This is a new car?
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/28/2016-audi-a4-official-photos-video/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/28/2016-audi-a4-official-photos-video/)
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/353/242/1/S3532421/slug/l/001-2016-audi-a4-sedan-1.jpg)
Awful inside and out. WTF is happening to this class. Perhaps the S4 will be jazzed up a bit more but it'll probably be worse.
I'm reserving final judgement on looks until I see what the higher spec S and RS versions look like, but right now its incredibly boring and just doesn't look like the 50k+ car its aspiring to be. But, with a 250 diet and 270hp starting motor, it sounds like its going in the right direction.
It looks identical to the current car, but kinda dumpier. The F30 has good proportions at least
The Giulia is kinda fugly
The ATS is too bland
The Infiniti Q-something is both forgettable and fucking ugly
The IS is cool looking, but has the most mediocre engine lineup out
And this A4 is both too similar and dumpier than the model it replaces. Audi said the next A4 was supposed to be "emotional" and they had to redesign it a few times before it came out
WTF
Shocking, what was the worst of the class, and one of the worst cars for sale period, the M-B C-class, now looks to be the class leader - at least it's truly all new inside and out (and looks it), has new engines that mean something (i.e., materially more performance, esp. the C400, though turbos are still sucky) and the C63 is a monster. Christ on a cracker!
And don't forget the laughable TLX and its sub 300 hp ~15 year-old SOHC motor - at least the TL could be had with 300+ hp, slick AWD system, and 6MT...
Oh yeah, the TLX does suck.
The C class has a divine interior, though
:zzz:
I think I'd much rather have a Mazda 6 than anything in the compact luxury class. Jeeez.
I've been speccing out some cars recently and a Mazda 6 is a wayyyyy better deal than the Mazda 3.. which would have been my pick of the economy class. And the 6 looks much better and I think has as good an interior as the compact luxury class. How did the 6 get to be such a good value?! I understand it's still FWD, and I'd prefer something smaller, but it's hard to beat.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 28, 2015, 10:43:54 PM
This is a new car?
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/28/2016-audi-a4-official-photos-video/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/28/2016-audi-a4-official-photos-video/)
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/353/242/1/S3532421/slug/l/001-2016-audi-a4-sedan-1.jpg)
Audi's styling has jumped the shark just like Aston Martin. Every single car in the lineup looks like a scaled up or down version of the other. Their styling also peaked about 8 years ago and has since taken a sharp turn straight into the shitter. The interior is nice...in a BMW,because that's who they stole it from. Oh, and they should give their NAV screen back to Mazda.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 28, 2015, 11:07:49 PM
It looks identical to the current car, but kinda dumpier. The F30 has good proportions at least
I happen to think the current 3 series is the best looking one in 3 generations.
Quote
The Giulia is kinda fugly
You are the only person on the face of the earth that thinks that.
Quote
The ATS is too bland
It's a handsome but forgettable car in anything but V spec.
Quote
The Infiniti Q-something is both forgettable and fucking ugly
The G37 was unmistakably an Infiniti, but the Q whatever could pass for a Hyundai.
Quote
The IS is cool looking, but has the most mediocre engine lineup out
It's a real shame this.
Quote
And this A4 is both too similar and dumpier than the model it replaces. Audi said the next A4 was supposed to be "emotional" and they had to redesign it a few times before it came out
WTF
The entire segment is pretty boring. They might be the best they've ever been but there is nothing with real character (at least until the Giulia is released). Previous gens had character and someone needs to shake it up.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on June 29, 2015, 12:00:52 AM
I think I'd much rather have a Mazda 6 than anything in the compact luxury class. Jeeez.
I've been speccing out some cars recently and a Mazda 6 is a wayyyyy better deal than the Mazda 3.. which would have been my pick of the economy class. And the 6 looks much better and I think has as good an interior as the compact luxury class. How did the 6 get to be such a good value?! I understand it's still FWD, and I'd prefer something smaller, but it's hard to beat.
The 6 is quite a bit pricier than the 3,and the 3 is more fun.
Here in the land of South Canada, a Mazda 3s Touring is MSRP: $23,845* and a Mazda 6 Touring is MSRP: $23,945*
I haven't driven either so it may be more fun, but I think the 6 looks better.
I must be in the minority but I like it. Conservative? Yes, but it's not ugly and does look sporty and dynamic. The word "understatement" comes to mind - and maybe that's what genuine Audi customers want.
A lot of people don't like the Giulia; it's got a weird face and forgettable proportions.
Audi is making the mistake of thinking their design language is iconic and evolutionary
They need a Jaguar moment
And they need to stop sharing headlights with SEATs. This thing looks cheap and mainstream, a Fusion Titanium has more presence.
Been saying it for a while now but this whole segment desperately needs a hot beef injection of style. It's also all got a little too big to be legit sporty. How sporty/exciting could something the size of an old 5 series look? I think more turbos or displacement would be a good thing as well. Been saying the Japanese should move up to 3.0-4.0L V6s if they dont want to go turbo, or just go single low tech turbo and then high tech twin turbo 3.0Ls if they do.
Not sure why people are dumping on the TLX either. Yes it looks like an amoeba with Jewel Eye™ headlights. But its layout is great and honest for the kind of driving most folks in its market does, and the 8DCT in the 2.4L is genius- torque converter to get rolling with the speed of a DCT once it is. Once Honda throws the 2.0T in it it will be a dark horse contender. A legit choice for people who dont give a shit about chassis balance or driving dynamics.
Definitely boring. I have seen spy pics previously so I am not surprised this is the final product.
Still no idea what my next car will be (and honestly I do not see myself buying anything in the next 3-5 years), but right now I cannot see how I could buy another Audi. I was very disappointed in the A3 and this car just doesn't look very good.
If I was buying today I think they only legit contenders for my money would be the ATS or 2-series.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on June 29, 2015, 02:05:04 AM
Here in the land of South Canada, a Mazda 3s Touring is MSRP: $23,845* and a Mazda 6 Touring is MSRP: $23,945*
I haven't driven either so it may be more fun, but I think the 6 looks better.
Well, the 3s is a lot zippier than than a heavier 6 with the same engine. Steering and handling are also night and day between the two, and the 3 has better seats unless you need to spread out a lot.
I will say that this A4 looks quite attractive to me. The issue is that it's just a very slight refinement of the existing car's good looks.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2015, 12:55:11 AM
Audi's styling has jumped the shark just like Aston Martin. Every single car in the lineup looks like a scaled up or down version of the other. Their styling also peaked about 8 years ago and has since taken a sharp turn straight into the shitter. The interior is nice...in a BMW,because that's who they stole it from. Oh, and they should give their NAV screen back to Mazda.
Me and the fellas just had this discussion. We agree with you 100%!
I like it. The interior, not so much, but the exterior is clean. Stuck on screen and BMW-esque dash don't look good.
I love how you guys complain about stuff being busy and overwrought, but when a car comes out that isn't, all of a sudden it's boring. There's no pleasing you people. It's better looking than the ugly 3 and fugly Q50, and the challenging IS, and the C class's overly large grille and dumpy rear end don't match up to this either. Plus, it's a Mercedes, which means you don't drive it place as much as you pay for its repairs.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2015, 07:06:43 AM
I will say that this A4 looks quite attractive to me. The issue is that it's just a very slight refinement of the existing car's good looks.
To me this is the issue. I am not saying they had to start from scratch, but it seems barely different from the B8.5 styling refresh. Plus it again got bigger (longer), and only half of the extra length went to the wheelbase, which means the overhangs got even longer.
It was always unlikely I would be getting another Audi, and this "new model" (using the term loosely) pretty much just ended any real future considerations.
:zzz:
Came in here expecting to be bored to death. Audi delivered.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
I love how you guys complain about stuff being busy and overwrought, but when a car comes out that isn't, all of a sudden it's boring.
Well, this is a legit gripe if we all adopt similarly binary thinking. Busy/overwrought and boring aren't the only two buckets cars can fit into. Bottom line, this A4 literally looks 10 years old out of the gate, and that is a bad thing. F30 might not be pretty, but while it's still evolutionary it's very obviously a new car. To the average $349/mo lease plebe this is a facelift. Audi dropped the ball.
Looks great IMO. One of my favorite recent new designs. I absolutely love what audi is doing with their interiors in their latest releases (TT, Q7, A4). The virtual cockpit is awesome.
The exterior looks modern and reserved. :huh: My only concern is price. I'm guessing the S4 is going to be pushing $70k.
(http://fourtitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/avant-6-960x480.jpg)
How you guys can beat off to that Alfa and some lame Skodas, but hate on this, I'll never understand.
Would have been awesome.... 10 yrs ago. B8 doesnt look good enough to maintain the same design for 20 yrs
What is that virtual dash gonna look like in 3, 5 or 7 years, even given the off chance it's not buggy? I can't imagine it looking nothing other than even more awful.
As to the exterior, esp. the avant, the roof line doesn't slope like it used to so the car doesn't give the appearance of sitting back on its haunches, which Audi pulled off masterfully with the B8.
I'm bummed. The B9 S4 was a contender but not looking like this (there's also a rumor Audi will be using a TTV6 with an electric supercharger to mitigate/eliminate boost :facepalm:).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 29, 2015, 09:39:41 AM
Well, this is a legit gripe if we all adopt similarly binary thinking. Busy/overwrought and boring aren't the only two buckets cars can fit into. Bottom line, this A4 literally looks 10 years old out of the gate, and that is a bad thing. F30 might not be pretty, but while it's still evolutionary it's very obviously a new car. To the average $349/mo lease plebe this is a facelift. Audi dropped the ball.
Based on what everyone says around here, it's the case that no one is satisfied by the hideous new cars or the good looking ones. If anything, people seem to prefer the grotesque slightly.
And it doesn't look old at all. Evolutionary designs last longer; it's the jarring changes that end up looking dated. Fact is the the current A4 and the last gen too are both head and shoulders better looking than anything in the market then or now, and this looks better than everything else.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 29, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
To me this is the issue. I am not saying they had to start from scratch, but it seems barely different from the B8.5 styling refresh. Plus it again got bigger (longer), and only half of the extra length went to the wheelbase, which means the overhangs got even longer.
It was always unlikely I would be getting another Audi, and this "new model" (using the term loosely) pretty much just ended any real future considerations.
The extra length is disconcerting.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2015, 10:53:07 AM
What is that virtual dash gonna look like in 3, 5 or 7 years, even given the off chance it's not buggy? I can't imagine it looking nothing other than even more awful.
As to the exterior, esp. the avant, the roof line doesn't slope like it used to so the car doesn't give the appearance of sitting back on its haunches, which Audi pulled off masterfully with the B8.
I'm bummed. The B9 S4 was a contender but not looking like this (there's also a rumor Audi will be using a TTV6 with an electric supercharger to mitigate/eliminate boost :facepalm:).
An electric supercharger? It's going to require at least 50 hp electric motor to turn that thing.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 29, 2015, 10:53:07 AM
What is that virtual dash gonna look like in 3, 5 or 7 years, even given the off chance it's not buggy? I can't imagine it looking nothing other than even more awful.
Probably the same as any other 10 year old LCD screen... that is not new technology :huh:
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2015, 11:17:51 AM
Based on what everyone says around here, it's the case that no one is satisfied by the hideous new cars or the good looking ones. If anything, people seem to prefer the grotesque slightly.
And it doesn't look old at all. Evolutionary designs last longer; it's the jarring changes that end up looking dated. Fact is the the current A4 and the last gen too are both head and shoulders better looking than anything in the market then or now, and this looks better than everything else.
Lol, fact is you are confusing your opinion as fact. Fact is, this all new A4 looks like a light refresh of the nearly 10 yr old B8. Fact is, consensus in the automotive world is that the B8 wasnt an ugly car, but hardly some kind of beautiful classic worth preserving for 2 decades. And since when do we agree here on anything? Can u name a car released in the last 12 months we have all reached some kind of consensus on?
Audi is either paralyzed with fear or haughty with misplaced pride. This new paper airplane fold hyperconservative shape language they have adopted is, IMO, a failure. They managed to ruin the R8 for fuck's sake. Like I've been saying people shopping in these segments want style as they see it. Its not the 70s or 80s where u could sell a plain jane German car for tons of money. VW and Audi's design languages are awful at the moment. BMW is not far behind. MB is not for everybody but at least they have some semblance of character. Etc. Thats what people want and what makes sense to do.
Quote from: MrH on June 29, 2015, 10:00:22 AM
(http://fourtitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/avant-6-960x480.jpg)
How you guys can beat off to that Alfa and some lame Skodas, but hate on this, I'll never understand.
I don't hate it, it just looks like the old car.
It wouldn't earn any of my $$$.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
I don't hate it, it just looks like the old car.
It wouldn't earn any of my $$$.
Rite. What is the rationale for buying a new B9 over a used B8? You can make a pretty strong case for most cars in the segment.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 29, 2015, 12:08:50 PM
Rite. What is the rationale for buying a new B9 over a used B8? You can make a pretty strong case for most cars in the segment.
There's a lot more upgraded than looks, I'm sure. Besides, many people would buy new over used anyway even without a redesign.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 29, 2015, 11:42:16 AM
Lol, fact is you are confusing your opinion as fact. Fact is, this all new A4 looks like a light refresh of the nearly 10 yr old B8. Fact is, consensus in the automotive world is that the B8 wasnt an ugly car, but hardly some kind of beautiful classic worth preserving for 2 decades. And since when do we agree here on anything? Can u name a car released in the last 12 months we have all reached some kind of consensus on?
Audi is either paralyzed with fear or haughty with misplaced pride. This new paper airplane fold hyperconservative shape language they have adopted is, IMO, a failure. They managed to ruin the R8 for fuck's sake. Like I've been saying people shopping in these segments want style as they see it. Its not the 70s or 80s where u could sell a plain jane German car for tons of money. VW and Audi's design languages are awful at the moment. BMW is not far behind. MB is not for everybody but at least they have some semblance of character. Etc. Thats what people want and what makes sense to do.
You claim I'm confusing opinion as fact, and then the rest of your post is opinion paraded as fact. Come on, dude.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
I don't hate it, it just looks like the old car.
It wouldn't earn any of my $$$.
Yeah, good looking is so early 2000s. Let's make more bulbous and hideous cars that look like Chinese ripoffs of themselves!
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2015, 02:30:32 PM
Yeah, good looking is so early 2000s. Let's make more bulbous and hideous cars that look like Chinese ripoffs of themselves!
Audi's newest cars are all less attractive than the previous generation. Audi's newest styling is definitely a big step backwards. The new R8 is actually hideous, and the old R8 was at the top of my list of dream cars.
I like the current Audis more than their predecessors, except the new R8 and TT. A mix of angular styling cues and a reluctance to change the cars' overall shape just results in a wretched mishmash in those cases.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2015, 02:29:28 PM
You claim I'm confusing opinion as fact, and then the rest of your post is opinion paraded as fact. Come on, dude.
B9 design sucks dude. That's a fact :ohyeah:
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2015, 11:22:24 AM
An electric supercharger? It's going to require at least 50 hp electric motor to turn that thing.
