RS6 vs C63AMG

[Clio16V]

http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=gtrpg#/page2/

Nice sounds!

[tomquattro]

The new RS6 needs more noise!!!!

[Leadfoot]

Such a battle can never be classed as fair. The C63 is a lot lighter and have simialr performance, if you need the extra space then the only option would be the RS6 or E63 and that fight the RS6 would easily win.

[xpl0sive]

c63 should not be compared to an rs6, but i guess they didn't have anything else to compare it to... Top Gear already did the c63/rs4/m3 comparision, and i don't think the rs4 is up to the task of beating a c63, mercedes built a pretty good car there.

[AuditudeA642]

Does that mean an RS4 is faster to 60 than the new RS6??

[Carl Lassiter]

Such a battle can never be classed as fair. The C63 is a lot lighter and have simialr performance, if you need the extra space then the only option would be the RS6 or E63 and that fight the RS6 would easily win.

The C63 is nowhere near as light as you'd think compared to the E63. Between E63 and RS6, I'd take the RS6. However, the RS6 will be priced considerably higher than the E AMG if it reaches the States and out in the south west AWD is more of a performance hinderance than an advantage. In the UK, well that's a totally different kettle of fish.

[Fab]

For me the RS6 is a big disapointment, poor perfs, poor sound, poor handling and poor value for money. It only wins the HP battle on paper.

A bit rude but that is my opinion.

[OfftheHeZie]

It's still a monster. It's just refined. That's what Audi does best... they refine monstrosities like a V10TT and make it "normal" and usable every day. It seems in character with the last beast if you ask me.

~Mason

[Leadfoot]

It's still a monster. It's just refined. That's what Audi does best... they refine monstrosities like a V10TT and make it "normal" and usable every day. It seems in character with the last beast if you ask me.

~Mason


Well put.

It's one of Audi's greatest achievements and why some reviewers find disappointment in Audi products, they make the absurd seem normal which takes the fear element away and to some part of the excitement.

They said the C63 shadowed the RS6's every move on the mountain but it's always easier to follow another car with the knowledge that if he made it round then you will too. I would have loved to have heard the resulting time of each car independently to just see if the added confidence the Quattro chassis brings compared to an unruly rwd with more power than it can possibly handle.

[ben916]

The C63 is nowhere near as light as you'd think compared to the E63. Between E63 and RS6, I'd take the RS6. However, the RS6 will be priced considerably higher than the E AMG if it reaches the States and out in the south west AWD is more of a performance hinderance than an advantage. In the UK, well that's a totally different kettle of fish.

I agree that was not a fair comparison and it was like the reporter was paid to say that the C63 was a better vehicle. How about adding some weight to the Merc and add some water on the ground... That might be a better test...

One thing that every single review mysterously omits is wet weather handling....

I disagree with you Carl on SW USA on the AWD as we all know that live in this area, it doesn't just sprinkle here, it dumps rain. There are fools that think their Merc/BMW will just "handle it" with the traction control. Those are the dorks that end up in the center divide and help LA/SD/SFO with the wonderful traffic headaches... I am not saying AWD will relieve you of your driving ability/responsibility. I am saying it can't hurt...

[M3 owner]

I am not a big fan of the direction Merc has gone with the design of their new cars. The S,CL,SL & C class have all had their physical appearances changed for the worse. The fact that almost every C Class I have seen has chrome side view mirrors like Audi’s “S” range is indeed very lame.

[DuckWingDuck]

the c is just very lame, period.

[Carl Lassiter]

I disagree with you Carl on SW USA on the AWD as we all know that live in this area, it doesn't just sprinkle here, it dumps rain. There are fools that think their Merc/BMW will just "handle it" with the traction control. Those are the dorks that end up in the center divide and help LA/SD/SFO with the wonderful traffic headaches... I am not saying AWD will relieve you of your driving ability/responsibility. I am saying it can't hurt...

But it only rains here about ten days out of the year. I spent two decades in northern England where they have superior drainage but it rains about 150 days/yr. Remember, AWD does not protect from aquaplaning so one must be careful not to grow a false sense of security. It certainly does help in inclement weather to have AWD but, unlike if I lived in the TriSate region or WA, it is not much of a draw. Having owned a B7 S4 and before that a 996TT, I am a big fan of how AWD allows even mediocre drivers to get on the power extremely early exiting a corner. Economy and highway speed are somewhat compromised, but in the realm of 400+hp cars I can understand why many are not concerned by this. Both RWD and AWD have their advantages and disadvantages and we're lucky to have M-division and RennSport to offer us the best of both worlds.

[Vorsprung]

I'm an Audi fan, and alwys will be, but c'mon guys, give the other brands credit where its due.

Some are saying this is an unfair battle. It sure is an unfair battle. Unfair to the C63 AMG! The Merc is a middle weight contender, and its being put up against a heavy weight contender (RS6). So the odds are against the C63, yet it eats chunks out of the RS6!
I'm sorry, but the RS6 should have not lost this comparison. Not to the C63AMG.

I havent been impressed with the new RS6 wagon. No matter how much power it boasts, its just too heavy beng at over 2 tonnes.
Lets hope Audi surprise us with some weight loss and a few special tricks with the sedan version which comes out later this year, and that it can use its awesome power a lot more effectively.

