RS4 v's RS5
The GTR red is much better than the Misano IMHO.
Audi were just plain greedy with the RS5.
They shoe-horned an old V8 into an existing A5 platform, modified the airbox, lightened the internals and added S-tronic for which they want to charge you £25K over what a RS4 cost when it was released and all that right after the worlds worst depression.
Sorry but massive fail and I'm an Audi fan.
Agree with most posters here. I reckon the market for £75K GT's has shrunk and people are looking at performance/£ whereupon a modified RS4 with a couple of miles on the clock going for £25K looks a way better proposition even if you do have to replace a wheel bearing or two.
Still, if demand drives price, maybe they have got enough customers with more cash than sense...
Yeah thats right....I'm just sore I can't afford a R8GT.
Audi were just plain greedy with the RS5.
They shoe-horned an old V8 into an existing A5 platform, modified the airbox, lightened the internals and added S-tronic for which they want to charge you £25K over what a RS4 cost when it was released and all that right after the worlds worst depression.
Sorry but massive fail and I'm an Audi fan.
Agree with most posters here. I reckon the market for £75K GT's has shrunk and people are looking at performance/£ whereupon a modified RS4 with a couple of miles on the clock going for £25K looks a way better proposition even if you do have to replace a wheel bearing or two.
Still, if demand drives price, maybe they have got enough customers with more cash than sense...
Yeah thats right....I'm just sore I can't afford a R8GT.
58 C6 RS6 Stage 2+
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
I'm glad they mention the RS4's damping here. Some owners on this forum have been quick to dismiss their DRC suspension and change for aftermarket. For road use DRC is excellent! If it leaks it's still under extended warranty and worth keeping IMHO.victor2vt wrote:EVO'S quote
"The RS5's ride never feels settled, which is a disappointment because the damping of the RS4 was it's outstanding feature""
RS4 rules!!!!
Chris
ROAD: Black RS4 B7 saloon
TRACK: Black Lotus Elise Supercharged
ROAD: Black RS4 B7 saloon
TRACK: Black Lotus Elise Supercharged
the RS5 weighs over 4000 lbs, it was not designed to compete with a 911 class of vehicle
It is a heavy luxury coupe/GT much like the Aston's, not a sports car, but a tourer...
quattro has an inherent flaw: wt dist, the set-up with the front diff being integrated into the tranny is nice packaging and efficient, but the geometry leaves the engine hanging out front as a lever/moment...the RS4 was 60/40, the RS5 is 55/45, getting better
the steering 'feel' will always be hampered by this and power going thru the wheels
the GTR is described as lifeless with video game feel, souless, but its absolute performance makes up for the lack of 'driving experience'...
what makes the RS4 so special is that it is a practical 4 door sedan with near 911 performance
a swoopy coupe like the RS5 has higher expectations
It is a heavy luxury coupe/GT much like the Aston's, not a sports car, but a tourer...
quattro has an inherent flaw: wt dist, the set-up with the front diff being integrated into the tranny is nice packaging and efficient, but the geometry leaves the engine hanging out front as a lever/moment...the RS4 was 60/40, the RS5 is 55/45, getting better
the steering 'feel' will always be hampered by this and power going thru the wheels
the GTR is described as lifeless with video game feel, souless, but its absolute performance makes up for the lack of 'driving experience'...
what makes the RS4 so special is that it is a practical 4 door sedan with near 911 performance
a swoopy coupe like the RS5 has higher expectations
I'd agree that expectations for a 4 door super saloon are completely different for what is more akin to a 2+2 coupe.
I've driven the GTR on track and it's not exactly souless but a little too efficient at what it does and the "video game feel" comments are largely derived from the prolific use of the GTR lineage in the GT playstation games. It's not video game detached as you can feel everything working under you - it's quite agricultural in the way it shifts power and feels like you're sitting on several tonnes of steel rather than carbon bits everywhere. A phenomenal technological feat as there's no way a 1800+kg 500 bhp ish car should have the performance stats that it does. That being said it's not my personal choice - it's a little too easy to go very fast without the reward that goes with it. As such at normal road speeds even twisty lanes it doesn't really start to get exciting so you need to get to multiple license losing territory or take it on track. Start using it heavily on track and then you can't run away from the sheer mass of the car - it's very easy to trip it into failsafe mode when things start to run very hot.
