Audi RS4

[BMWDave]

Link with Pictures

Audi RS4
Whole Shot: Is the new RS4 an M3 beater?
DAVID VIVIAN
Published Date: 5/30/05
AUDI RS4
ON SALE: Spring 2006
BASE PRICE: $78,000 (est.)
POWERTRAIN: 4.2-liter, 418-hp, 317-lb-ft V8; awd, six-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT: 3850 lbs (est.)
0 to 60 MPH: 4.5 seconds
PHOTOS: AUDI RS4 GALLERY

It?s fair to say the engineers responsible for the new $78,000, 418-hp Audi RS4 have put their reputations on the line. This is The One, the car that will rocket Audi to the summit of Performance Sedan Mountain, an icon in the making, the long-awaited slayer of legend?ary BMW M3s and, on top of it all, just about the best car Audi has ever built.

Still, we?re worried. These same engineers claim not to understand the ?obsession? the automotive press has with steering feel, and why we lambaste Audis for not having enough of it. We know this because we?ve introduced the topic, and key players from Ingolstadt have benignly bemused expressions, the rest have raised eyebrows.


We are not surprised by their skepticism. High-performance drivers often insist people shouldn?t get hung up about steering feel, saying precision and weight (preferably medium to light) are more important. Lots of detailed feedback from the front wheels doesn?t make you a better driver, some drivers say. It doesn?t make you go any faster; a lightening at the helm when the front wheels start to slip is sufficient.

That might be the case?if you wish to live your motoring existence in the icy realms of efficiency and function. But that?s not the point. There?s all the difference in the world between traveling down a road quickly and traveling down a road quickly immersed in the experience, alive to and absorb?ed by the texture and shading of the communication between you and the car, reveling in sensations that link hands, feet and the seat of your pants.

That is why the BMW M3?a rear-driver with steering unburdened by the transmission of power and torque, throttle response untainted by turbos and a cornering balance that can be influenced as much with the throttle as the helm?holds such an enduring and special fascination among drivers and why its archrival from Audi, the RS4, for all its pace and all-weather traction, does not.

Audi would love that to read ?hasn?t until now.? Despite clearly not quite getting our need to conduct an intimate dialogue with a car?s front wheels, there is no question serious measures have been taken to make the RS4 more involving in the purist sense. This, in addition to the familiar shock and awe tactics designed to overwhelm its nemesis from Bavaria.


It?s why Audi invited us to participate in an exploration of the car even Audi critics are viewing with hushed disbelief. We hope to find out whether a major upset is in the cards.

The mission looks achievable on paper. The hardware is unrelenting, but peaks with the engine. By crowning its naturally aspirated 4.2-liter V8 (already a formidable performer in the tamer S4) with FSI direct-injection technology, Audi has created a powerplant with phenomenal abilities.

The engine develops an M3-withering 418 hp at 7800 rpm and cracks 100 hp per liter. It delivers 90 percent of its 317 lb-ft (at 5500 rpm) of torque peak between 2250 and 7600 rpm. The rev limiter is set at a barely believable 8250 rpm. And if you think the 4.5 seconds Audi claims for the 0-to-60-mph sprint is impressive, 0 to 124 mph in 16.6 seconds turns the M3 into a distant spectator.

The six-speed manual transmission?s ratios are closely spaced and can be made to seem more vivid still when you thumb the Sport button on the cross spoke of the steering wheel and the throttle control mapping is adjusted to give sharper responses.


The Torsen differential has been reworked for a 60 percent bias toward rear-drive, giving crisper turn-in, a more neutral cornering balance, great attitude adjustability with the throttle and the elimination of power understeer, according to Horst Glaser, head of the RS4?s chassis development. The Elec-tronic Stability Program has been reprogrammed to intervene later and for a shorter time than on a regular A4.

The RS4 sits an inch lower than a standard A4 and the suspension, hood and front fenders are aluminum. The substitution of ultra-light RS buckets keeps weight down to 3850 pounds.

The car looks terrific, riding on gorgeous 19-inch, six-spoke alloys behind which the huge discs and calipers (eight-piston at the front) gleam. The body?s bulges are in all the right places. Inside the cues are dramatic, from the silver starter button on the center console to the carbon fiber trim.

The RS4 feels different. Neck muscles conditioned by the S4 ill prepare you for just how hard this thing goes. Surging out of the pits, the S4?s impressive tug is replaced by something approaching physical violence. It isn?t so much the way the RS4 hits its accelerative stride as the way it sustains it gear after gear?huge, linear thrust meets an intoxicating V8 bellow; not a bad combo. In this respect the presence of an M3 is unnecessary?it would be going backward, quite quickly.


