RS5 final version and prices

[PeterJohn]

Audi working on a lightweight model based on A5 Coupe



Watch out for Audi's production car that is said to be very similar to the lightweight A5 coupe prototype. Sources say that Audi used an advanced aluminum and carbonfiber construction, making the 2.0-litre turbocharged coupe 100kg lighter than the standard steel-bodied production version.
However, compared to a standard A5 3.2 V6 quattro, it weighs 240kg less but can match it in terms of performance but not power. Powering the lightweight concept is the 2.0-litre, 208bhp FSI engine, achieving a power-to-weight ratio of 159bhp per ton.

On the other hand, the production A5 3.2 FSI V6 quattro with 261bhp, shades it only by a fraction at 170bhp per ton. Unlike the standard A5, which is constructed around a conventional steel monocoque chassis, this car is built around an aluminum spaceframe chassis, covered in aluminum panels. Carbonfiber-reinforced plastic is the material used in the boot and bonnet.
By doing this, Audi says it proves that its cars can be “downsized” with the use of smaller engines, brakes, wheels, tires and fuel tanks; however, it still maintains its performance.

While the actual car probably won’t make production, Audi assures that a very similar vehicle will arrive at showrooms soon.

http://www.4wheelsnews.com/audi-work...d-on-a5-coupe/

[PeterJohn]

Audi A5 lightweight prototype

Test date 07 September 2009 Price as tested TBA
Audi’s familiar 2.0 TSI turbocharged engine is wound up to 208bhp

What is it?

Audi’s experimental lightweight version of the A5 coupe. The standard A5 is built around a conventional steel monocoque chassis, but this car is built around an aluminium spaceframe chassis, clad in aluminium panels. The boot and bonnet are made from carbonfibre-reinforced plastics.
Under the skin of the prototype is Audi’s familiar 2.0 TSI turbocharged engine, wound up to 208bhp and driving all four wheels.
Audi says this car points the way forward for the company. Aluminium construction will become more common, allowing future cars to benefit from all-round ‘downsizing’.
This means four-cylinder engines instead of sixes, smaller brakes, wheels and tyres, smaller fuel tanks, better economy and – most important – much-improved ride and handling.
This latter claim is said be a consequence of reducing unsprung weight and, for high-performance models, using lighter, shorter engines that sit further back in the engine bay.
Overall this car is 230kg lighter than a standard-issue A5 3.2 V6 quattro, the performance of which Audi says the lightweight coupe can match despite its power shortfall.
Company engineers say the A5’s aluminium spaceframe construction saves around 110kg over the standard car and the carbonfibre lids save around 50kg. Another 25kg is shaved off by using a four-cylinder engine. The final 45kg comes with ‘hybrid’ brake discs (which are made from gray cast iron, bolted to aluminium centres) and new lightweight wheels.
Audi has also embarked on a general programme of shaving back the weight of all under-skin components, introducing plastic clutch pedals and seats backs as well as detail refinements such as superlight exhausts and even aluminium bolts and screws.
What’s it like?

Autocar had a chance to try the two A5s back to back on a few quick laps of the Bosch test track at Boxberg.
The 3.2-litre A5 (thankfully without S-line suspension) was smooth, torquey, brisk and surprisingly agile on switchbacks, though that was partly thanks to the quattro drivetrain and its positive effect on the A5’s weight distribution.
The lightweight A5 was markedly different. Its weight advantage was starkly obvious, resulting in rather less of a GT feel and more that of a nippy hot hatch. And it did change direction more quickly, losing much of the slight ponderousness that remains in even the new-generation, longitudinally engined Audis.
However, the rougher four-cylinder engine and its gruffer soundtrack were at a marked disadvantage to the sweet V6 unit. Although future A5 buyers will appreciate the car’s newfound fleetness, they could miss the cultured response of a big engine and the luxury overtones that are a consequence of weighty chassis responses.
Audi engineers say they are well aware of this problem and promise the next generation of four-cylinder engines will have to be both much smoother and more aurally upmarket.
Sadly, the smooth Bosch track prevent us from making any definitive statement on the claimed improvement in ride quality, but the dramatic lighter brake discs and wheels will be a huge help on broken UK roads.
Should I buy one?

You can’t. At least not for another few years, until the A5 is replaced as part of Audi’s new aluminium platform strategy.
The big issue for the next A5 will be cost, because aluminium is a more costly material than even the most sophisticated steels, a hurdle that will only partly be offset by mass-manufacturing aluminium platforms.
The company could, though, further offset the extra cost of an aluminium body by dropping V8 engines and most of its V6 units, and fitting cheaper downsized motors.
However, the next-generation four-pot engines will have to be sufficiently smooth and burbling to deliver a premium feel. If Audi’s engineers manage that, the gains in agility, performance and fuel economy delivered by the switch to aluminium could become class leading.
Hilton Holloway

[PeterJohn]

So...

Audi is experimenting with lightweight A5s, and we know the new RS5 will have a slightly updated old engine, which won't attract much attention on its own.
Plus, they've been running around in RS5 prototypes for a while now, suggesting there's more engineering to it than an S5 with an RS4 engine.

[Benman]

Audi A5 lightweight prototype

Test date 07 September 2009 Price as tested TBA
Audi’s familiar 2.0 TSI turbocharged engine is wound up to 208bhp

208?!?

The regular one is rated 211 (in the USA), why 3hp less? Misprint?

Ben

[mmaturo]

Audi right now builds a 5 litre V10 Biturbo family car, it shares a name with this website, so stop complaining about power, and go out and buy the car Audi made just for you. Power comes at a price of course. Daydreamers that end up buying diesels don't cover the development cost.
.

Your comment works for everyone but those of us in the states which are the ones complaining in this thread...i would own the C6 RS6 now if i could get it....at whatever price they would have put on it.

I will still buy the RS5 as a replacement for my C5 RS6 anyway (probably what Audi is thinking) as i do not want an M3/5 or AMG whatever as i prefer the quattro and aesthetics of the Audi's. I would like it to come out of the gate ahead of the others as the C5 RS6 certainly did at the time. I hope the N/A engine can get it there. With turbos i would have been way more likely to 'chip' it and get extra hp with less risk than my RS6 now as I think Audi has figured out how to make transmissions since '03.

Interesting to me in this thread people are comparing the GT-R to the RS5 where to me the GT-R is more in line with the R8 (except price)...if i wanted GT-R performance i would buy the R8 (V10) which i think i am also going to do. I guess i do not see the GT-R as an M3 competitor either but rather a Porsche Turbo competitor. That's the realm of the R8.

I think it will be an $85K car in the states all in matching the C5 RS6 prices. No way it will be near 70K when an S5 cabrio loaded is there. DSG better be in it finally. I have had enough of the alternative in automatics (or the 3 that have spent time in my RS6) and really do not want a manual tranny for both physical disabilities and daily commuting reasons.

[Benman]

I think it will be an $85K car in the states all in matching the C5 RS6 prices. No way it will be near 70K when an S5 cabrio loaded is there. DSG better be in it finally. I have had enough of the alternative in automatics (or the 3 that have spent time in my RS6) and really do not want a manual tranny for and daily commuting reasons.

This is where I am at. Commuting on a bike here in So Cal is not so bad since you are not sitting in traffic (since lane splitting is legal here). However, sitting in traffic, I would also not want a manual, yet want something more responsive than the auto in the

Ben

[chewym]

208?!?

The regular one is rated 211 (in the USA), why 3hp less? Misprint?

Ben

A lot of magazines do this. In Germany Audi uses PS for their horsepower which is a tiny bit smaller than the horsepower. So 211 PS is technically 208 America/British horsepower, but in the US Audi just markets the PS as hp, and they can because this falls into the range that is allowed by SAE. So what happens is a lot US magazines think they are really technical by converting the German PS in American hp in preview articles, but they end up getting burned because the final US version has the same numerical value of hp as PS in Germany.

As for the Aluminum paneled A5 here is another article from Car and Driver. Certainly I don't see the costs working out for a 2.0T A5, but definitely makes sense for the RS5.

Btw, according to Car and Driver the V6 A5 is 142 pounds heavier than the 2.0T and the S5 is only 27 pounds heavier than the V6 A5.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rototype_drive

[SR71]

The reason the RS5 and the GTR are mentioned in the same sentence is that, here in the UK, the base price for the GTR will almost certainly be less than the base price for the RS5.

I know GTR prices have recently been revised upwards but you can argue this both ways:

1) The GTR is underpriced and you cannot expect to have Porsche Turbo type of performance at the GTR price point

2) The Porsche Turbo is overpriced and you shouldn't have to pay twice what a GTR costs for such performance

As usual the truth is probably somewhere between the two.

Factor depreciation costs on the Porsche and even if GTR running costs are comparatively high, ownership of a GTR is still a comparable option.

What is frustrating is that Porsche can extract up to 115hp/litre from their 6's so it should be quite possible for Audi to extract 460+hp from the V8 in the RS4.

You only had to take the inlet manifold off the RS4 to see how compromised the internal aerodynamics were by the poor quality of the finish, hence the substantial gain on porting and polishing.

At the end of the day if you have £55K to spend here in the UK, and your principle goal is performance, the GTR must get the vote over the RS5 if the specs being quoted here are correct.

That said, I am happy to wait and see what times the car will be able to achieve.

[The Pretender]

[KresoF1]

Above posted render is not accurate...

[The RS6]

Above posted render is not accurate...

I hope what's wrong is that it's missing some flared wheel arches

[The Pretender]

I hope what's wrong is that it's missing some flared wheel arches

The wheel arches are flared only not the way every one expect them to be.

[LittleDevil]

Mybe another hint....

[KresoF1]

Arches are lets call it "rounded" flared...

[LittleDevil]

What about doors, are they going to the same as on S5 and that picture or different?

Best Regards

[KresoF1]

Doors are the same.

RS5 difference from S5:

-different front and rear
-RS5 unique side skirts
-RS5 unique "round" flared archers
-wider front and rear(specially!) track
-active rear spoiler a la R8
-unique fuel cap a la R8

[The Pretender]

Doors are the same.

RS5 difference from S5:

-active rear spoiler a la R8
-unique fuel cap a la R8

Or like TT

[Erik]

I like that picture KresoF1...