V8 Lovers Rejoice For Audi's S5 AND VW Lovers Mourn The Golf R's Absence

V8?! Naturally-aspirated?! YES YES YES!!! For those who still think highly of their turbocharged 4- or 6-cylinder engines, I think they're really missing out!

I understand wanting a V8 for prestige but 333 hp? That is awfully low in today's market. The Ford non DI 5.0 is making 400+, GM's 6.2 is making 400+ and Chrysler's 5.7 is making 380+. If they had a 330 hp 6 cylinder I wouldn't see a problem with it (Lexus, Nissan, GM, Ford, BMW all make 300+ hp V6s) but if you are going to use a V8 then it needs to be putting out quite a bit more power.

I think it's actually 354 for the V8, but I am curious about the displacement of the engine and amount of torque it develops (also interested in how torque is delivered, because there is no greater feeling in a large displacement V8 than the amazing, raw push from the back of the seat).

Even at 354bhp, I'm still with you on the fact that it's a bit low. Maybe we'll get good fuel economy.

Audi is one mixed up company! Forcing you into engine choices based on if the car is a convertible or not? Retarded! The standard A5 should use the 2.0t engine, the S5 should use the 333hp supercharged engine and the RS5 should use the V8. And the convertible should be available with all engine choices. I'm sorry but the A5/S5 were never really appealing to me. The 265hp v6 that the standard A5 uses is a joke. Audi's have always been ripoffs.

So if I wanted an A5 with the supercharged engine, my only choice would be the convertible with it's awful looking cloth top. Retarded!

91z4me

You are comparing a 4.2L V8 making 354 hp and Very Good MPG with a 5.0L making 400+ With Less MPG
HP per L the 4.2L is already Ahead.

Then once you bring in the Larger Displacement Engines you mentioned {GM 6.2L at 400+ / Chrysler 5.7 at 380+} the AUDI 4.2L seems like its 20 years Ahead of the competition.

the 4.2L S5 makes 354hp with 14/22mpg with the manual, or 16/24mpg with the tiptronic
http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_audi_s5/

the 5.0 Mustange makes 412hp with the same 16/24mpg
http://autos.yahoo.com/2011_ford_mustang/

Of course this is to be expected when using an awd system. But to state that the S5 is more fuel efficient isn't true.

I95, HP/Liter means nothing. It is a made up statistic used by people to compare smaller engines to their larger counterparts. Ever hear: "the proof is in the pudding"? It means that the engine displacement or technology isn't important if it doesn't produce the power.

Compared to a $29k car the $50k Audi S5 doesn't make the same power (the displacement of the engine is irrelevant). It also doesn't get better gas mileage.

I am bringing the GM, Ford, and Chrysler engines into the discussion because they are available in decidedly cheaper vehicles. If Audi can't match the output of these cars then how will it compare to the $50k competitors who make better power as well?

91z4me

OK lets talk NA Engines from Audi
4.2L NA V8 in Previous RS4 420HP
4.2L NA in New RS5 450HP

So, Give me the List of NA Engines and their HP figures from the American Manufacturers.

Efficiency is the ultimate target of any Decent Engineer {From Autos to Buildings }. Your Inability to understand that tells me you know nothing about the subject and instead insert your irrelevant opinions as fact..

Sure lets play I have the time.

Dodge Challenger RT -370 hp 398 ft/lbs
Dodge Challenger SRT-425 hp 420 ft/lbs
Camaro SS stick -422 hp 408 ft/lbs
Ford Mustang GT -412 hp 390 ft/lbs

Those are the V8s from the Big 3 in their pony cars (roughly what an S5 is).
Also lets look at the V8s available in some competing marques.
MB C63 -451 hp 443 ft/lbs
BMW M3 -420 hp 295 ft/lbs
Lexus IS-F -416 hp 371 ft/lbs
Caddy CTS-V-556 hp 551 ft/lbs*

*Note that the CTS-V is a larger car (closer in size to a S6 or M5) but it is priced to compete with the IS-F, M3, C63, and S5.

Now lets pull some numbers from the more powerful 6 cylinders out there.
Nissan 370Z -332 hp 270 ft/lbs
BMW 335i -300 hp 300 ft/lbs
Lexus IS350 -306 hp 277 ft/lbs
MB C350 -268 hp 258 ft/lbs
Camaro LS (3.6L)-304 hp 273 ft/lbs
Mustang 3.7L -305 hp 280 ft/lbs

All the above V6s use DI except the Mustang V6 and the Nissan 3.7.

