Audi Forum - Audi Forums for the A4, S4, TT, A3, A6 and more!

- Audi Mailing List (https://www.audiforum.ca/audi-mailing-list-45/)

- - Stevie (https://www.audiforum.ca/audi-mailing-list-45/stevie-3260/)

Because of the warm weather that may stick around the 'nati, I'll have to
cut down on my time on the usernet. so the banter that's be going on
between us may subside.

Here is my list to bring this argument to an end.

the basis of your argument is based on what Audi/Porches has done, explain
why the best performing and most expensive Por. is motivated by which
wheels??

another the GTR, which is a great car and the first few years (30) were RWD
but it got upstaged by the NSX which is not TT or AWD.

if you look at road & track, motor trend, and automobile mag you'll see that
the M3 & S4 comps they were virtually tied.

if you look at the same three mags. and look at the camparos for the RS6 vs.
E55 you'll see that they're about the same but the Audi is 5" wider so I
think it'll handle better, but the E55 still acquits it self quite well.

I want to see a comparo when the new M5 (500hp) comes out.

McLaren and Fer. has some of the best performing cars on the planet and they
have unlimited money and technology and they chose to use RWD not AWD even
though McL could have used it, it's good for around the town, but when you
add 300+ pounds and change the balance from 50/50 to 58/42 like in the RS6
you can have the handling slightly upset.

now you and Michelle have been big fun but I won't have time to come on here
as often.

If you're every in Cincy send me a message and will go and see some of the
local nitelife.

>the basis of your argument is based on what Audi/Porches has done

No it's not. It's based on what a number of manufacturers have done.

>explain
>why the best performing and most expensive Por. is motivated by which
>wheels??

I've already done this once. The GT2 and GT3 were not designed for street use.
They are race cars designed to compete in classes were AWD is not permitted.
FIA regulations require that Porsche build a certain number of street legalized
variants of these cars before they can qualify for racing. This practice is
called Homoligation. When Porsche did so to comply with regulation, they also
had to keep the road-variants RWD. The Carrera GT is a similar situation. It
was born to be the next Porsche GT1 racer, and again, GT1 cars are not
permitted to run AWD. Porsche decided to abandon the project as a race car but
they saw the potential for profit in making a lighlty modified street version.
When the melded over the race car into the street car, they again kept the RWD.
Notice though that the Carrera Turbo, Porsche's premier car designed
spcifically for road use comes ONLY with AWD, which has been their practice
since the 993 Turbo debuted.

>another the GTR, which is a great car and the first few years (30) were RWD

You're going to need to be more specific. Ultima builds a GTR as does Nissan.

>but it got upstaged by the NSX which is not TT or AWD.

The NSX is a fantastic driver's car. But it's similarly priced ($85k+) to a 911
Turbo which would eat the NSX for lunch.

>if you look at road & track, motor trend, and automobile mag you'll see that
>the M3 & S4 comps they were virtually tied.

This is nonsense, and it's obvious because you're unable to back it up with
URLs. The S4 is a more competant car than the C32 and M3, PERIOD.

>if you look at the same three mags. and look at the camparos for the RS6 vs.
>E55 you'll see that they're about the same but the Audi is 5" wider so I
>think it'll handle better, but the E55 still acquits it self quite well.

The E55 is a very hot car, and I never denied it. But the RS6 is the kig of
sports sedans, and none of your bullshit changes that. BTW, the RS6 just got a
power hike to over 480Hp, 30 more than before. 0-60 should be in 4.0 flat or
less!

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040508175516.23117.00000338@mb-m20.aol.com...
> >the basis of your argument is based on what Audi/Porches has done
>
> No it's not. It's based on what a number of manufacturers have done.
>
> >explain why the best performing and most expensive Por. is motivated by
which wheels??
>
> I've already done this once. The GT2 and GT3 were not designed for street
use. They are race cars designed to compete in classes were AWD is not
permitted. FIA regulations require that Porsche build a certain number of
street legalized variants of these cars before they can qualify for racing.
This practice is
> called Homoligation. When Porsche did so to comply with regulation, they
also
> had to keep the road-variants RWD. The Carrera GT is a similar situation.
It
> was born to be the next Porsche GT1 racer, and again, GT1 cars are not
> permitted to run AWD. Porsche decided to abandon the project as a race car
but they saw the potential for profit in making a lighlty modified street
version.
> When the melded over the race car into the street car, they again kept the
RWD. Notice though that the Carrera Turbo, Porsche's premier car designed
> spcifically for road use comes ONLY with AWD, which has been their
practice since the 993 Turbo debuted.
>
> >another the GTR, which is a great car and the first few years (30) were
RWD
>
> You're going to need to be more specific. Ultima builds a GTR as does
Nissan.
>
> >but it got upstaged by the NSX which is not TT or AWD.
>
> The NSX is a fantastic driver's car. But it's similarly priced ($85k+) to
a 911
> Turbo which would eat the NSX for lunch.
>
> >if you look at road & track, motor trend, and automobile mag you'll see
that
> >the M3 & S4 comps they were virtually tied.
>
> This is nonsense, and it's obvious because you're unable to back it up
with
> URLs. The S4 is a more competant car than the C32 and M3, PERIOD.
>
> >if you look at the same three mags. and look at the camparos for the RS6
vs.
> >E55 you'll see that they're about the same but the Audi is 5" wider so I
> >think it'll handle better, but the E55 still acquits it self quite well.
>
> The E55 is a very hot car, and I never denied it. But the RS6 is the kig
of
> sports sedans, and none of your bullshit changes that. BTW, the RS6 just
got a
> power hike to over 480Hp, 30 more than before. 0-60 should be in 4.0 flat
or
> less!

