Article Comments - 2008 Audi A5/S5 First Look and Full Test

46 messages, Last post on Jul 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM

You are in the Audi A5 and S5 Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Audi A5, Audi S5, Coupe

Article comments for

First Look: 2008 Audi A5/S5 - It has never taken more than a few miles with your hands wrapped around the husky steering wheel of any Audi sedan to get the feeling that somewhere within the discretely sporty quartet of doors slumbered a distinctly sporty coupe waiting to bust out. (more)

Full Test: 2008 Audi S5 - Beautiful, luxurious and desirable, this fast highway car takes Audi to the top step of excellence. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 5: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Prev; Next; Last

#7 of 46 Questions, questions... by sturgl Aug 06, 2007 (1:08 pm)
What does "four-wheel-drive-style drivetrain windup" mean? Whatever it is, it's listed as a criticism - but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. At different points in the article, the S5 is reported as making 349 and 354hp. Which is it? Finally, the vehicle is reported as weighing 3,807 lbs in the article, and 3,594 in the specs & performance section. Just looking for a bit of clarity... thanks.
#8 of 46 Not all of Edmund's tests... by byronwalter Aug 07, 2007 (10:01 am)
...are done on Earth. The weight diff might reflect a "dry" car without driver or gas (Audi specs) while the 3,807 might be the car ready to rock & roll. Sure wish that we NA chumps would be getting the diesel engine option this winter.
#9 of 46 Re: S5 test... [rayainsw] by fixxxer Aug 08, 2007 (10:56 am)
Replying to: rayainsw (Aug 02, 2007 6:11 am) How can the S5 get from 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with only 354 horsepower, when the 420hp M3 gets there in 4.8? I figure the RS4 weighs more because of the extra doors, but isn't the M3 supposed to be light weight? I don't understand what all the extra bmw horsepower is doing? And it almost makes the S5 make alot more sense, it looks a damn sight sexier Replies to this message: sturgl (Aug 08, 2007 11:27 am) rjlaero (Aug 08, 2007 12:30 pm) rayainsw (Aug 09, 2007 3:15 am) fixxxer (Aug 09, 2007 9:39 pm) rayainsw (Aug 10, 2007 3:13 am)
#10 of 46 Re: S5 test... [fixxxer] by sturgl Aug 08, 2007 (11:27 am)
Replying to: fixxxer (Aug 08, 2007 10:56 am) I think that torque has a bit more to do with 0-60 times (especially acceleration at lower speeds) than horsepower. While the bimmer has the advantage in horsepower, it "only" generates 295 lb-ft of torque, where the S5 generates 325. What's more is that 4.8 time is for 0-100 kmph (0-62 mph). The Audi's published time for 0-62 mph is 5.1 seconds. So, apples to apples, the bimmer has a 0.3 second advantage - not merely 0.1. This makes sense, given that it's substantially lighter and more powerful - even with the bimmer's torque disadvantage. Replies to this message: rjlaero (Aug 08, 2007 12:30 pm)
#11 of 46 Re: S5 test... [sturgl] by rjlaero Aug 08, 2007 (12:30 pm)
Replying to: sturgl (Aug 08, 2007 11:27 am) I think it's all the more impressive the S5 is Quattro as well and still manages to get there in 4.9 - 5.1 seconds. Torque is a big factor as mentioned. I'd rather give up a few tenths to have an all around better driving experience. A car isn't all about 0-60 numbers, but the overall torque curve of the motor and how it drives around town.
#12 of 46 acceleration ?? Re: S5 test... [fixxxer] by rayainsw Aug 09, 2007 (3:15 am)
Replying to: fixxxer (Aug 08, 2007 10:56 am) fixxer - Are you comparing the actual numbers Edmunds obtained for the S5 in their road test with the numbers that BMW has published? Setting aside the “looks” comment, my first GUESS is that any acceleration advantage the S5 might enjoy could be attributed to the initial bite of AWD - helping the S5 in the 0 – 60 time. And in C+D’s published test ( on a less than optimal surface ) their 0 – 60 time was 4.4 seconds. Substantially quicker than 4.8. And the C+D Quarter mile result of 12.9 111 comfortably beats the S5’s numbers, as compared to Edmunds = 13.3 104.6. At this performance level, 4 tenths quicker ( in both 0 – 60 and the Quarter Mile ET ) and over 6 MPH faster in speed through the traps, are rather significant differences. Weight: Edmunds S5: Curb Weight (lbs): 3594 3807 = test weight? C+D “. . .considering its claimed 3650-pound heft.” Weight may be pretty close. - Ray Waiting for a few more actual, independent M3 tests & S5 tests for a valid comparison . . . Replies to this message: fixxxer (Aug 09, 2007 9:39 pm) rayainsw (Aug 10, 2007 3:13 am)
#13 of 46 Re: acceleration ?? Re: S5 test... [rayainsw] by fixxxer Aug 09, 2007 (9:39 pm)
Replying to: rayainsw (Aug 09, 2007 3:15 am) Ray: Ahh, alright. I was just caught off guard by the numbers. Sure 354 is plenty of horsepower, but 414 should be able to best it easily. I guess its just the inconsistency inherent in real world testing. Anyway thanks again fixxxer Replies to this message: rayainsw (Aug 10, 2007 3:13 am)
#14 of 46 Re: acceleration ?? Re: S5 test... [fixxxer] by rayainsw Aug 10, 2007 (3:13 am)
Replying to: fixxxer (Aug 09, 2007 9:39 pm) I see I left 1 critical "word" out of my post... The C+D test numbers are for the new M3. The numbers show that the 414 HP M3 ( RWD ) is quicker than the Edmunds S5 test numbers.... - Ray Sorry for any confusion....
#15 of 46 curbweights... by sturgl Aug 10, 2007 (8:12 am)
I agree that the Audi's awd may help a bit at launch. How many (powerful) vehicles will yield their best launch by just dumping the clutch at 4500 rpm? Doing that with an M3 would probably just smoke the tires. That said, the C&D numbers for the M3 make quite a bit more sense than the ones publicized by BMW - who seem to wax quite conservative in their numbers anyway. So this is somewhat off-topic, but something I just don't get: the S5 has 3594 lbs of curb weight. The M3 has a 3649 weight - I assume we're talking curb weight here. The S5's AWD drivetrain should add a good chunk of weight, relative to the M3's RWD drivetrain. The M3 has a motor that's supposedly 30 lbs lighter than its predecessor. It has a carbon fiber roof. Yet it's over 200 lbs heavier than the previous M3, and may be heavier than the AWD S5? This just isn't adding up for me. Perhaps BMW has overstated the new M3's curb weight? Replies to this message: rayainsw (Aug 10, 2007 9:48 am) gasser (Mar 14, 2008 9:26 am)
#16 of 46 Re: curbweights... [sturgl] by rayainsw Aug 10, 2007 (9:48 am)
Replying to: sturgl (Aug 10, 2007 8:12 am) “Perhaps BMW has overstated the new M3's curb weight?” I think so, kinda sorta. . . Or perhaps C+D is a bit confused here. The press release from BMW that I saw ( and saved ) for the M3 says: Weight, unladen, to EU footnote 1 : 1641 KG [ = approx. 3641 pounds. ] Footnote reads: Weight of car in road trim (DIN) plus 75 kg for driver and luggage. [ so - 75 kg = 165 pounds less = actual curb weight of 3476 for the M3 ] And – Edmunds MAY have published both a correct & an incorrect ‘curb weight’ for the S5 – since MT quoted a curb weight of an S4 V8 at 3825 some time back, C+D reported 3876 in November 2004, AUDIUSA.com says “Unladenweight” = 3869 currently, and Edmunds S4 test states the curb weight is over 3900, I’d guess that the weight included in the text portion of Edmunds test may actually be the correct number for the S5: 3807. And not the 3594 listed in Edmunds data panel. To me, 3476 vs 3807 ( 331 pounds ) is a non-trivial difference in weight. Here I will also add this: If I was really interested in either of these cars & these aspects are of critical importance, I’d wait to see if 1 or more published comparisons was published this Fall. I’d MUCH prefer to compare acceleration numbers obtained by the same driver, on the same day on the same track. YMMV. - Ray awaiting additional information of the automatic trans. version of each . . . Replies to this message: gasser (Mar 14, 2008 9:26 am)