[selayeffethy]

4CAR Review on Audi A5/S5. Design and driving section are particularly interesting...
http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/audi/a5/1782/2

[BenWired306]

That's unbelievable! Maybe they said this isn't a direct 3-series Coupe competitor as much as most people have thought. It's somewhere between 3er and 6er and on par with the CLK. As for the marketing ppl wanting the A5 to feel the same as other Audi's, I doubt they should be concerned with driving dynamics.
I just think they don't know enough to influnce engineering. All the expensive changes for nothing??
AMS says it's a car for those who find a sedan too proper and a sportscar too ...uhm.. something bad , the S5 and A5 are classy coupes that are right between. So that's what the A5 and S5 are I guess.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DGC48TlcKnA

[sykanaxer]

TopGear had a very similar point of view to the review above (channel4)

[selayeffethy]

Well the end result is a car which doesn't particularly look good, doesn't engage the driver, isn't particularly smooth on bumpy roads with standard 17 or 18 inch rims, and is more expensive than the 3. So why would anyone buy it?

[sykanaxer]

I wish Audi could give as another Quattro like those glorious models of the 80s. That would be pefect for me. The A5 might be good but not for me

[bonyclayd]

Puh-leeease.
I highly doubt marketers could influence the development/engineering process to such an extent. That's giving them way too much sway than in reality they probably have. Sounds like an engineering dept. trying to shift the blame for its own shortcomings, if you ask me.

[BenWired306]

Sounds like the really need that BMW chassis engineer back, huh?
This brand has a effing identity problem, all show and no-go. They talk about the engine being moved back. Hmm, when I look under the hood, I see the 2 parts under which the coilovers connect to the chassis and they are BEHIND the engine, which means the engine is in front of the axle. I'm constantly hoping they should switch to RWD and they can't even take a tip form a couple of engineers from the competition and get it right for once. Apparently only the S gets the 60/40 torq split while the A-line gets 50/50 (all reviews point out the S5 has 60/40 and say nothing for A5). What a waste of gorgeous design.

[sykanaxer]

Looking at that pic, im thinking that would be a design most suited for Lexus than Audi. Lexus always hada design identity crisis, and although they have improved, looking at the A5 i think DeSilva would have made a stronger case if working at Lexus. Audi never had a design problem they just needed to take theirs to the next level. Not quite convinced the A5 is that, at least not jsut yet

[Anakattawl]

Well, If the marketing team had so much say, the fault is also in Audi's design and engineering teams. Marketing people only have ONE end of the table, and if the designers and engineers were unable to bring across what they thought was best, Then they either didn't care about it, didn't believe in it, or were uncapable of doing so.
That said, I think this is just an example of marketing ruining cars, if anything - not a singled out case. Why we are all taking it against Audi, I don't know.
I do agree with Comrade though. How can they STILL put the engine infront of the axle? Can't they just move into RWD or rear biased AWD (and I mean rear biased as in, weight distribution AS WELL as drive distribution...
Anyway, on Audi's defense, the interior is a lot nicer than any BMW I reckon, plus the grip of AWD is quite a bennefit as well.

[Lhiistyssdds]

Audi will never get to BMW/MB level as long as they defiantly stick to their front-wheel-drive designs. If I had to choose between an AWD A5 and a RWD 3 series, it would be a no-brainer. 3 series!

[BenWired306]

^ yeah, I was debating almost that same thing with the A4 and 3er when I was shopping for a used one. But the A4's weight added mainly by the AWD made it a lot slower and I don't need AWD cuz I live 2 states too far South for having to need AWD.



Modified by Comrade at 1:54 AM 4/29/2007

[selayeffethy]

Some of you are making comments without even reading the article...
Image is very important in the world of Audi. So why just three stars? The style is a new departure, and it's hard to understand why Audi has rejected years of establishing itself as the epitome of technical, geometric design and metallic precision and gone for a curvy, organic look instead. Two worlds - German logic and Italian sensuousness - are colliding here, not co-operating.
That rising ridge over the front wings, in particular, makes the A5 look bulky. And the angle in the curve of the rear side window is staid and very un-Audi, a brand whose look is partly defined by more geometric curves. The A5 is derived from the Nuvolari concept car shown at the 2003 Geneva show, but the key differences are that ridge, that window and the Nuvolari's much more pronounced wheel arches. The Nuvolari, in our opinion, looks more Audi-like, a heck of a lot sportier and much more handsome.
The Nuvolari also looks like a car which would be fun to drive, a focused pleasure machine. The A5's personality is unclear, whether you look at it or drive it. Is it a sporty coupe? A GT? Look at an A5, and the juices of desire do not flow. The heir to the orginal Audi Quattro it is not.
This feels a big, bulky car. The pillars are thick, especially the centre pillar which, judging by the meeting of the flush front and rear side windows, the design team would rather wasn't there. The waistline is high, and you feel hemmed in if you set the seat for an appropriately sporting driving position. Those huge mirrors are great for seeing behind but not so good for the forward-three-quarter view they obscure. Instruments and switches are clear and easy to use.
So, what about this new chassis, now less nose-heavy and sharper-steering? The improvement is not immediately obvious. The steering is indeed more accurate and less springy than that of past mid-size Audis, but it still feels aloof from the road. And the nose still wants to run wide if you enter a bend enthusiastically, with no help from the tail if you ease the accelerator. It would be good if this action brought the tail around a bit, but the A5 is disappointingly inert here.
The front-drive 3.2 Multitronic feels the most immediately agile because it's lighter, just as a front-drive Audi TT 2.0 is more nimble than a 3.2 Quattro. The A5 3.0 TDI Quattro feels a touch heavier but once in a corner its four-wheel drive (with nominally 60% of torque going to the back wheels) makes it ultimately better able to stay on course so you can exit a bend more cleanly. As for the S5, pinnacle of the range, it really does feel big and heavy although it has plenty of grip on its big 18" wheels. There's no joy in hustling it through bends; ultimately the 3.0 TDI Quattro is best for that, helped by the engine's fabulous torque.
Why the dull dynamics? And why waste all that effort in developing the new platform? Audi's chief chassis engineer agrees with our assessment and would like things to be different, but Audi's marketing department insisted that the A5 must feel familiar to existing Audi owners. Which suggests that a) those owners would be unable to appreciate an improvement, which is an odd stance to take, and b) that Audi isn't interested in attracting buyers from BMW. The marketeers have shot themselves in the foot, then.
And the S5? All that power should make for a very rapid car, and its claimed 0-62mph time of 5.1 seconds confirms the point. But you need to work the engine hard to wake it up, which adds to the sense that this is a heavy, rather unwieldy car. It does sound good, though, a mechanical-sounding whine overlaid on a deep bass V8 woofle which becomes a staccato spatter as the pace rises. The six-speed manual keeps you in touch with the power delivery in a way the auto might not, but its shift can be a bit clunky.
Of course marketing dept within Audi is to blame for this, engineers will work within parameters given, and I think they've done a masterful job. What I'm seeing is a decision made to calibrate the suspension to a point where there would still be an abundance of grip and yet no incentive for the driver to push into the corner and be rewarded for it. At same time suspension is still too stiff to enjoy the A5 like a CLK!
All the little things like throttle adjustability are present in many cars, even the Panda 100HP!
S5 with its heavier engine, even with the torque split doesn't do much to provide entertainment. It sounds like driver would just pile into the corner and then deal with the understeer.
I won't say that this car is a flop, but I don't see CLK or 3er being seriously threatened by the A5. I'm sure it'll sell well, but not as well as it had the potential to.
For some reason I've been turned off by this car ever since I saw the spy pictures. Actually reason was the styling from a to b pillar and those awful headlights. And now we find that it doesn't even do things needed by a $45k car.


Modified by Roadster44 at 11:02 AM 4/28/2007

[BenWired306]

60/40 it is. ok...

[selayeffethy]

heh didn't mean to come off as a jackass...

[BenWired306]

No prob.
I've seen soo many reviews and first drives about it the past 2 days, that they just started confusing me 'n driving me nuts!