B9 RS4 ?

[MikeFish]

All that said...does this open the door for an RS4+ or Performance Edition? bring the 0-60 in line with the RS6 non PE, sports exhaust as standard, sweet wheel's and some other bits and pieces?

Huh? The RS4 and 5 have previously had similar performance times so i'd expect the new RS4 to also do 0-62 in 3.9 i.e. RS6 non PE.
We haven't even seen normal version yet and you are talking about a quicker plus version!

I don't think 450bhp is that impressive devt although appreciate torque is up

I think he is saying in time at least keeping it this 'low' means it is easy to add a PE at a later date by just turning the wick up a bit.

Oh ok I see what you are saying regarding the power figures bit the acceleration is already in line with a non PE RS6.

[535dboy]

The Alfa didn't actually feel that quick off the line although it was a manual I drove at milbrook

[MrHilario]

That new RS5 just looks boring, what the hell were they thinking?

[Eddie555]

RS5 shown at Geneva. It's 450HP, wouldn't this mean the RS4 will be 450 too?
The new RS5 looks like a stretched TT, I hate it... also, it's running a slushbox, the affects of dieselgate are starting to show. I'm off to buy a VXR8.

Buy a VXR8 and you'll be well disappointed buddy. I've given them a really hard time in my diesel burner. 0-60 is 5 secs. My SQ is 5.1. And in the real world situation it's rear wheel drive can't put the power down. Trust me every Saturday morning I race one to work and every time he loses.

[N13LXC]

that's my thoughts on it for now...

Shut up, no one asked you.

[bam_bam]

RS5 shown at Geneva. It's 450HP, wouldn't this mean the RS4 will be 450 too?
The new RS5 looks like a stretched TT, I hate it... also, it's running a slushbox, the affects of dieselgate are starting to show. I'm off to buy a VXR8.

Buy a VXR8 and you'll be well disappointed buddy. I've given them a really hard time in my diesel burner. 0-60 is 5 secs. My SQ is 5.1. And in the real world situation it's rear wheel drive can't put the power down. Trust me every Saturday morning I race one to work and every time he loses.

What, a charged one? Besides, I just want kill rear tyres and go around every corner looking out of the side window looking like a dickhead.

[N13LXC]

Huh? The RS4 and 5 have previously had similar performance times so i'd expect the new RS4 to also do 0-62 in 3.9 i.e. RS6 non PE.
We haven't even seen normal version yet and you are talking about a quicker plus version!

I don't think 450bhp is that impressive devt although appreciate torque is up

I think he is saying in time at least keeping it this 'low' means it is easy to add a PE at a later date by just turning the wick up a bit.

Oh ok I see what you are saying regarding the power figures bit the acceleration is already in line with a non PE RS6.

Mine is more an observation, rs3 facelift is doing c.4s so rs model delineation by 0-60 times doesn't seem to matter. And the PE idea is based on competition direction and other models from the existing Audi range. I'm not sure the C7 non PE was crying out for more power...but it got it, and people jumped to it.

I had in my head 3.7 for the non PE. Must admit haven't looked at the figures for a while...

[N13LXC]

Just noticed, there is no b9 rs5 thread in the rs5 section...about time Audi got the finger oot on the rs4...

[MikeFish]

3.7 is the PE number (0-62), it's 3.9 for non PE.
But I think the 0-62 times still have to be in relation to where the model is within the range; the RS3 is 4.1, RS4 and 5 will be 3.9 and the new RS6 when it comes out will be around 3.3 to 3.5 (but probably dictated by what the competitors latest / next models are putting out at the time).
The new RS5 is allowed to match the current RS6 non PE numbers as the RS6 is coming to the end of it's life and can still claim to be faster overall due to the PE model.

[chunky79]

RS5 shown at Geneva. It's 450HP, wouldn't this mean the RS4 will be 450 too?
The new RS5 looks like a stretched TT, I hate it... also, it's running a slushbox, the affects of dieselgate are starting to show. I'm off to buy a VXR8.

Buy a VXR8 and you'll be well disappointed buddy. I've given them a really hard time in my diesel burner. 0-60 is 5 secs. My SQ is 5.1. And in the real world situation it's rear wheel drive can't put the power down. Trust me every Saturday morning I race one to work and every time he loses.

