View Full Version : Future 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged Audi R8. ?
The Pretender
May 20th, 2009, 17:06
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.
http://www.autowereld.com/imagesDB/800/9519105744147_.jpg
RXBG
May 20th, 2009, 17:36
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.
rs-6
May 20th, 2009, 17:48
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....
Bodhii
May 20th, 2009, 18:23
A near Future 408 hp V6 3.0TFSI Supercharged Audi R8 would wipe the floor with the present R8 4.2 V8 FSI.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. :thumb:
artur777
May 20th, 2009, 18:24
The engine is miracle
Benman
May 20th, 2009, 18:28
The engine is miracle
Miracle? A little bit of an overstatement, no?
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. :vhmmm:
Ben:addict:
KresoF1
May 20th, 2009, 18:40
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.
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...
RXBG
May 20th, 2009, 19:44
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.
KresoF1
May 20th, 2009, 20:06
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...
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 Pretender
May 20th, 2009, 20:15
The keywords are facelift and downsizing.
Benman
May 20th, 2009, 21:11
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.
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. :cheers:
Ben:addict:
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.
R8 England
May 20th, 2009, 22:35
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.
Bodhii
May 21st, 2009, 00:01
I see why the 4.2 does, but isn't the "going through corners at high speed" just a markering stunt?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.
:race:
http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/medium/R8_smaller.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3508496270_5e07334b94_b.jpg
RXBG
May 21st, 2009, 00:18
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.
Benman
May 21st, 2009, 01:00
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.
Exactly. :cheers:
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.
.
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. :cheers:
Ben:addict:
KresoF1
May 21st, 2009, 07:30
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.
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...
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...
Wow, chill :hihi:
As i said, it was just a thought. You obviously know better than me. But i guess non of us really know, since non of us work as engineers for Audi.
"Cheaper engine to make? Are you kidding?" and then you mention dry oil sump. Of course that's expensive to develop for such a car, i know that. That's why i mentioned i might not be necessary, hence a cheaper engine. But again, it was just a thought, i'm not an engineer. BTW. there is NO way you can compare it to a s/c system for an S5 from MTM? How come is it that the new S4 hasn't become MUCH more expensive than the old one, even though they had to use a new engine? The fact that the 3.0TFSI is versatile, wich is the point with the engine. And that was what i based my hypothesis aon.
About the speed. You misunderstood what i said. I know the R8 has a great cornering speed. I was talking about the necessarity of dry oil sump - as this COULD have just one real function; enabling to mount the engine lower, leaving the rest up to marketing people (the fact that higher forces will not effect the lubricant system etc.).
Has anyone racing an RS4 even endeavored problems with the oil system?
KresoF1
May 21st, 2009, 12:38
About the speed. You misunderstood what i said. I know the R8 has a great cornering speed. I was talking about the necessarity of dry oil sump - as this COULD have just one real function; enabling to mount the engine lower, leaving the rest up to marketing people (the fact that higher forces will not effect the lubricant system etc.).
Has anyone racing an RS4 even endeavored problems with the oil system?
Hight of non-dry sump engine is a problem for R8 engine bay. Simply said V6 without dry sump is too tall for R8. That is the reason. You can not mount V6 lower since it is in hight the same as V8. So, dry sump is a must for R8. From several key points...
RXBG
May 21st, 2009, 14:17
Exactly. :cheers:
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. :cheers:
Ben:addict:
ben- the B5 RS4 engine gets trumped on hp (28) AND torque (60+)!!!! and i never mentioned anything about dimensions- i don't know how you read that or where you got that idea- read my post again hotpants :) my point was that a TT engine will have a tough time back there. of course, the smaller the engine the less the heat- sure- but this 3.0T is superior to the B5 RS4 engine based on numbers alone. sorry.
regarding TT gallardos- they exist. but reliability and overheating have got to be a problem. someone will always deny this. but when it comes to prod cars there is a reason quattro gmbh test mules burned down with V10 TT's in the rear. if some aftermarket dude claims he can do what the factory can't then god bless him- but i won't be forking my money over to him any time soon.
RXBG
May 21st, 2009, 14:21
kreso-
RE: "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... "
agreed. i don't think the base engine this cycle will vary beyond a reworked V8 vis a vis RS5.
Benman
May 21st, 2009, 19:53
ben- the B5 RS4 engine gets trumped on hp (28) AND torque (60+)!!!! and i never mentioned anything about dimensions- i don't know how you read that or where you got that idea- read my post again hotpants :)
The name Hotpants is reserved exclusively for my wife to use for me, not you. ;) :D
I did re-read what you wrote...
