A5/S5/RS5 [Official] New 2017 Audi RS5 Coupe
sanpt7777
Headlight Hero
Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure it's not a FWD platform. Aren't these Audis (A4's and A5's) always RWD biased in quattro form?
hovabongZA
Tire Trailblazer
Looks kilometres better in blue!
domleo999
Premium
I'm not sure about the AWD distribution - I do think more is sent to the rear in normal conditions, but I'm referring the platform they are based and the ugly proportions - a consequence of the engine placement
AndreB
Porsche Perfektionist
This car is GOOD.
I wouldn't hate this A5 and say is below BMW or MB if I didn't drive all three.
Few months ago I've drove the 4 series for a week and it was totally disappointing. Even though it drives nice, I couldn't get over that cheap interior, way below my friend's VW CC.
And C-class is not far either, the gauges visibility is blocked by steering wheel, a big, big flaw.
A5 interior is two times better than the other two, I can not comment on how it drives.
Yeah I understand, Audi name is not as cool as BMW or BMW for some.
My A8 D4 does not look as cool as my friend's F01 but when you step inside A8 things turn upside down.
I wouldn't hate this A5 and say is below BMW or MB if I didn't drive all three.
Few months ago I've drove the 4 series for a week and it was totally disappointing. Even though it drives nice, I couldn't get over that cheap interior, way below my friend's VW CC.
And C-class is not far either, the gauges visibility is blocked by steering wheel, a big, big flaw.
A5 interior is two times better than the other two, I can not comment on how it drives.
Yeah I understand, Audi name is not as cool as BMW or BMW for some.
My A8 D4 does not look as cool as my friend's F01 but when you step inside A8 things turn upside down.
To help visualise things, you can see in these shots how much further back the M4 engine's mass sits compared to the new RS5 - which still has most of the engine hanging way out front... this is an off-shoot of the RS5 riding an a FWD chassis.
domleo999
Premium
Nice representation @Matski . Also @sanpt7777 the A4 - A8 are all on Volkswagen MLB platform.
With these models, they all have front wheel drive variants - meaning they all start life as FWD models (hence the engine position aligned very close to the front wheels). When they are specified with Quattro, the engine stays in the same place - as moving it back to gain better dynamics makes no financial sense...
Cars which are on the same platform but don't have front wheel drive variants, like the Porsche Cayenne, have their engines placed further back as there's no variants which turn the front wheels only - the weight distribution is better and dynamics are improved. They don't have the huge front overhangs typical on audis or the heavy front
With these models, they all have front wheel drive variants - meaning they all start life as FWD models (hence the engine position aligned very close to the front wheels). When they are specified with Quattro, the engine stays in the same place - as moving it back to gain better dynamics makes no financial sense...
Cars which are on the same platform but don't have front wheel drive variants, like the Porsche Cayenne, have their engines placed further back as there's no variants which turn the front wheels only - the weight distribution is better and dynamics are improved. They don't have the huge front overhangs typical on audis or the heavy front
speed_kills
Diesel Dynamiker
The M4 has a straight six, which is longer than the V6. Audi has RWD platforms at their disposal, they don't use it because VAG don't want them to.
D
Deleted member 1071
Indeed, an issue that is subjected to substantial inner-corporate politicization. However, I recall having read an interview with VW-Group CEO Matthias Müller sometime earlier last year in which he subtlely alluded to the future possibility of B segment upwards Audi cars sourcing the groups MSB matrix.
Should this actually come to fruition (big "SHOULD"), it would be of great benefit in terms of aesthetics. A close look at recent spyshots of the upcoming Bentley Continental GT/GTC successor showcase the supreme proportions that MSB will enable. Even moreso than the new Porsche Panamera. I eagerly await the first spyshots of the Flying Spur successor. They will highlight the MSB matrix' potential applied to an albeit rakish "traditional" 3-box sedan configuration.
martinbo
Staff member
People round here who've known me for the better part of two decades will know that mechanical AWD systems are my absolute favourite topic of discussion.
