A4/S4/RS4 [Tests] Audi RS4 Avant

[martinbo]

On and on and on... like a stuck record. I'm boreseaus.

 

[Giannis]

the high-revving v8 like the M3 is a hoot when in the mood but who really revs their cars to 8500rpm all the time????

Bob, with all due respect, you will drive me mad. I mean, who in his right mind will buy an M3, for not to enjoy a 8500rpm redline at every chance he gets?

I know you've got something to say, but please don't. Just don't...

 

[Deckhook]

You guys really need to take a chill pill, you read the word M3 and clear forget the subject being discussed is the RS4. The reference to the M3 was to highlight the RS4 was of that type i.e. high revving. You loved Chris Harris review yet his opinion mimics my own here, the RS4 is brilliant when it's getting spanked to the redline but when not its nothing that special and to use his words it's failing is lack of torque, that's what makes the C63 more special more of the time.

So to repeat my opinion the RS4 would have been perfect if it had a v6 biturbo and lost 120kg.

 

[Tumbo]

Every tester seem to have different opinions about the car. Some say the best RS ever, some say it's nowhere near the B7, some say it's a great car. I think we all can say this about it:
- a amazing at indeed
- but not so special as the B7
- no manual = bad
- 100kg to heavy = bad
- they really should have gone for the 4.0TFSI engine
- not special enough
- 450hp is around 50hp to little

But overall, it sure is a great car.
But it's not magical.

 

[Deckhook]

^Agreed as a fellow Audi fan we like FI, it's in our blood but the biggest complaint I can level at the car is weight, why make a so-called performance car and burden it with excessive weight???

 

[south]

You guys really need to take a chill pill, you read the word M3 and clear forget the subject being discussed is the RS4. The reference to the M3 was to highlight the RS4 was of that type i.e. high revving. You loved Chris Harris review yet his opinion mimics my own here, the RS4 is brilliant when it's getting spanked to the redline but when not its nothing that special and to use his words it's failing is lack of torque, that's what makes the C63 more special more of the time.

So to repeat my opinion the RS4 would have been perfect if it had a v6 biturbo and lost 120kg.

Any car would be better if it had lost 120kg, so you're just stating obvious things. Also, let me remind you that it was you who dragged the M3 into this discussion. It's perfectly fine to voice your opinion why you didn't like 'your' M3. What gets people boiling is that you do it all the time, and often base it on incorrect facts (see yesterday's 335i got more torque than M3 talk). We all know by now why you do feel the M3 wasn't a perfect car to you. No reason to repeat it again and again and again.

Lastly, don't put the M3 on the same spot as the RS4. Despite similar engine concepts, the M3 has been getting way better reviews than the RS4 is getting so far.


Best regards,
south

 

[Deckhook]

South I get it you dislike me and for the record my reference was factual 'engine of the same type' which in my opinion isn't idea for the RS4. For heaven sake watch the views all are praising it when it's being worked hard but the sparkle is gone when not and it's the choice of engine and more importantly lack of torque that's to blame.

You are hung up on the M3 word that you are seeing red and it's making you read into something that isn't there.

 

[Soup]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[south]

South I get it you dislike me and for the record my reference was factual 'engine of the same type' which in my opinion isn't idea for the RS4. For heaven sake watch the views all are praising it when it's being worked hard but the sparkle is gone when not and it's the choice of engine and more importantly lack of torque that's to blame.

You are hung up on the M3 word that you are seeing red and it's making you read into something that isn't there.

Let's not get personal, even though it might seem like an appropriate way to you to avoid a proper/factual discussion. Also, weren't you the one who said that Audi "listened and given an RS which gets better and better the harder you push it" on page 1? Now all of a sudden this is a bad thing. It seems like you're changing your opinion quite often. It's things like these that make people question your comments.


Best regards,
south

 

[Deckhook]

And have I not been the person back wishing for an FI engine on the RS5 before the decision was taken to go with the N/A v8 again, doesn't sound like switch opinions to me. And yes Audi are listening, the car have throttle control, the tail is playful, the chassis gets better the hard you go. BTW all comments praise by me, Tumbo and any other Audi RS fan who still wished it had got an FI engine and remarks that Chris Harris made too.

Let's all chill and refrain from replying to each other, you have your opinion and have made your point and I have done the same.

 

[south]

And have I not been the person back wishing for an FI engine on the RS5 before the decision was taken to go with the N/A v8 again, doesn't sound like switch opinions to me. And yes Audi are listening, the car have throttle control, the tail is playful, the chassis gets better the hard you go. BTW all comments praise by me, Tumbo and any other Audi RS fan who still wished it had got an FI engine and remarks that Chris Harris made too.

Let's all chill and refrain from replying to each other, you have your opinion and have made your point and I have done the same.

Well, too bad that replying to each other is kinda the purpose of a forum. As to all Audi RS fans wishing for an FI engine, we have a fellow member aboard who's currently quite happy with their RS5 and considers an RS4 (member ss5). So that makes two non-owners wishing for an FI engine and one owner who likes Audi's decision. Seems like Audi has done it right.

Also, we all agree the last RS4 was a fabulous car, and it had the same/similar engine. What makes you think the engine is at fault exactly?


Best regards,
south

 

[Deckhook]

^OK the forum is all about debates and replies so I will continue as you requested. Are these reviews not saying that the new car is superior in the all important handling department yet most of the complaints levelled at the car is not special enough off the boil meaning lack of torque which is due to engine choice. Hell stop arguing with me complain to Chris Harris as he's of the same opinion.

P.S.
Venture on to an Audi forum or two and see what most Audi fans think of engine choice, I'm positive more wanted FI than not.

 

[Sunny]

the car is not special enough off the boil meaning lack of torque which is due to engine choice.

No, you are wrong (yet again), it could be also be gearing. And in this case of B7 RS4 vs B8 RS4 it is just that. B7 RS4 puts more torque to the wheels than B8 RS4 consistently in all the gears.

B8 RS4 Wheel torque.
1st 3.692 4535 lbft
2nd 2.238 2749 lbft
3rd 1.559 1915 lbft
4th 1.175 1443 lbft
5th 0.915 1123 lbft
6th 0.745 915 lbft
7th 0.617 757 lbft
Final-drive ratio 3.875

(The ratios are for RS5, but I bet B8 RS4 has the same ratios).




B7 RS4

1st 3.667 4778 lbft
2nd 2.211 2881 lbft
3rd 1.520 1980 lbft
4th 1.133 1476 lbft
5th 0.919 1197 lbft
6th 0.778 1013 lbft
Final drive ratio: 4.111

The numbers are for peak torque, but the same pretty much holds for other RPMs too.

Add to the fact that the B7 RS4 is lighter than B8 RS4, it skews the most important wheel torque to weight ratio (which is what really determines acceleration) even more in B7 RS4's favour.

If Audi screwed anything with RS5/B8 RS4 (vs the much lauded B7 RS4), it is the ponderous weight and the lethargic gearing, not the engine.

ps. This would also your cue to start some verbal acrobatics and claim that is not what you meant.

 

[Deckhook]

Sunny, if you were 100% correct wouldn't the B7 be the quicker of the two?

You are saying its the wrong gearing for the engine, well it's just as easy to say its the wrong engine for the gearing. You are twisting things to suit yourself which is quite normal.

Listen mate, your hero Harris is also complaining about torque why not bend his ear that he's wrong and you are right. Oh and btw South tried to tell me that weight is an obvious thing so why bring up something again that everyone and he's dog has already thought of.

 

[klier]

If Audi screwed anything with RS5/B8 RS4 (vs the much lauded B7 RS4), it is the ponderous weight

This is the only correct answer. Everything on the new RS4/RS5 is awesome exempt the weight. 450 hp is more than enough in such a car if weight is kept in check. Just look at the current M3, or even better, the next gen M3; it will have 450 hp and weigh less than the current M3...
There is also nothing wrong with the RS4 engine, it's in the same league as the M3 V8 (not quite of course ) which means it's pretty magical...

Oh and btw, I think the current M3 is a fat pig already. An M3 GTS weighs like 200 kg more than an M3 CSL which is just insane..........sorry for all the off topic talk btw. Back to the RS5 then!

 

[martinbo]

I'm rather sorry that you chose to delete that post Sunny. FWIW... I agree with you 100%. But let's leave it at that.

 

[Zafiro]

I take a M3 anyday of the week. Reeving engines is my style. My current car reev all the way up to 7000 rpm and my needle is often up there. Thats my driving style therefore a M3 would suit my very well. WORD!

 

[Deckhook]

^And fuel is cheap in Sweden. (j/k)

With the amount of police I see regularly the only way I could do that is sat in second and forget all the other gears. lol

 

[martinbo]

In my opinion, the RS4's engine is not its problem. The simple example of the B7 RS4 proves that the concept has merit and can be successful in delivering a broad dynamic repetoire.

Even disregarding that utterly epic effort from you know who out of that city in southern Germany (see, no name mentioned) [/sarcasm] there is merit to the high-revving NA engine concept in the RS4. I call it giving an engine reach. Because you have an engine that revs higher you're able to take advantage of the torque multiplying effect of gearing. Too many people think that the torque (i.e. accelerative force) they feel is as a result of the torque they read on the specsheet. Unfortunately this is a very narrow view of things and such people obviously can't articulate why acceleration in 2nd gear feels (and is) stronger than acceleration in 3rd...

In the case of the RS4 I too feel that the car's achilles heel is its weight and not its purported lack of torque. Sure, in 6th gear, at 2000 rpm, mashing the throttle's not going to set your world alight but to my mind this is as much a part of a lack of low-end engine torque as it is a lack of mechanical appreciation on the part of the driver. Yes, a 6.2 litre V8 with circa 100 Nm per litre is always going to feel ridiculously willing from anywhere in the rev range - that's a feckin HUGE engine! One has to ask: what did you expect?

I am also of the opinion that the RS4's complex "new generation" AWD system penalises the (in isolation) excellent V8 engine. I am of the opinion that this AWD system with its offset front differential sitting ahead of the clutch; the heavy dual clutch transmission; the (lighter but less mechanically efficient) new centre differential and torque vectoring rear diff is not only heavy but also a burden in terms of drivetrain losses. In comparison with the AWD system in the B7 RS4: sure they saved 4kg by ditching the Torsen diff but there's no doubt in my mind that the B7's overall drivetrain (manual gearbox vs heavy DCT; symmetrical AWD mechanicals and packaging vs. asymmetrical; mechanical rear diff vs. torque vectoring rear diff) was lighter and more effective in mitigating drivetrain losses.

We're not asking people to be engineers here but one should have at least a holistic view on the fundamental concepts influencing vehicle performance and dynamics if you're going to try and assert your views on such things. I've always said that I reckon I know 10% of 10% of what there is to know about cars but if you're a proper car fan one has to have a pragmatic perspective of what you know and what you don't know. It's equally important to being open to learn from others rather than trying to attempt to compete in a pissing contest just to feel like you're somebody who knows something.

The one thing I absolutely love about the high-revving NA engine experience - based mostly on my experience with that unmentionable (and unmentionably good) car from Munich - is that the scope afforded by the engine to suit one's mood is just so much broader. Yes, you can mooch about in the lower RPM range (and get slaughtered by that other unmentionably good muscle saloon from Stuttgart) when you're feeling chilled and then - appropriate opportunities permitting - unleash the dogs of war and revel in the occasion.

 

[Levi68]

The one thing I absolutely love about the high-revving NA engine experience - based mostly on my experience with that unmentionable (and unmentionably good) car from Munich - is that the scope afforded by the engine to suit one's mood is just so much broader. Yes, you can mooch about in the lower RPM range (and get slaughtered by that other unmentionably good muscle saloon from Stuttgart) when you're feeling chilled and then - appropriate opportunities permitting - unleash the dogs of war and revel in the occasion.

Same thing here, but not only with the unmentionable car, but with almost all NA engines that are rather high-revving, as for example AR I4 and V6 (Twin-Spark only), Fiat I5, K20, S54, EJ20... For NA engines the most important thing is gearing, if that is done right even a torquless engine like K20 is great.