I've driven the GTR on track and it's not exactly souless but a little too efficient at what it does and the "video game feel" comments are largely derived from the prolific use of the GTR lineage in the GT playstation games. It's not video game detached as you can feel everything working under you - it's quite agricultural in the way it shifts power and feels like you're sitting on several tonnes of steel rather than carbon bits everywhere. A phenomenal technological feat as there's no way a 1800+kg 500 bhp ish car should have the performance stats that it does. That being said it's not my personal choice - it's a little too easy to go very fast without the reward that goes with it. As such at normal road speeds even twisty lanes it doesn't really start to get exciting so you need to get to multiple license losing territory or take it on track. Start using it heavily on track and then you can't run away from the sheer mass of the car - it's very easy to trip it into failsafe mode when things start to run very hot.
the GTR is fast as one would expect
it's not the HP that counts but the torque
although it has only 15% more HP, it has almost 40% more torque
so it's speed is not unexpected...
that's what turbocharging will do for you
at 6400 rpm
GTR ~ 400 lb ft
RS4 ~ 300 lb ft
+33%, huge difference
the GTR's (2) I've driven felt like trucks, heavy, clunky and insulated
but fast
it's not the HP that counts but the torque
although it has only 15% more HP, it has almost 40% more torque
so it's speed is not unexpected...
that's what turbocharging will do for you
at 6400 rpm
GTR ~ 400 lb ft
RS4 ~ 300 lb ft
+33%, huge difference
the GTR's (2) I've driven felt like trucks, heavy, clunky and insulated
but fast
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein
The fact that a GTR kills a 997 GT3 around a track means a 2+2 Coupe weighing 1700+kg is quite capable, IMHO, of being a Supercar.
Maybe you can attribute that to the 53:47 weight distribution versus 38:62 but since when did anyone ever think that 50:50 weight distribution was the pinnacle?
Certainly not Porsche.
IMHO, the GTR is alot faster than even the torque suggests.
My B5 has 550hp/500ftlbs and although pippyrips, a GTR owner, felt it was even more savage, the reality was that gearbox meant that every shift he would jump away from me.
Beyond 100mph, maybe I would claw something back but we never got to test at those speeds.
I have no doubt most GTR's even stock are making more than 470hp but a gearbox that overcomes a deficit of 60hp/60ftlbs is a superlative achievement.
Agree with adsgreen to some extent....that car is really happiest at maximum attack, whereupon, it is superb...and expensive to maintain.
That said I liked their clunkiness at low speed...it is almost as if the technology is letting you know that it is far more capable than what you're asking of it at the time.
That said, I'm not sure (if my limited experience is anything to go by) it is any more clunky than a 996 GT3 RS at low speed?
Anyway, the point being, Audi could have made the RS5 more capable in the engine, and therefore performance department, especially in an age where large dispacement NA engine are on their way out...
Maybe you can attribute that to the 53:47 weight distribution versus 38:62 but since when did anyone ever think that 50:50 weight distribution was the pinnacle?
Certainly not Porsche.
IMHO, the GTR is alot faster than even the torque suggests.
My B5 has 550hp/500ftlbs and although pippyrips, a GTR owner, felt it was even more savage, the reality was that gearbox meant that every shift he would jump away from me.
Beyond 100mph, maybe I would claw something back but we never got to test at those speeds.
I have no doubt most GTR's even stock are making more than 470hp but a gearbox that overcomes a deficit of 60hp/60ftlbs is a superlative achievement.
Agree with adsgreen to some extent....that car is really happiest at maximum attack, whereupon, it is superb...and expensive to maintain.
That said I liked their clunkiness at low speed...it is almost as if the technology is letting you know that it is far more capable than what you're asking of it at the time.
That said, I'm not sure (if my limited experience is anything to go by) it is any more clunky than a 996 GT3 RS at low speed?
Anyway, the point being, Audi could have made the RS5 more capable in the engine, and therefore performance department, especially in an age where large dispacement NA engine are on their way out...
