Is the B5 S4 a lardy barge ? - vote & discuss

2.7 V6 30v biturbo - 251bhp
2.7 V6 30v biturbo - 261bhp

Is the B5 S4 a lardy barge ?

Yes - the very definition of lard
14
30%
No - light as a feather and goes like stink.
6
13%
Don't know / don't care
11
24%
No – do not consider an S4B5 to be a ‘Lardy barge’
15
33%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
rikrose
4th Gear
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:06 am

Post by rikrose » Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:50 am

S4TAN wrote:
Same mpg as the Mundano 1.8 Zetec too. Scary, eh?
really??? :shock:
Okay, it's actually slightly less economical than the Mundano (he says, with the Mundano's manual in front of me). I did a whole tank on the motorway. Over the 61 litres, I got 30.4 miles per gallon, off a 1.8 litre engine (and I stuck to the speed limit). I mean, for only 10 mpg less, I can have a car that doesn't have a god-awful Zetec engine in it. And cycle to work.

User avatar
Dr-Al
3rd Gear
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:45 pm
Location: Round the bend

Post by Dr-Al » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:50 pm

droberts wrote:
shineydave wrote:i was actually being kind to the R8 by posting the Avant weight for the S4. 1540kg for the saloon although i suspect it's not all about weight but suspension control, power/weight ratios, center of gravity, track and wheelbase etc and even down to how the controls feel and respond
:thumbs: Totally agree, its not about weight, but how that weight is kept under control by the cars suspension, brakes and power delivery. "Lardy" implies a slow car with weight beyond the capabilities of the brakes and suspension.
Where handling is concerned weight distribution is just as important as suspension, brakes and power delivery (if not more so).

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about the heavy lump at the front of these cars.

I had a Camaro when I lived in the US. When the weather turned bad I had to drive around with a boot full of bottled water. Without this the back end was to skittish for spirited driving unless the roads were bone dry.
Wrecked on 9 Oct 2007: 1998 Cactus Green S4, 710N DVs, Boost gauge (in custom A-pillar/dash mounting pod), cruise control retro-fit, Parrot 3200 Colour Hands Free, RS246.com sticker

MCB
Top Gear
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by MCB » Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Well I must say it is rather heartening to see that the general consensus so far amongst fellow S4B5 enthusiasts is that we do not consider our car to be a 'Lardy Barge'! :thumbs:
S4B5 Avant

ronaldmacdonald
2nd Gear
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Peterborough

Post by ronaldmacdonald » Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:04 pm


I got 30.4 miles per gallon, off a 1.8 litre engine (and I stuck to the speed limit). I mean, for only 10 mpg less, I can have a car that doesn't have a god-awful Zetec engine in it. And cycle to work.
You should get 26mpg+ easily out of the S4 if its healthy, certainly more than 20mpg! :shock: I had mine displaying 29mpg on the long term although most of the time it was around 27mpg

droberts
1st Gear
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Northamptonshire

Post by droberts » Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:22 pm

Dr-Al wrote:Where handling is concerned weight distribution is just as important as suspension, brakes and power delivery (if not more so).

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about the heavy lump at the front of these cars.
Ahh the nirvana of 50:50 weight distribution, yes I would concur that a low centre of gravity and a 50:50 split is what a designer would aim for, but I don't find the 60:40 distribution a problem. The uprated ARB's dial out the understeer leaving the car predictable in cornering and very rewarding when using a balanced throttle, leading to full power on exit :D
Milltek dual cat-back, gutted downpipes, ECS Tuning stage3 brakes, MRC custom map, H&R ARBs.

C-24
2nd Gear
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Switzerland, Geneva

Post by C-24 » Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:53 pm

There's a guy out there who did mod his S4 sedan to an RS4 sedan. He reduced the weight of the car (ie. removing back seats), and had I think 600hp or more.
He was simply faster than the Pagani Zonda, Murcielago, GT2, and other supercars on the track!

