Less Is More?

[bruxell]

If that was in any way true, why are there so many turbocharged engines around?

I think our young Canadian friend was being application-specific. I certainly wouldn’t argue but that turbo-chargers have their place; I just wouldn’t want them on a front heavy car that puts a large amount of its power to the front wheels. The V8 RS4 has been so good, and the previous RS4 was so underwhelming… There are many reasons, butt the V8 is a great power plant; the V6 was only amazing, not actually very good. And the turbo-chargers do add a lot of complexity, and I’m sure weight, right where an Audi doesn’t need it.

[The_Canuck]

Thanks Bruxell.

Yeah I did mean specifically regarding the RS4, I think in a lighter, or less expensive car, turbochargers would bring increased fueleconomy and performance but in the RS4 no ones trying to save fuel and owners probably appreiciate a larger engine with lots of low end grunt etc...

[kigango123]

Ultimatecarpage.com guidelines:

2. ... The entire post should be readable, the use of hidden (white) text is not allowed.

sorry about that

[Ingolstadt]

I think Audi should just screw the S4 < RS4, RS4 < RS6 thingy.

Buying a smaller car doesn't necessarily means should have a smaller engine, Mercedes is right on with that, you can have a C63, or a E55.

IMO for the B8 S4, they should just throw in the 4.2 V8 currently on the B7 RS4, and for the B8 RS4, just throw in a TT 4.2 V8, and that should be good for a V10 5.0 for S6, and TT V10 RS6, as for the S8, a Quad Turbo W12 with 750hp would do the job; coupled with DSG boxes and a 60:40 Quattro, they would have their own recipe for fast sedans.

Yeah it sounds crazy, but since HP sells cars indefinitely, WHY NOT ?

BTW, Turbo charging any car is good. a 4.2 V8 is already 420hp good, why not add two snails and pump it up 500hp? Yeah i know it's more lagging compared to a NA 500hp car, but when you compared back to the displacement, turbo charging is always good.

[bruxell]

BTW, Turbo charging any car is good. a 4.2 V8 is already 420hp good, why not add two snails and pump it up 500hp? Yeah i know it's more lagging compared to a NA 500hp car, but when you compared back to the displacement, turbo charging is always good.

But you just said it, they lag. I for one hate turbo lag, and love the feel of an NA motor. I also don't see any point in a constantly increasing stream of horsepower in a series of cars that traditionally aren't very good at making the BHP they have any fun. Turbocharging a front wheel drive car is often fraught with problems like torque-steer, and traction issues. So no, turbocharging isn't always a good idea.

[Kooper]

Yeah, but Audi's perfect AWD system practically makes the understeering chassis not understeer anymore.

I admire the Quattro drivetrain, but I wouldn't call it perfect. I think Subaru's AWD system is better, but that's just me.

I still find it strange that the R8's engine isn't positioned centrally, as in longitudinally, but positioned slightly off-centre to make way for the AWD system. If this means that there's more weight on the right side of the car (not including driver), then surely that's not perfect.

If the R8's engine had to be moved to the right to make way for the Quattro system, then the Gallardo and Murcielago suffer the same fate, all because of AWD.

Now Subaru doesn't produce any mid-engined cars (and I know they have no reason to), but considering that they pride themselves on symmetrical layouts, they probably never will.

[Ingolstadt]

But you just said it, they lag. I for one hate turbo lag, and love the feel of an NA motor. I also don't see any point in a constantly increasing stream of horsepower in a series of cars that traditionally aren't very good at making the BHP they have any fun. Turbocharging a front wheel drive car is often fraught with problems like torque-steer, and traction issues. So no, turbocharging isn't always a good idea.

Like i said, a 400hp turbo charged car is laggs compared to a 400hp NA car. But given the same engine, same layout and displacement and highly tuned, turbo charging them is always better than not. IMO that is.

It's as if suddenly the ratio of oxygen in our air increased. Why not?

[Ingolstadt]

I admire the Quattro drivetrain, but I wouldn't call it perfect. I think Subaru's AWD system is better, but that's just me.

I still find it strange that the R8's engine isn't positioned centrally, as in longitudinally, but positioned slightly off-centre to make way for the AWD system. If this means that there's more weight on the right side of the car (not including driver), then surely that's not perfect.

