Audi did it

[Rocky99]

It's also a V8, NA engine, larger 4.2l displacement, redline 8250rpm.

All these, but fuel consumption only at 22.4mpg.

Audi.RS5

Can someone tell me why?

[bimmer]

push that motor and you will see 12mpg average. there is no miracle. 22mpg, its a hwy figure with cruize control set to 100km/h

[aajami]

Primarily through direct injection, would be my guess. But that 4.2L direct-injected V8 has been causing reliability problems for Audi owners, I believe.

Also, I don't believe fuel consumption should be a consideration when buying an M car. If you're worried about economy, there are other cars that will suit your needs better.

[Rocky99]

Fuel consumption is not a major consideration for many when buying an M car.

But as BMW moves towards the direction of TC + Lesser Cylinders to comply with fuel economy and emission standards, 6 or 8 cyclinder NAs are history in the new production cars.

They should have made it even more fuel efficient in the first place before replacing them with turbo 4s and 6s.

[FC]

I don't care so much about fuel economy except I don't want to have a sub 200-mile range. Nor do I want a 25-gallon tank to get me 300 miles (because of the weight penalty).

[Red Bread]

Why is fuel economy not a concern? I'd own an F80 M3 it wasn't for the miserable mileage. I just can't justify something that inefficient for a daily driver.

[mkoesel]

The B8 generation of Audi products are nearing the end of their lifespan and with them the 4.2L FSI is as well (except for possibly the next R8, though even that I somewhat doubt).

The next generation RS4 and RS5 may or may not move to a 6 cylinder engine - we don't know yet. But they will, with near certainty, not be powered by a naturally aspirated engine.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Why is fuel economy not a concern? I'd own an F80 M3 it wasn't for the miserable mileage. I just can't justify something that inefficient for a daily driver.

yea for real, i really cant stand it when someone blasts the old clichet at someone " You dont buy an M car and worry about gas consumption stupid!" Well, maybe without the "stupid" but you get what i'm saying. Everyone has different concerns when purchasing a car M or Z or F. Wouldnt you take an M3 w/similar performance that is nicer to your wallet??? If you say no your just lying lol.

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by JRV

yea for real, i really cant stand it when someone blasts the old clichet at someone " You dont buy an M car and worry about gas consumption stupid!" Well, maybe without the "stupid" but you get what i'm saying. Everyone has different concerns when purchasing a car M or Z or F. Wouldnt you take an M3 w/similar performance that is nicer to your wallet??? If you say no your just lying lol.

Performance isn't what an M car is about, it's about the way it feels in your hands, the way it sounds, etc.

Those of us arguing against chasing fuel efficiency are only against it because you usually end up sacrificing the things we care more about. I saw the new M6 at my local dealer the other day and heard it rev and, when someone else test drove it, heard it fly by me and it sounds ok but it wasn't very exciting. The first time I heard an S85 V10 I wanted nothing more than to get behind the wheel and drive it but the new M6 didn't have that effect on me. I wasn't very interested in it at all, the performance numbers are hugely impressive but personally I would rather buy an M6 with the 5.5L V10 with 575 horsepower they were supposedly working on than one with the TTV8 even if the V8 gets me further on a tank of gas.

Simply put, for me and for a lot of other enthusiasts the added excitement of a screaming N/A engine outweighs the minor inconvenience of spending a bit more time and money at the pump.

[mweisdorfer]

Originally Posted by Rocky99

Fuel consumption is not a major consideration for many when buying an M car.

But as BMW moves towards the direction of TC + Lesser Cylinders to comply with fuel economy and emission standards, 6 or 8 cyclinder NAs are history in the new production cars.

They should have made it even more fuel efficient in the first place before replacing them with turbo 4s and 6s.

It is in the CPO world when now you have an M3 worth about 45k and about 3 years old with about 36 - 45 thousand miles on it. People shy away from it when they see it maxes out at 20mpg on the hwy.

If the M3 got say 26 or so on the hwy or even 28, the CPO sales would go through the roof. Now you have a sweet car that can actually be used on the daily commute to work.

[Levi]

For those wanting NA engines, the next M3/M4 will not be for them. The Porsche 911 Carrera S (991) powered by a NA 3.8 H6 and the next Lexus IS-F (Mk3) powered by a NA 5.0 V8 may.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Why is fuel economy not a concern? I'd own an F80 M3 it wasn't for the miserable mileage. I just can't justify something that inefficient for a daily driver.

How did you get advance info on the fuel economy of the F80 M3?

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by gblansten

How did you get advance info on the fuel economy of the F80 M3?

Oops, meant E90 M3. I don't think there's any way the F80 will get any where near as bad of EPA numbers as the E9x M cars.

[Lemon Jelly M3]

Audi has some issues with their DI engines.

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Why is fuel economy not a concern? I'd own an F80 M3 it wasn't for the miserable mileage. I just can't justify something that inefficient for a daily driver.

I wouldn't mind the E36 M3's fuel consumption.

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by Remonster

Performance isn't what an M car is about, it's about the way it feels in your hands, the way it sounds, etc.

Those of us arguing against chasing fuel efficiency are only against it because you usually end up sacrificing the things we care more about. I saw the new M6 at my local dealer the other day and heard it rev and, when someone else test drove it, heard it fly by me and it sounds ok but it wasn't very exciting. The first time I heard an S85 V10 I wanted nothing more than to get behind the wheel and drive it but the new M6 didn't have that effect on me. I wasn't very interested in it at all, the performance numbers are hugely impressive but personally I would rather buy an M6 with the 5.5L V10 with 575 horsepower they were supposedly working on than one with the TTV8 even if the V8 gets me further on a tank of gas.

Simply put, for me and for a lot of other enthusiasts the added excitement of a screaming N/A engine outweighs the minor inconvenience of spending a bit more time and money at the pump.

That V10 was built and completed but was never green lighted- closer to 580hp. It was the precursor to the 4.4l S62. The only car to publicly display it was the 25th anniversary edition version of the E 60 M5. But you would have needed a gas tanker to follow you around and that is no fun regardless of the performance offered.
To the OP- The gearing and DI are what gave that Audi motor that suspect MPG- M did not go DI with the high rev engines bc of issues with carbon build up and longevity- they also used close ratio gearing which is ridiculous considering there is NO track you ever would use a short sixth on ( you can occasionally hit 5th for a brief time but that is it on the longest of straights), moving forward I bet they change this thinking and make 6th taller and get that extra few MPG as there is no other reason for it.

[M3 Esq.]

Meh. The car Motor Trend tested had a curb weight of 3975lbs. No thanks.

[ATS]

Originally Posted by aajami

Primarily through direct injection, would be my guess. But that 4.2L direct-injected V8 has been causing reliability problems for Audi owners, I believe.

Originally Posted by LemonOne

Audi has some issues with their DI engines.

And BMW hasn't had any problems with their turbo engines???

I applaud Audi for staying with an NA engine for the RS5. Real shame BMW is not doing the same with their latest and upcoming M products.

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by ATS

I applaud Audi for staying with an NA engine for the RS5. Real shame BMW is not doing the same with their latest and upcoming M products.

Possibly Audi just don't have the volume/cash for developing a new engine...

BMW is putting their 3L engine in a lot of cars, under a lot of variants.
135i, 335i, 535i, X3 35i, M135i, M340i, M3, M4, 335is, Z4 35is, 1M etc ...

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Possibly Audi just don't have the volume/cash for developing a new engine...

BMW is putting their 3L engine in a lot of cars, under a lot of variants.
135i, 335i, 535i, X3 35i, M135i, M340i, M3, M4, 335is, Z4 35is, 1M etc ...

Bingo- but its more than cash, they have not developed a turbo to replace it in a timely manner. Let's not forget that Audi RS models were always turbo then they more recently used this engine across models to compete with naturally aspirated offerings from BMW and MB bc the turbo RS models were always viewed as lesser cars for being turbo. Now Audi is going to react once more and go FI again.