[blue2fire]

As i keep on saying, to hell with the bloody ring. They should have come up with better ways to demonstrate the importance of lesser weight because even a 16 second gain over an 8 minute lap sounds very paltry.

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by footie

You haven't a clue have you, 8 seconds when all else is equal is exceptional. We aren't talking about the difference between bald tyres and brand new ones or tuning a car, we are talking about reducing the weight AND REDUCING THE OUTPUT. A drop of over 100hp in a car like the S5 and weighing the same would increase it ring time by a minimum of 8+ seconds, so basically the difference is the weight reduction is accounting for approximately 16 seconds and truth me that is HUGE.

IT WAS 8 SECONDS SLOWER THAN THE REGULAR S5, SO THAT'S THE BENCHMARK... Your 16 second number is BS because downgrading the engine isn't relevant, as its their fault they put a crappy powerplant that makes a measly 230bhp in the first place.

It's not impressive to reduce the output of the car, and give it a 4banger... Audi had to cut weight so the thing wasn't ridiculously slow. That's a step backwards. Dropping 800lbs is impressive if it keeps all of the luxury, but most people driving the S5 don't want to get burned by sti's, evos, and other cheap cars when they spent 50k for theirs...

Straight line performance on the car will not be very impressive, and today's society demands that on sports cars today... If someone is a track junkie and does not care about straight line performance, they would be better off in a Boxster s or cayman..

[c0nstant]

Originally Posted by rcracer_tx

IT WAS 8 SECONDS SLOWER THAN THE REGULAR S5, SO THAT'S THE BENCHMARK... Your 16 second number is BS because downgrading the engine isn't relevant, as its their fault they put a crappy powerplant that makes a measly 230bhp in the first place.

wtf are you talking about? the 4cyl S5 was 8 seconds FASTER. holy shit, read the thread.

[footie]

Originally Posted by rcracer_tx

IT WAS 8 SECONDS SLOWER THAN THE REGULAR S5, SO THAT'S THE BENCHMARK... Your 16 second number is BS because downgrading the engine isn't relevant, as its their fault they put a crappy powerplant that makes a measly 230bhp in the first place.

It's not impressive to reduce the output of the car, and give it a 4banger... Audi had to cut weight so the thing wasn't ridiculously slow. That's a step backwards. Dropping 800lbs is impressive if it keeps all of the luxury, but most people driving the S5 don't want to get burned by sti's, evos, and other cheap cars when they spent 50k for theirs...

Straight line performance on the car will not be very impressive, and today's society demands that on sports cars today... If someone is a track junkie and does not care about straight line performance, they would be better off in a Boxster s or cayman..

Do you even know why Audi have done this exercise. It was not to discover more performance from their regular S5, it's to reduce emissions and improve economy while maintaining performance. What Audi have done is dramatically improved the emissions and economy while at the same time improving it's overall performance by one than one class. This is one hell of an achievement.

The emissions are believed to be 150g/km while the economy has improved by 35%. That is a HUGE difference.

This was not an exercise to find more performance, such a thing is much easier do than this way. Hopefully you can now understand why this is an exceptional concept and points to the future of no only Audi performance cars but all others, including BMW's M cars.

You sound like a person living in the dark ages.

[c0nstant]

Originally Posted by footie

Do you even know why Audi have done this exercise. It was not to discover more performance from their regular S5, it's to reduce emissions and improve economy while maintaining performance. What Audi have done is dramatically improved the emissions and economy while at the same time improving it's overall performance by one than one class. This is one hell of an achievement.

The emissions are believed to be 150g/km while the economy has improved by 35%. That is a HUGE difference.

This was not an exercise to find more performance, such a thing is much easier do than this way. Hopefully you can now understand why this is an exceptional concept and points to the future of no only Audi performance cars but all others, including BMW's M cars.

You sound like a person living in the dark ages.

[ptack]

Originally Posted by footie

Do you even know why Audi have done this exercise. It was not to discover more performance from their regular S5, it's to reduce emissions and improve economy while maintaining performance. What Audi have done is dramatically improved the emissions and economy while at the same time improving it's overall performance by one than one class. This is one hell of an achievement.

The emissions are believed to be 150g/km while the economy has improved by 35%. That is a HUGE difference.

