Muray

I just sold my 2011 S4 that had an APR ECU tune and eventually I want to buy another car. This time a 2 door. I drive mostly locally and take the car to tracks a few times per year. So I want something that could be a comfortable daily driver and decent track performer. Naturally I thought of the A5 line since I want somethign different from a 4 door.

When I test drove an S5 a couple of years ago I wasn't terribly impressed by it compared to the S4. It felt like a boat compared to the S4. More like a GT rather than a sports coupe. But now my taste has changed and I think I want something more relaxed than the S4. I want something that has a lot of torque right off the line and it doesn't necessarily need to have a lot of high rpm power, I'll never use it.

When I drove a 2012 Q5 with the 2.0T with the 8 speed auto, I was very impressed with the acceleration and the smoothness. I thought that would be a good combo for me. Now my question is, how is the Stasis/APR tuned A5 with 8 speed auto? I am looking for 0-60 sec time of 6 sec or less and low rpm torque. With a fairly comfortable ride since the roads around me are so bad. I thought if I could pickup a 2011 A5 with 8 speed and tune it, it would be perfect for me. I'd want the full ADS too.

However, having a 2010 or so S5 is intriguing too, since it's an S car, and I love the v8 sound. If the price difference of 2010 S5 vs 2011 A5 isn't too big, of course I'd go with the S5, and I wouldn't tune the S5.

Besides power, the car needs to have brakes worthy of track days. I plan on getting new wheel setup for track days and swap them out. Is S5/A5 prone to brake fade in track situations?

So as A5/S5 owners, which one do you think would serve me better? Thanks.

Muray

Oh and another question. Do A5's come with backup camera? I know S5 does...but can't find on Audi website that A5's do...

JD15

For 2010 or 2011, the A5 comes with a back-up camera as long as you get the navigation package - same as with the S4 or S5.

Once you start looking at used 2010 S5s, I think you will see that the prices are so high that you will have saved little to no money when downgrading from your previous S4.

Muray

I am financially ok now so I can afford a used S5 if I want to. I do realize S5's are more expensive than the S4's. I am leaning more towards the A5 because I think it serves all my needs...but I do like the full ADS though. I got used to it on my S4.

MonzaA5

According to Audi's own data, A5 with 8-speed does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds stock. Audi's numbers are frequently underrated, so it might actually be faster. With a Stage 1 tune, you are likely looking at 5.5 seconds or less (some claim that you can get into sub 5-second territory with software alone).

The S5 is about 250 lbs heavier than the A5 and all of that weight falls over the front axle. Perhaps that's why it felt "boat-like" to you. A5 with sport suspension should handle at least as well as your S4.

ayap

Get the S5 with the sports diff. I was not impressed with the S5 w/o the sports diff. If you track the car, the sports differential makes a big difference in driveability.

Huey52

There is nothing like the rumble of a V8. In my case I was simply unwilling to pay the fuel premium in a daily driver (been there, done that). So, for me the A5 with a tune was the best of both worlds. Plenty of low end torque when I need it and fuel efficient the majority of the time. Still, not the nice rumble of a V8.

However, I'm considering the S5 Coupe when it comes with the s/c V6 (similar to current Cabrio).

ayap

You will be disappointed with the S/C V6 if you are concerned about fuel economy.
Some owners of the Supercharger V6 engine already are reporting 12-14 MPG for mostly city driving. I get 18.5 - 19 MPG city driving on my V8 and I ain't driving like granny.

One owner mentioned he owned the 2009 V8 S5 and now traded it for the 2012 V6 S5 Cab, he felt being screwed over both ways - 1) with the low MPG of the V6 (14 MPG) as oppose to 18-19 MPG on the V8 and 2) the lack of pulling power of the V6 at higher speeds.

JD15

It does appear to be difficult for the 3.0T to reach EPA estimates - as is the case for many other engines - but are you actually suggesting that the 4.2 gets 33% better mileage than the 3.0T? I just got 15 mpg on my last tank with the 2.0T, so is it more likely that the 4.2 gets better mileage than the 2.0T or that the conditions for "city driving" are vastly different?

ayap

It's normal that I can get 360 out of a full tank. I always fill full tank and here's a picture of the gauge almost empty. In the picture below, you can see that have done 327.7 miles + 40 miles remaining = 367.7 miles in this picture before refueling. The fuel warning light has not yet turned on. 360 miles is about 75% highway driving and 25% steep rural mountain roads since I took this to my cabin up in the mountains. I have refueled at 333 miles and that's when the fuel light went on (but has about 35 miles remaining). This gets me to about 23-24 MPG on the highway and I drive with engine in "dynamic" and my gears are displayed in "S" mode.

If I do 90% - 95% city driving, then I get about 290-295 miles on a full tank (for 15 gallons consumed) and that translates to about 19+ MPG (actual consumption, not computer reading). 290 miles divide by 15 gallons = 19.3 MPG I normally refill with about 15 gallons once the warning light goes on. So, yes, I'm getting better than your 2.0T for whatever reason. I stop through 7 traffic lights + 3 stop intersections w/o traffic lights on the way to work and back (a total of 10 stops one-way, and 20 stops back-and-forth from home-work-home). My BMW 328 was getting 20-20.5 MPG city driving (same route) or about 310 miles on a full tank. On the contrary, when I was driving a Mazda RX8 with a 1.3 rotary engine on exactly the same route, I was getting 14-15 MPG on the same route and could only milk 220-230 miles on full tank - go figure