Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Next-Gen RS4 To Say Goodbye To V8, U.S. Still In Question

      A big change for the next-generation Audi RS4

    Car and Driver is reporting that the next-generation Audi RS4 will retire the naturally-aspirated 4.2L V8 engine and use a turbocharged V6 engine. This is due to the upcoming emission regulations coming soon to Europe which are very stringent. Now the decision to go with a turbocharged V6 engine strikes us as odd since Audi currently has supercharged V6 that is being used in a number of their models. However Car and Driver says Quattro GmbH, the folks behind RS, is looking towards turbo power for future models.

    Car and Driver also reports that a decision on whether or not the next-generation RS4 will come to the U.S. hasn't been made.

    Source: Car and Driver

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    That's because Audi doesn't make a fuel efficient V8 engine because they are either unwilling or unable to adopt a pushrod 2-valve design! Think about it...

    • For the port injected generation, the Audi 40-valve 4.2 V8 made 340 hp / 302 lb-ft, weighed 195 kg and got 14 / 21 mpg.
    • Moving to Direct Injection, their 4.2 32-valve 4.2 FSI V8 engine made 414 hp / 317 lb-ft, weighed 212 kg and got 13 / 20 mpg

    That's horrible! And the only way they know how to deal with it is to go to a V6 and bolt on a blower or pair of turbos. For comparison:-

    • For the port injected generation, the GM 16-valve 6.2 Pushrod V8 made 426 hp / 420 lb-ft, weighed 183 kg and got 16 / 24 mpg (Camaro SS).
    • Moving to Direct Injection, the GM 16-valve 6.2 Pushrod V8 made 455 hp / 460 lb-ft, weighed 211 kg and got 17 / 29 mpg (Corvette Stingray - albeit not weight comparable to the S4/RS4)

    Pushrods + Displacement = lighter, more powerful, much more torque and significantly better economy

    And, that's despite 48% greater displacement. If that doesn't call into question the "superiority" of low displacement, high complexity and high specific output designs, well... it should.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It will be a twin turbo V6 because they have that available from the Porsche Macan. With Bentley getting more and more turbo V8s, and the Audi's big gun the S8 has a turbo V8, it makes sense that the smaller vehicles in the VW stable get turbo V6 power. If this is a Europe only car, maybe they'll go with a 3.0 liter to try to beat displacement taxes, not sure why they wouldn't sell it in the USA, unless they just figure no one will buy it over an M3 or C63.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Anyway... with the 460 bhp LT1 and the 630 bhp LT4, GM has plenty of firepower to throw onto a super sedan. The Europeans can try to get 600+ hp out of a turbo V6 or turbo V8 (of a smaller displacement). It's doable. But it'll be neither lighter, nor smaller, nor more fuel efficient, nor offer better drivability. And, it'll certainly cost a lot more and be a lot more complex. But, hey, it looks like they are committed to the path.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    VW has a twin turbo V6 on the shelf they can use, they aren't going to make up a new V8 for a car with tiny sales volume. And Audi's have grip, let's remember a 420 hp S6 is quicker 0-60 than a 556 hp CTS-V. It is all about low end torque and grip. If the Porsche Macan turbo can do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, I imagine the same engine in an RS4 that weighs less will be near the 4.0 second mark, that is pretty quick I bet the Audi S6 goes V6 also, saving the V8 for the RS6 with an insane price.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We

    VW has a twin turbo V6 on the shelf they can use, they aren't going to make up a new V8 for a car with tiny sales volume. And Audi's have grip, let's remember a 420 hp S6 is quicker 0-60 than a 556 hp CTS-V. It is all about low end torque and grip. If the Porsche Macan turbo can do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, I imagine the same engine in an RS4 that weighs less will be near the 4.0 second mark, that is pretty quick I bet the Audi S6 goes V6 also, saving the V8 for the RS6 with an insane price.

    Well, that has everything to do with AWD and nothing to do with the engine.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't really like how Audi prefers V engines in their vehicles. I personally prefer the sound of a straight six and why Audi never uses that configuration is interesting to me. I'm sure there is a reason.

    Despite this the old V8 was not a very fuel efficient engine but it sure did sound good.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't really like how Audi prefers V engines in their vehicles. I personally prefer the sound of a straight six and why Audi never uses that configuration is interesting to me. I'm sure there is a reason.

    Despite this the old V8 was not a very fuel efficient engine but it sure did sound good.

    Far be it for Germans to admit that the Americans build a superior V8 engine.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I don't really like how Audi prefers V engines in their vehicles. I personally prefer the sound of a straight six and why Audi never uses that configuration is interesting to me. I'm sure there is a reason.

    Despite this the old V8 was not a very fuel efficient engine but it sure did sound good.

    Far be it for Germans to admit that the Americans build a superior V8 engine.

     

    The only European V8 engine that I really like would be the V8 in the E39 M5. Not a huge fan of the others to be honest.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Good morning This is what I really wanted to share. That's what Californians do ... share. Maybe not museum grade, but it works well. I don't know if that's a Ford, an AMC, or an old Buick Skylark!
    • Maybe I didn't use the right words.  It's overly supple and overly assisted in parking lots and when driving slowly on smaller streets.  It does not communicate much when there are lots of thick walls next to small roads and farms right beside me! After renting it, I read a review and it said that it doesn't corner or track very well, and that started getting annoying last night.   I drove a Citroen C3 here somewhere between 2019 and 2021. I believe I reviewed it.  First, I couldn't believe how smooth it was. It handled well in parking lots and was surprisingly smooth and agile on the highway, too.  It's not like you get two times the smoothness because the car costs two times as much. I have a friend who went for civil engineering at ASU.  He said that they used the same textbooks, for the most part, that they did at Berkeley.  So, with Berkeley being so much more prestigious, and with a much lower acceptance rate, it's not like you get two times a better civil engineering education there.  So my point is that for twice the money, the increase in drivability is not a ratable or linear relationship. I've come to see that the extra money in this BYD is all about the many bells and whistles that take about a week to learn. It's not that impressive on the highway and on rougher roads. I sort of like it on nicely asphalted urban streets at lower speeds and it has been getting respectable fuel mileage. I liked zooming around in that Citroen C3 with the side "Air Bump."  I had asked them for a smaller car instead and they told me that if it had to be automatic, it had to be this one.
    • The part that is now bolded, Italicized and underlined, I am totally confused by. How can it be velvety and yet not as smooth as a C3? I get the disconnected road to cabin and no steering wheel communication at low speeds as it is a hybrid system so not a true drive by wire but also not a true traditional steering wheel system. Hydraulic with electric assist so that is a downside being very vague road feedback via the steering wheel.
    • The "cute" little Nissan Versa fit that bill, surprising me via rentals that it was actually likeable, but production of it ended a few months ago. I was given this bloated BYD Seal SUV automatic last week and that's what I'm driving around Sicily in.  It's a HEV, so I don't push down too hard, and it sips fuel.  Except for its velvety and disconnected road to cabin and steering wheel communication at low speeds, I'm not so sure I like it.  Give me a smaller Citroen C3 with an automatic which is smaller and rides smoothly.
    • Yes idiot47 has said the supreme court failed to be loyal to him. Moron!  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search