I know that this isnt an Audi forum but i had to let someone who might appreciate it know about a recent Audi Drivers day i attended.
My friend got a new A4 in March and Audi invited him and a guest to this driving day where you could drive a selection of Audis - Unaccompanied!!!
Well i say Unaccompanied. The only accompanied drive was in the New Audi S4.
Heres a brief run down, but if you want to know more just ask!
Audi S4. Accompanied with the 25yr old salesman in the back (no control - ha ha!), but when we got in and asked if we could give it a boot his response was - 'you can redline it if you wish'. oh. my. gawd. So we set off. this car is a m a z i n g. 0-60 in 5.6 or something. We absolutely caned the crap out of it. fantastic. We asked if we could do a 0-60 test on a quiet road. he said 'fine. i'll time you'!!!!!!! we couldnt get to 5.6 but 5.9 was best we could. we also averaged 7.9mpg over 11 miles. All i can say is i want a 4.2 v8 S4. I only need £37k now.
The other cars we drove were the TT 225 bhp, and the new A3. TT had very heavy steering but quite nippy (to say the least) but could do with a little more power - they didnt have the 3.2v6 there. shame. As it was unaccompanied we thought we'd do a 'few' 0-60 tests in the TT. 6.5 was the best, but the clutch started to smell so we gave up......
The new A3 2.0 FSI is very smooth but it has NO POWER. All very lovely but so dull.
I have to say tho. If you get the opportunity to test drive an S4 - DO IT. The car sounds fantastic. goes like s*** thru a goose. and is just so addictive.
|
Hi Phoenicks,
Some might say I'm a bit of a VAG fan, for some reason.
I agree with what you wrote.
Think about this as well. Audi S4, about a tonne and a half and 344bhp. Somewhere around 230bhp per ton.
Lovely.
Honda Fireblade 156bhp and weighs 170kg (oh, all right then, 250kg with me on it) Around 900 or 620 bhp per ton.
Old Clarkson didn't rate bikes on TG did he? Makes you think though, and the Blade's not the fastest (Hyabusa or ZX12 )
|
Having got a golf and driven the audis i have to say the steering is quite a deserved complaint, but only marginally. there are so many other good qualities they outweigh the bad.
The S4 was just fantastic and the steering feel was plenty good enough. The A3 was very neutral and reminded me a bit more of my pug 306 xsi. I cant wait for the 3.2 version of it.
I personally think the interiors are much better than BMW (in design, not quality) and you're less likely to get keyed with an audi and more likely to be let out of junctions.
Regards performance there is a chip that the VAG group engines can use called a Revo that is undetectable to VAG diagnostics (so wont upset the warranty ;)) and is switchable between normal settings and increased power setting. Can give about 50bhp for £499 os i understand. But thats a whole different post.....
|
|
|
A fair response Sean!
900 bhp per ton and no protection - make you think!
The S4 was fantastic. Its steering was a lot lighter than the TT with more feel.
|
344 bhp - ha! That's nothing, my old 1200 Beetle had 34.0 bhp
I'm still measuring the 0-60 time.....
|
|
|
|
Ahem, ahem, my Triumph T100C 500 cc 0-60 in 4.5 secs as tested by The Motor Cycle magazine in 1957.
|
|
Pretty good. That could be 0 to dead in just under two seconds in the wrong hands!
|
|
Looks good apart from the 11 mpg!! I note your comment re the 2.0 FSI - I drove the 1.6 FSI A2 and it felt very gutless to say it was 110 bhp powering a 1 tonne car. My Focus 1.8 felt much quicker although it was heavier and only had 5 bhp more.
|
Yeah 11mpg was a bit of a shock, but when pootling it gave about 23mpg which wasnt bad. I still have one!
The Audi sales manager said that the FSI engines loosen up quite a lot with age and get quicker. I still wouldnt want that engine tho!
|
|
|
|
|
The new A3 2.0 FSI is very smooth but it has NO POWER. All very lovely but so dull.
It is also a complete and utter con as regards fuel economy. Do NOT buy one of these and expect better fuel consumption than the standard 2.0 lump.
|
Sounds like you've got a personal issue against them Dan?!
I dont think they make the new one in 2.0 without FSI.
|
You're right - just investigated!
No personal issue, however...
The FSI engine (in 2.0 format) was lumped into the Audi A4 with promises of significant fuel consumption improvements yet without any loss of power. You'll note the adverts, TV and otherwise have disappeared now...
A good few people have lumped for the FSI because of this fact - the engine is dearer than the standard 2.0 lump but they expected better fuel consumption.
This hasn't been the case though. Hidden in the small print of the economy figures in the A4 brochure, the economy figures are actually for 98RON i.e. Superunleaded petrol. Couple that with the fact the FSI system VW-Audi have employed doesn't respond well to the levels of sulphur we have in UK petrol, your economical FSI engine ends up producing the same economy as the cheaper engine.
Been quite a few complaints about it and it has been reported on several times in various car fleet newspapers etc. Audi have stopped making quite such bold statements about economy improvements.
Other manufacturers are also going down the FSI route but are aiming not to make the same mistake with reasonable degrees of success - see Ford and Vauxhall...
|
Good points about the adverts.
I heard that too. When you consider that 98 ron or so means optimax at about 2-3p p/litre more, that would work out about £1.50 - £2.00 more per tank. Which will last about 1 1/2 weeks for the average driver that = 35 tanks per year = £70 more per year. Not a lot but still something.
|
|
|
|
