Audi R8

[homeforsummer]

Most of their info is wrong

Got a source to back that up?...

others "steal" info from forums

As far as I was aware, information on forums is in the public domain, therefore it's not "stealing" when the information is re-used. Maybe all these forums "steal" the info from the press releases? Oh wait, maybe not

As I have said on other foums people are happy to get such info.

Fools tend to be fairly happy as they're too dim to understand concepts like reality and mistrust in unsubstantiated information.

Anyway, from what you've mentioned before, your "reliable source" is a car dealer, and whilst I don't wish to tarnish all dealers with the same reputation, many of the ones I've come across couldn't find their arse with their own two hands, so trusting their verbal information on upcoming important models from one of the biggest car companies in the world wouldn't be my own particular choice.

On the other hand, the magazines you deride such as Autocar, which has been going for the best part of a century, and Auto Express which has sister titles in countries all around Europe and has produced over 1000 issues, are perhaps more likely to have access to reliable information.

 

[forza2.0]

...because it's the normal thing to do, maybe?

Right, so lemmy get this straight. You're allowed to question reputable sources such as car magazines, and we're not allowed to question the source of your information?

Look, Forza, I don't particularly care what you believe. If you choose to believe that the world's motoring press is polluting your mind with false information, that's just fine by me. Equally, if you choose to believe whatever your 'source' tells you, fine. But don't try to force that crap on me. Am I being unreasonable or something? Is it particularly difficult to actually include a source with the information you post? Am I wrong for at least wanting to know where/who my information has come from? Do please tell me if this is the case!

You are the one who keeps talking about it. If you dont want to believe it move on. Simple as that. The information comes from audi insiders. Would you like their name and address

Excuse me? are you actually saying that Road and Track/Car and Driver, institutions with complex test equipment and proprietary test tracks, do nothing more than get info off blogs? Laughable. They're probably better connected than you are.

What sort of magazine are you reading?

So road and track and car and driver tests cars that havent even started production yet? Im only talking about upcoming audi vehicles. Occasionally I hear things about BMW, as bmw and audi keep a close watch on each others moves, but other than that I can only get info on upcoming audi vehicles.

Got a source to back that up?...

Read some of the articles from your favourite car magazine about so called audi scoops, and then compare that to the final product

As far as I was aware, information on forums is in the public domain, therefore it's not "stealing" when the information is re-used. Maybe all these forums "steal" the info from the press releases?

So audi hands out press releases about vehicles that are still say a year away from reaching the showroom, telling all the specific details? And some of those car mags pass off info as if its their own.

Fools tend to be fairly happy as they're too dim to understand concepts like reality and mistrust in unsubstantiated information.

These same fools are perhaps more open minded. And these fools could tell you more about audi's and bmw's than you could.

Anyway, from what you've mentioned before, your "reliable source" is a car dealer

Eh, no. A SEAT car dealer once told us what a SEAT UK exec said about a upcoming SEAT. My audi sources comes from out germany, from audi buildings.

On the other hand, the magazines you deride such as Autocar,

Pffft. Dont make me laugh. Autocar is a joke. Have you seen their issue where they try to give the illusion that they have driven the new upcoming RS5 and M3 back to back, and having a pic on the cover of the RS5 which is just their own poxy photoshop. They are a joke. My sources are not particularly found of autocar as it goes.

Auto Express which has sister titles in countries all around Europe and has produced over 1000 issues, are perhaps more likely to have access to reliable information.

Me buying a autoexpress mag is a waste of time. The info contained in them is always what I have known myself long before hand.

 

[Joey D]

It's the standard operating procedure to question things on these boards. We don't know what you are making up or what you are holding to be true if there isn't a source to back it up with. Magazines are far more reliable then someone just saying "hey I heard this". Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And if you are getting insider information then you probably shouldn't be broadcasting it over the net. Mainly because you could get your source in a lot of trouble if connections are made. There is a reason companies keep things under wraps and there is a reason employees sign non-discloser agreements.

 

[forza2.0]

well we can all see how reliable my source is soon enough, when the press release arrives.

 

[Famine]

My audi sources comes from out germany, from audi buildings.

well we can all see how reliable my source is soon enough, when the press release arrives.

At this point I refer the whole of GTPlanet to this post, and these two posts, made just TWELVE HOURS apart by Poverty therein:

No surprise there, I have been saying for months if not a year now that the TT-RS would have a 2.5 5cylinder engine. Some people thought I was making it up, but my sources came through yet again.

Apparently porsche pulled the plug on the 2.5 5cylinder engine, and the TT-RS could very wel have a 350hp 3.0 supercharged engine. All rumours ofcourse.

One "source" says the TT-RS will have a 2.5 5-pot. One "source" says the TT-RS won't have the 2.5 5-pot. In either eventuality, Poverty gets to say "See! My sources are right again!"

