2007 Audi RS 4 -- GOOD GOD!
This is one of those cars with powers that border on ludicrous. It's not the 420 horsepower, 4.5 second zero-to-60 time or .89Gs of lateral grip that make it nonsensical, it's the ability to do all this while carrying four passengers, weighing almost 4,000 lbs and providing all-wheel-grip during inclement weather. I happen to be driving it during the latter, which initially had me quite frustrated. Then I realized that driving the car during varying levels of rainfall was the best possible environment for uncovering its advantages over comparable sport sedans. Sure enough, I was soon piloting the car nearly as aggressively as I would on bone dry pavement (how many other sport sedans can I say that about?).
The high points with the RS 4 are, as you might expect, the broad torque band from the 4.2-liter V8 (with addictive exhuast note), the tremendous at-the-limit confidence it inspires (in any weather condition) and the high-quality interior with super-snuggly front seats that keep you in place when pushing nearly a G around corners. If I were to nit pick I'd mention the almost too-responsive engine and how much work is required for a smooth launch and 1-2 upshift. The engine has such light internals/flywheel that it both revs and stops revving very quickly. This gives little room for error when coordinating throttle and clutch movement (think Porsche Carrera GT, though not quite that bad). However, if this is the price you pay for having such a responsive V8 then here's my credit card number.
I keep getting confused about which AWD system Audi is using on what vehicle. Is the RS4's a true full time system like what Audi uses on the other A4's?
On some Audis like the A3, don't they use the Haldex system, which is more of a "reactive" AWD system in that it doesn't supply AWD until the wheels are actually slipping?
Kurt- it's a full time system with a default rear axle bias. A FWD based on demand system would not be able to reliably apply that much power although there are FWD transaxles that can handle more torque than the RS4 produces.
I must say that the car looks darn good with those beautiful rims and fender flares. Although in standard A4 flavor, it looks "scruntched" because of the short wheelbase and high beltline, the RS4 looks darn near intimidating (which is good in my book). When I played Gran Turismo back in the day on PS2, I had a souped up S4 with like 620hp, lol.
"How many other sport sedans can I say that about?" You could maybe say the same about the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and Subaru Impreza WRX STI. Granted, they won't provide nearly the same level of refinement as the Audi RS4. It'd be cool to see how they stack up against each other at a wet Streets of Willow, Big Willow, or Buttonwillow.
I forgot to mention the Subaru Legacy GT. I think Rex might have something to say too. :o)
Actually, one of the european mags did wet weather testing of the M3 v. the RS4 and found...the M3 could be driven faster and harder in the inclement conditions. They felt Audi's safety nannies made the car too subdued and robbed the car of power.
And at 66k base, with 2100 gas guzzler tax, the car breaks 68k. 14/20 mpg from it too. For almost 70k I expect far more than other luxury cars that cost 25k less. A 335i with sport, leather will run in the low 40s and you'll get 19/29 mpg.
RS4 performance to dollar ratio is outa whack.
THe price on the RS4 is the only problem. It's pretty steep and is likely to cost more than the new M3 and CTS-V. While the RS4 offers AWD and has a better interior than the current CTS-V it costs a lot more and basically delivers the same performance and worse mileage. It will be interesting to see it compared to IS-F and CTS-V when they are available. I'm sure the IS-F is going to undercut the RS4 by a large margin in pricing but the styling is quite unsophisticated.
Doesn't matter how much powah they put in that thing. What is more important (outside straightline acceleration) is balance and weight. The Audi has 4000lbs, with heavy front end bias.The new M3 is gonna eat it alive with it's upcoming V8, less weight and 50/50 distribution.
I'm guessing the Mistu Evo will ring its bell too.
Karl, now you know why I'm such an AWD fan.
I first discovered the magic of AWD in my 1991 Stealth R/T twin turbo (I first discovered the magic of turbos with my 1987 and 1989 Dodge Shelby CSXs). On Sony's Gran Turismo game I'm always buying either a 3000 GT VR4 or Evolution as my basic "workhorse" car when I'm first trying to earn money and trophies because they are just so much easier to drive fast.
LOVE AWD!
Funny, AWD to me feels odd. Admittedly, I've never driven some of the newer RWD bias systems but I have beat on older (early 2000s) A4 Quattro, 03 WRX, 06 Mazdapseed6 and the exceptionally awful X3 3.0 with manuals. I've heard the newer STi AWD will bite you in corners and that might be fun but for the most part the AWD cars I've driven always seem heavy, disinclined toward cornering and prone to an odd "binding" feel in corners...as if the drivetrain can't figure out what to do with the wheels.
From clips of the Evo it could be quite a bit of fun - especially that youtube clip with the Evo busting a Murcielago on Top Gear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y6lIaGZA4w
Turn-in is definitely different with AWD.
I think in the '90s it was set to become the new standard for sports cars (with the Stealth/3000GT as an indicator), but traction control / stability control saved RWD's behind. Now that power levels are really getting out of hand, we're seeing it again. The 911 turbo is probably the most significant validation out there.
The 1991 Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo used to be my favorite car when I was a kid (I think I have the Dodge brochure with the red one on the cover buried somewhere at home)...until the 1993 fourth-gen Chevrolet Camaro Z28 came out. I can't remember the last time I saw a Stealth R/T Turbo on the road was. :( Seeing Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4s on the road are a little more common though.
The Audi RS-4 is a dream car! Yes, is expensive and heavy. The 0 - 60 times is close to the MitsuEvo and Suby WRX STI which are great cars and cheaper. AWD always is going to have an advantage on bad weather or dirt roads. To drive an AWD car you have to change your driving style from FWD & RWD. The Audi RS-4 is the development child from the BRUTAL 1980'S AUDI SPORT S-2 GROUP B RALLY CAR 520 HP with not a whole lot aids to control the car. They claim that car did 0 - 62 mph in 3.5 seconds!
I agree with all the claims made to the RS4 except the one about carrying four passengers. The two up front should be fine, but when I sat in the back of the RS4, I remember the back being extremely cramped with almost no toe or foot room. I'm 5"11 and my knees were right up against the seatbacks. So you could carry four passengers I guess, but if they were adults they'd be complaining within minutes. The back seat to me seemed like a small child area.
To me, the best part of the car is the interior. The carbon fiber trim is beautiful and I couldnt stop running my fingers on it. The shifter also looks and feels great.
Top gear has a review on the RS4 vs M3cl and the Audi kills it on the track by a large margin. And Tiff doesn't know how to drive all wheel drive cars [he keeps trying to break late]
The BMW is a better drift car [who doesn't know this] but on a race track, it's about puting power down.Also, the driving "experience" in the CTS-V leaves a lot to be desired. The gear box is complete crap, and the steering wheel is from a bus. It's powerful but that's about it.
"Also, the driving "experience" in the CTS-V leaves a lot to be desired. The gear box is complete crap, and the steering wheel is from a bus. It's powerful but that's about it. "
That is a stupid statement, even for you. The CTS-V has great acceleration, lateral grip, braking and steering. It's got more than just power and anyone who has read up on or driven the car would know that. The manual tranny isn't the best, but with that much torque you dont have to do much shifting anyway. When the car first came out C&D did an informal comparison to the old M5 and the M3 at the track the CTS-V held its own and then some.
Your talking about numbers, and I'm talking about "driving experience"
I've driven it, and that was my experience."It's got so much tourque, you don't have to shift much"OK, who's the idiot now?
dhamilton,
Top Gear's fun to watch but I take all their stuff as infotainment, not truth - the piece with the Evo is funny but that's where it ends. Clarkson has a major anti-BMW bias and a major affinity for Audi/VW. He declared the GTI the perfect family car...
Sorry, I meant fifth gear. Anyone who thinks the RS4 is your typical under steering Audi has never been in the the car. The engineers have just about defied physics with this one.
Blueguy, do you think they tanked the race to put the Audi in a better light? Because like you, they aren't to fond of AWD in general, and Audi's specifically.
Also, Tift needell is a former F3, and F1 driver, so he has some experience [even though he doesn't understand that you don't late brake AWD cars]
"OK, who's the idiot now?"
No comment. Engines with broad torque curves typically dont require tons of shifting in everyday situations. Most V8 cars with manuals dont need 6 gears but have them for fuel economy reasons.
As I said, the reviews speak for themselves and they clearly state the car is a beast at the track. YOu can argue with C&D, MT and the rest if you chose but they seemed to be very impressed with the car. I notice that people like you are always resorting to the "you're talking about numbers, I'm talking experience" argument when they want to discredit a vehicle they dont like. Any car that gets to 60 in 4.6secs, pulls .9gs on the skipad and stops from 70 in 165 ft has to be doing something right. Most media outlets liked the "experience" provided by teh CTS-V. BTW, almost every manual transmission that isnt in a BMW or Honda gets criticized by the press and the CTS-V is no exception.
dhamilton,
Sorry, been through this before with people. I have zero idea who Tift is. Not a fan of racing or drivers. I only know who danica patrick is because she's been forced on the world. Beyond that...zero idea who any driver is. Not my bag.
I believe you that he lapped the M3. However, I've read wet weather testing with the Audi and the M3 where the Bimmer came out on top. They were astounded too but felt Audi's engineers made the car too safe.
Personally, I think the RS4 is attractive but for that kinda crazy coin and considering it's far newer than the ancient e46 M3, I'm not impressed.
Just because a race car driver says something is the best, doesn't necessarily make it so. they can have biases too. A little anecdote, related to motobikes not cars, but I think you can get the point... A year or so ago a major US motobike mag had an ex Kawisaki racer (who was a world champion in his time) perform the latest head to head testing of the then current crop of superbikes. Guess what, Kawi came on top. All other mags across the globe, some with ex racers too, had other bikes as the best.
So, believe what ya want, all this stuff basically is infotainment!
Sure, but I'll take a race-car-driver-turned-professional-reviewer's word over that of some guy posting in the same forum that I post in, and just as serious as that of any other professional review.
carlisimo, there we part ways. I don't believe a word of what "professional" reviewers write expressly because their interpretation is often so far afield of my views. People lauded the CTS and my experience in that car always results in revulsion followed by unbridled laughter at the notion the CTS is considered competition for anything beyond yhe Grand Marquis. Mag reviewers commended the car; I can't trust them. They've got bills to pay and that means bending over for manufacturers...
All of us have bills to pay, so we become experts in something. That makes our opinions in our fields more important than laymen's, doesn't it? The way our society is set up, you just can't be "an expert" in anything without being in that industry and making your living off it (it's hard, anyway).
In college I had professors who were involved in the push for new levies, or an alternate Bay Bridge design, or a bond to reinforce the local subway tunnel under the Bay. They consult on the side, so I'm sure there was money in their stances... but at the same time, no one in the world knows as much as they do about their respective specialties. I had to at least hear them out...
With cars it's different than with civil engineering, but I'd still trust, say, Karl, based on his experience and what he's written. And if it wasn't his career, then I don't see why I'd have any reason to trust him.
so if you don'y believe anyone "professional" why do you believe the M3 can be driven harder in the rain?
dhamilton, I found the article interesting. I didn't say it was gospel. given my distaste for AWD, it was easy for me to find enjoyment reading that a RWD car was more fun to drive in the slick than the vaunted (and highly overrated) audi quattro system.
Carlisimo, many people make a living doing work they are not qualified to perform; they're certainly not experts. Most car salesmen, for example, haven't the foggiest notion about cars but they're salesmen, so they know how to deceive people into products. I've watched plenty of trial attorneys flounder about in the courtroom; the degree allows them to defend people, their incompetence and lack of trial skills make them a liability for their defendants. Most the jokers working in the tech industry seem to have found their way into the job based on friendship and family connections, not viable skills.
How one makes a living only proves one can pass in that field...