My wife called from my car the other day and asked if she had a chance against a Carrera 4S. What's the good word?

on bad weather days I will pick my RS4 everytime.

I get teh joke.

She knows more about cars than most guys I know. Unlike most wives, she was happy I bought an RS4. She even prefers a manual transmission. Crazy, I know.

and in the curves, you have a weight penalty

A better run would be from 4K to 8K

Off the line, i'd say it's pretty darn close up to 160km/h (driver's race)
I think the porsche is slightly faster at the higher speeds. The facelift C4S has some more hp and the PDK makes it quite a bit faster than the RS4

But if it's the older gen 996 C4S, not even a question, you would not have an issue at all.

And I'm sorry, but even around the twisties, the cars are evenly matched (oh god, here we go again)

The manifold flaps are actually "open" much more than people think. I've logged the manifold flap position to see if they indeed are responsible for the torque bump at 5500 rpm. Turns out they open at 3500 and would stay open until the engine was under 2000 rpm for some time (a few seconds)with an engine load below 30%. I also logged intake and exhaust cam position to see what they are doing at 5500 rpm. The power surge appears to be due to several things (intake and exhaust tuning effects, cams, power flap opening, and ignition timing). The fact that the manifold flaps are open helps synergize the whole effect.

mass air flow, vehicle speed vs time, engine torque?

look up FATS. I don't think it matches up the same. It should be based on starting speed and ending speed and time to get there. I think all those calculators use RPM's, which I don't think matches up at the same speed to the RS4<ul><li><a href="http://germancarwiki.com/doku.php/audi/s4/fats">http://germancarwiki.com/doku.php/audi/s4/fats</a</li></ul>

anyone who thinks a car trapping sub 110 is fast needs to go out and drive more cars that actually have balls, not just aggressive badges and proud owners.

<ul><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2vnaGHp5PU">Click</a></li></ul>

As well as an 05 gallardo and a current 360 modena spyder...The 4S is faster, but not by much...from a roll on the highway the 4S will win most every time...From a dig, driver skill will play a bigger roll, but again it will be very close up to 80-100....

I like my RS4 much better than than I did 4S....Much more comfortable, better interior, and just felt more fun...could just be the V8. Infact I keeplcooking to replace it with something, but just have not found anything I would like better...I'm up at stowe right now, and can not wait for the 2 feet we are expecting tonight...

I would not go back to the B5 for anything..If I wanted an AWD I could mod .I'd take the 335xi. Guys are getting over 400whp now.....the B5 WAS a great engine for modding..but I got bored with it.

How exactly? Interfere with radios? What?

I've always wondered why a cell is any different from the Airphone things.

In any case, there comes a point in automotive enthusiast evolution where choices go beyond pure speed. Sure speed is still an element of the enjoyment of an automobile, but beyond a certain level of performance and beyond a certain class of car, there are many other subjective factors that come into play. It is the overall execution and feel of the driving experience that become paramount. Not so important is a 1/10th here or there or a few extra hp provided by this or that mod.

My dream car is an Aston Martin Vantage. It's not even as fast as my RS4, but there is a "gotta have it" factor with the Aston that goes beyond any objectivity. It is an almost religious experience.

Take Rolls Royce, for example. If you ask them how much horsepower is in their cars, the answer is simply that "it is sufficient".

I have driven no car (and I have driven quite a few) that rivals the RS4 in OVERALL driving experience. The combination of the intoxicating high revving normally aspirated V8, the buttoned down chassis, AWD control, slick and beautifully weighted shifter, the perfect combination of quiet cabin with powerful exhaust growl, the performance designed yet luxurious interior, the tasteful yet muscular styling all add up to one of the finest automobiles on the road. As far as "how fast does it trap"........."It is sufficient".

<center><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/Jaredolin/DSC_0190.jpg"></center><p>This angle has been tried before though.

