PDA

View Full Version : Motor trend tests the R8



nyrs6
February 5th, 2007, 17:29
R8 VS Porsche 911

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0702_audi_r8_porsche_911/photos.html

The numbers are a little bit dissapointing.

Fab
February 5th, 2007, 17:55
I think the numbers are not bad at all for a first test. The driving impressions looks very good. Let's wait conrete extended tests from the german mags.

The R8 is ready to amaize more than a man :king:

BSR
February 5th, 2007, 22:48
The numbers are a little bit dissapointing.

Why is that? What were you expecting?

RB

ZCD2.7T
February 5th, 2007, 23:10
0-60 in 4.1 (R-tronic version, not a manual trans) is disappointing??

Wow - I thought it sounded really impressive, actually.

1/4 mile is right in with what I expected, too.

BSR
February 6th, 2007, 00:52
0-60 in 4.1 (R-tronic version, not a manual trans) is disappointing??

Wow - I thought it sounded really impressive, actually.

1/4 mile is right in with what I expected, too.

I'm with you. I cant understand why someone would think this car was going to be much faster. It's plenty swift, and its such a complete all around supersports car too.

RB

chewym
February 6th, 2007, 02:55
The trap speed is a bit low but 0-60 and quarter mile time are good. Keep in mind that quicker times are possible as Motor Trend got 4.5 for the RS4 (I think) whilesome got 4.3 or even 4.2.

SoCal
February 6th, 2007, 07:47
I think the numbers are quite impressive, as was the reviewer's overall reaction to the way the R8 drives, looks and feels. Nothing to complain about here.

sticky
February 7th, 2007, 10:15
The numbers are dissapointing, hardly an improvement over the RS4.

Geist
February 7th, 2007, 11:29
Dissapointing?

The Gallardo (500 hp version) did 0-100 kmh in 4.4 seconds with E-Gear.
Gallardo Spyder also needed 4.4 seconds with manual transmission.

Source: sport auto 07/2005 and 06/2006.

So I think this is quite impressive what the R8 did.

PS: We need a R8-flag-smilie! :0:

tazsura
February 7th, 2007, 11:44
EVO gave R8 5 Stars - woohoo!:cheers:

Taz:applause:

Leadfoot
February 7th, 2007, 16:47
EVO gave R8 5 Stars - woohoo!:cheers:

Taz:applause:

Agreed, I personally will listen to what EVO says and take with a pinch of salt what Autocar and Autoexpress say.:applause:

And another thing, they were judging a R8 that was retailing at £88K and still thought it was worth the money and in their words "the real deal".:dig:

ZCD2.7T
February 7th, 2007, 17:43
The numbers are dissapointing, hardly an improvement over the RS4.

I can't believe that it took 67 posts for me to figure out that you're just here to pi** all over whatever anyone or any entity says about Audi and performance.

Every board needs one, though, I guess. :doh:

BSR
February 7th, 2007, 18:10
I can't believe that it took 67 posts for me to figure out that you're just here to pi** all over whatever anyone or any entity says about Audi and performance.

Every board needs one, though, I guess. :doh:

Not just on this board.

RB

Leadfoot
February 7th, 2007, 19:02
I can't believe that it took 67 posts for me to figure out that you're just here to pi** all over whatever anyone or any entity says about Audi and performance.

Every board needs one, though, I guess. :doh:


By the way I was talking to a former M3 owner today who has for the past 6 months been driving a RS4. I say he has high praise for the Audi and Audi's way of thinking (Quattro) is an understatement, he says his RS4 can cover ground so much quicker than the M3 and without the scary moments that the M3 give willingly. He is so converted that his next car will be an RS6 or R8 and will never go back to rwd, strong words and ones I would never use but there again I haven't had the privilege of driving a RS4 for the last 6 months.:thumb:

Yes there will always be those who don't see the advantages of Audi and Quattro, but for every non-believer there is twenty who think the opposite.:hihi:

M!
February 7th, 2007, 23:04
By the way I was talking to a former M3 owner today who has for the past 6 months been driving a RS4. I say he has high praise for the Audi and Audi's way of thinking (Quattro) is an understatement, he says his RS4 can cover ground so much quicker than the M3 and without the scary moments that the M3 give willingly. He is so converted that his next car will be an RS6 or R8 and will never go back to rwd, strong words and ones I would never use but there again I haven't had the privilege of driving a RS4 for the last 6 months.:thumb:

Yes there will always be those who don't see the advantages of Audi and Quattro, but for every non-believer there is twenty who think the opposite.:hihi:

Leadfoot, can you just post 1 post without mentioning BMW?
I think many here put to mutch time on findig artikels and stuff to beat BMW.
Let them do that, this is a AUDI forum....

sticky
February 8th, 2007, 03:26
I can't believe that it took 67 posts for me to figure out that you're just here to pi** all over whatever anyone or any entity says about Audi and performance.

Every board needs one, though, I guess. :doh:

I wonder how many posts it will take for you to figure out you came to the wrong conclusion? Considering the speed of your earlier epiphany I won't hold my breath.

The numbers are dissapointing. Not the 0-60, that is a great number. However, in this day and age, 0-60 is traction limited for many cars. What 0-60 would an M5 have with AWD? What about about an M3, Z06, E55, etc. ?

The dissapointment comes from the 0-100 time and the trap speed. The RS4's numbers are VERY close to those. Not to mention the factory stated 0-100 in 9.8 and 0-125 (200 km/h) in 14.9 . Obviously according to these numbers it isn't matching factory times which is suspect as factory times are usually conservative as evidenced by the real world 0-60 vs. audi claimed. That difference should carry over to higher speeds and not fall off as it appears to.

I also do not think anyone should take these motortrend numbers as set in stone because it is the first test and we have no idea how they measured or if the car was broken in.

Hope I set things straight for you, every board needs someone to do it I guess.

ZCD2.7T
February 8th, 2007, 04:19
I also do not think anyone should take these motortrend numbers as set in stone because it is the first test and we have no idea........if the car was broken in.

The only intelligent thing you wrote is quoted above.

If I cared enough, I could go back through the history of your posts and PROVE my point about your negative attitude towards Audi and performance figures, but you're not worth the effort.

As I've previously suggested, why don't you just buy yourself a Z06, then take it to Lingenfelter to twin-turbocharge it. From the attitude apparent in your posts here (and elsewhere), THAT car would be the only one capable of the kind of performance (straight-line speed being the ONLY thing that matters to you) that you wouldn't be "dissappointed" (sic) in. That or maybe a Top-Fuel Dragster. :rolleyes:

SoCal
February 8th, 2007, 08:03
Stop for a moment. :argue: :nono:

IMHO how a car drives is not determined by quantitative data, though measurements have their uses. The main use of all the measured data is to separate sports cars from minivans for those who can't see them.

I care about how a car communicates feedback to the driver, and how responsive it is to intelligent driver inputs. Look and feel matter more than test numbers. I also very much enjoy the variety of ways that different manufacturers create a distinctive road feel to their models. There is no "perfect" car, and the tradeoffs are what create personality in these impressive machines.

For instance, there is much variation in cars all of which can give extreme enjoyment to enthusiastic drivers but in very different ways, with acceleration and skidpad ratings that are all in the (fairly wide) first tier. Any car with a 0-100 kph time of under 5 (or until recently 5.5) seconds deserves lots of respect and is likely also designed with other positive attributes in mind: weight distribution, handling, road feel and braking, for instance. But all those cars are not the same and, for that, I say GOOD.:bow:

In short, a car's subjective design, road feel, personality and commucativeness matter more than just raw, measured performance data.

To put it another way: Most modern generic <$30k family sedans today would outperform a classic '60s sports car in acceleration, braking, overall handling and on the skidpad. But which would you rather drive?:asian:

If you're blogging here you like cars. Period. Let's also respect their drivers, the marques and the many flavors they come in.

Leadfoot
February 8th, 2007, 16:13
Leadfoot, can you just post 1 post without mentioning BMW?
I think many here put to mutch time on findig artikels and stuff to beat BMW.
Let them do that, this is a AUDI forum....

Sorry, about that.

The statement was not so much as a criticism of BMW and the M3 but more a realism of what outsiders have found after coming to the brand. It could have been a Merc or a Lexus but the chap happened to drive M3s (three in total), so I thought I should share what this well informed and objective person's thoughts are on the change from M3 to RS4.

To quote from the statement I posted.

"He is so converted that his next car will be an RS6 or R8 and will never go back to rwd, strong words and ones I would never use but there again I haven't had the privilege of driving a RS4 for the last 6 months."

These words were his not mine.:nono:

"Yes there will always be those who don't see the advantages of Audi and Quattro, but for every non-believer there is twenty who think the opposite."

These are my words and I feel this is how everyone here who drives an Audi feels so if anyone gets offended sorry but it won't change my views.:)

Even 7:53RS6 will agree that I don't dislike all BMWs, the CSL and 335i Coupe are both amazing pieces of kit as is the standard Z4 Coupe3.0S. I don't dislike them or any brand I just feel Audi has a better understanding of what is right for the public road, to quote SuperstarDriver power through control than the Audi Quattro.:thumb:

ZCD2.7T
February 8th, 2007, 17:11
Stop for a moment. :argue: :nono:

IMHO how a car drives is not determined by quantitative data, though measurements have their uses. The main use of all the measured data is to separate sports cars from minivans for those who can't see them................................If you're blogging here you like cars. Period. Let's also respect their drivers, the marques and the many flavors they come in.

Point taken.

However, when somebody posts the SAME stuff EVERY time (car's too slow, very disappointing, this or that car is faster/better/prettier/smells better), while at the same time claiming to be "at the top of the list" for buying the very car he/she continually denigrates, something just doesn't ring true, and I felt compelled to call him/her on it.

Just peruse these posts, and see if you don't notice the common theme, as well as the incongruity.

http://www2.rs6.com/forum/search.php?searchid=22731 :deal:

RXBG
February 8th, 2007, 17:21
are you guys kidding?

those numbers? on a zero series car? prod cars have not been handed out yet for a full test. that comparo took place at the vegas event.

those numbers are right up with the M6. i would expect that they could be even better. the amazing thing is that the car only makes 425 hp (supposedly) and posts better figures than the gallardo of 1-2 years ago!!!!!! :MTM:

come one guys. lets be real. the real comparo should have been with a C4S with the power pack. a car that makes 380 hp and costs within 4-5 K of the R8 (about 105-110K to start). that car i believe does 0-60 in 4.4 secs and 1/4 in 12.5.

to make it really interesting who can post the 0-140, 160, 200 figures for the M6? if the R8 can produce comparable numbers then we can finally say that the ONE place the M6 is faster (straight line acceleration at high speeds) is null and void baby.

sticky
February 8th, 2007, 20:45
The only intelligent thing you wrote is quoted above.

If I cared enough, I could go back through the history of your posts and PROVE my point about your negative attitude towards Audi and performance figures, but you're not worth the effort.

As I've previously suggested, why don't you just buy yourself a Z06, then take it to Lingenfelter to twin-turbocharge it. From the attitude apparent in your posts here (and elsewhere), THAT car would be the only one capable of the kind of performance (straight-line speed being the ONLY thing that matters to you) that you wouldn't be "dissappointed" (sic) in. That or maybe a Top-Fuel Dragster. :rolleyes:
You still don't understand. I said the numbers were dissapointing. As in, the numbers motortrend abtained about the R8 are dissapointing.

Why do you automatically assume that carries over to the car being dissapointing? I am speaking strictly about the result of a test motortrend performed that does not mean I am putting down the R8 or all of Audi. You are too sensitive and quick to jump to the defense of Audi because you feel by saying something is dissapointing that I mean the entire product line is.

The z06 straight line comment is just out of line as that is typical retort when an audi's straight line performance comes into question. You think I don't know the Z06 is quicker than the R8? That it is lighter? Has more aftermarket potential? Dyno's more to the wheels than the R8 has at the crank? How about the straight line potential of an E55? How about a supra? How about a viper? If straight line was the sole aspect why would I waste my time even responding to you?

Obviously the 911S is the target and with a 0-100 and trap speed that motortrend achieved it is not beating its direct RIVAL which is the goal.

On my way to go pick up my dragster.

sticky
February 8th, 2007, 20:50
are you guys kidding?

those numbers? on a zero series car? prod cars have not been handed out yet for a full test. that comparo took place at the vegas event.

those numbers are right up with the M6. i would expect that they could be even better. the amazing thing is that the car only makes 425 hp (supposedly) and posts better figures than the gallardo of 1-2 years ago!!!!!! :MTM:

come one guys. lets be real. the real comparo should have been with a C4S with the power pack. a car that makes 380 hp and costs within 4-5 K of the R8 (about 105-110K to start). that car i believe does 0-60 in 4.4 secs and 1/4 in 12.5.

to make it really interesting who can post the 0-140, 160, 200 figures for the M6? if the R8 can produce comparable numbers then we can finally say that the ONE place the M6 is faster (straight line acceleration at high speeds) is null and void baby.
I really don't know where you get your info. How exactly as it matching a gallardo with a 111 trap speed? So the e.t. is close, so what, that is solely due to the AWD.

The M6 really starts to hustle above 100 mph and reaches 100 in the high 8 seconds range and then 125 (200 km/h) in the 13's. Audi claimed 9.8 to 100 and 14.9 to 125 and I still believe those numbers are conservative and the car will do it, but it won't catch an M6. That is a huge difference, I really don't see a production car that is broken in putting up M6 numbers.

RXBG
February 8th, 2007, 21:12
I really don't know where you get your info. How exactly as it matching a gallardo with a 111 trap speed? So the e.t. is close, so what, that is solely due to the AWD.

The M6 really starts to hustle above 100 mph and reaches 100 in the high 8 seconds range and then 125 (200 km/h) in the 13's. Audi claimed 9.8 to 100 and 14.9 to 125 and I still believe those numbers are conservative and the car will do it, but it won't catch an M6. That is a huge difference, I really don't see a production car that is broken in putting up M6 numbers.

don't nickle and dime.

0-60, trap, braking, slalom, top speed. you can choose one to make a point and another one to brake it.

even the current gallardo can do no faster than 3.9 to 60. 0-60 is a good comparison point. that the gallardo will pull away at higher speeds is understood given the larger engine. but the point that a car costing almost half less than a new gallardo can reach 9/10ths of the performance is ASTOUNDING. the difference between the updated gallardo and the V10 R8 will be even smaller.

and can you get it through your head yet that this was a zero series car?

Leadfoot
February 8th, 2007, 21:19
I really don't know where you get your info. How exactly as it matching a gallardo with a 111 trap speed? So the e.t. is close, so what, that is solely due to the AWD.

The M6 really starts to hustle above 100 mph and reaches 100 in the high 8 seconds range and then 125 (200 km/h) in the 13's. Audi claimed 9.8 to 100 and 14.9 to 125 and I still believe those numbers are conservative and the car will do it, but it won't catch an M6. That is a huge difference, I really don't see a production car that is broken in putting up M6 numbers.

Sticky, I totally agree with you on that one. The R8 couldn't possibly match the figures the M6 has achieved and you are correct in saying that it only gets into it's stride over 100mph. I don't think there another one trick pony out there that could beat the numbers of a M6, :vhmmm: oh hold on a Dragster, oh but it only good in a straight line and isn't any good at going round corners. :doh: Silly me, that is just like the M6.:hihi:

Hack if you put the same type of tyres on the R8 as is on the M6 it would go around the ring over 20 seconds faster and that's without all the extra power the Beemer has. It always comes down to acceleration with the M6 because that's all it's good at, thank god Audi when developing the R8 didn't use it to gage it's achievement or we would have another lame supercar on our hands with no potential buyers. :lovl:

Sorry if this offends anyone.:p

sticky
February 8th, 2007, 22:36
don't nickle and dime.

0-60, trap, braking, slalom, top speed. you can choose one to make a point and another one to brake it.

even the current gallardo can do no faster than 3.9 to 60. 0-60 is a good comparison point. that the gallardo will pull away at higher speeds is understood given the larger engine. but the point that a car costing almost half less than a new gallardo can reach 9/10ths of the performance is ASTOUNDING. the difference between the updated gallardo and the V10 R8 will be even smaller.

and can you get it through your head yet that this was a zero series car?
I believe I said way back on page on that these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt didn't I?

So you are saying the r8 numbers are astounding because they approach a much more expensive car? You can get a great 0-60 out of an STI or EVO for pennies in comparison to the R8 if bang for the buck is your goal.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. First you say it wil match the M6, then it will match the gallardo which has trouble with the M6, then you mention the value. I suppose the vehicle is priced well in comparison to other mid engine v8's but how much value is there in the 100k and up segment?

It isn't reaching 9/10's of the gallardo unless you only go by 0-60.

0-60 is a good comparison point to see how the car is putting its power down. I am truly suprised that you mention 0-60 so much considering these are vehicles designed to take advantage of the autobahn.

sticky
February 8th, 2007, 22:38
Sticky, I totally agree with you on that one. The R8 couldn't possibly match the figures the M6 has achieved and you are correct in saying that it only gets into it's stride over 100mph. I don't think there another one trick pony out there that could beat the numbers of a M6, :vhmmm: oh hold on a Dragster, oh but it only good in a straight line and isn't any good at going round corners. :doh: Silly me, that is just like the M6.:hihi:

Hack if you put the same type of tyres on the R8 as is on the M6 it would go around the ring over 20 seconds faster and that's without all the extra power the Beemer has. It always comes down to acceleration with the M6 because that's all it's good at, thank god Audi when developing the R8 didn't use it to gage it's achievement or we would have another lame supercar on our hands with no potential buyers. :lovl:

Sorry if this offends anyone.:p
I don't think we need to argue the driving dynamics as I think the R8 is at another level being a mid engine sports car. I think the only reason the M6 comes up in the same breath is due to the price point of both vehicles. The R8 is going to be a marvelous vehicle around a track that is for certain we don't even need to get into how much better it will handle than the overweight M6.

ZCD2.7T
February 8th, 2007, 23:26
Obviously the 911S is the target and with a 0-100 and trap speed that motortrend achieved it is not beating its direct RIVAL which is the goal.


I appreciate your continuing to prove my points.

Let me get this straight - because the 0-100 time and 1/4 mile trap speed might not match a 911S, the R8 isn't "beating its direct rival"???????????

That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even know where to start.

But then again, from your perspective, if the R8 isn't faster in a straight line, it doesn't beat its rival. If you look at the car with YOUR personal blinders on, then you'd be right.

Perhaps you might try lifting the blinders a bit, and focusing on the things that the R8 will likely do better - like most everything else, including that elusive "wow factor", which the R8 has, and most 911s don't, due to their ubiquity.

RXBG
February 9th, 2007, 01:33
I appreciate your continuing to prove my points.

Let me get this straight - because the 0-100 time and 1/4 mile trap speed might not match a 911S, the R8 isn't "beating its direct rival"???????????

That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even know where to start.

But then again, from your perspective, if the R8 isn't faster in a straight line, it doesn't beat its rival. If you look at the car with YOUR personal blinders on, then you'd be right.

Perhaps you might try lifting the blinders a bit, and focusing on the things that the R8 will likely do better - like most everything else, including that elusive "wow factor", which the R8 has, and most 911s don't, due to their ubiquity.

he has a point sticky. the R8 V8 was modeled to fight the 911 C4S. the V10, the 911 TT. the R8 has nailed the target with a sledgehammer. how much faster in the only measurable way (straight line accel) is the M6 over the C4S with X51 power pack? very. and the V8 R8? not much. not much.....

the M6 will never be able to touch an R8 on the track or autoX. and in stoplight dragraces... maybe sometimes. but that is about it. kind of sad for the M6.

sticky
February 9th, 2007, 01:46
I appreciate your continuing to prove my points.

Let me get this straight - because the 0-100 time and 1/4 mile trap speed might not match a 911S, the R8 isn't "beating its direct rival"???????????

That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even know where to start.

But then again, from your perspective, if the R8 isn't faster in a straight line, it doesn't beat its rival. If you look at the car with YOUR personal blinders on, then you'd be right.

Perhaps you might try lifting the blinders a bit, and focusing on the things that the R8 will likely do better - like most everything else, including that elusive "wow factor", which the R8 has, and most 911s don't, due to their ubiquity.


Obviously 0-100 and trap speed are one aspect of performance, I believe I mentioned that. In order to claim a victory over porsche they need to be superior in the strongest aspect the porsche has going for it which is performance. If you are content for the R8 to get by on looks alone fine by all means, but I thought the idea was to take on the 911 in all aspects.

Additionally, when trying to break into a market the 911 has dominated for so long good looks aren't going to be the only thing that gets you by. With a V8 and a mid engine configuration having trouble performing better than the rival with a flat-6 with less displacement does not really impress those that buy porsches for performance. I want the R8 with the V8 to perform better than the carrera S and it should, I need more numbers to really come up with a concrete conclusion as to the performance compared to the carrera S.

I don't know where I said if it isn't faster in a straight line it is a worse vehicle. Do a search and see what you come up with. If I had said that you might have a point but please stop putting words in my mouth in order to attempt to strenthen the wrong assumption you have already made.

