RS5 at Geneva

[BMWCadet]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

It's not just crank vs. wheel power. It's marketing too. Audi is usually very good about the claimed power of their turbo cars vs. wheel power. They are usually dead on. Not so with non-turbos. Forget trying to track drivetrain loss. It's about their marketing numbers vs. reality.

Whp for the M3 @ 326? It's actually 373, which is -10% from what BMW claims. The RS4's difference between stated and measured power is -20.5%. As comparison to show how inconsistent Audi is, their TT 2.0TFSI's power difference between stated and measured is -1.5%. Hardly a drivetrain loss. Again, it's marketing and the fact they know people will take them at their word. Big mistake.

Believe marketing numbers all you want. The smart person verifies them before trying to draw conclusions.

Go check out the real world dyno chart on this website before you post asinine comments. 373whp? Where did you pull that from? Source? Obviously not information you gathered since you don't even own the car.

Hell the E46 M3 was supposed to have 333hp, but when dyno'd it only made between 250-260whp. BMW has always fibbed power figures just as Audi has so try not to look like a hypocrite.

Also if you or anyone else think that Audi hasn't geared the RS5 to decisively beat a 3 year old M3, then the fanboy is definitely strong with this forum. Don't fool yourselves. It's going to be a visually stunning, albeit overpriced machine with performance numbers that will rival our cars.

[BMW269]

I don't care if the RS5 is better. It has no RWD, so it is out of the list. And even if it had, I just prefere M3. Footie, I hope you say the truth about the RS5, and that it is really much faster than the M3, otherwise you would be rediculous. It wil not suprise me that the RS5 is much faster as it comes out much later. If it were not Audi ("We have to be better than BMW"), the RS5 would not have to be faster than the M3 to be what it is. Many chose the slower S5 over the faster M3, without denying the capablites of the M3, and yet prefering the hole package of the S5. And remember, the M3 has yet much potiential. M3, M3 GTS, M3 Edition, M3 Competition and there is yet an M3 Clubsport to come, without forgeting M3 Performance and Personalisation program.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

B7 RS4 had a redline at 8000 rpm and not 8250 rpm. Look here. You can clearly see the redline at 8000 rpm. Still you can easily see him able to rev up to 8250 - 8300 rpm:

Now with the redline at 8400 rpm, I would expect the cut off to be around 8500 rpm.

Now listen to this especially between 0.35 - 0.36 mins and 0.47 - 0.49 mins. It is way more aggressive and has metallic resonance like a sport bike than I have seen the RS4 engine ever sound.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion that only increased redline somehow equates capability to add more power? I would respond exactly the way an S65 gain from 30 - 50 wheel HP from just bolt-ons and tune without every having to touch the redline or the internals

You would be naive to believe that it is the same 4.2 Liter V8. I believe it is a heavily reworked 4.2 Liter V8 with far more modern technological components exactly in line with how VW group did to the Porsche 911 3.8 Liter boxer 6 from one generation to the next which was a heavily reworked version of the 3.8 Liter from the previous version with direct injection added. Afterall, that is how Porsche managed to up the horsepower in the 911 from the same displacement of 3.8L and 7500 rpm redline from generation to the next going from 345 HP to 385 HP while making it cleaner and more emissions free at the sametime. How did that happen?

As it stands, the motor was far from maxed out in the RS4 with 420 HP. That is exactly 100 HP/Liter. With a miltek exhaust and tune, it could easily gain a 20 - 30 wheel HP without any problems. With new and clean technology, I can totally see a 4.2 Liter V8 being able to put out a clean and low emissions 470 - 480 HP without any problems.

Redline has nothing to do with the increase in horsepower. A simple tune can modify the horsepower at the cost of fuel economy, but Audi puts direct injection so I can see the emissions still being clean. Internals can easily be modifed with better technology to improve horsepower without having to increase the redline or increase the emissions.

Never said increased redline was the only way- there are clealry other methods such as increasing displacement, valvetrain tweaks, etc. like you have highlighted-there is only so far you can go to make a N/A V8 make power without going FI though. P.S. "The 414 hp peak is @7800 rpm and redline is 8250 rpm."

Originally Posted by footie

Don't assume that it's a minor tweak here and there to the RS4 unit, it's a bit more than just that. And frankly whether you believe I know what I am talking about or not doesn't bother me in the slightest but the more switched on members with equal knowledge of the industry know and that is all that counts in my eyes.

Also regarding the RS4's speed, trap speed and time show both cars are very closely matched, remember there is the rollout with these figures which cancel out a fair bit of the traction advantage the RS4 will have. Listen all I am saying is the gap between both cars isn't vast and it consistant with the PTW on both and has nothing to do with the dyno figures of both, in fact basing your opinion solely on these would give the impression that every one of those horses are working harder in the RS4 than they are in the M3.

It's pointless to speculate about the car that's coming out in two weeks. If you feel it's going to be ground shattering or earth breaking news that Audi can use an updated 4.2L engine that it will share with an updated R8 in its upcoming RS5 with potential increased displacement or valvetrain tweaks to it then by all means, keep it to yourself. The fact is that Audi is held back by two things:

1.) They have an R8 supercar with a V8/V10 that they are not going to eclipse in performance; which, with a V8, still can't beat an M3 from a roll (

).

2.) They are unable to find a way to get rid of the parasitic drivetrain losses and extra weight associated with AWD.

Will the RS5 be faster? Maybe. However, these two facts leave me very confident that the RS5, undoubtedly a nice car, will not be able to put 2 bus lengths on an M3 like the E9x did to the B7 when it came out unless it goes turbo. In fact, I think the cars are going to be closer than you think. Nothing a Powerchip tune won't be able to fix.

Originally Posted by Levi

I don't care if the RS5 is better. It has no RWD, so it is out of the list. And even if it had, I just prefere M3. Footie, I hope you say the truth about the RS5, and that it is really much faster than the M3, otherwise you would be rediculous. It wil not suprise me that the RS5 is much faster as it comes out much later. If it were not Audi ("We have to be better than BMW"), the RS5 would not have to be faster than the M3 to be what it is. Many chose the slower S5 over the faster M3, without denying the capablites of the M3, and yet prefering the hole package of the S5. And remember, the M3 has yet much potiential. M3, M3 GTS, M3 Edition, M3 Competition and there is yet an M3 Clubsport to come, without forgeting M3 Performance and Personalisation program.

+1

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Never said increased redline was the only way- there are clealry other methods such as increasing displacement, valvetrain tweaks, etc. like you have highlighted-there is only so far you can go to make a N/A V8 make power without going FI though. P.S. "The 414 hp peak is @7800 rpm and redline is 8250 rpm."

Well, you keep repeating 8250 rpm when I actually posted a video of a real RS4 gauge meter and the redline is clearly at 8000 rpm. We are not talkin about the rev cut-off. What else will it take for you to believe it was actually at 8000 rpm??? Reading somewhere what is written or actually looking at the gauge meter and seeing where it is at?? The new RS5 has redline starting at 8400 rpm and the cut off could be at 8500 - 8600 rpm.

Aside from that, I had given example of how Porsche increased horsepower from the same displacement of 3.8L for the 911 from one generation to the next by using newer and better technology. That resulted in 40 more horsepower, cleaner emissions and better fuel economy.

Regarding the E9X M3 vs RS4, it is not about versus RS4, but a new generation RS5.

Let's be clear, with all things being equal, I want to put this to rest that M3 was without a shadow of a doubt MUCH FASTER in the dry than the RS4 due to 300 lbs lighter weight (hence the much higher trap speed, which is a function of PWR), more power to the wheels due to RWD and a much wider torque plateau. It consistently put down better numbers in every north american test. It was head and shoulder a better car in the dry than the RS4 because it was developed to outperform the RS4.

Every single test done on these two cars showed the M3 was indeed faster comprehensively than the RS4 including top gear so there is no doubt other than to an Audi fanboi in denial.

RS4:

M3:

Car and driver M3 vs RS4:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/125/m3rs4.jpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...28dc1e1622.pdf


Motor trend:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html


I have more comparisons where the M3 put down better numbers in every way than the RS4 so every single thing points to M3 being the faster car in the dry than the RS4.

[footie]

I never said the gap between the RS5 and M3 will be huge, if that had been the case then M3 would have offer a power hike with their 'Competition Pack'. Like I said the RS5 if produce a 0-200km/h similar to a C63.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Well, you keep repeating 8250 rpm when I actually posted a video of a real RS4 gauge meter and the redline is clearly at 8000 rpm. We are not talkin about the rev cut-off. What else will it take for you to believe it was actually at 8000 rpm??? Reading somewhere what is written or actually looking at the gauge meter and seeing where it is at?? The new RS5 has redline starting at 8400 rpm and the cut off could be at 8500 - 8600 rpm.

Aside from that, I had given example of how Porsche increased horsepower from the same displacement of 3.8L for the 911 from one generation to the next by using newer and better technology. That resulted in 40 more horsepower, cleaner emissions and better fuel economy.

Regarding the E9X M3 vs RS4, it is not about versus RS4, but a new generation RS5.

Let's be clear, with all things being equal, I want to put this to rest that M3 was without a shadow of a doubt MUCH FASTER in the dry than the RS4 due to 300 lbs lighter weight (hence the much higher trap speed, which is a function of PWR), more power to the wheels due to RWD and a much wider torque plateau. It consistently put down better numbers in every north american test. It was head and shoulder a better car in the dry than the RS4 because it was developed to outperform the RS4.

Every single test done on these two cars showed the M3 was indeed faster comprehensively than the RS4 including top gear so there is no doubt other than to an Audi fanboi in denial.

RS4:

M3:

Car and driver M3 vs RS4:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/125/m3rs4.jpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...28dc1e1622.pdf


Motor trend:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html


I have more comparisons where the M3 put down better numbers in every way than the RS4 so every single thing points to M3 being the faster car in the dry than the RS4.

I do not know why you are arguing about such a subtle point, the rev cut off, commonly referred to as the engine's redline, is 8250 rpm; if you want speculate about where the red area starts on the tach versus where the fuel cut will be on a yet unreleased RS5 then that is another story, go ahead... sounds like fun.

See above response to footie regarding the RS5 not beating the R8. Porsche did increase power with the same displacement and that was due to the incorporation of DFI, which Audi already has with their FSI engines currently in the RS4/R8/other models.

[footie]

BTW the RS5 will be quicker in every single acceleration discipline compare to the R8 but due to it's weight balance and higher CoG is won't be quite as quicker on tracks like Hockenheim.

Also the DFI in the RS4 was 1st Gen, the one in the RS5 has a few tricks on that old hat techology, my guess is you will be surprised by this engine.

[330CIZHP]

You are wrong on all acounts. E46 M3 can bone stock dyno up to 290 wheel HP. I posted it once before. Now posting again. Same dyno, same day, same place. Units used are PS. It does not get anymore apples to apples than this.

1 PS = 0.98631997 HP

E46 M3 vs E92 M3 vs 335. Let the numbers do the talking:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89961

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

Go check out the real world dyno chart on this website before you post asinine comments. 373whp? Where did you pull that from? Source? Obviously not information you gathered since you don't even own the car.

Hell the E46 M3 was supposed to have 333hp, but when dyno'd it only made between 250-260whp. BMW has always fibbed power figures just as Audi has so try not to look like a hypocrite.

Also if you or anyone else think that Audi hasn't geared the RS5 to decisively beat a 3 year old M3, then the fanboy is definitely strong with this forum. Don't fool yourselves. It's going to be a visually stunning, albeit overpriced machine with performance numbers that will rival our cars.

RS5 will never come close to the 525 HP R8 V10 in terms of acceleration even with 480 HP. R8 V10 is a good mid-to-low 11 second car so there is no chance a 480 HP RS5 will get anywhere near that. RS5 stock will be a low-12 to high-11 second car at best.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2010-au...cuderia-video/

Regarding Porsche 911 engines, DFI was only one part of what they improved. I would recommend you reading the technical development document. They modified tons of internals using newer and lighter technologies to achieve much more horsepower with the same displacement while cutting back on emissions and making it more fuel economy.

I am sure Audi did the same with RS5 by putting a heavily reworked 4.2 Liter with an additional 50 - 60 HP while decreasing emissions and making the fuel economy better.

You are buying too much into BMW marketing propaganda of not being able to meet "emissions standards" with high-revving engine and their response to that is to switch to low-revving turbo engines. That is pure bullsh*t! Nothing but a cost cutting measure and ability to mass produce more M cars at lower production cost.

Originally Posted by smmmurf

See above response to footie regarding the RS5 not beating the R8. Porsche did increase power with the same displacement and that was due to the incorporation of DFI, which Audi already has with their FSI engines currently in the RS4/R8/other models.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

RS5 will never come close to the 525 HP R8 V10 in terms of acceleration even with 480 HP. R8 V10 is a good mid-to-low 11 second car so there is no chance a 480 HP RS5 will get anywhere near that. RS5 stock will be a low-12 to high-11 second car at best.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2010-au...cuderia-video/

Regarding Porsche 911 engines, DFI was only one part of what they improved. I would recommend you reading the technical development document. They modified tons of internals using newer and lighter technologies to achieve much more horsepower with the same displacement while cutting back on emissions and making it more fuel economy.

I am sure Audi did the same with RS5 by putting a heavily reworked 4.2 Liter with an additional 50 - 60 HP while decreasing emissions and making the fuel economy better.

You are buying too much into BMW marketing propaganda of not being able to meet "emissions standards" with high-revving engine and their response to that is to switch to low-revving turbo engines. That is pure bullsh*t! Nothing but a cost cutting measure and ability to mass produce more M cars at lower production cost.

Yup, DFI was the main fundamental architectural change, though, and the gain was 20-30hp, not 50-60hp on an already DFI engine. Unfortunately, these manufacturers are moving toward FI tech, not new NA tech, so I don't expect a 60 horsepower gain without significantly more displacement.

Where are you getting that I'm "buying" into anything at all? I personally hope that Audi and BMW keep making NA RS/M cars, lol...

I think 12.0-12.5 is the best you can hope from this RS5 with 450-470hp. This is a ~3,600 pound AWD GT. In fact, the R8 V10 is not a low 11 second car... It is more like a 12 second flat car. Low 11 seconds is a a joke.

[330CIZHP]

Oh geez!! A car that runs a 0-60 in 3.5 seconds being a 12 second car??? Come on I am sure you can do better than that.

No way is the R8 V10 with 525 HP a 12 seconds car. It has the power-to-weight ratio of a solid mid-11 seconds car and possibly low-11 seconds car with the optional S-tronic transmission and launch control.

You sure you want me to go fact hunting again?

Originally Posted by smmmurf

I think 12.0-12.5 is the best you can hope from this RS5 with 450-470hp. This is a ~3,600 pound AWD GT. In fact, the R8 V10 is not a low 11 second car... It is more like a 12 second flat car. Low 11 seconds is a a joke.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Oh geez!! A car that runs a 0-60 in 3.5 seconds being a 12 second car??? Come on I am sure you can do better than that.

No way is the R8 V10 with 525 HP a 12 seconds car. It has the power-to-weight ratio of a solid mid-11 seconds car and possibly low-11 seconds car with the optional S-tronic transmission and launch control.

You sure you want me to go fact hunting again?

Okay, this is just as useless as arguing about where the redline is on the RS4. Go find me a video of a stock R8 V10 running a low 11-second 1/4 mile. The R8 V10 is a 11.5-12.0 car not a low 11 car. The Gallardo LP560 is a 11.25-11.75 car and it has 35 more horsepower and 250 lbs. less weight.

Now do still think an Audi RS5 with 300 lbs. more and 70-90 hp less has a chance to run in the 11's...?

[330CIZHP]

You stand corrected yet again:

Audi R8 V10

0-60: 3.3 secs
1/4 mile: 11.5 secs
Weight: 3745 lbs

Lamborghini LP560 V10

0-60: 3.2 secs
1/4 mile: 11.2 secs
Weight: 3595 lbs


http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...March-2010.pdf

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Okay, this is just as useless as arguing about where the redline is on the RS4. Go find me a video of a stock R8 V10 running a low 11-second 1/4 mile. The R8 V10 is a 11.5-12.0 car not a low 11 car. The Gallardo LP560 is a 11.25-11.75 car and it has 35 more horsepower and 250 lbs. less weight.

Now do still think an Audi RS5 with 300 lbs. more and 70-90 hp less has a chance to run in the 11's...?

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

You stand corrected yet again:

Audi R8 V10

0-60: 3.3 secs
1/4 mile: 11.5 secs
Weight: 3745 lbs

Lamborghini LP560 V10

0-60: 3.2 secs
1/4 mile: 11.2 secs
Weight: 3595 lbs


http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...March-2010.pdf

Wait, how do those specs conflict with anything I said? You were the one who said the R8 V10 is a low 11 car, lol. Hilarious. LP560-4 can barely do that with notably better power to weight. R&T's findings are incidentally the lowest reported times for the car. (MT got 11.9s @ 120.5 mph for the LP560-4.)

Bench racing is just as retarded as arguing about where the redline paint starts on the tach versus where fuel cut is...

