# Intel: Mid-Engine Audi R4, R5 or Whatever Back-On Says Kable



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Good news for those who’d like a baby R8. Audi appears to be back on the road to development of the mid-engine sportscar known often on our rumor pages as “R4″ or “R5″. Even better, the intel comes from the very reliable AutoCar contributor Greg Kable and just following his likely attendance at the Audi future lab event in Berlin last week when he’d have seen board-level executives who should know. In other words, we’d classify the intel is highly likely. 

Read the rest of this story here: http://fourtitude.com/news/audi-rum...ne-audi-r4-r5-or-whatever-back-on-says-kable/


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

AutoCar magazine and website doing not well i presume if they need BS stories like this. 
If Audi really show a production new quattro at the IAA Frankfurt, where will that be placed in de line-up. ? 

Above the TT i presume, so where will de R4/R5 be placed, under the TT. 
Or will they pull the plug on the TT, to make space for both the new quattro and R4/R5. ??? 

I really see no future for the TT if Audi introduce the R4/R5 and new quattro. 

The only thing i can think of is that the next TT will be a mid engined car.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

R5T said:


> AutoCar magazine and website doing not well i presume if they need BS stories like this.
> If Audi really show a production new quattro at the IAA Frankfurt, where will that be placed in de line-up. ?
> 
> Above the TT i presume, so where will de R4/R5 be placed, under the TT.
> ...


 Or maybe this is the new Quattro coupe and not a mid engined car after all. German rumours say the Quattro concept is back on the cards after all.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

R5T said:


> AutoCar magazine and website doing not well i presume if they need BS stories like this.
> If Audi really show a production new quattro at the IAA Frankfurt, where will that be placed in de line-up. ?
> 
> Above the TT i presume, so where will de R4/R5 be placed, under the TT.
> ...


 I guess we'll see. I'm familiar Kable and know the level at which he has contacts. Likely he had face time with board members last week at the Audi futurelab. Given that and given the level of detail associated with the rumor, I rank the credibility high. 

I'd be surprised if this car were at Frankfurt. I do expect the TT to be at Frankfurt and I don't expect the TT to be mid-engine.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

The TT will not be at Frankfurt. 
There has still a new TT body testmule to be seen, the last time they where still testing with old body testmule. 
When a new body Audi testmule is seen it take another 6 months before introduction.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

R5T said:


> The TT will not be at Frankfurt.
> There has still a new TT body testmule to be seen, the last time they where still testing with old body testmule.
> When a new body Audi testmule is seen it take another 6 months before introduction.


 I guess we'll see.


----------



## John Y (Apr 27, 1999)

Kable's story is datelined *June 2011* - at that time, it _was_ on; as far as I know all 3 projects spun off the Bluepsport concept are still on ice, so what exactly are we talking about here??


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

According to latest info, will the new TT debut @ Genava 2014. 

On the IAA Frankfurt we will see different debuts.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

John Y said:


> Kable's story is datelined *June 2011* - at that time, it _was_ on; as far as I know all 3 projects spun off the Bluepsport concept are still on ice, so what exactly are we talking about here??


 That's really interesting. I didn't see that date, but all the comments on the story are recent and I don't remember having seen it in the past, nor the render that went with it. I wonder if something's wrong with that date. I have sent an email to a mutual friend of Greg's and will see what's up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

R5T said:


> According to latest info, will the new TT debut @ Genava 2014.
> 
> On the IAA Frankfurt we will see different debuts.


 I have a source that hinted at Frankfurt. BTW, this is all fluid right. It may be planned for one or the other, and it could be changed at the last minute too. It's a board member's prerogative to change their mind. In other words, even if we had solid intel that doesn't definitively mean it will be there. My source though is at Audi AG, so I am fairly confident it will drop there.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I have a source that hinted at Frankfurt. BTW, this is all fluid right. It may be planned for one or the other, and it could be changed at the last minute too. It's a board member's prerogative to change their mind. In other words, even if we had solid intel that doesn't definitively mean it will be there. My source though is at Audi AG, so I am fairly confident it will drop there.


 If that's the case, Audi will go the poor man's route with the TT, just a facelift and transfered to MQB. :facepalm:


----------



## sal1k (Mar 26, 2013)

R5T said:


> If that's the case, Audi will go the poor man's route with the TT, just a facelift and transfered to MQB. :facepalm:


 That's fine with me... This poor man resembles that remark! LOL


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

R5T said:


> If that's the case, Audi will go the poor man's route with the TT, just a facelift and transfered to MQB. :facepalm:


 Not sure why you're so down on the car. A multi-material ASF, MIB-based infotainment likely with hardware similar to A3, multi-use graphic instrument cluster powered by NVIDIA and two-levels of 2.5 TFSI (TTS, TT RS) are the running intel we have right now. Add that to known MQB and Walter de Silva saying it'll be between TT Mk1 and TT Mk2 in its level of design aggression, also Egger's suggestion it'll be one of the first to show off his new volumetric design language and you can count me as one of the people who thinks the new TT sounds very promising.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I have a source that hinted at Frankfurt. BTW, this is all fluid right. It may be planned for one or the other, and it could be changed at the last minute too. It's a board member's prerogative to change their mind. In other words, even if we had solid intel that doesn't definitively mean it will be there. My source though is at Audi AG, so I am fairly confident it will drop there.


 BTW, I believe it will be concept form and not full production.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

[email protected]e said:


> BTW, I believe it will be concept form and not full production.


 If that is the case, then they have doubts about the design.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

R5T said:


> If that is the case, then they have doubts about the design.


 It's precisely what they did with the mk2.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Not sure why you're so down on the car. A multi-material ASF, MIB-based infotainment likely with hardware similar to A3, multi-use graphic instrument cluster powered by NVIDIA and two-levels of 2.5 TFSI (TTS, TT RS) are the running intel we have right now. Add that to known MQB and Walter de Silva saying it'll be between TT Mk1 and TT Mk2 in its level of design aggression, also Egger's suggestion it'll be one of the first to show off his new volumetric design language and you can count me as one of the people who thinks the new TT sounds very promising.


 MQB is the main reason i'm down on the car, VW Golf DNA with some fancy upgrades you mention. 
i had passion for Audi back in the days, "Vorsprung Durch Technik" ment something, "quattro" ment something. 
Now a days there is no "Vorsprung Durch Technik" anymore and "quattro" is not better then what ever other 4WD system out there. 
Audi has become a car manufacturer for the masses with a boring design that is made/styled to be liked by herd people.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

JohnLZ7W said:


> It's precisely what they did with the mk2.


 Yep, with this.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

R5T said:


> Yep, with this.


 And the design was virtually unchanged from the concept to production.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

R5T said:


> MQB is the main reason i'm down on the car, VW Golf DNA with some fancy upgrades you mention.
> i had passion for Audi back in the days, "Vorsprung Durch Technik" ment something, "quattro" ment something.
> Now a days there is no "Vorsprung Durch Technik" anymore and "quattro" is not better then what ever other 4WD system out there.
> Audi has become a car manufacturer for the masses with a boring design that is made/styled to be liked by herd people.


 Man there is a lot of anger in your words. Some of us get joy, fun and excitement out of this little hobby. Sorry you don't! 

On a more philosophical note, isn't ever car just a variation on a common theme? If you really want something unique and different you are looking in the wrong place. In my mind, the fact that automobiles are very much an evolutionarily changing animal, does not in anyway stop me from appreciating new designs. 

When I look at a sculpture from Michael Angelo I don't say "oh they were doing that thousands of years ago. How old tired and run of the mill." No I appreciate the subtile nuances and refinement of his style. The same is true in the way that I appreciate automobiles.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

R5T said:


> MQB is the main reason i'm down on the car, VW Golf DNA with some fancy upgrades you mention.
> i had passion for Audi back in the days, "Vorsprung Durch Technik" ment something, "quattro" ment something.
> Now a days there is no "Vorsprung Durch Technik" anymore and "quattro" is not better then what ever other 4WD system out there.
> Audi has become a car manufacturer for the masses with a boring design that is made/styled to be liked by herd people.


 Clearly I don't agree.  

