Thank you for the offer but I am not in CA. I do like the e55 it has its pros and cons like any car. If you get a chance send me some pics of you car. I love the way the rs4 looks. You get brakes, oil changes and pretty much anything else that may go out or need to be changed as part of the warranty with audi right? Enjoy and if you do modd it let me know how it goes. My wife wants to add the dinan supercharger package to her car which makes 425hp in that little thing so I am sure you can relate with the rs4.

 

everyone buys a certain car for their own reasons.... personally, I bought the E55 because it's crazy fast... I like being in a comfortable everyday car that has no problem giving the beat down to vettes, cobra mustangs, Ferrari's, Porsches and pretty much what ever else rolls up.... is it the best handling car? nope, if I want handling and speed, or if I'm going to an autocross or roadrace, I'll take the Viper....

RE: the RS-4, for me, even at 106 - 109 MPH traps, it's still not going cut it against a lot of cars during an everyday encounter.....

BTW, since we haven't see a real world RS-4 run yet and we're going by magazine reports, I've seen C55 trap speeds from 106 - 108MPH reported... no one else thinks it would be close on the highway?? isn't the RS4 400+ pounds heavier?

SteveL, so when will you run the SLK32 vs the RS-4...??

 

Very interesting point. I just looked up some 1/4mile times and trap speeds from C&D, R&T, and MotorTrend for the C55. You're right that the C55's 1/4 mile speeds are in the range of 106-108mph, but the C55 takes around 13.3-13.5 seconds to reach the 1/4mile. The RS4 may have a similar trap speed, but it gets to the 1/4mile in 12.x seconds.

 

I think it would be pretty close between a C55 and an RS4 from a roll. It would be interesting to see.

I'll have to wait till I break the car in and then I'll give it a go. I think my SLK will kill it from a roll. Same hp or even more on the SLK plus it is 700 lbs lighter and less loss through the driveline. The RS4 weighs 3920 lbs. I've run my SLK to 165 on an slight incline and it was still accelerating pretty well and it didn't long to get there. The gearing will be different, 5 speed auto vs 6 speed manual but over 100 mph I don't think it would matter much. Of course I think my SLK would kill a C55 just as easily unless someone added a supercharger to it.

 

Other than the Motor Trend test where I really think it is either a driver error or a misprint, most magazines have the RS4 trapping at least in the same range or higher so I think it would at least be pretty close. We've seen an RS4 pulling on an M3 and it is pretty close between an M3 and a C55.

 

I wanna hear the RS4 exhaust note if you can record it...

now that PC posted the edmund test...I'm confused. In the same article the CTS-V trapped 109 @ 13.4 sec. However in the acceleration test from 0-30 all the way to 0-100 it does seem the gap is decreasing from 0.5 second down to 0.3 second between the RS4 and the CTS-V.

Found the time from C&D when they did the M3, C55, and RS4 test. The RS4 number were estimated of course, but we can compare it with the R&T time which does seem logical from what they estimated vs R&T other than the trap speed. I'll say the R&T may have a mis-print by 3-4mph, but nothing more. and didn't know the RS4 weight 3967lbs before I read the thing.

RS4 / M3 / C55
0-60mph 4.8 / 4.8 / 4.7
0-120mph 16.6 / 17.7 / 16.7
1/4 mile 13.3@105 / 13.6@105 / 13.3@108

 

I can record it but I'm not sure how great it will sound with my camera. However, I'll give it a shot. Maybe a video too with it taking off.

I bet the C&D number will be better than estimates. C&D almost always runs fast times in my experience. They were the only magazine to publish a 4.5 0-60 and 13 flat 1/4 for the SLK32 back in 2001. One magazine reported 4.3 for the RS4 so I'd be surprised it it wasn't in the vacinity as well as trap near 108-110. I don't know why they haven't test the car already. Waiting for the V8 M3 doesn't seem plausible because it will be a while.

 

new motor trend

RS4 vs. C4S 997

RS4 did the 1/4 in 12.8 @ 108.x i think... maybe 109... i forget

Thats more like it!!

