Audi RS6 -- new sleeper sedan

[cojones]

premiered at the Geneva Show, the new RS6 has a twin-turbo 4.2L V6 with 444 hp (from 5700-6400 rpm) and 413 lb-ft (from 1950-5500 rpm).

With Quattro AWD and a 5-speed Tiptronic, its conservatively clocked at 4.9 sec in 0-62 mph (0-100 kph). It has big carbon-composite brakes (ala P911TT GT2) and will have 18" (or optional 19") wheels.

Unlike the smaller RS4, this one will be offered in sedan and wagon (avant) configurations.

 

[nsxtasy]

Based on those numbers, it must be pretty darn heavy... I'm guessing 3500, maybe close to 4000 pounds. Definitely no sports car.

 

[Enzo]

Here some pics I took at the Geneva Show :

[This message has been edited by Enzo (edited 03 April 2002).]

 

[cojones]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Definitely no sports car.

I don't know that anyone ever pretended it was one. Its a sports (or sporty) sedan (or wagon), with a design target being something like the BMW M5.

Speaking of the M5, they're now talking a V-10 with output north of 450hp. Which is about what the new Porsche SUV (Cayenne) puts out -- which interestingly enough, lets it out-accelerate a slushbox NSX "sportscar".

[This message has been edited by cojones (edited 03 April 2002).]

 

[MAJOR STONER]

Things are getting silly with sedans that have way more hp than the NSX, better specs, and 9000 rpm redlines. Frankly, if I ever get excited about a new station wagon, just shoot me and put me out of my misery.

 

[cojones]

For $80K it better smoke some "sportscars". Certainly one from the late 1980s.

On another note The Jag S-Type R beats an M5 in recent tests (EVO magazine). The coming X-type R (AWD 420+ hp) will be even better.

 

[humanoidtyphoon]

The RS4 was actually faster than the McLaren to 30 MPH....pretty impressive......also, did the quarter in 12.5 sec....not bad.

So I would guess that the RS6 will be very comporable or better. You know the Euros...they love them fast station wagons.

 

[skim83]

Originally posted by MAJOR STONER:
Things are getting silly with sedans that have way more hp than the NSX, better specs, and 9000 rpm redlines. Frankly, if I ever get excited about a new station wagon, just shoot me and put me out of my misery.

I'm with Stoner. Every damn car out there is a rocket these days. It's getting pretty ridiculous and boring. Hearing about 300hp cars use to get me going. I don't even care anymore.

Come to think about it I don't even know what attracts me to a car anymore.

 

[Michigan NSX]

Originally posted by skim83:
I'm with Stoner. Every damn car out there is a rocket these days. It's getting pretty ridiculous and boring.

Yeah, lets go back to the days when most cars had 115-135 HP and stationwagon (and many sedans) looked like they would tip over if cornered at anything over 35 MPH

The golden age of the automobile is now, my friend...

------------------
'91 Black/Black

 

[Michigan NSX]

This is the Audi I want to drive!

------------------
'91 Black/Black



[This message has been edited by Michigan NSX (edited 06 April 2002).]

 

[huckster]

be afraid, be very afraid---now, women on your very block, can jump into their station wagons and hurtle their kids and groceries to 60mph in less than five seconds.

in the golden years of driving we could see these estrogen raging drivers coming as they lumbered towards us in their big bloated suburbans.

ahh, those were the days....

 

[skim83]

Originally posted by Michigan NSX:
Yeah, lets go back to the days when most cars had 115-135 HP and stationwagon (and many sedans) looked like they would tip over if cornered at anything over 35 MPH

The golden age of the automobile is now, my friend...

Actually, for me the golden age was the 90's. Now cars are like computers. Something better comes out the moment you purchase. I'd like to enjoy my car/cpu without worrying that I'll have to upgrade just to keep up with the new stuff.

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by skim83:
Actually, for me the golden age was the 90's. Now cars are like computers. Something better comes out the moment you purchase. I'd like to enjoy my car/cpu without worrying that I'll have to upgrade just to keep up with the new stuff.

Stop and think about that for a minute. You're complaining because cars are improving at such a rapid rate. As I see it, whenever cars improve at a rapid rate, we're ALL better off, by continuing to have choices that are more numerous and more impressive than ever before.

Yes, computers constantly get better. The computer you buy today for $2000 has less capability than the one you can buy a year from now for $1000. But that means that you are constantly getting more for your money all the time - and you get the chance to enjoy it by upgrading. You can keep using the older model, but having the option to get something new that's even better for less money is a nice option to be given.

 

[cojones]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
You're complaining because cars are improving at such a rapid rate.

I'm not sure this is the point. I think the complaint is that OTHER cars are improving at such a rapid rate... everything except the NSX.

Compare ALL the initial competition (Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari) as well as the newer stuff -- even station wagons and SUVs that are faster than the NSX, as an example.

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by cojones:
I'm not sure this is the point. I think the complaint is that OTHER cars are improving at such a rapid rate... everything except the NSX.

Wrong. Re-read Michigan NSX's post. He complains because something better is always coming out - which could be an improved version of the same car, such as the owner of a 3.0-liter '96 NSX who sees the '97 come out with an extra 20 horses.

Originally posted by cojones:
even station wagons and SUVs that are faster than the NSX, as an example.

Wrong again. Get your facts straight, Manuel. There has not yet been a test of a station wagon or an SUV that's faster than the NSX.

That's why the increase in horsepower has a lot of folks confused, just like you. Take a vehicle like the BMW X5 4.6is, which is the high-zoot version of their SUV. Yes, it puts out 340 horses, and has a lot of folks saying, "If the X5 can, why can't the NSX have more horsepower, the NSX is slower than SUV's, blah blah blah". Only those who bother to look closer will find out that the X5 4.6is weighs 4824 pounds

and goes from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds, a full second slower than even the earliest NSX's. (Figures courtesy of AutoWeek 1/2/2) And even the 449-hp Porsche Cayenne, which hasn't been tested by the mags yet, will be slower than the current 3.2-liter NSX, according to Porsche (0-60 in 5.0 seconds for the Cayenne, as reported in AutoWeek 7/20/0).

BTW...

Originally posted by cojones:
Unlike the smaller RS4, this one will be offered in sedan and wagon (avant) configurations.

...not in the United States, according to AutoWeek (4/4/2). And the sedan won't be in production until more than a year from now, and it will be even later before it makes it to the States. The next-gen NSX might even be out by the time the Audi RS6 is!

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 07 April 2002).]

 

[skim83]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Stop and think about that for a minute. You're complaining because cars are improving at such a rapid rate. As I see it, whenever cars improve at a rapid rate, we're ALL better off, by continuing to have choices that are more numerous and more impressive than ever before.

Yes, computers constantly get better. The computer you buy today for $2000 has less capability than the one you can buy a year from now for $1000. But that means that you are constantly getting more for your money all the time - and you get the chance to enjoy it by upgrading. You can keep using the older model, but having the option to get something new that's even better for less money is a nice option to be given.

I guess I shouldn't really care since when things improve at a rapid rate your statement about "more for the money" is true. Just that it gets a little tiresome keeping up with changing times. Of course, nothing is going to change the fact that change happens so I guess I have to learn to live with it

 

[Michigan NSX]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Wrong. Re-read Michigan NSX's post. He complains because something better is always coming out - which could be an improved version of the same car, such as the owner of a 3.0-liter '96 NSX who sees the '97 come out with an extra 20 horses.

Actually, nsxtasy, I never complained that something better is coming out. I was being sarcastic when I said "Yeah, lets go back to the days when most cars had 115-135 HP..."
I think constant improvement is a good thing. (its not like you to get your posters mixed up like that, Ken

)


------------------
'91 Black/Black

[This message has been edited by Michigan NSX (edited 07 April 2002).]

 

[cojones]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
get your facts straight

I said the Porsche Cayenne (autbox SUV) is faster than the autobox NSX in 0-60. Reasonable comparison, no ?

Also, the Ford SVT F150 lighting (a slushbox pickup truck) does 0-60 in 5.4-5.8 sec -- at least as fast as a slushbox NSX.


BTW...
Unlike the smaller RS4, this one will be offered in sedan and wagon (avant) configurations.
...not in the United States, according to AutoWeek (4/4/2)
Please re-read my post... I was comparing the earlier RS4 (avant/wagon only) with the RS6 (sedan and wagon). I made no mention of US availability, which is for purposes of my comment irrelevant. Also, the picture posted above from the Geneva show is definitely un-sedan-like, no ?

[This message has been edited by cojones (edited 07 April 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by Michigan NSX:
(its not like you to get your posters mixed up like that, Ken

)

Sorry, I had you confused with skim83... my bad.

 

[nsxtasy]

Funny how many people say something about how slow the NSX is, and when you point out that their numbers are wrong, they try to get out of it by saying, "Oh yeah, I guess I must have meant the automatic NSX"...

 

[cojones]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Funny how

yep its funny... SOME people do that. I'll roll my eyes at that too

I did not do that in this thread. I've always used the NSX slushbox as basis, as I'm comparing it with other slushboxes.

Also interesting how some folks always pull out 3.2L NSX #s, when the MAJORITY of cars out there are still 3.0L cars

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by cojones:
I did not do that in this thread. I've always used the NSX slushbox as basis, as I'm comparing it with other slushboxes.

No, you didn't, Manuel. You never mentioned the automatic at all. Your words:

"Compare ALL the initial competition (Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari) as well as the newer stuff -- even station wagons and SUVs that are faster than the NSX, as an example."

It was only after I pointed out that this statement is untrue that you first mentioned the NSX automatic.

And I'm not sure why you would use the NSX that 91 percent of owners don't own as a comparison. Except maybe to try to weasel out of admitting that what you said was wrong...

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 08 April 2002).]

 

[cojones]

Hopefully my last post on this one... its getting late, and I've got things to do.

In my earlier post (dated April 3 post) I mention (as an example) that an autobox SUV is faster than an autobox NSX. FACT

Later on (April 7 post) I asserted that the key NSX competition that it once beat (in 1991) now have faster vehicles in 200x. Plausibly arguable for P911/996; no arguments elsewhere (360 Modena, Vette Z06).
For the most part FACT.

Some people want to continue to nit-pick at the words... to each his own, I guess

. My mistake here, and I both admit to and apologize for it, is letting this thread continue. WOB, and waste of our time.

The NSX was, and is, a fine motorcar. Whether it will continue to do so (and be competitive) in the future remains to be seen. I truly hope it will, and believe Honda can surprise us again, even if it is 3 years late.