This was not an exercise to find more performance, such a thing is much easier do than this way. Hopefully you can now understand why this is an exceptional concept and points to the future of no only Audi performance cars but all others, including BMW's M cars.

You sound like a person living in the dark ages.

BMW may indeed do exactly the same thing, for the same reasons with its twin turbo 4 cylinder. What I ignore is the hype these manufacturers create around these announcements. Who knows what criteria Audi is using for these tests. Prove it in the marketplace with the actual product. All these pre-production ring-rides are basically bs for the gullible.

[JeepJeep]

Holy motherfuck thats awesome.

As to the people saying too bad its a 4 cylinder, I believe part of that could have to do with the reduced weight (smaller engine = less weight) but I agree, imagine the Gallardo's V10 dropped in there

[footie]

Originally Posted by JeepJeep

Holy motherfuck thats awesome.

As to the people saying too bad its a 4 cylinder, I believe part of that could have to do with the reduced weight (smaller engine = less weight) but I agree, imagine the Gallardo's V10 dropped in there

The engine weight accounts for only 50kgs maximum, the rest is found through choice of materials. My understanding is that this product have near perfect weight distribution, this may also expect where the huge improved lap time is coming from.

I have read that there may be a lightweight RS5 (think modern day Quattro Sport) being readied in the future that will use a V6 with over 400hp but keep the weight and axle balance. This if it comes will probably dispatch the current M3 with ease and could possibly get close to matching the mighty GTR.

[ArmyBimmerDude]

My god, I love it when rcracer_tx posts here. It gets funnier and funnier.

[stressdoc]

The upcoming Z2 M will reportedly have a 275hp+ 4cyl turbo and weigh about 1000 kilos (2250 lbs). That will be a kick-as$ lotus killer.

[Garduna]

Originally Posted by footie

Do you even know why Audi have done this exercise. It was not to discover more performance from their regular S5, it's to reduce emissions and improve economy while maintaining performance. What Audi have done is dramatically improved the emissions and economy while at the same time improving it's overall performance by one than one class. This is one hell of an achievement.

The emissions are believed to be 150g/km while the economy has improved by 35%. That is a HUGE difference.

This was not an exercise to find more performance, such a thing is much easier do than this way. Hopefully you can now understand why this is an exceptional concept and points to the future of no only Audi performance cars but all others, including BMW's M cars.

You sound like a person living in the dark ages.

Good post
Whats up with the god awful ranting before this was posted? Ppl should read the article.

It's great that Audi is able to achieve something like this but I'm sure most of you here want a nice revving engine along with performance. That being said, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to throw in a V6 in there right? no need to drop from 8 to 4 cylinders....that's too drastic!

[lyndon_h]

The fake enthusiasts will never buy this because it doesnt have heater seats and extra plush leather.

[Draman]

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what a lot of the detractors are saying in this thread. It's great that they're looking to reduce weight, weight is the ultimate performance killer. The problem is they most likely reduced weight by stripping the car of it's luxury (leather, sound deadening materials, weight inducing features such as seat heaters, etc) and then dropped a 4 cylinder in there. The difference between an Audi and an Evo is the luxury. As soon as that luxury is gone there is absolutely no reason to spend $60k on an S5 when you can get an Evo for $35k other than to be a badge whore.

Also, a 4 cylinder engine has no place whatsoever in a $60k car. I have never driven a 4 cylinder that had anywhere near enough refinement or a wide enough power band. Sure you can drop some turbos into any 4 banger and end up with 300 hp or more but you essentially have to drive those 4 bangers at high rpms to have any of it. If you like being the jerk driving through city streets at 6k+ rpm then more power to you, but I personally enjoy having reasonable power at low rpms for my city driving.

If Audi wants to drop weight, power AND price then more power to them. But unless the price is coming down significantly they better do SOMETHING to justify the big price premium over the champion of the extreme performance economy car (Evo).

[gshb]

dont worry guys. by the time this "new" technology gets to production, actual weight reduction will be a mere 50-100lbs. probably just make the fenders out of plastic like bmw does.

i wish these auto makers stopped building hype and just did something. it would be a lot more impressive if their PR said that this was going to be available in the next model year of the S5 instead of hey look we stripped the car out and ran x:xx on the ring! ive seen plenty of guys strip out their luxury cars and achieved impressive times. but then again...

[Crimson92]

Originally Posted by rcracer_tx

8 seconds is nothing... a new set of tires can give you that, or a $350 tune on a n54... with 800lbs of reduction and a 4 banger powerband, they better come up with something better than that...

im going to go with , you dont know what you are talking about

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by jh valley

wtf are you talking about? the 4cyl S5 was 8 seconds FASTER. holy shit, read the thread.

Footie is trying to claim since they put a 4banger in their, it was equivalent to 16+ seconds... Read the quote I used....

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by Draman

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what a lot of the detractors are saying in this thread. It's great that they're looking to reduce weight, weight is the ultimate performance killer. The problem is they most likely reduced weight by stripping the car of it's luxury (leather, sound deadening materials, weight inducing features such as seat heaters, etc) and then dropped a 4 cylinder in there. The difference between an Audi and an Evo is the luxury. As soon as that luxury is gone there is absolutely no reason to spend $60k on an S5 when you can get an Evo for $35k other than to be a badge whore.

Also, a 4 cylinder engine has no place whatsoever in a $60k car. I have never driven a 4 cylinder that had anywhere near enough refinement or a wide enough power band. Sure you can drop some turbos into any 4 banger and end up with 300 hp or more but you essentially have to drive those 4 bangers at high rpms to have any of it. If you like being the jerk driving through city streets at 6k+ rpm then more power to you, but I personally enjoy having reasonable power at low rpms for my city driving.

If Audi wants to drop weight, power AND price then more power to them. But unless the price is coming down significantly they better do SOMETHING to justify the big price premium over the champion of the extreme performance economy car (Evo).

Exactly my point, most people who can afford this car are not that concerned with better gas mileage, as spending a couple hundred more a year on gas is much better than having a boring car with an engine that has a crappy powerband, and is much slower than a lot of cars that cost half the price... thanks for explaining the viewpoint of a great deal if not most of the consumers that would buy this car.

[da91]

Originally Posted by Draman

Sure you can drop some turbos into any 4 banger and end up with 300 hp or more but you essentially have to drive those 4 bangers at high rpms to have any of it. If you like being the jerk driving through city streets at 6k+ rpm then more power to you, but I personally enjoy having reasonable power at low rpms for my city driving.

But, if the car weighs 800 lbs. less, you wouldn't have to rev as high to get the car moving would you?

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by da91

But, if the car weighs 800 lbs. less, you wouldn't have to rev as high to get the car moving would you?

With the powerband of a turbo 4, you would still have to rev the hell out of it to get any acceleration... Think s2000 powerband.

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by rcracer_tx

With the powerband of a turbo 4, you would still have to rev the hell out of it to get any acceleration... Think s2000 powerband.

think turbo S2000 powerband.........


lightweight and peppy will sell to the right people. Me being one of them.

I really hope BMW follows suit, their new Z4 is huge let down despite using the n54 which I love. Wayyyyyy to heavy.

[rcracer_tx]

Originally Posted by Sniz

think turbo S2000 powerband.........


lightweight and peppy will sell to the right people. Me being one of them.

I really hope BMW follows suit, their new Z4 is huge let down despite using the n54 which I love. Wayyyyyy to heavy.

I agree it could work out if it mad 300-350hp, but it has a turbo powerband, and still less HP than a stock S2000 which is already underpowered

[footie]

Originally Posted by rcracer_tx

Footie is trying to claim since they put a 4banger in their, it was equivalent to 16+ seconds... Read the quote I used....

Still struggling to understand what I meant by this. Please let me try and explain again.

If you took a normal S5 that laps the ring in 8:25 and reduced the power it had from the 354hp down to 230hp what do you think would happen to it's lap time?

Simple, it would slow by approximately 8 seconds maybe even more than that but for this argument we will stick with just 8.

So with the reduction in weight and the repositioning of where the weight is they regained the 8 seconds and gained another 8 seconds on top of this. The original goal was to match the performance while improving emissions and economy but they exceed all expectations.

I'm simply surprised at your lack of understanding here for what has been achieved.