Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Audi RS4

245

Comments

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Look at my previous post that I did about one minute ago

    ;)
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    The Cabriolet especially is a bargain next to the CLK55 AMG Convertible, which is $82,000, and not as fast.

    A few months after the RS4 Cabrio goes on sale the 480hp CLK63 AMG Cabrio will also go on sale so that won't be the situation for long.

    M
  • mantenamantena Member Posts: 2
    Thats not what i herd. I just spoke to a dealership in NYC and they told be price starts in 70's and goes to 80,000. They also said that it will be here in fall of this year. what r u guys hearing.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Mercedes tries too hard.

    Besides, just because it won't be as fast, it will be a much better deal. The RS4 is mid-60s. The CLK63 will be over $100K (my prediction), seeing how confident Mercedes-Benz is in their over pricing strategy.

    :surprise:
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    No way a CLK63 will be over 100K. The current CLK55 Cabrio is like 83K, the CLK63 will be like 5K more, not 17K more.

    Mercedes is trying to hard because they let AMG design their own engine and they want to show it off? Ok. Audi is doing the same exact thing with a RS4 Cabriolet.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Mercedes tries too hard to make their cars more powerful- they just keep making their engines bigger and bigger.

    On the contrary, for the "S"/"RS" cars (and normal V8s), Audi has been using the same 4.2 V8 for years. So far, it has gone up from 298 to 450hp (first A8 all the way to '03 RS6).

    BMW doesn't use the same engines every time, but they're better than Mercedes at efficiency.

    ;)
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Another thing...

    By the way, I didn't say the CLK63 was the RS4 Cabriolet's competitor ( :P ).

    I said the CLK55 was overpriced, not the 63, but that will be too. I'm sure it will be at least $10K in difference. Think about it- for a 100hp difference, Mercedes always adds at least $10,000 to the sticker. I'm going to say it's in the mid-90s, which will, in turn, make the SL500 look overpriced (hahahah!).

    ;)
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Well Mercedes didn't just make the same engine bigger for the CLK63 AMG, its a totally new, unrelated to any other MB designed engine.

    The outgoing 5.5L V8 in the CLK55 has been around for years and has been supercharged in some cars and in naturally aspirated form it has been tweaked for years since the last generation CLK55 and 1999 E55 so your point really isn't valid. Unlike Audi, Mercedes is debuting a new engine, like BMW did with the new M5.

    Now I'm not knocking Audi for keeping the same basic 4.2L V8, its a wonderful engine, but you seem to be reaching for something or anything just to knock Mercedes on. Some could say that it is time for Audi to do a new engine.

    You implied the CLK55 Cabrio was a "bad deal" compared to the upcoming RS4 Cabrio because it was more expensive and slower, but now since the CLK63 Cabrio will take care of the speed issue the CLK63 Cabrio is no longer a competitor to the RS4 Cabrio. That is a cop out. The RS4 Cabrio will be a very expensive A4 Cabriolet and their best performing, just like the CLK63 Cabriolet will represent the best performing CLK Cabriolet. Of course they're competitors, and the price of the CLK63 I seriously doubt will go up 10K over the CLK55 Cabriolet.

    The SL550 (500 is gone) is a roadster and the CLK is a 4-seat cabriolet, different markets and both of them have been on market for years and years together without a problem.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    First of all, I'm almost one hundred percent sure that it WILL go up at least $10K. Mercedes lives on their name, and they, oddly, can get away with making their cars extremely expensive. (they have good engineering and all, but they thrive on the Mercedes-Benz name)

    Secondly, the 4.2 liter engine is not a bad engine, and it is not due to be replaced. That is the beauty of Audi (besides quattro)- they can keep an engine and keep making it better for decades. The 4.2 V8 has been here for 11 years and has gone up 154 horsepower since the first A8. FSI, turbocharging and multi-valve technologies have all made the engine that much better.

    I know that the SL and CLK are completely different cars, but do you not think that a highly-powerful AMG four-seat cabriolet (for the whole family) would be more appealing than a two-seat roadster, with 100 less horsepower, for the same price?

    Also, the CLK63 will still look like a bad deal. $40,000 more than a car with 50 less horsepower? In the same class? Who would buy it over the RS4, even an M3 Convertible, which is still a top player with its "lowly" 333hp?!

    I repeat: Mercedes-Benz tries too hard, but still, not hard enough.

