2003 Audi S4

[Hooligan]

http://www.4car.co.uk/jsp/main.jsp?lnk=211&id=4276

Hopefully Audi got the "dead steering" bugs out of the A4/S4 line. I'd hate to see a midsize sedan with that much power feel like you're driving like a zombie. There's been rumours about the S4 having a V8 for almost two years, and I guess they weren't unfounded. But with only 344HP it won't be an M3-beater this time around, but I don't think that was the intention.

Sure it might give the M5 might have a tough time, performance-wise (and probably in the luxury segment), but I don't think Audi was aiming straight at the forecourt with this new S4. I think that Audi is looking to do -- legally -- what BMW did in the Touring Car races. BMW's M3 GTR was made fully illegal after the first year (or was it two?) because there is still no such thing as a V8 M3. Now here comes M3's renewed nemesis, V8 and all. I guess if Audi couldn't beat it on the street, it'll beat it on the track.

BTW, anyone else think that the street S4's V8 could use another 40HP or so? IMO, that would really make it an M3 beater. As for on-track power output, I have no doubts about VAG's stalwart V8 putting out 450 - 500HP...easily.

In case you haven't noticed, I've been an S4 fan for a long time....

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Audi have said that all future 'S' cars will be NA, so the V8 makes sense. Not convinced you're sticking to your guns though Hooligan, because you say that with 344bhp it's not going to be an M3 beater, but it could be an M5 beater. Is the M3 not a 340bhp machine?

You're right about the steering though - if they could get some life into it, the S4 would hammer an M3 point-to-point.

 

[-Fred-]

the M5 is a 400hp machine...

the M3 has 333hp in North America, 343 elsewhere. pretty equal on paper, but the S4 has 2 more doors, and 2 more drive wheels. they could always stuff the RS6's engine in the S4's engine compartment, but that wouldn't be too bright, sales wise.

seems every carmaker's going after the M3 now, Lexus/Toyota is prototype testing a V8 powered IS (possibly the IS430) in Germany, putting out 320hp. Mercedes-Benz also has an M3 beater in the works, a C32 AMG coupe. 352 hp, sport suspension, etc... but with an Automatic! it won't be sold in North America either.

 

[DessViperV-10]

the volkwagon phaeton is cool,have you guys ever herd of it,it has a W-12 producing 450 horsepower,or 400,i forgot,it looks alot like a s4 too,at least i think so.....

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by DessViperV-10
the volkwagon phaeton is cool,have you guys ever herd of it,it has a W-12 producing 450 horsepower,or 400,i forgot, it looks alot like a s4 too,at least i think so.....

... Only three times the size! The Phaeton sits somewhere between the A6 and A8 (A7? ) in size.

I think that the stock W12 is hovering around the 400bhp mark, but there's plenty potential there to go to 450. And I think it can be stroked out to 5.5/6.0l, in which case 500bhp shouldn't be too much of a problem for it.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by PunkRock
the M5 is a 400hp machine...

the M3 has 333hp in North America, 343 elsewhere. pretty equal on paper, but the S4 has 2 more doors, and 2 more drive wheels. they could always stuff the RS6's engine in the S4's engine compartment, but that wouldn't be too bright, sales wise.

Especially given their intention that the 'S' cars will all be NA - the RS6 is a twin-turbo V8. The difference in drivetrain is why I said that point-to-point, where dependence on getting the power down is important, that a V8 S4 would hammer an M3, given their similar power outputs, and assuming similar weight.

Originally posted by PunkRock
seems every carmaker's going after the M3 now, Lexus/Toyota is prototype testing a V8 powered IS (possibly the IS430) in Germany, putting out 320hp. Mercedes-Benz also has an M3 beater in the works, a C32 AMG coupe. 352 hp, sport suspension, etc... but with an Automatic! it won't be sold in North America either.

Well the M3 is an inspiration, and pretty much always has been, even taking into account the relatively lean years afforded by the previous generation. I think the current one is a stunning looking car, with those full arches, the zero front overhang and all. No doubt about it, the Germans are being truly wizardly with the pens at the moment.

I thought that ALL AMGs were autos, seemed to recall reading something like they'd done research and AMG buyers wanted a certain degree of refinement that precluded doing anything so banal as stirring a shifter. However, there's a guy in my street with a C38AMG, and I swear I heard a manual gearshift as he drove past me the other day. I'll have to have a sneaky peek one day, but he's not a friendly looking guy!

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
Not convinced you're sticking to your guns though Hooligan, because you say that with 344bhp it's not going to be an M3 beater, but it could be an M5 beater. Is the M3 not a 340bhp machine?

I don't know how to explain myself without rambling on....

I feel that the weight differential negates the power differential. Even Audi quotes the S4 as making the 0-60 run in barely under 6 seconds...M5 territory. And having a V8, I'm sure the price will be well above the US$45,000 M3. The quattro AWD and stiffer (thus heavier) frame make for a slightly slower car. Thrills, though, remain to be seen. For all we know, the upcoming S4 could be an "all growed up" Impreza WRX.

I don't mean that the S4 will be a direct competitor to the M5. In most areas, the two just don't match up. Both previous versions of the M3 & S4 could compete head to head and either could come out on top. Now, with the E46 M3, BMW has really moved the performance game forward, while Audi seems to have chosen a more luxurious stance with the 2003 S4. This makes it seem like M5 performance in an A4 can.

Yes, the M3 makes ~340HP, but it's a lighter car and has -- so far -- a superior drivetrain to run through. On paper, Audi's 343HP beats BMW's 333HP, but there's more to it than that (see the "Car Physics" thread). Yes, the A4 is a small midsize, but sure doesn't feel like it. IMO, driving the A4 is akin to driving a 5-series, with the 3-series' dynamics running rings around both.

I think Audi should have taken a chance and made a high-revving V6 (N/A) similar to Honda's NSX, with some monumental work on driving dynamics (for once, just talk to Porsche; they do some things right). Lighter front end, lighter on its toes, and more street machine than Autobahn-stormer (something I've heard the M5 called once or twice...).

I still want a new S4, though. Call me loony....

 

[f50]

hey wait a second the s4 is awd ( i think)
so the awd sistem have a better handling= s4 drive better tham the m3.

when you are smoking you tires in the m3, i will be a litle far away.


please correct if i'm wrong.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by Hooligan


I don't know how to explain myself without rambling on....

I feel that the weight differential negates the power differential. Even Audi quotes the S4 as making the 0-60 run in barely under 6 seconds...M5 territory. And having a V8, I'm sure the price will be well above the US$45,000 M3. The quattro AWD and stiffer (thus heavier) frame make for a slightly slower car. Thrills, though, remain to be seen. For all we know, the upcoming S4 could be an "all growed up" Impreza WRX.

I don't mean that the S4 will be a direct competitor to the M5. In most areas, the two just don't match up. Both previous versions of the M3 & S4 could compete head to head and either could come out on top. Now, with the E46 M3, BMW has really moved the performance game forward, while Audi seems to have chosen a more luxurious stance with the 2003 S4. This makes it seem like M5 performance in an A4 can.

Yes, the M3 makes ~340HP, but it's a lighter car and has -- so far -- a superior drivetrain to run through. On paper, Audi's 343HP beats BMW's 333HP, but there's more to it than that (see the "Car Physics" thread). Yes, the A4 is a small midsize, but sure doesn't feel like it. IMO, driving the A4 is akin to driving a 5-series, with the 3-series' dynamics running rings around both.

I think Audi should have taken a chance and made a high-revving V6 (N/A) similar to Honda's NSX, with some monumental work on driving dynamics (for once, just talk to Porsche; they do some things right). Lighter front end, lighter on its toes, and more street machine than Autobahn-stormer (something I've heard the M5 called once or twice...).

I still want a new S4, though. Call me loony....

Nah, you did a fairly good job!

Audi will price the S4 at M3 level, you can bet that one. As for the driving dynamics, you're right, we'd have to see, and honestly I'm not sure that people select cars like these because they're the best, but because they want the car, and they close their minds to everything else.

Are you thinking that Audi has chosen the more luxurious route by fitting a V8 instead of a V6 screamer? I think the only reason the BMW doesn't have a V8 is that (a) they couldn't get it to fit, and (b) they were worried about strangling M5 sales. Oh, and (c) the purists were all p***ed about it not having a FOUR like the original!

 

[1X83Z]

WHAT THE **** IS AUDI THINKING?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by M5Power
WHAT THE **** IS AUDI THINKING?

Let me clarify that statement.

NOTE - long post!

In order to understand my comment, you've got to understand what's happened to the European preformance car segment in the last few years.

First, the M5 was turned good when it was re-styled and injected with the E39 body (and nice V-8) - it finally gained some respect as a different vehicle rather than just the top-end 5-series. So, BMW made the car go up to $80,000 to compensate, and many call it the best money they've spent in their life, no question. Cool - so BMW moves upmarket from the previous M5.

On to the M3. Between 1996 and 2000 or so, the BMW M3 was a respected, respectable sport sedan/coupe that wasn't really much more expensive than the 3-series coupe/sedan. When they moved it upmarket, it looked like a sure bet for BMW - why not? They want to become more presitigious, and as long as you watch some touring car race or see these things driving around, you've heard of (and seen the legend of) the M3. It was only natural for BMW to take it up a notch (also because they want a coupe on the heels of the M5).

Now, on to Audi. The S4 came out, when, 1999 or 2000? One hell of a car. For some reason, the hot colours for it were blue or yellow. In any case, it produced. It provided fans the M3 (though dynamically not any M3) that was now unavailable to them due to BMW's upmarked move with that model. Naturally, it was fans' only choice (especially here in America, where the WRX didn't come out until 2001, and didn't give badge snobs closure anyway).

Staying with the Audi theme, let's visit Volkswagen for a second. Ferdinand Piech decided about three years ago that "Audi would compete with BMW and Volkswagen would compete with Mercedes." Yes, I agree. That's a damn good comparison from one of the world's brilliant strategists. That said, Audi also wants to make money. I believe another Volkswagen goal was market share, no?

To finish this, if Audi wants to make money, they can't inject a nice M3 engine (and I'll admit that) into a car that is only half the car the M3 is and expect money. No way, no how. If Audi wants to make money, they need to stay in high-WRX range and produce a high-WRX product (which is what used to occur). They can not stay in M3-range and produce a vehicle that no one would choose over the superior M3.

But if Audi wants to follow every move BMW makes, be my guest. I think we should leave them alone, now - they've got an SUV to build, a wagon to cancel, and a large luxury sedan to re-design.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Good rant!

I don't understand why Audi are moving away from the blower, which has served them well since 1978 when the ur-quattro came along. For one thing, blowers have always had the advantage of adding loads of power without adding loads of weight.

