Audi RS6 revealed

[GilesGuthrie]

The Cayenne isn't marketed as a sports car. The R8 and RS6 are incredibly similar. One's a wagon, one's a coupe, yet both remain sports cars.


I used the SLR as an example.


The automatic is not made a negative because it's being an automatic. It's a negative, because an Auto hurts performance times. The SLR has the potential to be faster than a Carrera GT. However, critics despise the car's transmissions because the Auto shifts when it wants to, not when the driver knows is best.


More is not better. That's the typical American manufacturer view. Throw 100 horses on it, slightly tweak it, and call it new. Thankfully, this Audi's got a bit of distance between the old RS6, but the thinking is slightly similar.

Germany is not locked in a massive horsepower battle because the Germans do not rely on power. They rely on suspension and braking technology. Look at every European sports car. Gallardo at 520, E63 AMG at 514, R8 at 420bhp, 911 Turbo at 480, F430 at 483, and the GT3 at 415Bhp.

Now, look at the RS6. 572horses. No one is that range because no needs to be. Most of the 600Hp cars are extremely high performance cars ranging in the $200,000-$500,000 range.


No, what you need to remember is that Audi didn't have a car like the R8 for sale at the same time.

I gurantee you, if Audi prices the RS6 in R8 territory, they can kiss those orders goodbye because folks will see a car with more room and performance for the same cost.

Big difference. The M5 Touring and the M6 run the same engine output leaving the deciding factor to be whether you want a wagon or a coupe, without getting major differences in performane.
The M6 and M5 Touring sit on an equal level.

The RS6 though with over a 100 horses more leaves you deciding if you really want the coupe, or the RS6 which will provide more of everything.
With the Audis, people will potentially lean towards the RS6 just because the performance will be better for, (assuming) the same price.

Your argument goes around in circles. You claim that the M5 Touring and M6 are not competitors because people want to choose styling and interior volume, and then you claim that R8 and RS6 are competitors because people will always by the larger car. You completely ignore styling preferences in your assessments of the two Audis.

I also think you make a dangerous assumption in claiming that the massive RS6 will offer the same driving experience as the R8. I quite carefully described the RS6 as a rocket sled in my previous post, because it's fairly apparent that a large estate with a massive engine up front is going to be annihilated on twisty roads by a less powerful, lighter, mid-engined car. R8 raised eyebrows at evo magazine for being 3s quicker round their track than another car (sadly I can't remember which) that had a near-identical power-to-weight ratio. It's far from certain whether the RS6 will offer "more performance" in the coupe space: it may be slightly faster in a straight line, but it will categorically not be faster around a track, in exactly the same way that the 500bhp Cayenne Turbo is not faster than the 380bhp 911 C2.

You're also forgetting that there are three Mercedes cars that are not McLarens that have over 600bhp.

And I really can't see how you can claim that Germany is not in a horsepower battle! The M5 jumped 100bhp between incarnations, the AMG Mercedes jumped 65bhp between '55 and '63 versions, and are about to jump again. The M3 jumps, on average 40bhp between versions. Each new version of each car is more powerful than the most powerful of the previous generation.

I grant that a few people with around £70,000 who are looking for a fast Audi may think that an RS6 is another alternative to an R8, but they'll be completely different cars, and so chosen on their own merits. You say "a huge percentage", I think you might be defining huge as 3%.

The model that will have its sales slapped by the RS6 is the S8.

 

[forza2.0]

The drive difference and the dynamics between the RS6 and R8 are huge. Ones two tonnes with the engine up front. The other is 1500kg with a mid positioned engine and a low center of gravity. The R8 has shown up alot of cars with more power or similiar power around the race track, that is the R8's purpose, to be a excellent drive and be sexy.

The RS6 is for a man who has a family or likes his luxury and alot of space. A man who spends alot of his time driving on motorways, who wishes with a blip of the throttle to pretty much annahilate any other car in a straight.

Your comparison is like saying a 300hp 4 door lotus would take sales from a 150hp lotus elise. It just would not happen, and like I said before the R8 is completely sold out for the next year, and the RS6 has already got its own strong fanbase. Really you are the only guy I have seen anywhere saying that the RS6 could takes sales from the R8.

As for the horsepower war it is real. Its was pretty damn obvious that audi would outpower the competion with this car as thats the whole aim of bringing out the new model Even if its just by 1HP, the manufacturer thats coming out with a new halo car needs to be more powerful than the competition, as otherwise they would have failed.

Now, look at the RS6. 572horses. No one is that range because no needs to be. Most of the 600Hp cars are extremely high performance cars ranging in the $200,000-$500,000 range.

Mercedes CL65
Mercedes SL65

Both 600hp are they not, and the next E63 AMG will have near around 600hp also, and no doubt that the next M5 will do too.

 

[forza2.0]

*RUMOUR*

Here are the numbers from the last test Audi did on the RS6 Avant:

- stopping distance is 37.3m, so yes it is slightly better than the M5 and E63 wagons
- there is no fade after 86 laps at nordschleife !
- 100-0kph in 2.3sec
- 0-100kph in 3.83sec
- 0-100kph of 4.07sec in WET CONDITIONS

P.S. Then why on earth write 4.6!?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

*RUMOUR*

Here are the numbers from the last test Audi did on the RS6 Avant:

- stopping distance is 37.3m, so yes it is slightly better than the M5 and E63 wagons
- there is no fade after 86 laps at nordschleife !
- 100-0kph in 2.3sec
- 0-100kph in 3.83sec
- 0-100kph of 4.07sec in WET CONDITIONS

P.S. Then why on earth write 4.6!?

vag always under rate the performance of their cars(insurence reasons i think)

apprently with a remap it will be good for 700bhp

 

[Scaff]

*RUMOUR*

Here are the numbers from the last test Audi did on the RS6 Avant:

- stopping distance is 37.3m, so yes it is slightly better than the M5 and E63 wagons
- there is no fade after 86 laps at nordschleife !
- 100-0kph in 2.3sec
- 0-100kph in 3.83sec
- 0-100kph of 4.07sec in WET CONDITIONS

P.S. Then why on earth write 4.6!?

I always treat manufacturers 'claimed' figures with a lot of caution (no matter who the manufacturers are), so while interesting I await independent figures for anything firm.

That said I would like to comment on a few things, firstly stopping distancing and times, as long as the cars brake bias is well set-up it becomes principally a factor of the tyres fitted. Take a look at any of Autocar's 0-100-0 tests and you will see that for road legal tyres braking times are all very, very similar.

The no fade after after 86 laps at Nordschleife I find very, very, very hard to believe. If the car was being driven in anger that's one hell of a workload on any braking set-up. To say I'm quite sceptical about this would be a massive understatement.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

The no fade after after 86 laps at Nordschleife I find very, very, very hard to believe. If the car was being driven in anger that's one hell of a workload on any braking set-up. To say I'm quite sceptical about this would be a massive understatement.


Regards

Scaff

i thought that too but thinking about it,theres no way it could carry enough fuel or the tyres to last 86 laps.so while changing the tyres or driving to the nearest petrol station it might allow the brakes to cool enough.

 

[forza2.0]

Agreed on both parts. Since sticking Eagle F1's on my car it stops so much quicker than it did compared to my much harder compound tires.

 

[m7ammed]

No brakes would survive after 86 laps of the Ring I would think , and especially something that weight 2+ tons

 

[YSSMAN]

A 0-62 MPH time of 3.8 seconds, in a station wagon? I do find it a bit harder to believe, particularly with the competition all lingering around the mid four second mark. I'm sure the transmission didn't like that, much less the tires, which don't seem to be stock either.

I'd shove the performance smack in the middle of the M5 Estate and E63 Estate performance times for now... When they hand the car off to Top Gear, Car and Driver, Automobile, and CAR, we'll take their word for it...

 

[Tornado]

I do find it a bit harder to believe, particularly with the competition all lingering around the mid four second mark.

The old RS6 (the 450 horse model) had a mid 4 second 0-60 range. I don't think adding over 120 BHP will make it stay much the same. 3.8 sounds fast, but not more than a couple tenths so.

 

[YSSMAN]

Very true. I'd guess in the 4.0-4.2 second range on a good day with "real" street tires, given the performance of the other two.

 

[TheCracker]

Very true. I'd guess in the 4.0-4.2 second range on a good day with "real" street tires, given the performance of the other two.

The other two are rear drive, the RS6 is AWD - that makes a hell of a difference when trying to get 500+bhp down off the line. Sub 4 seconds, IMO, is totally possible for the RS6.