Now lets make sure you understand what I am saying. I am not saying that Audi's V8 isn't smooth or have power. I am simply saying that 350 hp doesn't compare to other engines on the market. The fact that I bring up the American V8s is simply to show that for the price there are MANY more powerful options out there for less money. If someone wants the prestige of a luxury marque they have plenty of other options to get more power.

Now you are mixing FI with NA Engines, the 335 is Twin Turbo.

BTW the RS6 has a 5.0L V10 Twin turbo producing 578hp / 479 lb-ft available from 1500rpm}

Also Noticed how you never listed the Displacement for the Challenger or Camaro {Guess 6.2L & 5.7L Vs 4.2L would prove my point}

Why don't you go tell Touring Cars or F1 or Rally Car that Displacement does not matter. Their reply would be " Go back to the cave from which you crawled out of"

MB is Dropping the 6.2L and going back to 5.5L { So much for Size is Nothing }

OK

Lets go with your argument. NA is one of a List of markets that Audi sells its vehicles in, in fact until very recently it was not even a significant market. So Audi has a Range of Engines that are successful in all the other markets they are present in. Do you expect them to develop new engines just for the NA Market.

If you want Very Efficient Petrol Engine in an Audi, you can have the 2.0T which produces 211hp and is quick enough for most people.

If you want Serious Acceleration you can have the 4.2L which produces 450hp and is quick enough for even the most die hard.

So what exactly is your beef with the range of engines ?

I didn't mention the displacements because it really doesn't matter. Who cares if you have a 12 Liter engine vs a 3 liter engine if they produce the same power and offer the same economy?

F1 teams run the maximum displacement they are allowed under the rules, same with EVERY racing series. There is a reason they go as big as they can within the rules, it is simpler to make more power with more displacement.

That's great that the RS6 has the TTV10 available but how does that relate to the TTI6 used in the 335i? Furthermore how does that relate to the S5's 350 hp V8 or its competitions 400+ hp engines?

MB is dropping the NA 6.3L V8 for a forced induction 5.5L V8. Forced induction is a form of producing more power with less displacement. It doesn't diminish the fact that the 350 hp 4.2L V8 is underpowered compared to its direct and indirect competition, be if Ford or GM or Lexus.

Obviously you aren't even understanding my argument enough to follow it. I am not complaining that Audi is offering a range of engines in the A5/S5 series, I compliment that. I am saying the 350 hp 4.2L V8 is underpowered! One more time: the 350 hp 4.2L Audi V8 is underpowered compared to US built V8 engines, European V8 engines, and Asian built V8 engines (the Korean Hyundai Genesis is making 368 hp from its 4.6 L V8 on 87 octane for crying out loud!).

Do you not agree that Audi's 4.2L V8 is underpowered compared to the engines I posted above?

Do you not see that hp/liter means nothing?

Why not, VW forces people to drive the Beetle with a standard one of a kind engine, no options there anymore.

And them failing to bring a US R model or performance model for the Golf/GTI is lame. The R32 was a great car, then they let it die off. I guess they will learn their lesson when the Ford Focus SVT comes out.

Audi is continuing the 4.2L V8 till the product update cycle which occurs in 2012 model year. There are enough fans of the V8 to keep it around till then. The model range will then be 2.0T only for A5. The 3.2V6 leaves at the end of this year. The 3.0T supercharges motor will replace the V8 in the S5 then the RS5 will come with the 450hp V8. This will align the product range up exactly with the 328,335, and M3/C300, C350, and C63AMG.

The output of the 4.2L V8 is strong at 354hp@7000rpm and 325lb/ft of torque at 3500rpm. This engine likes to rev more than most V8s and has an amazing sound. mpg is 17/22 with a manual and 19/24 with the automatic. 0-60 is 4.9 (manufacturer) and even faster in some publications. This output is by design by the way. The RS5 engine is the same displacement and produces 450.

Increasing displacement to 5.7L, 5.8L, 6.0L or even 6.3L is one way to produce a lot of power at low cost but I doubt if those engines have the refinement of the Audi 4.2.

I hear you, Neverfollow, but what do people who boost a poster who describes things as "retarded" care about refinement?

The larger engines may or may not feel as refined (I haven't driven an Audi 4.2 to know) but they do outperform in HP, torque, and fuel economy.

I wouldn't mind the power output at 330hp if it was a 6 cylinder but I just think they could do better out of their V8 (GM's DOHC Northstar V8 was making 300 hp in the mid 90s). The revised lineup you posted seems much more in line with the competition and my personal expectations.

91z4me

Why is it you cannot read an Article ?

The 330hp figure is the FI V6
The 350hp figure is a Deliberate V8 because it is suppossed to be S5 Coupe like the 330hp S5 Cov.

