Audi RS5
26 April 2010, 10:58 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi RS5
Over 1800kgs but only 317lbs-ft?! That's not really going to help it. Evo reckon a standard S4 (with more torque) is just as quick in real world driving. It sooo badly needs a turbo. Low torque high bhp is fine in light cars but it seems daft in an RS5. Makes the new M5 (turbo'd V8) seem even more appealing.
The RS5 does look very nice though.
The RS5 does look very nice though.
27 April 2010, 08:29 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Please excuse my Spelling - its not the best !!
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or is it Audi / VAG group doing their normal trick of under quoting the BHP / torque figures to avoid a marketing clash ?
It is a very nice looking car - I really enjoyed the A5 3.0 diesel I got lent - S5 must be so much better
Have to agree with the turbo comments - so like the boot from a turbo
Richard
It is a very nice looking car - I really enjoyed the A5 3.0 diesel I got lent - S5 must be so much better
Have to agree with the turbo comments - so like the boot from a turbo
Richard
27 April 2010, 09:40 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, the RS5 was the first thing I read in this months Evo. What a disapointment.
As said above, an S4 is just as quick untill you get to top revs and/or top speed.
Audi have missed the mark with the RS5. Really should have strapped a couple Turbo's to it.
As said above, an S4 is just as quick untill you get to top revs and/or top speed.
Audi have missed the mark with the RS5. Really should have strapped a couple Turbo's to it.
27 April 2010, 02:28 PM
#5
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A5/S5 is fugly though ... is the RS5 the same? Thought that manufacturers were moving back to turbos to get around the CO2 issues? I've not read up on it & am assuming non turbo if torque is so low?
TX.
TX.
27 April 2010, 02:45 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why the V6 engine will be introduced to the S5 when the A5 goes under a facelift.
Last edited by stilover; 27 April 2010 at 02:52 PM.
Trending Topics
28 April 2010, 01:27 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Over 1800kgs but only 317lbs-ft?! That's not really going to help it. Evo reckon a standard S4 (with more torque) is just as quick in real world driving. It sooo badly needs a turbo. Low torque high bhp is fine in light cars but it seems daft in an RS5. Makes the new M5 (turbo'd V8) seem even more appealing.
The RS5 does look very nice though.
The RS5 does look very nice though.
Its an interesting question, for certain.
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds. Can't see an S4 doing that.
So the standard S4 is "just as quick in the real world", but is it as good? Does it handle as well? is it as much fun to drive? Looks like a bag of ****e next to the RS5.
Your 335d is probably just as quick in the real world as an M3. Likewise a Focus RS or Clio Cup.
Lazy torque is great, but sometimes high revving n/a engines just cannot be beaten. What Evo (and you) seem to have missed is that Audi have given people the choice.
28 April 2010, 01:40 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds
28 April 2010, 01:59 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect he'll be made to eat some humble pie at some point in the future.
For starters Audi have notoriously over-estimated the power and performance of recent n/a cars. Secondly, I'd fancy an F430 (tbh, probably a 360 as well) to walk away from an RS5 over that incriment. Finally, I highly doubt the 458 would be slower than an F430, in fact, it will probably be usefully quicker.
For starters Audi have notoriously over-estimated the power and performance of recent n/a cars. Secondly, I'd fancy an F430 (tbh, probably a 360 as well) to walk away from an RS5 over that incriment. Finally, I highly doubt the 458 would be slower than an F430, in fact, it will probably be usefully quicker.
28 April 2010, 02:17 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Ah, that old rolling road power figures chestnut 
Come on Kenny, you know that such readings should only be used for comparative purposes as powertrain losses/wheel slip, etc, etc, can only ever be estimated.
But yes, I would agree. It seems a bit sensationalist to me.
Come on Kenny, you know that such readings should only be used for comparative purposes as powertrain losses/wheel slip, etc, etc, can only ever be estimated.
But yes, I would agree. It seems a bit sensationalist to me.
28 April 2010, 03:36 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an interesting question, for certain.
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds. Can't see an S4 doing that.
So the standard S4 is "just as quick in the real world", but is it as good? Does it handle as well? is it as much fun to drive? Looks like a bag of ****e next to the RS5.
Your 335d is probably just as quick in the real world as an M3. Likewise a Focus RS or Clio Cup.
Lazy torque is great, but sometimes high revving n/a engines just cannot be beaten. What Evo (and you) seem to have missed is that Audi have given people the choice.
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds. Can't see an S4 doing that.
So the standard S4 is "just as quick in the real world", but is it as good? Does it handle as well? is it as much fun to drive? Looks like a bag of ****e next to the RS5.
Your 335d is probably just as quick in the real world as an M3. Likewise a Focus RS or Clio Cup.
Lazy torque is great, but sometimes high revving n/a engines just cannot be beaten. What Evo (and you) seem to have missed is that Audi have given people the choice.
I guess an M3 is only 295lbs/ft and weighs over 1600kgs though - some here feel they need more torque too.
28 April 2010, 07:20 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Warwick
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an interesting question, for certain.
