I'm i big inline five cylinder fan, but man oh man how cool is this new 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged engine.
A near Future 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged Audi R8 would wipe the floor with the present R8 4.2 V8 FSI.
It will have 12 hp less but 70 Nm of torque more then the 4.2, it would probably weigh less and it would be using less fuel with better performance.
There are pretenders among us.....
Geniuses with the ability to become anyone they want to be.....
i don't know what audi is waiting for. what you don't mention is that it could be dangerously close to the V10 in performance, cost less than the current V8, and getter better mpg's.
if the comparatively portly Q5 can do 62 mph in 4.4 (despite DSG) a manual R8 with this engine could tear up 4.1 (3.8 with roll-out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and the 1/4 in 12.5 easily!!!!!!!!!!!!
...the scary part is that the car would actually handle even better.
Past- A4, TT, S4
Present- R8 V10
why not put this engine in the RS5, THAT would be "Vursprung durch technik!"
i mean its a V6
but i like V6'es gtr gtr gtr gtr....
Yes, but a Supercharged R8 4.2 V8 FSI would easily 'kill' this new 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged R8. And it would also 'kill' a normally aspirated R8 V10. Its always a little lame to compare normal aspirated cars to forced induction cars.A near Future 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged Audi R8 would wipe the floor with the present R8 4.2 V8 FSI.
The engine is miracle
Miracle? A little bit of an overstatement, no?Originally Posted by artur777
B5 RS 4 motor:
2.7L made 380hp: 140.74hp per liter
TEN YEARS LATER...
3.0L makes 408: 136hp per liter
To me, that is not even progress let alone "miracle".
Not trying to be a stick in the mud, just the way I see it. I am just kind of confused as to all the hoopla over this thing.
Ben
Einstein once said, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
Ron Paul Fan
First, idea about this "tuned up" version of 3.0TFSI in current R8 is wrong one from several aspects...
Engine for R8 needs to be equiped with dry sump. For 3.0TFSI that is almost impossible(from technical point of view). Another problem is the fact that this engine is not much lighter at all then 4.2 FSI in R8. Further, gearing needs to be totally different for 3.0TFSI and current Graziano gearbox that is used in R8 is not suited for 3.0TFSI.
R8 would handle better with 3.0TFSI??? NOT at all. I am supriesed that you even wrote that since 45%/55% is almost ideal weight distribution for midengine AWD layout. With 3.0TFSI R8 could be too light at the rear...
I personally would like to see this engine in next RS4.
S Tronic??? Hmmm...... After recent(last week) drive in 997CS PDK I am not sure at all. It is the best DCT currently on the market. Just... It is IMHO much, much closer in overall feel and drivers involvement to true automatic then to manual or even sequential manual a la SMG. My advice for all S Tronic advocats is to try to test drive(ideally longer test drive) 997CS PDK. You will know what I am talking about...
no reason gearbox can't be changed. and if dry sump can be made then problem solved. there is no way this engines weight savings could actually hurt the R8 weight dist. a N/A 2.0 4 cylinder maybe...
BEN-
the hp/liter is inferior to the RS4 engine, but the engine powerband is so much better and the mpg's too. there is much more than one spec to an engine's suitability.
--finally- i wont go into the whole V8-of-any-kind in the R8 because any V8 charged engine would be the dream of mine in this car. that is a whole other discussion.
Past- A4, TT, S4
Present- R8 V10
Actually cost of adding dry sump to 3.0TFSI would be way too high to justify costs...
Your dream R8 3.0TFSI with new gearbox and reworked engine would probably cost more then current 4.2 FSI...
The keywords are facelift and downsizing.
There are pretenders among us.....
Geniuses with the ability to become anyone they want to be.....
Have you driven the B5 RS 4? That powerband is pretty badass!
And driven conservatively, modded B5 S4s that pump near 400hp (did not pay any attention to the real RS 4 mpg) can get high 20's on the freeway. I would hope this might be a tad more effiecient, but I doubt it is much better.
Ben
Einstein once said, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
Ron Paul Fan
Just a thought; why would a 3.0TFSI need dry sump? I see why the 4.2 does, but isn't the "going through corners at high speed" just a markering stunt?
Lower weight = possibility of mounting the engine higher.. So if Audi could squeese a bit more power out of it, it would be a great deal? Better fuel consumption, cheaper engine to make, and the same handling characteristics as the 4.2?
Again - just a thought.
Audi - Vorsprung Durch Technik
Benman: I have an MTM chipped B5 RS4 (420 bhp). I 100% agree with you. Plenty of power and take up. On a motorway at 70-80 mph, I can get 27 miles to the (UK) gallon.
On the subject of fuel efficiency, the V10 mpg and C02 output is almost identical to the current V8 according to the brochure. I queried this and have just been given a new (May) brochure for the model year 2010 cars (2010 model year production starting now). Fuel efficiency for the 2010 V8 is significantly better than the 2009 model year and CO2 levels have fallen considerably.
As regards a future R8 with a smaller super or turbo charged engine, I think its very much on the cards in some form or other.
I note Kreso's comments, but it may be that Audi are working on some other way of fitting a suitable V6 into R8.
As an R8 owner, I was asked to take part in a customer research project last year. Amongst the questions asked in detail about current/future R8: Was it important that the car had a V8, or would I buy a V6 if performance and engine note were the same? {yes}. Would I buy an diesel ? {no}.
From the slant of these questions and others, it was clear that Audi were very interested in customer reaction to a reduction in engine size.
This must be words from someone who doesn't own a R8, or if he does, is only a poser with his fancy R8 toy, and is not really connected to the R8 sports car world.I see why the 4.2 does, but isn't the "going through corners at high speed" just a markering stunt?
kreso- how do you know audi didn't design this engine with dry sump in mind?
ben- the B5 RS4 engine was no slouch but it wouldn't make enough power for a car like the RS5 given its assumed higher weight vs the B5 RS4, and can't fit in a mid engine like the the R8's because of cooling issues. my operative assumption thus far has been this engine's applicability FOR such cars- not for a car like a supposed R4 or TT RS for example.
modern thinking requires an engine that can be adjusted to fit in various applications to keep costs down. such that in mass production/application failure would not be an issue. there is a reason why the B5 RS4 engine died with one iteration. and i do NOT think it was just because people wanted a thirsty NA V8.
my mind focuses on the next gen R8 for purposes of discussion- whatever engines it has they must either be charged (SC or twincharged more easy than TT) and coolable by their own merit or by the merit of the mid engined redesign or simply be NA. that same series of engines MUST be able to be fitted in other applications and universally so in the DSG regard. there simply cannot be another way in the modern world. i am intrigued. for sure audi seems to have the most surprises up its sleeve.
i really wonder how the world will turn when audi announces specs on its next gas V8. i only know one thing for sure. it won't be NA.
Past- A4, TT, S4
Present- R8 V10
Exactly.
Wait, what?!?
The 3.0T makes enough power for a hoped for R8, but not the 2.7T?!? And can't fit in a mid engined car like the R8, yet the Gallardo has already had successfull conversions to turbo with the existing V10?!? What?!? I am seriously confused as to what you are trying to say?
Bottom line, I would SERIOUSLY doubt the engine block of the 3.0T is ANY tidier in dimensions than the old 2.7T. And I would seriously think the old 2.7T would be plenty ample. Wicked and VAST have some incredibly (and reliable) ridiculous power upgrade kits for those things.
Ben
Einstein once said, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
Ron Paul Fan
R8 engine bay is designed for low engine position. NO way that size wise higher 3.0TFSI without dry sump would fit in it.
Cheaper engine to make? Are you kidding? 3.0TFSI with dry sump, special made air flow system(a must for R8, it is rear engine car) would cost more then current 4.2 FSI. Just look at cost of MTM kompressor kit for S5 for example...
Better fuel consumption? Again, did you drove new S4? If you did you will know that is consume same amount of fuel as S5(4.2 FSI). Power delivery is not that linear andd throttle response is not as good as on 4.2 FSI.
3.0TFSI is good engine. Put that 408ps version in new RS4 and most people will be happy...
BTW, there wont a a major facelift for R8. Minor one with R8 Spider introduction. It will only feature power update for 4.2 FSI...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
