Motortrend first drive

[BSR]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...1_2008_audi_r8

[sticky]

Sounds like they really liked it but the comments about the steering lacking feeling dissapoint me a bit. I'm worried the car might not be very communicative even with high limits so it might be a numb drive.

[India Whiskey Charlie]

Sounds like they really liked it but the comments about the steering lacking feeling dissapoint me a bit. I'm worried the car might not be very communicative even with high limits so it might be a numb drive.

That doesn't surprise me. Audi is not known for precision in its steering systems let alone one that's mostly based on the Gallardo's.

Bottom line is that the R8 will feel a lot like the Gallardo. If you like the G-car, you'll like the R8.

[Leadfoot]

Viken B,

I think that oversimplifying it. The two do share the same basic structure of chassis and awd system but that is where the two go their separate ways. The R8's chassis has been stretched and the suspension is totally different if one picks the Magnetic ride option, the structure is also more rigid in the R8 and it uses a smaller engine with a different power and torque delivery. And I am only scratching the surface with what I have listed that are different between the two.

The Gallardo was a good place to start for the R8 but it was only a start, not a re-packaged make-over.

[AuditudeA642]

0-60 in 4.1!! Thats insane.

[sticky]

0-60 in 4.1!! Thats insane.

Not these days...

[Fab]

motorweek just quoted the RS4 0-60 in 4.2s

[Leadfoot]

If the surfaces are the same then the RS4's time is amazingly insane as no European test has come close to this. Though at times weight can be an advantage, especially to 60mph. Autocar a couple of years ago did one of their famous 0-100-0 group tests and in one section they had a collection of AMG Mercs. SL55, CLS55 and a S55, the S was the heaviest and the quickest to 60mph as well as the quickest braking from 100mph to zero. Anyway there is officially only about 100kgs of difference between the R8 and the RS4, it wouldn't make that much to 60mph now would it. Maybe to 100mph or 150mph.

Oh, by the way all of these Mercs did the 100mph in 10 seconds flat + or - 0.1 secs. :bigeyes:Just think how quick these would be with a quattro system fitted. :MTM:

[LU-RS6]

Maybe this question is just plain idiotic, but isn't it a fact that a 0-60 mph time will never be the same as a 0-100 kmh time because a 100 kmh simply is not 60 mph? 60 Mph is exactly 96,54 km/h. That would explain the small differences.


Again, sorry if this is complete nonsense...

[Fab]

your right the 0-100 corresponds to 0-62mph.

But in the case of R8 & RS4 both were tested 0-60

[Speedou]

Oh, by the way all of these Mercs did the 100mph in 10 seconds flat + or - 0.1 secs. :bigeyes:Just think how quick these would be with a quattro system fitted. :MTM:

You have to remember that some time it's good that tyres can loose some grip. And with Quattro they wouldn't be able to do that. If the car don't have enogh torque with very small rpm the 4wd will make slower 0-xx times. Of course only when a grip level is already high!

[7:53 RS6]

If the surfaces are the same then the RS4's time is amazingly insane as no European test has come close to this. Though at times weight can be an advantage, especially to 60mph. Autocar a couple of years ago did one of their famous 0-100-0 group tests and in one section they had a collection of AMG Mercs. SL55, CLS55 and a S55, the S was the heaviest and the quickest to 60mph as well as the quickest braking from 100mph to zero. Anyway there is officially only about 100kgs of difference between the R8 and the RS4, it wouldn't make that much to 60mph now would it. Maybe to 100mph or 150mph.

Oh, by the way all of these Mercs did the 100mph in 10 seconds flat + or - 0.1 secs. :bigeyes:Just think how quick these would be with a quattro system fitted. :MTM:

Ledi, since when do weight(front engine cars) make cars at advantage when it come to a launch? If to cars are overall the same, one is light one is hevy, how would you see the outcome in a 0-100-0 race?
Then the S55 had better tiers(slightly better brakes?) than rest as well its weight betwen the front and rear axel more in favor vs others then it could be a fair explanation rather than weight should bee in favor in thease situations?.
Or if it was more power in the S55(just a exampel).

Sure a litel more weight over the rear wheels like some Porsches got is handy at launch and braking, but all above cars has engin in front?.