Unsubstantiated fact != fact. Your "source" has no more relevance to us or reality than daan's cheesy V9.

Back it up or do not post it. No more chances.

 

[forza2.0]

2 different sources. One more reliable than the other. The reliable one wont always tell me what engine it will have, but does say which engines it wont, in which case it was the 3.0 supercharged. Basically the reliable source rubbished my other sources claim. The reliable source is now my only source. TT-RS will not be a 3.0 supercharged.

I can also refer the car mags who think it will have a 3.0 supercharged, or the car mags that think the R8 will be a V10 TT. Believe nothing until the car is here and there will be no issues. I am merely doing what car mags do. Dont see people writing into car telling them they mags are a waste of money with unsubstainted claims.

 

[Famine]

The reliable source is now my only source.

And without credentials it has exactly as much merit as any other random internet claim.

I can also refer the car mags who think it will have a 3.0 supercharged, or the car mags that think the R8 will be a V10 TT.

Please do. But you will not post rumour posing as fact from un-named sources.

Believe nothing until the car is here and there will be no issues. I am merely doing what car mags do.

I think there's a gap between what I posted and what you understood. Do not post rumour as fact again, claiming insider knowledge from an un-cited source, or your account will be terminated and all further attempts at re-registering will be blocked. Comply and there will be no issues.

Clear enough?

 

[homeforsummer]

Read some of the articles from your favourite car magazine about so called audi scoops, and then compare that to the final product

Some of my "favourite car magazines" have info on new models as much as two or three years before the model is released. In this sort of time frame simply having information at all is quite impressive - I wouldn't expect it to be unfailingly accurate. As release gets nearer the magazines are usually pretty good at finding accurate info.

The only thing the internet has over professional car magazine scoops is the benefit of any information being available the second someone learns about it. When a magazine is produced weekly, this is the equivalent of an eternity for information to change. On the plus side, it allows them to do their research right up until deadline, rather than blurting it out all over the net regardless of accuracy.

So audi hands out press releases about vehicles that are still say a year away from reaching the showroom, telling all the specific details? And some of those car mags pass off info as if its their own.

If a magazine gets a press release they're under no obligation to start every article with "We got this from a press release". I expect the readership are smart enough to know that any official information or photos being printed is direct from the manufacturer themselves so a sentence declaring so is a bit redundant.

In many cases when a press release isn't handed out but information is still available the info is from a reliable source or a liason with the manufacturer - witness Autocar's position of being invited to many "behind the scenes" tests of new cars, which they can only report about after any embargo of information has been lifted. The most recent that comes to memory was that a journalist from Autocar was able to test the Alfa Mito in the Arctic circle well before any other journo did, but they weren't allowed to print the story until after a press embargo.

The information may not be "hot off the press", as it were, but you can be damn sure it's accurate. Which is rather the opposite of much of what you post.

These same fools are perhaps more open minded. And these fools could tell you more about audi's and bmw's than you could.

Then they're foolish enough to underestimate my car-geekishness

Eh, no. A SEAT car dealer once told us what a SEAT UK exec said about a upcoming SEAT. My audi sources comes from out germany, from audi buildings.

Yes. The building of Ernst Audi, the famous Ingolstadt bratwurst vendor, not affiliated with Audi AG, subsiduary of Volkswagen AG...

Pffft. Dont make me laugh. Autocar is a joke. Have you seen their issue where they try to give the illusion that they have driven the new upcoming RS5 and M3 back to back, and having a pic on the cover of the RS5 which is just their own poxy photoshop. They are a joke. My sources are not particularly found of autocar as it goes.

Probably because they got an unfavourable car review one time. Autocar being a joke, is a joke. As I highlighted earlier with the Alfa example, they're one of the more trusted car magazines and certainly one of the most thorough.

Me buying a autoexpress mag is a waste of time. The info contained in them is always what I have known myself long before hand.

Only with sources, and written without an irritating "know it all" attitude 👍

 

[Scaff]

2 different sources. One more reliable than the other. The reliable one wont always tell me what engine it will have, but does say which engines it wont, in which case it was the 3.0 supercharged. Basically the reliable source rubbished my other sources claim. The reliable source is now my only source. TT-RS will not be a 3.0 supercharged.

Please actually take the time to read what you have posted here and with a straight face actually tell us that you want to be associated with it.

It barely makes any actual sense.

One bloke told me something and then I told you but then someone else said he something else so I told you that as well, then that bloke told me the other bloke was telling porkies so now I don't believe the first bloke. But I can't tell you who either of them are!!!!!!!!!! My eight year old talks like this when caught doing something she shouldn't.

Now a straight question. Is this the same 'inside' sources you had the last time we went around this merry-go-round, in other words someone on another forum who claims to work for Audi but can't prove it (and is doubted by members of that forum). If it is then you were told previously that was not a credible source, if its not then cite a source or don't post it as fact.