but you main argument has been Audi/Por. you went on glowingly about their
race records, but now it's not that important, interesting.

how can the 999 TT be the premiere car when the GT2 trumps it in every
category, price performance, & looks.

Nissan Skyline GTR which has been around since 92(the name since the 60's)
but it first two gens with the 2.6TT were RWD it wasn't till the last
2/current that it went to AWD.

what TT 996 can you get for $85, the cheapest one is $118k, this shows your
lack on knowledge??

ok www.motrotrend.com , www.roadandtrack.com www.automobilemag.com read
their reviews you'll see how close all the cars are, but I bet you'll come
back with some crap like they're bad mags.

they had to bump the power the, E55 is faster, but if you read all the
review they will say...the RS6 is a complete uber-sedan but the E55 is still
the pocket rocket and the top performer of the group.

>but you main argument has been Audi/Por.

While Audi and Porsche have come up a number of times in my posts, they are
hardly the staple of my argument. Feel free to google up all my posts an
re-read them for context.

>you went on glowingly about their
>race records, but now it's not that important, interesting.

Actually it's very important. Porsche and (to an even greater degree) Audi have
proven that AWD is effective, and even preferable for racing.

>how can the 999 TT be the premiere car when the GT2 trumps it in every
>category, price performance, & looks.

First of all, it's 996. Secondly, I explained this much earlier and againg with
my response to the new thread: the GT2 is the street-legal from of a
homoligated race car. The Turbo is their premier ROAD ONLY car. You don't even
need to read between the lines here Ghee, just read the lines!

>Nissan Skyline GTR which has been around since 92(the name since the 60's)
>but it first two gens with the 2.6TT were RWD it wasn't till the last
>2/current that it went to AWD.

So? Porsche had never built an AWD Turbo before the 964 Turbo 4 and they didn't
introduce an AWD Carrera till' 1991. Just because they'd never done it before
means nothing, they're doing it NOW.

>what TT 996 can you get for $85, the cheapest one is $118k, this shows your
>lack on knowledge??

The NSX runs out the door for about
$89,000 according to Acura's site. The Turbo starts at $118,000 but is over a
second faster to 60 than the NSX and trumps it in every arena. The base Carrera
is $69,695 and will beat the NSXs 0-60 time, and trounce it on a track. The
$84,165 Carrera 4S is also quicker to 60 than an NSX and a better track
machine, not to mentio more versatile for for just under $4,000 less than the
Acura. The Boxster S is $51,000 and is only marginally slower to 60 than the
NSX (Acura = 4.9 Boxster S = 5.3) and I;d venture that the Boxster is a better
driver's car.

>ok www.motrotrend.com , www.roadandtrack.com www.automobilemag.com read
>their reviews you'll see how close all the cars are

Well I couldn't find a comparo via Automobile or MotorTrend. But in Road and
Track's comparison, the M3 took 2nd and the S4 took first.

> but I bet you'll come
>back with some crap like they're bad mags.

The S4 won the R&T comparo and I *still* think it's a shitty magazine.

>they had to bump the power the, E55 is faster, but if you read all the
>review they will say...the RS6 is a complete uber-sedan but the E55 is still
>the pocket rocket and the top performer of the group.
>

I'm sick of fact-checking your claims. You lied about what was said in C&D and
in MT. And I'm betting you're lying about what the others have said too. Car
and Driver and Motor Trend both ranked the S4 above the M3. When will you give
it up?

