Motor trend tests the R8

[nyrs6]

R8 VS Porsche 911

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...11/photos.html

The numbers are a little bit dissapointing.

[Fab]

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]

The numbers are a little bit dissapointing.

Why is that? What were you expecting?

RB

[ZCD2.7T]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The numbers are dissapointing, hardly an improvement over the RS4.

[Geist]

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!

[tazsura]

EVO gave R8 5 Stars - woohoo!

Taz

[Leadfoot]

EVO gave R8 5 Stars - woohoo!

Taz

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

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".

[ZCD2.7T]

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.

[BSR]

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.

Not just on this board.

RB

[Leadfoot]

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.

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.

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.

[M!]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

[SoCal]

Stop for a moment.

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.

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.