Do I need to put it in bold that I don't think straight line is the primary aspect in order for you to understand? I thought this THREAD was about the test numbers that motortrend came up with for the R8, my mistake. I wish I could e-mail you a tissue.

sticky
February 9th, 2007, 01:50
he has a point sticky. the R8 V8 was modeled to fight the 911 C4S. the V10, the 911 TT. the R8 has nailed the target with a sledgehammer. how much faster in the only measurable way (straight line accel) is the M6 over the C4S with X51 power pack? very. and the V8 R8? not much. not much.....

the M6 will never be able to touch an R8 on the track or autoX. and in stoplight dragraces... maybe sometimes. but that is about it. kind of sad for the M6.
Didn't I already state that the M6 won't be beating the R8 around a track? I know that, this isn't a debate about the M6 vs. the R8 this is about the numbers motortrend tested. I believe I also already said that the R8's direct competition is the S variant carreras.

You little girls get so huffy puffy that someone doesn't shower the r8 with praise that automatically I am "bashing" the R8 because the numbers motortrend obatined aren't impressive, and they are not. If anyone finds 0-100 in over 10 seconds impressive for a 100k+ mid engine v8 they haven't kept up with the automotive landscape over the last 8 years.

I am sure the numbers will improve as more magazines test, once again.

ZCD2.7T
February 9th, 2007, 03:57
...In order to claim a victory over porsche they need to be superior in the strongest aspect the porsche has going for it which is performance. ...I thought the idea was to take on the 911 in all aspects......I thought this THREAD was about the test numbers that motortrend came up with for the R8, my mistake.

Your mistake indeed.

So at this point I HAVE to ask: Did you even READ the article that accompanied the test results? Must not have, because if you had, you'd have read this conclusion:

"1st Place
Audi R8
This car's a real game changer. Almost as fast and exotic looking as a Lamborghini, and as easy to live with as, well, an Audi.

2nd Place
Porsche 911 Carrera 4
No longer the obvious choice. Functional and durable, raw and tactile, but a little dowdy, and you have to be a hero to drive it really fast."

EOM

sticky
February 9th, 2007, 08:30
Your mistake indeed.

So at this point I HAVE to ask: Did you even READ the article that accompanied the test results? Must not have, because if you had, you'd have read this conclusion:

"1st Place
Audi R8
This car's a real game changer. Almost as fast and exotic looking as a Lamborghini, and as easy to live with as, well, an Audi.

2nd Place
Porsche 911 Carrera 4
No longer the obvious choice. Functional and durable, raw and tactile, but a little dowdy, and you have to be a hero to drive it really fast."

EOM
Oh I'm sorry, I don't let motortrend make my decisions for me. I read the article, read the numbers, and came up with my own conclusion based on the data that is available.

This might strike you as odd buy the car they gave it the "victory" over was a base carrera 4 not a carrera S or carrera 4S, perhaps you should read it again?

sticky
February 9th, 2007, 08:39
Point taken.

However, when somebody posts the SAME stuff EVERY time (car's too slow, very disappointing, this or that car is faster/better/prettier/smells better), while at the same time claiming to be "at the top of the list" for buying the very car he/she continually denigrates, something just doesn't ring true, and I felt compelled to call him/her on it.

Just peruse these posts, and see if you don't notice the common theme, as well as the incongruity.

http://www2.rs6.com/forum/search.php?searchid=22731 :deal:
I missed this earlier, I am not sure what you are saying or perhaps calling me a liar. I will glady scan the receipt of my deposit that I placed with power audi in newport beach, CA if it will make you feel better. I am not at the top of the list by any means but I have been told my slot is good enough for an allocation this year. I have purchased several vehicles from this dealer (power porsche, not power audi, same dealer) and if you need verification I wil gladly do so although no one else here is required to do that. I just hope you will be man enough to apologize for your insinuation afterwards.

Considering I am in the market and you are not doesn't that mean that perhaps I have more concern as to how the car performs than someone who just reads and dreams about it?

PeterJohn
February 9th, 2007, 13:55
Well... you know... they could remove all the luxury (stereo, AC,...). Perhaps make the body out of Kevlar. Remove the 4WD (inertia&weight). Slicks at the rear, and tiny low resistance wheels at the front. And some form of forced induction.

They can call it the UUC: "useless uncomfortable car", and sell it for €250k (to pay for the Kevlar and stuff). And it'll probably get beaten by someone on a €20k motorcycle.

But somehow I think the R8 in its current state is a better product. It's called compromise. And it makes the world go round. If you have unreasonable expectations, or always look for the negative side, you'll be an unhappy and unpleasant person. Audi managed to go from zero to 911 in one car, which I think pretty good for a fancy Volkswagen.