And so, I have to wade into this discussion regarding the misconception of the A4 and A5 platform (B9) being engineered from the outset for FWD first and that the AWD layout is a consequence. This is not the case and the critical appraisal of the developmental approach is flawed.
90 degree V8s and V6s along with 60 V6s are much more challenging to package in a transverse mounting as all manner of issues are presented, particularly those of left-to-right weight distribution and driveshaft length. Interestingly, weight distribution with such large, transverse applications is even more of a factor than with the longitudinal mounting. The reason for this is simple; with the longitudinal mounting the gearbox (a heavy component) can be behind the front axle as opposed to over it which is the case with the transverse orientation.
Even in today's day and age, customers buying premium vehicles have an expectation that larger, more-than-four-cylinder engines be made available in the model range. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all have 6 and even 8 cylinder engines in their premium sedan ranges.
So, the engineering approach behind today's RS5 is most certainly not dictated by a FWD-first philosophy. Instead the outcome lies in the merging of two requirements: "true" Quattro - in the longitudinal application - and the packaging capacity requirement for larger "upmarket" engines.
In the 1980s Audi happened upon a drivetrain concept which proved so successful in motorsport that it soon turned into - not only the huge marketing opportunity it became - a production system that offered real-world benefits of traction, stability and safety in a pre-ESP world. Audi's Quattro was a boon for the brand. Key features of the layout at the time were compactness (car packaging was looked at rather differently those days) and - most importantly - symmetry. Down the longitudinal centre line of the car, entire drivetrain was aligned and centered left to right.
The front driveshafts, as an example, were hence the same length thereby mitigating the torque steer prevalent with transverse FWD applications. The cars were great to drive and achieved sensational results in motorsport. The legend of Quattro was real.
Over time, Quattro became more and more symbolic of Audi's premium offering and enabled Audi to take the brand further upmarket to where we see it today. As such, it is Quattro - in its longitudinal application - that is the primary engineering consideration for new Audi platforms. Audi's designers even go so far as to admit that the styling of such Audis is dictated by this philosophy calling it "the look of Quattro".
Cayenne is actually a poor example. First of all, it's built on the same MLB platform as it's Q7 and Touareg siblings. The difference here is the taller engine bay afforded an SUV allows for Porsche to engineer the front driveline underneath the engine as opposed to just behind the engine which is the customary, single transmission casing, layout for Quattro.
Note, though, that the differences are nearly as big one might think:
Porsche Cayenne (E2)
Audi Q7 (4M)
Even Porsche's ultra-sporty saloon - the Panamera - sees a significant amount engine ahead of the front axle because it too is engineered for an all-wheel drive (and not the RWD low-volume models) application from the outset. In fact, the Panamera's engine positioning is much closer to that of an AWD Audi than it is an AWD BMW or Mercedes Benz saloon.
So, this ought to dispel the notion that the RS5's layout is some by-product of a cheaper, FWD-first approach. Instead, it is the FWD versions' layout - the very unusual longitudinal orientation -which is dictated by the need for Quattro from the outset.
And so, I have to wade into this discussion regarding the misconception of the A4 and A5 platform (B9) being engineered from the outset for FWD first and that the AWD layout is a consequence. This is not the case and the critical appraisal of the developmental approach is flawed.
This is incorrect to say that they "start life as FWD models". They actually don't - it's the other way round - they start life as Quattro models with predetermined and in-built capacity to cater for larger displacement engines than the conventional transverse FWD layout can accommodate. If the car is genuinely engineered from the outset as FWD first then the approach is to transversely mount the engine and then bolt on an AWD system via the highly prevalent approach that resulted in numerous solutions from Haldex (back in the day), GKN and so on. This philosophy is borne out in cars like Golf, A3, A-Class and all the new Volvo models where the mindset is to implement a transversely-mounted engine of no more than 5 cylinders.
90 degree V8s and V6s along with 60 V6s are much more challenging to package in a transverse mounting as all manner of issues are presented, particularly those of left-to-right weight distribution and driveshaft length. Interestingly, weight distribution with such large, transverse applications is even more of a factor than with the longitudinal mounting. The reason for this is simple; with the longitudinal mounting the gearbox (a heavy component) can be behind the front axle as opposed to over it which is the case with the transverse orientation.
