Dingdongler

I wonder if they'll produce a good one?

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/25119.htm

450 BHP NA engine, 4wd, dct gearbox and estate form could be just the ticket

stilover

Most people would need a winning ticket to afford one.

Bet it's not much less than £60k

Dingdongler

Not cheap I grant you but about the same price as a M3, not that much more than the R8 you bought? Not an oligarch's car is it?

stilover

My point being, that new performance cars that were once semi-attainable to most middle class incomes, are now getting out of reach.

The original RS4 was just over £40k (If I remember correctly) while the V8 powered RS4 jumped to £50k.

Just look at the new M6. Starting price is £98k........... for a fecking BMW !!

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

£98k for an m6? That's not right, surely?

Dingdongler

Given the rate of inflation I would have thought that in real terms £40k for the original RS4 means that it was at least as expensive if not MORE expensive than a £60k one today. Tbh I don't think M/AMG/RS cars were ever attainable for what you might term 'most middle class incomes'

imho

Saxo Boy

450bhp. Uh-huh. More like 410 after a year or so

Dingdongler

Why do you say that Saxo? I know there were many rumours that the previous RS4 never made the advertised BHP, but do they actually lose BHP over time??

john banks

The old ones lost power over time due to carbon deposits because the direct fuel injection doesn't clean the back of the inlet valves of the contaminants from the crankcase ventilation system. Many/most VAG FSI engines have been similarly affected unless they've made a fix.

In some ways comparable to mitral stenosis, but I wouldn't stretch the analogy too far

Dingdongler

I'll forget about the RS4 if that's the case. Shame as the recent snow reminded me that 4wd would be very handy

Dingdongler

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=25192


Figures aren't that impressive 0-60 in 4.7secs. A c63 AMG will do it in 4.4 and if you add the very expensive AMG performance pack its about 4.2secs.

If its also true about the BHP dropping with time then it may be coming off the contenders list

drb5

iTrader: (4)

I don't read too much into figures like 0-60, as we never really do that ourselves. It's more about 40-70....over taking speeds that interest me.

To me, a 4wd estate car with that sort of power is the perfect car. A turbo isn't NEEDED, but I do agree with JB, it's defo better to have than NA. RS6 ticks that box.

a5h

iTrader: (3)

Don't forget the xtras

stilover

It's very easy to option an RS5 over £80k. Just not worth it. Not at all.

a5h

iTrader: (3)

True to some and you will lose near on £20k when u drive out the showroom.

^Qwerty^

Would the difference of a few tenths of seconds on a 0-60 sway you (or anyone else?) one way or another when purchasing a car? I just see it an academic figure rather than a real world one, and anything that does a sub 6 second 0-60 is likely to be a useful tool for the road. I'd always be much more interested in a 40-70 kind of time in 3rd gear as that is more applicable to the road, IMO of course

Not that it matters anymore to me, as I don't have a quick car anymore

Dingdongler

Of course I wouldn't buy or not buy a car based solely on the 0-60 time but it is an indication. Most cars that are fast 0-60 are fast full stop. For example which unmodified modern cars do you know of that put in a sub 4 sec 0-60 but then are slow 40-70?

I do take your point though but the other numbers aren't out yet for the rs4

john banks

If a RWD car of similar weight is faster 0-60 than an AWD car then it will likely feel and be much faster when rolling.

40-70mph in 2nd may be more appropriate for fast stuff, or at least starting in 2nd.