C450 AMG coming in June 2016

[JBD]

Audi RS is for men who want to drive fast, AMG is for Jeremys who want to spin wheels. The wife's piddly little 306 horse SLK 350 flashes the traction control light all the time in the wet, or on bumpy back roads, never seen a flicker with my 450 horse S7. Tried a C63 coupe just for that fabulous engine, hopeless even in the dry off the line. 507 horsepower? Nah, more like 300 you can actually put on the Tarmac, until you hit three-figure speeds in the dry.

So you're essentially saying that you're not capable of driving a RWD car fast?

So the issue is with you and not the car

 

[Deleted member 113659]

Hence they're boring. Driving fast and having fun driving a car are two different things

Agree 100%. A great example is the Mazda MX 5. Belting fun little car without masses of power.

Fast and powerful doesn't always mean fun.

Ant.

 

[Deleted member 113659]

Driving fast and having fun driving a car are two different things

Agree 100%. A great example is the Mazda MX 5. (1st generation was great) Belting fun little car without masses of power.

Fast and powerful doesn't always mean fun.

Ant.

 

[HB]

Audi RS is for men who want to drive fast, AMG is for Jeremys who want to spin wheels. The wife's piddly little 306 horse SLK 350 flashes the traction control light all the time in the wet, or on bumpy back roads, never seen a flicker with my 450 horse S7. Tried a C63 coupe just for that fabulous engine, hopeless even in the dry off the line. 507 horsepower? Nah, more like 300 you can actually put on the Tarmac, until you hit three-figure speeds in the dry.

Where did you come from with your nonsense? I fall asleep in every hot Audi I've been in as its so dull and boring.

They're meant for pussies who can't handle RWD.

 

[MarkII]

Enough with the Name Calling!!

Oh please, not this again......

I've been a member of lots of car clubs in my time and forums for the past 15 or so years and although I'm new to this forum I have to say it's a REAL disappointment to see this thread descending again into unnecessary name calling! I'm all for a bit of joshing but a car forum should exist to talk about cars, NOT to slag each other off!!

The FACT is that comparing the dynamic handling of any brand (Mercedes/BMW or Audi) based purely on the number of driven wheels is a totally pointless exercise

You're comparing manufacturers whose underlying engineering ethos is totally different and in most cases has underpinned the engineering of the brand long before they decided to introduce 'Performance' versions of their vehicles - therefore trying to boil it down to whether vehicle A uses AWD or vehicle B uses 2WD is meaningless.

It's perfectly possible to engineer an AWD vehicle that will out-handle a 2WD even when all other factors of engine displacement, position, weight distribution etc are exactly the same.

Unfortunately manufacturers have to package their vehicles in a way that meets a myriad of requirements for safety, comfort, performance, handling etc - and any difference in how an AWD or 2WD vehicle handles from Mfr A or Mfr B reflects less on their ability to design a 'proper' enthusiasts car and more on what weight they attach to each of those requirements!

When it comes to that 'seat of the pants' grin factor that all enthusiasts look for, I'm afraid that's also unrelated to the number of driven wheels - there are no-end of extremely fast 2wd cars that whilst technically excellent, feel soulless and un-involving.

Dynamically Mercedes was never going to make the C43 (or C450 AMG as was) handle 'out of the box' in the same way the C63 will but that has nothing to do with the number of driven wheels and everything to do with product positioning.

So please let's cut the 'it's not a real driver's car' and 'you can't handle a real car' comments and appreciate the C43 for what it is - not a C63 but a bloody fine car nonetheless

Mark

 

[StuartK]

Let's just settle this off shall we:

1. Audi are just not drivers cars (with exception of original Quattro) unless you like understeer
2. BMW make the best handling cars. Period.
3. AMG are kings of the power
4. The C43 is not/never will be a true AMG (However it will be bloody good)

Let's face it the C43 is an accountants wet dream to attract more of the "I can't quite afford a C63" brigade.

I don't blame them because frankly compared to the new M3/4 the C63 is hideously overpriced and not as good as an overal package. Also hardly any discount is available.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

They're meant for pussies who can't handle RWD.

RWD for the misters, AWD for the sisters...

 

[MarkII]

Stuart I drove both the Quattro and Sport Quattro back in the day and both had a tendency to understeer like a b*tch. Though AWD gave them a massive efficiency advantage over RWD cars of the period, the 50/50 torque split and sudden wallop from the turbo required a totally different driving technique to rear wheel drive performance cars of the 80's.

Though not as memorable, the modern RS4 and RS6 models with a rear biased torque split drive so much better than the Ur Quattro.