So, why do it? Why put a V8 into a small car? Could it be something to do with the American market and it's obsession with V8s? Hmm, thin, like Audis are on the ground in the States. Could it be something to do with an RS-based strategy? That could be more likely. Look, if you will, at '6. S6: 4.2 NA V8, RS6: 4.2 twin-turbo V8. One wonders if there's a strategy.

Are we all erroneously concluding that the S4 is going up against the M3, when we should be waiting for the RS4? Traditionally, the RS cars have been End-Of-Life specials, but is the current A6 EOL? I wouldn't think so. And current A8, which was supposed to be getting an RS- variant won't before the new model comes out.

I think we need to give this a couple of months to see how it pans out.

Remarkable how BMW didn't drop a V8 into the M3 CSL, don't you think. I mean, an M3 with the M5 engine? Stonker!

And what's going on with the Z8? What a waste of time!

 

[1X83Z]

I don't know - the American market has shyed away from V-8's in recent years. The kids want turbocharged I-4's, parents want SUV's (no matter what engine) and people like me (the crazy ones) get sport sedans or sports cars. One sign that the American market hates V-8's is the death of the vehicle built around the V-8: the Pontiac Firebird (and, of course, Camaro, but there hasn't been a really packing Camaro in years).

Perhaps I've got Audi's mantra wrong. I thought vehicles with the "RS" designation were only sold as wagons (RS4 and RS6) and vehicles with the plain "S" were sedans (S4, S6 and S8). I know it isn't this way in America (we've got an S4 Avant) but we get a lot of crappy cars in America. We don't even get a real "S" logo, we get a cheap knock-off designed to look like the "S" logo.

If today's Friday (and it is) then it was the last day for production of the A8. Man, they could not peddle that car for anything. Too bad, too, because it was better than so much of its competition for the spaceframe (as I call it) aluminum design. Hopefully they'll pick up a bit of cash of the A8 now that the public wrongfully believes that the 7-series (or, as I dub it, "Bangle's Brilliance" ) is ugly.

Stonker? Are you drunk?

The Z8 was a waste of time. When does the new Z3 come out? What about the Z1? Talk about a waste of time. They made a concept car which most of the world could identify if seen, and they never ran with the idea.

 

[DessViperV-10]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie


... Only three times the size! The Phaeton sits somewhere between the A6 and A8 (A7? ) in size.

I think that the stock W12 is hovering around the 400bhp mark, but there's plenty potential there to go to 450. And I think it can be stroked out to 5.5/6.0l, in which case 500bhp shouldn't be too much of a problem for it.

hey,i like it,the first volkswagon i ever liked

and yes it HEAVY,yet 4wd and 415 horsepower....,id like to experiment with those w engines,im curious what i could do with them..

 

[DessViperV-10]

ill prove you wrong,i got a 3.8 V6 im my stang,ill go drop a 460 V8 in it just to prove you wrong,we do got a old f350 truck i can get one from

Originally posted by M5Power
I don't know - the American market has shyed away from V-8's in recent years. The kids want turbocharged I-4's, parents want SUV's (no matter what engine) and people like me (the crazy ones) get sport sedans or sports cars. One sign that the American market hates V-8's is the death of the vehicle built around the V-8: the Pontiac Firebird (and, of course, Camaro, but there hasn't been a really packing Camaro in years).

Perhaps I've got Audi's mantra wrong. I thought vehicles with the "RS" designation were only sold as wagons (RS4 and RS6) and vehicles with the plain "S" were sedans (S4, S6 and S8). I know it isn't this way in America (we've got an S4 Avant) but we get a lot of crappy cars in America. We don't even get a real "S" logo, we get a cheap knock-off designed to look like the "S" logo.

If today's Friday (and it is) then it was the last day for production of the A8. Man, they could not peddle that car for anything. Too bad, too, because it was better than so much of its competition for the spaceframe (as I call it) aluminum design. Hopefully they'll pick up a bit of cash of the A8 now that the public wrongfully believes that the 7-series (or, as I dub it, "Bangle's Brilliance" ) is ugly.

Stonker? Are you drunk?

The Z8 was a waste of time. When does the new Z3 come out? What about the Z1? Talk about a waste of time. They made a concept car which most of the world could identify if seen, and they never ran with the idea.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by DessViperV-10
ill prove you wrong,i got a 3.8 V6 im my stang,ill go drop a 460 V8 in it just to prove you wrong,we do got a old f350 truck i can get one from

How would that prove me wrong?

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
Nah, you did a fairly good job!

Thanks!

Are you thinking that Audi has chosen the more luxurious route by fitting a V8 instead of a V6 screamer? I think the only reason the BMW doesn't have a V8 is that (a) they couldn't get it to fit, and (b) they were worried about strangling M5 sales. Oh, and (c) the purists were all p***ed about it not having a FOUR like the original!

I prefer my M3's in E30 flavor (any color), but while the E46 M3's no dog, Hartge managed exactly what you talked about: the H50. It is the E46 body (like a 330ci) with the 5.0L M5 V8 engine. Power steering, A/C, other...stuff -- all re-positioned to get this monster in. Price? UK 70,000 pounds, right around the price BMW said the M3 GTR (M3 CSL V8) would be. So why didn't they just call up Hartge for the engine swap instructions? My guess is BMW is high-volume only, even for the items like the Z8. The V8 M3 wouldn't have moved too many samples at that price. If they don't sell in the thousands, BMw won't release it. Not so exclusive with that 745i anymore, eh?