In genral i would not agree that weight is in favor when it comes to 0-100-0 on the contrary. But im sure you could come upp whit some saying that would make me change my mind .
New RS4 is suffering hard during braking due to is weight betwen front and rear is far from ideal. To much weight in front, wich also make rear braking power suffer. Now new RS4 getts a way whit this issu pretty well due to the very massive brakes and gripy tiers. This issu will not mid engine R8 suffer then, which is god, or?.

[Benman]

Ledi, since when do weight(front engine cars) make cars at advantage when it come to a launch? If to cars are overall the same, one is light one is hevy, how would you see the outcome in a 0-100-0 race?

I'd have to agree, weight is the enemy, no matter what (I mean, who of us wants a fat wife?!?).

0-60, or 60-0, the lighter the better. I think it is amazing the times the RS 4 gets despite its weight and dynamic issues...

But since the R8 has none of the dynamic backwardness of the RS 4, it is should be pure sublime...

Ben

[Leadfoot]

I was saying that 100kgs in general wouldn't show that big of a difference upto 60mph but might there after like 100mph or 150mph. The Merc thing was what Autocar found and it was their thinking that maybe the extra weight helped the S55 achieve a better time to 60mph. I personally think it's softer suspension may have had something to do with it. Weight can be an advantage if it is place more over the driving wheels like as you said with a 911 or any fwd which would prefer it's weight at the front to aid traction.

Anyway as the two cars (RS4 and R8) use differing awd system there isn't really any common ground apart from the engine. Gut feeling is that the quattro system in the RS4 is better for grip in acceleration as the normal split is 40/60 with it weight balance of 58/42% where as the R8's split is 15/85 and a weight balance of 40/60 or there abouts, but again this advantage will be short lived as soon as total traction is restored.

[7:53 RS6]

Just imagin the the braking distance in a car from 100-0, whit or whit out 100+kg, let alone braking from higher speeds. As well for the car to hit 100km, it would not be faster whit an extra 100+ kg. Still other things can explain if a more hevy car was faster in the test 0-100-0 rater than extra pork made it faster..

The CSL has remarkebly god braking balance for instance, the main constuction is at handy here, pretty much spot on as well weight. Thats why CSL dont nead the bad as braking kit new RS4 nead.

As well whit singel piston calipers and slightly smaler rotors all round the CSL outbrake the 996 GT3 RS whit hot and cold brakes from 100-0.
The braking distance is less in CSL vs GT3 RS. (RS got sevral piston calipers as well)

As well its the same from 200km-0, 4,7 seconds to brake down from these speeds in bothe cars.

[Leadfoot]

Just imagin the the braking distance in a car from 100-0, whit or whit out 100+kg, let alone braking from higher speeds. As well for the car to hit 100km, it would not be faster whit an extra 100+ kg. Still other things can explain if a more hevy car was faster in the test 0-100-0 rater than extra pork made it faster..

The CSL has remarkebly god braking balance for instance, the main constuction is at handy here, pretty much spot on as well weight. Thats why CSL dont nead the bad as braking kit new RS4 nead.

As well whit singel piston calipers and slightly smaler rotors all round the CSL outbrake the 996 GT3 RS whit hot and cold brakes from 100-0.
The braking distance is less in CSL vs GT3 RS. (RS got sevral piston calipers as well)

As well its the same from 200km-0, 4,7 seconds to brake down from these speeds in bothe cars.

I just know you will go off on one, but here goes.

Comparing the CSL again, I thought you had gotten over this with the last post.

OK the CSL has a better stopping distance than the GT3RS which Autocar proved with it's 0-100-0 reports, but there is lots of cars that can out brake a Porsche. Porsche's advantage is it can do this all day long, something neither the RS4 or CSL can do.

The Merc S55 may be the only one with which this is the case under braking so please don't read to much into this.

Weight does aid braking especially repeated braking with over heats the disc/pads and fluid, the lighter the car the less the effect and the longer before these effects.

[7:53 RS6]

I just know you will go off on one, but here goes.

Comparing the CSL again, I thought you had gotten over this with the last post.

