Tweet
Re: 2010 S4
Wow, that was a whole smattering of strawman arguments (somehow I'm against technology? The DSG in my gti disagrees. And for the record, a small displacement NA engine will typically use less fuel than a FI one. The Euro models typically add FI to boost performance in the higher end trims of model lines. More air forcefed = more fuel required = more power but not in a linear relationship, obviously).
My argument is basically this: a 6.2L pushrod V8 making 100 more hp comes within 3mpg of this wunderkind engine that's 26% more efficient than the outgoing one. (insert slow clap) The new S4 could've been so much more, but isn't, that's why I am not sold on it.
Originally posted by The Brice
View Post
What are you talking about? Did you even read the article at all? The S4's fuel economy is 24.25mpg COMBINED or about a 25% savings in fuel economy over their last V8 and yes is better than the vettes V8 as well. Not bad at all considering the S4 probably has about 600-700lbs on the vette and not positive but it's probably not as good in the aerodynamics dep't either. If a car with a smaller engine using forced induction will not yield as good of fuel efficiency as a V8 than what the hell have the europeans been thinking using smaller FI powerplants with all of their cars because of their crazy gas prices.
I like this new S4 I'm really interested in seeing how this car does performance wise, with all the new advancements it has such as balanced weight ratio, 40/60 front/rear torque split, more advanced quattro system, and all it's other new goods this car could prove to be quite the machine. Technology can be quite the weapon for the road/track as the GT-R has proven. (Not that this will be in the same category at all.) I do agree with Ryan though, I would have liked to see this car with twin turbos instead but whatever any means of FI is better than NA any day. Audi pricing is certainly steep in comparison to many of their counterparts, but if you want to have a truly high quality 4 season luxury sports car I guess you have to pay to play. I truly believe that their 333hp rating like the 335's hp rating will be grossly underated as well.
I like this new S4 I'm really interested in seeing how this car does performance wise, with all the new advancements it has such as balanced weight ratio, 40/60 front/rear torque split, more advanced quattro system, and all it's other new goods this car could prove to be quite the machine. Technology can be quite the weapon for the road/track as the GT-R has proven. (Not that this will be in the same category at all.) I do agree with Ryan though, I would have liked to see this car with twin turbos instead but whatever any means of FI is better than NA any day. Audi pricing is certainly steep in comparison to many of their counterparts, but if you want to have a truly high quality 4 season luxury sports car I guess you have to pay to play. I truly believe that their 333hp rating like the 335's hp rating will be grossly underated as well.My argument is basically this: a 6.2L pushrod V8 making 100 more hp comes within 3mpg of this wunderkind engine that's 26% more efficient than the outgoing one. (insert slow clap) The new S4 could've been so much more, but isn't, that's why I am not sold on it.
Maybe I should just dumb it down a little for you there, let's look at the other V8's out there (NA of course) in chassis's that are much better suited for a fuel economy comparison to the new S4. New Challenger R/T = 18mpg combined, Mustang GT = 18mpg combined, IS-F = 19mpg combined, new M3 = 15mpg combined, or how's about the last gen CTS-V which uses the LS2 vette engine = 17mpg combined, wow now explain that one professor. Oh and make sure you brush your knees off when you get up cause trust me there's no more chrome left on that Vette's tailpipes.
Comment