In short it would keep the intake tract pressurized before the turbos come on boost and once they do it would then disengage (so relatively small power draw).
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2015, 02:30:32 PM
Yeah, good looking is so early 2000s. Let's make more bulbous and hideous cars that look like Chinese ripoffs of themselves!
It's lazy, don't present a false dichotomy that everything new needs to be bad.
This looks the same as the car introduced in 2008.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2015, 11:22:24 AM
An electric supercharger? It's going to require at least 50 hp electric motor to turn that thing.
Not really. It would just be there to supplement the turbos and eliminate lag at lower RPMs (and then shut off once the turbos are spooled up).
Quote from: MX793 on June 29, 2015, 03:16:00 PM
Not really. It would just be there to supplement the turbos and eliminate lag at lower RPMs (and then shut off once the turbos are spooled up).
Seems like an awful lot of complexity.
I think it looks great. Is it new and exciting and totally different? No, but it still remains a great looking vehicle in my book.
Cars are ultimately marching down the same "integrated technology" path as other retail devices. Used to be that phones, stereos, TVs, PCs, etc., were designed to be repaired/upgraded to serve relatively long lives, which was enabled by relatively simple technology and manufacturing. Now stuff is advanced - an iPhone can't be designed to be materially repairable or upgradeable and maintain its current form, function and price level.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2015, 04:22:10 PM
Seems like an awful lot of complexity.
Engines have used combined superchargers and turbochargers to offset turbo lag in the past. VW had their "Twin Charged" motors in the early 2000s. It was used on diesel engines decades ago. Making it electric eliminates the parasitic losses when the engine is running at higher RPMs and the SC isn't needed (like electro-hydraulic power steering), though does add a certain degree of complexity what with a motor and controller.
It's okay, and I like the interior. Not a car I'd aspire to own though.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2015, 02:46:54 PM
I like the current Audis more than their predecessors, except the new R8 and TT. A mix of angular styling cues and a reluctance to change the cars' overall shape just results in a wretched mishmash in those cases.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2015, 02:37:12 PM
Audi's newest cars are all less attractive than the previous generation. Audi's newest styling is definitely a big step backwards. The new R8 is actually hideous, and the old R8 was at the top of my list of dream cars.
Obviously I am somewhat biased, but the B8 was a strong step forward in design for Audi. While the surface details didn't change THAT much from the B7, what they did do was push the front axle forward, thereby reducing the front overhang significantly AND improving front/back weight distribution. Still not as good as BMW mind you, but it was still a significant improvement.
With the B9 it looks like they incrementally improved some surface details but the overhangs are getting longer which, IMHO, is a step backwards.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 30, 2015, 05:55:31 AM
Obviously I am somewhat biased, but the B8 was a strong step forward in design for Audi. While the surface details didn't change THAT much from the B7, what they did do was push the front axle forward, thereby reducing the front overhang significantly AND improving front/back weight distribution. Still not as good as BMW mind you, but it was still a significant improvement.
With the B9 it looks like they incrementally improved some surface details but the overhangs are getting longer which, IMHO, is a step backwards.
The B8 is one of the best looking cars in the history of the class. It was always going to be difficult to follow up.
It obviously is very evolutionary but I like it. And especially like the power bump. Also, note that Lexus is upgrading the base engine in the IS...to the turbocharged unit in the NX200t. I think the talk of the segment being less interesting or whatever is fairly ridiculous. The cars are better than ever. Yes, they are getting bigger...which is exactly why BMW, Audi, and Mercedes have all launched smaller models recently. I hope the ATS gets upgraded power (and CUE) soon. Then it becomes a very interesting choice for me, between the C, the A4, and the ATS.
Especially the interior. I never liked the design language seen in the current model.
The cars are objectively better, but somehow they just don't capture the imagination.
I think a big part of that is the lack of upgrades on the top of the line engines. 335i has basically just lost a turbo over the last 9 yrs. IS350's engine is over 10 yrs old. Pretty sure the ATS 3.6 is over 10 yrs old. Q50's engine is technically 21 yrs old this year. S4 engine is 8 yrs old. Etc etc. Yea the base engines are great. But Ill be damned if I buy a 50K car to get a damn 4 banger. And it's tough to justify the 6 when I can get the same exact engine in a RWD car half, 1/4, 1/5 the price, that will not be much less reliable if at all over the length of what would be a lease.
Then on the other side you get into the issues of where to even deploy that performance on the road. The segment is in a weird place where it doesnt make much sense to go further. And the used market has such awesome deals. Its not like 10 yrs ago, where if you wanted 335i performance, you had to buy a 335i... there were no used equivalents. Now its like, what does a new 3/I/Q/A4 etc get me that an old one doesn't?
Audi sucks
I've said it many times for a while and looks like I will be saying it for quite a while longer - this "entry lux" poser class I think is absolutely awful. There was a revolution ~8-10 years ago - IS350, G37, TL-SH AWD, 335i - but little has advanced since. Sure, the cars are "better" but they don't perform any better (particularly, the same engines mostly), are less exciting, and have lost manual transmissions (TL(X), Q50).
Yup. Entry lux peaked 8 years ago. The cars are less exciting and not as engaging despite being better cars.
In this class/price range, I'd have the BMW 228i with 6 speed manual. If I could afford a little more, the M235i.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 30, 2015, 04:59:46 PM
I've said it many times for a while and looks like I will be saying it for quite a while longer - this "entry lux" poser class I think is absolutely awful. There was a revolution ~8-10 years ago - IS350, G37, TL-SH AWD, 335i - but little has advanced since. Sure, the cars are "better" but they don't perform any better (particularly, the same engines mostly), are less exciting, and have lost manual transmissions (TL(X), Q50).
I think the Jag XE and the Giulia may bring some fresh air into the segment.
At this point, the base cars in most "entry lux" lineup are the better buys. 328i > 335i for example (even 320i). Soon to be true with the Lexus turbo too IMO. Also, an A4 2.0T Quattro is probably nimbler than an S4 and more than fast enough.
Only the top end M, RS, V, etc *may* be worth it.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 30, 2015, 06:07:31 PM
I think the Jag XE and the Giulia may bring some fresh air into the segment.
At this point, the base cars in most "entry lux" lineup are the better buys. 328i > 335i for example (even 320i). Soon to be true with the Lexus turbo too IMO. Also, an A4 2.0T Quattro is probably nimbler than an S4 and more than fast enough.
Only the top end M, RS, V, etc *may* be worth it.
As nice as the Guilia is, I get the feeling it won't be a true top dog competitor. I think it'll probably be priced out of most of the segment and it doesn't carry the same name recognition that BMW and Mercedes does to the average person.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 30, 2015, 04:59:46 PM
I've said it many times for a while and looks like I will be saying it for quite a while longer - this "entry lux" poser class I think is absolutely awful. There was a revolution ~8-10 years ago - IS350, G37, TL-SH AWD, 335i - but little has advanced since. Sure, the cars are "better" but they don't perform any better (particularly, the same engines mostly), are less exciting, and have lost manual transmissions (TL(X), Q50).
Yep, I agree. I think maybe the C-Class is the only one that stands out in the bunch, because it is the most polarizing design out there (at least till the Guilia gets here).
What do you guys think it would take to generate excitement among enthusiasts for cars in this segment again?
Enthusiasts? 3,200lbs, 300hp, a 6MT, R/AWD, and an engine note with verve.
I doubt the ensuing car would sell well, though. For the masses, I see luxury cars going the way of autonomy. I see having to drive your car as being the way of the bourgeois.
Autonomous cars are decades away. Most we will see soon is autopilot cruise control.
Buyers of premium brand cars tend to be older and therefore more conservative in their tastes. And, in this hyper-competitive segment, the last thing a manufacturer wants to do is alienate their existing customers. At the same time, you want to change the car just enough so those same customers can justify the cost of upgrading to the new model. It's a tough balancing act.
That said, BMW called and they want their dashboard back. And it looks like the photographer left his i-Pad on top of the dash. Audi must use the same photographer as Mercedes because he left his i-Pad on the dash when he took the pictures of the new C Class, too. I'm surprised nobody has said anything to him about it. He needs to stop being so careless.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 01, 2015, 06:20:09 AM
What do you guys think it would take to generate excitement among enthusiasts for cars in this segment again?
For me....less weight, fewer gadgets, smaller exterior size, better looks.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 01, 2015, 06:20:09 AM
What do you guys think it would take to generate excitement among enthusiasts for cars in this segment again?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQRpbqE12HkjSwNXpjd5_pjmNTUQebClJ-NTaL5UH36mZ0OuI_)
Quote from: Raza on July 01, 2015, 10:00:23 AM
For me....less weight, fewer gadgets, smaller exterior size, better looks.
I agree. Give me the option of big power engines, manual, and no infotainment and I would be happy.
Well again I am obviously biased, but my car is about as close to perfect for me as I have seen. There are a few changes I would want to see:
Smaller: Even just an inch or two would make a difference IMHO.
Less front overhang: Again, even an inch or two would be nice.
Less Weight: My car is very heavy unfortunately. Carries the weight well, but still noticeable especially after I drive smaller cars.
The new A4 got the third item, but went in the wrong direction on the first two.
The new AR Giulia looks promising, but still have to wait and see. While I am impressed with the power numbers these new cars make, I think I would be perfectly happy with ~300 HP. If the Giulia misses on a few points, the BMW 2-series seems like the best bet in this class of car.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 01, 2015, 12:26:28 PM
Well again I am obviously biased, but my car is about as close to perfect for me as I have seen. There are a few changes I would want to see:
Smaller: Even just an inch or two would make a difference IMHO.
Less front overhang: Again, even an inch or two would be nice.
Less Weight: My car is very heavy unfortunately. Carries the weight well, but still noticeable especially after I drive smaller cars.
The new A4 got the third item, but went in the wrong direction on the first two.
Sounds like u should have bought a BMW 335Xi :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 01, 2015, 12:45:32 PM
Sounds like u should have bought a BMW 335Xi :lol:
At the time of purchase the S4 was more powerful, better AWD system (note was living in Canada at the time, so definitely wanted AWD), better looks, and cheaper price. Didn't see any benefit to the 335xi. Even today I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would buy a 335xi. I would go with a 335i if I wanted that motor, but more likely would just step up to an M3 (not likely either) or down to a 235i (mostly likely scenario).
I can't see myself in an AWD BMW unless I get one of their SUVs.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 30, 2015, 04:59:46 PM
I've said it many times for a while and looks like I will be saying it for quite a while longer - this "entry lux" poser class I think is absolutely awful. There was a revolution ~8-10 years ago - IS350, G37, TL-SH AWD, 335i - but little has advanced since. Sure, the cars are "better" but they don't perform any better (particularly, the same engines mostly), are less exciting, and have lost manual transmissions (TL(X), Q50).
I guess I forgot Jag and Alfa joining the mix. It's nice to see the shake up but I'm still seeing boosted engines and ATs, and they're bound to be absolutely awful in reliability.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 01, 2015, 02:19:59 PM
At the time of purchase the S4 was more powerful, better AWD system (note was living in Canada at the time, so definitely wanted AWD), better looks, and cheaper price. Didn't see any benefit to the 335xi. Even today I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would buy a 335xi. I would go with a 335i if I wanted that motor, but more likely would just step up to an M3 (not likely either) or down to a 235i (mostly likely scenario).
Only.... "diff" :lol:... between the xDrive in a 335i and your S4's quattro is xDrive has an electronic multi-plate locking center diff and quattro has a Torsen center diff, and the available vectoring rear diff. Other than that both have open back and front diffs otherwise, with "electronic locking diffs through braking". 335xi does weigh about the same as an S4, but it's much better balanced. But if u wanted the S4 u wanted the S4.
M235i would be my pick too if I can learn to live with a coupe.
Whoa - more differences than that when it comes to AWD systems - torque split range, torque split response, integration into traction/stability control.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 01, 2015, 06:42:13 PM
Only.... "diff" :lol:... between the xDrive in a 335i and your S4's quattro is xDrive has an electronic multi-plate locking center diff and quattro has a Torsen center diff, and the available vectoring rear diff. Other than that both have open back and front diffs otherwise, with "electronic locking diffs through braking". 335xi does weigh about the same as an S4, but it's much better balanced. But if u wanted the S4 u wanted the S4.
M235i would be my pick too if I can learn to live with a coupe.
Um, ok. :huh:
Quote from: Raza on July 01, 2015, 04:09:09 PM
I can't see myself in an AWD BMW unless I get one of their SUVs.
+1
I lkike BMW's, but getting and "X-Drive" version just seems silly. They are not meant to be AWD.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 02, 2015, 06:27:13 AM
+1
I lkike BMW's, but getting and "X-Drive" version just seems silly. They are not meant to be AWD.
They make perfect sense to snow belt people.
Quote from: Rockraven on July 02, 2015, 07:34:21 AM
They make perfect sense to snow belt people.
I was born and raised in the snow belt (Chicago) and nobody had 4WD/AWD in the old days. And yet, somehow, we did just fine. When did everyone become such a bunch of candy-assed pussies that they need to have AWD to get anywhere in winter?
Quote from: Rockraven on July 02, 2015, 07:34:21 AM
They make perfect sense to snow belt people.
One of the reasons I bought my car was because I was living in Canada, so definitely wanted AWD. I do recall giving the 335xi a cursory examination, but at the time you couldn't even get the sport suspension with the xi version (the "sport package" was really just different seats and different wheels) and, with the options I wanted (essentially fully loaded), it was more expensive than an S4.
That being said, I knew plenty of people that drove RWD BMW's and MB's in both Montreal and Toronto (not to mention mustangs and such).
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
I was born and raised in the snow belt (Chicago) and nobody had 4WD/AWD in the old days. And yet, somehow, we did just fine. When did everyone become such a bunch of candy-assed pussies that they need to have AWD to get anywhere in winter?
You don't need it, but it is a nice convenience feature to have.
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
I was born and raised in the snow belt (Chicago) and nobody had 4WD/AWD in the old days. And yet, somehow, we did just fine. When did everyone become such a bunch of candy-assed pussies that they need to have AWD to get anywhere in winter?
Nobody said anything about needing AWD, SJ said he WANTED the best AWD system available. U mean to tell me u have never bought anything above the bare minimum that u NEEDED to get around?
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
I was born and raised in the snow belt (Chicago) and nobody had 4WD/AWD in the old days. And yet, somehow, we did just fine. When did everyone become such a bunch of candy-assed pussies that they need to have AWD to get anywhere in winter?
They also had no airbags and everyone did just fine without them too, except the ones who died. Ah, the good old days.
There is no argument against AWD providing a huge safety and performance benefit in low traction situations. There's plenty of regular stuff I do in the G that either would be very dicey or I couldn't do if it weren't AWD (mountain passes in the winter, hard acceleration in the wet, steep gravel roads).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 10:22:29 AM
There is no argument against AWD providing a huge safety and performance benefit in low traction situations. There's plenty of regular stuff I do in the G that either would be very dicey or I couldn't do if it weren't AWD (mountain passes in the winter, hard acceleration in the wet, steep gravel roads).
You know it is often overlooked, but this is probably my favorite part about AWD, and one of the reasons I would have a very tough time going back to FWD.
It's huge for me, esp. since here the roads are wet ~6 months out of the year. The Accord had moderate acceleration issues in the wet and it was but 240 hp. My car friends are always impressed when we take my G37X - I have near full acceleration capability in the wet, such as a free right at red light or taking a long left across a two lane road; doubly important when it's wet.
Quote from: Rockraven on July 02, 2015, 07:34:21 AM
They make perfect sense to snow belt people.
Yeah, but if I want AWD, I'm going to get an Audi or a Subaru, if possible. Given comparable prices, I'd go with the guys who have been excelling at AWD for longer and have a reputation for it.
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
I was born and raised in the snow belt (Chicago) and nobody had 4WD/AWD in the old days. And yet, somehow, we did just fine. When did everyone become such a bunch of candy-assed pussies that they need to have AWD to get anywhere in winter?
And we all used to wash clothes in a bucket and churn our own butter. It's a bad argument.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 02, 2015, 10:39:11 AM
You know it is often overlooked, but this is probably my favorite part about AWD, and one of the reasons I would have a very tough time going back to FWD.
I always discounted the advantage of AWD, since I could get through snow just fine in my E320, Passat, and Jetta. Then one day I drove my brother's S4 in a snowstorm.
I'm a believer. It was like it wasn't even snowing. I was watching all these cars spinning their wheels (literally) and dealing with the issues, and I just drove past like nothing was going on.
Man u guys are drinking the quattro Kool Aid something serious. Audi's AWD system is no better than that of its competitors. Subaru's is marginally better, but not by much. Of all these brands, only the WRX STI doesn't have a mechanical open front diff.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 02, 2015, 12:49:58 PM
Man u guys are drinking the quattro Kool Aid something serious. Audi's AWD system is no better than that of its competitors. Subaru's is marginally better, but not by much. Of all these brands, only the WRX STI doesn't have a mechanical open front diff.
What's wrong with an open diff? Power gets shifted to the wheel with traction and away from the one without.
Quote from: Raza on July 02, 2015, 12:59:29 PM
What's wrong with an open diff? Power gets shifted to the wheel with traction and away from the one without.
Open diff is the other way around - the wheel with least traction gets the power.
Meh. It's not about just what diffs are open anymore. When you can individually control brake application at all four corners, that changes the game completely.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 01:03:58 PM
Open diff is the other way around - the wheel with least traction gets the power.
Yep, peg leg. Not a big deal w/4WD, but quattro is pretty much representative of available AWD systems on the market. Its superiority is just marketing and legacy at this point. Still a good system though.
Quote from: MrH on July 02, 2015, 01:19:24 PM
Meh. It's not about just what diffs are open anymore. When you can individually control brake application at all four corners, that changes the game completely.
Not if u drive spiritedly or do track days. Wat happens when ur brakes begin to fade? Back to peg legging. Naw, no substitute for an honest to god LSD.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 02, 2015, 01:25:55 PM
Not if u drive spiritedly or do track days. Wat happens when ur brakes begin to fade? Back to peg legging. Naw, no substitute for an honest to god LSD.
We're talking about bad weather traction...
LSD is limited too - by itself it can't split power between axles on demand.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 01:03:58 PM
Open diff is the other way around - the wheel with least traction gets the power.
Really?
Yep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIGvhvOhLHU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIGvhvOhLHU)
Fast forward to 2:18 to see a visual. Watch the previous ~2 minutes of why that is (not intuitive).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 01:03:58 PM
Open diff is the other way around - the wheel with least traction gets the power.
No. Neither wheel gets power. Because there is no traction on one wheel, it just spins, and no power is transmitted.
It's simple.
Open diff - Both wheels spin with the same torque, but speed can vary.
Locked diff - Both wheels spin at the same speed, but torque delivered to the ground can vary.
Quote from: MrH on July 02, 2015, 01:57:24 PM
No. Neither wheel gets power. Because there is no traction on one wheel, it just spins, and no power is transmitted.
It's simple.
Open diff - Both wheels spin with the same torque, but speed can vary.
Locked diff - Both wheels spin at the same speed, but torque delivered to the ground can vary.
If a wheel is spinning, it's getting power, if it's not spinning, it's not getting power ;). In that vid at 2:18 the spinning non-traction wheel is getting 100% engine power and the non-spinning traction wheel is getting 0% engine power.
Locked diff is the same torque and speed left and right. This is virtually impossible to drive on the street owing to the inability to negotiate turning. These are usually referred to as a spool (typically used in drag racing) which is not even a diff but simply a set of right angle gears or a locker (typically used in serious 4wd rigs) which is a diff with a pneumatic or electronic soleniod that locks the axles together when off road.
Most any LSD on the street is clutch based, which means the L & R axles are not locked but coupled with a degree of slip to negotiate turning.
Yea LSDs only have a % lock, and vary the amount of lock significantly for acceleration and deceleration.
Quote from: MrH on July 02, 2015, 01:30:49 PM
We're talking about bad weather traction...
By that measure, in combo with EBD (which is pretty much standard on every car now), there is def no material difference among the various AWD systems in the luxury market.
Uh, there are lots of differences, as already mentioned: active vs. reactive (i.e., reacting to car dynamics or just wheel slip), rear L vs. R torque split or not, rear L vs. R speed split or not, degree of nominal F vs. R torque split, viscous vs. clutch pack t-case, and probably other things I'm missing.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 02:40:41 PM
If a wheel is spinning, it's getting power, if it's not spinning, it's not getting power ;). In that vid at 2:18 the spinning non-traction wheel is getting 100% engine power and the non-spinning traction wheel is getting 0% engine power.
Locked diff is the same torque and speed left and right. This is virtually impossible to drive on the street owing to the inability to negotiate turning. These are usually referred to as a spool (typically used in drag racing) which is not even a diff but simply a set of right angle gears or a locker (typically used in serious 4wd rigs) which is a diff with a pneumatic or electronic soleniod that locks the axles together when off road.
Most any LSD on the street is clutch based, which means the L & R axles are not locked but coupled with a degree of slip to negotiate turning.
I thought most LSDs were gear based? I know the Torsens used in Miatas are gear based.
Also, isn't what MrH is saying that open diffs provide the same torque to both wheels, the diff can only send as much torque to both wheels as the wheel with the lesser traction can handle? So if you have one wheel on ice and one on the road, the wheel on ice can handle (effectively) 0 torque, so the diff can only send that much torque to the wheel on the road with the traction.
Or is that wrong?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 02, 2015, 02:40:41 PM
If a wheel is spinning, it's getting power, if it's not spinning, it's not getting power ;). In that vid at 2:18 the spinning non-traction wheel is getting 100% engine power and the non-spinning traction wheel is getting 0% engine power.
Locked diff is the same torque and speed left and right. This is virtually impossible to drive on the street owing to the inability to negotiate turning. These are usually referred to as a spool (typically used in drag racing) which is not even a diff but simply a set of right angle gears or a locker (typically used in serious 4wd rigs) which is a diff with a pneumatic or electronic soleniod that locks the axles together when off road.
Most any LSD on the street is clutch based, which means the L & R axles are not locked but coupled with a degree of slip to negotiate turning.
It's not delivering any power to the ground. Spinning freely but the car not moving = zero torque being applied. RPM x Zero torque = zero power.
-1 internetery by Cougs :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on July 02, 2015, 03:10:43 PM
I thought most LSDs were gear based? I know the Torsens used in Miatas are gear based.
Also, isn't what MrH is saying that open diffs provide the same torque to both wheels, the diff can only send as much torque to both wheels as the wheel with the lesser traction can handle? So if you have one wheel on ice and one on the road, the wheel on ice can handle (effectively) 0 torque, so the diff can only send that much torque to the wheel on the road with the traction.
Or is that wrong?
Si. If one wheel has zero traction and an open diff, zero torque will be applied to the ground for both wheels.
Well, there are variations on the LSD, viscous, gear and clutch. I don't know what the market share is of each and perhaps the clutch based aren't the most popular (they used to be).
Yes, that is basically right, however he said neither wheel is getting power which isn't correct - if a wheel is spinning it's getting power, if it's not spinning it's not getting power.
Quote from: MrH on July 02, 2015, 03:32:04 PM
It's not delivering any power to the ground. Spinning freely but the car not moving = zero torque being applied. RPM x Zero torque = zero power.
-1 internetery by Cougs :lol:
Unless the surface's coefficient of friction is 0 power is most definitely getting put to the ground. Chronic spinning on ice or sand or mud or w/e will make noise and melt/heat/burn the tire and/or surface even if the vehicle doesn't move (and heat and sound = power).
Totally insignificant amounts and worthless to the driver.
The point is with an open diff in Catch-22 fashion the wheel with the least traction gets the most/all power, and there are various ways to combat that.
Quote from: Raza on July 02, 2015, 12:38:24 PM
And we all used to wash clothes in a bucket and churn our own butter. It's a bad argument.
Hey, quit making fun of my wash bucket and butter churn! :shakesfist:
:lol:
I find the most annoying trend is the near identical shape of models across a manufacturer's range. I can't tell an A3 from an A4 without spotting the badge on the trunk. They're identical if you're not a hard-core Audi-phile.
Quote from: Jon? on July 10, 2015, 09:42:02 AM
I find the most annoying trend is the near identical shape of models across a manufacturer's range. I can't tell an A3 from an A4 without spotting the badge on the trunk. They're identical if you're not a hard-core Audi-phile.
:hesaid:
Shit.
Piss.
Poop
Boogers
Jizz!
This car does not excite me at all
It looks like my Jetta with a different grill. :pee: Unacceptable for what they charge.
Glad I got outta the A4 game when I did. Every time I see a newer Jetta, it looks just like my car, especially since mine was a base model without the fancy LED/HID headlights...the halogen headlights on the newer base Jettas are essentially identical to the ones that were on my A4.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/photos.ecarlist.com/gD/fm/Sh/wo/sS/8L/xt/xN/A7/xQ/zg_640.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/DSC03015.jpg)
I mean, they're basically the same car as it is, but the new Jettas are so similar to the looks of my 2010.
Despite the styling, the Jetta is on a completely different platform from the A4. One has a transverse engine, the other longitudinal. The A3 sedan, on the other hand...
Oh, yeah. I was speaking more in terms of styling, styling cues, interior design, etc.
The new Jetta? They've been out since 2011!
Time flies.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 26, 2015, 12:31:25 PM
Glad I got outta the A4 game when I did. Every time I see a newer Jetta, it looks just like my car, especially since mine was a base model without the fancy LED/HID headlights...the halogen headlights on the newer base Jettas are essentially identical to the ones that were on my A4.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/photos.ecarlist.com/gD/fm/Sh/wo/sS/8L/xt/xN/A7/xQ/zg_640.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1/giant_mtb/DSC03015.jpg)
I mean, they're basically the same car as it is, but the new Jettas are so similar to the looks of my 2010.
:confused:
They don't look that much alike.
They need to take away the rulers and straight edges at Inglostadt
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 27, 2015, 05:53:43 AM
They need to take away the rulers and straight edges at Inglostadt
Yeah, that way every car they make can look like the bulbous crap the Japanese make. Look, our cars are much soft and round! Very happy happy car!
Quote from: Raza on August 26, 2015, 08:03:17 PM
:confused:
They don't look that much alike.
Two separate reflector lenses. Orange marker light on the outside. Opaque strip underneath for running light and blinker. Same design, slightly different shape.
Quote from: Raza on August 27, 2015, 05:58:06 AM
Yeah, that way every car they make can look like the bulbous crap the Japanese make. Look, our cars are much soft and round! Very happy happy car!
Naw, no need for hyperbole. It's clear VWAG is in a state of design paralysis. Peter Schreyer implemented a culture of fear that he has now carried over to Hyundai/Kia, who have also adopted the design strategy of "cautious evolution". B9 may very well be brilliant but when a B8 that looks exactly the same is in the same lot at a $10K discount nobody will care.
Kind of agree with giant_mtb. I like the way my Audi looks of course, but even when I bought it (in 2010) it was on the conservative side (IMHO).
FWIW, other websites are reporting that there will be no more manual transmission for the S4.
To add insult to injury, they are also replacing the 7-speed DSG with an 8-speed slushbox. :(
S4 is now officially a luxury car with minimal sporting pretensions. Oh well.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 16, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
FWIW, other websites are reporting that there will be no more manual transmission for the S4.
To add insult to injury, they are also replacing the 7-speed DSG with an 8-speed slushbox. :(
S4 is now officially a luxury car with minimal sporting pretensions. Oh well.
Wat.
Fuck.
http://wot.motortrend.com/2017_audi_s4_debuts_with_354_hp_drops_manual_option.html (http://wot.motortrend.com/2017_audi_s4_debuts_with_354_hp_drops_manual_option.html)
Wtf
Honestly I am not sure why they are even calling it an S4. Just call it what it is: the A4 3.0T (equivalent to BMW 335i).
335i has option for 6mt and mechanical lsd though
And doesn't hang its engine 100% ahead of the front axle
And doesn't have shit interior
335i is still the low key pick of the litter since the infiniti is auto only
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2015, 03:05:22 PM
335i has option for 6mt and mechanical lsd though
And doesn't hang its engine 100% ahead of the front axle
And doesn't have shit interior
335i is still the low key pick of the litter since the infiniti is auto only
Pretty sure they moved the engine back on the A4 for the B8...
Of course, it's still auto only (I mean come on you have an excellent DSG, use it for fuck's sake) and looks bland as hell.
If I wanted an auto sedan I'd be looking at the C-Class. If I wanted a stick, I'd just go straight to the Chevy SS. Fuck the rest of the competition. This segment is so stagnant.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 16, 2015, 12:58:25 PM
Honestly I am not sure why they are even calling it an S4. Just call it what it is: the A4 3.0T (equivalent to BMW 335i).
The S4 has always been an equivalent to the 335i. The equivalent to the M3 has always been the RS4.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2015, 03:05:22 PM
335i has option for 6mt and mechanical lsd though
The S4 has as standard a locking diff center, and rear, and as an option active torque distribution on the rear axel.
Quote
And doesn't hang its engine 100% ahead of the front axle
The S4 does not have 100% of it's engine in front of the axle.
Quote
And doesn't have shit interior
The interior has been problematic on the 3 Series. They somewhat fixed that with the facelift.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 16, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
FWIW, other websites are reporting that there will be no more manual transmission for the S4.
To add insult to injury, they are also replacing the 7-speed DSG with an 8-speed slushbox. :(
S4 is now officially a luxury car with minimal sporting pretensions. Oh well.
Inevitable. The B8 S4 stopped the marque from being an enthusiast's car. I'm sure manual take rate was dismal, as it is for any "luxury" car. DSG doesn't really fit a "luxury" car either. Shame really.