This RS6 is just too heavy for its own good. As they say in the article, its a really good car, but its more of the old school Audi type and not quite in the same generation as the RS4 & R8.

I'm holding thumbs for the RS6 sedan to come out with some surprises...

[Leadfoot]

I'm an Audi fan, and alwys will be, but c'mon guys, give the other brands credit where its due.

Some are saying this is an unfair battle. It sure is an unfair battle. Unfair to the C63 AMG! The Merc is a middle weight contender, and its being put up against a heavy weight contender (RS6). So the odds are against the C63, yet it eats chunks out of the RS6!
I'm sorry, but the RS6 should have not lost this comparison. Not to the C63AMG.

I havent been impressed with the new RS6 wagon. No matter how much power it boasts, its just too heavy beng at over 2 tonnes.
Lets hope Audi surprise us with some weight loss and a few special tricks with the sedan version which comes out later this year, and that it can use its awesome power a lot more effectively.

This RS6 is just too heavy for its own good. As they say in the article, its a really good car, but its more of the old school Audi type and not quite in the same generation as the RS4 & R8.

I'm holding thumbs for the RS6 sedan to come out with some surprises...

It's that diminishing returns that everyone talks about. Look and the C63 compared to the E63 and the result would be the same with the C63 winning, M3 vs M5 and against the smaller car will get the vote, RS4 vs RS6, the same. You pick the bigger car for a few reasons, need the extra space, prefer the image, etc. But it you want the best handling car and can for go the space then the smaller car will always be the better option.

It's the weight which makes all the difference.

Old school Audi, correct but it that way for a reason. Tell me how many cars you know with almost 600hp that can use all the power regardless of the conditions?

None, well I didn't think so.

[DuckWingDuck]

I'm with leadie here. I mean, you're tooling around in an avant. Could it have been lighter? Ya, probably but lugging your children from the house to school probably doesn't include a detour to your local racetrack!

[Brigadier]

The C63 is nowhere near as light as you'd think compared to the E63. Between E63 and RS6, I'd take the RS6. However, the RS6 will be priced considerably higher than the E AMG if it reaches the States and out in the south west AWD is more of a performance hinderance than an advantage. In the UK, well that's a totally different kettle of fish.

For real Audi fans! ;)

Sorry for files size but otherwise difficult to read:

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs1.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs2.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs3.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs41.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs5.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs61.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs7.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/rs8.jpg

[DuckWingDuck]

cheers for the post!

[Michaël Barbé]

The new RS6 needs more noise!!!!

That's why we have the black sportsexhausts!:hahahehe:

MB
:rs6kiss:

[Brigadier]

2 more scans from Autobuild:

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/test1.jpg

http://www.audi-club.ru/photo/data/3713/test2.jpg

[artur777]

Audi RS6 - 14,1 sec for 0-200 is a good result !

[Leadfoot]

The 14.1s is now starting to look pretty consistant don't you think and where oh where are these high 14s runs for the M5. :hihi:

Many people (pro-BMW fans) said the M5 was quicker and would be comfortably quicker over 200km/h. I say is it bloody better be because it already down a full 1.9s which at these speeds would make the RS6 about 8+ car lengths ahead and still pulling.

It's in a different league to the M5.........admit it.

[HKS786]

The 14.1s is now starting to look pretty consistant don't you think and where oh where are these high 14s runs for the M5. :hihi:

Many people (pro-BMW fans) said the M5 was quicker and would be comfortably quicker over 200km/h. I say is it bloody better be because it already down a full 1.9s which at these speeds would make the RS6 about 8+ car lengths ahead and still pulling.

It's in a different league to the M5.........admit it.

Leadie,

You are right in saying that the times are very consistant now. We've had the RS6 hitting 60 in 4.4 and 4.3 in the 2 tests in this thread alone. The first test had it quicker round the track (wet AND dry) than the M5 and the 2nd test had it 5.8 secs quicker round the track. That is a HUGE achievement!

Let's sum it up. Yes the RS6 is more expensive, but:

- Faster around the track wet and dry.
- Faster in straightline.
- More economical.
- Better gearbox.

:addict: :hihi:

[Carl Lassiter]

The 14.1s is now starting to look pretty consistant don't you think and where oh where are these high 14s runs for the M5. :hihi:

Many people (pro-BMW fans) said the M5 was quicker and would be comfortably quicker over 200km/h. I say is it bloody better be because it already down a full 1.9s which at these speeds would make the RS6 about 8+ car lengths ahead and still pulling.

It's in a different league to the M5.........admit it.

Admit what? There is an issue with this site that too few posters can see past the four rings. Autocar like the RS6 and so should they- it's a great car. However, it is "less agile and overtly sporty" (to quote Autocar) than the M5 which again shows that the two cars are different each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

By the way, to answer your earlier question, the Bentley or Cayenne Turbo S make decent wet weather rivals, but that's not a tangent I wish to continue.

As regards straightline, well if it ever gets to the States I'd love to meet up for an 80-150 run with someone. I'll buy the first round win or lose:) What I will say is that Autocar tested the M5 as 0-100mph in 9.8 (quicker than the 9.9 for the new RS6). I don't personally think .1 on one day means anything but it seems numbers and big claims are being chucked about so I may as well join in.

All I'm asking for is a realization that one brand is not superior to the rest. Hell, if I had to pick one I'd also say Audi but that doesn't make MB or BMW inferior.