[BMWCadet]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

You are wrong on all acounts. E46 M3 can bone stock dyno up to 290 wheel HP. I posted it once before. Now posting again. Same dyno, same day, same place. Units used are PS. It does not get anymore apples to apples than this.

1 PS = 0.98631997 HP

E46 M3 vs E92 M3 vs 335. Let the numbers do the talking:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89961

Yeah, thanks junior for comparing Euro spec E46 M3's which have 10-15 more hp due to better headers and cats. You did know that, didn't you? How about we stay in the good ole U S of A?

That being said, I was a tad low on with the dyno figures, they typically dyno around 275whp.

NOW lets see....I was "wrong on all acount's" which I hope you mean "wrong on all counts". Proper grammar aside, what counts would you be refering to? Please list "all" of them.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

Yeah, thanks junior for comparing Euro spec E46 M3's which have 10-15 more hp due to better headers and cats. You did know that, didn't you? How about we stay in the good ole U S of A?

That being said, I was a tad low on with the dyno figures, they typically dyno around 275whp.

NOW lets see....I was "wrong on all acount's" which I hope you mean "wrong on all counts". Proper grammar aside, what counts would you be refering to? Please list "all" of them.

Don't worry man, this 330 guy seems to have a fetish for thinking he has proven someone wrong.

Good point regarding Euro cars dynoing much higher. A Euro E46 M3 can almost keep up with a B7 RS4 whereas a U.S. M3 cannot.

[BMWCadet]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Don't worry man, this 330 guy seems to have a fetish for thinking he has proven someone wrong.

Good point regarding Euro cars dynoing much higher. A Euro E46 M3 can almost keep up with a B7 RS4 whereas a U.S. M3 cannot.

Thanks man, it seems useless to continue a discussion with someone who's incapable of seeing he's wrong. Family guy's on. Have a good night.

[MI6]

Love the drama on here!

Yummmm.......

[drvai]

Originally Posted by ///FCB

If the engine is N/A, even with 450hp i doubt it will be much quicker, if at all, than the M3. It's going to be way heavier than the M3 (considering the S5 is..) and I seriously doubt it will match M3's handling. However it still seems to be a very important competitor and looks pretty sexy with than wide stance!

+1
Similar thing with what happened with the RS4 when the M3E46 was around.

The other con will be the price... Im sure will cross the 80k barrier with options...

Looks really nice though...

[major_kusanagi]

Not exactly what I meant by "it's on," but it's been quite informative.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

Yeah, thanks junior for comparing Euro spec E46 M3's which have 10-15 more hp due to better headers and cats. You did know that, didn't you? How about we stay in the good ole U S of A?

That being said, I was a tad low on with the dyno figures, they typically dyno around 275whp.

NOW lets see....I was "wrong on all acount's" which I hope you mean "wrong on all counts". Proper grammar aside, what counts would you be refering to? Please list "all" of them.

So toddler what does a Euro spec vs NA spec E46 M3 have to do with a constant ratio of drivetrain loss? So somehow BMW rating 343 HP Euro spec M3 is exempt from your logic of M division overrating their cars. Right? That makes no sense at all. It shows for its rating of 343 BHP, the 295 wheel HP is perfectly in line for a rear wheel drive car in terms of wheel horsepower considering the typical RWD drivetrain loss.

Here:

http://evosport.com/upload/e46m3/stock-vs-afe-8x6.jpg

275 wheel HP for a NA spec E46 M3 consistent with the 290 - 295 wheel HP Euro spec M3 shows the drivetrain loss percentage in a similar range. That still is nowhere near the 250 - 260 wheel HP you were predicting.

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

Hell the E46 M3 was supposed to have 333hp, but when dyno'd it only made between 250-260whp. BMW has always fibbed power figures just as Audi has so try not to look like a hypocrite.

Above everything your following statement:

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

Go check out the real world dyno chart on this website before you post asinine comments. 373whp?

So there you go a stock M3 dyno:

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=768

or another one:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203239

350 wheel HP with crank 414 HP is still 16% drivetrain loss that is typical of a RWD car.


So that makes you completely wrong on every accounts. Cheers!

[GnokGnik]

~Waiting for TWIN-TURBO M3 Despite Pretentious NA Lovers~

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by footie

Wrong on the handling, it will actually amaze you how well it handles and sadly you are right, chances are this car won't make it into the US, though I do hope Audi change their mind because you guys deserve the chances to consider it.

how the hell would you know Footie?....