OK the CSL has a better stopping distance than the GT3RS which Autocar proved with it's 0-100-0 reports, but there is lots of cars that can out brake a Porsche. Porsche's advantage is it can do this all day long, something neither the RS4 or CSL can do.

The Merc S55 may be the only one with which this is the case under braking so please don't read to much into this.

Weight does aid braking especially repeated braking with over heats the disc/pads and fluid, the lighter the car the less the effect and the longer before these effects.

What you say regerding CSL and its brakes that they dont last, well it shows you do not know anything regarding this!
It only shows you read to much forums as well carmags, UK carmags fore sure. Whats your own experience of cars and trackdriving, realy?

CSL do last all days on even small tracks, no fade whatever, the brakes even take the pressure slicks give them. Even the stock pads do handel the pressure, even these pads give a softer feel than race pads, but thats not fade, is it. We accually made a test in to days at track, short brake demanding track whit R-c as well slicks, togeter whit stock CSL pads as well racepads. No fade what ever, what ever combo we drove, Thed, Rikard or me! And guess what driving slicks one brake les vs R-c on the same track, one use the grip andvantage in slicks to its favor.Sure its a driffrent feel among these pads, and preferd is of course the race pad, still stock dont fade. The was no laptime gain to talk about what ever pad driven at this track. When brakes fails its oil or pad that fade, i have never fade any in CSL.
Accualy i have never in no car fade the pad, just the oil. I guess you know the diffrens among the oil or pad fade?

STCC driver Thed Björk(STCC vinner 2007 as well testing Audi in DTM, end of last year at hochenheim end race) and Rikard Göransson(STCC 06 and ETCC vinner) These guys i drive tracks with at times. Guess what, they go fast laps whit my CSL around short brake demanding track gelleråsen whit r-tiers and slicks on my car. Lap times are very low, plenty of laps, no problems whit brakes or fade. Me as well all day laping at these speeds, no fade or brake problems. To give you a clu, we dont drive the car whit any ESP(DSC)!.
There are no wrong on stock brakes on CSL for your information. More likely its common that CSLs at track are overbraked + 90%of cars are driven whit ESP(DSC) ON, the comb is not that god you know for any brakes Im sure you know how DSC is effecting brakes when set of.

Even new RS4 got a constant weight in front like 59.5%, guess what happen whit that weight under hard braking, well the weight displacement gets very,very large in to front making rear wheels almost lose contact of tarmac whit less brake power in rear, as well the rear get nervous. Thats the down side of enging adding weight up in the front at the wrong place. Kind of like how the BMW Alpina B6 3,5 as well get light in rear under braking. The diffrence is Alpinas brakes dont handel this weight displacement to the front, but RS4 brakes handel it very well, indead the 8 piston caliper from Brembo is up for the task: Very much so combined whit the option rotors of RS4. Other hevy cars are not moving so much weight forwards as RS4 do, as they have better weight balance, the main constuction of Audi is causing this. There are reasons why RS4 got these brakes on, as well RS6. Only thing is neaded is to uppgrade the pads and oil to more heat resistant than stock, if one know one is in nead, and on porkers like that why not be on the safe side, whit black or gry Pagid as well motul or Castrol higest heat tolerant fluid and all are god.

[Leadfoot]

7:53RS6,

I only said those things about the CSL to get a reaction and guess what.............................................. .................................it worked.

I would agree that my knowledge of the CSL is limited, as with most of these track-based specials. In Northern Ireland there is only one track that is usable for cars and it isn't that great, so to by a car with idea in mind would be mad. Alas you and me will never see eye to eye over the usefulness of these motors, in my mind have a proper road car and a proper track car and enjoy both in their chosen place.

My experience is more rallying and karting both of which have totally different demands on brakes as well as weight balance, you won't go very fast in rallying by being smooth like you have to on a track.

I totally agree with you that weight is the enemy of brakes especially on a track and with more of the weight over one axle doesn't help, but that is why the RS4 and RS6 were fitted with their type of suspension system which eliminates dive under hard braking and maintaining balance over all four contract surfaces. The only reason for a car to be nerves under braking is worn tyres, poor brake pads/discs or the wrong brake balance set-up. To say the RS4 is nerves when braking might yet some of the boys a wee bit angry to say the least.