[Carl Lassiter]

Leadie,

You are right in saying that the times are very consistant now. We've had the RS6 hitting 60 in 4.4 and 4.3 in the 2 tests in this thread alone. The first test had it quicker round the track (wet AND dry) than the M5 and the 2nd test had it 5.8 secs quicker round the track. That is a HUGE achievement!

Let's sum it up. Yes the RS6 is more expensive, but:

- Faster around the track wet and dry.
- Faster in straightline.
- More economical.
- Better gearbox.

:addict: :hihi:

Economy?- Prius wins that one:doh:
"Better" gearbox?- smoother, yes for sure the RS6
Faster in a straightline- come on now, lets wait for the sedan vs sedan because the RS6 Avant is not keeping up on a typical hwy encounter
Faster around the track- in the wet yes, in the dry it depends on the track

[audi_ch]

The 14.1s is now starting to look pretty consistant don't you think and where oh where are these high 14s runs for the M5. :hihi:

Many people (pro-BMW fans) said the M5 was quicker and would be comfortably quicker over 200km/h. I say is it bloody better be because it already down a full 1.9s which at these speeds would make the RS6 about 8+ car lengths ahead and still pulling.

It's in a different league to the M5.........admit it.

this test is completly grap, on issue after this one were "Leserbriefe" puplished in the same magazine, (the next issue) with the question why the m5 touring is 7 sec slower then the m5 limo, and why the m5 touring is slower than the suv cayenne gts, or ml55 amg one the same track...

Any ideas..

the magizine sayd afterwards, the m5 touring wasnt tested on the same distance of the track and not on the same day.

So stay objectiv,

and there is no point to highlite the 14.1, because there are as well test 14,8 (sportauto) or 15,3 etc for our heavy truck.

That would be the same if you take for the m5 all time the 13,8 from the sportauto, but the m5 limo was tested as well, with 14,3, or 14,5, or 14,0.

You can turn it as you want rs6 stays around 15 secs, m5 limo around 14,sec and m5touring around 15,5 secs

It is not all bad witch is not called audi.....

[Brigadier]

It is not all bad witch is not called audi.....

Who says that M5 or E63 are bad? The only thing we can say is that these cars are slower in 'station wagon' serie.

[audi_ch]

bad is the wrong word, but when i read the rs6 is in a different league to the m5 touring or the e63, then i really ask my self, what is a different league

In most of the test is the 100-200 accelaration of m5 touring and rs6 about the same, between 9,8 and 10.3 sec, approx. Excpect the crapy test of auto blöd. (mentiond above the reason what was wrong with this test)

So there for i really asking myself about what different league.

I really wait for the upcoming supertest auf Sports auto, but the smaller test done with the avant, allready wasnt that good as expected, 14,8 sec to 200kmh m5 touring 15,5 sec. (a year ago)

Supertest will be done with the sedan rs6, and we all will see if the sedans performce the same strightline as the m5 sedan = 13,8 in the supertest.

And if he is in a different league i asume there should be mor like 12,9, yes than we can speak about different league

So is that a different legue especially when the rs6 wins his time betwen 0-100 and the m5 touring regain in this thest betwen 100-200 km in the sportauto tests..

dont think so... and on hockenheim track was the time difference between avant and touring 0.8 sec, is that a different league

On Motorhighways the result between those car who is faster will still be the fact who accelerates first, and there wont be a different league.

I guess if the rs6 would wight about the same as the m5 touring, then we would have a different league but as we know m5 touring is about 1950 and the rs6 about 2150.

But rs6 is all year drive in the mountains, and the m5 definitly not

yes that is different

[Family Car]

Just read this and the various related threads.

I was very interested to read the comparision with the C63 AMG as, having seen one at the Geneva Motor Show in March, I have to say I wanted one more than I wanted the new RS6.

This desire was based on two things. One, it is a better looking car, and two, the new RS6 is too heavy.

There is no way of getting away from the second problem.

I simply do not want a new RS6 as it is too fat, needlessly fat, in fact, it's bordering on obese.

I simply cannot see the point of pumping up the horsepower while simultaneously increasing the weight. The new RS6 has a power to weight ratio of 287 BHP/Ton. The old RS6 had a ratio of 242 BHP/Ton.

So the headline 570 BHP figure, a 120 HP advance, drops to a 45 BHP/Ton gain in reality.

In addition, while the increase in mass is overcome in accelerative terms by the commensurate increase in horsepower, the reality is that in every other facet of driving, cornering, brake response and ride control, there is just no way of disguising the extra weight.

Hence the new bus has been slated in the press, and rightly.

However, comparing it to the C63 AMG is a pointless exercise. The C63 is smaller, and lighter and is always going to feel more responsive and agile than the bigger car.

That said, I was astonished to see the weight of the C63 in the article, it weighs nearly as much as the old RS6, despite being significantly smaller.

Anyway, the car is in a different class. People buying an RS6 are looking at the E63 and the M5.

Having sat in, and pottered around, a C63 for a good twenty minutes in Geneva, it is a very practical car but it has nothing like the room of my RS6. It had considerably more room than my rental A4 but the RS6 is in a different league for space in the back/boot.

In fact, in saloon form, the C class has little more room than my Evo.