The Current RS4 is a 420hp V8 and the new RS4/RS5 will be a 450hp V8 so you have no Credible argument.

4.2L at 450hp Vs 6.7L at 400+ hp

You should be ashamed to even mention the GM V8s in the same sentence as Audi's.

Saying that I should be ashamed for mentioning GM's V8s shows you don't know what YOU are talking about. I don't think I have heard any negative reviews of the LS7/LS9/LS3 V8s from GM. In fact reviewers tend to LOVE the torque that is available low in the revs and the smooth power application of the engines. If a reviewer finds fault with the vehicle it typically isn't the engine that gets the blame it is the interior and/or suspension (see Topgear's reviews of the Corvette).

Perhaps if you weren't so worried about image or technology you could enjoy what that kind of power feels like instead of being content with near V6 power levels for V8 money.

And the Difference between you and I is that I HAVE DRIVEN BOTH AUDI AND GM Vehicles with V8s and there is no Comparison.

Cadillac Escalade V8 Strong Engine {403hp / 417lb-ft} but Vehicle Suspension and Steering makes strong Engine useless on anything other than Dead Straight Roads and even then I felt very frightened at over 90mph as there was no identifiable link between steering wheel and front wheels.

Q7 4.2 TDI V8 Strong Engine {340hp / 560lb-ft} and Supreme Suspension + Direct Steering Feel encourages Me to to comfortably cruise at 140+ Mph on Motorways with slight bends without going below 120mph.

I have only compared the Diesel Q7 as I have not driven the V8 Petrol but given the Diesel Engine is significantly heavier i cannot see how the Petrol would be worse.

I have to say that the 560lb-ft is available in the Diesel from 1750 rpm so that allows for 0-62mph of only 6.4 secs which is 1 sec faster than the 4.2 FSI Petrol.

I think the Escalade is faster to 62mph because i was definitely Amazed when i floored it for the first time but i am unable to verify the times as i cannot find any info on the Cadillac Website.

I have also driven the CTS V8 and I prefer the S4 V8 but the memories are not so Acute as that was 2 years ago.

Wait, you are comparing SUV engines here (not the sports car engines we were talking about)? And a gas V8 to a diesel? Also you are comparing a BOF SUV to a unibody crossover, talk about a 1 sided comparison. Also what does the chassis have to do when talking about engines?

Lets make this a fair comparison of engines. If you want to compare a diesel engine to the Audi's 4.2 TDI then drive a Duramax diesel (GM's diesel option in its heavy duty trucks), I think you will find the 700+ ft/lbs of torque to be quite present. Or drive a gas powered Q7 compared to a gas powered Escalade.

Also what is your metric of 'refinement'? Is it smooth acceleration, high revs, is it better throttle response?

What year CTS-V (the only model the V8 is available in) did you drive? If it was 2 years ago it may have been the 1st generation CTS-V which was available with the LS6/LS2 V8 (400 hp). It isn't really fair to compare it to the current CTS-V which is a whole new machine (by all accounts).

From the performance standpoint the supercharged V6 makes more sense. The heavier convertible S5 with the V6 runs the same times as the V8 S5 and the S4 is quicker than the S5. The latest A8 version with 372 horsepower would probably makes things more equal.

Don't get me wrong boys and girls, I very much like the big GM V8s. GM does a very impressive job with them. The Northstar included, but none like to rev all that much. 5K rpm is about the point they start to sound uncomfortable. Pushrod V8s produce good torque so they shouldn't need to rev that high anyway.

The success of the Corvette in endurance racing speaks for itself but if your a snobby mechanical engineer (I'm not) working within a premier engine building company like BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz or Ferrari, you start looking at max rpm, hp/L numbers, max hp and torque and how you got to them. Many purists consider turbo or supercharging cheating. You must also adjust output based on the application. The Audi V10 for example produces 525hp in an R8 but 450hp at a lower rpm in an S8. Torque figures can also be varied depending on application such as 391lb/ft at 6500 in an R8 and 398lb/ft at 3-4K with 90% of that available as low as 2200rpm in an S8. Bottom line, a 5600lb SUV needs more torque to move compared to a smaller 4200lb sedan and even less in a 3500lb sports car. All 3 will be driven differently as well. Engine designers have to take a lot into consideration but when it comes down to braggin rights, the hp/L number, max rpm, max hp and torque numbers are all worth debating and braggin about over beer. The RS5 engine is one of those pure normally aspirated lumps that produces numbers way above the norm given it's size. Any mechanical engineer would be proud to claim them.