A5/S5/RS5 Audi RS5 - First Drives and Driving Impressions (Autocar, Edmunds,…)

[Sunny]

Couple of points that came to mind reading those reviews.

1. The car needs to loose those silver lips - it is fugly and makes the car look like some crossover version with high ground clearance. S5 looks better.

2. Considering that the manual transmission in S5/RS4 could easily cope with the RS5's torque, not sure why they didn't bother to offer it as an option. All the rave reviews RS4 got, should have taught Audi that.

 

[Centurion]

1. The car needs to loose those silver lips - it is fugly and makes the car look like some crossover version with high ground clearance. S5 looks better.

I dislike the silver lip and diffuser too, but they are optional. I didn't expect Audi to be putting the package on the press cars. The mesh on the grill should me black too.

 

[footie]

So far every review is repeating the last one, in that it's mind-blowingly efficient and fast in the corners probably well ahead of the M3 at this stuff but ultimately it's too efficient for it's own good and loses some of the involvement that makes the M3 so endearing.

I wonder how or if these opinions will change when they are tested side by side.

P.S.

I thought I should remind everyone that these opinions about the RS5 were very similar to those of the S4, right down to the opinion the the 335i provided more entertainment. And yet almost every comparison test has placed the S4 1st, I wonder will the same be true of the RS5.

 

[Sunny]

... probably well ahead of the M3 at this stuff

Can you please point me to where in the reviews it says that? Cause I read both the reviews that was posted here and missed that part.

 

[Beemer B773ER]

The RS6 was supposed to be over 100K which is why they didn't import it...


M

That and the fact that the RS6's V10TT doesn't meet the more stringent emissions standards here in USA.

 

[Zafiro]

I wonder will the same be true of the RS5.

You sound nervous Footie. Is it really important for you to see the RS5 win tests? Is it going to affect your choice of car?

 

[footie]

You sound nervous Footie. Is it really important for you to see the RS5 win tests? Is it going to affect your choice of car?

Not in the slightest, my order/car is currently being dispatched as we speak. But those tests might affect my next car because if I can get the wife into something better suit to our family needs then the RS5 could very well be that next motor.

 

[footie]

Can you please point me to where in the reviews it says that? Cause I read both the reviews that was posted here and missed that part.

I suppose it's all down to which setup you favour most, you might prefer the BMW's rwd approach and thus can't see where it suggests it might be better, where as I much prefer Audi's awd approach as see things differently in these reviews.

I suppose only when both are tested together and the numbers are crunched will we finally know who is correct and who isn't.

P.S.
Simple question.

May I ask how big of an improvement on lap times would it take for you to be convinced that the RS5 was indeed better than the M3?

 

[Sunny]

I suppose it's all down to which setup you favour most, you might prefer the BMW's rwd approach and thus can't see where it suggests it might be better, where as I much prefer Audi's awd approach as see things differently in these reviews.

I suppose only when both are tested together and the numbers are crunched will we finally know who is correct and who isn't.

P.S.
Simple question.

May I ask how big of an improvement on lap times would it take for you to be convinced that the RS5 was indeed better than the M3?

It has nothing to do with what I or you prefer or if RS5 is faster than M3 or not. You made a statement that implied that these two reviews stated that the RS5 is way ahead M3 in cornering. But these reviews definitely don't say anything like that (in fact one of them says and I quote "there is very little separating the two cars"). So it is a fabrication of your own imagination that they said that - may be out of your enthusiasm for the RS5, which is quite understandable. But, I called you out on it and the decent thing to do would be to let it go and move on instead of trying to deflect it with some stupid question.

 

[MoSs]

damn the blue rs5 is HOT!

i think the rs5 will hit the US market after audi unveils the facelift..

 

[Makini]

Quite right South, this is a case of emissions and economy ruling the roost which shouldn't be with a hi-performance sportscar. Though until tested full it's impossible to say whether this decision will have affected it's outright aceleration into triple figures.

Eh? What if you wanted to take your RS5 on a transcontinental drive? How much would you appreciate a short ratio six or seven speed tranny? The intergalactic seventh ratio on the RS5 would be a godsend! The experience I have with the seven speed DSG, albeit in a Passat CC 1.8 TSi, is that the first six ratios help it perform very well (a Chrysler 300C 5.4 V8 owner can testify to that; and he was driving the CC! I was in the Hemi struggling to drop the CC through the gears). The seventh comes into its own by being very economical & whisper quiet at cruise.

As a weekend WRX driver, I cannot stand the ridiculously short gearing especially on a long drive; it's tiresome [noise] & thirsty punctuating even a short 500km drive with a fuel stop. Just because the RS5 is a performance vehicle doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to perform anywhere else other than on the track. This reminds me of an article whereby some journos in a 996 turbo driving from Perth to Sydney (or was it the other way round? ) were beaten by a Toyota Landcruiser with the sub tank option simply due to their numerous fuel stops.

 

[south]

Eh? What if you wanted to take your RS5 on a transcontinental drive? How much would you appreciate a short ratio six or seven speed tranny? The intergalactic seventh ratio on the RS5 would be a godsend! The experience I have with the seven speed DSG, albeit in a Passat CC 1.8 TSi, is that the first six ratios help it perform very well (a Chrysler 300C 5.4 V8 owner can testify to that; and he was driving the CC! I was in the Hemi struggling to drop the CC through the gears). The seventh comes into its own by being very economical & whisper quiet at cruise.

