Future RS Cars: Opinions

[Ritchy]

We'll see....The reason of my 365HP suggestion:



Not too much, not to worry TT-RS owners, but enough to make it "special" and make customers buy an allready old fashioned car.

[RXBG]

You need to listen better. When Qisha suggests an in-line 5-cylinder engine with 415 bhp mated to a 7- or 8-speed DSG box within a 3,300 lbs chassis he isn't speculating but prophesying!!!! He has yet to be wrong, unlike the rest of us.

An RS3 with that amount of power will be mind-boggling. I just hope it doesn't cost too much.

i don't think that 415 hp engine is going to be the RS3's.

[Damienr8]

i don't think that 415 hp engine is going to be the RS3's.

Agreed. I think the RS3 is going to have the 2.5 5cyl bumped to 350hp.

[Joker]

You need to listen better. When Qisha suggests an in-line 5-cylinder engine with 415 bhp mated to a 7- or 8-speed DSG box within a 3,300 lbs chassis he isn't speculating but prophesying!!!! He has yet to be wrong, unlike the rest of us.

An RS3 with that amount of power will be mind-boggling. I just hope it doesn't cost too much.

Are you sure that Qisha isn't referring to this.




If the RS5 weighs 1725kg (3795lbs) that would mean a drop over it of 225Kgs which is in line with what the magazines were suggesting.

[Benman]

An RS3 with that amount of power will be mind-boggling. I just hope it doesn't cost too much.

Well, I wouldn't bet on it being cheap.

Ben

[Spillies]

And 8 speed S-tronic is useless, even 7 is a bit too much IMO.

²²

When you're on the highway and there is someone posing next to you -> you'll do a kickdown to let the person next to you see the back of your car.
But he'll have to downshift 4-5 times cause of the 8 speed gearbox -> the reaction will not be mindblowing on the guy next to you.

A 6 speed S-tronic is enough, when I'm driving at 120km/h (75m/h) in 6th he is around 2000rmp I think and when you are accelerating he shifts at +250 to 6th, so I don't see why adding more speeds?

[artur777]

Dear Qisha,

I think that the main thing Audi should do is to meet its client expectations.

RS5 is a nice car but with old engine and too heavy..
RS6 is a way too heavy
R8 is built with an old gearbox and NA motors

RS cars are nice but looks like they are 2-3 years behind the competition.
You should be on the top edhe of it.

We will see next M5 very soon and it will be ahead of competition for 2-3 years again.
Porsche 911 Turbo PDK is also ahead of R8 V10
next M3 will ne ahead of RS5.

By the time we see new RS models from Audi we see more progressive models from tje competitors.
911 Turbo PDK, new M5, new S55 AMG will be all ahead.

All other things are very nice with RS cars.
So the main idea -is to be ahead not behind. You should launch RS cars 2-3 years earlier than you do it now...
May be the idea to build RS cars at the regular lines will help this...

Good luck, guys

[tailpipe]

Are you sure that Qisha isn't referring to this.




If the RS5 weighs 1725kg (3795lbs) that would mean a drop over it of 225Kgs which is in line with what the magazines were suggesting.

Yes, of course, I forgot about this.

Returning to the the main topic of this thread, I think Artur777 has summed up our collective thoughts very well. Quattro does indeed produce excellent cars, but they are always behind the curve, not predicting it. Audi should have developed a reduced capacity V8 way before now. And the RS5 should certainly have had a twin turbo version of it.

He's right about weight reduction too. The RS6 is a behemoth: way too big, powerful and heavy. By the time it was launched, the V10 had long been consigned to history.

I'd very much like to see a standard A4 with an aluminium chassis. With the B8, I was hoping for a front wheel drive chassis where the engine was fully behind the front axle. I realise that this would have required a very different quattro set up, but i expect innovation from Audi. The B8 just didn't seem to be the big step forward that Ingolstadt promise it would be. I also thought the styling was rather dull. Perhaps the most unforgivable thing is that a Golf VI has more rear leg room.

What I'm saying is that you can't make a good RS car without having a very good starting platform. So I hope Audi is focusing on the B9 A4 and that it will be superb.

[PANZER]

I don't know exactly how it is today but i think that you could deactivate the ESP & Traction contols completly if you wanted to do some more active driving on a track ect.

I been waiting for the RS3 to come out for some time now i think that it can fit my needs as my next car.
But i want to have the choice to pick a 3 door or a Sportback ,i would choose a 3 door because i think the Sportback looks to long like a small estate the 3 door is much nicer.
And of course you should have a choice to pick which gearbox to have i want a manual.

But i do think that Audi should look at how their AWD systems work their cars need to be more lively more fun to drive.
Audi should look at Mitsubishis Evo and Subarus AWD their cars are much more fun to drive and not as prone as Audis to understeer and easyer to drift sideways ect.
Maybe Audi can do something similar as Mitsubishi and Subaru and incorperate a electronic centerdiff that you can set to more rear baised AWD and togheter with the torque vector system the Audi's can be much more fun cars to drive.

Other than that the RS cars needs to loose weight and the engines should be Turbocharged and of course with more power.

[KresoF1]

Yes, of course, I forgot about this.

Returning to the the main topic of this thread, I think Artur777 has summed up our collective thoughts very well. Quattro does indeed produce excellent cars, but they are always behind the curve, not predicting it. Audi should have developed a reduced capacity V8 way before now. And the RS5 should certainly have had a twin turbo version of it.

He's right about weight reduction too. The RS6 is a behemoth: way too big, powerful and heavy. By the time it was launched, the V10 had long been consigned to history.

I'd very much like to see a standard A4 with an aluminium chassis. With the B8, I was hoping for a front wheel drive chassis where the engine was fully behind the front axle. I realise that this would have required a very different quattro set up, but i expect innovation from Audi. The B8 just didn't seem to be the big step forward that Ingolstadt promise it would be. I also thought the styling was rather dull. Perhaps the most unforgivable thing is that a Golf VI has more rear leg room.

What I'm saying is that you can't make a good RS car without having a very good starting platform. So I hope Audi is focusing on the B9 A4 and that it will be superb.

Hmm.... I respectfully disagree here with you.

IMHO problem is that normal S models become very, very good. Current S5 SB and S4 are actually an excellent cars(with S tronic). When you drive new RS5 you do not feel any more torque then in S5 SB, in fact S5 SB feels more beefy. After inital problems with fuel consumption(ECU setup related with is normal for new engine and gearbox, Audi fine tuned S5 SB, S5 Cabrio and S4 for MY2011) which are solved S5 SB and S4 are now running as good as ever. Fully equiped S5 SB is over 25000€ cheaper in Germany then RS5 which makes it a bargin IMHO.

IMO Audi needs to diferentiate RS models much more then currently from S models in the future.

[tailpipe]

Kreso,

That's very interesting. I didn't know that S4, S5 and S5 Sportback had been modified. Can you explain more about what changes have been implemented.

Actually, I don't disagree with you. You're right, the S4 and S5 models are very good, even if the B8 chassis is less than perfect. Quattro and other electronic driver aids overcome many of its limitations. That said, I've been very impressed by the latest Benz C-Class. The C63 is an amazing machine. The basic RWD architecture is very well sorted. It offered much of what the RS5 provides in terms of V8 grunt 3 years ago. So I can't help feeling that the RS5 is very late to the party and not that much better than the S4 or indeed the S5 and S5 SB, as you point out. (I can't remember whether S5 sport back has V8 or S4's V6).

I don't know about you, but ever since the B6 S4 and B7 RS4 I have liked V8s. I couldn't get my head around the new S4 with it's V6, although of course this was a clever solution. What I really wanted was a V8 TT capable of delivering 30 mpg as well as thumping performance. I discovered that the new 4.0 litre TFSI was in development in 2008. I can't believe it has taken so long to come to market.

This engine should quickly establish itself as the best V8 offered by any manufacturer. I wonder whether Audi is worried about whether V8s are still politically acceptable in today's environmentally obsessed world.

[Ritchy]

I thought about a possible improvement while ordering this morning a Peugeot 5008 (my apologies...) for my wife.

The car comes with an head up display as standard (yes, just like in a airbus 380) ! one of many other examples, that we can not have on RS cars even with extras, at more than 100000 euros......

RS custumers are maybe also waiting for that.....

[KresoF1]

Kreso,

That's very interesting. I didn't know that S4, S5 and S5 Sportback had been modified. Can you explain more about what changes have been implemented.

Simply ECU was reprogrammed and network between S tronic and engine ECU works much faster and communicate better. End result? Better fuel consumption at lower working regimes.

[roadrunner]

... (I can't remember whether S5 sport back has V8 or S4's V6).

S5 SB has the V6

Cheers
seb.

[roadrunner]

[QUOTE=artur777;192257...
R8 is built with an old gearbox and NA motors
...
Porsche 911 Turbo PDK is also ahead of R8 V10
...
[/QUOTE]

Lot of your other points - agree BUT R8 only "shortcomming" is the lack of a s-tronic gearbox.
But if you drive it, especially the V10, the R-tronic annoience evaporates after a few meters.
And I never missed a Turbo, au contraire: loved and love the V10 (sound, torque, drivability, performance)

And I don't care if the R8 is 0,2 sec slower (vs. 911 Turbo on paper). There is much more to it than pure figures...

[Benman]

And I don't care if the R8 is 0,2 sec slower (vs. 911 Turbo on paper). There is much more to it than pure figures...

A great comment and so true for performance cars period.

Ben

[RXBG]

dsg is necessary from the tech/salesmanship point of view. afaik the R8 needs two things- 300 lbs less weight and a state of the art quattro system. the current V10 is easily a 600 hp motor.

[Benman]

afaik the R8 needs two things- 300 lbs less weight and a state of the art quattro system. the current V10 is easily a 600 hp motor.

Besides dumping the V10 for the V8 (the most cost effective way to lose weight), they would have to pump up the price by using more exotic materials. Cabonfiber and titanium vs the current aluminum.

I doubt hardly any current customers would be willing to sacrifice the luxuries that are expected in such a grand tourer. All except the diehards that want the GT!