Impressive, too, is the way the RS4 carries more speed than the S4 through the bends, and with so little roll. It steers precisely, but isn?t edgy. Keep things around seven-tenths and it?s all quite neat and predictable. For once the all-wheel drive isn?t intrusive, it just seems to extend the reach of the remarkable performance. Steering feel? Certainly, but it?s hard to say how informative on such a smooth surface. Throttle adjustability? Despite what seems to be a keener turn-in, not that much.

Not to underplay what it can do around this circuit. Audi staged a convincing introduction to its would-be champ. As well as extraordinary grip, the RS4 has a fluent way of stringing together combinations of bends, incisive yet composed. And, pushing much harder, it refuses to be ruffled, even if the phenomenon of power understeer Glaser talks of isn?t completely banished.

So yes, Audi succeeded in dialing more neutrality into the RS4?s chassis. And yes, the RS4 has more finely resolved behavior on the limit. On a challenging road, especially one dampened by the mist of an autumn evening, we can?t see the M3 getting the better of it point to point. As for which driver would be having the more engaging and reward?ing drive, let?s just say we?re looking forward.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

[giant_mtb]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...    

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

[giant_mtb]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

[giant_mtb]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

Yes, it's legit, but not realistic to the every day driver.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

Yes, it's legit, but not realistic to the every day driver.

0-60 times are not realistic to the everyday driver either.  

[giant_mtb]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

Yes, it's legit, but not realistic to the every day driver.

0-60 times are not realistic to the everyday driver either.

I know, that's exactly what I'm saying.    

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

Yes, it's legit, but not realistic to the every day driver.

0-60 times are not realistic to the everyday driver either.

I know, that's exactly what I'm saying.  

no, you were saying that a drop clutch start wasn't.

[giant_mtb]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Yeah...if the engine is revved to high RPM's and the clutch is dumped the Evo can produce a time like that...  

Evo got 4.59 seconds to 60 in the speed shootout in MT.

Yeah...but that's still a drop-clutch start...?

so? it's still legit.

Yes, it's legit, but not realistic to the every day driver.

0-60 times are not realistic to the everyday driver either.

I know, that's exactly what I'm saying.  

no, you were saying that a drop clutch start wasn't.

Bleh, same difference.    

[BMWDave]

See what Autoweek got for an Evo and then compare it....you cant compare times from different mags.

[Raghavan]

See what Autoweek got for an Evo and then compare it....you cant compare times from different mags.

i'm saying that autoweek got a slow time.
and DAMN! costs A TON!!

[BMWDave]

See what Autoweek got for an Evo and then compare it....you cant compare times from different mags.

i'm saying that autoweek got a slow time.
and DAMN! costs A TON!!

So if Autoweek got a slow time, then compare that time to their time for the Evo.  Its only fair.  You cant take a mag that gets a great time and pit it against another mag that gets slower times and say one car is faster.  

[Raghavan]

See what Autoweek got for an Evo and then compare it....you cant compare times from different mags.

i'm saying that autoweek got a slow time.
and DAMN! costs A TON!!

So if Autoweek got a slow time, then compare that time to their time for the Evo.  Its only fair.  You cant take a mag that gets a great time and pit it against another mag that gets slower times and say one car is faster.

i know. so i'll wait for MT to test the RS4. and who's the one who said this thing would weight 3500 pounds?

[850CSi]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

no, not pointless. just very heavy.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

and apparently the rally sedan can cream the 'super-sedan'.

[BMWDave]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

[SJ_GTI]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

Not at all. While and M5 can keep up with exotics, around town it is as civilized as any BMW sedan.

I think this RS4 is in the same mold. Built to keep up with sports cars around a track, but still offer the luxury and refinement that Audi is known for.

Also, as I mentioned on C&D, I think their weight estimate is either inaccurate, or not a "curb (dry) weight. According to Audi the car weighs 3638 lbs. Still not a lightweight of course, but not bad considering it is an AWD, V8 sedan.

[Raghavan]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

Not at all. While and M5 can keep up with exotics, around town it is as civilized as any BMW sedan.

I think this RS4 is in the same mold. Built to keep up with sports cars around a track, but still offer the luxury and refinement that Audi is known for.

Also, as I mentioned on C&D, I think their weight estimate is either inaccurate, or not a "curb (dry) weight. According to Audi the car weighs 3638 lbs. Still not a lightweight of course, but not bad considering it is an AWD, V8 sedan.

that's not too bad.

[BMWDave]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

Not at all. While and M5 can keep up with exotics, around town it is as civilized as any BMW sedan.

I think this RS4 is in the same mold. Built to keep up with sports cars around a track, but still offer the luxury and refinement that Audi is known for.

Also, as I mentioned on C&D, I think their weight estimate is either inaccurate, or not a "curb (dry) weight. According to Audi the car weighs 3638 lbs. Still not a lightweight of course, but not bad considering it is an AWD, V8 sedan.

that's not too bad.

The M3 is more hard edged than the M5, and by hard edged, meaning harder to drive around town.

[mazda6er]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

Not at all. While and M5 can keep up with exotics, around town it is as civilized as any BMW sedan.

I think this RS4 is in the same mold. Built to keep up with sports cars around a track, but still offer the luxury and refinement that Audi is known for.

Also, as I mentioned on C&D, I think their weight estimate is either inaccurate, or not a "curb (dry) weight. According to Audi the car weighs 3638 lbs. Still not a lightweight of course, but not bad considering it is an AWD, V8 sedan.

that's not too bad.

The M3 is more hard edged than the M5, and by hard edged, meaning harder to drive around town.

As in, the ride is a wee bit choppy.  

[BMWDave]

SO HEAVY!! and the 0-60 time isn't that good. a mitsu evo (not mr or rs) can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

So the M5 is pointless too?

This is a V8 Audi super-sedan, not a 4-cylinder turbo Mitsubishi Rally car.

I agree, this really isnt a M3 competitor.  Its not as raw edged, and is more of an M5 type of Sedan.

M5 is not raw edged?

Not at all. While and M5 can keep up with exotics, around town it is as civilized as any BMW sedan.

I think this RS4 is in the same mold. Built to keep up with sports cars around a track, but still offer the luxury and refinement that Audi is known for.

Also, as I mentioned on C&D, I think their weight estimate is either inaccurate, or not a "curb (dry) weight. According to Audi the car weighs 3638 lbs. Still not a lightweight of course, but not bad considering it is an AWD, V8 sedan.

that's not too bad.

The M3 is more hard edged than the M5, and by hard edged, meaning harder to drive around town.

As in, the ride is a wee bit choppy.

And you have to shift a lot to get up to high rpms.

[850CSi]

in the 3600 range is fine, a bit heavier than an M3 [impressive considering its an AWD V8 sedan].

But, like I said, I would rather get a twin-turbo V6 in the RS4 AND S4. I just don't like the concept of V8s in small cars.

Which makes me wonder something else... If the next M3 is going to be a V8, it's going to be hard for BMW to keep the 50/50 balance AND keep the weight down. I wonder how they're going to do it. Of course, I still favor an I6.

[Raza]

in the 3600 range is fine, a bit heavier than an M3 [impressive considering its an AWD V8 sedan].

But, like I said, I would rather get a twin-turbo V6 in the RS4 AND S4. I just don't like the concept of V8s in small cars.

Which makes me wonder something else... If the next M3 is going to be a V8, it's going to be hard for BMW to keep the 50/50 balance AND keep the weight down. I wonder how they're going to do it. Of course, I still favor an I6.

A car this size shouldn't weigh more than 3400 pounds.  Simple as that.  Until they fix the automotive obesity problem, I think I'll stick to classic cars.  

[Raghavan]

in the 3600 range is fine, a bit heavier than an M3 [impressive considering its an AWD V8 sedan].

But, like I said, I would rather get a twin-turbo V6 in the RS4 AND S4. I just don't like the concept of V8s in small cars.

Which makes me wonder something else... If the next M3 is going to be a V8, it's going to be hard for BMW to keep the 50/50 balance AND keep the weight down. I wonder how they're going to do it. Of course, I still favor an I6.

move the battery and other components to the back. they may also make the front subframe aluminum.

[SJ_GTI]

in the 3600 range is fine, a bit heavier than an M3 [impressive considering its an AWD V8 sedan].

But, like I said, I would rather get a twin-turbo V6 in the RS4 AND S4. I just don't like the concept of V8s in small cars.

Which makes me wonder something else... If the next M3 is going to be a V8, it's going to be hard for BMW to keep the 50/50 balance AND keep the weight down. I wonder how they're going to do it. Of course, I still favor an I6.

move the battery and other components to the back. they may also make the front subframe aluminum.

An aluminum subframe is probably a good way. I was surprised to find out that apart from some suspension pieces (and front brake calipers), the new 3-series chassis is entirely steel. I guess that explains why the 530i isn't much heavier than a 330i anyway, and it does give BMW ///M a good way to lighten the M3.

[Raghavan]

in the 3600 range is fine, a bit heavier than an M3 [impressive considering its an AWD V8 sedan].

But, like I said, I would rather get a twin-turbo V6 in the RS4 AND S4. I just don't like the concept of V8s in small cars.

Which makes me wonder something else... If the next M3 is going to be a V8, it's going to be hard for BMW to keep the 50/50 balance AND keep the weight down. I wonder how they're going to do it. Of course, I still favor an I6.

move the battery and other components to the back. they may also make the front subframe aluminum.

An aluminum subframe is probably a good way. I was surprised to find out that apart from some suspension pieces (and front brake calipers), the new 3-series chassis is entirely steel. I guess that explains why the 530i isn't much heavier than a 330i anyway, and it does give BMW ///M a good way to lighten the M3.

carbon fibre or aluminum front would also help the weight diestribution, but they may add that only for a CSL type model.