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

    • Canada's waterbomber fleet These guys Manitoba's fleet is 40 years old While Quebec's youngest fleet is also at 40 years old while its oldest is 53 years old.     Spain, Greece and France also have the same age range as Quebec's.  The older version which is the CL-215,  is 50 years plus in service for all that use it. They are still flying.  The next gen CL 415 is 30-40 years in service for all fleet users.  Canadair/Bombardier has sold the license to Viking and they are currently working on updating the airplane. It is called the CL 515.   European users are desperately wanting to replace their fleets.  Deliveries of the new CL 515 is said to be in early 2026.  With the water bombers, its not just cycles that put pressure on the sheet metal for metal fatigue. Its the weight of the water itself taking off from a lake. But mostly, when the water gets released.  HUGE amounts of pressure stresses  the structure when the water is released and all that weight that is released instantly and is no more.  
    • I also like black cats. I flew on a 747-400 within the last year or two.  I think it was about 25 years old.  It's an incredible machine.  I'm always a happy camper (without a Subaru) when I'm aboard one. 
    • @A Horse With No Name @oldshurst442 You guys are correct, cycle of take off and landing more than age. I should have expanded myself as my brother inlaw is a manager at Boeing with many patents for his specialty which is the airplane engines on the 737, 757, 777, 787 and the king 747. He has stated that the force of the engines cause fatigue in ALL aircrafts that hit 10 years and depending on the flying they have done, passenger versus freight, while a plane can go 20 or 30 years, many should have a very close inspection at 10 years for corrosion, metal fatigue, etc. Could be one reason some airline companies retire their aircraft after 10 years rather than continue to fly them.  Many things make up the age of an aircraft and years is only 1 little part of it, Force makes up a much bigger part.  Thank you for pointing out what I failed to expand on in my original post.
    • As one who deals with AI daily, building training, coding for data lakes to help others understand their data and what it can do for them, I have come to one reason for turning off copilot, the attempt that it makes over and over in correcting my writing and word use when it does not understand technical terms, legal terms, medical terms and then changes the whole meaning of a sentence due to the changes if I do not catch it. AI bots are great for helping find info on processes and configuration of a product such as our Dell PowerScale OneFS filer or our ObjectScale Object storage devices so that admins can quickly get the instructions on how to configure features. Otherwise, the rest of AI trying to tell me how I should do something makes it annoying and worse yet is the incredible amount of memory / CPU cycles it takes that I would rather use on other things that I do with my computer. Personally, I wish AI bots would not use any resources until I click on it and want it to work, once I close it, it should totally turn off rather than idle in the background listening to you.
    • Yes and ummmmm...no.  Yes.   Metal fatigue is a very real thing in aviation.  Its more about how many times the sheet metal has expanded and contracted  under stress rather than the age of the airplane itself.  10 years is somewhat too young for an airplane to be retired as airplanes are engineered fly double and even triple that age.  Unless of course the airplane in question has taken off, flown and landed enough times that would equal its maximum lifespan in 10 years.   This latest accident, UPS had a 34 year old McDonnel-Douglas MD-11 flying around.  Now...at 34 years of age, this airplane should been of concern... yes.   Like I said, airplanes' lifespans reach 30 years.  Sometimes more than that if maintenance is done properly and rigorously.   Using google and Wikipedia, if fact, 2 months prior, the airplane in question HAD been grounded for 6 weeks because cracks were found in the fuel tanks. Corrosion was also found in the structural beams in its fuselage. Repairs were made.  However, with airplanes, age is not a criteria for maintenance. But hours of flight and "cycles".   A cycle is 1 take-off and 1 landing sequence.  The airplane had logged 21000 and change cycles and the maintenance threshold for what had ultimately failed in the airplane was not due until 28 000 and 29 000 cycles.  Now...at 34 years old, maybe more vigilance was needed... This is how the airplane safety industry works. It takes an accident to amend and/or instate new safety regulations.  Maybe with this accident, NTSB will implement an age criteria too alongside flight hours and cycles.  At age 30 and a more rigorous inspection is to happen and not rely solely on cycles and flight hours.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_2976 The aircraft, N259UP, was a 34-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11F with manufacturer serial number 48417. The aircraft was first delivered to Thai Airways International in 1991 with the registration HS-TME,[7] after which it was converted to a cargo aircraft and delivered to UPS Airlines in 2006. It had flown 21,043 cycles and for about 92,992 hours,[8] and was equipped with three General Electric CF6-80C2D1F engines.[9][10][11] The last visual inspections of the left pylon aft mount were performed in October 2021. More rigorous "Special Detailed Inspections" for the mount lugs and wing clevis were not yet due, as the aircraft's 21,043 accumulated cycles were well below the 28,000 and 29,200 cycle thresholds required for those checks. Two months before the crash, it had been grounded for six weeks to repair a cracked fuel tank, and corrosion was later found along two structural beams in the fuselage. The aircraft re-entered service a few weeks before the crash.[12]    
  • 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