58 C6 RS6 Stage 2+
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
-
neckarsulm
- Cruising
- Posts: 4468
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:13 pm
- Location: The Point
If they can get OK Co2 emissions from an NA V8 rather forced induction then good for them.Anyway, the point being, Audi could have made the RS5 more capable in the engine, and therefore performance department, especially in an age where large dispacement NA engine are on their way out...
I've owned 3 B5 RS4s inc a 430 MTM car and still drive one as well as my B7 and yes they were quick but the way the B7 RS4 V8 keeps getting faster as the revs get higher is exhilarating, and I'd rather have the thrill of this than an ultimately faster forced induction car which didn't offer this level entertainment.
After all you can do 500 mph in a 737 but it aint no fun
the GTR as fast as would be expected
it has 1.35 more average torque
0.9 the power band
and 0.9 the gearing (assuming the gears are optimized for the power band)
wt is ~ the same as is traction ie, awd
1.35 x 0.9 x 0.9 ~ 1.094 or 9% faster
if we assume 12.9 for the RS4 qtr mile that would mean 1/1.094 x 12.9 ~ 11.8 for the GTR
trap 109 x 1.094 ~ 119
pretty much in line with the tested numbers, 11.7 to 12, 118 to 120 mph
it's not magic, but easily comprehensible physics/engineering
as far as its times, the massive torque, 3.70:1 final drive, and awd make up a lot of ground against the GT3...
as far as balance, Porsche does not suscribe to 50:50 because it was saddled with VW chassis in post WWII Germany, so it made due...
it's newer designed cars, and the pinnicle GT are mid-engined
closer to 45:55 than 35:65 or even 30:70 in the older cars
Audi chose not to make the most powerful car...they are a business, and want to make high margin...
they could have used the V10 or the RS6 engine but chose not to...
these are street cars, and Audi did not ascribe speed as the highest priority in the design/build process...
as far as track times, 'Ring, same driver
GTR 2008 7:38
GTR 2011 7:34
GT3 2007 7:40
GT3 RS 2011 7:33
ZR1 7:38
hardly a 'kill'
it has 1.35 more average torque
0.9 the power band
and 0.9 the gearing (assuming the gears are optimized for the power band)
wt is ~ the same as is traction ie, awd
1.35 x 0.9 x 0.9 ~ 1.094 or 9% faster
if we assume 12.9 for the RS4 qtr mile that would mean 1/1.094 x 12.9 ~ 11.8 for the GTR
trap 109 x 1.094 ~ 119
pretty much in line with the tested numbers, 11.7 to 12, 118 to 120 mph
it's not magic, but easily comprehensible physics/engineering
as far as its times, the massive torque, 3.70:1 final drive, and awd make up a lot of ground against the GT3...
as far as balance, Porsche does not suscribe to 50:50 because it was saddled with VW chassis in post WWII Germany, so it made due...
it's newer designed cars, and the pinnicle GT are mid-engined
closer to 45:55 than 35:65 or even 30:70 in the older cars
Audi chose not to make the most powerful car...they are a business, and want to make high margin...
they could have used the V10 or the RS6 engine but chose not to...
these are street cars, and Audi did not ascribe speed as the highest priority in the design/build process...
as far as track times, 'Ring, same driver
GTR 2008 7:38
GTR 2011 7:34
GT3 2007 7:40
GT3 RS 2011 7:33
ZR1 7:38
hardly a 'kill'
It's not much to do with the engine torque - torque at the wheels is all that counts and thats always better with bhp rather than torque.
Toruqe is largely irrelevant for performance driving - a car with more HP accross the power band for gearing will always be able to go faster than a car with less hp and more torque. Now I know power is a function of torque but massive torque doesn't mean fast.
Take an F1 car - nearly 800-900 bhp and less than 250 lb/ft torque but not what you'd call "slow". Similary, the classic problem with diesels is the large torque and coupled with low power through lack of ability to maintain the power at high revs. This means a longer gearing is required in order to achieve sensible road speeds and as such the all important torque at the wheels is reduced.
Finally, I've had race engines built for other cars using 1.8 rover K series units and once tuned and optimised had much less torque than a standard but double the bhp. With the same geabox the track car was significantly faster even though at no point did it have more torque than the standard one.
There's plenty of other 1.8 tone cars with the same power and torque (or) more than the GTR that are substantually slower.