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by M5Power
Let me clarify that statement.

Absolutely.

[...]

Now, on to Audi. The S4 came out, when, 1999 or 2000? One hell of a car. [...] Naturally, it was fans' only choice (especially here in America, where the WRX didn't come out until 2001, and didn't give badge snobs closure anyway).

Staying with the Audi theme, let's visit Volkswagen for a second. Ferdinand Piech decided about three years ago that "Audi would compete with BMW and Volkswagen would compete with Mercedes." [...]

To finish this, if Audi wants to make money, they can't inject a nice M3 engine (and I'll admit that) into a car that is only half the car the M3 is and expect money. No way, no how. If Audi wants to make money, they need to stay in high-WRX range and produce a high-WRX product (which is what used to occur). They can not stay in M3-range and produce a vehicle that no one would choose over the superior M3.

First off, the S4 has been around since 1995 (right after the A4 was introduced). I'm not exaclty sure what Audi wants with this S4. It certainly is "high-class WRX", and may even be a snap back at the US launch of the WRX. There's also the upcoming Jaguar X-Type R, also rumoured to be V8-powered. Maybe it's no longer the M3 that's pushing performance cars but the WRX.

We all remember how the M3 was considered the ideal (i.e., somewhat affordable) sports car. The WRX has changed all that. It even pushed the Nissan Z ahead of schedule (no way that V6 is worthy of any Z engine before it, nor the rest of the car). Audi was said to be downright pissed about being trumped by the WRX in test after test, and then smacked in the face with the price tag. Maybe this S4 is doing to the "street rally car segment" what the E46 M3 did to the Euro sport sedan segment -- raised the bar.

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by M5Power
I don't know - the American market has shyed away from V-8's in recent years.

No joke. They take any four-banger they can get, and then pretend to havea turbo. The WRX is >65% of all Impreza sales. Given that it's noticeably more expensive, that's saying something. Compared to the percentage of RSX-S sales (around 30%), the WRX is a force to be reckoned with.

If today's Friday (and it is) then it was the last day for production of the A8.

That's a shame. At least we'll have the Phaeton.

Stonker? Are you drunk?

The Hartge H50 is a stonker.

The Z8 was a waste of time. When does the new Z3 come out? What about the Z1? Talk about a waste of time. They made a concept car which most of the world could identify if seen, and they never ran with the idea.

The Z8 is a major money-maker. Yes, it's a waste of time should you buy it yourself, but it certainly brought in money for BMW. :-/

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Hooligan


First off, the S4 has been around since 1995 (right after the A4 was introduced). I'm not exaclty sure what Audi wants with this S4. It certainly is "high-class WRX", and may even be a snap back at the US launch of the WRX. There's also the upcoming Jaguar X-Type R, also rumoured to be V8-powered. Maybe it's no longer the M3 that's pushing performance cars but the WRX.

I suppose I should've done my research - I had no idea the S4 had been in America since 1995 (obviously, I just wasn't aware of the S4 at that time, I'm not sure how many people were).

Do you think that a V-8-powered S4 and S-Type R are being fueled by the WRX? No way! No one would even consider the new V-8 S4 over the WRX. It's either M3 v. S4 or WRX v. RSX or some other lust object. Remember, the WRX is not considered good-looking by most motorists (I don't know what your stance on it is, Hooligan, I know you've got one - I think it's nearly beautiful, but then again I think the 7-series is good-looking). Frankly, Audi needs to stay in the near-WRX market to make the big bucks.

We all remember how the M3 was considered the ideal (i.e., somewhat affordable) sports car. The WRX has changed all that. It even pushed the Nissan Z ahead of schedule (no way that V6 is worthy of any Z engine before it, nor the rest of the car). Audi was said to be downright pissed about being trumped by the WRX in test after test, and then smacked in the face with the price tag. Maybe this S4 is doing to the "street rally car segment" what the E46 M3 did to the Euro sport sedan segment -- raised the bar.

The WRX may have changed some of that, but the WRX by no means re-defined American sports car culture (or import sports car culture as America has enough trouble building a family sedan) as this statement may have us believe. I don't think Nissan wants anyone to see the Z as a WRX competitor, but they do want to get some out there to maybe steal a few sales from the WRX.

Are you saying, perhaps, that it's good the M3 got out while it could, so to speak? (i.e. that if the M3 hadn't moved upmarket when it did, BMW would be hopelessly behind in car-development and would have to concede thousands of sales to WRX) Perhaps BMW can see the future - and (as I'm sure I've heard it a hundred times)....the future is iDrive!

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Hooligan


No joke. They take any four-banger they can get, and then pretend to havea turbo. The WRX is >65% of all Impreza sales. Given that it's noticeably more expensive, that's saying something. Compared to the percentage of RSX-S sales (around 30%), the WRX is a force to be reckoned with.

Well, consider that if you've got an RS-X you're cool simply because you've got the car and the look. Without a WRX, you're missing out on the turbo, and you're basically a fool who bought a 165-horsepower small sedan when they could've had the comparable Corolla for thousands less.

On to the stat, I'd refute it - I'm not sure if that's an actual fact or not, but judging by what I saw in Denver right after the WRX came out and here in Illinois in the last five months, I would say the WRX sales account for - (get my estimation) - 80% of all Imprezas. I think I've seen maybe twenty non-WRX's compared with maybe a hundred WRX's.