Even in today's day and age, customers buying premium vehicles have an expectation that larger, more-than-four-cylinder engines be made available in the model range. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all have 6 and even 8 cylinder engines in their premium sedan ranges.
So, the engineering approach behind today's RS5 is most certainly not dictated by a FWD-first philosophy. Instead the outcome lies in the merging of two requirements: "true" Quattro - in the longitudinal application - and the packaging capacity requirement for larger "upmarket" engines.
In the 1980s Audi happened upon a drivetrain concept which proved so successful in motorsport that it soon turned into - not only the huge marketing opportunity it became - a production system that offered real-world benefits of traction, stability and safety in a pre-ESP world. Audi's Quattro was a boon for the brand. Key features of the layout at the time were compactness (car packaging was looked at rather differently those days) and - most importantly - symmetry. Down the longitudinal centre line of the car, entire drivetrain was aligned and centered left to right.
The front driveshafts, as an example, were hence the same length thereby mitigating the torque steer prevalent with transverse FWD applications. The cars were great to drive and achieved sensational results in motorsport. The legend of Quattro was real.
Over time, Quattro became more and more symbolic of Audi's premium offering and enabled Audi to take the brand further upmarket to where we see it today. As such, it is Quattro - in its longitudinal application - that is the primary engineering consideration for new Audi platforms. Audi's designers even go so far as to admit that the styling of such Audis is dictated by this philosophy calling it "the look of Quattro".
Cayenne is actually a poor example. First of all, it's built on the same MLB platform as it's Q7 and Touareg siblings. The difference here is the taller engine bay afforded an SUV allows for Porsche to engineer the front driveline underneath the engine as opposed to just behind the engine which is the customary, single transmission casing, layout for Quattro.
Note, though, that the differences are nearly as big one might think:
Porsche Cayenne (E2)
Audi Q7 (4M)
Even Porsche's ultra-sporty saloon - the Panamera - sees a significant amount engine ahead of the front axle because it too is engineered for an all-wheel drive (and not the RWD low-volume models) application from the outset. In fact, the Panamera's engine positioning is much closer to that of an AWD Audi than it is an AWD BMW or Mercedes Benz saloon.
So, this ought to dispel the notion that the RS5's layout is some by-product of a cheaper, FWD-first approach. Instead, it is the FWD versions' layout - the very unusual longitudinal orientation -which is dictated by the need for Quattro from the outset.
speed_kills
Diesel Dynamiker
A question, can Audi use Panamera's platform with a Torsen diff in the middle? MB and BMW can't use it, right?
martinbo
Staff member
I'm not sure for the reason behind the question as Audi no longer implements a Torsen centre differential in their new models. My opinion is that Torsen's days as a centre differential are numbered - if not dead. With the massive upswing in electro-mechanical differential actuation the pure (and no doubt elegant) mechanical function of the Torsen helical concept is rendered obsolete in the role of centre diff.
tristatez28lt1
Tire Trailblazer
People round here who've known me for the better part of two decades will know that mechanical AWD systems are my absolute favourite topic of discussion.
And so, I have to wade into this discussion regarding the misconception of the A4 and A5 platform (B9) being engineered from the outset for FWD first and that the AWD layout is a consequence. This is not the case and the critical appraisal of the developmental approach is flawed.
This is incorrect to say that they "start life as FWD models". They actually don't - it's the other way round - they start life as Quattro models with predetermined and in-built capacity to cater for larger displacement engines than the conventional transverse FWD layout can accommodate. If the car is genuinely engineered from the outset as FWD first then the approach is to transversely mount the engine and then bolt on an AWD system via the highly prevalent approach that resulted in numerous solutions from Haldex (back in the day), GKN and so on. This philosophy is borne out in cars like Golf, A3, A-Class and all the new Volvo models where the mindset is to implement a transversely-mounted engine of no more than 5 cylinders.
