Interesting fact regarding the Audi RS cars

[TW]Fox · 1 Jul 2007 at 23:01

Some of you will already know this, but as I only recently found out, I thought it might be worth mentioning.

Audi will only ever have a single RS model in production at any one time - this is why the RS4 production ended before RS6 began, for example.

EU production of the RS4 saloon has now ceased - only US production remains until the Autumn when Audi will begin production of the next RS6.

So there we go. Handy little thing to remember when you see OMG NEXT RS5 splattered on magazines or what have you.

I wonder if this policy Audi have is forced by production constraints, or is a marketing choice to retain the rarity value and excellent residuals enjoyed by the RS series?

I mean, how much is a 2001 M3 worth compared to a 2001 RS4..

Adz · 1 Jul 2007 at 23:04

I wonder how the RS6 will compare to the M5... and what it will cost!

olv · 2 Jul 2007 at 00:10

wonder why they've never done a mental RS3 or RS TT. 300+bhp tt would be a laugh

Dolph · 2 Jul 2007 at 00:17

olv said:
wonder why they've never done a mental RS3 or RS TT. 300+bhp tt would be a laugh

The A3 is too small if you only have one such uber model in the range. I love my S3, but if I had a family or something, an RS4 would be much more practical than an RS3...

olv · 2 Jul 2007 at 00:21

they could do them all though, spread over the life cycles of the range surely?

The_Dark_Side · 2 Jul 2007 at 00:49

[TW]Fox said:
I mean, how much is a 2001 M3 worth compared to a 2001 RS4..

wasn't the RS4 always a fair bit more expensive than the M3 to begin with though?

value expressed as a percentage of the original purchase price would be a better indicator.

1ofaKind · 2 Jul 2007 at 09:54

Autocar had spy shots of the new RS6 at the ring I think. Supposedly twin turbo V10 550+bhp.

penski · 2 Jul 2007 at 10:04

The RS5/6 should have the gallardo V10 by all accounts.

as for an RS3/TT...I don't know.

one one hand, where can they take the platform other than the R32 setup?

on the other, a truly hot 3 would be nice.

*n

[TW]Fox · 2 Jul 2007 at 10:19

The S3 is already easily hot enough for the type of car it is - 0-60 in 5.6 seconds in a 3 door hatchback is quite enough.

Wayn0r · 2 Jul 2007 at 10:30

pretty sensible strategy really.

Dolph · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:00

[TW]Fox said:
The S3 is already easily hot enough for the type of car it is - 0-60 in 5.6 seconds in a 3 door hatchback is quite enough.

What's more it's quick beyond that, 0-100 is 13.9secs for example... It's significantly quicker than it's closest rivals (the 130i and the R32)

Wayn0r · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:17

didnt the s3 come with a slightly tweaked version of the TT engine, which was a slightly tweaked version of the r32 one?

I know the tt came with 10hp more than the r32, and i think the s3 had a slight advantage over that.

olv · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:23

nah S3 is 2.0T, ~260bhp.

twin turbo v6 in the tt or a3, that's what they should be doing

Dolph · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:24

Wayn0r said:
didnt the s3 come with a slightly tweaked version of the TT engine, which was a slightly tweaked version of the r32 one?

I know the tt came with 10hp more than the r32, and i think the s3 had a slight advantage over that.

The S3 has the 2.0 TFSI engine, same as the Golf GTi, although with strengthed internals, a larger turbo and a different intercooler. Puts out 261bhp as standard. The old S3 was a 1.8T

It was in a group test last month in Evo against the 130i, the Mazda 3 MPS and the Alfa Bera, and was a fair bit quicker than all three. It also beat the R32's time round their test track (the previous fastest hot hatch) by 2 seconds.

Wayn0r · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:31

ahh sorry i thought you were talking about 'real' engines, the v6

panthro · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:37

Dolph said:
The S3 has the 2.0 TFSI engine, same as the Golf GTi, although with strengthed internals, a larger turbo and a different intercooler. Puts out 261bhp as standard. The old S3 was a 1.8T

It was in a group test last month in Evo against the 130i, the Mazda 3 MPS and the Alfa Bera, and was a fair bit quicker than all three. It also beat the R32's time round their test track (the previous fastest hot hatch) by 2 seconds.

There wasnt hardly anything in it between the MPS and the S3, the S3 edged it slightly, but in some of the in-gear times recorded the MPS was quicker. But the S3 was quicker than the Brera (not surprised) and the 130i.

[TW]Fox · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:42

panthro said:
There wasnt hardly anything in it between the MPS and the S3

If there 'wasn't hardly anything' in it, then logically, there must been something. Double negatives are annoying and make you look daft.

Dolph · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:51

panthro said:
There wasnt hardly anything in it between the MPS and the S3, the S3 edged it slightly, but in some of the in-gear times recorded the MPS was quicker. But the S3 was quicker than the Brera (not surprised) and the 130i.

I'd disagree with edged it slightly...

0-60

Alfa 7.2
S3 5.6
130i 6.1
MPS 6.1

0-100

Alfa 19.1
S3 13.6
130i 15.3
MPS 14.3

Looking through the ingear times they are closer, with the MPS equalling or just beating the S3 much of the time, but that doesn't include through gear acceleration...

Dolph · 2 Jul 2007 at 11:52

Wayn0r said:
ahh sorry i thought you were talking about 'real' engines, the v6

Nah, we're talking about quick engines

Wayn0r · 2 Jul 2007 at 12:02

Dolph said:
Nah, we're talking about quick engines

meh, silly 4 pots, the 3.2 VR6 is so highly under-tuned, it could run at 250 forever