 

[StuartK]

Stuart I drove both the Quattro and Sport Quattro back in the day and both had a tendency to understeer like a b*tch requiring a totally different driving technique to the other rear wheel drive performance cars of the period.

Every day is a school day. I have not actually driven an original Quattro but assumed that they were very different.

I have driven the newer B7 and B8 RS4 and also an RS5 and was left unimpressed by all.

 

[MarkII]

RWD for the misters, AWD for the sisters...

So just to be clear, you're seriously suggesting that someone like Walter Rhorl, one of the worlds best drivers ever and a phenomenon in the Quattro is a Sister...

 

[madmacstew]

Had you been capable of reading what I wrote, I am saying that RWD cars with more than 400 horses are pointless, because you can't get the power onto the road in the UK, most of the time. Great fun if you like going sideways, but not actually fast. I've been driving fast RWD cars for more than forty years, mostly without traction control, several without anti-lock brakes, so car control is not an issue. An M6 cannot keep up with an RS6 on a typical UK country road, I know this for a fact.......

 

[madmacstew]

Where did you come from with your nonsense? I fall asleep in every hot Audi I've been in as its so dull and boring.

They're meant for pussies who can't handle RWD.

Audis are for those who wish to go fast, AMG and M-cars are for pussies who like to burn rubber and impress their mates. Great engines and great fun, but ultimately less fast than a hot AWD car on typical UK roads.

 

[HB]

Let's just settle this off shall we:

1. Audi are just not drivers cars (with exception of original Quattro) unless you like understeer
2. BMW make the best handling cars. Period.
3. AMG are kings of the power
4. The C43 is not/never will be a true AMG (However it will be bloody good)

Let's face it the C43 is an accountants wet dream to attract more of the "I can't quite afford a C63" brigade.

I don't blame them because frankly compared to the new M3/4 the C63 is hideously overpriced and not as good as an overal package. Also hardly any discount is available.

"Let's face it the C43 is an accountants wet dream to attract more of the "I can't quite afford a C63" brigade."

What does that mean ???

There are plenty people who can afford faster and more expensive but choose not to.

 

[StuartK]

Audis are for those who wish to go fast, AMG and M-cars are for pussies who like to burn rubber and impress their mates. Great engines and great fun, but ultimately less fast than a hot AWD car on typical UK roads.

If that's the case why are they so slow compared to the competition?

 

[madmacstew]

RWD for the misters, AWD for the sisters...

Nah, RWD is for the chavs and drifters, AWD is for the fast drivers. Why do you think all the fastest cars are now AWD? And mostly hybrid! Please spare me all the bull**** about 'fun handling', you want an MX-5 for that, as well as your properly fast AWD car.

 

[madmacstew]

If that's the case why are they so slow compared to the competition?

They're not slower on real roads, you'll find many YouTube comparisons where Audis leave AMGs and M-cars for dead, especially in the wet. Heck, even my 'weedy' 450 horse S7 leaves our local M6 for dead in the wet. On private roads, obviously......

 

[StuartK]

They're not slower on real roads, you'll find many YouTube comparisons where Audis leave AMGs and M-cars for dead, especially in the wet. Heck, even my 'weedy' 450 horse S7 leaves our local M6 for dead in the wet. On private roads, obviously......

Ahhhhh your local m6 driver can't drive then

 

[HB]

Audis are for those who wish to go fast, AMG and M-cars are for pussies who like to burn rubber and impress their mates. Great engines and great fun, but ultimately less fast than a hot AWD car on typical UK roads.

I wouldn't swap the E63 for a "fast " Audi" ever.

Also, I have never come across a more crass bunch of show offs than hot Audi drivers. Making up for the inadequacy of driving a hot Skoda I suppose.

 

[madmacstew]

"Let's face it the C43 is an accountants wet dream to attract more of the "I can't quite afford a C63" brigade."

What does that mean ???

There are plenty people who can afford faster and more expensive but choose not to.

It's also reasonable to suggest that the C63 will not keep up with the C43 most of the time on UK roads. You could buy an MX-5 with the price difference if you want 'handling fun' at the weekend.

 

[madmacstew]

I wouldn't swap the E63 for a "fast " Audi" ever.

Also, I have never come across a more crass bunch of show offs than hot Audi drivers. Making up for the inadequacy of driving a hot Skoda I suppose.

Your call, of course. I tested an E63 when I bought my S7, the lack of traction was hilarious! Loved the engine, hated the fact that you couldn't use it.....

BTW, I think of it more as an affordable Bentley.......