Kenny

Of course engine dimensions significantly alters the characteristic of a car...

According to your logic, Audi is wasting their time building the A6 4.2 V8, when the 2.7T delivers better 0-60 times costs significantly cheaper than the 540i and E430, yet is about $8k more than the 2.7T...If displacement didnt matter, An A4 2.8 V6 is almost a laughable idea when the TT can extract more horsepower out of the 225TT 1.8 turbo-4 version by simply adding a larger turbo and an additional intercooler.. Heck, everyone on here knows a chipped 2.7T can easily get 300hp..

Surely Audi can save at least $5k off the sticker on its upcoming S6, by opting to use a revamped 2.7T engine with larger turbos, rather than opting for a V8 which is harder to extract additional horsepower..

Do you think Mercedes or BMW doesn't build turbo cars because they don't know how?? BMW is one of the pioneers of turbo technology in the early 80's in formula racing winning world championships with their turbo F1 cars..

captainbilly

I really am asking, I have never heard all the reasoning pro/con on turbocharging except from a theoretical/engineering standpoint.

muhammadc

I didn't say Audi is wasting their time... or that BMW and MB can't make turbo cars. But what you said was that a smaller engine doesn't have the same level of refinement and performance characteristics as a larger one. If you have some real data to back that up, I'm interested.

People have their reasons for wanting NA engines with more displacement instead of smaller engines with turbos. But saying that the smaller engines with turbos don't offer the same level of refinement and performance characteristics is sure to cause a ruckus in here especially, considering the population is mostly 2.7T owners.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for NA engines with large displacement, but that there <b>is</b> a place for turbo powered cars, and just because the engines have smaller displacements doesn't mean they aren't as capable as the larger engines.

BTW, I for one would prefer an S6 with an RS4 2.7T engine to one with the 4.2 V8... on <b>that</b> car anyway. Plenty of people wouldn't, though... I suppose. We all have our opinions; I just don't see where you're coming from with the statement about refinement/performance of smaller, turbo engines.

Alec

Mercedes had turbo engines in versions of the C, and SLK, so "doesn't" might be too strong of a word.

Kenny

Consider the previous generation Saab 9000 Aero and Volvo 850 TR wagon to be not in the same class as the URS6 yet consider the previous generation M5 a close competitor??

The 9000 Aero and 850TR are dead even with the URS6 in engine displacement, Price, features, horsepower numbers, and acceleration times.. The E34 M5 has a larger displacement engine, RWD, and cost 1/3 more..

Kenny

It's a supercharger... not the same as turbo..

Alec

It is not a four cyl. at the bottom of a product range the top of which is a six? They have four and they add power to it without normal aspiration? I can get plastic seats in an Audi, a BMW, or a Mercedes. I koncede your point- it is a supercharger. I would not put Mercedes/ BMW in an exalted category (at all) nor would I generalize about Audi based on my experience of a 2.8 (or Avant) suspension but that's just me.

Alec

Why is RWD assumed to be inherently superior to FWD and AWD? Unless you wanted AWD, there would be no reason? For some, it would be the reason.

I like the S4 signature that shows the owner's car as the GENERAL LEE from the DUKES OF HAZARD show.
Very funny but this is why BMW gets its _ _ by the US press because Americans are predisposed to RWD.

You can't drive a BMW in the rain, in the snow, or at high speed with the control or FEEL of an Audi.
Audi is unique. It wipes Mercedes' nose in just about every way possible but nevermind.

BMW is inferior in design, style, build quality IMO but more than that an Audi at high speed is the BEST. Unless you wanted AWD is not like saying unless you wanted an AMC Eagle, for some strange reason...

I don't like BMWs. I agree they're the finest RWD driving cars and I don't think that they're all hype (at all) but I don't like them.

Audi, Auto Union, Volkswagen, Porsche. Inherently inferior luxury Volkswagens with slap on AWD? NO Kenny, no.

I know we like to be civilized, and I am capable of that, I think, and I know that we like to emphasise positive expereinces and work together in a conciliatory way for goal enhanced outcomes,Ok, but I wanted to say this. I will be quiet

SnowToy

I loved mine - will own another someday...assuming AoA is willing...

muhammadc

About the only thing the same is the engine size and horsepower...

The S6 does 0-60 in 6.0-6.1, while both the 850R and 9000 aero run in the 6.5-7.0 range, with stick... price isn't similar either. The S6 was $11k more than the 850R and about $9k more than the 9000 aero... M5 was $10k more than the S6 (1/5 more, not 1/3). M5 runs 0-60 in 5.8. Audi has quattro, and a level of build quality closer to BMW than the 850R and 9000 aero. I don't think a stock S6 is better than a stock M5, but I do think it is a fair comparison to put the S6 up against the M5, even though the price is lower and it has a smaller (turbo) engine.