Audi RS5 confirmed for North America

[xxe92xx]

Originally Posted by luckistryke

+1 there are always ppl out there willing to paid more to stand out

but then a smart buyer will look at how much the difference is between performance, features, luxury, etc....IMO the difference is not large enough for the price to be that high if it is competing in the M3, C63 market then the price should be in the same area.....when you get into the price range that the RS5 is projected to be in what is so exclusive about it compared to lets say a GTR?

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by xxe92xx

but then a smart buyer will look at how much the difference is between performance, features, luxury, etc....IMO the difference is not large enough for the price to be that high if it is competing in the M3, C63 market then the price should be in the same area.....when you get into the price range that the RS5 is projected to be in what is so exclusive about it compared to lets say a GTR?

I think the M3 is quite exclusive....I dont see a bunch on the street everyday....in addition....some people misinterpret their cars as more exclusive with poor sales numbers...."wow, my RS5 is sooo exclusive"....ya because not everyone was stupid like you to spend that kinda money!
lol

[adc]

Originally Posted by xxe92xx

but then a smart buyer will look at how much the difference is between performance, features, luxury, etc....IMO the difference is not large enough for the price to be that high if it is competing in the M3, C63 market then the price should be in the same area.....when you get into the price range that the RS5 is projected to be in what is so exclusive about it compared to lets say a GTR?

The truth is there are many people for whom the asking price is irrelevant - perhaps used to weed out the rest of the people who buy M3's.

Compared to a GTR, it will be way more usable in daily driving (comfort, suspension), there won't be any "rice" or "JDM import" reference about it and the brand/heritage/experience will be more impressive than Nissan's. Few people who pay $80k for their cars are prepared to deal with Nissan service, but they will be treated like kings in Audi dealerships.

It's like asking, for under $40k would you rather have an Evo/STI, a 370Z or a 135i? They have similar costs, performance and cater to the same age group. GTR vs. RS5 is the same, just $40k upwards.

[CSanto]

Loaded M3's are 70k, Mine had a 73k sticker (ouch, I know), with taxes I was at 80 out the door.

This RS5 will easily be 90k out the door and high optioned ones will be 95. The New M5 will have a similar price tag to this RS5. I know which one I'd rather have...

[xxe92xx]

audi.co.uk
(Price in Euro's, Starting at)

RS5: 57,480

RS6: 76,715

How much would the difference be for the U.S. models?

[adc]

Originally Posted by xxe92xx

audi.co.uk
(Price in Euro's, Starting at)

RS5: 57,480

RS6: 76,715

How much would the difference be for the U.S. models?

S5 prices from Audi UK: £41k

S5 price from Audi USA: $52k

If we apply the same conversion ratio to the RS5, it should be around $73k starting price. Edit: But it may come significantly more loaded than the base M3.

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by shiggy

BINGO...you are so right...Audi has always been behind and they have always been reactionary...
BMW: Proactive...
Audi: Reactive...

IIRC:

Audi's have been turbo'ed since 1979 in the Audi 200. The first engines from BMW to be turbo'ed was the N54.

Audi began using DSC in 2003, BMW put M-DCT in as recently as 2009.

Both began using direct fuel injection at about the same time, with Audi putting it in the A4 may be a year earlier than BMW.

Technically, of course, BMW used fuel injection back in the 40's or something on aircraft engines... but that hardly counts.

[drivendriver]

Originally Posted by x838nwy

IIRC:

Audi's have been turbo'ed since 1979 in the Audi 200. The first engines from BMW to be turbo'ed was the N54.

That's not counting diesel engines or racing engines.

Originally Posted by x838nwy

Audi began using DSC in 2003, BMW put M-DCT in as recently as 2009.

Huh? What's the connection between DSC and DCT?

[KonigsTiger]

Great to hear that!

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by drivendriver

That's not counting diesel engines or racing engines.

^ Precisely. We are talking road cars here and I believe that is the context in which the original statement was based.

The technology and requirements for diesels in terms of FI are not really directly related to gasoline engines, IMHO. See: http://www.wcengineering.com/articles/dieselturbo.html

As for racing engines, it's hard to really say who is "in front" since it really depends on the series in which you compete.

Originally Posted by drivendriver

Huh? What's the connection between DSC and DCT?

Sorry, I meant to type DSG.

[adc]

Originally Posted by x838nwy

Audi's have been turbo'ed since 1979 in the Audi 200. The first engines from BMW to be turbo'ed was the N54.

If that were only true... BMW's first turbo engine was in the BMW 2002 Turbo, in 1974 if not mistaken.

Audi began using DSG in 2003, BMW put M-DCT in as recently as 2009.

BMW began using semi-automated gearboxes, aka SMG, in 2001 or 2002.

You may argue that DSG is smoother and better and I would agree, but the impetus for the SMG at the time was racing, where those type of gearboxes were intensively used (as well as exotics such as Ferrari, Lamborghini etc.).

Racing versions of the dual clutch boxes followed afterwards.

Don't really see Audi being more technologically advanced really.

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by adc

If that were only true... BMW's first turbo engine was in the BMW 2002 Turbo, in 1974 if not mistaken.

You are correct. I forgot about that one.

Originally Posted by adc

BMW began using semi-automated gearboxes, aka SMG, in 2001 or 2002.

You may argue that DSG is smoother and better and I would agree, but the impetus for the SMG at the time was racing, where those type of gearboxes were intensively used (as well as exotics such as Ferrari, Lamborghini etc.).

Racing versions of the dual clutch boxes followed afterwards.

My point was not about who first shifted gears without the need of a left foot. If that were the case, I think the Beetle's "autostick" or some such system was one of the first to let you change gears without pressing the clutch - a switch on the gear knob disengages the clutch. I believe the nearest equivalent to SMG was the Ferrari system in about 1998. However, it's a bit of a grey area cos it's not who was first but Audi just didn't bother with it.

I mentioned DSG/DCT not that it is better or worse than SMG, but because it is a technology that both companies have now embraced.

Originally Posted by adc

Don't really see Audi being more technologically advanced really.

No, and I don't think it is possible to say who is. Several technologies have been introduced by one before another since time began. However, I would disagree that Audi is "reactive" in its advancement/development of new tech. It think the are both competing brands but sometimes just get caught out be the gap between their own developments and the demands from drivers. (BMW with the
SMG/DCT and Audi with their differetial, for example.)

Also, it is kindda hard to see things clearly on some topic - such as the I6 and V8 previously mentioned:

Originally Posted by adc

Yes they did escalate the game to 8 cylinders, but I don't feel that was a breakthrough of any sort.

Yet, some people may "feel" that the V8 FSI is a bit of a breakthrough. Plus I don't think Audi could do much with an I6 even if it wanted to cos I don't think they've made one. Not since the 90's anyway. So it's kindda arbitrary that way.

Now if we limit ourselves to the scope of the post to which shiggy was replying, I'd say that regarding the application of FI technology, Audi has been more consistent than BMW. M division singularly refused to use turbos up to the introduction of the X5M/X6M. So if Audi were going to use forced induction in their performance cars, it would be incorrect to say that it is a "reaction".

[adc]

Originally Posted by x838nwy

Yet, some people may "feel" that the V8 FSI is a bit of a breakthrough. Plus I don't think Audi could do much with an I6 even if it wanted to cos I don't think they've made one. Not since the 90's anyway. So it's kindda arbitrary that way.

My point was that Audi was playing catch-up engine-wise in their S and RS models. BMW had the wonderfully responsive high revving NA engines and Audi went with turbo 5 and 6 cylinders. Those cars nearly always made more power (S2 vs. E30 M3, RS2 vs. E36 M3 early years, old RS4 vs. E46 M3) - yet the cars never performed quite as well as the specs implied, and while the engines were again very impressive on paper, they were not necessarily as exhilarating as their M counterparts. The 1st gen TTV6 RS4 is a particularly good example of that.

In this respect, when Audi decided to build a high revving NA V8, they were playing catch-up to BMW which had always used them. Yes the Audi went with a V8, because that's the only engine block they had that could generate the requisite numbers.

Mind you, I don't want to get into the silly argument about how much better an inline 6 is than a V6 - there have been plenty of amazing V6 engines produced that sort of contradict that fundamental BMW worldview. Which is why I said it didn't really matter that the Audi engine was V8 - it simply had to have that number of cylinders in order to produce the amount of reliable power the designers wanted. But the concept - high revving naturally aspirated - was something quite foreign to core Audi performance values, and to my eyes turned them into a "me too" kind of guy.

The only Audis I would love to own were from the mad turbocharged 5 cylinder era. A Dahlbach tuned Audi Sport Quattro is a dream of mine... the RS5, not so much.

I understand your point and don't want to turn this into a silly war, just expressing a different opinion...

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by adc

My point was that Audi was playing catch-up engine-wise in their S and RS models. ............ A Dahlbach tuned Audi Sport Quattro is a dream of mine... the RS5, not so much.

I understand your point and don't want to turn this into a silly war, just expressing a different opinion...

I agree with you on that. Basically, I think their engines are pretty good as a whole, but their insistence on awd (and the added weight and power loss that entails) blunts the performance somewhat.

I am a bit surprised too to learn that the RS5 will be NA. They are trying to beat the M3, IMHO, but instead of doing it their own way (using forced induction, like in most other RS models) they've decided to go NA for whatever reason. Personally I think they've made a mistake trying to make an Audi version of an M3 (which I doubt would work) for reasons mentioned above. Which is strangely why I am interested in the RS5 - may be they have an ace up their sleeves with their new diff?

The GT-R has shown us that awd can be used to quite surprising effects. Let's just wait and see if Audi can do something of similar potency....