The current DSG couldn't handle the new torque requirement. Wasn't worth it to design a new one :huh:
Quote from: MrH on September 16, 2015, 03:48:51 PM
The current DSG couldn't handle the new torque requirement. Wasn't worth it to design a new one :huh:
Doesn't the RS7 have a dsg
I call shenanigans
Anyone who buys a 2016 S4 is screwing themselves
No, the RS7 has the 8sp slushie.
Lots of DSGs handle as much or more torque - M3/M4, M5/M6, RS5, GTR, etc., etc. Audi just doesn't care, or more appropriately, Audi knows the market is just as happy, if not a bit happier, with a slushie AT.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2015, 04:16:59 PM
Doesn't the RS7 have a dsg
I call shenanigans
Anyone who buys a 2016 S4 is screwing themselves
False. RS7 has the same 8-speed as the new S4 I'm pretty sure.
I should also note they've been using the 354 hp V6T + 8sp slushie in the SQ5 for a while.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 16, 2015, 05:06:21 PM
I should also note they've been using the 354 hp V6T + 8sp slushie in the SQ5 for a while.
I think the SQ5 engine is still supercharged and this new one in the S4 is a turbo.
It can work if they find it right. Basically lock the torque converter from beyond a walking pace
But still.
I'm curious about the turbo setup. Hot v? At twin scroll hot v turbo will be huge for longitudinal engine cars
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 16, 2015, 05:59:41 PM
I think the SQ5 engine is still supercharged and this new one in the S4 is a turbo.
You're right - totally missed it. Both have 354 hp, so I assumed it was the SQ5 motor.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 16, 2015, 07:38:20 PM
It can work if they find it right. Basically lock the torque converter from beyond a walking pace
But still.
I'm curious about the turbo setup. Hot v? At twin scroll hot v turbo will be huge for longitudinal engine cars
Have to be careful there, esp. with turbo cars, as that can exacerbate lag (and why traditionally, ATs were much better for old school turbos because they had lots of lag, and a loose(ish) converter mitigated lag somewhat).
There are articles out there on GM's 8sp in the Z06 and of course the ZF 8 speed used by ze Germans. It's more about stuff they've done with clutches and the like to improve response. Pretty interesting.
Yes, it can work well, but turbo motor + slushie AT (even if a good one) < N/A or supercharged motor + DSG or M/T for feel and response. But then again, the S4 is now basically a C400 or 335i - dumbed down for "luxury" purposes.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 16, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
FWIW, other websites are reporting that there will be no more manual transmission for the S4.
To add insult to injury, they are also replacing the 7-speed DSG with an 8-speed slushbox. :(
S4 is now officially a luxury car with minimal sporting pretensions. Oh well.
No big deal. The RS6/7 use the ZF 8 speed.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 16, 2015, 08:53:47 PM
Have to be careful there, esp. with turbo cars, as that can exacerbate lag (and why traditionally, ATs were much better for old school turbos because they had lots of lag, and a loose(ish) converter mitigated lag somewhat).
There are articles out there on GM's 8sp in the Z06 and of course the ZF 8 speed used by ze Germans. It's more about stuff they've done with clutches and the like to improve response. Pretty interesting.
Yes, it can work well, but turbo motor + slushie AT (even if a good one) < N/A or supercharged motor + DSG or M/T for feel and response. But then again, the S4 is now basically a C400 or 335i - dumbed down for "luxury" purposes.
A hot v twin scroll turbo pretty much eliminates lag, at least on the turbine side. Compressor side will be normal. Auto boxes, even with fast lockup, are great for turbos as there is essentially no pause between gears, which in a WOT situation only means lag at initial tip in- which again is mitigated by the hot v.
My only real concern with that setup is heat. Whole hot sideof the turbo will have to be insulated or beat soak will be problematic. Hardly a turbo only issue though... NA VQ cars have bad heat soak in the summer
Quote from: Galaxy on September 16, 2015, 03:15:06 PM
The S4 has always been an equivalent to the 335i. The equivalent to the M3 has always been the RS4.
Back in the late 90s and early 00s the S4s were pretty good competitors both to the E36 & E46 M3s. Back then you could make an argument that the RS4 was positioned above both.
Starting with the E90, the M3 did pull away from the S4 and today what you say is true. But it hasn't been always so.
Yea BMW pulled away with the E90 in a big way
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 17, 2015, 05:24:05 AM
A hot v twin scroll turbo pretty much eliminates lag, at least on the turbine side. Compressor side will be normal. Auto boxes, even with fast lockup, are great for turbos as there is essentially no pause between gears, which in a WOT situation only means lag at initial tip in- which again is mitigated by the hot v.
My only real concern with that setup is heat. Whole hot sideof the turbo will have to be insulated or beat soak will be problematic. Hardly a turbo only issue though... NA VQ cars have bad heat soak in the summer
Hot vee config and other things (multi turbos, variable vane, DI/higher CR, etc.) help but there has to be lag since turbine and compressor have inertia. I thought it was Audi but maybe not, but someone is working on a small electric supercharger to operate in the first second or two of throttle application to provide boost during turbo lag.
Also, I hate turbos and they should all die in a fire.
E9x M3 was the pinnacle of the marque.
My friend who has the E90 M3 I owned is offering to sell it back to me. I am toying with the idea of turning it into a track car. For daily use it has too much overlap with the M5, and I prefer the larger car for long highway trips.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 17, 2015, 11:04:05 AM
My friend who has the E90 M3 I owned is offering to sell it back to me. I am toying with the idea of turning it into a track car. For daily use it has too much overlap with the M5, and I prefer the larger car for long highway trips.
!!!!! how much less than you sold it to him??
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 17, 2015, 11:42:21 AM
!!!!! how much less than you sold it to him??
About 8K or so. I haven't gotten into pricing details, but I guess I could get it for about 25K tops.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 10:46:32 AM
E9x M3 was the pinnacle of the marque.
+1
totally agree. I love that V8.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 17, 2015, 11:04:05 AM
My friend who has the E90 M3 I owned is offering to sell it back to me. I am toying with the idea of turning it into a track car. For daily use it has too much overlap with the M5, and I prefer the larger car for long highway trips.
If you don't do this I'm calling a vote to ban you.
Quote from: thecarnut on September 17, 2015, 11:56:37 AM
+1
totally agree. I love that V8.
I have a friend that is the biggest of BMW fanbois (the enthusiast type not the douche bag type) - he even prefers his E30 to his 996TT :facepalm:.
He didn't care for the E9x M3 and would never buy one as he's all about dat I6, and is now looking at a new M3. I think he's absolutely nuts of course, and we have a good row every now and again about it.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 12:02:36 PM
I have a friend that is the biggest of BMW fanbois (the enthusiast type not the douche bag type)
Is that even possible? :devil:
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 12:02:36 PM
I have a friend that is the biggest of BMW fanbois (the enthusiast type not the douche bag type) - he even prefers his E30 to his 996TT :facepalm:.
He didn't care for the E9x M3 and would never buy one as he's all about dat I6, and is now looking at a new M3. I think he's absolutely nuts of course, and we have a good row every now and again about it.
I think at the limit (track use) the new M3 with the turbo is more fun than the E90 mostly because the chassis is better. Maybe not so much on the street but I haven't had the chance to drive the new one outside a track.
The one time I did drive an E30 (mountain road) I wasn´t that impressed. I prefer the E46.
Quote from: thecarnut on September 17, 2015, 12:03:36 PM
Is that even possible? :devil:
He's Indian and with what I've seen a not-uncommon self-effacing and slightly overthinking mien that mostly prevents douche baggery (though there is some snobbishness) ;).
Quote from: thecarnut on September 17, 2015, 12:03:36 PM
Is that even possible? :devil:
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 12:22:34 PM
He's Indian and with what I've seen a not-uncommon self-effacing and slightly overthinking mien that mostly prevents douche baggery (though there is some snobbishness) ;).
We are all douches.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 12:22:34 PM
He's Indian and with what I've seen a not-uncommon self-effacing and slightly overthinking mien that mostly prevents douche baggery (though there is some snobbishness) ;).
Heh, I'm definitely guilty of the self-effacing/overthinking bit
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 17, 2015, 12:15:32 PM
I think at the limit (track use) the new M3 with the turbo is more fun than the E90 mostly because the chassis is better. Maybe not so much on the street but I haven't had the chance to drive the new one outside a track.
The one time I did drive an E30 (mountain road) I wasn´t that impressed. I prefer the E46.
The new M3 is most definitely a "better" car overall just as the E9x vs. E46, and E46 vs. E30, etc. But dat V8 though.
He has the 325is which is apparently something special. He likes it bunches.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 10:45:52 AM
Hot vee config and other things (multi turbos, variable vane, DI/higher CR, etc.) help but there has to be lag since turbine and compressor have inertia. I thought it was Audi but maybe not, but someone is working on a small electric supercharger to operate in the first second or two of throttle application to provide boost during turbo lag.
Also, I hate turbos and they should all die in a fire.
With enough torque and good design its negligible. Especially with an auto that enables continuous boost. A lot of high performance naturally aspirated engines simply don't have the torque to deliver satisfying performance below the upper third of the Rev range, and even the ones that do still get wheezy at altitude or noticeably weaker in hot weather.
I like NA too but the sad reality is outside of a handful of cars (Miata, 911, F12) modern cars are just too heavy for natural aspiration. Imo a good rule of thumb is at least 1cc per lb of curb weight... You can probably count the number of cars that foot that rule on two hands. They're not slow but they're not super responsive either. I think motorcycles are better at carrying the NA torch - they keep getting lighter, better handling and more powerful. For street cars in this safety Nazi era boost is a necessary evil. When we can get back to sports sedans and performance cars that weigh less than 3000 lbs we can talk about natural aspiration again. Ironically the same force that made cats heavier may make them light again (govt regs)
But again we will see
Too heavy for N/A? See the C7 and new Camaro and Mustang, and even the Camcord V6s.
Turbos are more heat sensitive than NA.
NA motors have far better volumetric efficiency, taken as an average across the industry, today than they did in the "light car good old days" of 20-25 years ago. And it's not all crammed in a narrow spot at the high end of the power band. They produce more power everywhere. Meanwhile, the significant number, if not a large majority, of newer turbo motors have narrower powerbands than their similarly powerful NA counterparts. So not only do you have a bit of lag sapping your responsiveness, but they fall off power sooner as well.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
Too heavy for N/A? See the C7 and new Camaro and Mustang, and even the Camcord V6s.
All those cars fit my rule. And thinking about it that still might not be enough. F430 and 458 were well beyond and felt fast but not 500-600 hp fast. SL55 Amg felt more brutal
Not so sure on power band width. Look to the GTR, M3/4, 911 Turbo, Fusion Turbo, etc. Those power bands are much wider than their N/A counterparts.
Thing is with so many gears these days it doesn't matter so much.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 17, 2015, 03:06:42 PM
With enough torque and good design its negligible. Especially with an auto that enables continuous boost. A lot of high performance naturally aspirated engines simply don't have the torque to deliver satisfying performance below the upper third of the Rev range, and even the ones that do still get wheezy at altitude or noticeably weaker in hot weather.
I like NA too but the sad reality is outside of a handful of cars (Miata, 911, F12) modern cars are just too heavy for natural aspiration. Imo a good rule of thumb is at least 1cc per lb of curb weight... You can probably count the number of cars that foot that rule on two hands. They're not slow but they're not super responsive either. I think motorcycles are better at carrying the NA torch - they keep getting lighter, better handling and more powerful. For street cars in this safety Nazi era boost is a necessary evil. When we can get back to sports sedans and performance cars that weigh less than 3000 lbs we can talk about natural aspiration again. Ironically the same force that made cats heavier may make them light again (govt regs)
But again we will see
Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? :wtf:
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2015, 03:59:32 PM
Turbos are more heat sensitive than NA.
NA motors have far better volumetric efficiency, taken as an average across the industry, today than they did in the "light car good old days" of 20-25 years ago. And it's not all crammed in a narrow spot at the high end of the power band. They produce more power everywhere. Meanwhile, the significant number, if not a large majority, of newer turbo motors have narrower powerbands than their similarly powerful NA counterparts. So not only do you have a bit of lag sapping your responsiveness, but they fall off power sooner as well.
Turbo engines have the flexibility of playing with boost curves. So they can lop off the peakiness, as well as do interesting stuff like boost by gear.
Quote from: thecarnut on September 17, 2015, 04:52:12 PM
Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? :wtf:
My thumb. That's what rule of thumb means. I make all decisions by thumb
Quote from: thecarnut on September 17, 2015, 04:52:12 PM
Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? :wtf:
Lol, my thoughts exactly. The Sporty rules of the car world are always entertaining :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 04:28:59 PM
Not so sure on power band width. Look to the GTR, M3/4, 911 Turbo, Fusion Turbo, etc. Those power bands are much wider than their N/A counterparts.
Thing is with so many gears these days it doesn't matter so much.
I define "powerband" as the spread over which an engine is making >85% peak torque. Turbos make lots more torque, but their torque curves are generally peakier (narrower relative to their peak value) than NA motors. This also lends to the sensation that NA motors don't feel as strong based on seat of the pants.
Ford 3.7L V6 - 4200 RPM powerband spread (2200-6400 RPM) - source: http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html)
Ford 5.0L V8 - 3500 RPM powerband spread (3100-6600 RPM) - source: http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg (http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg)
BMW 4.0L S65 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2500-8000 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
BMW 3.2L S54 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2100-7600 RPM) - source: http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html (http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html)
Chevy LT-1 - 4100+ RPM powerband spread (<2000-6100 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html)
Ford 2.0T - 3000 RPM powerband spread (1900-4900 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-ford-fiesta-st-dyno-tested.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-ford-fiesta-st-dyno-tested.html)
Ford 2.3T - 2400 RPM powerband spread (3200-5600 RPM) - source: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21)
VQ38DETT - 3800 RPM powerband spread (2800-6600 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html)
BMW 3.0T S55 - 3200 RPM powerband spread (2900-6100 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2015, 05:42:54 PM
I define "powerband" as the spread over which an engine is making >85% peak torque. Turbos make lots more torque, but their torque curves are generally peakier (narrower relative to their peak value) than NA motors. This also lends to the sensation that NA motors don't feel as strong based on seat of the pants.
Ford 3.7L V6 - 4200 RPM powerband spread (2200-6400 RPM) - source: http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html)
Ford 5.0L V8 - 3500 RPM powerband spread (3100-6600 RPM) - source: http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg (http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg)
BMW 4.0L S65 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2500-8000 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
BMW 3.2L S54 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2100-7600 RPM) - source: http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html (http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html)
Chevy LT-1 - 4100+ RPM powerband spread (<2000-6100 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html)
Ford 2.3T I4 - 2400 RPM powerband spread (3200-5600 RPM) - source: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21)
VQ38DETT - 3800 RPM powerband spread (2800-6600 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html)
BMW 3.0T S55 - 3200 RPM powerband spread (2900-6100 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
I agree with your definition. And my experience matches the spreads that you quoted/researched. Exactly.
Turbos feel much stronger down low but they run out of air much quicker up top. I shift on the track the 1M at 5,500 to 6,000 RPMS tops. It doesn´t make any sense to rev it further. The F80 M3 is similar with slightly more power up top. The N/A engines feel like they just keep making more and more power with revs. Totally different feeling.
E90 4 lyfe.
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2015, 05:42:54 PM
I define "powerband" as the spread over which an engine is making >85% peak torque. Turbos make lots more torque, but their torque curves are generally peakier (narrower relative to their peak value) than NA motors. This also lends to the sensation that NA motors don't feel as strong based on seat of the pants.
Ford 3.7L V6 - 4200 RPM powerband spread (2200-6400 RPM) - source: http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/jimandpat/media/2013%20MCA/Intake%20modification/Stockintakeandtune0001_zpsf150665b.jpg.html)
Ford 5.0L V8 - 3500 RPM powerband spread (3100-6600 RPM) - source: http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg (http://services.edmunds-media.com/image-service/media-ed/ximm/?quality=85&image=/ford/mustang/2011/fe/2011_ford_mustang_ill_fe_101012_600.jpg)
BMW 4.0L S65 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2500-8000 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
BMW 3.2L S54 - 5500 RPM powerband spread (2100-7600 RPM) - source: http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html (http://s88.photobucket.com/user/MC28REPSOL/media/S54DynoStock.jpg.html)
Chevy LT-1 - 4100+ RPM powerband spread (<2000-6100 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z51-dyno-test.html)
Ford 2.0T - 3000 RPM powerband spread (1900-4900 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-ford-fiesta-st-dyno-tested.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2014-ford-fiesta-st-dyno-tested.html)
Ford 2.3T - 2400 RPM powerband spread (3200-5600 RPM) - source: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_23_first_test/photos/#21)
VQ38DETT - 3800 RPM powerband spread (2800-6600 RPM) - source: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html (http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-nissan-gt-r-dyno-tested.html)
BMW 3.0T S55 - 3200 RPM powerband spread (2900-6100 RPM) - source: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html (http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html)
Actually, IMO the better/best definition is the spread between peak torque RPM and peak power RPM, and the bigger the spread the wider the power band and turbos, turbo diesels, and to a lesser extent superchargers, generally have much larger spreads and are thus notably quicker vs. their N/A counterparts for equivalent (peak) power-to-weight ratios WRT overall rev range. This wider spread equates to higher average power to the drive wheels which = higher average thrust force per unit of road speed = higher average acceleration: GTI vs. Civic Si, C400 vs. G37, 335i vs. G37, S4 vs. G37, 5.0L vs. 3.5L Ecoboost F150, 5.3L Silverado vs. 3.5L Ecoboost F150, Mustang GT vs. M4, GL450 vs. LX570, 6.0 Vortec vs. 6.6L Duramax Silverado, etc., etc. (This list is virtually endless.)
Also, chassis dynos aren't very good for that sort of comparison - most of those graphs are wrong, if not WAY wrong, such as for the 2011 Mustang GT. It has to be the SAE engine dyno graph to be worth much of anything.
Yea plus keep in mind where you spend the bulk of your time on the street. Even in my slow ass Civic I rarely take our to redline. I would rather have a torque peak at the sweet spot of daily driving than a thin smattering of torque from idle to redline. Plus there is something natural feeling and satisfying about a powerband with a defined (but not peaky) torque curve. An engine can peak in torque halfway up the Rev range and still have a top end worth exploring. I much prefer that balance to the rheostat style powerbands of cars like the 8th gen Si, 2.0l S2000 and even the Ferraris I drove. Too much commitment required for the performance metered out. I love the tech of high revving engines but I hate driving them
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
Also, chassis dynos aren't very good for that sort of comparison - most of those graphs are wrong, if not WAY wrong, such as for the 2011 Mustang GT. It has to be the SAE engine dyno graph to be worth much of anything.
I take actual values from chassis dynos with a grain of salt, but the shape of the power and torque curves will be representative.
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2015, 07:48:22 PM
I take actual values from chassis dynos with a grain of salt, but the shape of the power and torque curves will be representative.
Shapes are way way off too, such as for the S55.
Accelerating a big ass drum + drive train will have deleterious on the curve. Engine dynos are typically eddy current or water brakes (i.e., active, non inertial) for that reason.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 08:06:31 PM
Shapes are way way off too, such as for the S55.
Accelerating a big ass drum + drive train will have deleterious on the curve. Engine dynos are typically eddy current or water brakes (i.e., active, non inertial) for that reason.
Any examples of this difference?
And most chassis dynos are eddy current.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 17, 2015, 08:11:53 PM
Any examples of this difference?
And most chassis dynos are eddy current.
Just look at the curves' peak HP and peak torque RPM vs. published specs.
Chassis dynos rely on a big ass drum (= inertia) on which the drive wheels ride.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 08:06:31 PM
Shapes are way way off too, such as for the S55.
Accelerating a big ass drum + drive train will have deleterious on the curve. Engine dynos are typically eddy current or water brakes (i.e., active, non inertial) for that reason.
Accelerating a big ass drum is no different from using a water brake or eddy current dyno. Bolt the crankshaft straight to a known rotating mass and measure it's angular acceleration and you'll get power all the same. The effects of all of the whirly bits in the drivetrain is where chassis dynos fail at telling actual engine power. Too difficult to back out the rotational inertia of all of the spinning mass, not to mention all of the viscous losses through the transmission and differential. Changes to the drivetrain, like lighter or heavier wheels, can skew results (though a lighter drivetrain will make a car quicker as though more power were added).
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 08:25:55 PM
Just look at the curves' peak HP and peak torque RPM vs. published specs.
Chassis dynos rely on a big ass drum (= inertia) on which the drive wheels ride.
But you just said eddy current dynos are ok, which most chassis dynos are.
Plus there are chassis dynos that bolt on to the hub so that's out too. Your chassis dunno hate has no bearing in reason
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 17, 2015, 08:36:04 PM
But you just said eddy current dynos are ok, which most chassis dynos are.
Plus there are chassis dynos that bolt on to the hub so that's out too. Your chassis dunno hate has no bearing in reason
Eddy current
engine dynos. The point is, engine dyno has negligible inertia, and the eddy current set up is active (i.e., load changes independent of RPM).
Bolt-on hub chassis dyons suck too. Proof's in the puddin' - the curves and values are usually way off WRT the SAE engine dyno curve.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 08:55:49 PM
Eddy current engine dynos. The point is, engine dyno has negligible inertia, and the eddy current set up is active (i.e., load changes independent of RPM).
Bolt-on hub chassis dyons suck too. Proof's in the puddin' - the curves and values are usually way off WRT the SAE engine dyno curve.
Can you post some of these dynos to compare?
Quote from: MX793 on September 17, 2015, 08:35:40 PM
Accelerating a big ass drum is no different from using a water brake or eddy current dyno. Bolt the crankshaft straight to a known rotating mass and measure it's angular acceleration and you'll get power all the same. The effects of all of the whirly bits in the drivetrain is where chassis dynos fail at telling actual engine power. Too difficult to back out the rotational inertia of all of the spinning mass, not to mention all of the viscous losses through the transmission and differential. Changes to the drivetrain, like lighter or heavier wheels, can skew results (though a lighter drivetrain will make a car quicker as though more power were added).
Engine dynos are typically active (load applied independent of RPM) and have negligible inertia. This is an important distinction since the average IC engine has a highly variable speed vs. torque curve. The peak power and peak torque values would be the same but the shapes of the curves would be different as all that passive inertia will tend to smooth the curve.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 17, 2015, 09:05:52 PM
Can you post some of these dynos to compare?
As I had stated see the links already posted and compare their peak values and peak RPMs to published SAE specs.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 09:26:54 PM
Engine dynos are typically active (load applied independent of RPM) and have negligible inertia. This is an important distinction since the average IC engine has a highly variable speed vs. torque curve. The peak power and peak torque values would be the same but the shapes of the curves would be different as all that passive inertia will tend to smooth the curve.
As the power at the crankshaft changes, so will the instantaneous acceleration of the inertial mass. That's Newton's 1st law. The flywheel will not continue accelerating when force/power is removed or otherwise maintain an acceleration rate when the engine power dips to "smooth out the curve". That completely violates Newton's 1st.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 17, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
As I had stated see the links already posted and compare their peak values and peak RPMs to published SAE specs.
So in other words you don't have actual SAE dynos, or engine dynos period.... just published specs, which have been proven to be meaningless and wrong many times over
For example the F80 and E90 are supposed to make about the same horsepower, yet the new car consistently makes about 20% more peak power on eddy current chassis dynos.
Similarly turbo engines often spool or even boost differently in different gears. Edmunds did a test on this. But stock NA engines tend to make peak power and torque where SAE says they do on chassis dynos.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2015, 07:24:15 AM
So in other words you don't have actual SAE dynos, or engine dynos period.... just published specs, which have been proven to be meaningless and wrong many times over
For example the F80 and E90 are supposed to make about the same horsepower, yet the new car consistently makes about 20% more peak power on eddy current chassis dynos.
Some of that may be differences in the mass/inertia of the driveline components or more efficient power transfers. Lighter drive shaft, lighter half-shafts, lighter clutch... Has anyone verified that the weight of the spinning parts hasn't drastically changed?
QuoteSimilarly turbo engines often spool or even boost differently in different gears. Edmunds did a test on this. But stock NA engines tend to make peak power and torque where SAE says they do on chassis dynos.
Some manufacturers come right out and advertise this fact, as well. Mazda limited power output in the first 2 gears on Mazdaspeed 3 to curb torque steer. I'm also not sure if any car with an "overboost" function gets the power advertised inclusive of the overboost mode or not.
I can think of one instance off the top of my head where a significant difference in where at peak value was located between manufacturer and a 3rd party dyno measurement on an NA motor, and that was for a motor with a very flat torque curve as well as a flat power curve near peak. On the Bandit 1250, Suzuki claimed peak torque at 3700 RPM. One of the major mags did their own dyno run and reported peak at 6100 RPM. Seems like a big differences, but if you looked at the dyno plot in the magazine, the torque curve is pretty well flat from <3500 to ~6300, and the value at 3700 was just the slightest bit lower than at 6100. IOW, within margin of error or engine to engine variability due to tolerances. Similar with the power curve, where Suzuki cited peak at 7500 and the magazine measured it at closer to 8700. The power curve goes very flat from 7000-9000 and just subtle variability due to tolerances or measurement error results in the peak showing up anywhere in that spread. Looking at the chart, there was maybe a 1 hp difference between what that magazine measured at 7500 and their measured peak at 8700.
Quote from: MX793 on September 18, 2015, 06:39:50 AM
As the power at the crankshaft changes, so will the instantaneous acceleration of the inertial mass. That's Newton's 1st law. The flywheel will not continue accelerating when force/power is removed or otherwise maintain an acceleration rate when the engine power dips to "smooth out the curve". That completely violates Newton's 1st.
Whoa, easy ;).
It's on the practical side. Inertia = filtering (remember spring/mass/damper in control theory 101?) as a dyno is after all a control system, with such tidbits as data acquisition bandwidth and power pulses per unit time. The chassis dyno operator has no control over this filtering which will result in a less-than-accurate raw curve. The engine dyno however with negligible inertia has no such innate filtering, which equates to a more accurate raw curve to which the necessary smoothing (SAE and otherwise) is applied.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2015, 07:24:15 AM
So in other words you don't have actual SAE dynos, or engine dynos period.... just published specs, which have been proven to be meaningless and wrong many times over
For example the F80 and E90 are supposed to make about the same horsepower, yet the new car consistently makes about 20% more peak power on eddy current chassis dynos.
Similarly turbo engines often spool or even boost differently in different gears. Edmunds did a test on this. But stock NA engines tend to make peak power and torque where SAE says they do on chassis dynos.
You need to do the research yourself.
Most vehicles' engines are SAE rated and it is very accurate, and such SAE curves are the yardsticks by which all dyno graphs are to be measured against.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
You need to do the research yourself.
why? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one who made the claim that chassis dynos are completely off. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 12:40:48 PM
Whoa, easy ;).
It's on the practical side. Inertia = filtering (remember spring/mass/damper in control theory 101?) as a dyno is after all a control system, with such tidbits as data acquisition bandwidth and power pulses per unit time. The chassis dyno operator has no control over this filtering which will result in a less-than-accurate raw curve. The engine dyno however with negligible inertia has no such innate filtering, which equates to a more accurate raw curve to which the necessary smoothing (SAE and otherwise) is applied.
Mass is not damping. In order to "smooth out" or mechanically filter the results of an inertial dyno, you'd need some kind of spring and/or damper in line with the mass. Yes, shafts (including the output shaft of the engine) can act like a torsional spring, but you will have that with an absorption dyno as well (not to mention that the absorption device is itself basically a damper).
There are practical reasons for using absorption dynos over inertial, but not because an inertial, when properly configured, is inherently less accurate.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2015, 01:18:44 PM
why? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one who made the claim that chassis dynos are completely off. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Well, the hitch in your premise is that I am correct and there is no value in proving myself to myself.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 01:48:37 PM
Well, the hitch in your premise is that I am correct and there is no value in proving myself to myself.
If that incredibly low and worthless threshold is ok for you then so be it, but non Cougslandians will rightfully write your claims off as BS
Quote from: MX793 on September 18, 2015, 01:40:38 PM
Mass is not damping. In order to "smooth out" or mechanically filter the results of an inertial dyno, you'd need some kind of spring and/or damper in line with the mass. Yes, shafts (including the output shaft of the engine) can act like a torsional spring, but you will have that with an absorption dyno as well (not to mention that the absorption device is itself basically a damper).
There are practical reasons for using absorption dynos over inertial, but not because an inertial, when properly configured, is inherently less accurate.
More inertia = slow(er) response to transients - in general think flywheel, tuned mass dampers on power lines, pendulum dampers in skyscrapers, etc. In specific, adding inertia to control systems (servos, robots, etc.) is a common mechanical filtering tactic to aid control system performance.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 02:03:03 PM
More inertia = slow(er) response to transients - in general think flywheel, tuned mass dampers on power lines, pendulum dampers in skyscrapers, etc. In specific, adding inertia to control systems (servos, robots, etc.) is a common mechanical filtering tactic to aid control system performance.
A heavier mass will accelerate slower for a given force, yes. That's not the same as damping. Assuming a friction-free environment (for the sake of simplicity), if I apply force to a mass, its acceleration will correlate directly and linearly with the force applied. That's a fundamental law of motion (F=ma). If I know the mass, and I know its rate of acceleration, I know the force being applied. If I increase the mass, the acceleration will be slower, but will still be a 1:1 correlation.
Mass changes the natural frequency in a harmonic system like a pendulum (which a power line or skyscraper are analogous to). Adding weight to a flywheel doesn't dampen the response or alter system damping in any way. It reduces the angular acceleration. But each power pulse is still transmitted, and provided you have the sample rate bandwidth, each can be detected and the associated variations in torque applied can be measured.
Guys...Guys...can we please just agree on one thing?
No more manual sucks balls. :rage:
Quote from: MX793 on September 18, 2015, 02:21:36 PM
A heavier mass will accelerate slower for a given force, yes. That's not the same as damping. Assuming a friction-free environment (for the sake of simplicity), if I apply force to a mass, its acceleration will correlate directly and linearly with the force applied. That's a fundamental law of motion (F=ma). If I know the mass, and I know its rate of acceleration, I know the force being applied. If I increase the mass, the acceleration will be slower, but will still be a 1:1 correlation.
Mass changes the natural frequency in a harmonic system like a pendulum (which a power line or skyscraper are analogous to). Adding weight to a flywheel doesn't dampen the response or alter system damping in any way. It reduces the angular acceleration. But each power pulse is still transmitted, and provided you have the sample rate bandwidth, each can be detected and the associated variations in torque applied can be measured.
I never said was damping in my example. I said "filtering" which is not the same thing and in general you're overthinking this. Mass and inertia mechanical filtering is a Real Thing, which you've most assuredly Googled by now.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 02:27:55 PM
I never said was damping in my example. I said "filtering" which is not the same thing and in general you're overthinking this. Mass and inertia mechanical filtering is a Real Thing, which you've most assuredly Googled by now.
Filtering implies allowing some frequencies through while blocking/cancelling others. Mass alone cannot do that. A mechanical filter requires a spring (or means of storing and releasing potential energy) and damper, the values of which are adjusted to achieve the appropriate response to inputs, just as an electronic filter requires some form of capacitance and resistance.
Quote from: MX793 on September 18, 2015, 02:37:42 PM
Filtering implies allowing some frequencies through while blocking/cancelling others. Mass alone cannot do that. A mechanical filter requires a spring (or means of storing and releasing potential energy) and damper, the values of which are adjusted to achieve the appropriate response to inputs, just as an electronic filter requires some form of capacitance and resistance.
You need to think in the time domain from a system perspective, esp. data acquisition at a given bandwidth.
Adding inertia decreases response of a system which for a given data acquisition bandwidth will result in a filtered result.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 03:01:48 PM
You need to think in the time domain from a system perspective, esp. data acquisition at a given bandwidth.
Adding inertia decreases response of a system which for a given data acquisition bandwidth will result in a filtered result.
Then why are chassis dynos all choppy and noisy? If the big roller drums filter noise chassis dynos should be smooth, but they aren't
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 03:01:48 PM
You need to think in the time domain from a system perspective, esp. data acquisition at a given bandwidth.
Adding inertia decreases response of a system which for a given data acquisition bandwidth will result in a filtered result.
But that's a problem of the data collection setup. Put the wrong type of data collection settings (e.g. set the sample rate too high) on a water brake or eddy current dyno and you'll have the same problem. It also doesn't support your claim that the mass somehow changes the shape of the curve or the accuracy of measurement. If the mass is too heavy and the acceleration too slow for your bandwidth limits, what data you collect will still be accurate, and the shape correct, but you won't be able to collect a complete set of data due to data storage limitations. Tweak your sample rate and your results become unfiltered, but at reduced resolution. Or adjust your inertial load until you achieve the desired resolution for your available bandwidth.
Like I said before, a properly configured inertial dyno will be every bit as accurate as any other type. The reason absorption types are more popular is not due to accuracy.
That's not a "problem" that is reality. No data acquisition system has infinite resolution or bandwidth.
Sporty absolutely hates when I bring out The Hammer, but my primary career track has been robotics, motion control, servos, etc., and basic control system theory which includes both design and tuning control system loops. I've also done a couple of dyno projects (albeit with (huge) electric motors). Adding inertia to a system is a common tactic (or problem, depending on the POV) regarding filtering - whether that's response of the system or relative to the data acquisition system.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 18, 2015, 03:23:42 PM
Then why are chassis dynos all choppy and noisy? If the big roller drums filter noise chassis dynos should be smooth, but they aren't
The real question is, What would those charts look like without mechanical filtering?
Again, proof is in the puddin' - chassis dyno charts are somewhere between sort and arbitrary WRT to the SAE engine dyno charts.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 04:17:37 PM
That's not a "problem" that is reality. No data acquisition system has infinite resolution or bandwidth.
Sporty absolutely hates when I bring out The Hammer, but my primary career track has been robotics, motion control, servos, etc., and basic control system theory which includes both design and tuning control system loops. I've also done a couple of dyno projects (albeit with (huge) electric motors). Adding inertia to a system is a common tactic (or problem, depending on the POV) regarding filtering - whether that's response of the system or relative to the data acquisition system.
But inertia alone will not, as you have asserted, affect at what RPM the peak power and torque occur or are recorded at. Nor will it affect the shape of the curve when plotted against RPM. At least not without the presence of damping in the system. A good inertial dyno, with low friction bearings and mounted right to the engine output, will have effectively no damping. So long as the mass of your inertial load supports the bandwidth and sample rate of your data collection equipment, it will be every bit as accurate as an absorption dyno. And changes in that inertial mass, provided they support the constraints of your data collection equipment, will not materially affect the results.
So I say again: Inertial dynos are not inherently less accurate than any other type. The reason they aren't preferred has nothing to do with accuracy. You're tap dancing around the real reason, though.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 18, 2015, 04:17:37 PM
That's not a "problem" that is reality. No data acquisition system has infinite resolution or bandwidth.
Sporty absolutely hates when I bring out The Hammer, but my primary career track has been robotics, motion control, servos, etc., and basic control system theory which includes both design and tuning control system loops. I've also done a couple of dyno projects (albeit with (huge) electric motors). Adding inertia to a system is a common tactic (or problem, depending on the POV) regarding filtering - whether that's response of the system or relative to the data acquisition system.
What hammer
That you have all that experience and are still so dead wrong only makes you look that much worse. I feel for your dyno clients
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 16, 2015, 12:27:54 PM
http://wot.motortrend.com/2017_audi_s4_debuts_with_354_hp_drops_manual_option.html (http://wot.motortrend.com/2017_audi_s4_debuts_with_354_hp_drops_manual_option.html)
Boo. Another one bites the dust.
C&D did a road test in their latest issue. Said it was competent with a great interior.
$57K as tested. This shit has gotten out of control. IIRC the midsizers from about 10 years ago (which the 4/3/C are now the size of) weren't even this expensive.
Something else stood out to me in the specs: iron block.
Iron block on a boosted motor doesn't surprise me. Ford started using iron blocks for some of their newer Ecoboost lines (the new 2.7TT is iron).
Quote from: Rich on June 01, 2016, 04:55:21 AM
C&D did a road test in their latest issue. Said it was competent with a great interior.
$57K as tested. This shit has gotten out of control. IIRC the midsizers from about 10 years ago (which the 4/3/C are now the size of) weren't even this expensive.
Something else stood out to me in the specs: iron block.
Inflation man.
Quote from: MX793 on June 01, 2016, 05:17:21 AM
Iron block on a boosted motor doesn't surprise me. Ford started using iron blocks for some of their newer Ecoboost lines (the new 2.7TT is iron).
In a luxury car from a company that advertises as truth in engineering. You'd think they'd use iron liners in an aluminum block.
That a brand new luxury/premium car has an iron block like a mainstream truck doesn't say much for their tag line
Iron doesn't necessarily mean low tech. Ford is using compacted graphite iron, which is a bit more advanced than what your average cast iron stove is made from. High toughness (more so than aluminum), good at handling heat, and fairly low weight. They use it in racing engines.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 01, 2016, 05:34:44 AM
Inflation man.
You get a lot more for your $$$ too. I think people are looking at it wrong. What we consider an A4 is now called the A3. 2 series coupe is the exact same size as an E46 coupe. My Civic is the same size inside as the first midsize Accords. Etc. When you look at what you can actually get for your $$$$ cars are way cheaper than they used to be,.
Quote from: MX793 on June 01, 2016, 05:58:33 AM
Iron doesn't necessarily mean low tech. Ford is using compacted graphite iron, which is a bit more advanced than what your average cast iron stove is made from. High toughness (more so than aluminum), good at handling heat, and fairly low weight. They use it in racing engines.
Aluminum is still pretty good though. BMW uses it for all their turbo engines from what I remember. I'm watching a TST one take video now of an 800+ HP 335i. GTI is <3000lbs in a lot of trims though so I guess it's no biggie.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 01, 2016, 06:14:16 AM
You get a lot more for your $$$ too. I think people are looking at it wrong. What we consider an A4 is now called the A3. 2 series coupe is the exact same size as an E46 coupe. My Civic is the same size inside as the first midsize Accords. Etc. When you look at what you can actually get for your $$$$ cars are way cheaper than they used to be,.
Quote from: Rich on June 01, 2016, 04:55:21 AM
IIRC the midsizers from about 10 years ago (which the 4/3/C are now the size of) weren't even this expensive.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/leave-the-iron-on-ford-buries-new-age-iron-in-its-aluminum-intensive-2015-f-150 (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/leave-the-iron-on-ford-buries-new-age-iron-in-its-aluminum-intensive-2015-f-150)
QuoteBecause Ford is using CGI, its new V-6 is tougher, more compact, and less expensive than the all-aluminum alternative.
Sooooo, the advantage is that it's more compact? Audi doesn't even go to the extremes of using an aluminum cradle. Maybe they used the $$$ on the interior rather than powertrain...
Quote from: Rich on June 01, 2016, 04:55:21 AM
C&D did a road test in their latest issue. Said it was competent with a great interior.
$57K as tested. This shit has gotten out of control. IIRC the midsizers from about 10 years ago (which the 4/3/C are now the size of) weren't even this expensive.
Something else stood out to me in the specs: iron block.
MSRP on my car when I bought it (new) was ~55k (I think I paid like ~52k or something like that). I bought the higher trim level with the bigger wheels, high end audio, etc... (but didn't get the sport differential, which I somewhat regret). Its crazy that a standard A4 is more expensive now. I would guess the new one has a few features mine doesn't, but I doubt it is anything I would get much usefulness from.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 01, 2016, 06:14:16 AM
You get a lot more for your $$$ too. I think people are looking at it wrong. What we consider an A4 is now called the A3. 2 series coupe is the exact same size as an E46 coupe. My Civic is the same size inside as the first midsize Accords. Etc. When you look at what you can actually get for your $$$$ cars are way cheaper than they used to be,.
The comparison makes sense for the Accord/Civic, but for Audi it isn't as straightforward. The A4 has always had a longitudinally mounted engine with a torsen center differential with true AWD (50/50 power split F/R, although S4's now get 40/60 F/R). The A3, which is physically the same size, has transversely mounted engine and a haldex AWD system that typically sends ~90% of its power to the front wheels. While this type of AWD is still definitely better than basic FWD it is a step down from the torsen system (which is why the A4/A6/A8 all still use the "old" setup).
Also worth noting that BMW's new X1 and upcoming new 1-series will be using a FWD architecture. Hopefully the 2-series stays RWD, but BMW is definitely moving in a FWD direction. So while the 1-series will be sized equivalently to the old 3-series sedans, it will not have the same handling characteristics.
MB has also started the move to FWD. The CLA and GLA are FWD based with AWD optional.
Quote from: Rich on June 01, 2016, 06:19:46 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/leave-the-iron-on-ford-buries-new-age-iron-in-its-aluminum-intensive-2015-f-150 (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/leave-the-iron-on-ford-buries-new-age-iron-in-its-aluminum-intensive-2015-f-150)
Sooooo, the advantage is that it's more compact? Audi doesn't even go to the extremes of using an aluminum cradle. Maybe they used the $$$ on the interior rather than powertrain...
Bear in mind that 2.0T isn't a bespoke Audi engine. It's part of the VW corporate parts bin, used in more plebian VWs and Skoda's as well as premium Audis. Cost matters in those lesser brands. Developing a more expensive, all aluminum 4-banger just for Audi doesn't make a lot of sense when the gains would amount to maybe 50 lbs of weight savings.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 01, 2016, 06:26:11 AM
MSRP on my car when I bought it (new) was ~55k (I think I paid like ~52k or something like that). I bought the higher trim level with the bigger wheels, high end audio, etc... (but didn't get the sport differential, which I somewhat regret). Its crazy that a standard A4 is more expensive now. I would guess the new one has a few features mine doesn't, but I doubt it is anything I would get much usefulness from.
Just checked my old posting history, paid closer to ~53k:
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 03, 2010, 03:28:19 PM
FWIW, I have put down a deposit on the following car:
2010 Audi S4, 6-speed manual
Exterior: Sprint Blue Pearl Effect
Interior: Black and Silver Leather
Prestige Model
Silk Nappa Leather
Carbon Atlas Interior Inlays
MSRP: 54,800 + Taxes and Fees
Selling Price: 52,700 + Taxes and Fees
Will still probably take a couple of weeks to go get it, but I pretty much got exactly what I want. The only thing I would have done different when building it on the website was to not purchase the carbon inlays.
Can't wait to pick it up!
:lol:
Quote from: MX793 on June 01, 2016, 06:36:26 AM
Bear in mind that 2.0T isn't a bespoke Audi engine. It's part of the VW corporate parts bin, used in more plebian VWs and Skoda's as well as premium Audis. Cost matters in those lesser brands. Developing a more expensive, all aluminum 4-banger just for Audi doesn't make a lot of sense when the gains would amount to maybe 50 lbs of weight savings.
Is there even such a thing as a "bespoke" Audi engine? 90%+ of their sales come from cars with engines that you could as easily get in a half price Skoda, let alone a VW.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 01, 2016, 07:07:49 AM
Is there even such a thing as a "bespoke" Audi engine? 90%+ of their sales come from cars with engines that you could as easily get in a half price Skoda, let alone a VW.
True. Though some higher end Audis are fitted with engines only used in premium VWAG products. The 4.2 V8, V10, and W12, for example. And I think the Turbo I5 in the TTRS is unique to Audi (recognizing that the NA version is used by lesser brands).
The V10 and I5 are quasi related... same bore/stroke and apparently the heads have the same castings.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 01, 2016, 10:28:58 AM
The V10 and I5 are quasi related... same bore/stroke and apparently the heads have the same castings.
My understanding is that the VW I5 was created by adding a cylinder to their 2.0 I4 rather than being half of their V10. That it has common bore spacing and can use similar heads to the V10 is a happy coincidence. Or VW uses certain standard geometries across multiple engine lines.
The current VW designed I4s use aluminum, the Audi designed ones ( such as the one in question here) use graphite iron. Both are used by both companies, as well as others in the VW Group. The reason Audi gives for using an iron based design, is better acoustic damping, as well as allowing thinner engine walls. The one in question here (EA 888 3b) is 3mm thick. I believe the VW version is 6mm thick.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 01, 2016, 06:37:52 AM
Just checked my old posting history, paid closer to ~53k:
$53k six years ago is ~$58k today, and by using Audi's 2016 S4 calculator, the equivalent car in MY2016 is $57k.
The base MSRP for the 2017 A4 awd is $40k. It is the fully loaded A4, including a goofy $2,000 interior leather package, that is $54k.
Many models just keep pace with inflation, which is a pretty good deal, considering the advancements in safety, tech, economy and performance (well, sans the proliferation of turbo 4s in the poser class ;)).
Quote from: GoCougs on June 01, 2016, 11:38:00 AM
$53k six years ago is ~$58k today, and by using Audi's 2016 S4 calculator, the equivalent car in MY2016 is $57k.
The base MSRP for the 2017 A4 awd is $40k. It is the fully loaded A4, including a goofy $2,000 interior leather package, that is $54k.
Many models just keep pace with inflation, which is a pretty good deal, considering the advancements in safety, tech, economy and performance (well, sans the proliferation of turbo 4s in the poser class ;)).
FWIW, as posted, MSRP was actually 54,800 in 2010, so inflation was more like ~2400 over 6 years (for an equivalently options 2016 S4). I agree, not bad.
My post above more surprised at how expensive the new A4 is. When I was looking at A4's when I bought my car I was looking at prices in the mid 40's for an equivalently equipped A4. Using the build function on Audi's website I would end up with a model MSRP of ~49,325. They do offer a ton more options nowadays it seems, some of which sound nice but I wouldn't pay for.
edit: Actually part of the problem is that there is no more manual options, which probably adds a good ~2k to the price.
The A3 is still a factor IMO. That, like the CLA for the C class, enabled Audi to push the price and size of the A4 up 3/4 a class. Without that they would have to employ a 320i strategy which would probably yield lower profits.
Quote from: Galaxy on June 01, 2016, 11:17:53 AM
The current VW designed I4s use aluminum, the Audi designed ones ( such as the one in question here) use graphite iron. Both are used by both companies, as well as others in the VW Group. The reason Audi gives for using an iron based design, is better acoustic damping, as well as allowing thinner engine walls. The one in question here (EA 888 3b) is 3mm thick. I believe the VW version is 6mm thick.
Always crazy to think how thin some cylinder/other walls actually are inside of an engine.
Wow, like 20 PSI out of the box with a 3mm cylinder wall. :clap: When the Germans get it right they get it RIGHT
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 01, 2016, 08:34:33 PM
Wow, like 20 PSI out of the box with a 3mm cylinder wall. :clap: When the Germans get it right they get it RIGHT
The cylinder walls are more than 3mm (82.5mm bore and 88mm spacing).
Quote from: MX793 on June 01, 2016, 09:02:16 PM
The cylinder walls are more than 3mm (82.5mm bore and 88mm spacing).
That's still less than 1/4" man. I remember back in my Accord days... F22/H22/K-series and the F in the S2000 all have 94mm bore spacing, and the biggest bores they sent out of the factory was 87mm.... and that was N/A. Piston loads in that plane are probably low but the combustion pressure and heat cycles under boost seem pretty intense
Doesn't take much thickness to hold a lot of pressure. How thick are the walls on a propane tank? .062? Those have a design burst pressure of around 900 psi or more.
I'm with Cougs. This is the poser class :lol: I'm just not interested. You get 90% of the car for half the price with a loaded V6 Accord.
We can now safely and confidently throw the stripper turbo 4 midsize luxury sedans (A6 2.0T, 528i, etc.) into the poser class, and of course let's not forget the A3, CLA, and 2er, and once we throw in the cherry on top that is maintenance and reliability issues, it's all a significant indictment on the US auto industry and US culture as a whole...
Quote from: GoCougs on June 02, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
We can now safely and confidently throw the stripper turbo 4 midsize luxury sedans (A6 2.0T, 528i, etc.) into the poser class, and of course let's not forget the A3, CLA, and 2er, and once we throw in the cherry on top that is maintenance and reliability issues, it's all a significant indictment on the US auto industry and US culture as a whole...
:confused:
I am not sure what point you are making. The Accord/Camry/Malibu/Fusion cars vastly outsell the "poser class" cars above. Are you saying this is a bad thing and that the "poser class" cars should be selling more?
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 08:56:04 AM
I'm with Cougs. This is the poser class :lol: I'm just not interested. You get 90% of the car for half the price with a loaded V6 Accord.
:zzz:
You could have had 90% of your Genesis for 3/4 the price with a loaded V6 Accord... why didn't you go that route?
The compact luxury cars generally have way better driving dynamics and feel than the Accord, which is a cough and fart away from being a full sizer (and not everyone buys cars by the lb). The midsizers have $15-20K worth of refinement and build quality over the Accord, with in many cases (GS, XF, CTS etc) having significantly better dynamics and feel as well. Plus those 4 banger midsizers are about as fast as those V8 midsizers from ~10-15 years ago (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/cadillac-dts-vs-jaguar-s-type-40-m-b-e430-infiniti-q45-lexus-gs430-audi-a6-42-quattro-bmw-540ilucky-seven.pdf) while getting like double the gas mileage and not giving up much in refinement. The whole "poser class" complaint doesn't hold water, especially from a dude who drives and is shopping for a poser class whip and another guy who bought a store brand E class :lol:
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 02, 2016, 11:18:39 AM
:confused:
I am not sure what point you are making. The Accord/Camry/Malibu/Fusion cars vastly outsell the "poser class" cars above. Are you saying this is a bad thing and that the "poser class" cars should be selling more?
No, the point I am making is the poser class is sucky and 90% of its buyers are much better off in a loaded Camcord (sans of course the pseudo validation via badge snobbery).
Store Brand E-class!!!!! :clap:
Quote from: GoCougs on June 02, 2016, 12:41:56 PM
No, the point I am making is the poser class is sucky and 90% of its buyers are much better off in a loaded Camcord (sans of course the pseudo validation via badge snobbery).
So what is the indictment WRT US auto industry (that don't make much in this segment, just Cadillac) and US culture (which seems to vastly prefer the loaded Camcord type of cars, not to mention the Civic/Corolla class)?
Quote from: GoCougs on June 02, 2016, 12:41:56 PM
No, the point I am making is the poser class is sucky and 90% of its buyers are much better off in a loaded Camcord (sans of course the pseudo validation via badge snobbery).
Wouldn't YOU be better off in a loaded Camcord? Your G is not even stickshift, and you complain about modern infotainment when the stack in the G's is way worse lol.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 02, 2016, 01:12:17 PM
So what is the indictment WRT US auto industry (that don't make much in this segment, just Cadillac) and US culture (which seems to vastly prefer the loaded Camcord type of cars, not to mention the Civic/Corolla class)?
Narcissism, consumerism, entitlement, insecurity, anxiety.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 02, 2016, 11:20:24 AM
:zzz:
You could have had 90% of your Genesis for 3/4 the price with a loaded V6 Accord... why didn't you go that route?
The compact luxury cars generally have way better driving dynamics and feel than the Accord, which is a cough and fart away from being a full sizer (and not everyone buys cars by the lb). The midsizers have $15-20K worth of refinement and build quality over the Accord, with in many cases (GS, XF, CTS etc) having significantly better dynamics and feel as well. Plus those 4 banger midsizers are about as fast as those V8 midsizers from ~10-15 years ago (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/cadillac-dts-vs-jaguar-s-type-40-m-b-e430-infiniti-q45-lexus-gs430-audi-a6-42-quattro-bmw-540ilucky-seven.pdf) while getting like double the gas mileage and not giving up much in refinement. The whole "poser class" complaint doesn't hold water, especially from a dude who drives and is shopping for a poser class whip and another guy who bought a store brand E class :lol:
Well, the Genesis had an American style big ass V8 in it. This poser class doesn't have that save for the AMG/M/RS level.
And I saw the fault of my ways and got rid of the Genesis. It was a much better value argument than the A4/3-Series/C-class too. But at the end of the day, a teenie bit more luxury isn't worth the cost of poser class depreciation and reliability. Give me mainstreamer reliability and costs for a daily driver.
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 02:16:15 PM
Well, the Genesis had an American style big ass V8 in it. This poser class doesn't have that save for the AMG/M/RS level.
And I saw the fault of my ways and got rid of the Genesis. It was a much better value argument than the A4/3-Series/C-class too. But at the end of the day, a teenie bit more luxury isn't worth the cost of poser class depreciation and reliability. Give me mainstreamer reliability and costs for a daily driver.
Genesis needs that V8 to get moving, and it guzzles gas w/reckless abandon to do it. A poser 335i is faster and like 50% more fuel efficient. Genesis has a roomier interior but it's also a cheaper interior that doesn't look anywhere near as good as something like the interior in the IS or C Class. Even w/the discount you got depreciation is still pretty abysmal compared to the class. So on anything beyond a lb of car per $$$ basis something like a Genesis or Accord V6 or w/e is not a better value. By this logic the best car is something like a Grand Caravan. Max metal for min $! Never mind driving dynamics, build quality, design, refinement, depreciation, w/e. Poser class is awesome- awesome enough that Cougs rails against it daily, but drives one and is shopping for another one. If that's not a ringing endorsement I don't know what is :lol:
Does an AMG CLA have enough panache to be elevated out of the class?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 02, 2016, 02:36:29 PM
Genesis needs that V8 to get moving, and it guzzles gas w/reckless abandon to do it. A poser 335i is faster and like 50% more fuel efficient. Genesis has a roomier interior but it's also a cheaper interior that doesn't look anywhere near as good as something like the interior in the IS or C Class. Even w/the discount you got depreciation is still pretty abysmal compared to the class. So on anything beyond a lb of car per $$$ basis something like a Genesis or Accord V6 or w/e is not a better value. By this logic the best car is something like a Grand Caravan. Max metal for min $! Never mind driving dynamics, build quality, design, refinement, depreciation, w/e. Poser class is awesome- awesome enough that Cougs rails against it daily, but drives one and is shopping for another one. If that's not a ringing endorsement I don't know what is :lol:
You're completely missing my point. I'm not comparing my old Genesis to the poser class. I'm comparing the Genesis & poser class to the mainstreamers for a daily driver.
Used vs new makes a more interesting argument, but new vs new? They're just not worth the price premium IMO.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 02, 2016, 02:42:08 PM
Does an AMG CLA have enough panache to be elevated out of the class?
I would say yes, as are others that are top-of-range of the poser class (S3, S4, Q50 RS, 340i, C450) in that there is actually a value/feature proposition there.
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 02:44:43 PM
You're completely missing my point. I'm not comparing my old Genesis to the poser class. I'm comparing the Genesis & poser class to the mainstreamers for a daily driver.
Used vs new makes a more interesting argument, but new vs new? They're just not worth the price premium IMO.
New cars in general aren't worth the depreciation hit over used (though I recently read something about some CPO shenanigans that make for interesting exceptions)
And if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there's no car worth buying over something like a Honda Fit for a daily driver. Like I said there are plenty of tangibles that could legit sway someone from an Accord V6 to a stripper poseur car. Like I asked from the jump... you would get an Accord V6 over a stickshift 320i? Don't lie now, God is watching.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 02, 2016, 02:50:56 PM
New cars in general aren't worth the depreciation hit over used (though I recently read something about some CPO shenanigans that make for interesting exceptions)
And if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there's no car worth buying over something like a Honda Fit for a daily driver. Like I said there are plenty of tangibles that could legit sway someone from an Accord V6 to a stripper poseur car. Like I asked from the jump... you would get an Accord V6 over a stickshift 320i? Don't lie now, God is watching.
New vs new? Yeah, I would totally get an Accord V6 over a 320i. Not enough intangibles in a 3-series to overcome the crappy engine and zero options :lol:
If you would have said slightly used 335 vs Accord V6, I'd have to think about it a bit. I think that's the only interesting argument. They're at least close in price. Used Accords aren't even in the discussion to me because they depreciate sooooo slow.
Just priced a 340xi. $58k for what I'd want. Wowza!
Mack Daddy Accord is like $34k I think. For a daily driver, it just doesn't make sense to spend $24k more. That's a 70% increase for slightly better performance and a bunch of feel good intangibles. And with it comes reliability, maintenance, and depreciation that dwarfs the Accord.
the CLA AMG is trash inside tho
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 02, 2016, 02:42:08 PM
Does an AMG CLA have enough panache to be elevated out of the class?
I distinctly remember typing "poseur" in this post. Proof that my phone's keyboard has decided to randomly delete words that I type. It's becoming rather annoying.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 02, 2016, 03:13:49 PM
the CLA AMG is trash inside tho
My boss has one and it's nice. :huh:
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 02:53:09 PM
New vs new? Yeah, I would totally get an Accord V6 over a 320i. Not enough intangibles in a 3-series to overcome the crappy engine and zero options :lol:
If you would have said slightly used 335 vs Accord V6, I'd have to think about it a bit. I think that's the only interesting argument. They're at least close in price. Used Accords aren't even in the discussion to me because they depreciate sooooo slow.
Different strokes I guess. I couldn't daily drive an automatic anything and my commute has plenty of varying turns and fun roads. I don't need all the tech. Plus I find the Accord's dash design to be very busy and ugly. True Delta says there's an 8K diff between equally equipped 320is and Accord V6s.... 320i as I'd want it would be about 37 (smartphone integration, sport package, heated seats), and I'd prob spend another $2K or so on springs/shocks/brake pads and a JB4 tune. So more like 3-4K for a car that's much more fun to drive.
What you forgot to include in your Accord price is however much you spent on the S2K. Accord + S2K would still be more reliable, but I'm pretty sure a new Accord V6 + clean S2K = 340xi money. Even if I throw a bike in it's still way less $$$ for way more fun and not much less comfort. Point is the poser class = jack of all trades for people who need practical cars and like driving. Theres no way you could have something like an auto Accord V6 as an only car.
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
Just priced a 340xi. $58k for what I'd want. Wowza!
Mack Daddy Accord is like $34k I think. For a daily driver, it just doesn't make sense to spend $24k more.
Doesn't make sense to you man. It depends on how much you value the differences that do exist.
Specifically, I'd definitely spend the extra an something like a 528i over the Accord. To me it is a much better car.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 02, 2016, 03:13:49 PM
the CLA AMG is trash inside tho
The new Accord is as much luxury as most of the poser class, at least to 90% of buyers.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 02, 2016, 12:58:37 PM
Store Brand E-class!!!!! :clap:
Agreed. That's the best description of the Genesis I've seen yet.
I wish I'd thought of it! :clap:
Quote from: 2o6 on June 02, 2016, 12:58:37 PM
Store Brand E-class!!!!! :clap:
Yeah, that was a good one. :golfclap:
Quote from: MrH on June 02, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
Just priced a 340xi. $58k for what I'd want. Wowza!
Mack Daddy Accord is like $34k I think. For a daily driver, it just doesn't make sense to spend $24k more. That's a 70% increase for slightly better performance and a bunch of feel good intangibles. And with it comes reliability, maintenance, and depreciation that dwarfs the Accord.
This 3 series may not be the best example...but if you think the only differences between a Camry or Accord and a well-appointed 3/A4 are intangibles, you've never driven any of them. Or, perhaps, you prefer to spec sheet race and don't think
how a car drives is important.