That said, if I remember correctly, I think the WRX came out before the other Imprezas were ready?

That's a shame. At least we'll have the Phaeton.

I really hope this thing sells, because I think it's one of the best automotive moves in history.

 

[1X83Z]

By the way, while on the subject, we oughta define the fact that just a few simple cars bridge the gap between the WRX and the M3 - S4, X-Type, etc. There's hardly a question that the M3 is better than the WRX, but is it worth all that extra cash? Maybe settling on an in-betweener is a good choice.

And who actually bought an X-Type this year?

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by M5Power
Do you think that a V-8-powered S4 and S-Type R are being fueled by the WRX? No way!

Here's my thinking on that: I've seen more than one test (maybe 5 or so) comparing the WRX with the S4, X-Type, and 330xi. The WRX comes out on top (looks and luxury aside). There's others that run the WRX STi against the M3 (and a few others). The WRX STi is deemed a viable alternative to the M3 (at least, EVO thought so). The WRX is also a revelation in the US market -- well, more like a big wake-up call when it comes to what you should expect from a US$25,000 sports sedan. (The E46 M3 was in the works long ago, so I don't consider it part of the equation here.) IMO, the US WRX launch is responsible for:
- X-Type R coming sooner rather than next year
- S4 being so over-engined, if not quite over-powered
- Mitsubishi getting off their butt and shipping the EVO to the US
- Nissan scrapping plans for a better V6 and working cost rather than performance
- Focus RS so hot on the heels of the Focus SVT
- the Golf R32 (was it really needed when we had the S3 and Cupra R?)

All these cars are due soon, having been in production for a while, but all were announced after Subaru had hard plans for US WRX sales, back in early 2000. VAG was really not happy to be compared to the WRX, but they set themselves up for it: similar performance, AWD, 4 doors.... They don't even want to be in the same sentence as the abomination known as the X-Type. So they distance themselves. Big time. How do you do that? V8. Where does that put you, if not M3 or WRX territory? Slightly below M5, IMO. I'm of the opinion that Audi's numbering scheme is very appropriate: *4 between 3-series and 5-series, 6 between 5 and 7.... Thus, S4 just below M5, if above M3, with S6/RS6 above M5. [Sheesh. Too many TLAs.]

The WRX is kind of like the original 240Z. It's not the car itself, but what it represents: ridiculous value in a sports vehicle . The 350Z is never going to have the impact the 240Z had. It's more expensive than it should have been (to have the 240Z effect), and its not as unique in character, either by design or mechanics. Sure, just like in 1971, there are other similar cars ('71 240Z: Alfa's, 2002's, TVR's; '01 WRX: S4, 330xi), but the WRX brings a whole new price/performance level, and it has that unique character...of both body and engine.

Are you saying, perhaps, that it's good the M3 got out while it could, so to speak?

I don't think it got out, but just moved things forward. Dropped the gauntlet, if you will. It's like the 911/Ferrari comparisons of the 70's and 80's. Those comparisons don't work with 2000 models, seeing as how they both stepped up their game in different directions, and are very different sports cars these days. The S4 and M3 are also becoming two different cars. Audi sticking with 4 doors and a flat torque curve, a real bahn-stormer (I love that term). BMW is going for a near-track car; high revs, broad torque but still requiring a bit of work to get all of it, and a harder suspension. Both are becoming much better, but are also going in different directions, taking advantage of their strengths, rather than filling in the gaps (and thus would have been becoming more similar).

Well, consider that if you've got an RS-X you're cool simply because you've got the car and the look. Without a WRX, you're missing out on the turbo, and you're basically a fool who bought a 165-horsepower small sedan when they could've had the comparable Corolla for thousands less.

A Corolla! I'm shocked! :bigmouth: Find me a Corolla with AWD in the options list and I'll let that one go.... I think the Impreza RS is a viable alternative for under-18's who want the image but who's parents want neither the reckless performance nor the high insurance bills -- actually, I don't think insurance companies have yet caught on. My bill only went up commensurate with the price of the car: $100 or so per year more than my 2.5RS. Go figure.

I also remember all Imprezas being available at the same time. At least, they were on the east coast. I distinctly remember '03 Outback Sports next to WRX's....

By the way, while on the subject, we oughta define the fact that just a few simple cars bridge the gap between the WRX and the M3 - S4, X-Type, etc. There's hardly a question that the M3 is better than the WRX, but is it worth all that extra cash? Maybe settling on an in-betweener is a good choice.

WRX STi. Duh! I would also say as options (assuming not having to adhere to AWD & 4-doors):
- 2004 Alfa GTA (Alfa did say there were arriving on US shores again, didn't they?)
- Honda S2000 (assuming you have lots of track access; otherwise it's not an option)
- Lexus IS300 (maybe more of a 330ci competitor)
- 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra (yes, I think it has possibilities; once in a while, Ford can do a suspension that turns)
- 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO 7 (should be about when it gets to the US...at $32,000 and <260HP)
- Nissan 350Z Track (no other spec level means anything to me)

Of course, sticking to the straight-up AWD/4-door category, the pickings get much slimmer. You're basically stuck with the WRX STi and Lancer EVO...neither of which will make it to the US before next year.

And who actually bought an X-Type this year?