On 09 May 2004 02:03:28 GMT, oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>in response to yet another Bizarro World post by Polyunsaturated Ghee:
[massive snippage]
>I'm sick of fact-checking your claims. You lied about what was said in C&D and
>in MT. And I'm betting you're lying about what the others have said too. Car
>and Driver and Motor Trend both ranked the S4 above the M3. When will you give
>it up?

No offense meant, but some of us might ask you the same:
you cannot have a real conversation with a box of rocks...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

>No offense meant, but some of us might ask you the same:
>you cannot have a real conversation with a box of rocks...
>

Of course not, but this has stepped up from a conversation with a moron to a
personal attack. And I notice that you're still responding to his attacks at
you.

On 09 May 2004 03:43:37 GMT, oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:

>>No offense meant, but some of us might ask you the same:
>>you cannot have a real conversation with a box of rocks...
>>
>
>Of course not, but this has stepped up from a conversation with a moron to a
>personal attack. And I notice that you're still responding to his attacks at
>you.

His "attack" (singular, in the latest episode) on moi?
Geeze, I thought he was just paying homage to the accomplished :-)

You will note I don't waste my time discussing anything on-topic with said box
o' rocks, as it has been utterly established that he has nary a clue about
pretty much anything....

A conclusion that I reckon I owe you and others for making oh so obvious ;-)

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd

>His "attack" (singular, in the latest episode) on moi?
>Geeze, I thought he was just paying homage to the accomplished :-)

LOL

>You will note I don't waste my time discussing anything on-topic with said
>box
>o' rocks, as it has been utterly established that he has nary a clue about
>pretty much anything....

Agreed!

>A conclusion that I reckon I owe you and others for making oh so obvious ;-)

Why thank you. =) I try my best, but this guy has gotten himself so caught up
in his own lies and obvious lack of knowledge and real-world experience that it
didn't require me much effort.

>/daytripper
>'00 s4 6spd

Wanna trade cars? =)

In message <20040508175516.23117.00000338@mb-m20.aol.com>
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:

(quoting someone who I suspect is Tha Ghee, judging by the drivel)

> >if you look at the same three mags. and look at the camparos for the
> >RS6 vs. E55 you'll see that they're about the same but the Audi is 5"
> >wider so I think it'll handle better, but the E55 still acquits it
> >self quite well.

The RS6 is 5" wider than an E55 - really? Are you comparing the same
measurements between the two vehicles (body width excluding/including
mirrors/wheel track/?)? I would be surprised if there were more than
one inch difference in any of these measurements between the two
vehicles. Let me know which particular dimension you are using - I'll
check between my RS6 and my neighbour's E class.

> The E55 is a very hot car, and I never denied it. But the RS6 is the
> kig of sports sedans, and none of your bullshit changes that. BTW, the
> RS6 just got a power hike to over 480Hp, 30 more than before. 0-60
> should be in 4.0 flat or less!

What do you reckon the 0-60 of the standard RS6 is? The extra 30hp in
the RS6+ won't make more than around 0.2 second improvement.

I've seen an RS6 tuned to 550hp still only manage mid 4 seconds 0-60 on
a 1/4 mile run.

As an aside, is the RS6+ being shipped to the US? I believe that
standard RS6 shipments stopped on 31 December 2003, because of changes
in your pollution laws. Does the 6+ now meet the stricter requirements?

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

>What do you reckon the 0-60 of the standard RS6 is? The extra 30hp in
>the RS6+ won't make more than around 0.2 second improvement.

That portion of what you snipped was mine not Ghee's. The first paragrah you
snipped was his though (the one regarding the RS6's width). If I remember
correctly, C&D posted a 4.2 second 0-60 run with an RS6. But I'm willing
(unlike Ghee) to admit that I didn't re-check the article and may be wrong. I
also can't remember if the test car was a 6-speed or Tiptronic.

>I've seen an RS6 tuned to 550hp still only manage mid 4 seconds 0-60 on
>a 1/4 mile run.

I'm always amazed by how the tuned cars test. I've seen tuner cars with power
hikes of 100Hp fail to match or only slightly better the numbers posted for the
same car in stock trim. In fact, RUF advertises a 0-60 time for their Turbo R
version of the 996 of around 3.8 seconds if I remember correctly. While this is
..03 quicker than what Porsche advertises for the stock 996 TT, it's only .01
quicker than the 3.9 second times I've seen for factory stock Turbo's in tests
and slower than the 3.6-3.7 second runs I've seen for X50 equipped models.

>As an aside, is the RS6+ being shipped to the US? I believe that
>standard RS6 shipments stopped on 31 December 2003, because of changes
>in your pollution laws. Does the 6+ now meet the stricter requirements?

I have no idea. I was just citing the fact that Audi is producing the model.