Audi RS5 (explain, please)

[Estrella]

http://www.insideline.com/audi/rs5/2011/2011-audi-rs5-first-drive.html#comments_sort_form1

Found that^ while looking at C63 AMG Coupe thread. I understand that the RS5, M3, and C63 AMG Coupe are in the same class. However, the RS5 is more than twenty grand over the other two, individually. Shit you can get an M3 Sedan new in the sixties. WTF?!

What would make someone buy the RS5 over the TTRS? Is the TTRS not every bit as fast? Might the TTRS be faster?

The RS5 should be priced, IMO, at 78k for base.

 

[Throckmorton]

The tire sizes on the RS5 made me scratch my head... the rears are only 5mm wider than the front, but 30 section ratio instead of 35. Surely that means the rears are smaller diameter? I plugged the numbers into Miata.net tire calculator and it's true.

Specification Sidewall Radius Diameter Circumference Revs/Mile Difference
265/35-20 3.7in 13.7in 27.3in 85.8in 739 0.0%
270/30-20 3.2in 13.2in 26.4in 82.9in 765 -3.4%

 

[Fenixgoon]

typo?

 

[Estrella]

typo?

No, no typo.

C63 AMG coupe: 80ish
C63 AMG Sedan: 70ish

BMW M3 Coupe: 70ish
BMW M3 Sedan: 60ish

Audi RS5: 100ish
Audi TTRS: 60ish

On paper, the performance between the RS5 and TTRS are pretty much the same. One can say the RS5 has more power than the TTRS, which is true, but the weight difference is around 600 pounds and the torque is almost the same. Both cars have much of their torque available in low revs.

When considering performance AND price, if one were a buyer at this moment(of super fun German luxury), then wouldn't one look at the TTRS, M3, and C63 AMG?

 

[punjabiplaya]

you have to pay for all that Audi understeer : see Top Gear video of RS5 vs m3

 

[overst33r]

you have to pay for all that Audi understeer : see Top Gear video of RS5 vs m3

Clarkson was being a hoon because he hates audis. You can make any car understeer if you provoke it enough.

 

[MotF Bane]

Clarkson was being a hoon because he hates audis. You can make any car understeer if you provoke it enough.

Perish the thought!

 

[ballmode]

After the Stang GT 5.0 came out, the BMW and Audi should be using that engine in those cars instead

 

[KentState]

For that much money it should out perform anything in its class. Not understanding why the car needs 20" rims either.

 

[Malak]

That is estimated price. It isn't for sale.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Clarkson was being a hoon because he hates audis. You can make any car understeer if you provoke it enough.

Having owned and driven many VAG cars I have to disagree. VAG and Audi put the motor to far forward and this unbalances the car. Even though they claim to have moved the RS motor back a few mm, I doubt it has dialed this tendency out. And Clarkson may hate many things, but check out his review of the previous generation S4. He absolutely loved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjaTCMJ8YKg

 

[PricklyPete]

After the Stang GT 5.0 came out, the BMW and Audi should be using that engine in those cars instead

? Doesn't makes sense. The GT has less or the same power and has more torque. Both the M3 and the RS5 have higher-revving, smaller displacement V8's. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with either the BMW or the Audi engine. People will have their preferences on how they like their torque, but the GT 5.0 is far from the "end all" engine. Sure, I love it just like any other auto enthusiast would...but I appreciate the other two as well.

 

[PricklyPete]

No, no typo.

C63 AMG coupe: 80ish
C63 AMG Sedan: 70ish

BMW M3 Coupe: 70ish
BMW M3 Sedan: 60ish

Audi RS5: 100ish
Audi TTRS: 60ish

On paper, the performance between the RS5 and TTRS are pretty much the same. One can say the RS5 has more power than the TTRS, which is true, but the weight difference is around 600 pounds and the torque is almost the same. Both cars have much of their torque available in low revs.

When considering performance AND price, if one were a buyer at this moment(of super fun German luxury), then wouldn't one look at the TTRS, M3, and C63 AMG?

The problem is that we really have no idea with the RS5 would cost if it came over here. The M3, etc is way more expensive over there than it is here. If Audi were to ever bring it over here, it may have a slight premium over a M3, but not much.

 

[Throckmorton]

? Doesn't makes sense. The GT has less or the same power and has more torque. Both the M3 and the RS5 have higher-revving, smaller displacement V8's. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with either the BMW or the Audi engine. People will have their preferences on how they like their torque, but the GT 5.0 is far from the "end all" engine. Sure, I love it just like any other auto enthusiast would...but I appreciate the other two as well.

I don't think anybody likes having to rev higher for the same horsepower. What is the advantage of the smaller higher revving engine? I'm guessing it's not gas mileage-- they're probably much less efficient than the Ford 5.0

Edit: M3 is rated at 14/20mpg. Mustang 17/26

 

[KentState]

? Doesn't makes sense. The GT has less or the same power and has more torque. Both the M3 and the RS5 have higher-revving, smaller displacement V8's. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with either the BMW or the Audi engine. People will have their preferences on how they like their torque, but the GT 5.0 is far from the "end all" engine. Sure, I love it just like any other auto enthusiast would...but I appreciate the other two as well.

I don't even think that the GT 5.0 engine is the "end all" V8 American engine. I would argue that the LS3 is just as good if not better since it is a simpler design. Yes, it has a displacement advantage, but the overall package size is still smaller. Plus we know it can handle boost easily in stock form or can be upgraded with forged internals like the LS9 and handle 600+ stock.