The s4 is unbeatable on road, and if you want to get on a track you should change the suspensions and brakes for sure (the originals are not for racing situation), and if you reduce the weight, I can't imagine how good it would be!
Don't forget that it hasn't been created for track, and the RS4 B5 is even bigger and heavier, but faster on track!
It's all a matter of design.
IMO an S4 can outclass an RS4 if you change suspensions/brakes/power upgrade because it's a less heavier car (yet, the RS4 has a really better stability!).
S4 avant imola yellow
Sportec remap 320hp / 500nm
Brembo GT-brakes
RS4 suspensions

C-24
2nd Gear
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Switzerland, Geneva

Re: no way

Post by C-24 » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:02 pm

ronaldmacdonald wrote:The S4 is no barge, its a bloody lightweight! I swapped it for an E39 M5 and THAT is a freekin lardy barge at a heavyweight 1756kg. Thats got to be around 190kg heavier (and it feels like it as well much more "bargy" than the S4). Go try and bench press 190kg next time you are at the gym and then your arms will know just how "unbargy" the S4 is.
lol, how much can you bench press ?
S4 avant imola yellow
Sportec remap 320hp / 500nm
Brembo GT-brakes
RS4 suspensions

neckarsulm
Cruising
Posts: 4468
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:13 pm
Location: The Point

RE: Re: no way

Post by neckarsulm » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:37 pm

I was only saying today how I can cruise around in luxury car levels of comfort never using more than 2000 rpm with wife on board enjoying standard comfortable ride quality or driving solo I can be probably one of the quickest cars on the road in all conditions even on twisty country roads - and with Konis fitted and standard springs I'm sure it will be even better balanced.
S3 is more of a go kart but ride is too firm, engine sounds boring and it certainly feels a lot less potent.
On a track I guess an S4 will look a bit hefty but follow tried and tested method of slow in fast out and it'll still be quick.
And compared to modern cars, the S4 is light, I'd be very surprised if B6/B7 S4 isn't at so much heavier than its extra 80bhp isn't largely negated by extra weight.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/-I1Ok9LTn6o[/youtube]

clubsport
3rd Gear
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:43 pm

Post by clubsport » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:27 am

Guys, as mentioned my initial "lardy barge" comments were based on expectations of taking my own B5 S4 on to the track (nothing more) my car has STANDARD brakes and suspension.

Have a look at this video, I believe it is in fact a B6 version, but replicates my expectation of the way events might unfold in my own car.

http://tinyurl.com/y2pedt

:D
2000 B5 S4 facelift, sadly missed...enjoying the 2005 A2 TDi Special Edition though!

User avatar
shineydave
Cruising
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Bradford, Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by shineydave » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:13 am

He He, nice one.

to be fair we all know the brakes are "velocity challanged" on the track so no surprises there, did suprprise me how calm he was though at the point where he finally came to that conclusion.
Dave

"if that's the Turbo Fairy knocking tell her i'm not in"

http://www.ukchat.com/home/setnick.asp?room=RS2346

clubsport
3rd Gear
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:43 pm

Post by clubsport » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:24 am

It would obviously make a difference as to the type of brake fluid the guy was running....in other track cars I run SRF or ATE blue and although cars are lighter and over-braked I have never experienced anything like the scenario on the vid......good forward thinking by MSV to have a decent run off area at that turn....clearly not the first time it has happened!
2000 B5 S4 facelift, sadly missed...enjoying the 2005 A2 TDi Special Edition though!

jeffw
Top Gear
Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Post by jeffw » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:06 pm

That's must be Scotty off here, the run-off is where the track went prior to the chicane being added.

User avatar
shineydave
Cruising
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Bradford, Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by shineydave » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:28 pm

i'd have had to lower the seat if that happened to me
Dave

"if that's the Turbo Fairy knocking tell her i'm not in"

http://www.ukchat.com/home/setnick.asp?room=RS2346

flashyg
5th Gear
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:36 pm

Post by flashyg » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:41 pm

That was no lardy barge, It keeps up with gt3 JR maybe, and fatcat both well experienced.
I think the author has a lardy car! 1 bad apple. I think if the post was titled are stock brakes as good as 6 pot billet brembos the answer would be no. All good fun. same for arbs and suspension.

:ban:

G

neckarsulm
Cruising
Posts: 4468
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:13 pm
Location: The Point

Post by neckarsulm » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:40 pm

Good video but yes that is a B6/7 which is a quite a bit heavier than a B5 - didn't Audi offer journos a go in a B7 S4 at the B7 RS4 launch so they could feel the difference and one magazine (Evo or Car) said the S4 was rubbish in comparison?
[youtube]https://youtu.be/-I1Ok9LTn6o[/youtube]

Post Reply

Return to “S4 (B5 Typ 8D) 1997-2002”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests