if porsche can add a damn pdk to their 516lb ft panamera turbo...and audi/vw being early
02-13-2009, 05:22 PM
#21
The cost to engineer a transmission for a car that can be produced in limited numbers, that
has a natural brand perception price limit, cannot be applied to any mass market models, and has a limited life span, makes it a waste of time and money. No point in backwards engineering a major item in for a limited production halo car that has been out a while now, when it isn't going to garner anything like the press of something all new. And think of the potential backlash like the Nissan GT-R, with transmissions popping like light bulbs on a cold winter night....
I'm not sure you understand that the R8 was already a freebie in the sense that Audi would have never built the car w/o the Lambo platform to start with. Since Lambo didn't bake DSG into the platform from the start, the scope of doing so long after the design has been finalized, just makes absolutely no sense. The R8 itself makes no business sense from a beancounter standpoint, but we are blessed to have it.
Given the Gallardo on which this car is based, typically sells for twice the price of the R8, and it <b>still</b> doesn't have dual clutch, shows that it simply isn't feasible on many levels. It takes the folks at Ricardo a week to hand build 2 Veyron transmissions. Now you can build an automated plant, but now you have to buy land, do enviro studies, get permits, finalize the transmission design so that the machinists and robot makers for the production line know what kind of machines to build, program the she-bang, and then hope you don't need to make any running changes as that gets even more expensive. And for what? A car with only a few more years of production left? What to do with the factory and obsolete assembly line?
As an example of the cost involved, when the C6 A6 was being designed, they considered what it would cost to offer the big fender flares like on the C5 V8s, at medium high production rate, and found it would cost upwards of 25 to 30 <b>million</b> Euros to redesign, engineer, certify, and stamp those panels. It was done on the C5, simply because they had not anticipated using a V8 until very late in the design process. There they took the aluminum front clip from the D2 A8, and adapted it for the A6. It was massively expensive. The C6 A6 did not need this, as it had been designed from the start to fit the V8 and V10.
When I speak to the engineers at car companies, they have absolutely no interest in what a customer wants right now - that is going come and go before their car launches - but rather they want to know what customers don't like. At the very least they can eliminate that. The average customer usually has no clue of what technologies will be used in a car 5 to 8 years in advance.
Given the smoothness of the latest E-Gear in the 560-4 when in auto mode (equal or better than DSG A3), I am sure QTR gmbh did lend a hand in polishing off the roughest edges of the old system. Much more expedient than designing and integrating a new system for a car already years into production. Remember, Porsche is introducing PDK in the newest models, which are likely to have 7 to 10 years of production.
I'm not sure you understand that the R8 was already a freebie in the sense that Audi would have never built the car w/o the Lambo platform to start with. Since Lambo didn't bake DSG into the platform from the start, the scope of doing so long after the design has been finalized, just makes absolutely no sense. The R8 itself makes no business sense from a beancounter standpoint, but we are blessed to have it.
Given the Gallardo on which this car is based, typically sells for twice the price of the R8, and it <b>still</b> doesn't have dual clutch, shows that it simply isn't feasible on many levels. It takes the folks at Ricardo a week to hand build 2 Veyron transmissions. Now you can build an automated plant, but now you have to buy land, do enviro studies, get permits, finalize the transmission design so that the machinists and robot makers for the production line know what kind of machines to build, program the she-bang, and then hope you don't need to make any running changes as that gets even more expensive. And for what? A car with only a few more years of production left? What to do with the factory and obsolete assembly line?
As an example of the cost involved, when the C6 A6 was being designed, they considered what it would cost to offer the big fender flares like on the C5 V8s, at medium high production rate, and found it would cost upwards of 25 to 30 <b>million</b> Euros to redesign, engineer, certify, and stamp those panels. It was done on the C5, simply because they had not anticipated using a V8 until very late in the design process. There they took the aluminum front clip from the D2 A8, and adapted it for the A6. It was massively expensive. The C6 A6 did not need this, as it had been designed from the start to fit the V8 and V10.
When I speak to the engineers at car companies, they have absolutely no interest in what a customer wants right now - that is going come and go before their car launches - but rather they want to know what customers don't like. At the very least they can eliminate that. The average customer usually has no clue of what technologies will be used in a car 5 to 8 years in advance.
Given the smoothness of the latest E-Gear in the 560-4 when in auto mode (equal or better than DSG A3), I am sure QTR gmbh did lend a hand in polishing off the roughest edges of the old system. Much more expedient than designing and integrating a new system for a car already years into production. Remember, Porsche is introducing PDK in the newest models, which are likely to have 7 to 10 years of production.
02-14-2009, 09:48 AM
#23
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are running a business that is out performing most...
... assuming business folks (or in the biz world, your competition) are idiots when you have only partial information/speculation as to what fuels their decisions is short sighted.
02-14-2009, 11:48 AM
#26
It all depends what Porsche will let them do, now that Porsche holds majority stake.
The current R8 already steps on their toes, and the next Cayman/Boxster is to use the Audi R4 chassis. I hope this R8 won't be their last, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is 
02-17-2009, 07:19 AM
#29
Former Vendor
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 8,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well to Audi's credit
Porsche would be insane to mess with such a good thing as the R8. I think they realize it's an instant classic, and they'll let Audi have their fun with it.
I've also heard it rumored the future cayman/boxster will be offered with a 2.0T option?
I've also heard it rumored the future cayman/boxster will be offered with a 2.0T option?
