Perhaps the decision is not about emissions and mpg if Audi can do this https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/s8/107274/new-flagship-audi-s8-revealed-with-563bhp
Have you heard the S4/S5 rumour...
- Thread starter LeMans
- Start date
And Volkswagon have put the 3.0l V6 tsi into their Touraq, https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/news/2019/03/volkswagen-touareg-gets-340ps-pe/12
This has been my thinking.
Warehouses full of stock piled diesel units.
Porsche dropped them, so I presume that left a lot of surplus units too just to add to it
If the first tests of the hybrid technology and the electric booster engines are to be believed then prepare to be very disappointed https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/audi/sq8/
My interpretation of this is that it's actually the gearbox rather than the engine. Seems to improve Drive->Sport->Manual modes on the box in the article so I imagine that it's down to the terrible ZF programming from Audi rather than the outright engine performance. Could be wrong but I can't understand how a 900Nm engine could feel like it didn't have much punch otherwise.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2017
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 266
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/top-performance-the-audi-sq8-tdi-11814
Unfortunately do not appear to be able to find the maximum torque split for this model. Believe I have commented before where engineers have felt for self-preservation, the safe limit for rear ends, particularly in the lower gears is 700nm = 77.77% of the vehicle's 900nm. Taking that further, it may well be if the max. split to the rear is greater than 77%, the ECU may restrict all 900nm being unleashed until a predetermined point that the drivetrain, incl gearbox, can handle. Also, incorporated in that, the EPC could easily be adjusted to not provide the normal 250-300 millisecond response.
Audi's version of mild-hybrid is quite pathetic, but perhaps wait for findings on a lower model.
At 40mins he discusses the "lack of punch"
It IS an SUV!!!
https://www.motor1.com/news/357597/audi-s8-arrives-563-hp/
Have absolutely know idea why the S8 lobs with a dirty, guzzling, petrol V8, worldwide. Interestingly, no Audi Media Centre release to date.
We know EU6 is based on the average of the automaker's fleet sold in Europe. Perhaps Audi think they will not sell enough S8's in Europe to go under the benchmark? Who knows, chances of a Petrolgate down the line??
Unfortunately do not appear to be able to find the maximum torque split for this model. Believe I have commented before where engineers have felt for self-preservation, the safe limit for rear ends, particularly in the lower gears is 700nm = 77.77% of the vehicle's 900nm. Taking that further, it may well be if the max. split to the rear is greater than 77%, the ECU may restrict all 900nm being unleashed until a predetermined point that the drivetrain, incl gearbox, can handle. Also, incorporated in that, the EPC could easily be adjusted to not provide the normal 250-300 millisecond response.
Audi's version of mild-hybrid is quite pathetic, but perhaps wait for findings on a lower model.
At 40mins he discusses the "lack of punch"
It IS an SUV!!!
https://www.motor1.com/news/357597/audi-s8-arrives-563-hp/
Have absolutely know idea why the S8 lobs with a dirty, guzzling, petrol V8, worldwide. Interestingly, no Audi Media Centre release to date.
We know EU6 is based on the average of the automaker's fleet sold in Europe. Perhaps Audi think they will not sell enough S8's in Europe to go under the benchmark? Who knows, chances of a Petrolgate down the line??
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,163
- Reaction score
- 1,433
- Points
- 113
Those ZF gearboxes may be good, but they are still based on the torque converter principle and until the lock-up clutch engages there is a soft link between the engine and the transmission. Quoting figures from a factory engine dyno does not tell the whole story and we never seem to see the true extend of transmission losses.
Whilst that is true it will still mean that a instant response they claim this engine technology will be capable of has been wasted. Therefore they've, once again, shot themselves in the foot..
You can spec a S6 here http://dcc-1.audi.de/controller?event-new-conf=1&mandant=dcc-uk-audi thanks to AS member Robbe
Yes, but if you're running that theory then a manual or dual clutch is the same because the clutch will be slipping initially before it's fully engaged. I don't think that's a very good arguement because no ICE vehicle will have zero slip from the engine/transmission interface (the crazy solutions of things like the Koenigsegg Regera aside...) and all will have some transmission losses with modern torque converters being far more efficient than days of old.
True, but along the same lines as above, you're always going to have some slip off the line. I think the main advantage of the 'instant' response is when you're already moving and transition from off throttle to on throttle through a corner or something. That's my understanding anyway, as in a launch condition you'd build boost before going so the system is redundant versus a traditional turbo setup.
Well the title of the review might also suggest the engine, however any form of lag, which the review claims is 2-3 secs, and this isn't slip off the line either, will have the keyboard warriors in this forum stating it is dangerous. I don't remember you stating this with your engine/gearbox combo by the way, however I might be wrong.
Back to my point, why then install an engine which Audi claim has technology to 'eliminate' lag, then 'engineer' it back in unless they know something we don't...
Back to my point, why then install an engine which Audi claim has technology to 'eliminate' lag, then 'engineer' it back in unless they know something we don't...
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,163
- Reaction score
- 1,433
- Points
- 113
I'm not sure what point you are making. Of course all clutches slip when engaging, but in a dual clutch gearbox the effect on torque transmission is very slight. For ZF's own DCT they claim 100-300ms between shifts. But as you know, a torque converter relies on slip for its very principle of operation: There is always a difference in rotational speed between the impeller and turbine and torque transmission is proportional to the slip speed. The losses are reduced due to the action of the lock-up clutch, but of course that only engages when the slippage is no longer needed for acceleration, i.e. when cruising.
Pretty sure it locks up basically when you would have the clutch fully engaged in a normal transmission, that’s my point. So apart from the very initial acceleration from a standstill you should have relatively similar slip. Yes, the slush box is slower at the actual shifting, but that’s not the actual issue here. Having come from an S-tronic car to the S4, the difference in shift speed is basically unnoticeable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,163
- Reaction score
- 1,433
- Points
- 113
That's quite a good article @cuke2u
@Daggerit - The question is not how fast the gears are selected. As I noted ZF quote 200-300ms for their own DCT. I haven't seen figures for their TC auto boxes, but it must be similar. After all it is simply a matter of engaging or releasing brake or clutch pack in combination to change the configuration of the planetary gears. However the key difference between DCT and TC boxes is that when torque transfer is required, i.e. there is acceleration demand, the DCT is transmitting the torque through an engaged clutch pack whilst the TC box is transmitting it through a fluid. Whilst the fluid method works well, an indeed has the benefit of torque multiplication when there is a high slip speed, it simply cannot be as responsive to changes in torque transfer as the engaged clutch pack of a DCT. But I do not know the intricacies of the most modern design TC boxes and am ready to accept that they are very good. I am just making the point in direct response to the above discussion following the review of the SQ8 which has criticised its responsiveness. I still believe that at least part of the problem is the simple fact that there is elasticity in a TC gearbox which is why they have had the label "slush box".
@Daggerit - The question is not how fast the gears are selected. As I noted ZF quote 200-300ms for their own DCT. I haven't seen figures for their TC auto boxes, but it must be similar. After all it is simply a matter of engaging or releasing brake or clutch pack in combination to change the configuration of the planetary gears. However the key difference between DCT and TC boxes is that when torque transfer is required, i.e. there is acceleration demand, the DCT is transmitting the torque through an engaged clutch pack whilst the TC box is transmitting it through a fluid. Whilst the fluid method works well, an indeed has the benefit of torque multiplication when there is a high slip speed, it simply cannot be as responsive to changes in torque transfer as the engaged clutch pack of a DCT. But I do not know the intricacies of the most modern design TC boxes and am ready to accept that they are very good. I am just making the point in direct response to the above discussion following the review of the SQ8 which has criticised its responsiveness. I still believe that at least part of the problem is the simple fact that there is elasticity in a TC gearbox which is why they have had the label "slush box".
I see what you mean. I’m going on the assumption that when you want that acceleration demand the automatic transmission is likely already locked so should be full transfer of torque. Unless you’re trying to do a dig from 20mph in which case I’ll concede it’ll likely slip more than its dual clutch counterpart. Basically just meaning that in normal driving the gearbox itself shouldn’t be what causes the lag described in the original article.
Software for the gearbox could definitely be the cause. As could the engine management software. I’m just not convinced the physical limitations of either the engine or the driveline is enough to cause the delay and really it’s likely down to Audi’s choice of programming.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2017
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 266
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
S4 is now on the below configurator.
http://dcc-1.audi.de/controller?event-new-conf=1&mandant=dcc-uk-audi
http://dcc-1.audi.de/controller?event-new-conf=1&mandant=dcc-uk-audi
So, the latest update in the 'never-ending' saga of my S4 lease order, placed early April 2018 (!), is that the base price for the new S4 TDI is confirmed per Robbe's email link, above (thanks Robbe): a round £48000 ROTR, without options.