The larger power output analog phones of yore would interfere with certain instruments. You'd see eratic and sometimes full scale deflections. However, it was nothing that would literally bring a plane out of the sky directly but rather, things that would distract a flight crew. Granted, either directly or indirectly I don't want to come out of the sky for any reason.

The Airphone thingys do, or did, have shielded wiring to help control interference.

My understanding was that it was more of an FCC issue than FAA. Some evidence to that is cell phone usage was completely banned but can now be used on the ground while aboard. Just because your on the ground doesn't mean that the flight crew isn't relying on their instruments. If the phones were a significant source of interference they'd still be banned.

And for the record, some pilots use their cell phones all the time in the air and on the ground. I've received a few calls from friends while they were flying. Unless it's hardwired into the avionics for "hands-free" flying it's not the best idea because, well, who' flying the aircraft, anyway?

Talking on the phone is more of a problem than the phone itself. Passengers and pilots alike!

The first is that the other passengers, most of whom yap away non-stop on their phones anyway, will hate you. Cell phones in church are ok, but for some reason an airplane cabin is a much more holy place.

The second has to do with the ground network. When you're high up in the air, you can "see" many different towers at once. Because you become, essentially, equally far from a number of towers, it is hard for the ground network to tell which tower(s) to pass you along to. Apparently, this can cause some hiccups or extra load on the ground network, so the providers have told the FCC to encourage usage bans while on airplanes.

'my car is fast'

I see this thread I tagged into has sort of implied some type of B5 s4 rivalry or something like that, but I really was just locking onto the claim of being 'fast'. I don't mean to say anything about the B5 s4 etc.

I just don't see how any modern day car enthusiast can think a car that traps sub 109 is 'fast'. There's just too much else out there from the factory that changes the whole experience, regardless of how the RS4 stacks up against other four door sedans, the determination of what is 'fast' to me, has always been continuous across all classes of cars and automobiles, and not limited to a particular sub class relativity.

If someone says a car is fast, I think thats going to be a car that has a balance that will allow it to achieve something greater than 120 mph in a 1/4 trap. Now that measure might not be the same for everyone here, but I think a sub 109 MPH trap really is not something I would call 'fast' no matter which way you cut it. Fast for a four door luxury sedan? Ok, well that rubric is different, what is the average speed the modern day four door-- etc etc.
But the issue being brought up here is just whether the car is fast or not, no qualifications were added...for that reason I mentioned what I did. But this is just my opinion, everyone's free to choose their own definition of what is fast.

And in my opinion this car is "fast" no matter what trap requirements you bring up. I have no idea what the sub 109 trap comment mean... And I am pretty sure what ever your definition of fast is, someone else will think that is not fast enough--F1 anyone?

<center><img src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm303/silverRS4/P7041511s.jpg"></center><p>I had the opportunity to drive this for about 30 minutes. It was insane. But as Vijay said, for a practical 4-seater that can be used for all seasons, the RS-4 is tough to beat. BTW my RS4 traps at 113. It may not be fast, but it's still impressive for an AWD sedan thats basically stock.

doesn't mean it's true.

<center><img src="http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm303/silverRS4/VCDS.jpg"></center><p>(pic not showing my data obviously) Using original equipment tires on a flat road. Sample rate is nearly 30 per second, so the tolerance is small. I could make 3 runs and the trap speed variance would be within 1 mph. Keep in mind that the speeds reported in Vag-com are derived the same way they are for the DIS (which are 3-5% slower than whatever the speedo indicates). I will be able to run VCDS during actual 1/4 miles this Spring. When the car was new it didn't seem to be running properly and it could manage only 105-106 (the ECU would constantly take out 6-10 degrees of timing). The dealer cleaned the intake valves, the engine ran much better and the retardation dropped to a more reasonable 0-3 degrees. The trap speed went up to 110-111 (yes, it was like a completely different car). Then after my intake work, the trap speeds are now consistently high 113's.

And I'll have a passenger verify it with a video camera and a wristwatch.