Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant - Page 2

Merc1 · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-07-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumbo

Then you also have to note that Quattro puts lots of extra weights. And I don't think Audis goal with the the RS6 Avant was to built a performer such as R8 or the RS4. The RS6 is an autobahn racer. And with it's weights over 2 tons, it performs more than well.

Ok you don't get it so lets move on.

M

Tumbo · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-07-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potential

A brutal looking relic indeed! Love the look of this car. Looks very special indeed.

Yupp it does. I've never been a fan of the front, but these pics are the best so far on the monster.

The black rails, mirrors, grille, and that amazing color (best color for a car, if u ask me), makes it look amazing!!

Btw, I wonder why there has not been any test of R8 vs RS6 Avant so far.

What I would do to be apart of this day...

Tumbo · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-07-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1

Ok you don't get it so lets move on.
M

Right..I don't get it. I'm dumb and your smart.

Tarek · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-07-2008, 09:22 AM

Does Audi intend to release the RS6 sedan when the all new E AMG comes out?

bmer · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-08-2008, 07:41 AM

I saw a silver one some time ago. Otherwise it's a good-looking car like the regular A6 Avant but the LEDs below the front lights look terrible.

In the A5/S5, R8 and even the A4 the curved LED-strip works really well but on the RS6 it's plain straight and ends up looking cheap.

Merc1 · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-08-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumbo

Right..I don't get it. I'm dumb and your smart.

No it goes, "you're smart" not "your smart".

M

Poverty · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-09-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1

For a car to have an 80hp advantage and way more torque, the RS6 Avant's numbers are no where near where they should be compared to the E63 and M5 wagons. If a Mercedes or BMW has an 80hp + torque advantage over a competing car, they'll roast it everytime. The Audi doesn't. AWD system, too heavy, I dunno, but for 580hp it doesn't kill the class like it should.

M

the more power audi gave the car, the more heavy duty the drivtrain has to be and hence it would be heavier slowing the car, so it comes to a point where for each 10 hp for example audi added over lets say 500hp only 5 of those dont get wasted due to the transmission losses and the drivetrain weight increase for it to cope with the power reliably. Basically audi engineers were in a way fighting a loosing battle when it comes to such great power, with a AWD package and such a big vehicle. Nevertheless they did well.

Sunny · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-09-2008, 08:05 AM

Hmmm, so let me get this straight. RS6 with some 80 additional HP is faster than both M5 and E63 both in a straight line and around a track (at least according to the 2 tests I saw). But it is a disappointment cause it is not as fast as the 80 HP would lead you to believe. Probably mostly cause of its weight.

C63 has 40HP advantage over M3 and is faster in a straight line but slower around a track (by huge gap in some tests, not so huge gap in other tests). Again probably mostly cause of it's weight. With RS6 you at least get AWD for all that weight - which has it's advantages. So I wonder which one is a bigger disappointment?

No, my contention is not that C63 is a disappointment, but neither is RS6. It does its role well especially as a wagon. If it is a disappointment it is for not being as fun as it's little brother RS4 and not cause of numbers.

Storebrand · **Re: Driven: 2009 Audi RS 6 Avant -** 08-10-2008, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny

Hmmm, so let me get this straight. RS6 with some 80 additional HP is faster than both M5 and E63 both in a straight line and around a track (at least according to the 2 tests I saw). But it is a disappointment cause it is not as fast as the 80 HP would lead you to believe. Probably mostly cause of its weight.

C63 has 40HP advantage over M3 and is faster in a straight line but slower around a track (by huge gap in some tests, not so huge gap in other tests). Again probably mostly cause of it's weight. With RS6 you at least get AWD for all that weight - which has it's advantages. So I wonder which one is a bigger disappointment?

No, my contention is not that C63 is a disappointment, but neither is RS6. It does its role well especially as a wagon. If it is a disappointment it is for not being as fun as it's little brother RS4 and not cause of numbers.

Thanks for putting the whole "RS6 is a dissappointment" sillyness to bed. I loved the comparison you drew to further your point between the C63 and the M3, good job!!