None of this features in the article. The article is more concerned with the fact that the lower HP, and cheaper C63 was all over the back of the RS6 in the test.

Is this a surprise?

Really, the test done in the article is of road cars on a road. How is the performance advantage of one uber estate car over another every going to be clear, or relevant?

When was the last time somebody really wandered into a dealership looking for the estate car that would get them home a few tenths of second quicker than any other?

It is much more likely that they will be interested in how much room they'll have for their dog after they done a week's shopping and stowed two buggies.

This is the reality with cars like this. It is their practicality that is the primary attraction and there is no point comparing cars of completely different sizes in performance terms.

I currently have three cars. An RS6, an Evo 8 FQ 340 and a 996 Porsche 911. This may sound excessive, but it's only a bit more in total value terms than the C63, and a lot cheaper than the RS.

All three are different and do different things differently.

The Audi does a great job of carrying everything and everyone in comfort and with effortless ease and pace.

For driving thrills it has that surreal acceleration and wonderful V8 throb. However, I don't find myself wanting to show it too many corners as, as we all know, there is no point.

However, the car feels unbeatable in straight line point and squirt terms.

The Porsche by contrast feels lithe and nimble. However in point and squirt terms, it feels lame after the Audi. You spend your entire time throwing it into corners to revel in the turn in and steering feel, exactly what's missing in the Audi.

The Evo on the other hand feels slower than the RS6 and less tactile through the corners than the Porsche.

In fact, it is quicker than the Audi in a straight line and the Porsche through corners. MUCH quicker. Really, it hands the Germans their asses.

So, obviously, it's the best car.

No, it's the one I'm selling.

It is, I think, the best one car solution, or it would be if I didn't have a dog, a big dog.

However, I've had it two years now and I've discovered that what it does well, really well, is go really, really fast.

That's it, that's what it does, and that's illegal on the public roads, and it has a big spoiler on the back that attracts cops like flies to shit.

The rest of the time it is a wonderfully practical four door Japanese saloon car. It drives like one and sounds like one.

Now, I'm not complaining that I don't have fight with the clutch/steering/ brakes around town, or that it doesn't persisently refuse to start on cold mornings, but some sense that you're driving something special without having to lose your licence would be nice.

Both the RS6 and the Porsche give you that.

Neither will ever give you that Evo rush where your hands are still quivering with fear fifteen minutes after the turbo has stopped crackling, but, maybe that's a good thing.

Neither will ever sound like an exocet missile when on full boost, but maybe that's a good thing as well.

Maybe I'm getting old.

The point is though, put the Evo into the C63 AMG/RS6 test and it will do everything that the C63 did better, better again. But that's not the point, is it?

Every car is about how it feels when you drive it. The RS6 feels uniquely quick, that sublime momentum it generates without even trying is astonishing. I felt crestfallen when the Evo was quicker head to head as I was sure it would be the other way around. Then I drove the Audi again and realised it didn't matter. Equally, that the new RS6 is out performed by a C63 is irrelevant. I'd be much more interested to see how it would fare against the E63/M5 or perhaps more importantly, the old RS6/RS6 plus.

Now, that would be interesting.



P.S. I still don't want the new RS6, it's too fat.

[roadrunner]

Thank you for this long, and it is long, but therefore very detailed and thoughtfull post :thumb:

We get quickly carried away about racetrack laptimes, acceleration numbers - knowing they depend on so many factors (track, driver, temperature, tires,...)

Do i think the RS6 Avant is the best - hell yes. BUT that it my personal opinion (of an Audi driver by choice and passion), and still would be, when it would post slower times as well.

The M5 wagon is certainly a very capable car (the E65 for sure as well, but i don't like the boring looks of it) - it is just not the right car for me.


And although i love the RS6 - Audi has to make progress on the weight side, and they seem to.

The A6/S6/RS6 C7 (next generation comming 2011) is supposed to use Audi Space Frame (aluminium - like the A8) or the dual approach of the TT Mk.II (aluminium & steel combination)

Oh, i almost forgot - the C63 is a very capable car as well, but as mentioned above , not in the same class as the RS6.


cheers
seb.

[Robbo66]

Had the old RS6 in 2002 from new. Good car.

Driven new one....

Good points:

1) Fast (point and squirt)
2) Well built interior

Bad Points:

1) Looks duller than a loaf of bread
2) Ridiculously expensive
3) Heavier than the earth
4) Thirstier than Gazza
5) Pre-historic Nav system
6) Muffled exhaust note
7) Will depreciate faster than Taylor Wimpy's stock share value

[Mockenrue]

1) Looks duller than a loaf of bread

In your opinion. Styling is subjective and there are plenty who would disagree. I personally believe they got it spot on with the C6.

2) Ridiculously expensive

Well of course it's a lot of money but one mustn't forget that almost everything comes as standard on the RS6, and what else offers similar power and performance - all of which can be used regardless of conditions - for the money? Ultimately the potential buyer has to decide if the power/performance advantage, quattro and the superior quality and fit/finish is worth the premium over its competitors. For many it will be, and while Mercedes can get away with charging £100k for a CLK which can't put all its power down and comes with a letter stating that it'll kill you if the roads aren't bone dry, I don't necessarily think the RS6 is overpriced given its versatility.

3) Heavier than the earth

Ever increasing safety legislation coupled with the consumer's insatiable demand for creature comforts is inevitably going to incur a weight penalty. I'm sure Audi were aware of the weight issue and if they'd utilised more of their know-how with ASF technology (for example) in an effort to further reduce weight I'm sure the price would've been higher still, thus giving all the price moaners more to whinge about. If it had been lighter they'd have just got a load of flak from people complaining that it didn't have enough equipment as standard.

4) Thirstier than Gazza

The RS6's FSI engine develops 33% more power than that of the S6, yet it consumes only 3% more fuel. In addition it is more economical than the less powerful competition (M5 and E63). If that's not a remarkable technological achievement I don't know what is. A 5.0 V10 is never going to be economical in the true sense of the word, is it?

5) Pre-historic Nav system

:confused:

6) Muffled exhaust note

As with the looks it's subjective. One man's 'too loud' is another's 'too quiet'. It sounds just right to me and you can be sure that quattro GmbH settled on the best all-round compromise.

7) Will depreciate faster than Taylor Wimpy's stock share value

As does all high end 'gas guzzling' heavy metal. So what's new? It won't stop those lucky enough for it not to matter (and those who can live with the depreciation) from buying one. I certainly would if I could; life's too short and who buys cars like this as an investment anyway?

[snoopra]

:addict: Lord of the RINGS!:rs6kiss: Four rings rule them ALL!:thumb:

[Robbo66]

1) Looks duller than a loaf of bread

In your opinion. Styling is subjective and there are plenty who would disagree. I personally believe they got it spot on with the C6.

2) Ridiculously expensive

Well of course it's a lot of money but one mustn't forget that almost everything comes as standard on the RS6, and what else offers similar power and performance - all of which can be used regardless of conditions - for the money? Ultimately the potential buyer has to decide if the power/performance advantage, quattro and the superior quality and fit/finish is worth the premium over its competitors. For many it will be, and while Mercedes can get away with charging £100k for a CLK which can't put all its power down and comes with a letter stating that it'll kill you if the roads aren't bone dry, I don't necessarily think the RS6 is overpriced given its versatility.

3) Heavier than the earth

Ever increasing safety legislation coupled with the consumer's insatiable demand for creature comforts is inevitably going to incur a weight penalty. I'm sure Audi were aware of the weight issue and if they'd utilised more of their know-how with ASF technology (for example) in an effort to further reduce weight I'm sure the price would've been higher still, thus giving all the price moaners more to whinge about. If it had been lighter they'd have just got a load of flak from people complaining that it didn't have enough equipment as standard.

4) Thirstier than Gazza

The RS6's FSI engine develops 33% more power than that of the S6, yet it consumes only 3% more fuel. In addition it is more economical than the less powerful competition (M5 and E63). If that's not a remarkable technological achievement I don't know what is. A 5.0 V10 is never going to be economical in the true sense of the word, is it?

5) Pre-historic Nav system

:confused:

6) Muffled exhaust note

As with the looks it's subjective. One man's 'too loud' is another's 'too quiet'. It sounds just right to me and you can be sure that quattro GmbH settled on the best all-round compromise.

7) Will depreciate faster than Taylor Wimpy's stock share value

As does all high end 'gas guzzling' heavy metal. So what's new? It won't stop those lucky enough for it not to matter (and those who can live with the depreciation) from buying one. I certainly would if I could; life's too short and who buys cars like this as an investment anyway?

1) It does remain a dull looking car, and the majority of posts point this out

2) I bought my RS6 for £61,000 from new, fully loaded in 2002. My new 2008 car was specced to £81,000. You can't compare this with the CLK Black. Totally different in both concept and design.

3) Way too heavy. The reports/reviews all state this. The RS4 didn't suffer as a result of the extra equipment offered as standard, why should the RS6 ?. Neither does the M5 Touring.

4) I had an average of 12 miles per gallon. Again read the threads. Horrendous MPG.

5) No post code search on the Nav from memory. As bad as that in the RS4 I have. Fiddly beyond words.

6) Exhaust note befits overall look of car. Underwhelming. I not advocating a chavy Subaru chugger, but a throatier RS4 rumble would have been better.

7) I am lucky enough to afford one, but am not prepared to put up with that level of depreciation.I was offered £8100 off my new car if I were to reconsider. You'll depreciate another £20 k so that's £30 k to the unsuspecting buyer in 12 months.. My dealer did not argue with me. He has 4 sitting there and is mightily concerned.
You've got to ask yourself why ?. Then read the above again.

[GrantG]

The problem is they are too blinkered to see your side of things Robbo66 and it doesn't matter how much you argue your case. They would rather say "your opinions are wrong" than admit you actually raise valid points. :nono:

The lack of full postcode maching sat nav in the C5 RS6 was daft given that it was readily available back then, but in the C6 it shows a lack of understanding of the UK market and technology. :doh:

As for everything coming as standard :vhmmm: ... we are talking about £11K of options for my spec C6 RS6 so obviously not everything.

The looks (IMHO), the weight, the numbness (IMHO) and the DRC are the four reasons why I am not getting one.

[Leadfoot]

Robbo66,

Heavier than the earth?