I can also refer the car mags who think it will have a 3.0 supercharged, or the car mags that think the R8 will be a V10 TT. Believe nothing until the car is here and there will be no issues. I am merely doing what car mags do. Dont see people writing into car telling them they mags are a waste of money with unsubstainted claims.

A few things here. The single most important thing is that magazines are not stupid enough to post rumour as fact, they actually say 'its rumoured' or ' we believe', rather than post it as fact (but then they have all those pesky legal bits to have to deal with).

Secondly, I actually believe that they have sources within most manufacturers, if say Renault want a bit of info leaking about a car I'm going to guess that they will more likely phone up Autocar than you. Now call me harsh in saying that if you like, but I;m willing to put money down on this one.

You constantly rubbish car magazines, yet they singularly are more often correct than you are, and lets be honest most certainly have a much better relationship with manufacturers than you do.

You slag off Autocar, but I'm guessing when Lee Noble has his next car ready its Autocar (once again) that will get to drive it first and not you. When Renaultsport wanted some input into tuning the Megane R26 I don't recall you saying they gave you a quick shout to give it a hand, nope that was Evo.

Hell you know so much I look forward to seeing you ousting that imbecile Clarkson and fronting the next series of Top Gear, no need for that Stig bloke either, after all I'm sure you can get it done far better than he can.


You may be able to tell that I'm not amused by your latest nonsense, mainly because I am feed-up of having to go down this route again. We (as in the entire staff) have lost count of the number of time syou have posted unsupported and unsourced opinion as if it was fact.

No more - do it again and you are gone.


Scaff

 

[Tornado]

In other news, the Audi S4 will have the supercharged 3.0L V6. So, there is that.

 

[Pupik]

As far as I was aware, information on forums is in the public domain, therefore it's not "stealing" when the information is re-used.

Absolutely not: In short, as long as something is not copied-word-for-word, it is the creator of the work that retains the rights to it. You are permitting (and thus, giving up the rights to) transmission, storage, and re-distribution when you contribute anything to our forums (and likely all other forums), which does not permit copying or stealing, or creating derivative works out of it without the expressed permission of the creator of the work, unless the work in question is already a public-domain work, or copyright has expired.

Since a lot of information of the web is "neglecting" the laws and permissions of copyrights (or sharing rights), it is only fair to provide a source, so that it can be verified and attributed as necessary. Otherwise, offending information can result in punishment and/or removal in accordance to our Acceptable Use Policy.

» The GTPlanet Forums are not public domain and membership can be withdrawn by the board owner at any time for any reason. The moderators reserve the right to refuse or delete any message for any reason.

...

At all times, you remain solely responsible for anything found within your posts and agree to indemnify and hold gtplanet.net and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of any material you submit, post to or transmit through the Forums, your use of the Forums, your connection to the Forums, your violation of the AUP, legal notice, or privacy policy, or your violation of the rights of another.

Sadly, this means we can't copy Poverty/forza2.0's posts outside of GTPlanet, since he owns the copyright to his creations. So you'd better tell him in advance, upon the next time you feel like re-distributing his works of juvenile fiction.

And to steer the ship back:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/album.php?albumid=12&pictureid=66

 

[buickgnx88]

Pupik: Along those lines, it's funny to go to search for GT5 car list, and find all the forums that think that GTPlanet's car wishlist was actually released by PD! It is just sad that people believe that. Could sites get in trouble for posting it?

 

[Simplex 4100U]

Not to mention that a Lambo will look better and carry high "prestige" in the automotive world due to the brand name. Plus you can probably score with hotter chicks if you have a Lambo.

true, but... lambos tend to set you back a few hundred thousand more, right? and anyway, the R8's got a V8, and in a supercar, that's not half bad considering the only other companies that do that is MB and Aston Martin(no, the Corvette does NOT count as an exotic/supercar... which, by the way, does it still have a V8 option?).also, about the "hotter chicks" thing, you can score hot chicks in ANYTHING. hell, i have 3 friends with uber-expensive cars:

1 has a Rolls Phantom, another has a Lambo Gallardo LP-560-4, and the last has a Nissan GT-R. who scores the most chicks? here they are in order:
1)Phantom 2)GT-R 3)LP-560-4

looks like the Rolls is a better bet

 

[JohnBM01]

Are we boiling things down to scoring with girls now? The Audi R8 isn't a blow-you-away supercar, but it's a very capable automobile that's seen as a supercar bargain. I don't think it's a Triple-A car in the ranks of the Bugatti Veyron or anything. Hell, if you had the money and time, you could probably take the Audi R8 and compete in a track day or Time Attack (and smoke everybody).

