Glisse

The 3 litre was definitely announced as the EA838 in 2016 - the S4 was released mid 2016, but as I said within 6 months had been merged into EA839 family. The Porsche Panamera 971 was originally launched mid 2016 in 4S form with the EA839 TT, the 4 with the 3 litre engine came later.

As you noted, the individual engine codes are the most accurate description, not the engine family - I only commented on JD15's referral to the EA838 because few people remember the change.

The Porsche 3.6 TT was their old design (cut down from the Porsche 4.8 V8) and pretty ordinary, the 3.0 TT Porsche used for a year or two was never discussed in any detail that I can remember, which is interesting. I suspect it may have been a modified EA837 with TT replacing the supercharger, as I don't believe it was a B-cycle engine. It most certainly would have been an Audi engine, probably modified by Porsche.

I think there are two likely reasons that Porsche have largely (but not entirely, as you noted) moved away from using the 3 litre to the 2.9 TT, detuned to the same sort of power level. Firstly, I think the 2.9 TT in some emission tests performed better than the 3 litre version. It is on boost 600RPM later, and depending on the test cycle, that can give a better result. I noticed that a few years back when Euro 6 d-TEMP was coming in. The 4S using the 2.9TT had a slightly lower CO2 rating than the 4 with the 3 litre.

The second reason is that the peak torque figure on the 3 litre arrives at just over 1300RPM, which doesn't suit a dual clutch transmission so well. The TT would give Porsche more flexibility on their target torque maps to avoid too much shunt through the transmission at lower engine speeds. This is what in part caught Audi out - with B cycle lifting torque below boost, and a low RPM for maximum boost, the changes in Euro test cycles meant the 3 litre version is making too much power within the test cycle. And they responded a bit crudely by using a nasty throttle map in D mode to compensate - so a big difference between D and S mode in terms of responsiveness. Much less so with the 2.9 TT. I also suspect Porsche prefer the character of a more more power sensation from the 2.9 TT for their vehicles.

Porsche's decision to use the 3 litre in the Cayenne S hybrid vs the 2.9 in Panamera S hybrid, which are both making identical ICE power and torque is most likely drivetrain smoothness as above - the Cayenne is on MLB Evo and uses a ZF8HP, whilst the Panamera is on MSB and uses a PDK.

The D5 A8 60 TFSI e in current production is using the 3 litre engine with 250kW/340hp and 500Nm, with total output of 342kW/460hp. The only reason for Audi to use the 2.9 litre in the B10 RS5 PHEV is for more ICE power, I would have thought.

Mercedes had to add an electric turbocharger to the M139 2 litre inline 4 cylinder in the 206 C63S to get enough torque low down as they have probably turned the boost up so much that there was big torque hole. And they are only using a 6.1kWh battery. Enough to get a good quarter mile time, then it's over until it has managed to recharge back up. Bit optimistic to think Audi can cram a 25 kWh battery in the B10 RS5, and it would end up heavier than the Mercedes. Still, a TT V6 seems a lot better than their characterless M139. Especially when the battery has run out of juice. And on the PPC platform, I'd expect the B10 will charge much more quickly than the 63S, which is glacial.

All speculative, who knows what they will do. Or who is left there to do it. The B10 A5 isn't due out until later in the year. The S5 would be expected to follow a few months later, and typically the RS5 wouldn't appear until 6 months after that. Maybe they'll accelerate that given the new management?

SMac770

Made a chart. The yellow is the 3.6L VR6 inherited from the Cayenne's VW ties. The green is the Porsche V8, which had two cylinders chopped to create the 4640 V6 for the Panamera, in red. And then was later twin turbo charged as a 3.6TT and shorter stroke 3.0TT, in the orange. Purple is the EA837 3.0T supercharged, used only in hybrid applications. And then the blue is all the EA839 engines. Even 10 years ago, we see Porsche using different engines for the same nominal peak output, 3.6TT 420hp in the Cayenne vs 3.0TT 420hp in the Panamera. So nothing new for them there.

Glisse

^^

Nice chart, well done!

The one I didn't understand was the 3 litre TT, which appeared and disappeared quickly, which you suggest is a shorter stroke of the old 3.6 engine. And was never used in any other VAG products. Now makes sense looking at the appearance date in your chart - China an important market for the Macan in particular, and that move coincided with the Chinese government bring in very high taxes on engines with a capacity of 3000cc or more IIRC. It was a patch job. Never drove it. Did drive the 3.6TT CTLA - didn't like it.

Not sure this will have much influence on anything Audi are doing. The Panamera 972 and facelifted Cayenne aren't do anything unusual with the EA839, although the detuned base versions in the e-Hybrids have a lowly 420Nm, yet don't have any better efficiency than the 340-350hp versions used next rung up, and as per the A8 60 TFSI e. Seems a typical Porsche margin grab, as there would be no cost difference based on the ICE engines alone. They have just made them deliberately worse.

SMac770

Not too worried what they work out regarding the ICE tuning and the ICE/E balance. But the weight of a PHEV. Surprised it's so much when the batteries are so much smaller than full BEV vehicles. Looks to be about 300 lbs for the 17.9 kWh pack, not sure about the newer 25.9 kWh pack Porsche has started using. And then about 150 lbs for the 90kW/100kW e-motor in the type 0D7 (ZF 8HP). Not sure about the newer 130kW/140kW e-motor Porsche has started using; I assume that's some aspect of the Gen4 ZF 8HP (not sure what Gen3 was, 0BK/0BL were Gen1, 0D5/0D6/0D7 are Gen2, Gen3 was?), which I'd expect B10 to use. And then about 200 lbs more of "stuff" in a Porsche E-hybrid. But if we look at the MY24 A8 55 vs the MY24 A8 60e (using UK site), it's more like 300 lbs more of stuff for the A8 PHEV. Will PPC help with the "stuff" weight any, who knows.

But damn, as soon as they say PHEV, .... Even the new C63S. Looking at the EPA numbers for MY21 C63S sedan vs MY24 C63S sedan, +890 lbs curb weight, +1000 lbs test weight, and +1000 lbs GVWR. Sure, I imagine a lot of new bells and whistles are a part of that. But with half the engine size, and only a small battery pack (which is still 200 lbs?), .... If we take the prismatic cells of the Macan EV at 175Wh/kg, that's 326 lbs for a 25.9 kWh pack; similar to the weight of the old 17.9 kWh pack. Or less than 100 lbs for a C63 sized pack. I assume the MB pack is heavy due to that oil cooling configuration they are flaunting. Even if the RS saves 200 lbs with a small pack config, it's still going to be at least a 10% increase over the B9. I'm not expecting anything surprising regarding the batteries for the nearly here PPC and PPE stuff. Maybe SSP will get something revolutionary.

u080570

From CarScoops:

Wide-Arch Audi RS5 Avant Calls Out The Skinny BMW M3 And Mercedes C63 AMG

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/wi...box=1709824168

JohnEnglish

It's a small detail, but I like how, with the current gen RS5 Sportback, Audi spent the money for a separate rear door stamping to integrate the rear wheel arch into the door. BMW cut a notch into the rear fender of the M3 so the flare stops right at the rear door and they could use the same stamping as the regular 3 series.

chassis

Well done! Thanks.

TT-S4

To my eyes that render appears to be what a new version would look like if a previous/current gen A4/S4 had a baby with a previous/current gen A5/S5.

There are design aspects of the current A5/S5 that I really like, but for me the current A4/S4 appeals more to me as I like my sedans to looks like proper sedans that do not like to try and look as if they are 2 door coupes.
That of course is my view of what I prefer and like, as I know that other people prefer the A5/S5 more so, along with now longer trend of "couple like sedans".

Some are saying that rendering is boring.
I find that view odd and interesting.
To your point.
That render is very much in line with how Audi styles its vehicles over the past couple of decades.
They really like and push that more austere and clean design rather going with something more wild and eye catching.
Doing something more daring catches more eyes, but it also tends to draw more sharp criticism.

Audi doesn't do daring. That's not their thing.
Even the R8/10 has a rather sedate design in the growing world of hyper designed uber and hyper sport cars.