PDA

View Full Version : New Audi RS6 to produce 571HP


mfacey
Jun 26, 2007, 02:21 PM
Holy cr@p batman!

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/sedans/new-audi-rs6-to-have-571hp/

571 HP, 1000Nm of torque, 4WD, simply amazing. And then there's rumors of a RS6 plus that will produce 620+HP! Gotta love those crazy Germans :D

silbeej
Jun 26, 2007, 02:42 PM
I have been in love with the rs6 plus since i first saw it. Sure the rs6 is cool and all, but a wagon that will kick the ****** out of anything that comes across its path, now that is sweet!!! Unfortunately those "crazy" Germans will likely keep the plus model for themselves, and those lucky ones in Europe. Oh well, just have to make a lot of money and import one :)

iGav
Jun 26, 2007, 02:58 PM
That's going to even exceed the M5's imminent power upgrade. :eek:

It's a shame they're going the forced induction route though, after the naturally aspirated goodness that was the RS4's V8.

mfacey
Jun 26, 2007, 03:02 PM
With the prospect of a 620hp RS6 Plus it really makes little sense to even consider a car like a Lamborghini Muricelago anymore. The RS6 is the optimal optimal performance car really: huge power, great handling (maybe not at Lambo/Ferrari level though), relative comfort and practical for everyday use! I want one, but I'll have to settle for my Ford Focus 1.8 for the time being :(

silbeej
Jun 26, 2007, 03:23 PM
That's going to even exceed the M5's imminent power upgrade. :eek:

It's a shame they're going the forced induction route though, after the naturally aspirated goodness that was the RS4's V8.
A few of the older s4's and some of audi's other cars held the legacy of the "bi-turbo" and i believe audi did a great job with it. It is just another way of making their cars even better. JUst can't wait until they come out with it. The production of the RS4 is done, so the RS6 should be on it's way

Abstract
Jun 26, 2007, 07:01 PM
The RS6 is the optimal optimal performance car really: huge power, great handling (maybe not at Lambo/Ferrari level though), relative comfort and practical for everyday use!

Yes, but if it was up to me, a car's performance would never be judged by these numbers alone. Handling would be a huge factor. All these cars can go fast anyway, but I'm sure a real sports car would give me a bigger thrill. This car will likely be a heavy monster that's too big to really challenge the experience of driving an expensive Italian.....or even Swedish. ;)

iGav
Jun 27, 2007, 04:44 AM
It is just another way of making their cars even better.

Nah, they're just been lazy again. ;)

They would've been better just increasing the displacement to 6.5 litres and detuning to differentiate between the standard and Plus versions.

If they had to go the forced induction route (and considering the basis of that engine, there really was no need for them to do so) they should've developed VAG's Twincharger solution for the engine, which is arguably a better solution than employing even sequential turbos.

I guess bolting on a couple of turbos is, developmentally speaking, more cost effective than doing the job properly. :rolleyes: :p

The production of the RS4 is done, so the RS6 should be on it's way

I was under the impression that it was only the saloon based version that had been halted? and that production of the Avant and Cabriolet will continue for sometime yet?

mpw
Jun 27, 2007, 05:10 AM
...I was under the impression that it was only the saloon based version that had been halted? and that production of the Avant and Cabriolet will continue for sometime yet?

I thought only one model range would be in RS production at any one time, to me that means either the 4 or the 6 and not a combination of the two regardless of body. But I could be wrong.

jaysmith
Jun 27, 2007, 07:15 AM
is audi pronounced aw-dee or ow-dee?

Killyp
Jun 27, 2007, 07:24 AM
Ow-Dee. :)

Audis are actually my favourite cars. Really clean beautiful designs, very very high build quality, drive well (although I'm not old enough to drive yet), and you can get the B&O sound systems with them :D

mpw
Jun 27, 2007, 07:25 AM
ow dee or vorsprung durch technik, as they say in Germany

iGav
Jun 27, 2007, 09:15 AM
I thought only one model range would be in RS production at any one time, to me that means either the 4 or the 6 and not a combination of the two regardless of body. But I could be wrong.

Autocar had reported that it was only the Saloon version that had ceased, or was due to cease production.

