.........and why not offer the more powerful version of the 2 liter turbo as well? I mean, it's just a software update on the computer, right? So it's not like it would cost them anything extra to produce them, they just get to charge a lot more which equals pure profit.

Just upping the boost would increase compression, power etc, but then you would have to deal with drivability, higher heat generation (and thus more robust cooling), knocking, and lowered mean-time-before-failure on most of your parts. I trust that the German engineers at Audi haven't done so for a reason.

Just upping the boost would increase compression, power etc, but then you would have to deal with drivability, higher heat generation (and thus more robust cooling), knocking, and lowered mean-time-before-failure on most of your parts. I trust that the German engineers at Audi haven't done so for a reason.

pretty silly. if they aren't selling a lot of them then why not just make it a special order option. they can stock the 2.0 to keep their margins and then build one with the larger engine if ordered.

This is either a great move or an awful move (or somewhere in between).The current V6 has been criticized for its lack of power. Cars like the G37, IS350, and primarily the 335 are all 300+ hp cars, so it would seem that Audi would stick the supercharged v6 into its top of the line A4 and reserve the S4 for something more(I know they don't want to go V8).

Seeing how Audi has always tried to play the we're different role, they're either going to drop the price of the S4 so that it really sits closer to the 335 than the M3 (good move imo) or the new S4 will feature a high boost version of the A6 engine and will cost nearly as much as an M3 (not a good move). If they choose the latter option, then there will be a giant gap in Audi's lineup that will keep certain buyers from ever considering one.

The worst move they could possibly make is putting the same motor in the A4 as the S4 and simply tuning the S4 for more power. This would kill the S4 permanently.

That 3.2L V6 is actually one of the last iterations of the VR6. It's a shame to see it go. I had a 2.8L 24V VR6 and man was it a great motor, sounds simply amazing with a nice exhaust.

Yeah, but I don't think the Audi's 3.2 is a VR.

Where's Avatar when you need him? I think they are dropping the V6 becasue the peak power numbers are too similar for buyers to choose the 6 over the 4. I bet prospective buyers don't drive both before making the decision. The 6 cylinder is more responsive lower in the rpm band, and therefore you don't need to shift as often to accelerate quickly. The turbo, while it spools quickly, is still rather gutless below about 3000 RPM, when it comes on with a vengance.

Many buyers will take the 4 cylinder since it makes similar power, and the fuel consumption figures as listed would indicate that it gets great fuel economy as well. Unfortunately those numbers are only possible if you stay off boost, which pretty much defeats the purpose of getting a turbo'd car.

I think if Audi was going to offer a larger engine, they need to offer one with at least a 25% hp and torque improvement to interest buyers to upgrade. Unfortunately, that engine currently resides in the S4.

@Paul,

I agree with your analysis, however, having a turbo car is a great idea for getting better mileage. You drive around at lower RPMs with no power most of the time (who needs power driving around town), but the power is always there when you need it (or when you want to have some fun).

I've always thought that this made more sense than higher displacement / supercharged cars from a daily driver standpoint.

First off, the 3.2 V6 is most certainly NOT a VR design. The 3.2 in Audi models is a variant of the mid-90’s 2.8L 10V design that was introduced in the 90/100 models. The VR was used exclusively by VW has ranged from 2.8 up to 3.6 in the current Passat. Second, the 2.0 would require NO internal changes at all to accommodate additional boost. VW/Audi has several upcoming models will be offer upwards of 340HP with different software. I do think the 340 horse version may get a stronger crank but the 250HP version is internally the same.

@gm0n3y: I agree with the power statement, it's the fuel economy that troubles me because of how fuel economy testing is conducted. One of my co-workers has an Evo. While not the A4, it's a similar drivetrain, even though the Evo makes more power. I'll be nice and say he has a heavy foot. He told me he averages about 12-13MPG. All I'm saying is that's pretty far off the 16/22. Rating that it gets from the feds, which is pretty crappy for a subcompact to begin with, even one as high performance as the Evo..

For discussion purposes, I borrowed my in-law's 36 foot long motorhome for a vacation last year, and got 13MPG in that beast, while towing a truck and a boat at the same time.

Lol, said everything I would have more or less Paul. However, the 3.2L is pretty sad for what it competes against. For example, the G37x gets the same gas mileage but makes 328 hp and 269 ft-lb of torque and starts 4.5k less then the A4 3.2L. The 335i xDrive makes 300 hp and 300 ft-lb of torque starting at 1400 rpm but does start 2 grand more. Lastly, the CTS DI AWD starts about the same and makes 304 hp and 273 ft-lb of torque with the same gas mileage again.

More torque down low means your engine doesn't have to rev as high to do a certain speed. Its the reason the LSx series engines do so well for the engine size/power output. Well, that, and the annoying skip-shift thing. The extreme example is when Jeremy Clarkson started from a stop in a Z06 in 5th gear and it would have gone up to 178 mph if I remember correctly. The problem with turbos are once you start running in the boost, the engine needs more fuel to keep up and it doesn't work out then. Its a fine balance between boost, torque output, and rpm to get good mileage out of a turbo car.

If going off on discussion purposes, the fleet of box trucks I have sitting outside the windows are great examples. Bounce them off the red line and keep them in the boost, average 5-6 mpg. Feather the gas petal to keep them out of the boost, 10 mpg.

That car is not worth 50-60k.

@Paul that 2.0 has zero turbo lag and obtains full boost just off idle. Those small turbos struggle up top though.

Also not so sure those high boost models use the same turbo unit.

Rx-7 Guy, it hits peak at 1500 rpm, so unless idle is 1200 rpm, it doesn't hit just off idle. The issue is just 500 rpm below that, it is only making about 120 ft-lb of torque or 46% of its peak. For comparison, the 335i makes 74% of its torque at 1000 rpm which is just 400 rpm away from peak. Granted, it is a twin turbo system vs a single, but you can still see that the BMW peaks lower and also doesn't drop as fast. If you look at a larger turbo, like the one on the LNF, it makes more horse power then the 2.0 in the Audi, but peaks higher (2500 rpm) and drops off even faster power wise below boost (about 42% of peak at 1000 rpm).

Top end is fairly bad, its flat till 4000 rpm then falls off quickly for the Audi. The LNF is flat till 5250 rpm then falls off. The 3.0L in the BMW starts to fall after peak, but very slowly. Then more quickly after about 4000 rpm but no where near the rate that the 2.0L in the Audi or the LNF does.

Yes the 3.2 in the a4 may not be a vr6 but the one in the a3 and TT is. Look this up because I just did. This is due to engine compartment space requirements with transverse mounting. The 3.2 vr6 is also used as the base Porsche cayenne and vw tourag motor but that's besides the point.

This all speaks about Audi's lineup problem. They've always said that the S4 is on par with the M3 and C63, and that the RS4 is a set above, but that is not the case. The RS4 is more expensive than either of those and slower around a track.

Audi needs to either move its 'S' cars to the top of the normal lineup and save the RS-cars for the top end, to compete with the M3s and C63s, or start making a better case for the S4, S6, etc.