The all new audi A5/S5
20 March 2007, 11:18 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Yorks.
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the point in posting clicky pictures of the same thumbnail picture?
Do you want to edit them and knock the "th." out before the jpg so we can see bigger pix.
20 March 2007, 11:24 PM
#152
Do you know of the weight distribution of the evo and impreza before commenting 
And 55/45 is about as good as it gets on a Front engined 4wd car. Not even the "great" "almighty" bmw can do better than that wither their 4wd 3 series. And The Audi 4WD cars were crapping all over the 4wd BMW's even with the flawed chassis.
And 55/45 is about as good as it gets on a Front engined 4wd car. Not even the "great" "almighty" bmw can do better than that wither their 4wd 3 series. And The Audi 4WD cars were crapping all over the 4wd BMW's even with the flawed chassis.
55/45 for a AWD Audi, the FWD versions will have even greater proportion of its weight on the front axle!
BMW doesn't sell their AWD cars in the UK, so it is irrelevent. Not interested on how well their cars do in that particular country. The AWD Audi did better in a foriegn test than other AWD cars in another country, in conditions not typical of UK roads, perhaps only a day or so, WOOPIE DOO!!!
21 March 2007, 08:45 AM
#153
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is talking about the evo or impreza! (though either will still out handle the audi!)
55/45 for a AWD Audi, the FWD versions will have even greater proportion of its weight on the front axle!
BMW doesn't sell their AWD cars in the UK, so it is irrelevent. Not interested on how well their cars do in that particular country. The AWD Audi did better in a foriegn test than other AWD cars in another country, in conditions not typical of UK roads, perhaps only a day or so, WOOPIE DOO!!!
55/45 for a AWD Audi, the FWD versions will have even greater proportion of its weight on the front axle!
BMW doesn't sell their AWD cars in the UK, so it is irrelevent. Not interested on how well their cars do in that particular country. The AWD Audi did better in a foriegn test than other AWD cars in another country, in conditions not typical of UK roads, perhaps only a day or so, WOOPIE DOO!!!
21 March 2007, 07:01 PM
#154
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is talking about the evo or impreza! (though either will still out handle the audi!)
55/45 for a AWD Audi, the FWD versions will have even greater proportion of its weight on the front axle!
BMW doesn't sell their AWD cars in the UK, so it is irrelevent. Not interested on how well their cars do in that particular country. The AWD Audi did better in a foriegn test than other AWD cars in another country, in conditions not typical of UK roads, perhaps only a day or so, WOOPIE DOO!!!
55/45 for a AWD Audi, the FWD versions will have even greater proportion of its weight on the front axle!
BMW doesn't sell their AWD cars in the UK, so it is irrelevent. Not interested on how well their cars do in that particular country. The AWD Audi did better in a foriegn test than other AWD cars in another country, in conditions not typical of UK roads, perhaps only a day or so, WOOPIE DOO!!!
21 March 2007, 10:23 PM
#155
Last edited by jonc; 22 March 2007 at 09:12 AM.
22 March 2007, 09:24 PM
#157
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, no one is talking about Evo or Impreza or laptimes (though I would suspect that either an FQ400 or Type 25 would be faster even though the fastest time was from a modified RS4 and weighing nearly 80kg lighter driven by DTM racing driver timed at 7:58, the standard RS4 had optional P Zero Corsa tyres, optional sportchassi plus, ceramic brakes as tested by sportauto supertest was 8.09 sec, which makes it slower than the WRX STI Spec-C and with out those options, even slower). But if you are insisting in bringing in other cars, show me any production Audi that is faster than a production BMW (standard BMW M3 CSL 7:50) around the Nordschleife, who incidently are one of Audi's direct competitor and who don't build their cars with their engine "in the headlights",
1. M3 CSL had racing tires when it set that lap, and its a lightweight track special. The RS4 is a luxo 4 door sedan. Big difference.
But if you want to play that game, the gumpert apollo, which uses audi drivetrains, and alot of audi factory parts will go round the 'ring in under 7mins And the R8 is also faster round the 'ring than any BMW, let alone the gumpert. 2. The lap times you give are just pulled out of thin air. Heres the official sport auto list.
Official SportAuto Nurburgring TrackTimes
Mercedes CLK-DTM ------------------------------------- 7.54 min
Ferrari F430 ------------------------------------------- 7.55 min
Porsche 911 Turbo (420hp) ---------------------------- 7.56 min
Ferrari 360 CS ------------------------------------------- 7.56 min
Lotec-Porsche 993 BiTurbo (1998) --------------------- 7.57 min
Porsche 911 GT3 (old) ---------------------------------- 8.03 min
Aston Martin V8 Vantage --------------------------------- 8.03 min (R-tires)
Lamborghini Diablo GT --------------------------------- 8.04 min
Porsche Carrera S (997) -------------------------------- 8.05 min
Ferrari 575M --------------------------------------------- 8.05 min
Ferrari 550M --------------------------------------------- 8.07 min
Audi RS4 ------------------------------------------------- 8.09 min
BMW M6 -------------------------------------------------- 8.09 min
Ferrari 360M --------------------------------------------- 8.09 min
Honda NSX-R -------------------------------------------- 8.09 min
Lamborghini Diablo SV ---------------------------------- 8.09 min
Viper GTS (1997) ---------------------------------------- 8.10 min
Donkervoort D8 180R ----------------------------------- 8.10 min
Mercedes SL 55 ------------------------------------------ 8.12 min
Aston Martin V8 Vantage ------------------------------ 8.13 min (without R-tires)
BMW M5 E60 --------------------------------------------- 8.13 min
Viper SRT-10 --------------------------------------------- 8.13 min
Lotus Esprit Sport 350 ---------------------------------- 8.13 min
Mercedes SL 65 ------------------------------------------ 8.14 min
Corvette C6 ---------------------------------------------- 8.15 min
Z4 Alpina Roadster S------------------------------------- 8.15 min
Z4 V8 Topster -------------------------------------------- 8.16 min
Aston Martin DB9 ----------------------------------------- 8.16 min
AC Schnitzer-BMW CLS II (E36) ------------------------- 8.16 min
Aston Martin Vanquish ----------------------------------- 8.17 min
Porsche 996 C2 ------------------------------------------ 8.17 min
Maserati GranSport ------------------------------------- 8.18 min
Ferrari F355----------------------------------------------- 8.18 min
BMW Z8 --------------------------------------------------- 8.18 min
Corvette C5 Com. Edition -------------------------------- 8.18 min
Audi RS6 -------------------------------------------------- 8.20 min
BMW M3 E46 ---------------------------------------------- 8.22 min
Mercedes C55 --------------------------------------------- 8.22 min
BMW Z3M Coupé ------------------------------------------ 8.22 min
Porsche Boxster S ----------------------------------------- 8.23 min
Porsche 996 C4 ------------------------------------------ 8.23 min
Mercedes SLK 55 ------------------------------------------ 8.24 min
Subaru Impreza WRX STi --------------------------------- 8.24 min
Scooby 13 secs behind the RS4
4. You really are idiotic if you think that equipping a car with the factory option of a sports chassis and carbon brakes is somehow cheating.
22 March 2007, 10:30 PM
#158
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A subaru WRX STI is not the same as a WRX STI Spec-C, its like comparing an Audi A4 3.0 to a WRX STI Spec-C and thinking you have proven some kind of point.
Last edited by Tobisausage; 22 March 2007 at 10:37 PM.
22 March 2007, 10:36 PM
#159
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And thats a STI, not just the bog standard WRX.
Bet a spec-c still aint faster than the RS4 round the 'ring. Hell round hockenheim the MK2 S3 is faster than the STI, let alone it competing with the RS4
22 March 2007, 10:39 PM
#160
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You bet me it is not faster? How much do you want to bet?
22 March 2007, 10:47 PM
#161
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 March 2007, 10:56 PM
#162
Heres a full compiled up to 10/2006 list you numpty:
Nurburgring Track Times - Supercars.net
I never mentioned anything about cheating, merely pointing out that most RS4 don't have these options fitted so would be even slower. RS4 that posted 7.58 was not standard but modified and was driven by Frank Stippler DTM race driver.
SportAuto's RS4 with options fitted time is still slower than the WRX STI Spec-C 8.06 (Best Motoring) and the 2004 Spec C prototype 7.59.
For the record, SportAuto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory. The M3 CSL is straight from the factory with cup tyres that come as standard to record 7:50, no modifictions from standard and not driven by a racing driver! go and check their site if you want proof!
So go on, quote and cut and paste all you like, but make sure you get your fact straight before making a complete pr1ck of yourself again
Nurburgring Track Times - Supercars.net
I never mentioned anything about cheating, merely pointing out that most RS4 don't have these options fitted so would be even slower. RS4 that posted 7.58 was not standard but modified and was driven by Frank Stippler DTM race driver.
SportAuto's RS4 with options fitted time is still slower than the WRX STI Spec-C 8.06 (Best Motoring) and the 2004 Spec C prototype 7.59.
For the record, SportAuto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory. The M3 CSL is straight from the factory with cup tyres that come as standard to record 7:50, no modifictions from standard and not driven by a racing driver! go and check their site if you want proof!
So go on, quote and cut and paste all you like, but make sure you get your fact straight before making a complete pr1ck of yourself again
22 March 2007, 11:05 PM
#163
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres a full compiled up to 10/2006 list you numpty:
Nurburgring Track Times - Supercars.net
I never mentioned anything about cheating, merely pointing out that most RS4 don't have these options fitted so would be even slower. RS4 that posted 7.58 was not standard but modified and was driven by Frank Stippler DTM race driver.
SportAuto's RS4 with options fitted time is still slower than the WRX STI Spec-C 8.06 (Best Motoring) and the 2004 Spec C prototype 7.59.
For the record, SportAuto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory. The M3 CSL is straight from the factory with cup tyres that come as standard to record 7:50, no modifictions from standard and not driven by a racing driver! go and check their site if you want proof!
So go on, quote and cut and paste all you like, but make sure you get your fact straight before making a complete pr1ck of yourself again
Nurburgring Track Times - Supercars.net
I never mentioned anything about cheating, merely pointing out that most RS4 don't have these options fitted so would be even slower. RS4 that posted 7.58 was not standard but modified and was driven by Frank Stippler DTM race driver.
SportAuto's RS4 with options fitted time is still slower than the WRX STI Spec-C 8.06 (Best Motoring) and the 2004 Spec C prototype 7.59.
For the record, SportAuto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory. The M3 CSL is straight from the factory with cup tyres that come as standard to record 7:50, no modifictions from standard and not driven by a racing driver! go and check their site if you want proof!
So go on, quote and cut and paste all you like, but make sure you get your fact straight before making a complete pr1ck of yourself again
And the M3 CSL time WAS set by a racing driver you muppet. Do your research, the SportAuto geezer is one of the worlds best 'ring drivers and IS a racing driver.
Also The Spec-C lap time was a prototype which was specifically setup for a 'ring blast and hence not standard. So much for that
Go google up on Horst von Saurma, the guy who drives each and every car for the official sport auto 'ting list to make the list a fair comparison.
22 March 2007, 11:58 PM
#167
Prove to us that The RS4 is modified, and so what if the RS4 doesnt come with the sports chassis as standard. It only costs a extra £650 so yes alot of people will equip their cars with it. The times the RS4 posted was with factory options so it stands. The RS4 is faster round the 'ring than the spec-c. Spec-c needs to oversome evo's first, before it can even dream about challenging the RS4
And the M3 CSL time WAS set by a racing driver you muppet. Do your research, the SportAuto geezer is one of the worlds best 'ring drivers and IS a racing driver.
Also The Spec-C lap time was a prototype which was specifically setup for a 'ring blast and hence not standard. So much for that
Go google up on Horst von Saurma, the guy who drives each and every car for the official sport auto 'ting list to make the list a fair comparison.
And the M3 CSL time WAS set by a racing driver you muppet. Do your research, the SportAuto geezer is one of the worlds best 'ring drivers and IS a racing driver.
Also The Spec-C lap time was a prototype which was specifically setup for a 'ring blast and hence not standard. So much for that
Go google up on Horst von Saurma, the guy who drives each and every car for the official sport auto 'ting list to make the list a fair comparison.
So you say the Spec-C prototype was specificly setup for the 'ring? got any proof of that?
Besides, thats a moot point since the standard Spec-C as tested by Best Motoring still posted a time faster than any production Audi, options or not. Still want proof, check the link I posted, or better still, go and download their video. Why you keep on about the standard STI, I don't know, yes we all know its slower that the Spec-C. 
23 March 2007, 12:37 AM
#168
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modified or not, however, can you not find a prodction Audi thats not 16 seconds slower than the M3 CSL as driven by Horst von Saurma? No? didn't think so!
So you say the Spec-C prototype was specificly setup for the 'ring? got any proof of that? Besides, thats a moot point since the standard Spec-C as tested by Best Motoring still posted a time faster than any production Audi, options or not. Still want proof, check the link I posted, or better still, go and download their video. Why you keep on about the standard STI, I don't know, yes we all know its slower that the Spec-C.
So you say the Spec-C prototype was specificly setup for the 'ring? got any proof of that?
Besides, thats a moot point since the standard Spec-C as tested by Best Motoring still posted a time faster than any production Audi, options or not. Still want proof, check the link I posted, or better still, go and download their video. Why you keep on about the standard STI, I don't know, yes we all know its slower that the Spec-C. And no scooby, evo or BMW is coming near the audi R8
23 March 2007, 11:02 AM
#171
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 May 2007, 06:02 PM
#172
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So AudiLover, all your hot air about the A5 having amazing handling due to being based on Audi's new chassis design with a mid-front layout (like BMW)...
Did you read the Evo write up of the S5? It was the same old story - lifeless, no steering feel, and understeer.
Did you read the Evo write up of the S5? It was the same old story - lifeless, no steering feel, and understeer.
Last edited by Skittles; 05 May 2007 at 09:01 PM.
06 May 2007, 02:26 AM
#175
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi are giving their customers what THEY want, not some middle aged greying wannabe boy racers want.
The A5/S5 is a comfortable car, that can be driven very quickly at ease, with predictable handling. Audi beats every other car out there for the physical ease of long distance driving!
80% of audi customers say that they prefer their vehicles to understeer at the limit and so thats what audi gave them.
The new Audi MLP chassis is able to be setup in favour of understeer, oversteer, or neutral handling.
As for EVO they never like any audi's, I can provide reviews of the S5 where they say that its got loads of steering feel etc, the complete opposite of what evo have said
06 May 2007, 10:58 AM
#177
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi are giving their customers what THEY want, not some middle aged greying wannabe boy racers want.
The A5/S5 is a comfortable car, that can be driven very quickly at ease, with predictable handling. Audi beats every other car out there for the physical ease of long distance driving!
80% of audi customers say that they prefer their vehicles to understeer at the limit and so thats what audi gave them.
The new Audi MLP chassis is able to be setup in favour of understeer, oversteer, or neutral handling.
So in the first example of Audi's new wonder chassis they chose to show off its abilities by setting it up to drive like... the old chassis. How many patents did they file in developing that?
Anyway, there is not much point having this conversation with you as you have no clue about the cars you bang on about. The purpose of my post was to say: ha ha you were terribly wrong, yet again.
Last edited by Skittles; 06 May 2007 at 11:03 AM.
06 May 2007, 11:06 AM
#178
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 May 2007, 01:36 PM
#180
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts