Talk:Audi S4

I removed the material about aftermarket performance modification since this is about a product from Audi, rather than about what you could do with your Audi. Toddstreat1 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The following was posted by 141.161.69.157 (talk · contribs):

What follows was posted on the talk page of the user Pc13. It is placed here verbatim only to maintain a public record. After a series of times where the section "5th Generation" has been repeatedly deleted, I've decided to give up and have left a scant two paragraphs of the original article -- these two paragraphs being well within the requirements which Pc13 brought up to me that "wikipedia is not a crystal ball." To any and everyone working on this page, good (perhaps better luck) as you develop the article -- it's a fantastic car and hopefully, at some point, the wiki article on it will become just as fantastic.

The only thing I'll add here that I didn't write to that user is as follows -- it's fine to include figures beyond the standard US hp and ft. lbs. and inches and feet. However, as the author of any good article knows, one must always keep in mind one's audience. That means that US figures and measurements should be given primacy throughout the article, given that a large majority of readers of this article are, in fact from North America, more particularly the United States. This is only sensible.

• ORIGINAL POST:

I've modified the Audi S4 article in an attempt to reach a compromise between no mention of the upcoming next-gen platform release and the original section in light of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" concept. While I may have disagreement with the policy, I do recognize it as a legitimate one.

If the article seems US biased, I'd invite you to (as you have been doing) be sure to include non-US information, numerical conversions, etc. I will aid you in this process time permitting, as it isn't that hard to find the relevant info.

I'm not going to be registering any time soon. I'm what is referred to in wikipedia as an exopedian. See - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exopedianism.

Since you so kindly referred me to the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I would like to similarly refer you to Criticism of Wikipedia under the heading of "anti-elitism as a weakness".

Point to fact (and I will not elaborate on this, more out of concern for my own neck than anything else) I have a memeber of my immediate family who works for the corporate branch of Audi within North America, although he has certain more global functions given his position. ! The information in that post was, in fact, based on more than just speculation. ! I can understand the general policy which you referred to -- in most cases, it even makes sense. But, you should be mindful of the need for flexibility and the benefits that come from an ability to grasp unique opportunities. Read: insider information is cool to have published ahead of time. (and you're right, there will be variations in the overall dimensions of the Euro / NA sedan if not avant releases for pedestrian laws). You've effectively chased away direct access to substantive info.

Lastly, any performance statistics which I list for any of the models are based on the .pdf direct copies of the Audi product info sheets which are available in the dealerships at the time of the models release. Keep in mind: informational articles ==> official statistics take precedence, and independent tests should only receive "second billing" beneath the official ones.

Okay, have a good one.

• END OF ORIGINAL POST

What follows are a series of comments which the user Pc13 inserted into the original comment. For the sake of keeping it clear what was originally said by myself and what was added, I have appended these to the bottom of the section:

1) You are mistaken. The English Wikipedia has an audience from all over the world. Most people don't even visit the Wikipedia in their own language, coming simply here. About the Audi S4, the car is German and the article should be written primarily from that point of view, with any smodifications made for specific markets (even the Nicaraguan market, should the need arise) covered elsewhere in the text. Also, there something called the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, where we attempt to create a manual of style for automotive articles. So, metric units (kW for power and Nm for torque) will have to be obligatory included. Pc13 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

2) I had already done that. You, however, continue to simply revert to a previous version by editing that previous version, and not the last one. By editing a previous version, any modification made since then is erased - so, if other corrections were made (and I'm not just talking about mine), you would be re-adding errors, either factual or typographical. Pc13 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

3) By writing that information you may be risking your neck. But it's your neck. In fact, if you feel like sharing, you could give it to me, I work for an automotive newspaper in Portugal and I wouldn't mind having that insider info ;-) . Going back to WP policy, Wikipedia is not a place to gather first hand news reports, which is what your insider info would constitute. There's Wikinews for that. Going back to "Crystal Ball", since the next-gen S4 isn't scheduled for debut until four years from now, it doesn't take into account that there may happen changes to world automotive market prevent the release of the S4 - a peaky raise of oil prices, should the Iran situation escalate out of proportions before the Iraq situation is normalized, is likely, making gas-guzzlers such as sports cars and sports sedans uninteresting for prospective buyers. I don't know if it'll happen, but you don't know if the S4 will really reach production, only that it may be in development or under serious consideration. Pc13 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

4) Double-check with the ones online at www.audi.de as well. Pc13 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

5) You too. Pc13 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I won't be responding to any of these comments (I don't see a need to) but I wanted to preserve them and also to keep the original post clear.

PC13, any particular reason you dont think k04'd b5's are doing 500hp? Also, any comments on Audi dropping turbos for future cars?

The 500hp value seems excessive. I understood the text to indicate that those changes were made by amateur modifiers, and not by a tuning house. Therefore, that information cannot be verified and the values must be taken as inflated. I have no idea where you got the idea that Audi is dropping turbos for future cars. Many market analists in Europe agree that gasoline engines will shift to low-pressure turbos in the future, to recover some ground on the popularity of the Turbo Diesel's high low-end torque. And I expect to Audi to start using VW's new twin-charger technology (turbo+supercharger, as seen in the VW Golf 1.4 TSI) in the near future. --Pc13 17:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

AWE 460hp on 93oct, 550hp on racegas. APR 447hp on 93oct. Incidentally, i believe "amateur" modifier claims are actually easier to verify than potentially inflated tuner numbers. There are volumes of dyno sheet data available, as well as VAG-COM/ECUx log analyzers that do a much better job of estimating HP than looking at a tiny graph of a tuner claim.

+60hp, +110ft/lbs chip only. Not sure why those numbers were removed as well. APR has similar numbers, as do both Abt and MTM.

yeah ... even 500 WHEEL Hp (see autospeedperformance.com ) ..check out audiworld.com s4 (B5) forum and see the gph's ;) home brew ko4/rs6 hybrids = 450 ALL-wheel hp - http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/38083/445whpevildyno.jpg

  0-60 : http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/38083/wusspod060.jpg

I see no need at all to include this speculation on the future generations. There is no firm information on this car as far as I can tell, and this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I would like to get a concensus here on whether or not it belongs.

Attention 141.161.69.157, assuming you weigh in on this, please sign your posts with --~~~~. Thanks --SFoskett 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can we NOT do this again? I thought that there was an acceptance of the status quo of a scant 1-2 paragraph 5th generation article, as compared to the original much lengthier. The "firm information" is from a widely respected industry publication; also, go and look back at my original post in terms of the 'quality' of the information. Finally, there is a great deal of much lengthier speculation in a variety of wikipedia articles. (Including, for example Windows Vista). This is a conservative position. I'm fairly firm on retaining this portion of the article. I said I would leave it as such; to come along x weeks/months afterward and slyly delete it (Pc13) is a dick move. 141.161.69.59 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Sick of this bullshitReply

What acceptance? I'd assumed somebody else would have deleted that by now. There is no information from any source on any supposed 2011 Audi S4. You don't have anything, only a possible date that is speculation on your part and not on that of Motor Trend. Speculation on Windows Vista is irrelevant. The automotive industry is too volatile to include such speculation as sure information. Nothing is official at this time about the next-gen Audi A4, much less whether there'll be an S4 or not. --Pc13 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is an excellent (and very close to life) concept image via Auto Bild by Huckfeldt. It has copyright tags and is also tagged across the image. It's available at http://www.carspyshots.net/zerothread?id=15631&page=2 about midway down the page. Could someone inspect it and let me know if they think it would be fair-use to place it?

Also, here is the original article http://www.autobild.de/erlkoenige/neuheiten/artikel.php?artikel_id=11118&artikel_seite=3 It is in German which, unfortunately, I cannot read. Perhaps this contains more information? Any German reading S4 fans out there?

Still waiting for some feedback on this ... (4/22/06)

That image is not only copyrighted, but the owners of these spy shots demand payment upon publication. It is not appropriate to feature them here. --Pc13 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, I have been exceedingly polite. For several months, you have consistently undermined efforts to build up the 5th generation section. I recognize that parts of my earliest work were indeed "speculation" (despite the fact that I know them to be more than speculation, but that's not the point). However, the current information as I have recently revised it is credible and well sourced.

I have revised the 5th Generation Section to incorporate both my information from MotorTrend and your information from AutoBild. This is the SPIRIT of wikipedia -- adding, modifying, synthesizing, etc. Your finding info from AutoBild does not suddenly make it alright to delete the rest of the section. (I also noticed your earlier efforts at simply writing 'No Information on the S4 exists').

If you continue to delete the work that has been going into it, I will register with wikipedia, and request moderation on the page and on your edits. I would like to continue to handle this in a peacable manner. However, it's getting increasingly troublesome to deal with this.

Thanks

Mr. Anonymous Whoeveryouare. Your personal speculations have no place on Wikipedia. Based on a one-line sentence that says "2010 Audi S4: Redesign", you claim the Audi S4 will arrive in 2011. However, there is no sourced information, official or otherwise, about any proposed date for the release of any supposed next generation Audi S4. I have already pointed out to you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Then you claimed you had insider information. And I pointed out to you that Wikipedia is not a place to gather first hand news reports. More specifically, Wikipedia is not Jalopnik, The Car Connection, Edmunds or Germancarfans.com. If you have insider info, give it to them. We'll report it later as speculation... maybe. Maybe not. Until Audi announces something on any future S4, it's not safe to refer to it. Audi has yet to mention anything about the future A4, let alone its performance version. Considering this article still needs so much on the current and previous generations of the Audi S4, it's ridiculous to spend so much time and effort talking about a car that does not yet exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias refer to things that are and that were, not about things that may be. And while you're at it, cite your sources. --Pc13 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought it might be appropriate to start this new section. After attempting (unsucccessfully, over the course of several months) to deal with this more amicably with Pc13, I've initiated two steps.

Formally, I made a "request for comment" over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All under the technology/engineering section.

More informally, I made a comment and asked for advice on the discussion section of the page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.

I'm hoping that one or both of these efforts will resolve these disputes. If they do not, I think I might seek to pursue mediation, or, failing this, arbitration.

Pc13, in one of your comments, you spoke about how unfortunate it was to be focusing on this 5th generation when so much more work needs to be done on the previous generations. I acknowledge that there is much more work to be done on earlier sections. However, I also think it is unfortunate that you have turned what could have been a useful & productive opportunity to contribtue to an additional section of this article into a 'conflicted topic'. To be plain about it: I think your actions run the risk of hurting rather than helping the article.

Okay, that's all for now. I'm a bit embarassed that it has come to this. I hope this will resolve itself soon. I'm committed to preserving the page so that a fair judgment can be made at this point.

NB: The discussion has spilled over onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

I don't want to get too deep into this debate, but I'm removing the reference to Motor Trend. The article in question is a pure speculation piece, and all it contains is the line " 2010 Audi A4: Redesign." You've distorted this from a bit of speculation to Audi's definite plan, and then gone on to speculate about the availability of an S4 a year afterward. You can't do this; it's not how Wikipedia works.

I don't know anything about Auto Bild, so I can't evaluate its information. I do, however, consider it odd that the speculative fifth generation has no more power than the previous. TomTheHand 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would propose that the section be removed entirely. It doesn't help our readers to know someones speculation about something so far into the future. Once the section is gone, your efforts can be put somewhere more useful. Kevin 09:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming that the 1.3s 0-100km/h (roughly equivalent to 0-60mph) is some sort of typo? Either that or the B6 S4 is faster than any other production car in the world, which I find hard to believe in a world of Bugatti Veyrons, Koenigsegg CCR/CCX's, McLaren F1's Lamborghini's and Ferraris...

I was going to just update that part, but I figured I should post here first. Thoughts?

Mattlach 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article states: "[...] however, road tests conducted by American automotive magazines indicated that it could go from a standstill to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 5.1 seconds[citation needed] [...]"

In a comparison test of the 2004 Audi S4 and the 2003 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG, the American Motortrend magazine ran several 0 to 60 mph runs and ended up giving the S4 an average of 4.99 seconds.

Link: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0308_sports_car_comparison/specs_price.html

I therefore suggest to rewrite this section as follows:

Top speed is electronically governed to 250 km/h (155.3 mph). Official figures for the 0-100 km/h (62 mph) sprint in the saloon with manual transmission are 5.6 seconds (Avant 5.8s, Cabriolet 5.9s), however, a road test conducted by the American automotive magazine Motortrend indicated that it could go from a standstill to 60 mph in less than 4.99 seconds, which translates to a 0-100 km/h (62 mph) time of slightly over 5 seconds[reference to link above], and make it to 200 km/h (120 mph) (124 mph) in slightly over 20 seconds, although doing this [...].

Comments?

Celtic1212 (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hired one from Hertz at Phoenix airport for my holibobs in 2005. It was quick, but not 0-100 km/h in 1.3 seconds quick. This was a cabrio with an auto 'box, so about 6 seconds would probably be in the ballpark. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

if you refer to the new section regarding the new B8 chassis S4, there is a bit stating "Although sources disagree, power will likely be found in a twin-turbo or supercharged V6 engine"

this seems to be someone's opinion. nobody cares about what is "likely" unless you can prove your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impreziv (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Picture needs to be added, they are available now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.198.44 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is someone really calling these cars as Typ 8E (saloon & Avant), Typ 8H (Cabrio)... this aka field should be used for alternative names not type codes --Typ932 ^T·C 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this section it says that the B8 S4 was available from Nov 2008, but I don't believe the B8 S4 was available in the USA until model year 2010. I cannot find any sources to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but all of the 2009 S4 models on the market in the US still have the 4.2l V8. See here and here.

Can someone confirm that the B8 wasn't available in the US until 2010? And if so, it should be included in the section. It is confusing enough as it is.--131.53.128.23 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The B5 drivetrain section makes little sense. It incorrectly rates the engine for North America at least. Audi rated the engine at no more than 258 ft/lbs even though dyno tests seemed to indicate it did about 280. It also lists a period of time during which the engine was rated lower in the NA market. However, this period listed is a period of time during which this engine wasn't even offered in the North American market (it was not available until late 1999, the article says the engine was de-rated during 1998). The B5 S4 engine was always offered at 250HP/258ft-lbs in North America even though it was rated for more in Europe. After the B5 S4 was cancelled in the US, the A6 2.7T was offered in an S-Line version with a 265HP tune, this made no noticeable performance difference. Basically, in Europe the S4 was introduced at 265PS, the A6 2.7T was introduced at 235PS but in North America they both made 250HP. All this maintained until the S4 was canceled, shortly thereafter A6 2.7T was revised to 250PS in Europe, and later the S-Line A6 2.7T was revised to 265HP in North America in the last year of production for the 2.7T engine in the A6 (North American model year 2004), the engine was discontinued entirely shortly thereafter when the A6 allroad was canceled in Europe (its final remaining market) in 2006. Bollinger (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You state it makes 'little sense'! ALL the data is sourced from Volkswagen Groups official electronic parts catalogue ETKA (which includes both European and North American specific detail - along with very specific production and installation dates), along with Audi AG official service literature! Your citations are where? We MUST respect officialy tested and officially published figures - or do you have details of an official Court Order which proves Audi wrong?

Secondly, you refer to 'dyno tests' - these are NOT admissible in Wikipedia, as they are NOT carried out under controlled conditions, and are classed as original research.

Furthermore, you quote old-skool imperial units of measurement (ft.lbs, horsepower) - yet Audi have NEVER used imperial units, they ONLY measure in kilowatts (kW) and Newton metres (Nm), and use Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) accredited testing facilities and standards, and not American SAE standards, which are less rigourous - which is why the primary figure is always the 'reference' figure.

Finally, this article is soley about the Audi S4, and NOT the A6! --78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The three option wheels are incorrect for the S4. All three were available on the later S6. The two wheels available on the S4 were the 16x8" 5 spoke Forged Fuchs and the 15x7" 6 spoke "Speedlines" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.209.42 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

16×7 Maunye (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

From the specs that I have read, capacity is 2995 not 2998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.94.111 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audi S4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116234121/http://www.grand-am.com/schedule/entrylist.cfm?series=k&eid=1500 to http://www.grand-am.com/schedule/entrylist.cfm?series=k&eid=1500

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply