Audi Le Mans Coming as 2008 R8

[GMPenguin]

I have to say digging through all this bickering in practically every thread is annoying. If you guys wants to argue why dont you take it into PM's?

I agree, it gets rather irritating.

Anyway, back on topic, even if the photo isn't worth s***.

[saxonyron]

Right on GMP!  I'm rushing my deposit over to the dealer now.  That beast is gonna be awesome.  A "detuned" V-10 putting out 450HP.  At 3,100 lbs, should be in Porsche 911 Turbo's performance neighborhood.  I'm figuring about $140K?  I'll have to do a Brinks Truck job.(don't listen, Catman.  I can't have any witnesses!)

[Raza]

And Raza, you're right - the 4.2 had fender flares and a different front and rear fascia.  Wheelbase was 2" longer, track 1.5" wider (but overall width was 4.8" wider, mostly thanks to the fender flares), and overall length was 1.4" longer.  However, it was still the same chassis.

I know--I was the one dispensing the trivia!


Also, did you know that the A6 2.7T was faster (to 60mph) than the A6 4.2 in manual form, as well as when saddled with an automatic.  The 4.2, if I recall correctly, also got poorer gas mileage, and was noticeably more expensive.  Doesn't make sense to buy a car like that when a better, nearly identical car is cheaper--was the V8 worth that much to buyers, or was it the price that made it attractive?  

[TBR]

The 4.2l had much smoother power delivery compared to the 2.7t (particularly when it was paired to the automatic).

[mazda6er]

My bad, Rag. I was wrong.  

[saxonyron]

Also, did you know that the A6 2.7T was faster (to 60mph) than the A6 4.2 in manual form, as well as when saddled with an automatic.  The 4.2, if I recall correctly, also got poorer gas mileage, and was noticeably more expensive.  Doesn't make sense to buy a car like that when a better, nearly identical car is cheaper--was the V8 worth that much to buyers, or was it the price that made it attractive?

The V8 must have been attractive to those who wanted some added uniqueness and more panache.  Granted, the V8 rumble sounds great, and yes, the power delivery was smoother - the 2 cars have totally different personalities.  But would I pay $10k more to get less performance and a mandatory slushbox tranny?  As you can see in my sig, the answer is no.  B)  

[TBR]

I certainly understand that , the A6 2.7t is my favorite Audi of all time

[Raza]

I certainly understand that , the A6 2.7t is my favorite Audi of all time

Not mine.  My favorite Audi is a wagon, with a Porsche designed and Porsche killing turbo five, and wheels right off of a 911, Porsche crest and all.

[Raza]

Also, did you know that the A6 2.7T was faster (to 60mph) than the A6 4.2 in manual form, as well as when saddled with an automatic.  The 4.2, if I recall correctly, also got poorer gas mileage, and was noticeably more expensive.  Doesn't make sense to buy a car like that when a better, nearly identical car is cheaper--was the V8 worth that much to buyers, or was it the price that made it attractive?

The V8 must have been attractive to those who wanted some added uniqueness and more panache.  Granted, the V8 rumble sounds great, and yes, the power delivery was smoother - the 2 cars have totally different personalities.  But would I pay $10k more to get less performance and a mandatory slushbox tranny?  As you can see in my sig, the answer is no.  B)

I enjoy a V8 rumble, but nothing sets my heart a-flutter like the woosh of a turbo.  And, on top of that, I'm pretty sure the 2.7T was a rarer model (especially one with a manual!), and the A6 2.7T was at one point my #1 pick for my car (before I inherited the E320, that is).

[saxonyron]

"A mid-engined two-seater, it'll be propelled by a five-litre V10 bi-turbo engine with FSI direct fuel injection, developing 610bhp at 6,800 rpm and 553lb-ft of torque availble from as low as 1,750rpm. Performance is likely to be in the region of 0-62mph in 3.7 seconds and to 125mph 10.8 seconds."


My bad - 610 HP would really get my attention!  I thought the 450 HP sounded good!  Raza, fine choice in favorite cars, BTW! The 2.7T actually outnumbers the 4.2 by a fair amount.  It's the 2.7T 6 speed manuals that are rare.  

[Fire It Up]

Its because most people instantly think that V8=more power.  

[Raza]

"A mid-engined two-seater, it'll be propelled by a five-litre V10 bi-turbo engine with FSI direct fuel injection, developing 610bhp at 6,800 rpm and 553lb-ft of torque availble from as low as 1,750rpm. Performance is likely to be in the region of 0-62mph in 3.7 seconds and to 125mph 10.8 seconds."


My bad - 610 HP would really get my attention!  I thought the 450 HP sounded good!  Raza, fine choice in favorite cars, BTW! The 2.7T actually outnumbers the 4.2 by a fair amount.  It's the 2.7T 6 speed manuals that are rare.

I still have dreams about buying an RS2 one of these days.

[Catman]

Guys, lets tone down things as it relates to jumping all over Rags posts.

And, Rag, give a little thought to an issue before asking obvious questions, as it just invites ridicule.