What, a charged one? Besides, I just want kill rear tyres and go around every corner looking out of the side window looking like a dickhead.

You fed up looking like a dickhead looking through the windscreen?

[bam_bam]

Buy a VXR8 and you'll be well disappointed buddy. I've given them a really hard time in my diesel burner. 0-60 is 5 secs. My SQ is 5.1. And in the real world situation it's rear wheel drive can't put the power down. Trust me every Saturday morning I race one to work and every time he loses.

What, a charged one? Besides, I just want kill rear tyres and go around every corner looking out of the side window looking like a dickhead.

You fed up looking like a dickhead looking through the windscreen?

^THIS.
I thought a different window would shake things up a bit. I've started punching your mum in face just as I cum too, feels the same though, still, it's a change from her punching me in the face until I cum.

[Ian_C]

Anyone who thinks this new B9 won't be much faster than the B8 needs their head looking at

There are numerous tricks car manufacturers do to set a good 0-60 time on paper. Back in the 90s, all cars suddenly had second gear reaching exactly 62 mph on the redline. I remember reading in TG Mag even Toyota did this on a boggo Yaris. Power sets a good 0-60 time - you are using max revs and the car makes its power at max revs.

(likewise, some car manufacturers simply didn't bother, the original k series Elise S1 + S2 and VX220 (na) redlined in second at around 57 mph, thus the 6 second 0-60 time makes it look far slower on paper than it feels in real life)

In the real world, there is simply no substitute for torque. 442lb ft is more than any R8 / Huracan derivative ever built.

Look what Ferrrai have just done with the California. They ditched the natural aspirated 4.3 litre V8 that made 358 lb ft, and fitted a 3.9 litre turbocharged V8 with 557 lb ft. Transforms the car, they ditched the silly short gearing as a result, no need to rev the balls off it to make it go

I'm trying to think of a more real world example. 2002 Honda Civic Type R (200 bhp) vs 2005 VW Golf GTi (200 bhp). Sure, the Type R is probably a second faster 0-60 than the Golf, but in the real world, when you aren't doing side-step-the-clutch launches, the torquey Golf more than has the Civic covered for in gear acceleration

I'd even go as far as saying that there would be a bigger difference in performance / figures / in gear acceleration between say a B8 RS4 and B9 RS4 (both 7 speed autos) than a B7 S4 and a B7 RS4 (both 6 speed manuals). The 125 lb ft different between the B8 B9 would make more difference in the real world than the 70 bhp different between the B7 S4 + RS4

The Tiptronic is no surprise - when the B8 S4 was blowing its gearboxes to bits with a quoted 325 lb ft (in reality, way more than that, more like 360 lb ft) there was only ever going to be one option for the B9 RS4, especially after Audi ditched it for the B9 S4

[DeanoC]

Anyone who thinks this new B9 won't be much faster than the B8 needs their head looking at

There are numerous tricks car manufacturers do to set a good 0-60 time on paper. Back in the 90s, all cars suddenly had second gear reaching exactly 62 mph on the redline. I remember reading in TG Mag even Toyota did this on a boggo Yaris. Power sets a good 0-60 time - you are using max revs and the car makes its power at max revs.

(likewise, some car manufacturers simply didn't bother, the original k series Elise S1 + S2 and VX220 (na) redlined in second at around 57 mph, thus the 6 second 0-60 time makes it look far slower on paper than it feels in real life)

In the real world, there is simply no substitute for torque. 442lb ft is more than any R8 / Huracan derivative ever built.

Look what Ferrrai have just done with the California. They ditched the natural aspirated 4.3 litre V8 that made 358 lb ft, and fitted a 3.9 litre turbocharged V8 with 557 lb ft. Transforms the car, they ditched the silly short gearing as a result, no need to rev the balls off it to make it go

I'm trying to think of a more real world example. 2002 Honda Civic Type R (200 bhp) vs 2005 VW Golf GTi (200 bhp). Sure, the Type R is probably a second faster 0-60 than the Golf, but in the real world, when you aren't doing side-step-the-clutch launches, the torquey Golf more than has the Civic covered for in gear acceleration

