RI A6

They can choose to change this, but they have not, nor have they even announced the possibility of an RS5.

I agree with you. Audi can choose to do whatever they want with production. They could even choose to produce cars in the US. But we just cannot count on that for the RS5, which is an unannounced potential product. All we have are a few Photoshop pictures and a test mule that looks like an S5, but is reported to possibly be an RS5.

Personally, I hope they produce it ... assuming they don't screw up the driving dynamics like it appears they have on the S5, if we are to belive some early feedback.

RI A6

You are accusing me of concealing facts under some false pretense, which is the meaning of dissemble?

Hardly! You know me better than that. It wasn't until I started looking at the 1/4 mile times that it made sense. That explains most differences by itself. It's real easy to see another 5 to 10% power loss in an NA motor.

But still the fact is, given equal power, the car that puts more power to the wheels will win. Trap speed (on a good run) is the most reliable indicator of wheel horsepower.

daveak05

they know that if they are going to have more models, and offer RS versions, that they need addtl capacity. in the auto industry, you can't afford to wait. kiss of death.

anyway, let's hope they do, like you said. gotta go, Scott. have a good night.

daveak05

your argument was that equal HP/PTW, and then drivetrain losses for AWD, makes the AWD car the slower car, period. now you're trying to qualify it. i said that was a wrong assumption, and i stand by it.

you're not a Dr. too, are you? : )

RI A6

wheel spin can be controlled. A turbocharged car always has a power advantage when conditions are not perfect (which is most of the time). Again, show me an AWD car and a RWD car that are naturally aspirated and have the same power-to-weight ratio, and consistently the AWD car will be slower, on the average.

BTW, those 1/4 mile runs show that the driver makes a lot of the difference, and that the SMG makes a huge difference with the M3, showing that performance numbers are mostly all about getting a good launch.

Here's a good example. The 2005 M3 produces 333 HP, and has a curb weight of 3781 lbs, for a weight to power ratio of 11.35 lbs/HP.

The 2007 RS4 produces 414 HP, and has a curb weight of 3957 lbs, for a weight to power ratio of 9.56 lbs/HP.

On paper the RS4 has a power to weight ratio that is 16% better than the M3. However, as we know, the two are actually quite close. The best 1/4 mile time for the RS4 recorded is 12.88s @ 108 mph(I believe). Here's a very good time from a 2005 M3 with an SMG II transmission. 13.052s @ 107.84 mph.

If AWD did not make a difference, a 16% power to weight ratio difference should have translated into better elapsed and trap times than this. It doesn't because some additional power is lost in the drive line.<ul><li><a href="http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-M3-Timeslip-5454.html">2005 M3 1/4 mile time.</a></li></ul>

Silver Stealth

Putting in a V8, matching the horsepower figure, and more comfortable real world chassis tuning, a future four door sedan version.....hmm...what car did they really benchmark?

Nice to see BMW have to respond to Audi for once.

shamrok

Beemer = bike, Bimmer = car

Vijay

I don't see how we disagree. What are we disagreeing on?

sparkhill

Wonder why they listed the RS4 as having 18" wheels standard (like the M3)?

S4iowa

I noticed there are no US measurements there.