If the R8's engine had to be moved to the right to make way for the Quattro system, then the Gallardo and Murcielago suffer the same fate, all because of AWD.

Now Subaru doesn't produce any mid-engined cars (and I know they have no reason to), but considering that they pride themselves on symmetrical layouts, they probably never will.

When all cars are equipped with Bose Suspensions. they need not worry that much bout asymmetrical layouts. Go YouTube and search. AWESOME.

By the way, putting a driver in, and either sides would be heavier or lighter by almost 80kg. 50:50 ? screw it.

[Kooper]

When all cars are equipped with Bose Suspensions. they need not worry that much bout asymmetrical layouts. Go YouTube and search. AWESOME.

By the way, putting a driver in, and either sides would be heavier or lighter by almost 80kg. 50:50 ? screw it.

I know, I know, the driver shifts the weight-distribution of the car as well. One of the reasons I love the Mac F1.

I'm just one of those people that think the ultimate layout of a car should have as much of its layout within the wheelbase, as low as possible, lined up along the center-line and without anything that would add weight and can be done without (unfortunately, to my mind this primarily means AWD layouts).


But I'm deviating from the topic of this thread.

I kind of get a feeling that turbos are going to feature more and more. It makes sense:

The power comes from energy that otherwise would've gone to waste.
More power and torque, uses less fuel than equivalent naturally-aspirated engines.
Relatively cheap.
Lag becoming less and less of an issue, especially with the latest offerings.
From what I hear, reliability not an issue any more, at least for the most part.


Still, there's just something about a high-revving naturally-aspirated engine.

[bruxell]

Like i said, a 400hp turbo charged car is laggs compared to a 400hp NA car. But given the same engine, same layout and displacement and highly tuned, turbo charging them is always better than not. IMO that is.

It's as if suddenly the ratio of oxygen in our air increased. Why not?

Again you said it, "Suddenly." It's unpleasant, and it corrupts the steering. It makes cars less manageable, especially those where the front wheels are the driven ones. Also, turbochargers and the ancillaries that go with them add weight. An Audi has all the weight of it’s engine out beyond the front axle line, that’s a really nose heavy car. Look at another Audi product, the Bentley ContiGT; that car has a w12 out in no-man’s-land, and it’s not very exciting to drive because of the weight over the front wheels. So a lighter, more easily packaged engine will lead to a better car to drive, and I’d rather have more fun than more power anyday.

[quattro_20v]

Again you said it, "Suddenly." It's unpleasant, and it corrupts the steering. It makes cars less manageable, especially those where the front wheels are the driven ones. Also, turbochargers and the ancillaries that go with them add weight. An Audi has all the weight of it’s engine out beyond the front axle line, that’s a really nose heavy car. Look at another Audi product, the Bentley ContiGT; that car has a w12 out in no-man’s-land, and it’s not very exciting to drive because of the weight over the front wheels. So a lighter, more easily packaged engine will lead to a better car to drive, and I’d rather have more fun than more power anyday.

You dont seem to have done your homework very well. The new Audi A4 doesnt have the engine in front of the axle anymore, just compare the front overhang with the old one... And what makes you think they put all the power on the front wheels?

[jediali]

You dont seem to have done your homework very well. The new Audi A4 doesnt have the engine in front of the axle anymore, just compare the front overhang with the old one... And what makes you think they put all the power on the front wheels?

The new audi A4 has the engine 15cm further back due to repositioning of the clutch. Its better but far from perfect. This is why Audi can never orient towards comfort appeal. Also there is a 40:60 torque split front:rear as standard now. Plus the battery is in the back. So they are trying.

I look behind my engine under my bonnet and almost chuckle at how much spacew there is, the half shafts are clearly visible (and forward slanting). On the road the steering is well weighted but doesnt inspire or tell much at the limit. So on topic if people by lesser engines in audis then its the whole package that counts. The competition is getting better but we are currrently looking at such small increments.

The additional track and driver orientated changes will make the A4 very close up to the limit, beyond the limit of grip i feel the bmw/c class will be adjustable unlike compromised audi layout. I think this argument only really applies to S and RS models and when they are taken to the limit. Even though a better balanced car is better to drive even at low speeds but at this level its the whole experience and i wouldnt say driving my car is a dull experience.