New Audi RS5 - Twin Turbo 4.2L V8 (450 HP!)
10-01-2009, 09:41 AM
#32
Originally Posted by exb00st,Oct 1 2009, 11:13 AM
IMO, neither engines (S5 or 335) are impressive (stock). The N54 is a motor designed 15+ years after the VG (300ZX TT), 6G72 (3000GT VR-4) and 2JZ (Supra TT) and produces about the same #s.
Also, the N54 is underrated from the factory. Either way, 300 hp and 300 ft-lbs is nothing to sneeze at in a family sedan for $45K.
10-01-2009, 09:44 AM
#33
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 1 2009, 11:41 AM
Sounds like you can now buy a (used to be) sports car engine in a family sedan body for about 75% of the cost of the cars you mentioned.
Also, the N54 is underrated from the factory. Either way, 300 hp and 300 ft-lbs is nothing to sneeze at in a family sedan for $45K.
Also, the N54 is underrated from the factory. Either way, 300 hp and 300 ft-lbs is nothing to sneeze at in a family sedan for $45K.
Plus the N54 is prob. more fuel efficient, and I doubt those older engines would meet current emissions stds.
10-01-2009, 09:49 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care if it has 1000HP Audi ''S'' cars are always numb, overweight and have no driver feedback.
They are nice GT cars but that's it.
I'll take an M car over this.
They are nice GT cars but that's it.
I'll take an M car over this.
10-01-2009, 09:59 AM
#35
Originally Posted by al4t1gbundy,Oct 1 2009, 11:29 AM
Am I missing something? 4.2L V8 TT and 450hp?
10-01-2009, 11:30 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 335 is rated worse for MPG in the city (17/26) but better on the highway. It is not more fuel efficient than a 300ZX TT, VR-4 or Supra TT (all 18/24). Don't know about emissions.
The N54 is underrated at 300 HP, when they usually dyno about 270-275 WHP, which is about 330 HP, about 10 HP off the earlier mentioned cars (besides the Z) and performing the same in the 1/4 and 0-60.
That being said, I still stand by my point that this motor is not impressive. The same $ in mods on the Supra or VR-4 would also net mid to high 12s.
The N54 is underrated at 300 HP, when they usually dyno about 270-275 WHP, which is about 330 HP, about 10 HP off the earlier mentioned cars (besides the Z) and performing the same in the 1/4 and 0-60.
That being said, I still stand by my point that this motor is not impressive. The same $ in mods on the Supra or VR-4 would also net mid to high 12s.
10-01-2009, 11:46 AM
#37
the N54 is a much better engine. its not about the peak figures, it weighs a lot less than a VG or a 2JZ, and there is another term called "power under the curve" which I think should play a role.
10-01-2009, 12:58 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by budgy,Oct 1 2009, 12:46 PM
the N54 is a much better engine. its not about the peak figures, it weighs a lot less than a VG or a 2JZ, and there is another term called "power under the curve" which I think should play a role.
The N54 weighs 30 lbs less than a 2JZ or a 6G72. Do you consider that a lot?
10-01-2009, 01:02 PM
#39
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RS5 should be simple for Audi - I don't know why they're making it so difficult.
The S5 is already better looking than the GTR, has a nicer interior and is a premium badge.
After looking at the pictures I'll agree thats just an "RS" bumper on an otherwise stock S5. So...
Audi has the RS6 in Europe. For those that don't know its powered by a twin turbo V10 that produces 580HP. Stuff that into an S5, new front/rear bumpers, flared rear quarters, bigger wheels/brakes and a solid 6M to back it up = GTR/M3/Whatever killer at 85K USD. If they must use the V8 for emission/cost reasons, then so be it - but it needs to be 500hp minimum. Imagine if it came rated at 500hp and put down 500AWHP.
Oh yes.
The S5 is already better looking than the GTR, has a nicer interior and is a premium badge.
After looking at the pictures I'll agree thats just an "RS" bumper on an otherwise stock S5. So...
Audi has the RS6 in Europe. For those that don't know its powered by a twin turbo V10 that produces 580HP. Stuff that into an S5, new front/rear bumpers, flared rear quarters, bigger wheels/brakes and a solid 6M to back it up = GTR/M3/Whatever killer at 85K USD. If they must use the V8 for emission/cost reasons, then so be it - but it needs to be 500hp minimum. Imagine if it came rated at 500hp and put down 500AWHP.
Oh yes.
10-01-2009, 01:45 PM
#40
Originally Posted by exb00st,Oct 1 2009, 01:30 PM
The 335 is rated worse for MPG in the city (17/26) but better on the highway. It is not more fuel efficient than a 300ZX TT, VR-4 or Supra TT (all 18/24). Don't know about emissions.
The N54 is underrated at 300 HP, when they usually dyno about 270-275 WHP, which is about 330 HP, about 10 HP off the earlier mentioned cars (besides the Z) and performing the same in the 1/4 and 0-60.
That being said, I still stand by my point that this motor is not impressive. The same $ in mods on the Supra or VR-4 would also net mid to high 12s.
The N54 is underrated at 300 HP, when they usually dyno about 270-275 WHP, which is about 330 HP, about 10 HP off the earlier mentioned cars (besides the Z) and performing the same in the 1/4 and 0-60.
That being said, I still stand by my point that this motor is not impressive. The same $ in mods on the Supra or VR-4 would also net mid to high 12s.
I don't see how you can criticize the car or the motor, quite honestly.
The BMW is $15K cheaper (dollar to adjusted dollar) than a Supra and at least $7K cheaper than the other two (maybe more). That's a lot less money and the BMW is easily upgraded to 340 hp and 400 ft-lbs torque for very little money. It's a 12s car as well, with moderate mods.