Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2008 Audi A5/S5 First Look and Full Test

j0mammaj0mamma Posts: 26
edited March 16 in Audi
Oh my, did a Hyndai Tiburon and a G35 have a kid? :P


  • audilaw16audilaw16 Posts: 1
    Absolutely stunning car.
  • laurenzilaurenzi Posts: 2
    It looks great I will be buying one as soon as it gets on the market. :D
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,282
    you'll get my eternal gratitude :)
  • sturglsturgl Posts: 5
    What does "four-wheel-drive-style drivetrain windup" mean? Whatever it is, it's listed as a criticism - but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. At different points in the article, the S5 is reported as making 349 and 354hp. Which is it? Finally, the vehicle is reported as weighing 3,807 lbs in the article, and 3,594 in the specs & performance section. Just looking for a bit of clarity... thanks.
  • ...are done on Earth. The weight diff might reflect a "dry" car without driver or gas (Audi specs) while the 3,807 might be the car ready to rock & roll.

    Sure wish that we NA chumps would be getting the diesel engine option this winter.
  • fixxxerfixxxer Posts: 11
    How can the S5 get from 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with only 354 horsepower, when the 420hp M3 gets there in 4.8? I figure the RS4 weighs more because of the extra doors, but isn't the M3 supposed to be light weight? I don't understand what all the extra bmw horsepower is doing? And it almost makes the S5 make alot more sense, it looks a damn sight sexier
  • sturglsturgl Posts: 5
    I think that torque has a bit more to do with 0-60 times (especially acceleration at lower speeds) than horsepower. While the bimmer has the advantage in horsepower, it "only" generates 295 lb-ft of torque, where the S5 generates 325. What's more is that 4.8 time is for 0-100 kmph (0-62 mph). The Audi's published time for 0-62 mph is 5.1 seconds. So, apples to apples, the bimmer has a 0.3 second advantage - not merely 0.1. This makes sense, given that it's substantially lighter and more powerful - even with the bimmer's torque disadvantage.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    I think it's all the more impressive the S5 is Quattro as well and still manages to get there in 4.9 - 5.1 seconds.

    Torque is a big factor as mentioned. I'd rather give up a few tenths to have an all around better driving experience. A car isn't all about 0-60 numbers, but the overall torque curve of the motor and how it drives around town.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    fixxer -

    Are you comparing the actual numbers Edmunds obtained for the S5 in their road test with the numbers that BMW has published?

    Setting aside the “looks” comment, my first ** GUESS ** is that any acceleration advantage the S5 might enjoy could be attributed to the initial bite of AWD - helping the S5 in the 0 – 60 time.

    And in C+D’s published test ( on a less than optimal surface ) their 0 – 60 time was 4.4 seconds. Substantially quicker than 4.8. And the C+D Quarter mile result of
    12.9 @ 111 comfortably beats the S5’s numbers, as compared to Edmunds =
    13.3 @ 104.6.

    At this performance level, 4 tenths quicker ( in both 0 – 60 and the Quarter Mile ET ) and over 6 MPH faster in speed through the traps, are rather significant differences.

    Edmunds S5: Curb Weight (lbs): 3594
    3807 = test weight?
    C+D “. . .considering its claimed 3650-pound heft.”

    Weight may be pretty close.

    - Ray
    Waiting for a few more actual, independent M3 tests & S5 tests for a valid comparison . . .
  • fixxxerfixxxer Posts: 11

    Ahh, alright. I was just caught off guard by the numbers. Sure 354 is plenty of horsepower, but 414 should be able to best it easily. I guess its just the inconsistency inherent in real world testing. Anyway thanks again

  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    I see I left 1 critical "word" out of my post...
    The C+D test numbers are for the new M3.
    The numbers show that the 414 HP M3 ( RWD ) is quicker than the Edmunds S5 test numbers....
    - Ray
    Sorry for any confusion....
  • sturglsturgl Posts: 5
    I agree that the Audi's awd may help a bit at launch. How many (powerful) vehicles will yield their best launch by just dumping the clutch at 4500 rpm? Doing that with an M3 would probably just smoke the tires. That said, the C&D numbers for the M3 make quite a bit more sense than the ones publicized by BMW - who seem to wax quite conservative in their numbers anyway.

    So this is somewhat off-topic, but something I just don't get: the S5 has 3594 lbs of curb weight. The M3 has a 3649 weight - I assume we're talking curb weight here. The S5's AWD drivetrain should add a good chunk of weight, relative to the M3's RWD drivetrain. The M3 has a motor that's supposedly 30 lbs lighter than its predecessor. It has a carbon fiber roof. Yet it's over 200 lbs heavier than the previous M3, and may be heavier than the AWD S5? This just isn't adding up for me. Perhaps BMW has overstated the new M3's curb weight?
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,476
    “Perhaps BMW has overstated the new M3's curb weight?”

    I think so, kinda sorta. . . Or perhaps C+D is a bit confused here.

    The press release from BMW that I saw ( and saved ) for the M3 says:

    Weight, unladen, to EU footnote 1 : 1641 KG [ = approx. 3641 pounds. ]

    Footnote reads: Weight of car in road trim (DIN) plus 75 kg for driver and luggage.
    [ so - 75 kg = 165 pounds less = actual curb weight of 3476 for the M3 ]

    And – Edmunds ** MAY ** have published both a correct & an incorrect ‘curb weight’ for the S5 – since MT quoted a curb weight of an S4 V8 at 3825 some time back, C+D reported 3876 in November 2004, says “Unladenweight” = 3869 currently, and Edmunds S4 test states the curb weight is over 3900, I’d guess that the weight included in the text portion of Edmunds test may actually be the correct number for the S5: 3807. And not the 3594 listed in Edmunds data panel.

    To me, 3476 vs 3807 ( 331 pounds ) is a non-trivial difference in weight.

    Here I will also add this: If I was really interested in either of these cars & these aspects are of critical importance, I’d wait to see if 1 or more published comparisons was published this Fall. I’d ** MUCH ** prefer to compare acceleration numbers obtained by the same driver, on the same day on the same track.

    - Ray
    awaiting additional information of the automatic trans. version of each . . .
  • rydameerydamee Posts: 1
    why are there comparisons w/the s5 and m3? the 3 series competes with the a4 series, not the a5. heck, there are magazines testing the next generation m3 vs. the old rs4, right now. bimmer knows its days are numbered. the next generation rs4 will bring the competition to its knees. give me a break. you only get close comparo numbers on a perfect clear sunny day. real world testing where the pavement is not always dry and smooth will reveal the true winner. audi has the trickle down effect of winning technology from le mans planted firmly in the production line. bimmer is still lying to the public, its slogan should be "the ultimate driving machine when the road is dry". 0-62mph means nothing at le mans. winning it means everything.
  • sturglsturgl Posts: 5
    I think the answer is: why not? Besides, the A5 is the coupe variant of the A4 (albeit on a new platform) - so it makes some sense to compare the 3-series coupes with the A5/S5. And sure, everyone knows that Audi's closest competition to the M3 is the RS4. Some argue that it is superior, even though it's riding on an older platform, grapples with AWD, and has four doors. Amazingly, it's lighter than the new M3 - and it has the added weight of Quattro - plus those extra doors. The RS4 seems to be the first vehicle where Audi has taken their all-weather drivetrain, and leveraged it into a serious performance advantage. It is simply impressive that the S5 - a vehicle that should be an inferior performer to the M3 seems to hold its own just fine. If that's the case, the upcoming RS5 will eat it for lunch.
  • bobp7bobp7 Posts: 41
    Stopped by an Audi dealer today and saw the S5 in 3 dimensions for the 1st time. In a word; striking!
    The pics don't get the details that make this car special. Very agressive front end, subtle wheel arches and a little interest below the C pillar just sets the car off beautifully in my eyes.
    I am torn between this and the 335xi coupe. Seeing the S5 didn't resolve anything!!! While it costs a few grand more and gets 10 mpg less I liked what I saw to much to dismiss it...
  • rjlaerorjlaero Posts: 659
    You have to see the S5 in person. As others have said, the pictures don't do it justice.

    This car is really low and wide. It's over 3 inches wider from the center of the front wheels compared to a 3 series.

    It's even wider than the 6 series BMW coupe in that same respect.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 2,487
    It appears my local Porsche/Audi dealer has their first S5 on the lot. Driving by (will stop in soon or wait for New England Auto Show next month) and gazing, it does appear to look much lower, wider, sleeker and more curvaceous than it does in pix.

    Wow. I want one.

    '13 Jaguar XF, '11 BMW 535xi, '02 Lexus RX300

  • manybmwsmanybmws Posts: 347
    Sweet ride and I agree that it looks more impressive in person than a BMW 650. The steering is much lighter at low speeds compared to the 650 though and it would be nice to have more heft in the S5's steering feel.

    But it does drive beautifully. Before you know it your doing 100 MPH. The ride feels planted like a Beemer. The shift lever throws are a bit long for my taste but I would be more interested in owning a automatic tranny which will not be out for 6 months.

    Mileage seems to be below par especially when compared to a 650.

    Front seats and seating position are in one word - Excellent. Back seats are pretty much not usable except for short trips - like a 911.

    So for $55K you get a lot of car even when compared to a $75K 650 coupe. Faster by maybe .5 second 0-60. And for $20K you can buy a lot of gas. I am guessing the A5 3.2 will be in the mid-40s and still do 0-60 in the low 6s. Still pretty good for a 4-wheel driver - coming in second to a 335xi - not bad.

    You will not believe the presence this car has in person - it is a truly legendary design that will endure...
This discussion has been closed.