 

Edmunds main RS4 test page:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=115689
Performance data:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...9/pageId=98163
0 - 30 (sec): 1.7
0 - 45 (sec): 3.1
0 - 60 (sec): 4.7
0 - 75 (sec): 6.8 (note that 75 mph is 120 km/h)
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.2 @ 106.8

For the following: note that 100 mph = 160 km/h

Euro tests:
Test in ams 04/2006
http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/audi...ilim2006-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,1 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,6 s

Supertest in sport auto 06/2006
http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/audirs4limst2006-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,9 s

Test in sport auto 10/2005
http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/audirs4l2005-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,1 s

Test in ams Jahrbuch 2006
http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/audirs4v8lim2005-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,7 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,2 s
400 m, stehender Start 13,1 s (this is same as 1/4 mile)

Road & Track got 0-100 in 10.7 in their 12.8 @ 109.7 run, which is right in line with the others....I would think that it would trap in the 109-110 range with that horsepower, though.

 

all these probably due to 3965lbs...kind of offset all that horsepower. sigh at the weight and at everything else for the car.

Road & Track always post better times. I think they were the one that posted the C32 0-60sec in 4.77sec 1/4 mile like 13.2@107 or something and B6 S4 in 4.99sec.

 

No, Road & Track has always had SLOWER times compared to Car and Driver (who always has the FASTEST times).

It was MotorTrend that printed that lower than everyone else's time of 4.77 seconds for a C32.

 

cool, thanks for the correction.

 

According to the ML forum, pricing for the ML63 has been released. Base price is $85,500. That is a significant jump over the previous ML55, about $20K. I think it supports my previous argument that yes the RS4 is expensive but Audi is just the first to produce a 400+ hp small sedan. I bet the C63 will be a pretty healthy jump over the C55 and I don't think the base price of a V8 M3 will be anywhere near the current price of the M3. When BMW and MB come out with a comparable car to the RS4, I don't think we'll be saying that the Audi is expensive, I think we'll say that all of the high performance small luxury sedans out of Germany are expensive.

 

hmm... 85k for the new ML63..... did it say when they will be arriving? as for the price increase, the ML55 is old, and had the NA 55 motor, 350HP or so.... so it's a major jump to the 500+ HP, and it now competes with the cayenne turbo which is much more money.....

if the C63/M3 would need to pickup a 10k increase in price to be in the RS4 range.... certainly possible, but I think it will be around half that.... the RS4 is indeed ahead of the game....

 

They are saying August. I understand the competition with the Cayenne Turbo no doubt helped them set their pricing but that is a big jump.

The performance jump for the C63 will be almost as big over the C55 unless it is detuned so it is not faster than the E63. If they actually build it I bet will get more than a $5K premium over the C55. And unfortunately, Audi helped them set the price target... in the mid to high 60s base. The RS4 has a base of $66,000.

 

damn the price hike!!!...lol

 

OH the depreciation on a 70K dollar C-Class. lol

 

Frank asked for an exhaust clip. Hopefully this will work.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/f...e5b78deff6.htm

 

video's being optimized...probably cuz just uploaded.

 

Unfortunately it didn't work. It is really not a video, just an mpeg 4 audio clip. I guess streetfire couldn't handle just an audio clip. I'll be happy to email to anyone who wants it. Just PM your email address.

 

email me email me...LOL

 

All of you guys that are on your knees in front of the RS4 need to consider the price issue a little more. The C55/C32 and the M3 are A LOT less money!! If you want to talk about performance for $74k, then you have to talk about the new Z06. We all know what would happen there!! (Straight, track, or other.)
The new RS4 is a bad little sedan, but the price is WAY to much!! Plus, it's a damn Audi!!! I might buy one if I was a woman.

 

How does this compare to C55:
Car & Driver's test of C55, 11/2004:

acceleration, seconds
0-60 mph 4.7
0-100 mph 11.3
0-120 mph 16.7
1/4-mile @ mph 13.3 @ 108
rolling 5-60 mph 4.9

See how much the AWD car loses once you take its AWD launch advantage away? Benz does rolling-start 5-60 a half second faster than the RS4. From a roll, I'd put my money on the C55. From a start, driver's race, with advantage to RS4 if properly driven (meaning the Benz should win most of the time, because most drivers aren't that good! )

 

I am very surprised by the relatively slow numbers of the RS4 from the Car and Driver test. That 5.4 second rolling 5-60mph time is the most surprising (when the C55 can do it in 4.9 seconds). A 0-60mph time of 4.6 seconds and 1/4 mile time of 13.2 seconds are also disappointments.

On the up side, it posted a very good skidpad number of 0.91g.

Perhaps the RS4 that Car and Driver tested was a "slower" one than the average RS4??

 

The RS4 was never meant to be a straight away car. It's a Quattro for a reason, and that's for the amazing handling and grip you receive from it. Try taking an E55 through turns as fast as you would a RS4. I guarrantee you the results won't be impressive...