This is a wagon, for heaven's sake. That much power, in a FWD, nose heavy based Audi, with no track credentials like a F430 or GT2 whatsover.

This thing carries more weight in airbags than the Porsche, Aston and Ferrari's airbags combined. Practical car, maybe, Sport car, not at all. Fun? Definitely YES!

Essentially, Audi is nodding to the American muscle car culture: power first, worry about weight and handling later. Who cares about track times, or the next turn, what matter is that you can't stop laughing when you hit the gas! lol

Every other competitor, including the Vette and the Viper will certainly handle better and faster around a track. IMHO of course. This car is for straigh line speed, no matter what Europeans here on this forum will try to convince you otherwise.

Edit: Even if this is AWD, it is Front based AWD, which is different. Due to lack of space, the transmission cases lie probably behind the front bumper... :-)

For one the RS6 is going to be biased to the rear not the front... and it may be nose heavy but so is the B7 RS4 and that car handles amazingly well for having a 57%/43% weight distribution.

No such thing as too much power, just too many slow people in the way.

Wow what a great looking Audi! I hope it has better reliability than my TT. That thing is great to drive, however it's averaging 2 trips to the dealer every MONTH. Even with the extended warranty covering the cost it's getting old.
One thing is for sure, what Audi lacks in reliability they make up for in build quality and drivability.

If I was ever wealthy enough to own a car of this caliber, it would either be an AMG Mercedes or M5.

the old RS6 wagon tracked as on rails, with a confidence i never felt in arearwheel drive 911. But that one had only 400hp...

These are competent cars, and no matter how close they are (with 600hp) to their limits, still ways better, predictable and a more rounded proposition then any US-car.

it stil aint gonna catch a veyron kids, so go back to the drawing board & crank it up, you aint going home til this thing eats eveything on the autobahn.

remember that the rs6 is a SEDAN. It has 4 doors - it is not a sports coupe. It also doesn't have the price tag of a veyron. That said, a more apt comparison would be towards cars IN its class (ie not 2 door sports coupes)

Sometimes too much is just enough.

it still aint gonna cost as much as a veyron either kids!

I agree with Jonathan!

It's not too much power. But the cars its being compared to in the article... some of those don't need the extra ponies to spank it on the track.

Sphere: You do realize that this car was tested on the Nurburgring and thus does have quite a bit of track credit? It may be not be a 911, but then again that's not the kind of performance they're going for.

Personally, I think that a car built like this could be oodles of fun in the right hands, but I wonder what kind of transmission it has: S-Tronic or R-Tronic (is there really a difference?) or Tiptronic?

I think I'd rather own a Z06 regardless of how much horsepower this thing has. And remember than the Blue Devil is still on the way which will be a supercharged Corvette putting down around 600hp.

600 hp isn't that hard to get from a Z06 either. There's guys with Z06s who are at nearly 1000 rwhp on the stock block and still fully streetable.

Too much HP? There is no such thing for a heavy AWD vehicle. I mean this thing could have as much as 4000 pounds... on a track all those "outpowered" cars mentioned in the article would mop the floor with RS6 (ok maybe not but they would be still quicker)
And keep in mind this Audi has 4 doors, a trunk and good amount of interior space. Don't know what to do with money but wife won't let you get a Vette?

In a time of high gas prices and global warming, does anyone really need that much horsepower? If one was towing large trailers, I can see a need for it. With the way American roads are kepted, it would be unwise to have that much horsepower. IMO; it is way too much horsepower.

It's not too much power, it's too much mass. I haven't looked up specifically, but these german power sedans are usually getting awfully close to 2 tons (which is unacceptable if you ask me, but your mileage may vary)

And then comes new STi and passes RS6 with 300HP :)

They better make a twin turbo version of the Audi R8S (V10 R8) with even MORE power. I will want to buy it. Also I still plan on installing a boost controller and modding whatever the hell I can!

Considering it is a little heavy, plenty of power makes up for it. AND considering this now has more power than a S65 AMG, that being a top of the line S-Class from Mercedes, more power than ANYTHING in a BMW, and more power than a Z06, a new GTR, all but the Enzo Ferrari, any Porsche on the market, a.... well you get the point.