I have a problem with your contention here. The TT Mk1 had more in common with its equivalent Golf Mk4. The TT Mk2 got even further from the Golf Mk5/6 with an aluminum chassis, aluminum panels, battery in the rear, shared R8 interior components and infotainment with A3/R8/TT that was initially launched in the B7. Of course it also got the valvelift 2.0 TFSI and the Audi-only 2.5 TFSI. This new car will presumably get all that, more multi-material lightening, unique instrument cluster, etc. Differentiation has only gotten better with each generation. The only down sides I see from Mk1 to Mk2 are the less aggressive direction they chose to go with design (even though I still like it) and the interior is not materially as nice as the Mk1 though the Mk 1 was a complete anomaly in its level of cost in things like those aluminum bezels. 

Haldex as all-wheel drive? It's a packaging issue. What all-wheel drive system would you propose they use for a transverse application. I'm not aware of a better front-rear distribution setup for transverse in the industry. I do wish it had right-left torque biasing but that's a separate issue as I understand it.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

Williamttrs said:


> Man there is a lot of anger in your words. Some of us get joy, fun and excitement out of this little hobby. Sorry you don't!
> 
> On a more philosophical note, isn't ever car just a variation on a common theme? If you really want something unique and different you are looking in the wrong place. In my mind, the fact that automobiles are very much an evolutionarily changing animal, does not in anyway stop me from appreciating new designs.
> 
> When I look at a sculpture from Michael Angelo I don't say "oh they were doing that thousands of years ago. How old tired and run of the mill." No I appreciate the subtile nuances and refinement of his style. The same is true in the way that I appreciate automobiles.


 Well stated.


----------



## MSS Automotive (Mar 20, 2013)

Everywhere one looks in the auto industry evolution is causing revolution - see http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforu...78-video-chris-harris-drives-the-new-gt3.html.

And what we hear is the 991 GT3RS will be PDK.

Imagine that, you buy a car that looks basically the same in shape since '63 and then they insult you with high price and electronics...which are not what the enthusiast aspires to.
Hope Audi at least keeps MT on the next ‘poor man’s’ TT else I also will take to arms...!!!


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

According to the latest info, will the next TT-S and TT RS (both 2.5 TFSI) be DSG/S-Tronic only. 
This is in line with most S and RS models from Audi.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Yet, I can't wait to have a 7-speed DSG tranny.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

no way will the tts be 2.5


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

tdi-bart said:


> no way will the tts be 2.5


 TT-S will have the same 310 hp 2.5 TFSI as the RS Q3. 
TT RS will have a ± 380 hp 2.5 TFSI.


----------



## p.r.walker (May 31, 2000)

_WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS RAMPANT SPECULATION 
I have no insider knowledge of Audi product planning, or any awesome connections with the VAG executive board, I'm just a fan boy with a perspective based on observation and hope. _ 

I've been having this mental debate ever since I saw the original R4 concept (2010 e-tron) in Detroit. Beautiful car, but how does this fit into the Audi mix? With the TT, A5, & R8 there isn't much room for another 2 door, and to the the average person is just a rebadged Porsche Boxter/Cayman (we know this is not true, but to the average person, it's another mid-engined car from VAG) 

The market competition has evolved significantly since the TT was originally introduced, many original competitors are gone, and those left have evolved into different creatures, BMW Z4, MB SLK, Nissan Z370 to name a few. 

I did not know where the R4 fit until i saw the TT Ultralight concept, it got me thinking. What if the TT adjusted its comparable target as it moved to the MBQ platform. What if the development cost savings on the MBQ TT were used to implement maximum weight reduction, enough to make Colin Chapman proud. There has been a resurgence of light and inexpensive (relative term I know) fun cars. Imagine an ultralight TT under 2600 lbs, to go head to head or just upmarket with the BR-Z/FR-S, Miata and its Fiat clone and other light weight sports cars in the $25-40 k range starting out with a base TT 1.8t turbo (180hp), a TT-S with a 2.0t @ 230hp and maxing out with the new S3 2.0 turbo with 310 hp 

Now with more space in the product portfolio between the TT and R8, the R4 can set its sights set on the new Alfa 4C, BMW Z4, MB SLK and next gen Lotus Elise/Exige with a base S3 2.0t @ 310hp, a mid-grade 5-cyl 2.5t @ 400hp (A3 concept) and a top of the line 3.0t at 500hp (new VR6 from Worthsee GTI concept). Maybe those last two are wishful thinking, but those engines have been publicly shown at those power levels. A base 2.0t and then two variations of the 2.5t (310 and 360) Is more realistic. A boy can dream. 