    :lemon:
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    First of all, I'm almost one hundred percent sure that it WILL go up at least $10K. Mercedes lives on their name, and they, oddly, can get away with making their cars extremely expensive. (they have good engineering and all, but they thrive on the Mercedes-Benz name)

    I don't see it happening, but we'll know in a few months.

    Secondly, the 4.2 liter engine is not a bad engine, and it is not due to be replaced. That is the beauty of Audi (besides quattro)- they can keep an engine and keep making it better for decades. The 4.2 V8 has been here for 11 years and has gone up 154 horsepower since the first A8. FSI, turbocharging and multi-valve technologies have all made the engine that much better.

    I agree, but I didn't knock Audi's 4.2L V8 in the first place. However one could just as easily say that it is time for them to come up with something new like everyone else has done.

    I know that the SL and CLK are completely different cars, but do you not think that a highly-powerful AMG four-seat cabriolet (for the whole family) would be more appealing than a two-seat roadster, with 100 less horsepower, for the same price?

    Do you not see where this market relationship has existed between the SL and CLK for years and years and it hasn't mattered? They are two different markets, that ends all the guesswork about what appeals to whom the most. People that don't want 4-seats buy the SL and those who do buy the CLK Cabrio. The CLK and SL aren't going to be the "same" price anyway.

    Also, the CLK63 will still look like a bad deal. $40,000 more than a car with 50 less horsepower? In the same class? Who would buy it over the RS4, even an M3 Convertible, which is still a top player with its "lowly" 333hp?!

    Not sure what you're talking about here. Either the CLK63 and RS4 are in the same category or they aren't. You stated in an earlier post that they weren't, so???? The RS4 Cabrio, M3 Cabrio and CLK63 Cabrio are as different as they are alike, and I think you know this. 50 less hp???
    I assume you know what the price of the RS4 Cabrio will be also since you seem to think you know what the price of the CLK63 Cabrio will be?

    I repeat: reaching for something that isn't there.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Do you not see where this market relationship has existed between the SL and CLK for years and years and it hasn't mattered? They are two different markets, that ends all the guesswork about what appeals to whom the most. People that don't want 4-seats buy the SL and those who do buy the CLK Cabrio. The CLK and SL aren't going to be the "same" price anyway.

    Not exactly. The CLK has never been this powerful before, and I've seen people go from CLKs to SLs, and back again. The CLK really has never had this much of an AMG tuned engine, and the SL has always been faster.

    Not sure what you're talking about here. Either the CLK63 and RS4 are in the same category or they aren't. You stated in an earlier post that they weren't, so???? The RS4 Cabrio, M3 Cabrio and CLK63 Cabrio are as different as they are alike, and I think you know this. 50 less hp???
    I assume you know what the price of the RS4 Cabrio will be also since you seem to think you know what the price of the CLK63 Cabrio will be?


    I never said that the RS4 Cabriolet and the CLK63 AMG were in a different class. I merely stated that I didn't compare the RS4 Cabriolet to the CLK63, I compared it to the CLK55 Convertible. The RS4 Cabriolet will be about $66,000, and I've heard that it will not even be sold in America, but if it is, that's the price. (It will be less here than in Britain)
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Not exactly. The CLK has never been this powerful before, and I've seen people go from CLKs to SLs, and back again. The CLK really has never had this much of an AMG tuned engine, and the SL has always been faster.

    It isn't going to matter because the CLK63 AMG will be a rare model compared to the "regular" SL550. The outgoing CLK55 Cabrio is more powerful than the SL500 and it hasn't mattered in the least. Buyers switching from one Mercedes to another is what they call all good.

    CLK63 Cabrio, CLK55 Cabrio same car so if the CLK55 was in the same class then the CLK63 will be also. I don't think you'll be able to touch a RS4 Cabrio for 66K, that is likely the price of the RS4 Sedan. RS Audis have always been hugely expensive to be Audis.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I don't think you'll be able to touch a RS4 Cabrio for 66K, that is likely the price of the RS4 Sedan. RS Audis have always been hugely expensive to be Audis.

    Actually, there has only been one RS Audi in America so far, so you really have no right to say that they "have always been hugely expensive to be Audis." The RS6 was an overpriced sedan, yes... but Audi had no super-sports-luxury experience here.

    You actually can get an RS4 Sedan for not much over $60,000, if it is a base model.

    And... it hurts me greatly to say this... but the RS4 Cabriolet may not be sold in America. Period.