Yes it's heavier than an M5 Avant but not to the extent that you are making out. First comparing it to it's lesser brother the S6, it weighs in at 1970Kgs (officially) against the RS6 at 2025Kgs, that's only 55Kgs of extra weight to allow for turbos, piping, bigger brakes, bigger wheels and tyres, heavier duty gearbox and running gear, more advanced suspension plus more strengthening and more standard equipment. To me that sounds incredible that Audi have only increased by this amount and credit to them for a job well done.

Now the competition (M5), it weighs in at (1955Kgs), say 1870Kgs with the different way of measuring the two cars. That 155Kgs lighter which on the face it sounds a lot but then start to look closer to how the two are designed and built, the BMW has less power but more importantly much less torque and at a much higher rev range which allows for a much lighter running gear, it's suspension though still technical is much less advanced than the Audi, than there the lack of an awd setup which must weigh on it's own an extra 50Kgs and then finally like the S6 it has no turbos of tubing that comes at baggage of a turbo setup.

To me even compared to the M5 the RS6 is an amazing achievement to only weigh an extra 155Kgs, and even with this extra weight, extra diff and transfer box driving twice the number of wheels it still proves to be more economical and have a lower Co2 rating. It's quicker on the track, it's quicker in acceleration and given the right tyres when they come it will be quicker in top speed as well. It looks better if understated, it has the best interior design and quality, it can use it's power more of the time and it's you won't be classed as a dick for driving one.

It will lose more money than an RS4 but that's nothing new when you move up into this kind of price bracket and with these kind of cars, will it hold better money than either the M5 and E63, you bet it will.

It's a class act.

[Rage]

Now the competition (M5), it weighs in at (1955Kgs), say 1870Kgs with the different way of measuring the two cars. That 155Kgs lighter which on the face it sounds a lot but then start to look closer to how the two are designed and built, the BMW has less power but more importantly much less torque and at a much higher rev range which allows for a much lighter running gear, it's suspension though still technical is much less advanced than the Audi, than there the lack of an awd setup which must weigh on it's own an extra 50Kgs and then finally like the S6 it has no turbos of tubing that comes at baggage of a turbo setup.

To me even compared to the M5 the RS6 is an amazing achievement to only weigh an extra 155Kgs, and even with this extra weight, extra diff and transfer box.............

Excellent engineering or otherwise, that is no argument. They are different cars, different build philosophies and one ways weighs alot more than the other in all the wrong places. The circumstances that led to that weight and subsequent power hike are irrelevant in an objective, unbiased comparison of the two.

They way some of you guys argue over which estate car is quickest around a track or to 200km/h is faintly riduculous. Please try and gain some perspective. Neither are sports cars.

Also I take real issue with claims that the RS6 is in a different league to the M5. Different league? You think 1 seconds difference around a track or to 200km/h between two different estate cars puts them in different leagues? Would you have noticed that 1 second difference without a stopwatch?

How about 5 seconds difference over a track? Remember the Top Gear test M3 vs RS4 vs C63. M3 was 5 seconds quicker than the RS4 (and C63). If you think the RS6 is in a different league to the M5 then you must truly despise the RS4 for its feeble performance against the M3.
Armchair racing indeed.

\End rant.

Ive had a deposit down for an RS5 since august '07. I'm #1 at my dealer for an RS5/TTR. I know Audi can build great cars, but endless praise mixed with a bit of overhype - no thanks.

[GrantG]

It's a class act.Yes, but dull compared to the C5 RS6. It reminded me most of the old big jags to drive. Big and heavy with good straight line speed but they always felt numb to drive. They were class acts too.

C5 :rs6kiss:

[GrantG]

Neither are sports cars. lovely quote that, and spot on. Who gives an fcuk which is faster round a track, surely it's just a matter of taste as to which you prefer. To me the M5 touring is ugly, E63 looks like a grandad mobile and the new RS6 is almost the same as an A/S6 to look at. Not much of a choice really, personally I'll keep the one I have till something substantially better comes along (without DRC!).:hihi:

[chewym]

The Autocar test with detailed information shows what the RS6 can do.

[GrantG]

The Autocar test with detailed information shows what the RS6 can do.Sure, but it doesn't stop it from looking boring though.

[Leadfoot]

Excellent engineering or otherwise, that is no argument. They are different cars, different build philosophies and one ways weighs alot more than the other in all the wrong places. The circumstances that led to that weight and subsequent power hike are irrelevant in an objective, unbiased comparison of the two.

They way some of you guys argue over which estate car is quickest around a track or to 200km/h is faintly riduculous. Please try and gain some perspective. Neither are sports cars.

Can't disagree with you on any of this, but look at the weight percentage over each axle in the M5, it's not BMW's holy grail of 50/50. ;)

Also check out lateral Gs between the two and you will see that the RS6 has a slightly high rating which means the nose heaviness is more in people's heads than anywhere else. Yes neither are sportscar but for those who can't have a sportscar and need a big seriously quick estate car that can beat almost all would-be sportscar on the autobahn then you could do a lot worse than to pick an M5 or RS6. The fact that the RS6 is quicker on every discipline only adds to it's appeal.


Also I take real issue with claims that the RS6 is in a different league to the M5. Different league? You think 1 seconds difference around a track or to 200km/h between two different estate cars puts them in different leagues? Would you have noticed that 1 second difference without a stopwatch?

How about 5 seconds difference over a track? Remember the Top Gear test M3 vs RS4 vs C63. M3 was 5 seconds quicker than the RS4 (and C63). If you think the RS6 is in a different league to the M5 then you must truly despise the RS4 for its feeble performance against the M3.
Armchair racing indeed.

