Fifth Ring

The Audi (ZF) tiptronic transmissions are very vulnerable, even when run stock. Not only are the AMG trannies strong, but they also have much better shift software than the Audi.

The ZF unit in the S4/A6 comes in a couple of forms. The A6 4.2 had an upgraded one, but the rest had a weaker one. It was/is definitely the weak spot in those cars.

Fifth Ring

The Audi (ZF) tiptronic transmissions are very vulnerable, even when run stock. Not only are the AMG trannies strong, but they also have much better shift software than the Audi.

The ZF unit in the S4/A6 comes in a couple of forms. The A6 4.2 had an upgraded one, but the rest had a weaker one. It was/is definitely the weak spot in those cars.

PS: I would not assume that all 5 speeds used in AMGs are the same model transmission, unless you can confirm it via part numbers or engineering.

MgnFicnT

Any E55 any RS6 ANYTIME E55<RS6

EvilllEmpirE

interesting.....but there is something wrong with his clutch then (prob toast) beccause the AWD is a total "unfair advantage" vs rwd car like C32/55 and M3's. An Audi S4 with quattro with a "competent" driver, should EASILY get out AT LEAST 1-2 carlengths ahead on a Launch vs any C32/C55 or M3. This is a fact, unless the driver CANNOT drive for his life, or his clutch is majorly slipping and does not hold a launch. Nice vids...but there is something wrong (either driver or clutch) with your friends S4. What rpm is he dropping at? Best way to launch is not to "dump" the clutch, but to either slip into it, or a "quick" (but not "drop) stab off at around 3500 pms on the upswing. Anything other than that, the stock clutch (i assume) will not grab/hold. A Biturbo V6 S4 with a chip and crappy driver will do a 1.9 60 ft...a good driver will get a 1.6-1.7 60' foot as far as starts go in the 1/4 mile. Get you buddy to replace that clutch

Carl Lassiter

Could you explain this post please, By the looks of it you''ve said the RS6 is faster, just checking that was yoour intent.

Anways just to clarify- Stock 55k is quicker than stock RS6 in dry, RS6 is quicker in wet. "Anytime" couldn't be further from the truth.

Well modified RS6 is quicker than a stock E55 in all conditions.

Before AMGers jump on me I am merely highlighting the folly of saying "any" E55 is quicker than any RS6. I realise k2 55k are total beasts. Don't forget the w210(i think) was a 347hp E55 too and NOT quicker than the RS6 in ANY situation.

Andras

OT
anybody knows the reason why new RS4 is a 420hp from a naturally aspirated, high revving 4,3 liters engine?
from my personal point of view S/RS from Audis were what they were because of turbocharging, going naturally aspirated means no monster gain from ECU tuning
It must take some hard tuning to get 500hp out of that car
Of course it's doable, but with let's say a 3.something liter engine with a couple of serious (Audi style) turbochargers it would have been a lot easier to hit 500hp mark IMHO

EvilllEmpirE

cuz Audi f*cked up srsly though...there is alot of speculation why they went N/A V8 and turned off alot of the RS/S car followers. It really should of gotten the TT V8 from the RS6 or perhaps like you said...a 3.2 Liter TT V6/ But who really knows? Oh wells.....

AFbb2001

The V8's in the S4's are the main reason why I am looking at the C32 instead of a B6 or B7 S4. IMO it was not a smart move. They could have at least come out with a model like the BMW 335i where they use their turbo smarts and give us a great car priced under the S4 but with modding ability to take it above the S4 and RS4 if we chose to do so.

FrankW

but they did gain some buyer from the BMW crowd that wants high revving NA V8 as well.

Andras

Audi got the edge with big hp out of a couple of angry turbochargers.
All the rest is marketing.
And marketing doesn't help when it comes to racing........