No one. Why, did you see someone test driving one again?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by M5Power
By the way, while on the subject, we oughta define the fact that just a few simple cars bridge the gap between the WRX and the M3 - S4, X-Type, etc. There's hardly a question that the M3 is better than the WRX, but is it worth all that extra cash? Maybe settling on an in-betweener is a good choice.

And who actually bought an X-Type this year?

I agree on the X-Type - I don't get it at all. There's a few of them in the UK, and I saw some in Philadelphia and Boston, but really they just look like an XJ that shrunk in the wash.

It's an interesting question you pose about WRX vs M3/S4. See the thing is that if you can afford an M3 you can afford a WRX, so why would you take the M3? I mean, they're lovely cars, but for the difference in price you could buy yourself a toy like a Caterham or an Elise. So why buy the M3 instead of the WRX? It's obviously not a dynamics choice, since the WRX is dynamically superior to the M3, which while bigger and ultimately faster in a straight line, simply isn't as sprightly and lively as the WRX. There is the external appearance aspect - of the current generation WRXs, I'd definitely have an M3 in preference, but not so sure on the previous generation... Internally the BMW has the Subaru licked, so are M3 buyers paying for the interior? Are they paying for the extra 1/10th to 60? Are they paying for the fact that an M3 will bounce off the 155mph limiter whereas the WRX will wheeze it's way to 150? Or are they paying for the blue/white propellor?

Of course, this question is also framed by the target roads. Where I live you'd have the WRX, since we're all short straights, twists and turns, where the explosive power of AWD I4t is definitely a bonus, plus it rains all the time, so FR not the best! Whereas, having just driven 300 miles in NE, I would probably want an FR I6. I would say that the M3 makes more sense in the US, whereas the WRX definitely makes more sense in the UK. However, there are still lots of M3s sold here. It is an interesting question.

Oh, and on the S/RS thing...

Each Audi model range has the 'normal' cars, We'll take previous A4 as the example. So you have the 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 1.9TD, 2.4V6 all available as FF with quattro as cost option.

Then the range gets revamped, and you see some quicker cars come in:
1.8t quattro
2.5TD quattro
2.8V6 quattro.

Then they bring in the three performance levels, all above 'normal'. These go thus (and in order of release):
Sport - hence 1.8t sport quattro, 2.8V6 sport quattro
S - 2.7V6 twin-turbo (300bhp)
RS - 2.7V6 twiin-turbo (360bhp)

So you have the choice of the sport models, where the one to go for is actually the blown four, the 1.8t sport quattro, since this has the same power as the V6, only a smaller and lighter engine. However, people paying £30k for a car seem to want more than 4 cylinders!

Then you get the range-topper, the S. This will come out approximately 18 - 24 months prior to EOL, since it's an 'emporer's new clothes' ploy, and brings reflected glory to the rest of the range. S cars are typically available in saloon (sedan) or estate form. Estates typically outsell saloons 70/30.

The 'last gasp' is the RS, which comes out 3 - 6 months before EOL, but has been announced a year before. Almost always all RS cars are sold prior to production, but there's only about 1000 of them anyway. Usually the RS comes out in estate only, mirroring the sales trend of the S. However, for the first time, RS6 is available as sedan or estate. Estate is outselling sedan 90/10. I think actually the times on the 6 are wrong - I think that 6 has much more time left, although RS6 is doing well. Hope that helps!

 

[Hooligan]

If anyone thinks I'm getting way too into this, let me know.

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
It's an interesting question you pose about WRX vs M3/S4.
[...]
So why buy the M3 instead of the WRX? It's obviously not a dynamics choice, since the WRX is dynamically superior to the M3, which while bigger and ultimately faster in a straight line, simply isn't as sprightly and lively as the WRX. There is the external appearance aspect - of the current generation WRXs, I'd definitely have an M3 in preference, but not so sure on the previous generation...

I think the M3 is far superior to the base WRX in just about every way (aside from rough road driving). BMW's traction control makes for a reasonably secure ride, and WRX standard tires are rather weak, making a grip comparison between the two a wash. As far as dynamics goes, the STi is a better match for the M3. You need more than what the base WRX has to keep up with the sublime 3.2L inline 6 from Munich. The STi's 6-speed gearbox, improved wheel/tire combo, and uprated suspension make for a better comparison to the M3.

And, uh, I like cars with drivetrains that can handle their engines. *cough*crap*cough*subaru*cough*clutch*cough

I think actually the times on the 6 are wrong - I think that 6 has much more time left, although RS6 is doing well. Hope that helps!

Oh, I absolutely agree. The A6 is a top-seller around here, closing in on the A4's numbers. Despite the complete lack news and hype (in the US) about the RS6, I already know two people who have deposits down for one -- sight unseen, never having driven any '6. The new A6 3.0 is more popular than the TT here, too. The Audi A6/S6/RS6 has at least three years left, and that's if they decide not to revise it in 2006.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Hooligan


Here's my thinking on that: I've seen more than one test (maybe 5 or so) comparing the WRX with the S4, X-Type, and 330xi. The WRX comes out on top (looks and luxury aside). There's others that run the WRX STi against the M3 (and a few others). The WRX STi is deemed a viable alternative to the M3 (at least, EVO thought so). The WRX is also a revelation in the US market -- well, more like a big wake-up call when it comes to what you should expect from a US$25,000 sports sedan. (The E46 M3 was in the works long ago, so I don't consider it part of the equation here.) IMO, the US WRX launch is responsible for:
- X-Type R coming sooner rather than next year
- S4 being so over-engined, if not quite over-powered
- Mitsubishi getting off their butt and shipping the EVO to the US
- Nissan scrapping plans for a better V6 and working cost rather than performance
- Focus RS so hot on the heels of the Focus SVT
- the Golf R32 (was it really needed when we had the S3 and Cupra R?)

