S4
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
<< A "poor man's" compromise might be a modified Audi A6. I drove a recent
vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
On 04 Jan 2004 04:47:56 GMT, oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
><< A "poor man's" compromise might be a modified Audi A6. I drove a recent
>vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
>was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
>APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
>was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
>
>The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
>slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
>premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
But, practically speaking, the same used ones are or soon will be off warranty
anyway...
><< A "poor man's" compromise might be a modified Audi A6. I drove a recent
>vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
>was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
>APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
>was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
>
>The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
>slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
>premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
But, practically speaking, the same used ones are or soon will be off warranty
anyway...
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040103203350.15860.00001385@mb-m21.aol.com...
> << What about comparing like-with-like,
> i.e. the S-Type R? >>
>
> He drove one and said that he likes it better in some ways than his XJ,
but
> that he likes the extra space in the larger sedan. IMHO, neither of them
can
> compare to Audi's S-cars. The XKR is neat, but dated, and I have not yet
seen
> or heard about any comparison between it and the S4 cabrio.
Interesting that you say that.. IIRC if you drive the specification (rather
than the car!) they're a lot closer that you might think. Particularly with
the Jag being about 100kg heavier.
OTOH - and on the track - a Top Gear comparison (UK TV programme, pretty
much an institution over here) rated the S4 above the current M3 for
handling.
As I said, not having a go at the S4, but also trying to compare
like-with-like.
--
Hairy One Kenobi
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
Steve Grauman wrote:
> << A "poor man's" compromise might be a modified Audi A6. I drove a recent
> vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
> was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
> APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
> was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
>
> The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
> slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
> premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
You obviously wouldn't do this to a new car unless you didn't care about
the warranty. Also, if there is a warranty claim, the stealership would
have to prove your modifications are the cause of the problem.
Cheers,
C
> << A "poor man's" compromise might be a modified Audi A6. I drove a recent
> vintage A6 not long ago that had APR's 2.7T "stage 3" engine tuning. It
> was an absolute beast. The owner claimed (and seems to be supported by
> APR's propaganda) that horsepower was in the 400-420hp range and torque
> was approaching 500ft/lbs. Yowza! >>
>
> The A6 2.7T is a fantastic car even stock. 0-60 in 6.6 (with tip) is hardly
> slow for a medium-large sedan with AWD. Sadly, even the used ones carry a
> premium here in the U.S. and chip-tuning voids all warranty.
You obviously wouldn't do this to a new car unless you didn't care about
the warranty. Also, if there is a warranty claim, the stealership would
have to prove your modifications are the cause of the problem.
Cheers,
C
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
<< Also, if there is a warranty claim, the stealership would
have to prove your modifications are the cause of the problem. >>
My local dealers have a way of finding loopholes to void warranty claims. I
have a feeling VW instructs them to do so.
have to prove your modifications are the cause of the problem. >>
My local dealers have a way of finding loopholes to void warranty claims. I
have a feeling VW instructs them to do so.
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
<< IIRC if you drive the specification (rather
than the car!) they're a lot closer that you might think. Particularly with
the Jag being about 100kg heavier. >>
In terms of 0-60 performance, yes. Although a WRX Sti, Lancer EVO, or Lotus
Elise will be faster than either of them to 60 for far less money. So if that's
your only concern, you may want to pocket the extra cash. In terms of handling
and driving dynamics, the S4 is a superior car. The M3 is the only car of this
general type which can give the S4 a real run, and according to Car and Driver
and (as you noted) Top Gear, the S4 is better dynamically around a track.
than the car!) they're a lot closer that you might think. Particularly with
the Jag being about 100kg heavier. >>
In terms of 0-60 performance, yes. Although a WRX Sti, Lancer EVO, or Lotus
Elise will be faster than either of them to 60 for far less money. So if that's
your only concern, you may want to pocket the extra cash. In terms of handling
and driving dynamics, the S4 is a superior car. The M3 is the only car of this
general type which can give the S4 a real run, and according to Car and Driver
and (as you noted) Top Gear, the S4 is better dynamically around a track.
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040104204218.15365.00002431@mb-m03.aol.com...
> << IIRC if you drive the specification (rather
> than the car!) they're a lot closer that you might think. Particularly
with
> the Jag being about 100kg heavier. >>
>
> In terms of 0-60 performance, yes. Although a WRX Sti, Lancer EVO, or
Lotus
> Elise will be faster than either of them to 60 for far less money.
...and top speed, and cornering g. Didn't see any figures for braking force,
though (IIRC, the Jag has four-pot Brembos, so the relative performance
could be closer than the weight difference would normally allow)
The Elise is a beautiful car to drive, but isn't exactly in the same league
(or possible even sport ;o) when it comes to touring characteristics. Or top
speed.
> So if that's
> your only concern, you may want to pocket the extra cash. In terms of
handling
> and driving dynamics, the S4 is a superior car. The M3 is the only car of
this
> general type which can give the S4 a real run, and according to Car and
Driver
> and (as you noted) Top Gear, the S4 is better dynamically around a track.
Neither come remotely close to (e.g.) an Ultima, but that's not comparing
like-with-like, either ;o)
H1K
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
"Dave LaCourse" <davplac@aol.comPirate> wrote in message
news:20040103095507.12131.00002269@mb-m05.aol.com...
> Kevin writes:
>
> >I drove an RS6 two weeks ago.
> >I still haven't gotten over it !
>
> d;o) I've been driving an RS6 for two months and still haven't gotten
over it.
> See pics at:
>
>
> Dave
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nice car dave $86k for a car jeez I would have to rob alot of banks to be
able to even sniff one of them.
Is that years of saving?????
I dont earn bad money thats about 2 years wages, perhaps when I win the
lottery :P
Ronny
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
"Ronny" <Ron@ron.com> wrote in message
news:btbqvd$7q6$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Dave LaCourse" <davplac@aol.comPirate> wrote in message
> news:20040103095507.12131.00002269@mb-m05.aol.com...
> > Kevin writes:
> >
> > >I drove an RS6 two weeks ago.
> > >I still haven't gotten over it !
> >
> > d;o) I've been driving an RS6 for two months and still haven't gotten
> over it.
> > See pics at:
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Nice car dave $86k for a car jeez I would have to rob alot of banks to
be
> able to even sniff one of them.
>
> Is that years of saving?????
>
> I dont earn bad money thats about 2 years wages, perhaps when I win the
> lottery :P
>
> Ronny
>
>
BTW, looking at your website <nice>, this guy looks a spitting image to our
PM Tony blair, you sure your not royalty
http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/imag...ns-may02lr.jpg
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: S4
Ronny writes:
>Nice car dave $86k for a car jeez I would have to rob alot of banks to be
>able to even sniff one of them.
>
>Is that years of saving?????
>
>I dont earn bad money thats about 2 years wages, perhaps when I win the
>lottery :P
>
>Ronny
The sticker was $86K. I paid lots less, but still a whole lot of money. When
you're old like me, Ronny, you should have saved enough to spend as you want.
Dave
http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html
>Nice car dave $86k for a car jeez I would have to rob alot of banks to be
>able to even sniff one of them.
>
>Is that years of saving?????
>
>I dont earn bad money thats about 2 years wages, perhaps when I win the
>lottery :P
>
>Ronny
The sticker was $86K. I paid lots less, but still a whole lot of money. When
you're old like me, Ronny, you should have saved enough to spend as you want.
Dave
http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html