Audi introduces a more-affordable A5.
03-15-10, 10:44 PM
#31
so you want to imagine how much more the rs5 would cost in the US compared to the m3? that would again make my point.
i know very well what the s5 is for, that's exactly why i put the 335 in for comparison as well. basically it's two folds. same performance/comfort but different price, or same price but different performance
i can most definitely see your point on comparing quattroporte to m5, valid, different buyers of different status. but are you trying to say that audi a5/s5 buyers are bmw 3/m3 buyers are having the same kind of difference in status? not sure if i agree with that. and i don't even see that kind of brand image difference between audi/bmw vs maserati/bmw
i know very well what the s5 is for, that's exactly why i put the 335 in for comparison as well. basically it's two folds. same performance/comfort but different price, or same price but different performance
i can most definitely see your point on comparing quattroporte to m5, valid, different buyers of different status. but are you trying to say that audi a5/s5 buyers are bmw 3/m3 buyers are having the same kind of difference in status? not sure if i agree with that. and i don't even see that kind of brand image difference between audi/bmw vs maserati/bmw
I would also disagree with you on saying they share the same level of comfort (BMW's 335 not even coming close to Audi's S5, and the M3 doesn't really improve on the 335 on that regard), but that's pretty subjective anyways.
The 335 (or M3) is definitely the driver's car, but the Audi is for the guy who commutes every day.
03-15-10, 11:30 PM
#32
My point was that the cars were designed with different goals in mind.
I would also disagree with you on saying they share the same level of comfort (BMW's 335 not even coming close to Audi's S5, and the M3 doesn't really improve on the 335 on that regard), but that's pretty subjective anyways.
The 335 (or M3) is definitely the driver's car, but the Audi is for the guy who commutes every day.
I would also disagree with you on saying they share the same level of comfort (BMW's 335 not even coming close to Audi's S5, and the M3 doesn't really improve on the 335 on that regard), but that's pretty subjective anyways.
The 335 (or M3) is definitely the driver's car, but the Audi is for the guy who commutes every day.
03-16-10, 09:13 AM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I agree that BMW is still the Ultimate Driving Machine (and, arguably, among mass-produced vehicles, the world's best steering/ride/handling combo in the chassis), but Audis, in recent years, have gotten very close.
03-16-10, 09:42 AM
#34
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: California
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the single thing keeping me from getting an Audi, and I do think other than some exotics, they have the most beautiful designs on the road today.
03-16-10, 09:44 AM
#35
03-16-10, 01:48 PM
#36
The A5 2.0T was my third choice when I shopped for my new car last November. The same reason why my 2nd choice 370Z was rejected, it was relatively cheap in no-options form, but pushes close to 50k with the options I wanted (my 370Z build came out to over 40k on a 30k car).
It's a great car, but close to 50k for a 2.0T, I didn't feel it was worth the money.
It's a great car, but close to 50k for a 2.0T, I didn't feel it was worth the money.
03-16-10, 06:51 PM
#38
Lead Lap
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please do this to many more cars? I am willing to bet that nearly all cars look bland with the grill and wheels cut off. Probably the only ones that would look good would have boy racer skirts and grills all over the place. I could be wrong, but I am really curious. Please try to keep the colors a bland silver as well to keep apples to apples.
03-16-10, 07:06 PM
#40
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
As I stated in the opening thread, base 2.0T models will start between 36 and 37K. Loaded S5 models, of course, can run far higher....up to 60K or more. And I doubt that many A5s will tip the scales at 2888 lb......even FWD four-cylinder models will likely be over 3000, as the 3.2L model is officially listed at 3595.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-16-10 at 07:12 PM.
03-16-10, 07:47 PM
#41
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stated in the opening thread, base 2.0T models will start between 36 and 37K. Loaded S5 models, of course, can run far higher....up to 60K or more. And I doubt that many A5s will tip the scales at 2888 lb......even FWD four-cylinder models will likely be over 3000, as the 3.2L model is officially listed at 3595.
Taking weight out of a modern car can be tricky: Crash regulations have necessitated heavier structures, emissions laws have forced additional complexity into vehicles, and amenities have added dozens of electronic control units and untold miles of cable. Many automakers, however, are now experimenting with shedding pounds as a means to maintain performance despite the current trend toward engine downsizing. To illustrate the potential of this approach, Audi engineers set out to create an A5 2.0T that weighs 500 pounds less than a 3400-pound Euro-spec A5 V-6 model (U.S. versions weigh roughly 200 to 300 pounds more due to options and higher levels of standard equipment).
The result is an A5 coupe that, according to Audi, tips the scales at a svelte 2888 pounds despite retaining the 2.0-liter’s heavy iron block.
Audi let us compare a stock A5 3.2 FSI, equipped with the 265-hp V-6, against the lightweight concept with the 2.0-liter engine dialed back from 258 pound-feet of torque to deliver the same 243 as the V-6. We can attest to the fact that a 500-plus-pound reduction makes for a stunning dynamic improvement. Turn-in becomes more agile, the car can be tossed around with ease, and the 211-hp engine feels far stronger than its numbers suggest.
A regular A5 3.2 FSI seems downright clumsy in comparison. Audi claims the lightweight concept is 0.3 second quicker to 60 mph than the V-6. In our testing, the A5 V-6 ran from zero to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds, so we expect the lightweight concept to hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds, a 0.7-second improvement over a standard A5 2.0T.
Audi originally intended the concept to emulate the performance of the V-8–powered, 354-hp S5, but, despite the weight loss, the concept still can’t match the S5’s acceleration. We understand that a second concept is currently being built—and we wouldn’t be surprised if this one was equipped with the 265-hp, 2.0-liter turbo four from the TTS. With that much power, the four-cylinder lightweight just might be able to trounce the S5’s V-8.
Most “efficiency” concepts make us dread the future; this one gives us hope.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rototype_drive
The result is an A5 coupe that, according to Audi, tips the scales at a svelte 2888 pounds despite retaining the 2.0-liter’s heavy iron block.
Audi let us compare a stock A5 3.2 FSI, equipped with the 265-hp V-6, against the lightweight concept with the 2.0-liter engine dialed back from 258 pound-feet of torque to deliver the same 243 as the V-6. We can attest to the fact that a 500-plus-pound reduction makes for a stunning dynamic improvement. Turn-in becomes more agile, the car can be tossed around with ease, and the 211-hp engine feels far stronger than its numbers suggest.
A regular A5 3.2 FSI seems downright clumsy in comparison. Audi claims the lightweight concept is 0.3 second quicker to 60 mph than the V-6. In our testing, the A5 V-6 ran from zero to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds, so we expect the lightweight concept to hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds, a 0.7-second improvement over a standard A5 2.0T.
Audi originally intended the concept to emulate the performance of the V-8–powered, 354-hp S5, but, despite the weight loss, the concept still can’t match the S5’s acceleration. We understand that a second concept is currently being built—and we wouldn’t be surprised if this one was equipped with the 265-hp, 2.0-liter turbo four from the TTS. With that much power, the four-cylinder lightweight just might be able to trounce the S5’s V-8.
Most “efficiency” concepts make us dread the future; this one gives us hope.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rototype_drive
03-16-10, 08:01 PM
#42
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
That would (probably) require a lot of aluminum in the structure.....like on the big-brother A8 and Jaguar XJ. And aluminum is expensive.....one reason, among several, why the A8 costs big $$$$$. It might (?) also involve removing some equipment that customers would want......maybe even the Quattro hardware.
03-16-10, 08:05 PM
#43
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would (probably) require a lot of aluminum in the structure.....like on the big-brother A8 and Jaguar XJ. And aluminum is expensive.....one reason, among several, why the A8 costs big $$$$$. It might (?) also involve removing some equipment that customers would want......maybe even the Quattro hardware.
But yes, I would put money down that alot of alluminum is involved.
03-17-10, 10:49 AM
#45
Lexus Fanatic