As a weekend WRX driver, I cannot stand the ridiculously short gearing especially on a long drive; it's tiresome [noise] & thirsty punctuating even a short 500km drive with a fuel stop. Just because the RS5 is a performance vehicle doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to perform anywhere else other than on the track. This reminds me of an article whereby some journos in a 996 turbo driving from Perth to Sydney (or was it the other way round? ) were beaten by a Toyota Landcruiser with the sub tank option simply due to their numerous fuel stops.

One overdrive gear might be fine, but the RS5 does more than that. Here are the prospective top speeds in every gear at redline (max rpm, 8500 rpm):

1st: 71.7 kph
2nd: 118.2 kph
3rd: 169.7 kph
4rd: 225.1 kph
5th: 289.1 kph
6th: 355.1 kph
7th: 428.8 kph

As you can see, the RS5 does have two overdrive gears and even the 5th is a tad too long for its restricted top speed of 250 kph (around 7350 rpm). Honestly, the RS5 most certainly is a great car, but I don't understand this. Why have a 7 speed double clutch transmission and then make no real use of it? Oh, I forgot, economy rules.


Best regards,
south

 

[martinbo]

Nice info, south... do you have the gearing graphs for the above info? And by redline you mean max power @ 8250 rpm or max rpm (8500)?

 

[rollo]

Spot-on South!

Not proper to put fuel economy ahead of performance in this type of car, too big of a concession, period. Fuel economy as a goal is just fine (even in a sports car), but not when it compromises the "essence" of the vehicle.

Look what Porsche and BMW (and even Audi with the R8/R4 e-tron variants) are doing in this regard, there is a way to accomplish both goals, fuel economy and performance are not mutually exclusive.

 

[footie]

It has nothing to do with what I or you prefer or if RS5 is faster than M3 or not. You made a statement that implied that these two reviews stated that the RS5 is way ahead M3 in cornering. But these reviews definitely don't say anything like that (in fact one of them says and I quote "there is very little separating the two cars". So it is a fabrication of your own imagination that they said that - may be out of your enthusiasm for the RS5, which is quite understandable. But, I called you out on it and the decent thing to do would be to let it go and move on instead of trying to deflect it with some stupid question.

You have taken one sentence and used it in a context that suits your own ends, where as I did likewise. That was not me arguing, just agreeing with you.

Also asking someone what improvements in lap time, cornering speeds, acceleration, etc would be require before they would conceded that in fact it was better is not a stupid question. It might explain how you or anyone else views what could be conceded as a worthwhile improvement. In the past the M3 has out shone the RS models on the tighter more technical circuits like Hockenheim but on the faster flowing and more challenging road courses like Nurburgring the difference mostly disappears. I'm saying that if the RS5 can leapfrog what the M3 is capable of on both Hockenheim and N-ring then surely that would show that Audi have built a better handling car, but if the improvements prove to be substantial then may be we all might have to consider the RS5 as much more than just an evolution of where the RS4 left off.

Spot-on South!

Not proper to put fuel economy ahead of performance in this type of car, too big of a concession, period. Fuel economy as a goal is just fine (even in a sports car), but not when it compromises the "essence" of the vehicle.

Look what Porsche and BMW (and even Audi with the R8/R4 e-tron variants) are doing in this regard, there is a way to accomplish both goals, fuel economy and performance are not mutually exclusive.

I made the exact same comments earlier, I don't see the point in such a setup but what South said is correct.......economy rules at the moment.

P.S.
I wonder how high up the rev range the RS5 would get in 6th, maybe as much as 7500rpm?

 

[aleks_16]

MOSS AMG which car is in your avatar to me i looks like a BMW

 

[south]

Nice info, south... do you have the gearing graphs for the above info? And by redline you mean max power @ 8250 rpm or max rpm (8500)?

I don't have any gearing graphs, but could make some (anyone else? ). I meant the fuel cutoff rpm of 8500 rpm.

P.S.
I wonder how high up the rev range the RS5 would get in 6th, maybe as much as 7500rpm?

You mean at 250kph? If so, it's around 7350 rpm, like I wrote in my comment.


Best regards,
south

 

[braaf]

You have taken one sentence and used it in a context that suits your own ends, where as I did likewise. That was not me arguing, just agreeing with you.

Also asking someone what improvements in lap time, cornering speeds, acceleration, etc would be require before they would conceded that in fact it was better is not a stupid question. It might explain how you or anyone else views what could be conceded as a worthwhile improvement. In the past the M3 has out shone the RS models on the tighter more technical circuits like Hockenheim but on the faster flowing and more challenging road courses like Nurburgring the difference mostly disappears. I'm saying that if the RS5 can leapfrog what the M3 is capable of on both Hockenheim and N-ring then surely that would show that Audi have built a better handling car, but if the improvements prove to be substantial then may be we all might have to consider the RS5 as much more than just an evolution of where the RS4 left off.

I get what you're trying to say. On paper the RS5 should be faster around a track than a M3. But somehow BMW have the ability to achieve the impossible. Remeber the Top gear episode where the C63, M3 and RS4 set laptimes. On paper the RS4 should have won.

But in the end the M3 destroyed the C63 and RS4. There is no reason why the same thing shouldn't happen with the RS5 and M3 as well, unless the RS5 proves me wrong.

 

[footie]

You mean at 250kph? If so, it's around 7350 rpm, like I wrote in my comment.


Best regards,
south

No South, you wrote about it's speed in 5th gear. I meant 6th.

 

[south]

No South, you wrote about it's speed in 5th gear. I meant 6th.

My bad, it's a little short of 6,000 rpm in 6th gear.


Best regards,
south