I'd even go as far as saying that there would be a bigger difference in performance / figures / in gear acceleration between say a B8 RS4 and B9 RS4 (both 7 speed autos) than a B7 S4 and a B7 RS4 (both 6 speed manuals). The 125 lb ft different between the B8 B9 would make more difference in the real world than the 70 bhp different between the B7 S4 + RS4

The Tiptronic is no surprise - when the B8 S4 was blowing its gearboxes to bits with a quoted 325 lb ft (in reality, way more than that, more like 360 lb ft) there was only ever going to be one option for the B9 RS4, especially after Audi ditched it for the B9 S4

I don't agree. Having had ridiculous torque in a mapped 335d, big torque for the engine size in a cupra and now low torque in the RS4. What never gets mentioned is the rev range. The torque curve on a charged petrol will be like a mountain where you get big numbers for maybe 3k rpm. Either side of that you can drop to half the torque pretty quickly. Mine is 330lbft at 6.5k rpm but is only ever 10% less than that from 3k - 8.5k giving me 5.5k of the rev band where im 90-100% of torque. Less for more time vs. more for less time.

All i have to do is keep the revs up and luckily the box just wants to do that all day long. Yes you can get caught off guard and yes it won't feel as quick in a surge type way but the constant torque over lots more revs does bring acceleration if used.

The changes revently sre due to economy and the environment not performance.

I personally find revving the balls off of something to go quick more fun than just staying in top gear 50mph+ like i did in my 335d.

I much prefer S/R tronic to a ZF. But with their money issues they had to go with the lesser option. They are doing a box with graziano and i hope this will end up in the R5

[smudge]

Just seen the RS5. Did anyone spot the revolutionary carbon roof? Why did no one else think of this ever?

After getting the sick out of my mouth and brushing my teeth I popped back onto the MB & BMW configurators to see what I could look to do. Or maybe I'll just have to grow up and get an RS6.... Who knows.

Audi, you can see yourself out now, don't let the door hit you on the way....

I took some screen grabs from YouTube seeing as there appear to be none on this thread. I couldn't be arsed searching for any images.

Just what is going on at the rear ffs??!?!?

[Corkys]

Anyone who thinks this new B9 won't be much faster than the B8 needs their head looking at

There are numerous tricks car manufacturers do to set a good 0-60 time on paper. Back in the 90s, all cars suddenly had second gear reaching exactly 62 mph on the redline. I remember reading in TG Mag even Toyota did this on a boggo Yaris. Power sets a good 0-60 time - you are using max revs and the car makes its power at max revs.

(likewise, some car manufacturers simply didn't bother, the original k series Elise S1 + S2 and VX220 (na) redlined in second at around 57 mph, thus the 6 second 0-60 time makes it look far slower on paper than it feels in real life)

In the real world, there is simply no substitute for torque. 442lb ft is more than any R8 / Huracan derivative ever built.

Look what Ferrrai have just done with the California. They ditched the natural aspirated 4.3 litre V8 that made 358 lb ft, and fitted a 3.9 litre turbocharged V8 with 557 lb ft. Transforms the car, they ditched the silly short gearing as a result, no need to rev the balls off it to make it go

I'm trying to think of a more real world example. 2002 Honda Civic Type R (200 bhp) vs 2005 VW Golf GTi (200 bhp). Sure, the Type R is probably a second faster 0-60 than the Golf, but in the real world, when you aren't doing side-step-the-clutch launches, the torquey Golf more than has the Civic covered for in gear acceleration

I'd even go as far as saying that there would be a bigger difference in performance / figures / in gear acceleration between say a B8 RS4 and B9 RS4 (both 7 speed autos) than a B7 S4 and a B7 RS4 (both 6 speed manuals). The 125 lb ft different between the B8 B9 would make more difference in the real world than the 70 bhp different between the B7 S4 + RS4

The Tiptronic is no surprise - when the B8 S4 was blowing its gearboxes to bits with a quoted 325 lb ft (in reality, way more than that, more like 360 lb ft) there was only ever going to be one option for the B9 RS4, especially after Audi ditched it for the B9 S4

What I find mad about using an auto gearbox it that Porsche is using exactly the same engine in the Panamera 4s and they have developed a Dual-clutch. Why??
Surely they could of saved costs and just developed one gearbox for both applications.