\End rant.

I look at TopGear tests with a bit of skepticism so whether in reality the M3 would be 5 seconds quicker on that track is up for debate, I know that on most other track the M3 is quicker by 1 possibly 2 seconds is more normally the case and on the ring the gap over the 8+ minutes was only 4 seconds or put it another way 0.3s per mile. The RS6 also 5 seconds quicker is another review which wasn't purely for entertainment, does that make it's result any less important.

Where the RS6 is in a different league to the M5 and E63 is it's ability to use every last bit of that performance on which ever surface is thrown at it, this is something neither of it's two rivals can do. What good is all that performance if it can only be used on dry days. Autocar has shown the RS6 and RS4 to be quicker by more than 4~6 seconds on the wet track than either the M3 or M5 and in the case of the M3 the humble 335i was just as quick on this track and in these conditions. What that proves is that all that added power and trick suspension and M-diff didn't mean shit when the weather turns nasty. To me that places both the RS4 and RS6 in a different league if only when the weather is wet, which in the UK at least accounts for 200 days in the year. :rs6kiss:


Ive had a deposit down for an RS5 since august '07. I'm #1 at my dealer for an RS5/TTR. I know Audi can build great cars, but endless praise mixed with a bit of overhype - no thanks.

The achievements of the RS6 are commendable when you take into consideration the type of the car and what it is capable of doing. Who here would have thought 2 years ago that a big heavy estate car could have gotten close to a true top class sportscar like a 997s on the most demanding road track in the world.

And you class this as over hyping the car's abilities. ;)

[Rage]

Can't disagree with you on any of this, but look at the weight percentage over each axle in the M5, it's not BMW's holy grail of 50/50. ;)

Also check out lateral Gs between the two and you will see that the RS6 has a slightly high rating which means the nose heaviness is more in people's heads than anywhere else. Yes neither are sportscar but for those who can't have a sportscar and need a big seriously quick estate car that can beat almost all would-be sportscar on the autobahn then you could do a lot worse than to pick an M5 or RS6. The fact that the RS6 is quicker on every discipline only adds to it's appeal.



I look at TopGear tests with a bit of skepticism so whether in reality the M3 would be 5 seconds quicker on that track is up for debate, I know that on most other track the M3 is quicker by 1 possibly 2 seconds is more normally the case and on the ring the gap over the 8+ minutes was only 4 seconds or put it another way 0.3s per mile. The RS6 also 5 seconds quicker is another review which wasn't purely for entertainment, does that make it's result any less important.

Where the RS6 is in a different league to the M5 and E63 is it's ability to use every last bit of that performance on which ever surface is thrown at it, this is something neither of it's two rivals can do. What good is all that performance if it can only be used on dry days. Autocar has shown the RS6 and RS4 to be quicker by more than 4~6 seconds on the wet track than either the M3 or M5 and in the case of the M3 the humble 335i was just as quick on this track and in these conditions. What that proves is that all that added power and trick suspension and M-diff didn't mean shit when the weather turns nasty. To me that places both the RS4 and RS6 in a different league if only when the weather is wet, which in the UK at least accounts for 200 days in the year. :rs6kiss:



The achievements of the RS6 are commendable when you take into consideration the type of the car and what it is capable of doing. Who here would have thought 2 years ago that a big heavy estate car could have gotten close to a true top class sportscar like a 997s on the most demanding road track in the world.

And you class this as over hyping the car's abilities. ;)

Up for debate? Same day, same professional driver, on TV. What are you skeptical about?

Personally I think the M3 is in the same league as the RS4. I dont especially care if it is quicker on a track. You'd be a fool to buy a £55k car without testdriving it and its competitors. To 99% of people who buy these cars nurburgring times and 0-200km/h are irrelevant to there use. Its what you like the most after getting into the seat and how the car makes you feel.

These are even less pertinent to the 2 tonne station wagons. In my opinion they serve only as pub bragging rights. What next? Soccer mums arguing over Q12 TDi vs Cayenne Turbo S ring times?

I take your point about wet weather handling. But who pushes a 2 tonne 572HP behemoth to its limit in rain/snow? I dont.

The fact that its ring time is comparable to the 911 sounds cool, but does it make me wanna buy the RS6 more? Not really. What if I told you a Zonda does it in 7:25 (or whatever). Would that make you less impressed with the RS6? Hardly. Its a different car for a different purpose. So is the 911.

Assuming same drivers, same track conditions etc a lap time is the cumulative result of HP, torque, torque curve, weight, weight distribution, handling, communication to the driver, traction, gearbox etc...All of those things will affect how much you like a car. Do you buy a house based purely on market price without considering location, size, rooms, styling..?

Still....the love flows:cheers:

[Leadfoot]

Up for debate? Same day, same professional driver, on TV. What are you skeptical about?

Personally I think the M3 is in the same league as the RS4. I dont especially care if it is quicker on a track. You'd be a fool to buy a £55k car without testdriving it and its competitors. To 99% of people who buy these cars nurburgring times and 0-200km/h are irrelevant to there use. Its what you like the most after getting into the seat and how the car makes you feel.