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds. Can't see an S4 doing that.
So the standard S4 is "just as quick in the real world", but is it as good? Does it handle as well? is it as much fun to drive? Looks like a bag of ****e next to the RS5.
Your 335d is probably just as quick in the real world as an M3. Likewise a Focus RS or Clio Cup.
Lazy torque is great, but sometimes high revving n/a engines just cannot be beaten. What Evo (and you) seem to have missed is that Audi have given people the choice.
Steve Sutcliff from Autocar recons the RS5 was as quick as a 458 Ferrari through the gears from 80 ish (can't recall exactly) to silly speeds. Can't see an S4 doing that.
So the standard S4 is "just as quick in the real world", but is it as good? Does it handle as well? is it as much fun to drive? Looks like a bag of ****e next to the RS5.
Your 335d is probably just as quick in the real world as an M3. Likewise a Focus RS or Clio Cup.
Lazy torque is great, but sometimes high revving n/a engines just cannot be beaten. What Evo (and you) seem to have missed is that Audi have given people the choice.
28 April 2010, 08:47 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they first announced the RS5 I went to my local Audi dealer to enquire and maybe order, but was stunned to hear that while the "base " car is some £57K, a fully specced one will be £80K with ceramic brakes.
No way I would justify that when a one year old RS6 is circ £60K.
As far as it's pace relative to a V8 Ferrari, well my then new RS4 was just a little bit slower than my F1 Ferrari 360 (ran them up against each other to see), but I think the 458 and even 430 were in a different leagur to my 360.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0/DSCN0628.jpg
No way I would justify that when a one year old RS6 is circ £60K.
As far as it's pace relative to a V8 Ferrari, well my then new RS4 was just a little bit slower than my F1 Ferrari 360 (ran them up against each other to see), but I think the 458 and even 430 were in a different leagur to my 360.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0/DSCN0628.jpg
28 April 2010, 11:02 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, I'm curious for a more detailed description of the difference if you don't mind. What speed range and how many car lengths did the Ferrari pull? Obviously this all took place in Germany
28 April 2010, 11:29 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Dave, if you're ever needing someone to pilot one of your cars to compare again.. then please send a PM and I'll make the trip north to help out.
Cheers,
Grant
Cheers,
Grant
29 April 2010, 10:28 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Between about 60 and 110 the Ferrari gained about 3 car lengths. Did not explore above that.
29 April 2010, 10:30 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will bear it in mind, but have owned just one car for over a year now. It is a 2007 , 4.8iS X5 and I still love it!.
29 April 2010, 10:42 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me that is fairly significant over that range. I can only imagine the rate at which the Ferrari would leave the Audi behind would increase above those speeds. As every day and weekend cars go though.....you cant do too much better than 360+RS4!
29 April 2010, 11:31 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not very PC but who cares?!
I raced one (ahem) in my R32 and it was completely neck and neck - my six pot and his 8 pot both revving like crazy made a hell of a nice sound!
29 April 2010, 11:51 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../X5/X548IS.jpg
Best car I EVER drove is below!!!!! (Fuel consumption was even worse by a long way!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...02006/F1-1.jpg
29 April 2010, 12:14 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dave, I'm thinking of getting something (more) sensible in the near future as the GTR is far too fast for the road. What is the ride quality and refinement like on the X5 compared to other stuff? Has it been reliable?
29 April 2010, 12:25 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave - nice. Right colour, right engine and yes, that sunroof is brilliant! My inlaws have one with a lesser engine and that roof (we have similar in our 3er Touring - huge sunroof - I love it!) and top spec - just does everything. Comfy, spacious and has genuinely good handling. Also came in very handy when it snowed.
Yes they are unpopular with many but if it does what you want, sod it.
That "other" car looks like it might be a bit back off road. Although it'll struggle to be as bad off tarmac as our 335d...!
Yes they are unpopular with many but if it does what you want, sod it.
That "other" car looks like it might be a bit back off road. Although it'll struggle to be as bad off tarmac as our 335d...!
29 April 2010, 12:27 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can it be too fast? What are we talking? 0-100mph in 7s? Rapid, granted....but surely not uncontrollable or scary? You sure you're not just getting old John?
29 April 2010, 12:44 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 April 2010, 01:16 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well I'm not now pressing the pedal so far down, but that is why it is a bit pointless.
The relevance is more the 60mph limits in which I drive. From passing the slowest traffic to having to lift off you have about 2 seconds of acceleration. From stationary you have about 3 seconds. Any corner that you can see around you can go around at 60mph without even trying. Pulling 1g on a roundabout without even any tyre squeal or even a twitch is trvial.
The consequences of giving a car this fast a workout these days are horrible.
The relevance is more the 60mph limits in which I drive. From passing the slowest traffic to having to lift off you have about 2 seconds of acceleration. From stationary you have about 3 seconds. Any corner that you can see around you can go around at 60mph without even trying. Pulling 1g on a roundabout without even any tyre squeal or even a twitch is trvial.
The consequences of giving a car this fast a workout these days are horrible.