90 degree V8s and V6s along with 60 V6s are much more challenging to package in a transverse mounting as all manner of issues are presented, particularly those of left-to-right weight distribution and driveshaft length. Interestingly, weight distribution with such large, transverse applications is even more of a factor than with the longitudinal mounting. The reason for this is simple; with the longitudinal mounting the gearbox (a heavy component) can be behind the front axle as opposed to over it which is the case with the transverse orientation.
Even in today's day and age, customers buying premium vehicles have an expectation that larger, more-than-four-cylinder engines be made available in the model range. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all have 6 and even 8 cylinder engines in their premium sedan ranges.
So, the engineering approach behind today's RS5 is most certainly not dictated by a FWD-first philosophy. Instead the outcome lies in the merging of two requirements: "true" Quattro - in the longitudinal application - and the packaging capacity requirement for larger "upmarket" engines.
In the 1980s Audi happened upon a drivetrain concept which proved so successful in motorsport that it soon turned into - not only the huge marketing opportunity it became - a production system that offered real-world benefits of traction, stability and safety in a pre-ESP world. Audi's Quattro was a boon for the brand. Key features of the layout at the time were compactness (car packaging was looked at rather differently those days) and - most importantly - symmetry. Down the longitudinal centre line of the car, entire drivetrain was aligned and centered left to right.
The front driveshafts, as an example, were hence the same length thereby mitigating the torque steer prevalent with transverse FWD applications. The cars were great to drive and achieved sensational results in motorsport. The legend of Quattro was real.
Over time, Quattro became more and more symbolic of Audi's premium offering and enabled Audi to take the brand further upmarket to where we see it today. As such, it is Quattro - in its longitudinal application - that is the primary engineering consideration for new Audi platforms. Audi's designers even go so far as to admit that the styling of such Audis is dictated by this philosophy calling it "the look of Quattro".
Cayenne is actually a poor example. First of all, it's built on the same MLB platform as it's Q7 and Touareg siblings. The difference here is the taller engine bay afforded an SUV allows for Porsche to engineer the front driveline underneath the engine as opposed to just behind the engine which is the customary, single transmission casing, layout for Quattro.
Note, though, that the differences are nearly as big one might think:
Porsche Cayenne (E2)
Audi Q7 (4M)
Even Porsche's ultra-sporty saloon - the Panamera - sees a significant amount engine ahead of the front axle because it too is engineered for an all-wheel drive (and not the RWD low-volume models) application from the outset. In fact, the Panamera's engine positioning is much closer to that of an AWD Audi than it is an AWD BMW or Mercedes Benz saloon.
So, this ought to dispel the notion that the RS5's layout is some by-product of a cheaper, FWD-first approach. Instead, it is the FWD versions' layout - the very unusual longitudinal orientation -which is dictated by the need for Quattro from the outset.
Absolutely agree! And the Cayenne you posted is still built on the old Q7 platform. Hence why the weight is so unbalanced for Cayenne and Macan (old Q5). However, Porsche did manage to make these cars handle fairly well given what they had to work with.
sanpt7777
Headlight Hero
Yeees, that blue is stunning.
It even made me change my mind. I have two reasons for owning (if I had the money) this car. Number one is it looks sober in blue, and elegant even. Number two is if you really want performance, there's no reason to pick an M4 over this. You pick a Porsche over both.
Unless, of course, you are like me and want/need 4 doors. Then you get an M3. I wonder why we can't have an RS4 sedan
Similar threads
Audi
Audi AG is a German automotive manufacturer of luxury vehicles
headquartered in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, Germany. A subsidiary of the
Volkswagen Group, the company’s origins date back to the early 20th
century and the initial enterprises (Horch and the Audiwerke) founded
by engineer August Horch (1868–1951). Two other manufacturers (DKW
and Wanderer) also contributed to the foundation of Auto Union in 1932.
The modern Audi era began in the 1960s, when Volkswagen acquired Auto
Union from Daimler-Benz, and merged it with NSU Motorenwerke in 1969.
Official website: Audi (Global), Audi (USA)
Official website: Audi (Global), Audi (USA)