I'm an avid fan of the British road magasine 'Car' and they dislike the STi Impreza, or at least, they don't like it nearly as much as the M3. When they do preformance car tests, the WRX STi always loses by a wide margin to the M3. That said, the magasine is completely European-biased.

I'd be interested to see if any X-Type R comes over here soon - I doubt it. If no one bought the X-Type, who would buy the X-Type R? What is Ford's thinking? Mitsu EVO - that's a whole other subject. Mitsubishi (and, in my opinion, Nissan) have been sitting around brain dead not bringing the EVO and Skyline over here. I think you're absolutely correct that the WRX is fueling any appearance the EVO makes in America. It's nearly stupid to see the WRX create such a stir and sell so many units so quickly, and still have no real competitors (definitely none from Japan). Of course, about ninety percent of the Skyline's fans could never afford it, but even so, it would get a rather large fan base.

All these cars are due soon, having been in production for a while, but all were announced after Subaru had hard plans for US WRX sales, back in early 2000. VAG was really not happy to be compared to the WRX, but they set themselves up for it: similar performance, AWD, 4 doors.... They don't even want to be in the same sentence as the abomination known as the X-Type. So they distance themselves. Big time. How do you do that? V8. Where does that put you, if not M3 or WRX territory? Slightly below M5, IMO. I'm of the opinion that Audi's numbering scheme is very appropriate: *4 between 3-series and 5-series, 6 between 5 and 7.... Thus, S4 just below M5, if above M3, with S6/RS6 above M5. [Sheesh. Too many TLAs.]

Sure, sure, Audi doesn't want to be compared to Subaru, that's obvious. But I don't think the answer is to take a vehicle normally sold in 1.8 form and throw a V-8 in it. Perhaps rather than beating out Subaru, Audi wants to make up for the M3 GT-R we never got. Perhaps they should do both.

The WRX is kind of like the original 240Z. It's not the car itself, but what it represents: ridiculous value in a sports vehicle . The 350Z is never going to have the impact the 240Z had. It's more expensive than it should have been (to have the 240Z effect), and its not as unique in character, either by design or mechanics. Sure, just like in 1971, there are other similar cars ('71 240Z: Alfa's, 2002's, TVR's; '01 WRX: S4, 330xi), but the WRX brings a whole new price/performance level, and it has that unique character...of both body and engine.

No, the 350Z will never have the impact the original had. Nor will the new Thunderbird, New Beetle, Microbus (which was given the Okay by BP last month), and Mini. They're nostalgia items, and when the sales go bad, they're going to be cancelled nostalgia items.

Right now, in the current market, the only 'defining' (in the same way the Beetle, 240Z, Defender originally were) car that I see is the WRX. It has potential to die in ten years and be resurrected in fifty. Let's just hope it doesn't.

A Corolla! I'm shocked! :bigmouth: Find me a Corolla with AWD in the options list and I'll let that one go.... I think the Impreza RS is a viable alternative for under-18's who want the image but who's parents want neither the reckless performance nor the high insurance bills -- actually, I don't think insurance companies have yet caught on. My bill only went up commensurate with the price of the car: $100 or so per year more than my 2.5RS. Go figure.

Find me an Impreza for the price of a Corolla with the Corolla's spec list! Impossible!

Sad thing, I don't think insurance companies have caught on, either - they don't see it as 0-60 in five-eight, 227-hp turbocharged, they see it as a trim level of a subcompact sedan. Good on 'em.

I also remember all Imprezas being available at the same time. At least, they were on the east coast. I distinctly remember '03 Outback Sports next to WRX's....

Hmmm - I sure don't. The first non-WRX I ever saw was an Outback Sport and it was several weeks after I'd seen the WRX.

WRX STi. Duh! I would also say as options (assuming not having to adhere to AWD & 4-doors):
- 2004 Alfa GTA (Alfa did say there were arriving on US shores again, didn't they?)
- Honda S2000 (assuming you have lots of track access; otherwise it's not an option)
- Lexus IS300 (maybe more of a 330ci competitor)
- 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra (yes, I think it has possibilities; once in a while, Ford can do a suspension that turns)
- 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO 7 (should be about when it gets to the US...at $32,000 and <260HP)
- Nissan 350Z Track (no other spec level means anything to me)

Of course, sticking to the straight-up AWD/4-door category, the pickings get much slimmer. You're basically stuck with the WRX STi and Lancer EVO...neither of which will make it to the US before next year.

WRX STi? Where is that in America? And don't forget the MG ZT! Those rule! It's pretty comparable to the WRX, actually, though from what I've heard from an Australian member on this site, the ZT, when imported, runs up the money to the point where it costs as much as some near-luxury cars.

Alfa GTA - the afformentioned magazine 'Car' calls the GTA "an Impreza with style." I had to laugh at that one. And yes, Alfa will be back in the USA - I hope they'll be back with MG, too.

S2000? Ha! I think the people who want a WRX also want some form of practicality. I know no one who daily-drives an S2000.

IS300 - totally forgot about the IS300! Even so, it's so refined, even though the exterior styling would indicate otherwise. Plus, it's $7000 more than Rex.