"and can't fit in a mid engine like the the R8's because of cooling issues..."
Yet, you also wrote:
"a manual R8 with this engine could tear up 4.1 (3.8 with roll-out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and the 1/4 in 12.5 easily!!!!!!!!!!!!"
So, if I am reading what you wrong correctly (and hey, I am not perfect here), you said the 3.0T put into the R8 would "tear it up" yet the 2.7T would not fit?!? At least that is what I am getting from the parts you quoted.
The bone stock RS 4 motor made 325lb/ft, so the 3.0T makes 385? That was one thing I was not aware of. But, I am not suggesting the 2.7T from the RS 4 be applied bone stock, we have ten years advancedment here and if MTM and other tuners can grab a lot more power with minor mods, I am sure Audi could do likewise. :cheers:
Ben:addict:
RXBG
May 21st, 2009, 20:14
The name Hotpants is reserved exclusively for my wife to use for me, not you. ;) :D
I did re-read what you wrote...
"and can't fit in a mid engine like the the R8's because of cooling issues..."
Yet, you also wrote:
"a manual R8 with this engine could tear up 4.1 (3.8 with roll-out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and the 1/4 in 12.5 easily!!!!!!!!!!!!"
So, if I am reading what you wrong correctly (and hey, I am not perfect here), you said the 3.0T put into the R8 would "tear it up" yet the 2.7T would not fit?!? At least that is what I am getting from the parts you quoted.
The bone stock RS 4 motor made 325lb/ft, so the 3.0T makes 385? That was one thing I was not aware of. But, I am not suggesting the 2.7T from the RS 4 be applied bone stock, we have ten years advancedment here and if MTM and other tuners can grab a lot more power with minor mods, I am sure Audi could do likewise. :cheers:
Ben:addict:
"and can't fit in a mid engine like the the R8's because of cooling issues" COOLING ISSUES not because of engine SIZE. cooling issues as in turbos!!!!!!!!!!!!! dimensionally it fits but the turbos cannot be cooled!
by "tear it up" i meant metaphorically- kick some ass. not tear apart the engine bay literally!
and you never talked about an updated B5 RS4 motor. you always meant a comparison between the two engines- implying that the this engine was not much better than THAT engine. BUT IT IS!!!!!
Benman
May 21st, 2009, 20:49
"and can't fit in a mid engine like the the R8's because of cooling issues" COOLING ISSUES not because of engine SIZE. cooling issues as in turbos!!!!!!!!!!!!! dimensionally it fits but the turbos cannot be cooled!
by "tear it up" i meant metaphorically- kick some ass. not tear apart the engine bay literally!
and you never talked about an updated B5 RS4 motor. you always meant a comparison between the two engines- implying that the this engine was not much better than THAT engine. BUT IT IS!!!!!
RXBG, I was not thinking that there would be issues from the turbos. I would not think the heat would be worse, but I've been wrong before.
Yes, I knew you did not mean "tear it up" literally, I quoted that simply to show that you felt the new motor would tear it up speed wise yet felt the old one was inadequate.
PS, The other thread says the 3.0T concept motor makes 369lb/ft so that would not be 60lb/ft more, but yes, it still beats it. :cheers:
Best,
Ben:addict:
Smaller, higher output blocks need better cooling but hopefully that can be sorted out.
combo3010
May 30th, 2009, 09:27
how about the upcoming 4.0 TFSI? does it have the same issues on R8 as the 3.0 TFSI?
The Pretender
May 30th, 2009, 09:30
how about the upcoming 4.0 TFSI? does it have the same issues on R8 as the 3.0 TFSI?
Basically yes.
combo3010
May 30th, 2009, 09:41
but, I am sure forced induction will eventually find its way into the R8.
We are simply trying to make future predictions based on current circumstances.
much like the torque limit problem with current DSG boxes.
I wish the 3.0 S/T replace current v8 and 4.0 S/T replace current v10
Heck, even ferrari is planning to make forced induction engine.
btw, any word on the S7 engine yet?
hopefully its the forced 4.0 TFSI with 500hp+ tuning potential, and a panamera turbo competitor for half the price!
The Pretender
May 30th, 2009, 09:52
btw, any word on the S7 engine yet?
The S7 is a long way out before introduction.
chewym
May 31st, 2009, 00:50
The S4 is performing very well with 333 horsepower. From the figures I would say it has a bit more than 333. But I wouldn't expect a 408 horsepower version of the supercharged V6.
This one is just a concept, I remember Audi showed a 300 horsepower version of the 2.0T at the same show a while back.