This is an astounding powerplant. You know a dual turbocharged DBS or F430 would probably have it, but then again they do not offer those do they? Audi has been in some trouble lately: their A4 has a wimpy V6, just like the new C-Class, by comparison to everyone else. When in the sport sedan segment your cars have 50ish less horsepower than everyone else, your customers will tend to disappear.

This engine keeps Audi on the books for powerplants. Well done Audi, now please just offer it for $10 USD so I can pick one up? :) Pretty Please?

Sphere, your way off, the American Muscle car culture has several different cars for different purposes, so your blanket statment about HP first is garbage. Different cars have differnt uses, A Nova or Mustang (among others) were straight line drag cars. The Vettes and Camaro's were for actual racing and built to handle corners, especially the vette. The straight line cars were all about HP, but the others were about power and handling. I own a 97 SS Camaro and I can take a corner at about 80 while most other cars have to slow to about 35 or 40. (I don't do it all the time, but with a car like that, who does test the ability of the car.)

Its not really a matter of how much HP you have, its how well it gets to the road. The cars its compared to (BMW, Z06) get the power down to the road effeciently and thus have great handling and speed. Doesn't hurt that they aren't very heavy either. You can have 1k HP but if the suspension and weight distribution aren't right you end up just spinning the wheels.

Whats the point of a 600HP sedan anyway? I'm all for powerful cars, but they should have a purpose other than bragging rights. I doubt someone with this car is gonna race it. When I see a sedan, I don't think about how fast it is, I think about how I can get around it.

If they want a sports car, build a sports car, don't try to over-rev a heavy sedan. Reminds me of the new Chargers, people think they are fast because they have a 345HP Hemi. Problem is they are heavy and the aero-dynamics are sad. My 97 Camaro with 315HP can and has smoked every Charger I have run it against.

With all the screaming people are doing about mileage and the farse of Global Warming becoming more popular, its hard to believe they would make such a car. Should be interesting how the car sells.

Side note: GM understated the HP of many of the engines in the early 70's and late 60's due to insurance issues. Insurance companies don't like to sell policies to average people that bought a 500+ HP Chevelle. (remember the 454 SS Chevelle, rated at 450HP by GM, but actually tested upwards of 500)

Jimmy,

I have a hard time putting the Mustang in the muscle car category, not to mention the Corvette. Corvette is a proper race car, with lots of wins in Le Mans, for instance. Corvette won last year Le Mans (GT1), beating two Aston Martins in the process. That is track cred in my book.

I said above "American muscle car culture first, worry about weight and handling later" and I stand by this. These are the car you cannot question they are proper Muscle cars:

Buick Skylark, Dodge Dar, Plymouth Fury, Pontiac GTO, Olds Cutlass.

Don't take my word for it, check Wiki:

A muscle car is a high-performance automobile. The term principally refers to American, Australian and South African models and generally describes a rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large, powerful V8 engine and special trim, intended for maximum torque on the street or in drag racing competition. It is distinguished from sports cars, which were customarily and coincidentally considered smaller, two-seat cars, or GTs, two-seat or 2+2 cars intended for high-speed touring and possibly road racing. [u]High-performance full-size or compact cars are arguably excluded from this category, as are the breed of compact sports coupes inspired by the Ford Mustang. [/u]

Sphere, as to the Corvette, you are correct, but the price range its in kind of puts in half way in both catagories, but it is a racecar. No argument (from me) there. As for the Mustang, technically it was intended to be a muscle car as it was built to compete with the Camaro, I'd say the 70's were the closest it got to being a real muscle car. (Yes I know the Mustang came out first, but if you check the history of Lee Iococa, he admits he found out about the Camaro and so rushed the stang into production) Car enthusiasts commonly add the Mustang to the muscle car catagory.

I know it may appear that HP is the first priority to the MC culture and for some that is true, but HP has to share the top spot with weight for the ones that own cars than do handle well, i.e. Camaro's, Firebird's etc.. The fiberglass replacement parts are very popular do to the weight reduction they give. From what I see people know that 600HP moves a 3500lb car alot faster than a 4500lb car.

You are correct that handling is not really a priority to alot of people. Like I said the model of MC really makes a difference. The Camaro is a MC yet can hug a corner almost as good as a vette, almost. My 97 Camaro has the same front suspension and engine as the 96 vette had.

Oh damn that looks good. If they make it in a wagon body style with a proper three pedal 5 or 6 speed manual, I'll buy one soooo damn fast.