No new RS4????

[mickey knox]

This is taken from motorauthority.com

When Audi released the RS4 in February 2005 nobody expected it to be a true competitor to BMW’s benchmark M3 coupe, but with the benefit of quattro all-wheel-drive, a boost in power, and better weight distribution, the performance sedan managed to upset its rivals. Audi has decided, however, to not produce a RS4 sedan this time around, and instead concentrate on a RS5 coupe, which is expected to debut in February next year in time for the 2009 Geneva Auto.

With the release of the new generation BMW M3 Coupe and sedan and the Mercedes C63 AMG, Audi will once again be playing catch-up but it does have a few tricks up its sleeves to ensure it will be the class-leader once again. One potential powertrain option is the same 4.2L V8 as the RS4, however power will be boosted to 450hp and it will likely get the option of Audi’s newly upgraded S-tronic dual-clutch gearbox along with a manual transmission. Other sources claim it may use a derivative of the V10 from the RS6, however this is likely to be too expensive for a car that will have to compete in price with its aforementioned German rivals.

The previous model was unable to use the dual-clutch gearbox because it was limited to just 320Nm, however the latest version of the gearbox can handle torque figures of up to 550Nm and engine speeds of 9,000rpm, which could allow the RS5 engine to rev even higher than the lofty 8300rpm in the old RS4.

Audi has been testing the new car in Death Valley, USA, and as these spy shots reveal, it will get a new front-end treatment compared to the rest of the A5 lineup. Like the RS4, expect the final production RS5 to be fitted with large fenders and an aggressive rear-end as well.

[GnokGnik]

I am glad audi is making such a big splash, competition can't be bad for us (the consumers).

[chicagobimmerboy]

RS4 RS5 RS6. Not quite on the M level. Power? yeah, grip? yeah.
poise? no, balance? no.

[BRDHNTR]

Audi only makes one RS model at a time. They made a Euro only twin turbo V6 RS4; then a twin turbo V8 RS6; then the V8 RS4; now they are making a Euro only twin turbo V10 RS6; and they plan on making an RS5 soon. I like the dedication.

[OBI_agent]

The RS motto of one model per time is going to change....It's not exactly the 'AMG' route but they are going to for it (RS4,RS5, RS6, RS7, TT-RS)

[footie]

I think that is why you are seeing photos of both the RS5 and TT-RS being tested at the same time.

[revmmm]

Do you have a link to the pictures?

[xsilvor]

http://my.is/forums/f104/audi-rs4-rs...?highlight=RS5
http://my.is/forums/f104/audi-rs5-re...?highlight=RS5

[xsilvor]

Originally Posted by chicagobimmerboy

RS4 RS5 RS6. Not quite on the M level. Power? yeah, grip? yeah.
poise? no, balance? no.

Poise, yes. Balance, yes. Go drive one.

[th3Stig]

Don't knock an RS4 unless you've driven one. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about...


RIP to one of the true badass all-around cars.

[McLuVan]

the rs5 is going to be so sick
ahah

[Sovereignty]

Originally Posted by xsilvor

Poise, yes. Balance, yes. Go drive one.

exactly "chicagobimmerboy" "go drive one". I drove the RS4 twice before I get my M3, and let me tell you, that car has even better steering feeling than the E92 M3.

[ferrari6891]

its funny..in the description
"dual clutch gearbox"
"high revving engine"
"engine derived from a higher model"
"v8"
sounds like Audi is getting some ideas from bmw M
hmmm...I like the originality Audi..

but yes it probably will be an insane car..

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by ferrari6891

its funny..in the description
"dual clutch gearbox"
"high revving engine"
"engine derived from a higher model"
"v8"
sounds like Audi is getting some ideas from bmw M
hmmm...I like the originality Audi..

but yes it probably will be an insane car..

what??? Audi had a DCT before BMW, they had a V8 in the RS4 before the M3 and it was a high revving one too.

[Salespunk]

I find it surprising how many people here seem to have blindly bought an M3 without even researching all the other options available. All of the cars currently available or soon to be available (M3 RS4 IS-F CTS-V) have their positives. BTW Audi definitely beat BMW to the punch on the M3 vs RS4 from a powertrain perspective. Even though the M3 might have slightly better balance the RS4 is a formidable competitor and in the end it would come down to a drivers race if the cars were lined up at a track.

[KWY91]

hmm personally I've tested the Audi S5 , I must say that it is really really comfortable and the handling is very good. Can't wait to see what's in store for the RS5! Although, The ///M will always be my number 1!

[exadius]

I have and RS4 and an M3 sitting in my garage right now and I love them both. The RS4 is so smooth and comfortable, while the M3 is sharp and firm. When I ordered the M3 I thought it would replace the RS4. But they turned out to be very different cars to dirve, so I kept them both.

[bmstyle71]

.... one thing to say.. Naturally aspirated > forced induction. End of story

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by bmstyle71

.... one thing to say.. Naturally aspirated > forced induction. End of story

One could assume you're expressing an opinion here, which is of course fine, but you make the statement with such conviction that you think it's a basic fact.

If it really is a fact, why is it a fact?

From my point of view, a great engine is a great engine, regardless of weather it's normally aspirated or not. Of course the M3 powerplant really is terrific, in my opinion (although I think it would be even better with another half-liter of displacment), but what makes it better than the ZR-1 Vette or CTS-V engines, for instance? Or the GT-R V6?

Bruce

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

One could assume you're expressing an opinion here, which is of course fine, but you make the statement with such conviction that you think it's a basic fact.

If it really is a fact, why is it a fact?

From my point of view, a great engine is a great engine, regardless of weather it's normally aspirated or not. Of course the M3 powerplant really is terrific, in my opinion (although I think it would be even better with another half-liter of displacment), but what makes it better than the ZR-1 Vette or CTS-V engines, for instance? Or the GT-R V6?

Bruce

Bruce,

I am a bit shocked and bemused at some of the opinions on this and other forums. Why assume because it's M-Division's chosen method that it's solely the best? I have had the pleasure to experience some pretty incredible turbo-charged engines (never a supercharger unit as yet) and impressive is not the word, especially that might unit in the RS6, the sheer power is everywhere in the rev range, it's a much more potent engine than the unit in both the M5 and M6. I am sure the ZR1 and GTR are equally as good.

Where will such comments be when M-Division shift to forced-induction as it will have to do in the near future, to compete on power, torque, economy and emissions.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Bruce,

I am a bit shocked and bemused at some of the opinions on this and other forums. Why assume because it's M-Division's chosen method that it's solely the best? I have had the pleasure to experience some pretty incredible turbo-charged engines (never a supercharger unit as yet) and impressive is not the word, especially that might unit in the RS6, the sheer power is everywhere in the rev range, it's a much more potent engine than the unit in both the M5 and M6. I am sure the ZR1 and GTR are equally as good.

Where will such comments be when M-Division shift to forced-induction as it will have to do in the near future, to compete on power, torque, economy and emissions.

Y'know, I wasn't really tossing brickbats at bmstyle71, but I have an honest interest. After all, it's not as if a great engine is defined in the dictionary or encyclopedia, and you actually could make a case for normally aspirated powerplants over forced induction powerplants. It's just that you're going to have to say "all other things being equal", as far as I know, because they don't call superchargers or turbochargers "power adders" for nothing.

Still, these things don't come without a penalty. With forced induction, the resulting increase in intake temperature means you have to deal with that with reduced compression, reduced spark advance, complex and weighty cooling devices, or a combination of all three. With a supercharger, you're going to have to "feed the blower" as the drag racers say. They say this because if you have a blown engine making 500 HP at the crank, and the blower takes 50 HP to run, you're going to have to provide enough fuel for 550 HP, so fuel efficiency suffers.

Turbochargers bring their own heat issues, even more pernicious than those a blower brings.

For me, though, it's probably worth it, because all other things are typically far from equal, or you wouldn't be bothering with a power adder in the first place.

However, it's possible that bmstyle71 has something in mind that hadn't occured to me, which in fact would be gratifying.

Bruce

[footie]

Originally it was the lag issues with turbo engines that was the main argument for sticking to N/A as the engine of choice for sportscars but cars like the GTR, ZR1, GT2 and RS6 have shown that modern day turbo engined cars have all the ability of a good N/A engine without any of the drawbacks. The latest Fifth gear episode had Bruno Senna testing the 997tt and the GTR and one of the things that impressed him most about the GTR was it's total lack of lag, just instant power as soon as the throttle is pressed.

I'm curious Bruce, what's your opinion of these new engines from VAG, the TSI units which combine a supercharger and turbo in one package. Surely the best of both worlds.