Here's a question I have... which would you take: the R8 road car, or the new GT-R? The GT-R is about 30K less and perhaps heavier. If you put these two in a one-on-one in a variety of performance tests, which car would be better?

 

[Dave A]

I'm pretty certain that the GT-R is faster than the R8 in pretty much every way on a track.

 

[Kent]

Bruno Senna just did that test recently. Let me see if I can find it...

My mistake... It's a GTR v. a 911 Turbo.
However, since we know the R8 nearly perfectly matches the Carrera 4 S, I'd say it's say to say the GTR owns the R8 in outright performance (though both cars are still so fast it makes cars like us normal people drive seem puny) (ok, maybe not you but at least for me and my Corolla ).

Non the less, here's the videos needed to make the above assumptions...

R8 v. Carrera 4S (Needel v. Plato)


GTR v. 911 Turbo (Bruno Senna)


Both are good. 👍

 

[niky]

Just watched that test... Bruno was all praises for the GT-R's responsiveness, though he did note instances and corners where the 911 was sharper. Of course, it's nothing we didn't know already from previous tests of the GT-R versus the 911 Turbo and R8... it's faster than either car in most places... the 911 Turbo can still pip it in a drag race... but the Porsche GT2 is the more obvious comparison for the GT-R now... since the GT2 is currently the fastest Porsche 911 available.

Of course, this is the R8 thread... not the R8 versus GT-R thread. There's a very clear divide in purchase considerations between the two.

The GT-R's appeal is technology and speed. The R8, on the other hand, is a naturally aspirated, mid-engined exotic with a plush interior and an eye-catching exterior. I can safely say that if someone has their eye on the R8, they're not looking at the GT-R, and vice versa. If they do, they're buying both.

 

[JohnBM01]

I didn't know the R8 is normally-aspirated...

 

[Scaff]

Saw an R8 at the Rallyday at Castle Combe a few weekends ago, it does look nice, but I must confess not as nice as what it was next to.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

Yeah, the Audi Quattro kind of makes anything else in frame moot.

 

[Danny]

I don't get the idolisation of it. It's hideous.

 

[buickgnx88]

Wait which Audi?

 

[Dave A]

I don't get the idolisation of it. It's hideous.

It is but it's the kind of hideous that's great, it's so functional and purposful it's beautiful if you get what I mean. When i was watching rallying as a kid these things had just been killed off because they killed people, they were' a lot quicker than what they we're replaced with and most Group B cars in the final years became iconic.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't get the idolisation of it. It's hideous.

Same here. Especially as many people complain about the winglets and such on modern day F1 cars.

 

[Hugo Boss]

I don't get the idolisation of it. It's hideous.

I assume you never heard one in real life?

It's not a pretty car no. Only everytime I see just a picture of it, one of the best car sounds ever instantly comes to mind. No other car gives me the shivers like this. This combined with the monstruous looks, makes it the most impressive car I've ever seen. That explains the idolisation for me.

 

[Scaff]

I don't get the idolisation of it. It's hideous.

Ah I didn't say the Quattro was pretty (because its not), it has a functional appeal to it in the looks department, but that's about it.

However that's not what makes it the nicer car for me; I grew up on rallying an that car represents the distillation of Group B, an era that will never be repeated in the WRC.

My logic is quite simply, if offered the chance to drive only one of those two cars I know exactly which one I would take in a heartbeat. No hesitation at all, and it wouldn't be the R8 (and that's not to say I don't like the R8 - I do).

Besides to hear a quattro running at full tilt is a sound that will make you fall in love with it, regardless of the looks.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Metar]

I'll be the first to appreciate function over form, but the Audi is definitely my least favourite... I love the look of Group B cars, but the quattro is perhaps the ugliest - though rather sexy in stock form, the "rally'ed-up" version looses any sort of resemblance to the attractive original car, and becomes a box with more boxes with holes in them. The Renault 5, Peugeot 205 and the range of Lancias are what I'd call attractive in both forms - but I can't stand the Audi quattro's rally version, simply because it's "just function" without any sort of form, and that function-dictated form is now antiquated and inefficient. It's like post-'70s American Stock Cars, without stickers.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I must say I too like the Quattro better than the R8, but not for looks! Allthough the R8 "R16" could give the group B car match...

Still, speaking of ugly, the Quattro was even more hideous in its Pikes Peak guise:

Oh, and for those who haven´t seen the GT3 R8:

 

[homeforsummer]

I have to say, I think the Quattro is hideous too, but when I think of it one thing always, always comes to mind:



For this video, it will always be an epic car. It's not just the distillation of Group B, it's the distillation of rallying, summed up in two and a bit minutes of footage.

And the footwork in this video always leaves me awestruck.

 

[Jim Prower]

Unfortunately, the chances of any of us getting an authentic S2 are worse than the chances of any of us getting an R8. slimmer than a strand of human hair.