BRAND NEW model Audi RS4 and it's brand, oh, no, sorry, hang on...

[DanG]

Strapping on 2 turbo's to a 4l V8 only gives them another 30 hp over that put out by the old unit? Doesn't seem like much of a gain; I'd have thought capacity or something would go down for emmissions.

I said the same thing and was told that as a result of turbo charging they can better regulate fuel and therefore achieve far lower emissions and better economy than the n/a 4.2 motor. It's stop start too.

I await confirmation on all of the above however.

[Golfer]

I said the same thing and was told that as a result of turbo charging they can better regulate fuel and therefore achieve far lower emissions and better economy than the n/a 4.2 motor. It's stop start too.

I await confirmation on all of the above however.

Having had many new Audi's, none of which were in any way economical, I doubt very much "IF" the B8 is produced it will be in any way economical, the RS5 is "Horrendous on fuel".

[garcon magnifique]

I'm not so sure. The latest S4 is a significant improvement on the old one. V6 twin(?) turbo with over 300bhp and it'll average over 30mpg (by the official figures). That's with new economy measures such as start/stop etc. BMW are showing what can be done with forced induction petrol engines - Audi are having to respond. I could see an RS4 with a twin turbo 4.4 V8 being significantly more economical than the NA 4.2 in the B7.

[Tipex]

Turbo's make an engine more efficient, and lower the C02 output, as they re-use otherwise wasted exhaust gasses, hence why all modern diesel engines are now turbo charged, and a lot of small capacity petrol engines are being replaced by even smaller capacity turbo charged ones.

There is no reason why it wont work on larger capacity engines too, it won't be 'economical' it'll just be 'more economical' than the N/A engine it replaces.

[DanG]

I have posted before about the current 2.0T engine enabling me to do long motorway trips and return +42 mpg and that's apparently got 169g CO2 per km too. Turbo, inparticular, sequential turbos are the way forward.

My brother has the current S5 cabriolet with the supercharged 3.0 V6 and he gets about 30mpg and drives like Miss Daisy..... Sounds nice though.

[Paul]

Current S4 is the same 3.0 Supercharged v6 as the S5 333bhp and apparently better fuel economy than the previous 4.2V8

[Golfer]

I will wait and see what transpires, but still sceptical till proven wrong.

My 550i M Sport 2011 I just sold consistently gave 26/28 MPG but , it had the 8 speed box which made low RPM at high speeds, this is where that economy came from.

BUT 30+ MPG was never going to happen.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Golfer

[cruiser647]

I will wait and see what transpires, but still sceptical till proven wrong.

My 550i M Sport 2011 I just sold consistently gave 26/28 MPG but , it had the 8 speed box which made low RPM at high speeds, this is where that economy came from.

BUT 30+ MPG was never going to happen.

Ooohh - missed that you sold it already. What have you got/getting now?

And back on topic, a 4.0 V8 twin turbo should produce a lot more power than 440. They can make that engine with a single turbo, so maybe they'll do that instead with 440.

Besides, you don't by an S/RS/AMG/M for the economy figures.

[Golfer]

Ooohh - missed that you sold it already. What have you got/getting now?

And back on topic, a 4.0 V8 twin turbo should produce a lot more power than 440. They can make that engine with a single turbo, so maybe they'll do that instead with 440.

Besides, you don't by an S/RS/AMG/M for the economy figures.

Hi I have the 2012 X3 35D M Sport 313BHP model, it goes like stink.

http://www.tyresmoke.net/forum/bmw-x-series/135271-my-x3-35d-m-sport.html