Which makes sense if their intention was only to produce a specified number of units, because the Avant and Cabriolet were released sometime after the saloon sibling then production is likely to carry on proportionately longer.

Really doesn't make much sense why Audi are killing the RS4 though. Especially as BMW are just about to launch the M3 and Mercedes their new AMG C-class, it leaves them with a hole in their range. Something the S models are not capable of filling in current specs.

takao
Jun 27, 2007, 02:55 PM
damn i still remember what an austrian car review writer wrote about one of the older rs6 (when they had 450 hp)

"150hp was a lot 20 years ago
250hp means a higher spousal support class
350hp is mightily impressive
450hp is a fat man falling into your camping tent "

(i think he also had ones for 100hp and 200hp but ican't get to remember them)

and also:" the fastest way to bring your IKEA shopping home"


i wonder what he would write about 579 HP

mpw
Jun 27, 2007, 04:21 PM
<motoring journo witterings>
I always liked the way Clarkson described the sound of a TVR's exhaust:

"Like two lesbians in a bucket"

SteveG4Cube
Jun 27, 2007, 05:42 PM
Horsepower is meaningless, it's power to weight that gets the job done. On that note, the RS6 is a hefty car. I'd much rather have something with less power that's 1/2 the weight. Better yet, more power and half the weight. :cool:

jayb2000
Jun 27, 2007, 09:22 PM
I have a large dog
and a kid
and maybe another kid within the next year.

If I won the lottery I would LOVE to get an RS6 Wagon (avant).
Given the new specs, that is just crazy.
The Mercedes AMG wagon (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11969/2007-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-wagon.html) has 507 HP, so not bad.
But, I just really like the look of the Audi's better.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 28, 2007, 02:37 PM
Horsepower is meaningless, it's power to weight that gets the job done. On that note, the RS6 is a hefty car. I'd much rather have something with less power that's 1/2 the weight. Better yet, more power and half the weight. :cool:

And I couldn't agree more, when it comes to all around engineering, Audi is still not in a BMW class of weight distribution or saving weight. Audi takes a Mercedes approach of building brutally strong engines on not that great refined platforms. I am not saying that Audi or Mercedes is any bad, it's just that when it comes to the engineering of the guts (suspension, handling, weight distribution), BMW is still a bit better than those two.

iGav
Jun 29, 2007, 06:05 AM
Horsepower is meaningless, it's power to weight that gets the job done.

In which case, horsepower isn't meaningless is it. ;)

On that note, the RS6 is a hefty car. I'd much rather have something with less power that's 1/2 the weight. Better yet, more power and half the weight.

Sadly you can't get 5 people, a boot full of luggage and drive up a snowy mountain pass in an Elise. :p

That said, at 630bhp an RS6 is probably going to have a greater power-to-weight than an Elise. :eek:

Audi is still not in a BMW class of weight distribution or saving weight.

On the saving weight part, I completely disagree with you. Audi pioneered the use of the Aluminium/Audi Space Frame (ASF) in mainstream production cars, from the very top of the range A8 through to the very bottom with the A2.

I certainly agree with you on the weight distribution, though I'd suggest that was once due to the positioning of the respective marques, Audi as a sub-luxury brand, and BMW as a sporting one. And the inherently different mechanical layouts that are required for each segment.

Audi are certainly readdressing that with their next generation platforms though.

BMW is still a bit better than those two.

I do think Audi are beginning to challenge that. Certainly the RS4 and R8 have been universally acclaimed as being better drivers cars than either the M3 or M6 respectively.

Interestingly, it would appear that BMW are beginning to have their hands full with Ford. Autocar have suggested that the new Ford Mondeo is overall a better drivers car than the current 3-Series. :eek:

Abstract
Jun 29, 2007, 07:53 AM
Interestingly, it would appear that BMW are beginning to have their hands full with Ford. Autocar have suggested that the new Ford Mondeo is overall a better drivers car than the current 3-Series. :eek:
It is James Bond's rental car of choice, you know.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 29, 2007, 09:50 AM
Interestingly, it would appear that BMW are beginning to have their hands full with Ford. Autocar have suggested that the new Ford Mondeo is overall a better drivers car than the current 3-Series. :eek:

I haven't had a chance to drive the new Ford Mondeo but somehow I find a bit hard to believe, I don't have to drive the car to see which one is a better engineered car, just look at the numbers, weight, power to weight, weight distribution, coefficient of drag, lateral acceleration, etc etc. Ford Mondeo may be a good car but I don't think it is in the same class as BMW 3 series. Also, with those "independent" reviews you always have to remember that each of those magazines/websites has sponsors which most of the time are some auto companies, just like Motor Trend is all about Honda. Best bet is to just test drive every car on your own. These days car magazines/websites are biased towards certain cars simply because they are the sponsors and you can't give a bad review to your sponsor, can you?

Either way, I still think BMW is ahead of Audi when it comes to engineering and especially the engines (BMW recently swept the best engines award in Europe: http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/previous04.html ) and the new 3.0l is on the Wards top list. Again, I am not saying that Audis are bad, they certainly have improved big time, but when it comes to sportiness, BMW still has them beat, and as far as weight is concerned, compare comparable BMW to Audi models and you'll see what I mean.

iGav
Jun 29, 2007, 01:11 PM
I haven't had a chance to drive the new Ford Mondeo but somehow I find a bit hard to believe, I don't have to drive the car to see which one is a better engineered car, just look at the numbers, weight, power to weight, weight distribution, coefficient of drag, lateral acceleration, etc etc. Ford Mondeo may be a good car but I don't think it is in the same class as BMW 3 series.

Don't shoot the messenger. ;)

That said, Ford have never had a problem making their cars go well. Don't forget it's not all that long ago that they were trouncing BMW in the touring car championship every season.

Actually such was Fords dominance in European Saloon car racing that BMW had to poach the cream of their technical and racing departments to become competitive. ;)

Also, with those "independent" reviews you always have to remember that each of those magazines/websites has sponsors which most of the time are some auto companies, just like Motor Trend is all about Honda. Best bet is to just test drive every car on your own. These days car magazines/websites are biased towards certain cars simply because they are the sponsors and you can't give a bad review to your sponsor, can you?

Autocar doesn't have sponsors.

It is however, the oldest and quite possible the most respected motoring magazine in the world, though they themselves would readily admit, they are not beyond a little BMW bias, which made the Mondeo result even more staggering. ;)

Either way, I still think BMW is ahead of Audi when it comes to engineering

I find it hard to differentiate personally. It's certainly hard to argue that BMW is ahead, when it was Audi that produced the massively innovative all aluminium A2 model for example, whilst BMW released the 1 Series. ;)

and especially the engines (BMW recently swept the best engines award in Europe: http://www.ukintpress.com/engineofth...revious04.html ) and the new 3.0l is on the Wards top list.

BMW have always made great engines, legendary infact.

But, as anyone in the industry will surely attest. Audi have closed the gap with their new range of FSI engines (in particular their 4.2 V8), an engine that BMW have, considering the proposed numbers barely managed to match with their new V8. Personally, I think that speaks volumes for the strides Audi are making.

Interesting to see the M5's v10 winning engine of the year 2 years running though. ;)

Again, I am not saying that Audis are bad, they certainly have improved big time, but when it comes to sportiness, BMW still has them beat,

As I have acknowledged, but Audi with the RS8 and RS4 respectively, have proven that they're more than capable of producing a car that is as dynamic (RS4), if not more so (R8) than the respective BMW models (M6 and M3).


and as far as weight is concerned, compare comparable BMW to Audi models and you'll see what I mean.

All comparable models.

7 Series (730i)
1805

A8 (3.0)
1670


6 Series (M6)
1579

R8
1560


5 Series (525i)
1550

A6 (2.4 V6)
1540


3 Series (2.0 Diesel)
1490

A4 (2.0 Diesel)
1430


1 Series (116i)
1280

A2 (1.6 FSi)
995

blitzkrieg79
Jun 29, 2007, 01:43 PM
7 Series (730i)
1805

A8 (3.0)
1670


6 Series (M6)
1579

R8
1560


5 Series (525i)
1550

A6 (2.4 V6)
1540


3 Series (2.0 Diesel)
1490

A4 (2.0 Diesel)
1430


1 Series (116i)
1280

A2 (1.6 FSi)
995

Check those numbers again, and compare AWD to AWD and non-AWD to non-AWD, and manual tranny to manual tranny, and auto to auto, as an example, manual BMW 328i weights 3340lbs, Audi A4 2.0T weights in at 3428 (both are non-AWD and both manual trannies). As far as other comments go, motorsports are all about competition and innovation, once in the rallies Audi dominated, then there were the Japanese, now it's Ford and the French, so it's not a good measure of actual production cars. And I am more than sure Autoweek has sponsors, every magazine/website has sponsors, thats how they make most of their revenue, and currently I can't think of one magazine/website that isn't biased towards/against some auto manufacturer.

Earendil
Jun 29, 2007, 01:52 PM
That is truly a powerful engine.

So, it used to be that BMW produced engines that did not rely on turbos or other such additional devices to increase the HP of the engine. I always respected BMW for this purest attitude. Is this not the case for BMW any more? If I wasn't allowed an M3 with the money I don't have, I'd be looking strong and hard at the Audi's, they are great cars.

iGav
Jul 1, 2007, 01:43 PM
Check those numbers again, and compare AWD to AWD and non-AWD to non-AWD, and manual tranny to manual tranny, and auto to auto, as an example, manual BMW 328i weights 3340lbs, Audi A4 2.0T weights in at 3428 (both are non-AWD and both manual trannies).

I double checked them before I posted them. They are like for like, and I have tried to match as closely as possible the specifications of each cars e,g the displacement, level spec, transmission, drive etc. which is something you have not done.

For example... it would be much more fair to compare the 335xi Saloon, 3 litres, 6 cylinders, 6 speed manual, 4WD. Which weighs in at a hefty 1730kg.

And Audi's 3.2 FSI, 3.2 litres, 6 cylinders, 6 speed manual, 4WD. Which weighs a comparatively lithe 1655kg in comparison.

Of course the weight of various models are going to differentiate, something as trivial as the speaker package could quite easily make the difference, I wouldn't dispute that, but then neither would I make such spurious claims either. It does however, along with the figures I gave in my previous post, illustrate that your statement...

and as far as weight is concerned, compare comparable BMW to Audi models and you'll see what I mean.

...is erroneous.

as far as other comments go, motorsports are all about competition and innovation, once in the rallies Audi dominated, then there were the Japanese, now it's Ford and the French, so it's not a good measure of actual production cars.

Actually, it is a good measure of actual production cars, because Touring Car racing was production based, and required homologation for participation.

And I am more than sure Autoweek has sponsors,

Autoweek may well have sponsors.

Autocar however, does not.

every magazine/website has sponsors, thats how they make most of their revenue, and currently I can't think of one magazine/website that isn't biased towards/against some auto manufacturer.

Something tells me you're not differentiating between sponsors and advertisers and as such, inevitably raises the question as to whether you're aware of the differences between the two.

That is truly a powerful engine.

So, it used to be that BMW produced engines that did not rely on turbos or other such additional devices to increase the HP of the engine. I always respected BMW for this purest attitude. Is this not the case for BMW any more? If I wasn't allowed an M3 with the money I don't have, I'd be looking strong and hard at the Audi's, they are great cars.

I believe BMW's decision to employ the use of turbochargers on their engines was based on several factors.

Not only because of the increased efficiency of the modern turbo, but also that a smaller capacity turbocharged engine produces less CO2 emissions than a larger capacity naturally aspirated engine, as well as producing similar outputs whilst being more efficient, not to mention the weight saving benefits.

As far as I understand though, the M cars will always be naturally aspirated.

And Audi should've kept to their new found naturally aspirated goodness with a 6.5 litre V10. :D

blitzkrieg79
Jul 1, 2007, 08:58 PM
Actually, it is a good measure of actual production cars, because Touring Car racing was production based, and required homologation for participation.

My point was that it EVERY type of motorsports sooner or later will be a new king because of innovation. And it's not a good measure of total perfromance of production cars because one thing that none of the specification sheets for any production car specify is the actual skills of a particular driver. I am more than sure that Tommi Makinnen in WRC in mid-late 1990s could have won the title in car other than an Evo Lancer, same goes for all other motorsports.


Autoweek may well have sponsors.

Autocar however, does not.
Something tells me you're not differentiating between sponsors and advertisers and as such, inevitably raises the question as to whether you're aware of the differences between the two.


I know what the difference between sponsors and advertisers is. ANd tell me would you give abad review to one of your biggest sponsors or advertiders? If you are a smart businessman then I don't think you would allow for that. Money talks, simple as that. And again, no magazine/commercial website thses days doesn't have some kind of sponsor and/or advertisers.

iGav
Jul 2, 2007, 02:09 PM
My point was that it EVERY type of motorsports sooner or later will be a new king because of innovation.

Well, in BMW's case, it was because they had to poach Fords talented staff to innovate. Teehee. ;) :p

And it's not a good measure of total perfromance of production cars because one thing that none of the specification sheets for any production car specify is the actual skills of a particular driver.

You're rambling again. As well as going off on a tangent. A not especially relevant one either.

What made touring cars (a production class) a good measure of the performance of production cars, is that the cars were pretty much standard, road going versions. If the car had a design flaw then that would be exposed on the track, often to the detriment of their performance. The 3.0 CSL had such an aerodynamic flaw, namely creating lift on the track. Were it not for the BMW's manipulations of the evolution rules (that resulted in the Batmobile) they would've been in a right old pickle.

I know what the difference between sponsors and advertisers is.

From what you've written below, I have to say, I'm really doubting that. Or at least, you have little understanding of how either works or applies in this instance.

ANd tell me would you give abad review to one of your biggest sponsors or advertiders?

Well, I can't speak about sponsors because Autocar doesn't have them. Actually, I have to admit... I'm struggling to find a car magazine that I do read that actually has sponsors.

But of course car magazines give poor reviews to cars (whose manufacturers advertise in their magazines) if the car itself is not worthy of praise.

I honestly cannot believe that you think otherwise.

If you are a smart businessman then I don't think you would allow for that. Money talks, simple as that.



Oh my. :rolleyes:

And again, no magazine/commercial website thses days doesn't have some kind of sponsor and/or advertisers.

Autocar do not have sponsors, regardless of what you think. They do of course have advertisers, but advertisers do not have any level of influence over editorial content, nor the opinions that are subsequently formed for the articles.

It's inane to believe otherwise.

And FYI, Ford and BMW both advertise in Autocar. ;)

blitzkrieg79
Jul 2, 2007, 04:12 PM
Well, in BMW's case, it was because they had to poach Fords talented staff to innovate. Teehee. ;) :p



You're rambling again. As well as going off on a tangent. A not especially relevant one either.

What made touring cars (a production class) a good measure of the performance of production cars, is that the cars were pretty much standard, road going versions. If the car had a design flaw then that would be exposed on the track, often to the detriment of their performance. The 3.0 CSL had such an aerodynamic flaw, namely creating lift on the track. Were it not for the BMW's manipulations of the evolution rules (that resulted in the Batmobile) they would've been in a right old pickle.



From what you've written below, I have to say, I'm really doubting that. Or at least, you have little understanding of how either works or applies in this instance.



Well, I can't speak about sponsors because Autocar doesn't have them. Actually, I have to admit... I'm struggling to find a car magazine that I do read that actually has sponsors.

But of course car magazines give poor reviews to cars (whose manufacturers advertise in their magazines) if the car itself is not worthy of praise.

I honestly cannot believe that you think otherwise.





Oh my. :rolleyes:



Autocar do not have sponsors, regardless of what you think. They do of course have advertisers, but advertisers do not have any level of influence over editorial content, nor the opinions that are subsequently formed for the articles.

It's inane to believe otherwise.

And FYI, Ford and BMW both advertise in Autocar. ;)

Jeeezzzz, ok, whatever you are saying still doesn't change the fact that everyone compares Audis to BMWs and not the other way around, it's because BMW/Mercedes are the benchmarks in production cars, so thats pretty much it. :)