99% of the performance of the GTR is down to:
1) a very slick DSG gearbox making gear shift times pretty much zero.
2) probably one of the most advanced launch control systems on a road car.
3) surprisingly good aero
My track car is virtually the same 0-60 as the GTR but in gear would noticably gain on it (I have traditional manual).
I'd agree that the car isn't great on the road but on track it doesn't feel half as bad. I guess this is the problem with all cars that spend too much dev time at the ring.
Toruqe is largely irrelevant for performance driving - a car with more HP accross the power band for gearing will always be able to go faster than a car with less hp and more torque. Now I know power is a function of torque but massive torque doesn't mean fast.
Take an F1 car - nearly 800-900 bhp and less than 250 lb/ft torque but not what you'd call "slow". Similary, the classic problem with diesels is the large torque and coupled with low power through lack of ability to maintain the power at high revs. This means a longer gearing is required in order to achieve sensible road speeds and as such the all important torque at the wheels is reduced.
Finally, I've had race engines built for other cars using 1.8 rover K series units and once tuned and optimised had much less torque than a standard but double the bhp. With the same geabox the track car was significantly faster even though at no point did it have more torque than the standard one.
There's plenty of other 1.8 tone cars with the same power and torque (or) more than the GTR that are substantually slower.
99% of the performance of the GTR is down to:
1) a very slick DSG gearbox making gear shift times pretty much zero.
2) probably one of the most advanced launch control systems on a road car.
3) surprisingly good aero
My track car is virtually the same 0-60 as the GTR but in gear would noticably gain on it (I have traditional manual).
I'd agree that the car isn't great on the road but on track it doesn't feel half as bad. I guess this is the problem with all cars that spend too much dev time at the ring.
You plug the figures for a 3900lbs car into the LRT formula and you need 560hp to go 120mph.
Go the opposite way and the car should be running 12.6 and 114.
That DSG gearbox is screwing with the coefficients because its so slick.
BTW, the GTR is essentially 2WD until its clever brain shifts torque forward...you watch the torque split as you drive.
GTR versus 997 GT3 RS comparison: http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ ... 35715.html and the GTR is faster on all but 2 tracks.
Porsche 997 GT2 RS - their fastest car at the Ring has weight distribution 38:62. 10 secs faster than Carrera GT.
Check out Top Gear track times...the GTR times are sandwiched between lightweights....except perhaps the Lambo's: http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml
But I agree, Audi did not prioritise speed. That being the case, one wonders whether a new gearbox with a funky diff is worth the extra £25K when you aren't going to get anywhere quicker than in your old RS4?
PS: I'll tell you another time when you get a sensation of speed in a 737....when you hit a bird. Major strike this week. Just missed the core.
Go the opposite way and the car should be running 12.6 and 114.
That DSG gearbox is screwing with the coefficients because its so slick.
BTW, the GTR is essentially 2WD until its clever brain shifts torque forward...you watch the torque split as you drive.
GTR versus 997 GT3 RS comparison: http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ ... 35715.html and the GTR is faster on all but 2 tracks.
Porsche 997 GT2 RS - their fastest car at the Ring has weight distribution 38:62. 10 secs faster than Carrera GT.
Check out Top Gear track times...the GTR times are sandwiched between lightweights....except perhaps the Lambo's: http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml
But I agree, Audi did not prioritise speed. That being the case, one wonders whether a new gearbox with a funky diff is worth the extra £25K when you aren't going to get anywhere quicker than in your old RS4?
PS: I'll tell you another time when you get a sensation of speed in a 737....when you hit a bird. Major strike this week. Just missed the core.
58 C6 RS6 Stage 2+
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
-
parlee-king
- 2nd Gear
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:53 pm
Until I saw mine up for sale I wasn't that keen on getting a bright colour, but now I love it.victor2vt wrote:Never seen a red RS4 in the flesh, got to say it looks the business !!!
'14 Golf R mk7
Previous
Nov'07 Rs4 Avant (Misano) (sold April 14),
E92 335D E46,E36,E30, Boxster S, Cooper S (old & new) + 20 others
Previous
Nov'07 Rs4 Avant (Misano) (sold April 14),E92 335D E46,E36,E30, Boxster S, Cooper S (old & new) + 20 others
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests