Jun 3rd 2008 2:53PM "it's caught in limbo between trying to compete with the 335i or M3 and therefore confuses consumers on where it actually stands."
who's to say bmw gets to define the market segments?
Jun 3rd 2008 2:32PM indeed. i think they're mistakingly thinking the s4 has the exact same engine as the s5 (which makes 354hp). like you said, the s4 makes 340hp.
Jun 3rd 2008 2:25PM i think these shifts times quoted in the hundreds of milliseconds i keep seeing are just being pulled from someone's ass, and for some reason people (even in the automotive "press") keep latching on and perpetrating the myth.
i don't know about 8ms (i see that's what wikipedia states for dsg) - that might be brutal - but the real shift times are certainly much, much closer to 8ms than 200ms.
May 19th 2008 4:33PM as an audi fan, this abomination makes me weep. of course, i think all these ridiculous stretch SUVs are atrocious, anyway.
May 12th 2008 9:16AM yes but that 240hp has to be squeezed out of that little 2.0L at insane rpms. not everybody wants to drive in the 6000rpm+ range constantly. and as alex says, torque (which the s2000's engine is lacking, since it's so small) is what's really fun.
May 12th 2008 9:14AM dude, you seriously can't be calling people dumbasses when you 1) can't get your facts straight and 2) have the writing and spelling skills of a middle schooler
May 8th 2008 2:09PM yeah i don't know how i glossed over that. i reread his comment after i posted and smacked my head. and that's after i reread it a few times to make sure i didn't make an ass of myself. go figure.
yes, jared's suggestion does indeed make much more sense than what this guy did.
May 8th 2008 12:19PM that's the whole point, sherlock. the point of this was the be stealthy, hence why he kept the phone jack. don't you think a usb jack in the wall would be a bit less subtle?
Dec 6th 2007 7:34PM that's a photoshop, not a spy pic. the pasted-in driver and a few oddities with the fascia (foglights, for instance -- the lighting just doesn't match) make it fairly obvious.
don't care for the new look, myself, i much prefer the current s-line. headlights look nice, but i wish they would've stuck with the fiber optic-looking lit "wings" in the shooting brake concept (the wings are still there, just not lit).
Nov 28th 2007 4:13PM seriously, autoblog (and others), it's about time you think a bit and realize audi won't call this beefier version the RS8. it'll be an R8 just like the v8. calling it the RS8 would just tangle up their naming scheme (since an RS 8 would be an RS version of the A8 (and damn, why don't they make one?), much like the RS6 is to the A6, etc.).
also, TT-S and TT-RS are similarly ridiculous names.