Auto Union Jack

Yes. I have an S8 and the motor is brilliant w/ 90% of peak torque from 2K on up.

BaysideRS4

that larger displacement = better throttle response. This car doesn't suffer in the throttle response area. I do like the turbo car and would buy another. There is something for not being worried about implosion and a deep exhaust note sounds great. Although the sounds the S4 makes are pretty cool, IMO.

Audi has done it again. They've put forth a car that is underpowered and they've done it too late. How can they put out a twin turbo 6, with only 250 horeses? Then follow up with a V8 making 344, or whatever? That is very disappointing. When I look for my next car, I won't be a loyal Audi fan. There are too many options coming out there.

BiturboBoy_V2.0_S3--

the thing is just too slow for this day and age, as a high performance sedan. Had they dropped in an S6 or S8 tuned version with higher torque and higher hp in the S8, a lot less people would complain on these baords...or it could alternatively shed about 250 lbs. or so...which would not only help accleration, but road holding ability as well...i still think audi dropped the ball a little...

BiturboBoy_V2.0_S3--

over the 250HP S4 you mention, it doesn't seem much faster at all..0-62mph in 5.6s vs. 0-60 in 5.5 or so? then again...that is amg time vs. audi estimated... truth is, its probabaly only a few ticks faster to sixty, but has better top end then a stock B5 S4 as the 0-200km/hr(as westimated by audi) was much better then a stock B5 S4(although still about 2 seconds off an E46 M3's mag times).

smellssokick

the throttle response is nothing like a larger displacement naturally aspirated motor. Try blipping the throttle in the 2.7t -- nothing happens.

smellssokick

supercharger, nitrous, turbo, more displacement. But each has its own disadvantages. The disadvantage of more displacement is emissions, mileage, size and weight of the motor. This new V8 for the S4 fits, and it weighs the same as the 2.7t. But it makes 90 more hp.

I think audi has the right idea with adding the turbos to the V8 motor for the RS models.

acadia1

NA. The point is for the car to move fast.
Not be turboed, not way 10 pounds, not ... what ever it takes to get the car to move fast is all that matters.

Take for instance the damn near 5700 W12 VW Pheaton, sure, it ways a ton, doesn't use turbo ... but it still accelerates from
0-60 in 6.3, and has a top speed north of 200MPH, that's right, a tank that breaks the 200MPH barrier.

In short, I wish people would simply say Audi make a fast car, and leave it at that.

HDClown

NO ONE in here is dropping $50k cash on they're car. They're leasing it or finacing it. Maybe they dropped $10-15k up front, but I doubt more than 1 or 2 people here dropped $40+k for their current S4 or the close to $50k for an M3 over on the bimmer boards.

And even if they did, does that mean you just blow through money with disregard? Give me a break and send me some of your free money if you do.

acadia1

That's the way I see it, if your scrimping and saving that much just to get this $50K car, and buying gas for the car will put you over the edge, perhaps you should look at cheaper car!!!

That's just the way I see it.

Oaktree

ah yes, I remeber that article. I tried to find the numbers but it was about 1 sec faster to 60.