    :cry:
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Actually, there has only been one RS Audi in America so far, so you really have no right to say that they "have always been hugely expensive to be Audis." The RS6 was an overpriced sedan, yes... but Audi had no super-sports-luxury experience here.

    Well actually you didn't have the "right" to say that MB will atuomatically add 10K to the CLK Cabrio because of an engine change. Like I said before for an Audi their RS models are very expensive. The RS6 was more than the M5 and E55 back in 2003. That actually happened compared to wild speculation about what MB will do with the CLK63 Cabrio. Audi's usually cost less than their MB/BMW competitors not more, that is why I can say that about their RS car(s).

    I didn't know RS4 Sedan pricing had been released.

    M
  • 3is3is Member Posts: 1
    why are people so huffed over pricing for this car in comparison to the m3? Over the years and being a loyal buyer of Audis, I've learned that people mismatched the a4/s4 vs. bmw's 3 series. first off we have the b6 1.8T 4 cylinder engine competing against bmw's 325i 2.5L i-6 engine. Granted the 4 cylinder was a turbo its still an economical designed 1.8L and we can all acknowledge that the inline 6 six a very well designed and capable engine. but when it came to hp and pricing it was 3.0 V6 vs. the 2.5L I6 engine. And the 2.7TT V6 S4 vs. BMW's 330i 3.0L V6. People can complain that the S4 was originally Audi's compact sports car to compete with the m3 but the pricing tells otherwise. I remember buying a 2002 s4 with its msrp's actually less than a similarly equiped 330xi. And the price difference between the s4 and the m3 in 2002? 13 thousand dollars. This seems to be a similar situation with the tables turned on BMW. Granted the current M3 goes for 55 thousand, it is most likely be bumped into the high sixties or even seventies. So now everyone is in a huff about audi leveling the playing field. As for quality, audi's value, the s4 has had no problems that weren't solved in a day. And with the Twin turbo system you think there would be an onslaught of faults. I just bought a 2.0T A4 with no issues as of yet. Only time will tell on the reliability of modern audis.
    The awd of the new rs4 has been drastically changed to give it a rear bias for a much greater sense of a true sports car with the assurance of awd saving ur behind. I really hope that I can afford a RS4 someday but I doubt it but I'd really like to see what BMW has to bring to the table. Also I dont think Mercedes can be ruled out anymore, they have been solidly producing better and faster cars within the last few years.
    everything is on the level now i think.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    And, once again, the RS4 Cabriolet will, not should, cost significantly less.

    Even if a competing Mercedes-Benz and Audi were the same exact price, there would be no way that the Benz had more options. A few examples:

    Audi A4 3.2 quattro- $34,490
    Mercedes-Benz C350 4Matic is too expensive, so...
    Mercedes-Benz C280 4Matic- $35,525

    Audi A6 3.2 quattro- $40,820
    Mercedes-Benz E350 4Matic is far too expensive ($11K+) : $52,550

    Audi A8L 4.2 quattro- $72,090
    2006 Mercedes-Benz S430/S500 4Matic- $77,250/$86,050

    Notice all of the money lost, all for the three-pointed star. Mercedes-Benz fails to offer better quality, reliability, luxury, customer satisfaction or performance than Audi, especially when you factor in the price. You could get a heavily-optioned E500 4Matic for the price of an A8L 4.2, which is not only bigger and much more luxurious, but more powerful!

    [Styling is subjective]

    Also, although the E350 is slightly more powerful than the A6 3.2 (15hp), I don't really think that 15hp equates to almost $12,000.

    :sick:
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I don't get you're still at this?

    Audi doesn't have any better reliablity than Mercedes, you're dreaming if you think that. Audis were crapping out long before Mercedes' more recent troubles.

    Using base prices only tells half the story. We all know an Audi has a very enticingly low base price, but they just like MB/BMW have some options that are needes to make their cars whole. No one said that MB's were cheaper or that they were bargains. Besides not everyone wants awd anyway. What use does a Benz or BMW owner for that matter have for awd in some of their biggest markets like Florida or Cali? None. Nothing but more hardware to lug around in those states.

    All of this because you made the assumption that Mercedes would automatically add 10K to the price of the current CLK55 Cabriolet when it becomes the CLK63 Cabriolet? It is time to stop reaching.

    You don't know what the RS4 Cabrio will sell for, if it is even brought here.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    ...but they just like MB/BMW have some options that are needes to make their cars whole.

    That was the whole point of my post! Audi is standard with much more than Mercedes-Benz and BMW! How can a Mercedes C230 4Matic, which even costs slightly more than an A4 3.2 quattro, be more "whole"?

    Also, because MB and BMW need MORE options on their models, they end up being around $15,000 more, fully-loaded, than a fully-loaded Audi.

    You are being totally ignorant here- I said nothing about Florida or California. For states like mine, you do need AWD, and that was why I put them as AWD.

    Besides, it would be unfair if you compared the FWD Audi to the RWD Mercedes, would it not?

    Especially if Mercedes can COME with AWD.

    :mad:
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I have something to add to my comment, merc...

    I am in no way, shape, or form saying that Audi is better than Mercedes-Benz, unlike some Audi fanboys, who are only committed to the former.

    I am open to most luxury companies, excepting Jaguar, Land Rover, Infiniti and Volvo.

    Jaguar- mediocre (except for new XK/XJ)

    Land Rover- cheaply made (LR3, Range Rover Sport), expensive to run, not practical for my family

    Infiniti- not enough refinement (interiors not even close to Audi's)

    Volvo- not enough excitement (I wouldn't step down from my S4 to an S60R)
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Honestly I don't know what the purpose of this post is?

    Did I say that a Mercedes or BMW was more "whole" than a Audi? I said that they usually require more options to make them whole. You act as though Audi's come with everything standard when in fact their low base prices are just teasers in most cases because everything German has a bunch of options, Audis are no different.

    You are being totally ignorant here- I said nothing about Florida or California. For states like mine, you do need AWD, and that was why I put them as AWD.

    Then that is your case, not everyone else's. Everyone doesn't need AWD so picking certain standard features on an Audi and harping about how their optional on a BMW/MB, when a lot of people don't require them (AWD in this case) is called reaching.

    If the majority of BMW and Mercedes customers or their biggest markets required AWD then you'd have a point, but the fact remains most BMW/MB models sold are RWD, not AWD. Nearly everyone offers AWD nowadays so Audi has lost that advantage IMO. Good thing they're good with interiors/styling because the AWD advantage is shot.

    I am in no way, shape, or form saying that Audi is better than Mercedes-Benz, unlike some Audi fanboys, who are only committed to the former.

    Could have fooled me.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Could have fooled me.

    Did I ever say that Audi was better, in any of my posts? No! I merely said that Audis are better value- much less money, more standard features.

    Sure, there are, say, an average of 15 options on audiusa.com for every model, but that's not nearly as much as a competing Mercedes-Benz or BMW.

    And no, this does not mean that the Mercedes comes with more luxuries. Look at what's standard on an A8L, next to an '06 S-Class (I don't know what's standard on the new one).

    If you think I don't like Mercedes-Benz, you are sadly mistaken. I am thinking of a new E or CLK convertible for my wife, replacing an RX330- she doesn't want another Lexus SUV, after two. We're also thinking of the new X5, Q7, GS450h.

    I just didn't see any advantage besides curb appeal in buying a CLK55 over my S4 Cabriolet, and besides, my Sprint Blue S4 has curb appeal in spades.

    The only Mercedes that I'd buy over an Audi is the E over the A6- the A6 is a marvelous car, I just don't think of it as the head of its class. (The A4 line is my favorite, oddly)
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Sure, there are, say, an average of 15 options on audiusa.com for every model, but that's not nearly as much as a competing Mercedes-Benz or BMW.

    Well that is true, if somewhat overblown. Ultimately it doesn't matter either way, all of these brands (being German) hit you with lots of options. Saying one has less than the other when they all have plenty really is pointless IMO. The king of options is Porsche, really by a Autobahn mile.

    Did I ever say that Audi was better, in any of my posts? No! I merely said that Audis are better value- much less money, more standard features.

    No, but the implication was there IMO. MB trying to hard and what not, but anyway....

    If you think I don't like Mercedes-Benz, you are sadly mistaken. I am thinking of a new E or CLK convertible for my wife, replacing an RX330- she doesn't want another Lexus SUV, after two.

    Mistaken I was then, thanks for setting me straight on your preferences.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    On a happier note, I have two relevancies to your comments. Today, looking for my wife's new car (which we won't get for a while), my son and I tested the Porsche Cayenne S, the Mercedes-Benz E350 4Matic (we ruled out the CLK- we don't need two convertibles!), and the Land Rover Range Rover Sport.

    The king of options is Porsche, really by a Autobahn mile.

    It's funny you say that- our Porsche salesman today said something just like that, and the Cayenne packet (just to give people a feel for the car) was some 130 pages long. In the testing, I was very disappointed with the Cayenne V6 (S-L-U-G-G-I-S-H), but the Cayenne S might be too much after an RX330.

    The Mercedes-Benz E350 4Matic may be just what she'd like in a sedan- upscale brand name, very luxurious interior, large trunk, excellent acceleration/handling (more for me than her :P), upscale brand name, good creature comforts, elegant style, and an upscale brand name. I was also very impressed with the car- I did not expect such good performance, and although I have not driven an E320, I have driven a 530xi, and it is easily a quicker car.

    The Range Rover Sport is basically the happy medium between the RX and the Cayenne S- an ample 300hp Jaguar V8, beautiful-for-a-Land Rover styling, Range Rover mystique in a smaller, better-looking and quicker package, high-quality and very creative interior, tons of extra goodies and compartments, and a V8 exhaust note that's not too low like the Cayenne's, and it's still low enough to sound almost as sweet as my S4.

    We will be testing the Q7 when it comes out in late April, but she'd like a more "sophisticated", or established, brand than that, and I wouldn't really want to have three Audis in the house either. However, the Q7 should be a good machine.

    Note: My wife wasn't with us today.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Well yeah the Cayenne V6 is a non-starter IMO. The Cayenne S is a must if you're going the pepper route.

    The E-Class is getting a facelift and the E350 might get a little more hp, if that matters to you.

    I really like the Range Rover Sport, my favorite SUV of the moment.

    Something tells me you'll end up with a Q7, it really is an impressive vehicle.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I already knew the E was getting a facelift... my son pointed out the updated CLK to me, and said "That's what the E is going to look like, but with four doors."

    The E550 is the new engine for it, the 350 is staying the same, I hear. 380 hp is too much! 270 is more than enough.

    The Range Rover Sport is a very tempting SUV... I think I'd take it over the Q7 for its smaller size- with only one kid left at home (only 13), I don't think we need a big SUV like that.

    ;)
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    The Range Rover Sport is a very tempting SUV... I think I'd take it over the Q7 for its smaller size- with only one kid left at home (only 13), I don't think we need a big SUV like that.

    I meant to say "- with only one kid left at home (*only 13 years old*)..."
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Land Rover- cheaply made (LR3, Range Rover Sport), expensive to run, not practical for my family

    It's very funny: I said this on March 28, and the next day I go shopping for cars and turn out to really like the Range Rover Sport.

    Now they've caught me hook, line and sinker- and I have woken up to Range Rover's style.

    But, I am not ever going to get an LR3 as a non-rental car, and the Range Rover (normal) is still a bit stupid in my eyes, even if it gives off a wealthy image.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    This seems to be happening to me repeatedly.

    I post something, everybody stops, and I need to start it up again!

    It's been four days!

    Someone think of something!

    This has happened to me three times in the last three days, at different rooms!

    :sick:
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    For what it's worth my wife loves the RR sport as well. It's going to have to wait till her residency is finished. [anhestisiologist] Her current FX 35 has been great outside of brake pads that last about a month. I'm hoping that she'll like the Q7 more when her lease is up in about 24 months.
    What do you think the next gen S4 engine will be? Detuned
    RS4 engine? I know displacement is the same now.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I vote for the Range Rover Sport, but I feel that if you get a RR Sport before you see/drive the Q7 you might feel like you've made a mistake...since you like Audi so much.

    Anway, I vote for the RR Sport unless you're going to wait for a 2007 E350.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I am actually waiting a while- at least six months now.

    I am, however, still interested in looking at these cars.

    Thanks for your support, but the Q7 is much too big a car. Like I said, I have one kid at home. We're almost empty-nesters, and we do not need a 200-inch long truck.

    It's over a foot longer than the RX330! Many magazines have said it drives beautifully for its size and weight, but we just really don't need that much mass in a vehicle.

    The Range Rover Sport, on the other hand, is only two inches longer than the RX.

    Totally off topic:

    The beautiful new TT! http://autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=6989&categoryId=21

    Scroll down for other pages, on other cars, such as:

    New X5 Caught

    Updated Toureg/Cayenne

    More TT Pics/Specs
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Oh ok, got it. The RRS may not be as big but it sure is a heavyweight too.

    Yes I like the new TT a lot, way more than I ever did the current model.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Yes, I took that into account before driving the RRS...
    ...and I must say, it's better a better driving car than I ever imagined.

    Remember our argument about the CLK63/55 and RS4/S4 Cabriolet?

    It's happening again.

    The E350 4Matic at the dealership costed around $56K, with the NAV and harmon/kardon 12-speaker. Very nice, well-optioned car. However, I optioned it almost identically online. The sticker price was: $63,685. Quite some shock! Hopefully Autohaus (my local Benz dealer) will have a deal when we get a new car!

    Again, that's an example of overpriceism. It's a disease that Mercedes-Benz can't seem to overcome. You can get a 550i with options for that money; you could also get an A6 4.2 quattro with [almost] all the options for $64K. Almost every car in the class can come well-optioned for the money. You could even buy a Lexus LS430 or a Jaguar XJ8 with no options.

    It's still a fantastic car, even if it has an engine of the same size and horsepower as the new Camry 3.5.

    :P
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Again, that's an example of overpriceism. It's a disease that Mercedes-Benz can't seem to overcome.

    All German carmakers have the same disease, and no one is paying sticker prices for a E-Class at this point so its really a moot point.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Okay seriously, merc!

    I'm not getting into this argument again. You must admit that Audi prices their cars better than Mercedes-Benz does, and I'll admit that Audi still slightly overprices theirs.

    (I'm just humoring you- I can't see what's overpriced about them!)

    I'm just confused. Please reply.

    :sick:
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    The way I see the pricing orders is as follows when it comes to who overprices the most:

    Mercedes, BMW and Audi....it has always been that way and Mercedes did (does) it because they can, ditto with BMW to a lesser degree and so on. Yes Audi's prices are much more friendly, but they're slowly getting more in line with MB/BMW IMO.

    With Audi it isn't across the board, but 40K for a loaded A3 is just plain too much and some of their RS cars (like the previous RS6) were priced more than competing MB/BMW models.

    Now Porsche is the king of German pricing. It is nothing to add 20K in options to a Porsche.

    Audi has a 7.8K stereo option coming this fall too, don't forget. Probably worth every penny, but still.

    Happy? ;)

    M
  • jim2727jim2727 Member Posts: 7
    Not sure about Europe or other areas of the world, but being an American I am pleased to see our gas prices rising.

    Now why would I something like that you may ask (or may not, based on some of the acrid responses on this forum)? Not because I want everyone driving those silly hybrids (let’s see the reports in five years when those things start breaking). Why, is as follows:

    - When gas prices rise, Americans start paying attention to the gas mileage of vehicle. Since America is a huge market for vehicles, car designs are based largely on what will sell in America.
    - Americans still demand power from their vehicles.
    - Americans are not going to pay a premium for some silly car like a BMW 316

    So what is one of the best ways to give us power and good gas mileage? The answer is by reducing the weight of the vehicle. Reducing the weight of the vehicle improves just about every aspect of the car, acceleration, braking, handling, wear, and gas mileage. Vehicle weight is too esoteric for most people to understand, but gas mileage is easy.

    Audi cars are way too heavy. Because of this, the get terrible mileage and plow all over the road when pushed in a turn (at least this is true of the Audis I test drove - Current S4/A4/A3). I really hope Audi has fixed this with the RS4. I see no reason that Audi can’t reduce the weight of these cars to under 3000 pounds. If Audi can take the lead and reduce their vehicle weight, they can gain an advantage over BMW/Mercedes.

    So, I hope those gas prices keep going up because it is going to force the manufacturers to take some of the fat out of these cars. Besides, since my car gets 30MPG, the higher the gas prices go, the higher my expense rate per mile goes and I make more money :P .

    Summer is just around the corner and gas is already going up, let's see how those cars that get 15MPG sell this summer.
  • rjlaerorjlaero Member Posts: 659
    Here's the official USA RS4 pricing as of April 10th.

    Base price: $66,000
    Premium Pack: $4,700
    Rear Side Airbags: $350
    Gas Guzzler: $2100
    Destination: $720

    A loaded RS4 is $73,520 with gas guzzler. That's a pretty sweet deal and about 5 grand less than I expected.
  • jim2727jim2727 Member Posts: 7
    That was better than I thought as well. Still may be a little high, I guess we will see if they sell it for a second year in the US.

    There seems be little specifications of the car on Audi's site. Does anyone have a link to more detailed specifications?
  • rjlaerorjlaero Member Posts: 659
    You have to consider the premium pack has everything included: DVD Navigation, Bose stereo, heated seats, bluetooth, sunshades, memory seats, light/rain sensors, dimming mirrors, & satellite radio.

    A similarly equipped Porche Cayman with less than 300hp and rear wheel drive will easily run you 70 grand. I can't see how anybody can complain about RS4 pricing being too high.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Audi has a 7.8K stereo option coming this fall too, don't forget. Probably worth every penny, but still.

    Remember, this is exclusive to the S8- an already exclusive model. This will be a very low-volume stereo, and it's not like people must get it (although I'm sure those who would buy an S8 have the money to do so).

    ...but they're slowly getting more in line with MB/BMW IMO.

    Yes, this is sadly true. However, I still think a $12K premium over an Audi model with [possibly] even MORE content is unacceptable. Mercedes-Benz makes beautiful cars; but so does Audi.

    ...it has always been that way and Mercedes did (does) it because they can, ditto with BMW to a lesser degree...

    I don't think BMW's is any "lesser". I've built a fully-loaded 550i online- $86,000! (Also, keep in mind that for some reason my bmwusa website has a glitch: I can't add accessories. Estimate a REAL fully-loaded 5er to go for over $90K- I'd much rather have an M5!)

    Your quote "because they can" is subjective. Audi is literally becoming more respected by the day with their new models, and just because Mercedes-Benz and BMW are prestigious names does not mean they have the right to be overpriced. Why can't a luxury company be known for its low prices?

    Just think about the new models coming in the next two years: Q7, S6, S8, RS4, R8, A4, A5, S3(?).
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Remember, this is exclusive to the S8- an already exclusive model. This will be a very low-volume stereo, and it's not like people must get it (although I'm sure those who would buy an S8 have the money to do so).

    True and what an awesome car it is!

    Yes, this is sadly true. However, I still think a $12K premium over an Audi model with [possibly] even MORE content is unacceptable. Mercedes-Benz makes beautiful cars; but so does Audi.

    I don't think BMW's is any "lesser". I've built a fully-loaded 550i online- $86,000! (Also, keep in mind that for some reason my bmwusa website has a glitch: I can't add accessories. Estimate a REAL fully-loaded 5er to go for over $90K- I'd much rather have an M5!)

    The only problem here is that one no one is paying sticker for an E-Class at this point and secondly nobody is going to load up an 550i to that level. All this about price premiums for BMW and Mercedes really doesn't reflect the total reality of what people are actually paying so I don't think you have much of a point here.

    Your quote "because they can" is subjective. Audi is literally becoming more respected by the day with their new models, and just because Mercedes-Benz and BMW are prestigious names does not mean they have the right to be overpriced. Why can't a luxury company be known for its low prices?

    Because that isn't the way the luxury car business works. People often assume (whether it is true or not) that a more expensive car is a better one and even one that start out "cheap" like Lexus get mightly expensive once they catch one. It is what it is. Those who can charge more will and those who don't probably will once they work their mojo a little further.

    Just think about the new models coming in the next two years: Q7, S6, S8, RS4, R8, A4, A5, S3(?).

    Yes Audi is on fire right now. Sales are up in nearly every major market around the world with all that product things will only get better. If they could get up to the volumes of MB/BMW in the U.S. they'd really be on to something.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Interesting post. For Audi to do what you're saying as far as weight they'd have to come up with some very fancy (i.e. expensive) engineering that would throw the affordability of those models out of whack. I seriously believe Audis are heavier because of their industry-leading build quality of their interiors and of course because of Quattro. Combine those two things with all the other toys that other RWD cars have and you have a heavy vehicle. The A8 really missed the mark in terms of being lightweight compared to a car like Jaguar XJ. The Jag really shows what can be done with the fancy metals, but the Jag is lite features compared to the Germans.

    I don't think luxury car buyers are going to stop buying because of gas prices, they are able (or supposed to be) to afford a litte more $$ for gas. Its the people buying everyday SUVs that can't afford any more $$ for gas and panic when gas reaches th $3 mark.

    M
  • jim2727jim2727 Member Posts: 7
    I think the problem is that the German manufacturers are trying to be sporty and luxurious. Not sure what the official weight of the RS4 is but I read Audi was addressing the weight problem.

    I'm going to wait and see what the Evo X is like. They are supposed to be building an Evo that is both fast, comfortable (I doubt it will be very close to the Audi) and around 3000 pounds. If they acheive the weight goal, I doubt they will have any problem out-performing the RS4/new M3. If they acheive the luxury goal, I would be embarrassed to spend 35K more on a BMW or Audi.

    My fear is the Germans are just going to ignore the value proposition and try to sell on prestige only. This may work great in Europe and the emerging economies (In China most businessmen drive German cars).

    Completely off the subject but interesting point. You know one reason big Audis sell so well in China? Because you have to get an Audi to get a military plate. If you have a military plate, the police leave you alone and you don't pay road tolls.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Because that isn't the way the luxury car business works. People often assume (whether it is true or not) that a more expensive car is a better one and even one that start out "cheap" like Lexus get mightly expensive once they catch one. It is what it is. Those who can charge more will and those who don't probably will once they work their mojo a little further.

    Yes- I know that completely; I knew it while I was writing. I am just proving how an Audi with almost all the options (on the MBZ website you can get three designo packs for the E) usually goes for a good $20K less than a BMW or Mercedes-Benz fully loaded.

    Love the E update- E63!!! Glad Mercedes is running with BMW. Should be a screamer. Can't wait for the RS6, and maybe Jaguar will get serious about a new S-Type R if the S-Type ever gets redesigned.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Yes- I know that completely; I knew it while I was writing. I am just proving how an Audi with almost all the options (on the MBZ website you can get three designo packs for the E) usually goes for a good $20K less than a BMW or Mercedes-Benz fully loaded.

    Sorry, ESF but there really is nothing to prove because of the reasons I gave earlier about nobody paying sticker for those models and you'd rarely see those models loaded up that heavily anyway. You're just exaggerating about 20K because it isn't the norm (design certainly isn't) and you'd only see few cars a year equipped like that and then who is going to pay sticker for one?

    The next S-Type was supposed to be based on a shortened version of the XJ's platform, but they've cancelled that and decided to go with a re-hash of the current car. Jaguar has no chance in the segment IMO.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    The next S-Type was supposed to be based on a shortened version of the XJ's platform, but they've cancelled that and decided to go with a re-hash of the current car. Jaguar has no chance in the segment IMO.

    I completely agree with you here. The S-Type has never been a major player in this segment, and a minor refresh is not going to help. They need to drop in better engines, un-retro the design, and make the interior par to par with the new XK.

    By the way, Jag is rumored to be testing another model besides the XKR on that platform- the XKR-R! If it has 450+hp, and Jag decides to put it in the S-Type R, the car could actually have a chance.

    IMHO, the X-type is by far the weakest link in their lineup.

    Too bad they can't make them all as good as the XJ...

    :P
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I like Jaguar well enough, but they're pretty much done as far as competing head to head with Mercedes,BMW,Lexus or Audi. By the time they get a 450hp cars the competition will be at 600hp seeing as how 500hp is the standard in today's cars like the M5 and upcoming E63. Jaguars only advantage is less weight which could balance out the relative lack of power.

    I've seen the new XK on the dealers lot, its a a looker for sure as in the current XJ, but they aren't as special looking as the models they replaced IMO.

    M
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Do you really think the RWD E and 5 Series platforms could handle 600hp?

    I think the only way to go after about 550hp is lower weight- the horsepower wars are close to maxxed in the midsize segment by then.

    However, I think the A6 platform can handle more power because of its AWD configuration. The new RS6 will have 550hp, so they will be ahead of the game. It is interesting to note, however, that the E63 will be ahead of the M5 in terms of power.

    Also interesting is the fact that the RS4 is faster than the M5 and M6 around the Nürburgring. Seems ill-fitting for a super sports sedan that costs $20K less than the M5 and I believe $30K less than the M6 (I don't know exactly how much it costs). I did see THREE new M5s today- and S550s are becoming commonplace. The novelty is gone, but not the pretension.

    :P
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Not sure about in their current guise, but with the next generation models they very well could if they engineer the platform for such power from the start. However I agree that lower weight is likely the way to go because the build needed to support 600hp is going to make for a very heavy car.

    Audi does have the advantage of having awd. Where are you getting your info on the RS6 from? I haven't seen anything on it. Even so 550hp is nothing for Mercedes to beat with a new V8 capable of 514hp before they turbocharge it to hell.

    I don't think it is interesting that the RS4 is faster around a track than the much heavier, different-class-of-vehicle M5/M6. It would look bad for Audi if the RS4 wasn't faster around a track. Seeing M5s and S550s on a regular basis is the price of success. Audi wishes they had it like that. :P

    M
This discussion has been closed.