A meaningful turbo version. And I'm talking about something at least as good as the 2.7liter V6 bi-turbo powerplant of the original RS4. IMHO, that's the finest and most exhilarating engine Audi ever produced in a production car.

And nothing has come close ever since. Certainly not the current 'naturally-asphyxiated' 4.2 liter V8 of today's RS4.

The way I see it, Audi is shamefully abandoning turbos in favor of lazy V8s and V10s etc.

Audi shouldn't forget its roots, i.e. Longitudinal front engine + Torsen Quattro + intercooler & turbocharging + six-speed manual gearbox. These are the "magic" ingredients that made Audi into the company it is today.

It boils down to the fact that the A5 coupe simply CANNOT be taken seriously as a true "spiritual successor" to the UR Quattro S1 Coupe without turbocharging. In short, for an RS5 I'd like to see something along the lines of a 3.2 liter V6 FSI biturbo, conservatively rated at 450BHP. Nothing less will do.

I think Audi is doing the right thing. Used car prices will benefit substantially as the previous 1.8T and 2.7T cars suffered on the used market. It's difficult to find an S4 that hasn't been modified and chipped and it seems that most people will pass on a car that is likely to have issues. The 5-cylinder turbocharged engine was great in it's day but probably better left to Volvo now.

Since Audi's decision to go naturally aspirated (S4 4.2V8) reliability bests both Mercedes/BMW now and the margin is growing. Nothing like the punch of a modified 2.7t but having driven the S6 and RS4 recently, they are incredibly smooth and strong in their own right. As long as Audi keeps torque a priority, (as they have recently and in the past) the increased reliability over BMW and Mercedes is a great thing.
----------------------------------------------
Consumer Reports:

"Lexus Slips, Lincoln Improves, Infiniti, Audi, and GMC also show big improvements, while Jeep falters; Mercedes-Benz drops to last place"

"In the European theater, Audi saw seven of its eight models in the average or better rating, resulting in a 15-spot improvement. Premium brand Mercedes-Benz fell four positions to replace Porsche in last place. Mercedes' new or redesigned-for-2006 models were all far below average. However, no brand fell further than MINI, now in 28th place. Both S and non-S convertible versions, of the Mini Cooper dropped to below average."

<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/14368/z_reliability_cr.jpg"><ul><li><a href="http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/02/28/038601.html">Consumer Reports: 2007 New Car Reliability Predictions, Mercedes-Benz Last</a></li></ul>

. . . BMW 335I EVOtech ECU Upgrade

QUOTE: " EVOtech is the first to release the 335i Twin Turbo ECU upgrade. HP jumps to an amazing 375hp!
$1295

Stay tuned for our 400hp turbo upgrade!! "

http://www.dynocomp.com/bmw.php?view=bmw

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watch out Audi!

By the way, I drove in a 500bhp chipped B5 RS4 Avant 2.7l biturbo, and the reliability was fine. About 100,000 miles on the clock, and it was still running the original turbo unit, which the owner assured me was coping just fine with the extra boost.

My friend has an Audi S2 Coupe five-cylinder 2.3 liter turbo with 130,000 miles on the clock. The car has never broken down. Original turbo unit.

I have considered the 335i Coupe also and there is no better coupe on the market right now for the price and especially if cheap power upgrades are wanted. To Audi's credit, they've been there done that with the B5S4.

For me, I have to have Quattro and I'm skeptical about BMW making a reliable late model turbocharged vehicle as they have trouble even with their current cars. (M3 previously blowing engines, etc) If Audi releases the RS5 with the "Lambo-V10" or even the current high-reving RS4 V8 with 450bhp - I will be happy.

it outperforms the previous 2.7T RS4 in every measureable way...acceleration, braking, handling, 0-60, 1/4mi, Nurburgring lap times, etc. What was that you said about not coming close since the biturbo?

Naturally aspirated engines are a work of art that no tuner can achieve. It is the very epidemy of fine engineering. I hope you guys dont get caught up in the horsepower wars.. and get blinded by the amount of effot audi goes to make our cars.

I can't believe MB is now ranked below Land Rover... yikes!

. . . It is no secret that from the late 1990s until recently, Audis did suffer from general quality related issues. But these were for all sorts of reasons -- i.e. to do with components throughout the car, mostly non-engine related. The CEO recently made it a no. 1 priority to root-out such needless lapses. The graph you show is the CEOs' policy bearing fruit.

The new AMG monster engine is over 500 hp naturally aspirated! As seen in the reviews however, all that power still doesn't quite do it for some. I prefer the all around virtues of the S6. I'm sure the S5 will continue (and improve perhaps!) on that standard.

although, none of it had to do with the car being turbo-charged, per se... first the haldex unit imploded (I suspect they did not service it as required), then the gearbox started grinding and would not engage 1st in certain weather and then the electrical system and then... you get the picture... the transmission took the longest to fix... first they pulled the SOB apart and then the Audi dude came to look at it and then they tried to rebuild it and then... blah, blah, blah.

they did give me a spiffy allroad to drive for that time though... boy, was that a hoot!

to do with increasing reliability? it is no secret that running positive manifold pressure does have an effect on engine longevity. I myself have witnessed many 1.8T engines get turned down for warranty at the dealership because they had a chip. My point is that Audi turbos had a huge aftermarket following as evidenced by pulling any Autotrader ad and taking a look at the S4s and A4 turbos for sale. The ability to have a decent resale value is not good. Which brings me back to why Audi dumped turbos, they want reliable cars and high resale values. They don't want everyone buying relatively cheap chips to increase the horsepower to levels that they were not designed to support.

Earlier you wrote:-

&gt;&gt;It's difficult to find an S4 that hasn't been modified and chipped and it seems that most people will pass on a car that is likely to have issues. &lt;&lt;

And now you say:-

&gt;&gt; My point is that Audi turbos had a huge aftermarket following as evidenced by pulling any Autotrader ad and taking a look at the S4s and A4 turbos for sale. &lt;&lt;

Look, you can't have it both ways: If a chip-able car has a "huge following" as you put it, then how on earth can you also imply that people "will pass on such a car"?!

A "following" equates to "demand" -- at least it does on the planet where I come from. ;-)


You also wrote: &gt;&gt; it is no secret that running positive manifold pressure does have an effect on engine longevity. &lt;&lt;

If you design an engine for a turbo, you make sure you design the rest of the engine to run reliabily with the turbo. There's no problem with that because it's designed to do that job.

My friend's S2 with 130,000 miles on the clock is case in point. If a turbo'd car failed, it would have done so for any number of reasons other than the turbo itself.

&gt;&gt; I myself have witnessed many 1.8T engines get turned down for warranty at the dealership because they had a chip. &lt;&lt;

Of course -- Dealers want total control. They'd rather sell you a more expensive car than you go for a cheaper one which you can mod to get more power than a more expensive stock car!


&gt;&gt; Which brings me back to why Audi dumped turbos, they want reliable cars and high resale values. &lt;&lt;

Don't believe the hype.

Nope. Tne real reason is they want to sell you a more expensive new car. Another reason is that Audi is pandering more to the "executive" market and showbiz stars who are not interested in track performance. Audi also wants more sales in the USA, where the low-grade gasoline there typically suits larger 'lazy' engines without turbos.

&gt;&gt; They don't want everyone buying relatively cheap chips to increase the horsepower to levels that they were not designed to support. &lt;&lt;

I disagree. The engines are built with margin. to support remapping. Audi did it so they can offer more powerful versions without hardly changing the hardware. This is what they did with all their turbo'd cars in the past. Case in point: just look at all the power (and price) variations with the 1.8T powered TTs, using almost the same hardware.

For example, you could spend £22,000 on a FWD 180bhp stock TT, and chip it for £500 to get greater acceleration (6.0 secs to 60mph -- I owned one) and quicker cornering than a stock 225bhp TT (costing £27,000!) which is 110kgs heavier.

I'm saying. Thanks for pointing out my words as if I can't remember what I wrote a post before. What I'm saying is all one in the same.
---------------------------------------------
&gt;&gt;It's difficult to find an S4 that hasn't been modified and chipped and it seems that most people will pass on a car that is likely to have issues. &lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt; My point is that Audi turbos had a huge aftermarket following as evidenced by pulling any Autotrader ad and taking a look at the S4s and A4 turbos for sale. &lt;&lt;
--------------------------------------
To clarify, we are talking about modded turbo cars, (not brand new turbo cars for sale at the dealer) many of these used cars are on the market as we speak. The reason that they are on the market is because of the huge following that the Audi turbo cars, such as the A4, S4, etc had and how easily they took to tuning. Now that they are on the market, they are aged, have miles on them, and were likely driven harder than a factory stock example. All things being equal, a potential buyer of a used car will choose the car that is stock and was driven by a 64yr old woman than one that was chipped and driven by a 23yr old male.

There is a following of people that want to buy the latest, powerful turbo car (Stock from the factory)and spend relatively little to make it perform to compete with more expensive cars. many will sell the car later as they become aged, and they end up on the used market. Yes, there are a ton of chipped cars on the open market - and they don't hold their values. Wonder why all these people are getting rid of them? Maybe because they have 100K miles now and they fear what may lie ahead... I, like most people would rather not buy someone else's problems. We don't want a car that was so modified that it is no longer reliable. Does a chip alone make it unreliable? No - but it means that the driver tests the performance of their car, and the engine has increased heat, higher boost pressures, and more stress on the internals and the turbo itself. I have been through this stage myself with multiple Audi turbos starting with the UR Quattro Coupe to B5,B6, and now a B7 and I am happy to see Audi taking a proactive approach to reliability even though they have made it more difficult to alter the engines(2.0t) as well as ditching turbos for the high power naturally aspirated engines. We should be happy, what other manufacturer offers an engine that is very similar to the engine in a Lamborghini yet has been further refined with FSI and different characteristics to potentially last longer than their 4cyl and 6cyl turbocharged predecessors.

Well, I don't completely disagree with some margin for additional power on the previous turbocharged engines, however these German engineers (unlike chip tuners) don't just increase boost to make a more powerful car. The basic 1.8T made 180bhp in the TT. It can also be aftermarket chipped to have about 225bhp just like the standard 225TT. BUT with the 225 engine, Audi engineers did more than up the boost pressure- they added an additional intercooler, changed the cylinder head, used forged pistons, different intake manifold, a much larger turbo, and finally increased boost pressure. This is only on the engine side, as the 225 also has larger rear brakes and lighter forged wheels as well. You can't tell me that this same level of reliability is possible without addressing these other areas and I seriously doubt that Audi engineers went through all of the trouble ONLY to make more money out of us.

I don't agree when you say turbo'd cars don't hold their values. In the UK the opposite is the case. For example, drive a new 2.0T FSI A4 B7 off the forecourt and if you decide to sell it again soon after you'll lose less off the value than you would if it were the V6 version.

Also, another friend of mine could barely fetch £11,000 for his five year old, 36,000 miles, BMW330ci flat six coupe (£32,000 when new!), whereas a good Audi S2 (a much older car from the 1990s) cost somebody else I know as much as £9,000 to buy.

As for your comments on the 1.8T 180 versus 225 stock, the 225 has a bigger turbo+intercooling, yes, (which probably barely offsets the extra car inertia and Haldex transmission losses), but the rest of the engine is pretty much the same.

Indeed, the 'stronger internals' of the 225 that Audi so often alluded to were largely marketing hype. The same now holds true for the latest S3 with the 265bhp 2.0T FSI. i.e. You'd be much better off buying a new A3 sportback Quattro and chipping it instead.

Regarding the larger brakes, of the 1.8T 225bhp TT, that car needs them because of the added inertia due to the 110kg greater unladen weight.

Oh, and I did fit the lighter forged (18in) wheels on my car too. ;-)

You mention that a B7 2.0t will hold it's value better than the 3.2, and while I can't confirm that here in the U.S. - this is different than the point I was making. Since they are 'new' cars, I don't expect the 'modified turbo tax' to be visible. If we were talking about B5/B6s now with 100K miles on the clock, I think we would see a different outcome, especially if the comparison was made between a 'chipped' and modded vehicle to a 'standard factory version'.

If we are talking S2's (we don't have those in the U.S.) then that is an entirely different ball of wax. Those are specialty vehicles (not mainstream) which I agree will hold their value. The only comparable model that we have here is the UR Quattro which still commands an excellent price on the used car market if in good condition. C5 RS6's also hold their value very well here, but it is again a 'special' vehicle.

I'm proposing Audi use 6-cyl + twin turbocharging for RS5, because if they stuck to a 5-cyl, they'd have to have one very big turbo to sustain 450bhp. And lag could be a problem.

On the other hand, with six-cyl, it divides nicely by two (each turbo feeding three cylinders), will give low lag, but with loads of boost potential.

Just thinking -- Maybe 3.2 liter for sustained 450bhp is not enough, but no more than 3.5 liter + biturbo -- I reckon that should do very nicely.

not exactly supercar numbers, but what made the Ur-Quattro special was the chassis balance of the quattro drive system. Although down one cylinder, the closest engine in spirit today is the 2.0T. And with the increased aluminum content, who knows, the A5 may even come close in weight.

things are very different now compare to when they ran the 5cyl engines with huge turbos. I had an S2 Rally car with 460hp and silly looking turbo. Now we run a Mitsu EVO with 340hp 500ft/lbs of torque and with 34mm restrictor. That litte 4 banger can make some awsome power with out a resctrictor and lag it very low dou to ALS and twinscrill turbos.

Audi should go back and make a 300+ hp light weight turbo engine, not a V6 ( I have a 2.7T allroad wiht 320hp and it is still a pig).

They take an A3 2L T 300+ hp quattro and 6speed, they will out sell the Mitsu's and STi's and will be all over the race tracks.
But from my conversations with Audi in the 90's when we were rallyng the car and looking for suppor they are not in that market, they want to compete against BMW and Benz, they could care less what Sube and Mitsu are doing.

-george