You'd have a better argument if you were talking about legit near-luxury cars like the GTI or....well, that segment is basically dead now, with Acuras and Volvos sucking and Saab dead (though the S60 might be a viable option if you don't want a manual).
Accord and Camry are fast food. Yes, you can survive eating only that, but it's hardly steak tartare and truffle mac.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 01, 2016, 08:34:33 PM
Wow, like 20 PSI out of the box with a 3mm cylinder wall.
3mm is the nominal crankcase wall.
Anyways. Here is the A5 coupé version.
(http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Audi-A5-Coup--fotoshowBig-b7cb4e5f-954331.jpg)
(http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Audi-A5-Coup--fotoshowBig-b56e130c-954287.jpg)
(http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Audi-A5-Coup--fotoshowBig-11483d0-954290.jpg)
(http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Audi-A5-Coup--fotoshowBig-f5934c31-954307.jpg)
An attractive car for sure, but a but underwhelming.....like most Audi designs lately.
Jetta with an Audi badge.
Quote from: Raza on June 02, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
This 3 series may not be the best example...but if you think the only differences between a Camry or Accord and a well-appointed 3/A4 are intangibles, you've never driven any of them.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be well appointed. Anyone w/a pulse and brain can tell a 3 series drives differently from an Accord.
Quote from: Char on June 03, 2016, 06:55:44 AM
Jetta with an Audi badge.
That will leave your car for dead from a stoplight, and probably around a track too with the same mods.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 03, 2016, 07:01:18 AM
That will leave your car for dead from a stoplight, and probably around a track too with the same mods.
I don't see that happening at all - but even so, it would still be a VW Jetta (Woman's car)
Quote from: Galaxy on June 03, 2016, 06:48:34 AM
Anyways. Here is the A5 coupé version.
Very "meh" IMO.
As for the overall discussion of mainstream vs poser class, I kinda understand what MrH and Gougs are sayings but for me personally I still cannot see myself ever buying in that class. To me AWD/RWD is worth the premium alone, and on top of that I have a strong preference for a manual (which is getting harder to find even in the poser class nowadays). I am not sure what car I would choose today if I was shopping, but certainly when I bought my car there weren't a lot of cars that met my requirements. Even if I settled for an A4 instead of an S4 there weren't really any mainstreamers that could offer the same combination of practicality, style, luxury, and sportiness (includes 6MT/AWD).
If I was buying today I am pretty sure the new A4/S4 (2017) would be eliminated simply due to lack of a manual. I think the top contenders would be 2-series/M2 (main downside being lack of rear doors) or maybe something like a Golf R (ticks off all the boxes, but purchase would depend on the general feel of the car). If I wasn't happy with those my only choice would be to spend the money to move up to either a 335xi (for AWD) or an M3 (if I was OK with RWD), or if I decided to "settle" for an automatic I might look at an S3.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 03, 2016, 07:58:04 AM
As for the overall discussion of mainstream vs poser class, I kinda understand what MrH and Gougs are sayings but for me personally I still cannot see myself ever buying in that class. To me AWD/RWD is worth the premium alone, and on top of that I have a strong preference for a manual (which is getting harder to find even in the poser class nowadays). I am not sure what car I would choose today if I was shopping, but certainly when I bought my car there weren't a lot of cars that met my requirements. Even if I settled for an A4 instead of an S4 there weren't really any mainstreamers that could offer the same combination of practicality, style, luxury, and sportiness (includes 6MT/AWD).
If I was buying today I am pretty sure the new A4/S4 (2017) would be eliminated simply due to lack of a manual. I think the top contenders would be 2-series/M2 (main downside being lack of rear doors) or maybe something like a Golf R (ticks off all the boxes, but purchase would depend on the general feel of the car). If I wasn't happy with those my only choice would be to spend the money to move up to either a 335xi (for AWD) or an M3 (if I was OK with RWD), or if I decided to "settle" for an automatic I might look at an S3.
None of any of that makes any sense to me.
You won't buy a camcord, but you will drive a Golf.
And if you had to settle for a auto, you would buy a S3 over a 235/M2/335i/M3? Uhh...ok. :hammerhead:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 02, 2016, 04:11:44 PM
Different strokes I guess. I couldn't daily drive an automatic anything and my commute has plenty of varying turns and fun roads. I don't need all the tech. Plus I find the Accord's dash design to be very busy and ugly. True Delta says there's an 8K diff between equally equipped 320is and Accord V6s.... 320i as I'd want it would be about 37 (smartphone integration, sport package, heated seats), and I'd prob spend another $2K or so on springs/shocks/brake pads and a JB4 tune. So more like 3-4K for a car that's much more fun to drive.
What you forgot to include in your Accord price is however much you spent on the S2K. Accord + S2K would still be more reliable, but I'm pretty sure a new Accord V6 + clean S2K = 340xi money. Even if I throw a bike in it's still way less $$$ for way more fun and not much less comfort. Point is the poser class = jack of all trades for people who need practical cars and like driving. Theres no way you could have something like an auto Accord V6 as an only car.
Yeah, the 4Runner + S2000 = 340xi money. But I have more utility, more fun, more reliability, less depreciation, etc.
I can't imagine ever spending $37k for a 180 hp 3-series to sit in traffic. An Accord isn't the same dynamically, but for the daily drive, driving dynamics really aren't at the top of my list.
Quote from: MrH on June 03, 2016, 08:52:32 AM
Yeah, the 4Runner + S2000 = 340xi money. But I have more utility, more fun, more reliability, less depreciation, etc.
I can't imagine ever spending $37k for a 180 hp 3-series to sit in traffic. An Accord isn't the same dynamically, but for the daily drive, driving dynamics really aren't at the top of my list.
Whats wrong with a 180 hp 3 series? It's just as fast as your S2000, with way more headroom for additional HP:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-bmw-320i-test-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-bmw-320i-test-review)
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2000-honda-s2000-archived-test-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2000-honda-s2000-archived-test-review)
And I'm assuming you commute in the S2K when the weather is good, so driving dynamics are a factor for the daily grind. The practicality and reliability are the only real knocks... but there are cheaper and more reliable options within the poser class. For someone who needs 1 car to do it all, including be half decent on a back road, poser class is the only choice. Nobody is taking an auto Accord V6 sedan canyon carving.
Quote from: Char on June 03, 2016, 08:49:36 AM
None of any of that makes any sense to me.
You won't buy a camcord, but you will drive a Golf.
And if you had to settle for a auto, you would buy a S3 over a 235/M2/335i/M3? Uhh...ok. :hammerhead:
Your reading comprehension is terrible. :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 03, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
Whats wrong with a 180 hp 3 series? It's just as fast as your S2000, with way more headroom for additional HP:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-bmw-320i-test-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-bmw-320i-test-review)
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2000-honda-s2000-archived-test-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2000-honda-s2000-archived-test-review)
And I'm assuming you commute in the S2K when the weather is good, so driving dynamics are a factor for the daily grind. The practicality and reliability are the only real knocks... but there are cheaper and more reliable options within the poser class. For someone who needs 1 car to do it all, including be half decent on a back road, poser class is the only choice. Nobody is taking an auto Accord V6 sedan canyon carving.
Dear god those S2000 times are soooooo slow.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-s2000-3/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-s2000-3/)
A full second slower 0-60, and .9 seconds slower in the 1/4? What were they doing?
Quote from: MrH on June 03, 2016, 09:25:19 AM
Dear god those S2000 times are soooooo slow.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-s2000-3/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-s2000-3/)
A full second slower 0-60, and .9 seconds slower in the 1/4? What were they doing?
Yeah, that's like THE worst times anyone has gotten in an S2K. Even significantly slower than other tests C&D did. From their "Blow Dryers" comparo in '02
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2003-audi-tt-vsbmw-z4-honda-s2000-nissan-350z-porsche-boxsterblow-dryers-test-results.pdf (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2003-audi-tt-vsbmw-z4-honda-s2000-nissan-350z-porsche-boxsterblow-dryers-test-results.pdf)
0-60 in 5.4, 1/4 mile in 14.1.
320i is still "real world" faster- look at the 0-60 times. AP1s are dogs on the small cam, which is where I imagine you spend most of your time in traffic :huh: Plus they dyno within 10-15WHP of each other. It's not a valid complaint IMO.
What is going on here. S2000 is so much quicker than a 320i - a full second 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile - it's not really even a discussion.
An S2K clutch won't last long with the launches they do to get those times. The 5-60 rolling test is more indicative of what you (Cougs) would be able to get out of these cars on a regular basis. I'm sure the 320i's top gear roll ons are significantly better too.
Quote from: Raza on June 02, 2016, 10:25:53 PM
Accord and Camry are fast food. Yes, you can survive eating only that, but it's hardly steak tartare and truffle mac.
Nah, they're more like O'Charleys or Chilis. Nice places with decent stuff that will satisfy you, but not anything special.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 03, 2016, 10:19:41 AM
320i is still "real world" faster- look at the 0-60 times. AP1s are dogs on the small cam, which is where I imagine you spend most of your time in traffic :huh: Plus they dyno within 10-15WHP of each other. It's not a valid complaint IMO.
The BMW is .7 slower from 5-60 from a roll.
Ok. When did this become about comparing sports car and compact sports sedans? Totally different categories.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 03, 2016, 09:20:09 AM
Your reading comprehension is terrible. :lol:
No, it's quite good. I'm just saying, if you had to settle for an Automatic, there is no reason to
settle a S3/4 when you can just buy a superior machine outright, even in automatic form.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 03, 2016, 12:03:26 PM
Nah, they're more like O'Charleys or Chilis. Nice places with decent stuff that will satisfy you, but not anything special.
What the hell is O'Charleys?
Anyway, whatever mediocre restaurant you want to call them, that's all they are, and the point stands.
Quote from: Raza on June 04, 2016, 08:25:07 AM
What the hell is O'Charleys?
Anyway, whatever mediocre restaurant you want to call them, that's all they are, and the point stands.
It is to food as a Camry is to cars. Boil in the bag, slap it under a heat lamp, serve it up to people who just don't care.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/We+will+not+let+you+go+let+him+go+source_e6e918_5315221.jpg)
Quote from: Morris Minor on June 04, 2016, 05:23:38 PM
It is to food as a Camry is to cars. Boil in the bag, slap it under a heat lamp, serve it up to people who just don't care.
Everyone can't be discerning about everything. Example: the shoe thread :lol:
It takes too much effort to be picky about restaurants all the time, unless you're in a big city where there are lots of unique hole in the wall places. Most of the country only has chain restaurants to choose from.
People deserve better than chain restaurants
One thing I love about CLT
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 04, 2016, 08:15:57 PM
It takes too much effort to be picky about restaurants all the time, unless you're in a big city where there are lots of unique hole in the wall places. Most of the country only has chain restaurants to choose from.
The midwest, maybe. I don't live in a "big" city, but we have a fair number of good, unique eateries around here. Several have been featured on Food Network programs and similar. I suppose I take it for granted, as I'm not much of a foodie and seldom go out to eat.
Quote from: Morris Minor on June 04, 2016, 05:23:38 PM
It is to food as a Camry is to cars. Boil in the bag, slap it under a heat lamp, serve it up to people who just don't care.
Thankfully, I live in a city where, if these places even exist, restaurants like that can be wholly ignored.
We have them all: Chilli's, Applebee's, O'Charley's. And the rest. The best food is in the small food court in the local Asian supermarket: mom & pop street food favorites from Korea, Vietnam, China
With Yelp, you can find a decent independent place to eat in most areas, IME.
Yelp imo has kind of negated one of the bigger selling points of the chain restaurants, which was while it might not be great at least you know what to expect.
Quote from: MX793 on June 04, 2016, 08:45:12 PM
The midwest, maybe. I don't live in a "big" city, but we have a fair number of good, unique eateries around here. Several have been featured on Food Network programs and similar. I suppose I take it for granted, as I'm not much of a foodie and seldom go out to eat.
Without a doubt Syracuse does well on the food front
The thing about chain restaurants is that they're significantly cheaper. Significantly. When I'm with my wife alone, I avoid chains. But with kids, I seek out chains. If I go to a local Italian restaurant, 2 adults and 2 kids will cost $100 if I get wine. If I go to Olive Garden, that will cost $60 with wine. Mostly when I eat out with kids in tow, I just want to be served, not have to do dishes, and have some conversation. If the food is decent, that's good enough. I can't really concentrate on the meal anyways because I gotta make sure the kids are catered to.
Quote from: veeman on June 05, 2016, 09:26:30 AM
The thing about chain restaurants is that they're significantly cheaper. Significantly. When I'm with my wife alone, I avoid chains. But with kids, I seek out chains. If I go to a local Italian restaurant, 2 adults and 2 kids will cost $100 if I get wine. If I go to Olive Garden, that will cost $60 with wine. Mostly when I eat out with kids in tow, I just want to be served, not have to do dishes, and have some conversation. If the food is decent, that's good enough. I can't really concentrate on the meal anyways because I gotta make sure the kids are catered to.
It really depends on the place. Down here the little independent places can be as cheap as the chains, though the independent places are usually better. Olive Garden is awful though. No swipes but I am hoping having kids doesn't kill my appetite for good food. I'd rather cook at home if going out with them is that miserable.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2016, 09:32:59 AM
It really depends on the place. Down here the little independent places can be as cheap as the chains, though the independent places are usually better. Olive Garden is awful though. No swipes but I am hoping having kids doesn't kill my appetite for good food. I'd rather cook at home if going out with them is that miserable.
Maybe because I'm vegetarian the chains don't bother me as much. It's hard to mess up pasta and tomato sauce. I would imagine the quality of meat at Olive Garden wouldn't be that great. Their never ending salad is awesome. And I never fork over a lot of cash for expensive wine, even at a very upscale restaurant. That's just throwing away money in my mind. A 50 dollar bottle of wine is usually 25 dollars down the street at the local liquor store.
Ah yea vegetarian eating would change things a lot.
There are lots of good places in Cincinnati but it's a 25 min drive instead of 10 min. We go out to eat every weekend but lots of times we're busy working in the garage or whatever and want somewhere fast(ish) and easy.
FoodSpin
I woke up a little when I read C&D's review of the 2017 A4. Looks like a nice car. 0-60 in the low 5s is impressive for a 250hp 4-banger. And the super-silent cabin is impressive - quieter than an S-Class & a Lexus LS?? Wondering if they're doing noise cancellation through the sound system.
They are probably able to tune out road noise frequencies through better chassis design. Agreed on performance- only a few tenths off from the V8 S4, with almost double the gas mileage. If you don't care at all about the driving experience it's a pretty big win
Quote from: Char on June 03, 2016, 08:53:32 PM
No, it's quite good. I'm just saying, if you had to settle for an Automatic, there is no reason to settle a S3/4 when you can just buy a superior machine outright, even in automatic form.
Go back and reread what I said. I never remotely said would settle for an S4 (because its automatic).
The only thing I said in relation to the S3 is that if, for some reason, I had to settle an automatic I would give it a look (ie: it would be looked at along with a group of many cars that are also automatic). But since I don't yet have to settle for an automatic (at least not yet), I would not even consider it.