HTF Car of the Week (12/26): 2004 Audi S4 (1 Viewer)

[Charles J P]

I dont think the horsepower wars are silly, its obviously what is selling. I dont think you'd see a manufacturer going "Hey, consumers want faster, more powerful cars. Lets make a bunch of slower, less powerful ones!" I think what affect this will have on the long-long term is that as manufactures look for alternatives to internal combustion, they will need to keep in mind that many consumers arent willing to sacrifice performance. I.e. I dont want to pay more money for a car with less power, less range, and is difficult to recharge/refuel. I also think that in the long run, the globalization of the auto manufacturers and the Americanization of the foreign nameplates will cause a shift in the perception of the terms foreign and domestic. As it stands right now, if your concern is for the paycheck of the line worker rather than the CEOs (who are getting rich regardless of which country their brand is associated with) your probably better off buying a Honda then a Ford.

 

[Dave Smith]

On thing mags never look at is cost... an S4 is still a lot cheaper then an M3.

The difference between the new S4 and the M3 in the UK is only 3500 UKP (about $5000). The price has gone up along with the displacement!

 

[Todd Hochard]

I didn't say to go with less powerful engines. Simply, to say, OK, we've gone far enough, now let's level off and shift the focus. Many of these cars are WELL beyond the capabilities of those that drive them, already.
And, I'm not so sure the consumer dictates the marketplace for autos. The "lemming" principle is strong within the auto industry. I mean, who actually ASKED for the Avalanche? And then, who said they'd only buy it upscaled, as a Caddy?
Do we really need to go to the logical conclusion, where every German sport sedan has 600hp, and the "family truckster" only 400? Wouldn't that effort be put to better use elsewhere? I think so.
Todd

 

[CharlesD]

In the Japanese domestic market the companies have a 'gentleman's's agreement' to kinds-sorta limit horsepower. They never claim more than a certain number of hp. (around 280 I think). That way they can and do produce on occasion more powerful vehicles, but it takes away some of the marketing arms-race aspects.

 

[Brandon_T]

In the Japanese domestic market the companies have a 'gentleman's's agreement' to kinds-sorta limit horsepower

Actually it is the law in Japan. 276hp.

Brandon

 

[Philip_G]

motorcycles have an agreement of sorts, mostly so the gvt didn't enforce a limit on them. Can't remember if it's HP or just top speed, I think top speed,

 

[Josh Lowe]

The HP race is getting out of hand. I'd prefer (and as a car enthusiast, I don't say this lightly) to see them level off on the HP, and start really focusing on fuel economy. I mean, an Accord that goes 0-60 in the low-mid 6s, is getting silly.

Fuel economy has been going up, too. Did you ever think the day would come when a 405 horsepower, 346 cubic inch V8 powered Corvette would get 30 miles per gallon on the highway?

 

[Todd Hochard]

Fuel economy has been going up, too.

Well, kind of, but not really. Sure, the Vette, no doubt, is an amazing feat, especially considering the power level (although power and efficiency gains often go hand-in-hand). Of course, REALLY deep overdrive gearing, and good aerodynamics are mostly at play in that case, more so than excellent engine management. But, you won't hear any arguments from me regarding the LS1/LS6 platform, which is likely the greatest low-tech engine ever made, IMO.
But, as a whole, fuel consumption continues to rise, because the vehicles being sold aren't the ones that are improving much. You know what I speak of-
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/proble...dex.html#sec2d
I'm simply saying it's time for manufacturers to start looking at regenerative braking, integrated starter/generators, IMA, Valvetronics, cylinder shut-off (remember the loathsome Caddy 8-6-4, like that, only a working version ), engine shutoff at stops, for all vehicles, NOW. These aren't revolutionary ideas, merely evolutionary. The proof-of-concept is complete. Bring it on.
Todd

 

[Justin Doring]

You can never have enough horsepower as long as you have the torque and brakes to go along with it!
Cars are getting better, safer, faster, AND more fuel-efficient every year, and that's a good thing! Horsepower and torque aren't everything, however, which is why the 225hp, 214 torque BMW 330Ci, which is nearing the end of its model run, beats the brand new 280hp, 270 torque Infiniti G35C (the car of the week a couple weeks ago) 0-60, and both cars are manuals.
For the most part I like the new S4, but the ugly black moldings at the bottom of the doors and the aluminum side mirrors look terrible. Also, I'll take a naturally aspirated engine over a turbo any day of the week. Turbo charging is merely a crutch and a cheap way to get more power. Also, the S4 isn't an M3 killer due to its weight, but the S4 offers something the M3 doesn't: 4 doors, and that means a lot to some people.

 

[Scott L]

Just wondering Justin but BMW's site lists the 330ci at 6.4 sec and C&D lists the G35c at 5.6 sec in the 0-60. 0.8 seconds is quite a difference, is there are a site that says a 2003 330ci can beat 5.6 sec?

 

[Justin Doring]

Automobile Magazine tested the 330Ci at 5.9 seconds and the G35C at 6.0. Of course other magazines have gotten different results for both cars. I believe Motor Trend got 5.7 from the 330Ci and then there's the 5.6 for the G35C from Car & Driver. What is quite astonishing, however, is the midrange passing power difference between the two cars. According to Automobile Magazine, it takes the 330Ci 14.2 seconds to go from 30-70, while the G35C takes a whopping 25 seconds! Considering the significant horsepower and torque difference, it's odd that this measurement favors the BMW, but if you look at the torque curves the BMW's is fairly flat and the G's is peaky, and that makes all the difference.

 

[Todd Hochard]

You can never have enough horsepower as long as you have the torque and brakes to go along with it!

Don't forget tires- no point in having big power if you can't get it to the ground. I had to consider this, after building an engine that would break the tires loose in 2nd, at any speed, by just rolling on the throttle.
Those "passing power" games are VERY misleading. They're usually done in top gear, so the numbers are all about gearing. Looking at the numbers, the 330Ci runs a 2.93 final drive (in 1:1 5th), with 225/40-18 rears (for the sport package)- a 25.1" tall tire. The G35 runs a 2.809 final drive (with a .794 6th), and 245/45-18 tires, 26.7" tall. That taller tire reduces the gearing by another 0.2 or so, leaving the G35 at a distinct disadvantage.
Of course, there are big long-term benefits to running an engine at lower speeds when cruising.
Todd

 

[Scott L]

Justin I think AM got a tricksie G35c to play around with or the driver is not as quick with a 6spd compared to a 5spd. I went to Motortrend.com and wasn't able to find a 5.7 time for the 330ci, but I did find this interesting article:
BMW 330i vs Cadillac CTS vs Infiniti G35
Granted these are not the coupe versions of the vehicles but BMW uses the same exact engine for both while the G35 gets 20hp less than its coupe for 260hp total.
330i: 0-60 in 6.7 | 1/4 in 15.0 @ 95mph
CTS: 0-60 in 6.9 | 1/4 in 15.2 @ 90.7mph
G35: 0-60 in 6.2 | 1/4 in 14.6 @ n/a

In a test where just a couple mph can be telling, the G35 boldly runs a 65.9-mph speed through the cones, beating even a 330i Sport, and especially our non-Sport example, by 1.7 and 4 mph respectively. Guess who just outgunned a BMW 330i?
.....................
The G35 is finally the car that outperforms, underprices, and outshines the longtime bogey BMW 3 Series. Eventually, we'll be treated to a manual transmission--first in the G35 coupe, and later in the sedan. When that happens, who'll care a darn about the taillights except for the BMW you just smoked?

 

[Matt DeVillier]

the new S4 is one of the few cars for which I would consider trading in my current baby

of course it would have to be available in the denim blue for me to even consider it

 

[Chuck C]

nice wheels, Matt...great color

 

[Greg Z]

delete please

 

[Chuck C]

Speaking of the CTS, Cadillac plans replace the current 3.2L V6 with a 3.6L V6 making 255hp/260-ft-lbs. Hopefully they will include dual exhaust (even as an option) for this one.

 

[Brian Kleinke]

Matt,
You can get any car from Audi with any color they have for something like $1800, this means you can get an A4 in an S4 color or an S4 in an A4 only color
I'm actually partial to the S-Only Blue avalible on the S4 and S6. But I wasn't willing to pay the xtra and went with Ming Blue

 

[Brett_H]

Justin,

Also, I'll take a naturally aspirated engine over a turbo any day of the week. Turbo charging is merely a crutch and a cheap way to get more power.

A crutch? You say yourself that it is a "cheap way to get power". I'd say that simply raising displacement to gain power is the real crutch, while developing a turbo system that makes usable power across a wide powerband is a feat that takes some real work.
To each his own, and I admit to being a Link Removed. At around 190 HP and 220 ft-lbs of torque from 1.8L of displacement @ ~15 PSI of boost, I'll happily take my "crutch"!
-Brett.

 

[Charles J P]

Im with Brett on this one. I'll take power through technology over displacement any day of the week. Part of it is the total package. Show me a car that size with that much power that is normally aspirated from any of the domestics. there isnt one. If I want 200 hp from a ford or chevy your talking a Monte Carlo or Impala from Chevy or a Tarus from Ford. All three of those cars are land yachts compared to that VW. I think people need to break out of some of these old stigmas. Turbo'd cars are no longer whiny, peaky, low torque, unreliable, specialty cars. They are as good or better than either a compribly sized but low horsepower or compribly powered but over sized beast of a car.