However, the full UK price list, with all possible options, is still not available (should have been at the end of June) and therefore still not available to order (should have been this week, w/c 8th July). My dealer was pretty hopeful that I would have it by September but I'm guessing that the usual summer production line closure is imminent, so who knows?! If I do get it in September, it will be at least 17 months from order to delivery. I could probably have got a hand built Bugatti delivered more quickly
!
However, the full UK price list, with all possible options, is still not available (should have been at the end of June) and therefore still not available to order (should have been this week, w/c 8th July). My dealer was pretty hopeful that I would have it by September but I'm guessing that the usual summer production line closure is imminent, so who knows?! If I do get it in September, it will be at least 17 months from order to delivery. I could probably have got a hand built Bugatti delivered more quickly
! So from what I can see the only free colour is now white? Not even a flat black?
And the interior options are black or grey, no red?
Entry area lights are now seemingly £115 option?
Fair play that the standard wheels look better than the ones I had on mine, but those are surprising changes to me.
Zippy - not sure how you've handled the wait!!
I've only stayed put because: a) it's a lease; b) it was already a good deal, it's price protected and with additional standard equipment (including 5 spoke V alloys, reversing camera, VCP, Audi phone box & wireless charging and privacy glass), plus the general price increase, it's now an even better deal; and c) VWFS have extended (and kept on extending) my Golf R lease. Still been painful though!
Last edited:
You do realise that is a german configurator, not uk or any other country, thus the options available to other countries may well be different...
It is the German site but the UK prices are apparently correct, according to my dealer. It's just that not all of the options have been loaded yet.
So, the latest update in the 'never-ending' saga of my S4 lease order, placed early April 2018 (!), is that the base price for the new S4 TDI is confirmed per Robbe's email link, above (thanks Robbe): a round £48000 ROTR, without options.
However, the full UK price list, with all possible options, is still not available (should have been at the end of June) and therefore still not available to order (should have been this week, w/c 8th July). My dealer was pretty hopeful that I would have it by September but I'm guessing that the usual summer production line closure is imminent, so who knows?! If I do get it in September, it will be at least 17 months from order to delivery. I could probably have got a hand built Bugatti delivered more quickly
I honestly salute your patience @Zippytoo, you are way way more patient than I have or will ever be. I really hope it comes soon and that the wait has been worthwhile
Forgot to say that I got a sneak preview of the dealer info release for the A4, including UK spec changes (though not the official brochure, it does confirm the new standard equipment on the S4 I referenced above). It was just the prices that were missing and waiting confirmation.
The reviews are coming in and seem quite positive overall:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/s4/107450/new-audi-s4-2019-review
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/audi/first-drives/audi-s4-2019-review
https://www.evo.co.uk/audi/s4/22896/2019-audi-s4-tdi-review-audis-c43-amg-rival-goes-diesel
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/s4/107450/new-audi-s4-2019-review
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/audi/first-drives/audi-s4-2019-review
https://www.evo.co.uk/audi/s4/22896/2019-audi-s4-tdi-review-audis-c43-amg-rival-goes-diesel
Simonwhite2000
840i GC
I dont think it was expected for it to receive bad reviews I think the general consensus was more the fact it was going from petrol to diesel and thus changing the whole nature of the car and many who had the petrol wouldnt want a diesel one. I actually think in day to day driving this will be quicker - it will certainly feel that way.
What I did notice when reading through the autocar review was how fussy the front end now looks - not a fan.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,163
- Reaction score
- 1,433
- Points
- 113
I find it slightly strange that the designers went to the effort of adding the electric compressor, yet based on those reviews it is not big enough to fully compensate for the turbo lag. Missed opportunity?
Simonwhite2000
840i GC
don't understand why they haven't, at least, made the outputs symmetrical or none at all. Unfortunately it smacks of cost saving...
I can imagine M3 drivers coming up behind the car and nearly having an accident through a fit of giggles at what they would see as ordinary A4 made out to be a S4. Until it shoots off into the distance that is.
There is going to be a hell of a market for replacement rear boxes with quad exhausts...
There is going to be a hell of a market for replacement rear boxes with quad exhausts...
Shocking lack of attention to detail or making the blanked off ones less obvious or at least the same size and shape
I imagine you'd be more likely to find hen's teeth in rocking horse droppings than seeing an M3 sizing up against one of these abominations in the wild. Hopefully it will be a short lived experiment.
Then substitute whatever car you like, twas only a example
Maybe too subtle. I was inferring that the diesel S4 was unlikely to be seen in numbers as I really don't get who would be buying them. If driving a big engined, powerful diesel is your thing - get an HGV licence.