SVT Cobra? Yeah right - WRX owners would never go for a Mustang. I wouldn't, god knows.

Maybe some used cars should be added to that list - say, a used S4?

No one. Why, did you see someone test driving one again?

PS - yes, I did just say the Defender is a defining vehicle.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie


I agree on the X-Type - I don't get it at all. There's a few of them in the UK, and I saw some in Philadelphia and Boston, but really they just look like an XJ that shrunk in the wash.

Obviously, it's not a bad car - it's decent. But we could have another large-scale discussion on why nothing except the A4 has been able to make even a small dent in 3-series sales in the last ten years. Companies should NOT bother trying, because it does NOT happen. Wonder why Audi got it to work.

It's an interesting question you pose about WRX vs M3/S4. See the thing is that if you can afford an M3 you can afford a WRX, so why would you take the M3? I mean, they're lovely cars, but for the difference in price you could buy yourself a toy like a Caterham or an Elise. So why buy the M3 instead of the WRX? It's obviously not a dynamics choice, since the WRX is dynamically superior to the M3, which while bigger and ultimately faster in a straight line, simply isn't as sprightly and lively as the WRX. There is the external appearance aspect - of the current generation WRXs, I'd definitely have an M3 in preference, but not so sure on the previous generation... Internally the BMW has the Subaru licked, so are M3 buyers paying for the interior? Are they paying for the extra 1/10th to 60? Are they paying for the fact that an M3 will bounce off the 155mph limiter whereas the WRX will wheeze it's way to 150? Or are they paying for the blue/white propellor?

They're paying for the propellor and the "///" designation, although the M3 is a very nice machine. Even so, it is hardly worth all that money. Of course, a lot of people in America now have WRX's, and very few have M3's. Exclusivity is a factor.

Oh, and on the S/RS thing...

Each Audi model range has the 'normal' cars, We'll take previous A4 as the example. So you have the 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 1.9TD, 2.4V6 all available as FF with quattro as cost option.

Then the range gets revamped, and you see some quicker cars come in:
1.8t quattro
2.5TD quattro
2.8V6 quattro.

Then they bring in the three performance levels, all above 'normal'. These go thus (and in order of release):
Sport - hence 1.8t sport quattro, 2.8V6 sport quattro
S - 2.7V6 twin-turbo (300bhp)
RS - 2.7V6 twiin-turbo (360bhp)

So you have the choice of the sport models, where the one to go for is actually the blown four, the 1.8t sport quattro, since this has the same power as the V6, only a smaller and lighter engine. However, people paying £30k for a car seem to want more than 4 cylinders!

Then you get the range-topper, the S. This will come out approximately 18 - 24 months prior to EOL, since it's an 'emporer's new clothes' ploy, and brings reflected glory to the rest of the range. S cars are typically available in saloon (sedan) or estate form. Estates typically outsell saloons 70/30.

The 'last gasp' is the RS, which comes out 3 - 6 months before EOL, but has been announced a year before. Almost always all RS cars are sold prior to production, but there's only about 1000 of them anyway. Usually the RS comes out in estate only, mirroring the sales trend of the S. However, for the first time, RS6 is available as sedan or estate. Estate is outselling sedan 90/10. I think actually the times on the 6 are wrong - I think that 6 has much more time left, although RS6 is doing well. Hope that helps!

Maybe in England wagons outsell sedans 70/30, but I've only seen one S4 wagon in America. Of course, the S4 wagon has not been out as long as the S4 sedan, so that's a factor.

Thanks for the explanation - I'm living in a country where Audi can't even ship a standard "S" badge, let alone provide an explanation.

I hope they re-design the A6 soon, since it'll be my next company car. Maybe they can make it good-looking! Eh, probably not.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Hooligan
Oh, I absolutely agree. The A6 is a top-seller around here, closing in on the A4's numbers. Despite the complete lack news and hype (in the US) about the RS6, I already know two people who have deposits down for one -- sight unseen, never having driven any '6. The new A6 3.0 is more popular than the TT here, too. The Audi A6/S6/RS6 has at least three years left, and that's if they decide not to revise it in 2006.

No!!! I find the current A6 repulsively styled and boring.

At least I can look forward to the arrival of the new 4-Runner and shout with glee when Toyota finally designs a vehicle well. Probably not, though - there hasn't been a decent-looking Toyota since the original RAV4, and the was only decent-looking because it was inoffensive.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by M5Power


No!!! I find the current A6 repulsively styled and boring.

At least I can look forward to the arrival of the new 4-Runner and shout with glee when Toyota finally designs a vehicle well. Probably not, though - there hasn't been a decent-looking Toyota since the original RAV4, and the was only decent-looking because it was inoffensive.

That post says so much! Anyone who finds a RAV4 acceptable because it's inoffensive is likely to think that a piece of automotive beauty like the A6 Avant is horrible! I'm not much of a fan of the saloon, but the Avant is a lovely car. Just my opinion of course!

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by M5Power
Maybe in England wagons outsell sedans 70/30, but I've only seen one S4 wagon in America. Of course, the S4 wagon has not been out as long as the S4 sedan, so that's a factor.

Thanks for the explanation - I'm living in a country where Audi can't even ship a standard "S" badge, let alone provide an explanation.

I hope they re-design the A6 soon, since it'll be my next company car. Maybe they can make it good-looking! Eh, probably not. [/B]

No, that's worldwide sales...

I'll carry my digital camera with me and see if I can get you some badge pics!