|
|
11-15-2008, 01:40 AM | #46 | |
Brigadier General
242
Rep 3,306
Posts |
Quote:
I know I am splitting hairs here, but facts are facts...... Cheers, e46e92
__________________
"...it's not about the money and not about the brand of the car, it's about handling,performance and passion......And that, no other car has all together like an M3........when you talk about the most complete car the M is invincible." --Tony Kanaan. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-15-2008, 04:27 AM | #47 | |||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
You showed your true colours and what is most important to you. Quote:
I thought these videos to be very relevant. The norm is for Audi S models to be a lot less track oriented that their RS versions and based on the achievements that this humble TT-S did, one would expect the TT-RS to be significantly better. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-15-2008, 01:42 PM | #48 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
You purposely mis-state the M3's numbers to make the TT appear stronger vs. it. It isn't an M3 competitor, it never will be, pretty simple to understand. The 911 is the poser's choice? Get real, that would be Audi, they have yet to make a drivers car and yet to make one without all the weight hanging on the front. Oh, I know, the R8, but we should be thanking Lamborghini for that one. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-15-2008, 01:45 PM | #49 |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
The M3 vs. the Z06 and GTR, brilliant. Thanks for that, a lot of help.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-15-2008, 05:41 PM | #50 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
I love that statement, more cars in California than Audi sell in Europe.
There is no doubting your favourites sticky, no matter how wrong it is. By the way BMW sell 300,000 more cars than Audi do when you exclude the mini (approx). So it take it each of you guys in SoCal own about 1200 each. As for me misquoting the figures, they are there in black and White in all of BMW websites. Get an them not me, I was only highlighting the similarity of the TT-RS figures and where they were better. P.S. The Gallardo is an Audi product from the very first drawing, the design, the engine, everything with the exception of the awd system which they reworked anyway. And yes the R8 would be my first and only choice if I could justify the price of owning another car as well, as I can't I am very happy with the M3 for now. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-15-2008, 06:41 PM | #51 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 07:53 PM | #52 |
do a wheelie!!!
161
Rep 929
Posts
Drives: E46 M3 - '72 2002 - '65 Impala
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
|
Don't want to be a smart ass BUT! I just got back from Audi sales training (unfortunately to sell BMW my dealer makes me sell Audi aswell) but the TT RS is not going to be the name because Porsche does not want the "RS" name to be placed after anything but a Porsche model. so if anything RS-TT but they don't think they will call it that. Unless Porsche decides to change their mind or something we are still waiting on the name of your wifes future TT.
__________________
~Adam
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2008, 08:06 AM | #53 |
Colonel
1105
Rep 2,286
Posts |
It will be interesting to see what an "RS" version of the TT can do. Based on the latest Car and Driver Lightning Lap 2008 cumulative results (2006 to present), the Audi models have not fared very well against their BMW counterparts. The 335i did the lap in 3:10.5, vs. the S5 at 3:14.6 (despite the S5 having a 50hp advantage), whereas the M3 was 3:05.6 vs. the RS4 at 3:11.2...
The Nov. 2008 issue of C&D with the Lightning Lap article was not very praiseworthy of the S5 on the track - basically said that while Audi has moved the mass of the engine slightly more aft, it still resides fully forward of the front axle centerline - if that's the case, how is that not going to be the case with the upcoming RS5? Seems to me that given the A5/S5 design/architecture, the RS5 would need a FI, 450hp powerplant just to match the M3 on the track (again, this is admittedly just a somewhat skeptical assumption on my part, so Audi could very well prove me wrong...) The above does not mean that the TT-RS cannot be a fantastic performer. Nevertheless, I'm going to have to see the actual numbers to truly believe it... |
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2008, 08:50 AM | #54 | |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Maybe the US Audis have a different suspension setup than in Europe but I have yet to see where the 335i has been any quicker than an S5 in tests conducted over there, maybe a few tenths but not by four seconds. So I conclude that either the Audis are indeed different or C&D are very biased towards BMW products. There is a difference between RS4 and M3, that has been proved on both sides of the water so I believe this to be true but again never the kind of improvement see here with C&D. If your opinion is that a nose heavy car like the RS4 and S5 can't possibly compete on the track then you haven't seen any of the results for the RS6 against the M5. On averaged on a lap of Hockenhiem the RS6 is a full two seconds quicker and that is a car which weighs 300Kgs more than the M5, so in theory it shouldn't handle, change direction or brake as well as the M5 and this excessively heavy nose should in theory at least led to excessive understeer, all things which should by your reckoning make it slower isn't. Maybe you need to change your own opinions and the choice of magazine you read and get less biased reviews. As for the TT-RS (yes it will be called RS after Porsche backed down) I only started to thread to make people aware of what figures are being talked of in the press and other forums and how the figures compared to the M3. I don't know if it will be as good as the M3 but when you see how well the TT-S is doing in group tests and it's lap times compared to the 335i and others, one must assume that it should be pretty close. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2008, 04:45 PM | #55 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
The Audis were crushed in the lightning lap. What, Car and Driver has some Audi vendetta? They tell the professional drivers to go slower in them? The Audi's are weak around the track, period. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2008, 06:23 PM | #56 | |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Have C&D got an agenda? Don't ask me, but when it contradicts everything we are seeing on this side of the water it means only one of two things, either Audis are set up differently than here or they are biased. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2008, 08:13 PM | #57 |
Colonel
1105
Rep 2,286
Posts |
Just a couple of questions Footie,
1) Do you doubt that the S5's entire engine mass is forward of the front axle centerline (if you do, identify the source of information you're relying upon - other than Car & Driver of course)...; and 2) Do you doubt that approx. 56% of the Audi S5's weight is on the front axle? Again, if you do, what is your source? Again, you cite to European publications generally to say Audi and BMW are close - I've read this in several such publications (and I do not doubt the quality of those magazines or their drivers)... I would like for you to identify, by specific magazine title, issue and article a single publication where the S5 outperformed the 335i... If your smugly confident generalizations are correct, there should be plenty of "unbiased" publications demonstrating the 50hp advantage the S5 has over the 335i... Time to throw your cards down on the table... |
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 04:18 AM | #59 | ||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Audi S5 data Hockenhiem time: Audi S5 1:17.2 vs 335i 1:17.8 (Audi quicker by 0.6s) Nurburgring time: Audi S5 8:26 vs 335i 8:26 autozeitung test track: Audi S5 1:44.6 vs 335i 1:45.8 (Audi quicker by 1.2s) SportAuto wet course: Audi S5 1:29.8 vs 335i 1:35.8 (Audi quicker by 6s) Only in the C&D track does the result reverse and the 335i is quicker. What does that tell you. To me it says either FIX or Audi's setup is different, I personally believe the first one. Sadly Autocar no longer have the data available on their web site to prove that here too the S5 is quicker in the dry and comfortably so in the wet but the data above should be enough evidence on what I was saying it FACT. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 05:58 AM | #60 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
What the hell are we even talking about anymore? Audi is the red headed step child of the Germans. Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, all far more appealing as drivers cars. Yes, that is how bad it has gotten, Mercedes is working Audi around the track, HARD. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 07:34 AM | #61 | |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
You class the C&D track as a road course of merit in comparison to the Nurburgring, the road course of preference of all manufacturers and used by many to promote their products. It's over twice as long in both distance and time and yet the S5 and 335i are identical here, a far cry from the 4 seconds that C&D got on a much shorter and less demanding track. You talk about handling as if you have a wealth of experience but you have shown you hand to be dragstrip racing, a very skilled sport but requires no skill at turning the wheel. I would explain the merits of both awd and how to drive them but feel it would be a wasted exercise and would most likely go right over your head. If you feel be comfortable with the idea that Audi and Quattro products are inferior than BMW products and that BMW are the only product worthy of interest than I am pleased for you, your shallow ideals are not worth listening to. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 11:08 AM | #62 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
I put faith into a test where all the cars are tested on the same course on THE SAME DAY. We have seen how much ring numbers change based on drivers and conditions making comparing various times worthless, come on, you are smarter than that. What does what I do decide to do with my car have to do with Audi's being weak on the track? Is the discussion about me or Audi's? You do realize I track my car on the road course as well don't you? Would you like me to PM you every time I get in so you know exactly how and when I use my own vehicle? Shallow? You started a thread comparing a car that doesn't even exist with finalized specs yet to the M3 and are calling me shallow because I don't buy into your biased numbers. Come on, everyone called you out on how you portrayed the M3. Audi has a long way to go before a TT is on the M3's level. Considering the balance and the way it is set up, it will never be a true alternative. That is not me saying it won't be a great car, I'm sure it will be, just like the RS4 is a great car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 03:26 PM | #63 | |||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
The fact that on ever track the 335i was slower is proof enough that the S5 is worthy of it's position as a rival and contender. But it's case is even more compelling when you look at the wet lap times, because it shows that it's massively quicker in the wet without compromising it's dry weather handling and that has always been the point of Quattro. Quote:
Quote:
How is discussing the possibilities of the new TT-RS in relation to the M3 shallow. We all discuss many a car here prior to it's release, the GTR, Gallardo, the next M3 engine choice, everything in fact is discussed prior to the complete picture is known. My only reason for the thread was the spec of the car that was being suggested and how close these figures were to the M3. Unlike you I have driven the TT-S and know how well this car compares not only to the S5 but the 335i. Give it some QuattroGmbH tweaking with a healthy dose of extra performance and it very much could match the M3 in the handling stakes, never mind the acceleration stakes as well. I know the M3 in theory can accelerate quicker than claimed by BMW but I also know how difficult it is to achieve these figures on the road on demand and having owned a quattro I also know how easy it is to make it perform time and again. So based on that these two will be pretty close if it appears as specced and they do meet on the street. P.S. It's sad that this thread has turned into the farce it is because some people can't imagine Audi matching BMW. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 04:13 PM | #64 | |
Colonel
1105
Rep 2,286
Posts |
Quote:
Even your example with the RS6 v. M5 - the RS6 needs a massive hp advantage over the M5 to compete. I'm not saying that Audi's are not great cars, nor am I saying that their engineering is anything less than impressive. In my opinion, however, as solidified by the the data that you yourself cited, I just don't think Audi (overall) is quite as good in overall track handling as BMW... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 07:34 PM | #65 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
No matter what paper slalom figures the TT-RS has, no matter what skidpad numbers, it will not feel like an M3. It will always be a compromised nose heavy design that has more in common with a front wheel drive. The farce is Audi and your faith in them, not the thread. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2008, 11:43 PM | #66 | |
Captain
15
Rep 645
Posts |
Quote:
Fifth gear test I don't see any compelling proof to support the "C&D conspiracy against Audi" theory or the theory that Audi's suspension setup is softened up for U.S. spec. cars.
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold* |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|