Audi, but they damn near did it with the B7 RS4, and now this is their first RS model to ride on the B8 platform, which is considerably better balanced. Add that trick new differential and if this thing can dance like I hope it will, 450 NA horses will make for more than enough performance.
How fast do you guys need to go anyway?
IMHO, unless we're talking supercars, once you get over 400hp power figures become marketing copy rather than performance metrics.It's all a matter of perspective. For example when the Autorides WebTV show compared the M3 vs. the GT-R vs. GT3 it was hopelessly outclassed. Though one wonders if those are it's true competitors.
With the RS5 slated to be approximately $20K more expensive than an M3 & coming to market 2 years later, you would hope that they would not set the bar at the M3, but substantially above it. I guess this is Audi's MO as the previous gen RS4 was priced substantially above M3 & AMG C car in the last generation as well.
HP wars are in full effect. Whether one considers the bar 400 hp, then another comparably priced car comes out with 500 hp, & now 550 hp, etc. At the price levels that they pay, they expect more. Something akin to The Cadillac CTSV coming out with 567 hp, so the FAST 500 hp M5 was not enough, and now they have a new upcoming M5 which will boast 550+ hp.
02-24-2010, 05:07 AM
#64
Former Moderator
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Feb 23 2010, 03:50 PM
Faster than the car in front of us heading onto the main straight, obviously.
Seriously, the differences in power are purely academic UNTIL you drive one in anger. Then, it actually can (and will) make a difference. 40 extra hp adds up to another three or four mph on a decent straight, which equates to a buslength or two by the time you hit the braking zone. That's enough to make a safe pass.
Seriously, the differences in power are purely academic UNTIL you drive one in anger. Then, it actually can (and will) make a difference. 40 extra hp adds up to another three or four mph on a decent straight, which equates to a buslength or two by the time you hit the braking zone. That's enough to make a safe pass.
I can definitely say that if this motor produces a lot more power than the current 4.2L V8 I'm going to be pissed. Everyone tells me I'm crazy, and that going from a chipped M5 to a S5 is the real reason, but I think my S5 is quite a bit slower than it could be - this would be the first car I've ever felt that in. Don't get me wrong; it is plenty fast. I can just tell, when driving it, that it isn't as fast as it *should* be from the factory.
02-24-2010, 05:47 AM
#65
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Poindexter,Feb 24 2010, 08:07 AM
I can definitely say that if this motor produces a lot more power than the current 4.2L V8 I'm going to be pissed. Everyone tells me I'm crazy, and that going from a chipped M5 to a S5 is the real reason, but I think my S5 is quite a bit slower than it could be - this would be the first car I've ever felt that in. Don't get me wrong; it is plenty fast. I can just tell, when driving it, that it isn't as fast as it *should* be from the factory.
I think part of it is the AWD and of course the weight - it sure feels solid, but at the end of the day the car wasn't very athletic - Very different from 'similar' cars like the E46 M3.
Its like the S2000 in the sense that its one of those cars that feels like its built to handle more power - throw another 150-200hp at it!
02-24-2010, 06:42 AM
#66
Originally Posted by rnye,Feb 22 2010, 03:49 PM
For those that always act stupid and act like they don't understand how a Corvette interior should be built - look at any of Audis products. Simply stunning.
Audi's are also built to a price point, albeit a higher one (except for a base A4/A3). The powertrains are more anemic and bland and you inherit durability/reliability issues with the electronics. In exchange, you get a pretty interior.
Different strokes. I'll take 0 to 100mph in less than 8 seconds and a track day a** kicker for my $50k while another person will prefer a pretty looking Audi to drive around town in.
02-24-2010, 06:59 AM
#67
02-24-2010, 07:09 AM
#68
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Feb 24 2010, 09:42 AM
What are you talking about? No one has ever claimed (to my knowledge), that the Corvette interior is even close to even a base Audi interior. However, it's not supposed to be. GM traded performance and powertrain engineering and durability for a less attractive interior. The Corvette was built to a price point.
Audi's are also built to a price point, albeit a higher one (except for a base A4/A3). The powertrains are more anemic and bland and you inherit durability/reliability issues with the electronics. In exchange, you get a pretty interior.
Different strokes. I'll take 0 to 100mph in less than 8 seconds and a track day a** kicker for my $50k while another person will prefer a pretty looking Audi to drive around town in.
Audi's are also built to a price point, albeit a higher one (except for a base A4/A3). The powertrains are more anemic and bland and you inherit durability/reliability issues with the electronics. In exchange, you get a pretty interior.
Different strokes. I'll take 0 to 100mph in less than 8 seconds and a track day a** kicker for my $50k while another person will prefer a pretty looking Audi to drive around town in.
It just blows my mind how many people can't get over the fact that GM has to make tradeoffs on performance vs. interior accommodations vs. other attributes to hit its pricepoint.
It's easily the best bang for the buck sports car on the market, and they have to sacrifice something to achieve that. I'd take ass-kicking C6 performance over an Audi interior for my $50K as well. If you're willing to pay up for a nicer interior, look to Porsche or Caravaggio.
FWIW, I saw a C6 Z06 w/ Caravaggio seats (Euro GT3-style) the other day, and they really transformed the interior!
Besides, the S2000 isn't exactly a shining example of a great interior.
02-24-2010, 07:33 AM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Feb 24 2010, 07:42 AM
Different strokes. I'll take 0 to 100mph in less than 8 seconds and a track day a** kicker for my $50k while another person will prefer a pretty looking Audi to drive around town in.