These are even less pertinent to the 2 tonne station wagons. In my opinion they serve only as pub bragging rights. What next? Soccer mums arguing over Q12 TDi vs Cayenne Turbo S ring times?

I take your point about wet weather handling. But who pushes a 2 tonne 572HP behemoth to its limit in rain/snow? I dont.

The fact that its ring time is comparable to the 911 sounds cool, but does it make me wanna buy the RS6 more? Not really. What if I told you a Zonda does it in 7:25 (or whatever). Would that make you less impressed with the RS6? Hardly. Its a different car for a different purpose. So is the 911.

Assuming same drivers, same track conditions etc a lap time is the cumulative result of HP, torque, torque curve, weight, weight distribution, handling, communication to the driver, traction, gearbox etc...All of those things will affect how much you like a car.

Weight balance is important but it's affect are only really felt near the car's limits, something seldom do on the road. Steering wheel communication is again over rated in my humble opinion, sure it's great to have on a race track which is ultra smooth and where you are driving near to and beyond the limits but on a public road with all it's imperfections I prefer my steering to be a bit numb. HP or torque, personally I feel torque is more important, you feel it's affect more often on the road than HP which is usually only felt near the limits of each gear, each to their own I say.

My point was to try and justify why these cars are built, heaven forbid that it stops and we go to only having true sportscars with performance as I for one need the space and want the luxuries.

I too wouldn't push to the limit in the rain or snow though I could and would push harder in an RS4 or RS6 than the equivalent BMW or Merc purely because of that awd system which some many people feel destroys it's entertainment value.

Ring times and acceleration are solely a gauge, a yard stick to compare what you are looking for from a car, if it's quick on the ring then it's got good brakes and great handling with plenty of power. That might not appeal to everyone but not everyone comes on to these kind of web sites and talks about cars so this stuff means something to us.


Do you buy a house based purely on market price without considering location, size, rooms, styling..?

Still....the love flows:cheers:

You buy a car with the same thought processes as you do a house. Looks are important, so is space and how the interior makes you feel while sitting there, price is also very important as all the other matter little if the price isn't right. The only bonus with the car is your house can't do zero to sixty miles per hour in four and a half seconds. :D

[Robbo66]

Grant,
Got to agree with you entirely. The RS6 remains a massive white elephant for Audi.
you're right..they simply won't see it...becuase they don't want to.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you can't argue with the facts:

My dealer has 4 new RS6's on site

I was the only client with £5000 down as a deposit and have cancelled

They rang me a few weeks ago and offered £8000 discount.

They can't sell them. Why.....read the underwhelming test reports.

[Family Car]

'Not much of a choice really, personally I'll keep the one I have till something substantially better comes along (without DRC!).'

Ditto that, the old RS6 to me looks better, performs nearly as well, is every bit as practical and has finished depreciating. No brainer at the moment.

Maybe they'll pull out the stops for the plus and I won't be able to stop myself having a chat with the bank manager but until then, I'm staying put.

[Leadfoot]

Grant,
Got to agree with you entirely. The RS6 remains a massive white elephant for Audi.
you're right..they simply won't see it...becuase they don't want to.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you can't argue with the facts:

My dealer has 4 new RS6's on site

I was the only client with £5000 down as a deposit and have cancelled

They rang me a few weeks ago and offered £8000 discount.

They can't sell them. Why.....read the underwhelming test reports.

It has nothing to do with how Audi has made this RS6 that is reason for huge discounts, if you have half a brain you know it's the current economical conditions that are effecting the pricing. It's just unfortunate to have brought out such an expensive car at this present time.

I too chose not to change at this time to an M3, does that mean that it's a white elephant and a crap car. No, of course not the only reason is the fear of losing more money than I would have if the economy hadn't taken a down turn.

Underwhelming test reports?

Where, all the ones I have read show the RS6 been seen as the top dog in it's sector and rightly so, it quicker, more econical, has to best handling, the best gearbox and looks decidedly better than either the M5 Estate or E63 Estate, with these two now you are talking about white elephants.

If you want to fool yourself into thinking that the only reason for not picking the new RS6 is purely it's not right and isn't the best car in it's class then that is up to you, but the fact is that like all of us you don't want to lose more money at the moment and are sitting tight until things change.

If things were different I bet you would have jumped at the RS6 without a second thought.

[Mockenrue]

Well said Leadfoot.

Robbo66, change the record please. You've rammed your anti-RS6 sentiments down everybody's throats ad infinitum over on RS246 and I don't think you need to bang the same drum here - we've got the message now I think. If you don't like the car that's fair enough - you are of course entitled to your opinions and that's fine, but for every person who agrees with your viewpoint there are ten who do not. This does not mean they are 'blinkered'.

FWIW two of the three Audi Centres in my area have already sold their RS6 allocations.

[Rage]

Im sure they will have no problem selling the new RS6. Despite the economical climate there are plenty of people out there who are not affected.

Even if not everyone is enamoured by its performance there can be no doubt about the exclusivity afforded by the RS genre compared to M/AMG.

[Robbo66]

You're right...and I won't be posting again on the subject.
Perhaps the complete disappointment felt on seeing the car in the flesh having had £5k down for a number of months has been reflected in my posts.

Can't change the facts though....4 in one dealer and an £8k discount, and not to antagonize the couple of forum geeks, I would not have spent £80k on the RS6 having seen it in the flesh....regardless of current financial climate.