<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2560796.phtml">B5 S4 compared to B7 RS4 on B5 Forum</a></li></ul>

Seems like a fair thread to me...with mostly fair responses.

but the real interest lies in trying to build a fast car for less coin (mod b5) which can also be rewarding. For most of us, we've been there, done that. The RS4 is the most satisfying car I've ever owned (post Stasis/Ohlins). I've had stage I/II Audi's (b5, RS6). Neither of those cars ever put a grin on my face like the RS4. Other than straight line drags, there is absolutely no comparison. It's also interesting to note, the RS4 is receiving the highest accolades of any Audi prior from the automotive press. I don't recall the same hype for the b5 or b6, but they were never testing highly modded cars. There is certainly something desirable about this car because it's lured more M and P car owners than any Audi prior.

It was nothing like the asinine rich thread a few threads down.

and as TopGear puts it.. This is the first audi that rides correctly.

Translation? The B5 does not ride as nicely.

Period, full stop.

and Audi has a ways to go to make things really "neutral". They've done well to reduce understeer.

The B8/B9 platforms should see a total redesign of quattro and will make changes in the weight distribution.

It's funny that all of the nuts who used to attack the B6 forum when our car was released three years ago are the same tards that attack the RS4 owners. I think it just proves that some adults never reach maturity.

While the 'neutral balance' could refer to a number of things, it's probably in this case the improved F/R drive bias that's being referred to, not weight distribution. I don't see any significant change in weight distribution with the front engined V8, positioned as it is.

But is it best in this car(A4 design). I would like to see Audi get back to the B5 S4 design with regards to a lighter turbocharged engine. Maybe the 3.2 with turbos. It wouldn't win the all important HP wars but it would fit the car better, IMO. Think of a 350+ HP twin turbo 3.2 V6 and what it would do for the RS4 curb weight, performance to weight, and handling.

The earlier non V8 S and RS models had a better philosophy going, IMO.

<ul><li><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-ford-officially-debuts-twinforce-engine-line/">I certainly hope they could do better today. Even Ford can ;-)</a></li></ul>

Maybe I was being conservative. I think the ship has already sailed though...they're not going to reduce engine size and go down in HP. Where does it go in the RS4? A 600hp supercharged V10 that weighs close to 5000 lbs?

While it's nice to have a V8 in the S4 and RS4, I think both cars would be better served by high performnace V6's, like the B5's used. It can get to the point of no return with larger engines being put into these cars, and all the weight countermeasures being applied in an attempt to offset this disadvantage.

Ford can design good engines...even though the rest of the car may be clap trap. Look at Ford's Cosworth racing heritage.

which is why we'll see the return of turbos on the RS6.

They can't make the engine any larger (length and piston speed are at the limit) and they can't make it rev any higher (piston speed once again) so they'll have to charge it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'd like to see a trend back to getting more out of V6's in the S/RS4 and S/RS6 cars for the weight and fuel efficiency, if nothing else.

These are sport sedans after all and the use of V8's can defeat the purpose to some extent. But I don't see them going back unless it's forced upon them.

When I first test drive at the dealership, I got this not too fast feeling from RS4 too.

Personally, I still fail to see the need to bash either car.

When I saw my first B5 A4(parked) back in 97(Tahoe) I thought what a great looking car. I mean it was sweet in it's understated German design. It's a beautiful car, always will be.

The B6 took the A6 sculpted design to perfection, IMO. I prefer the look of the B6 over the B5, but not by much.

The B7 got away from that(both) to some extent, which I still am not to happy with. The B7 RS4 makes it all work somehow(the look), due to the agressive fender flares and front fascia offsetting the large grill very well. The B7 RS4, IMO, is an awesome effort.

Mechanically it's a no-brainer that the B6 improved upon the B5 and the B7 likewise on the B6. This can't be denied.

What I particularly like about the B5 is the engine...I'll take a twin turbo'd V6 over a V8 any day...in this car at least. It's nice having a V8 under the hood and having the competition know it, but I personally don't think it's the best way to go in these cars. It has nothing to do with 'modability' for me.

I don't remember the exact figures, but with the turbos and all the plumbing, the difference wasn't that big (the B5 RS4 [entire car] was only 30kg lighter than the european B7 RS4). But the main reason Audi dumped the 2.7TT was emissions.

especially considering the turbo components. But there's a significant difference in displacement(2.7 vs 4.2).

Also, keep in mind that other things had to be beefed up for the V8. A B5 S4 is the lighter car of the two, and that should count for a lot...it sure makes a difference.

With the B7 RS4 we see some halfhearted measures by Audi to take some weight out of the heavier platform, obviously w/o much success(4000 lbs?).

what do you make of the battery being moved to the trunk of the RS4? If, as some suggest, it's done for weight distribution(??) than to me it's pure fodder. A bag of groceries in the front seat will largely offset this design brainstorm.

like 50-60lbs. Switching to a Odyssey lightweight battery results in a 35lb. weight *savings*....yes, that battery weighs 35lbs LESS than the OEM battery. additionally, the battery is moved from being high up in the engine compartment and directly over the front axle, to way down underneath the trunk mat *behind* the rear axle. so although it may seem insignificant on the surface...

though I've never seen an official published number from Audi.

Audi published the 2.7T weight in their official self study guide. Anyone have the numbers for the 4.2?

One advantage the 2.7 has is that's it's very short compared to the V8. It helps a little with the weight with all things being equal.

The B5 RS4 motor also uses less fuel than the B7 RS4 motor even when tuned to more power.

I'd really like to compare BSFC numbers for both engines, but that's something I don't have access to.

and to be fair, you'd really have to compare Avant to Avant.

instead of putting a stock lightweight battery in there, they move it to the trunk. Quite an engineering feat, eh?

As far as center of gravity, it is nominal.

is the lighter car, and that is always a good thing.

...at the next demolition derby.

I'll just bring a Ford F-250.

The point is that the steady increase in pork of Audi's is not generally viewed as favorable. And the trend towards V8's and V10's, and their heavier supporting cast of components, doesn't bode well for what, IMO, is an already diluted Euro sports sedan trademark.

approach to effecting minute amounts of result. The proper thing to do would be to use a LW battery in the first place and find other ways of taking some weight out of the front of the car, rather than moving the clunky battery to the trunk and running at 10 ft cable the length of the car.

Don't tell me you actually buy into their spin on this. It amounts to nothing more than 'cost saving' short cuts.

I take it you disagree that a lightweight battery in the engine bay and other weight saving measures are less favorable than moving a std battery to the trunk.

Unfortunately, the bean counters have their way even with cars like the RS4 and M3.

Even the S4 with the same size 4.2 engine has the battery up front. So what's your point there? My point is that although it's not unheard of to have a battery in the trunk, there are better ways of reducing weight at the front of the car than this half-assed enginering feat. I mean, come on!