RS4 performance figures versus S4 Modded (to prove my point)
11-13-2006, 11:50 AM
#11
Who do you think you are fooling, buddy?.....
The test in C&D that you are referring to was of a pre-production RS4. Furthermore, they NEVER ACTUALLY TESTED the 0-60 or 1/4 mile in the car. The printed figures were only the manufacturer estimates of times that were posted in the article. The fastest tested 0-60 time for an RS4 is 4.3 seconds by Road and Track. The slowest tested 0-60 time is 4.6 seconds by Car & Driver. That test however was at 2000ft altitude at a temp of 97 degrees farenheit. Most tests clock 0-60 at 4.4 and 1/4 mile at 12.8.
Every review and test of the RS4 has demonstrated it to be significantly faster than the S4 with huge improvements in handling, chassis dynamics and the incredible subjective feel of the engine.
Now, take your $54,000 loaded up S4 and add to it:
chip-$800
downpipes-$1800
cat back-$1200
suspension-$3000
wheels/tires-$4000
brake upgrade-$4000
intake-$300
RS4 interior trim-$800
labor for install of parts-$2000(conservative)
Your S4 now costs $71,900 and it still won't perform as well as an RS4. I haven't even mentioned the cost for a widebody conversion to accomodate the 255 width rubber which would be another $10k. So, in the end, when you really think about what you are getting, the RS4 is worth every penny.
Like I said, go away flea.
Every review and test of the RS4 has demonstrated it to be significantly faster than the S4 with huge improvements in handling, chassis dynamics and the incredible subjective feel of the engine.
Now, take your $54,000 loaded up S4 and add to it:
chip-$800
downpipes-$1800
cat back-$1200
suspension-$3000
wheels/tires-$4000
brake upgrade-$4000
intake-$300
RS4 interior trim-$800
labor for install of parts-$2000(conservative)
Your S4 now costs $71,900 and it still won't perform as well as an RS4. I haven't even mentioned the cost for a widebody conversion to accomodate the 255 width rubber which would be another $10k. So, in the end, when you really think about what you are getting, the RS4 is worth every penny.
Like I said, go away flea.
11-13-2006, 11:50 AM
#12
Elder Member
![CURSH[silverbullet]'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%23c3c2ce' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>C</text></svg>)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^settles the discussion.
on a totally different level, my friends (all with much faster cars) get an enjoyment ouf oy my A4 Avant that they cant find in their faster similar cars.
There is something to say about looking back at your car when you park it and thinkint 'damn that widebody looks sick'
How much does that cost?
There is something to say about looking back at your car when you park it and thinkint 'damn that widebody looks sick'
How much does that cost?
11-13-2006, 11:52 AM
#13
Elder Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 23,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
since you're trolling using separate tests under differing conditions...
by different people...
i'm wondering why you didn't use these numbers? wikipedia says Audi's conservative numbers of 4.8 (to <b>62, not 60</b>) are actually more likely around 4.5 (0-60).
Road & Track published 4.3 (0-60).
Or this from supercars.net:
0 - 60 mph 4.4 seconds
0 - 100 mph 10.8 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 12.8 seconds
i'm wondering why you didn't use these numbers? wikipedia says Audi's conservative numbers of 4.8 (to <b>62, not 60</b>) are actually more likely around 4.5 (0-60).
Road & Track published 4.3 (0-60).
Or this from supercars.net:
0 - 60 mph 4.4 seconds
0 - 100 mph 10.8 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 12.8 seconds
11-13-2006, 11:54 AM
#16
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 3,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are you B5 S4 guys going to do when APR releases their Stage 3 kit and 2.0Ts are faster?
APRs stage 3 kit for the 2.0T that was shown at SEMA bumps the 2.0T to 380 HP/340lb ft, 400 HP on 93 octane.
When I put that kit on my A4 car it will be close, if not faster than your S4, but I will still want an RS4.
An A4 is not an RS4 no matter how fast it is.
An S4 is not an RS4 no matter how fast it is.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. A stage 3 2.0T vs a B5 S4 may be a better apples to apples.
BTW, you're missing the big picture with comparisons like you're making. There is a lot more to an RS4 than 0-60 and quarter mile times.
Give it a rest for everyone's sake.
When I put that kit on my A4 car it will be close, if not faster than your S4, but I will still want an RS4.
An A4 is not an RS4 no matter how fast it is.
An S4 is not an RS4 no matter how fast it is.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. A stage 3 2.0T vs a B5 S4 may be a better apples to apples.
BTW, you're missing the big picture with comparisons like you're making. There is a lot more to an RS4 than 0-60 and quarter mile times.
Give it a rest for everyone's sake.