 

[PricklyPete]

I don't even think that the GT 5.0 engine is the "end all" V8 American engine. I would argue that the LS3 is just as good if not better since it is a simpler design. Yes, it has a displacement advantage, but the overall package size is still smaller. Plus we know it can handle boost easily in stock form or can be upgraded with forged internals like the LS9 and handle 600+ stock.

Agreed. All engines mentioned are good engines with different characteristics. I enjoy having the variety.

Throckmorton: A high-revving engine is an enjoyable experience in my mind. Everything isn't about numbers. An RX-8 is a joy to drive even though it has little torque. Revving up the engine each time is fantastic. I know the M3's engine is very enjoyable to drive, and I imagine both the RS5's engine and the GT 5.0 (haven't driven one yet) are as well. I know the LS3 is a peach.

 

[overst33r]

Having owned and driven many VAG cars I have to disagree. VAG and Audi put the motor to far forward and this unbalances the car. Even though they claim to have moved the RS motor back a few mm, I doubt it has dialed this tendency out. And Clarkson may hate many things, but check out his review of the previous generation S4. He absolutely loved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjaTCMJ8YKg

I've heard the same thing about the previous gen Audi's. I'm sure you've heard, for this gen they have biased the AWD system to the rear so now power on oversteer is actually possible in an Audi. Certainly they are more prone to understeer than a better balanced BMW, but I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as Clarkson claims. As always, he exaggerates to make a point.

 

[zerocool84]

I don't think anybody likes having to rev higher for the same horsepower. What is the advantage of the smaller higher revving engine? I'm guessing it's not gas mileage-- they're probably much less efficient than the Ford 5.0

Edit: M3 is rated at 14/20mpg. Mustang 17/26

Yes cus no one likes those high revving V8's from Ferrari either. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[KentState]

The one big difference you have to consider is where the engine technology trickles down from. BMW, Audi, Ferrari, Honda and the like developed a lot of their technology in F1 or similar racing formats. These usually have a restriction on displacement so that the engine builder makes an engine that revs in the 15-18k rpm range. These then become a more streetable car engine that has a smaller displacement which revs high.

Ford, GM, and Dodge take more of their engine development from ALMS racing, NASCAR, and even pickup trucks usually rev in the 7-10k rpm range. Our racing series or even government restrictions did not prevent large displacement engines from being used in most cases.

Of course things change over time and we have Ford shifting to a higher reving engine in the 5.0GT or the one off Yamaha SHO. If Ferrari stuck with farm tractors, we might be seeing something closer to a LS3 from them.

 

[overst33r]

I don't think anybody likes having to rev higher for the same horsepower. What is the advantage of the smaller higher revving engine? I'm guessing it's not gas mileage-- they're probably much less efficient than the Ford 5.0

Edit: M3 is rated at 14/20mpg. Mustang 17/26

Depends on the person...

If I'm spending extended time at high RPM, I want the engine that's more fun to wring out. It's just more satisfying to me. RX8/S2000 are perfect examples of such cars. In this case the M3 is more like the RX8/S2000 than the Mustang is.

 

[IcePickFreak]

I don't think anybody likes having to rev higher for the same horsepower. What is the advantage of the smaller higher revving engine? I'm guessing it's not gas mileage-- they're probably much less efficient than the Ford 5.0

Edit: M3 is rated at 14/20mpg. Mustang 17/26

Yes cus no one likes those high revving V8's from Ferrari either. Different strokes for different folks.

This. In fact just the other day in the Mustang thread I seen that the Boss 302 makes peak HP at 7,400rpm.. that's pretty screaming for a V8 as well, and it still maintains the 17/26mpg. The benefit of high rev'ing motors is that the powerband is wider so you're not shifting as much on a track (road course) and therefore get out of the turns quicker. They all go about it differently though and their motors designs are all vastly different.. even between a Ford and GM these days. Common sense should tell you a higher reving motor isn't going to be for better gas mileage.

 

[punjabiplaya]

The one big difference you have to consider is where the engine technology trickles down from. BMW, Audi, Ferrari, Honda and the like developed a lot of their technology in F1 or similar racing formats. These usually have a restriction on displacement so that the engine builder makes an engine that revs in the 15-18k rpm range. These then become a more streetable car engine that has a smaller displacement which revs high.

Ford, GM, and Dodge take more of their engine development from ALMS racing, NASCAR, and even pickup trucks usually rev in the 7-10k rpm range. Our racing series or even government restrictions did not prevent large displacement engines from being used in most cases.

Of course things change over time and we have Ford shifting to a higher reving engine in the 5.0GT or the one off Yamaha SHO. If Lamborghini stuck with farm tractors, we might be seeing something closer to a LS3 from them.

I hope that's what you meant. All that CTS-V power must have pooled blood in the back of your head. /jealous

 

[Imported]

The RS5 is sexy; drop dead gorgeous. The M3 and C63.. not so much.

I know I'd rather be cruising around in the RS5 more than the other two..

 

[Throckmorton]

So what's up with the front tires being taller and having more sidewall? I don't like that :|

Rear should be bigger or the same, if only for aesthetics.

Edit: Looks like a mistake in the article. Standard tires are 265/35/19 and optional are 270/30/20-- same front and rear, which is what you'd expect with an AWD car.

 

[KentState]

I hope that's what you meant. All that CTS-V power must have pooled blood in the back of your head. /jealous

You are right. I thought Ferrari also did something before cars.