This leaves the A5 to go up against the G37, Z370, and other "GT" cars and dare I say "pony cars". Sorry, but when I was looking up the A5 for competitors, Automobile magazine has the Camero, Challenger, and Mustang. Who knows if they get cross shopped as little or as much as we speculate. 

Who knows, I could easily have my targets flipped and the R4 goes entry level sport, while the TT takes on the bigger kids. Or none of this happens. Just needed to get this out of my head.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

The TT going down a step or 2 in the picking order is not going to happen, it will go up a step or 2. 
A R4/R5 with transverse mid engine is not worthy enough to sit above the TT, it would be fine to sit down below the next TT. (it is just basically a VW Bluesport based car) 
Making the R4/R5 a longitudinal mid engined car and it is worthy enough to sit above the TT. 
Still had hoped the TT would transfer to a Longitudinal engine layout. 
It would mean that the TT RS would abandon the 2.5 TFSI engine in favour of the all new 3.0 V6 Bi-TFSI engine with up to 475 bhp. 
That would be a brutal car to fear the competition with, Ultra technology, power, real quattro, rear sport diff, and so on. 

And "NO" it would not harm the A5, the A5 serie does not have a rear hatch and is a Grand tourer, where the TT would be a ultra sport coupe.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

R5T said:


> The TT going down a step or 2 in the picking order is not going to happen, it will go up a step or 2.
> A R4/R5 with transverse mid engine is not worthy enough to sit above the TT, it would be fine to sit down below the next TT. (it is just basically a VW Bluesport based car)
> Making the R4/R5 a longitudinal mid engined car and it is worthy enough to sit above the TT.
> Still had hoped the TT would transfer to a Longitudinal engine layout.
> ...


 
I agree that the TT will not go down market. 

However I cant see a r4/r5 slotting in below the TT either. 

From the reports ive read, porsche are now handling the chassis development, the front end of the car is said to be boxster/911 based, and the rear end "radical". 

Porsche want a car beneath the boxster, audi want a car between the TT and r8. 

And considering the upcoming audi sport quattro, which would have slotted between the TT and r8 has now been moved waaaaay up, by ditching the 2.5 turbo for a 4.0 twin turbo r8, it looks like audi is making space for it. Time will tell either way.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

Poverty said:


> I agree that the TT will not go down market.
> 
> However I cant see a r4/r5 slotting in below the TT either......


 You can't slot a Bluesport based car with transverse engine above the TT. 
The Bluesport was a planned ± 35.000, Euro costing car, why would someone pay twice that price for a Audi badged version.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

R5T said:


> You can't slot a Bluesport based car with transverse engine above the TT.
> The Bluesport was a planned ± 35.000, Euro costing car, why would someone pay twice that price for a Audi badged version.


 As you said, the TT is just a golf, so the market it seems is already there for people to pay 2x for the Audi.


----------



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

JohnLZ7W said:


> As you said, the TT is just a golf, so the market it seems is already there for people to pay 2x for the Audi.


 Only fools will pay that, with a VW version available for half the price.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2001)

R5T said:


> Only fools will pay that, with a VW version available for half the price.


 I don't really see that. 

You seem awfully concerned with the fact that the TT is genetically related to the Golf, but I don't really see the issue there with the MKII TT, and certainly not with what we've been hearing about the MKIII TT. With the MKI TT, you may have had an argument, but I don't really see it any more, and I have plenty of personal experience with both cars. 

For example, my current daily driver is a MKVI Golf GTI. I've spent plenty of time, both on the street and on the track, in both German and US market Golf Rs. My daily previous to the current one was a MKV Golf GTI, so I have plenty of experience driving that platform Golf. I also have plenty of experience in the MKII TT - I've put some mileage in the TTRS (both German and American market versions), I've driven a TTS, and Fourtitude's current long term car, which I've done thousands of miles in, is a TT S-Line Competition Pack. I don't say this stuff to brag or whatever, just to establish that I've got a fair amount of experience driving both cars. 

The TT is a vastly different (and superior, IMO) car to drive, both dynamically and in an overall "feel" type of experience than any of the Golfs are. The lightweight materials that go in to the construction of the TT really lend it a different dynamism than the Golf, even the GTI or Golf R versions. Steering response, turn in, and overall feel are much better on the TT, and it generally feels much more maneuverable and light on it's feet due to the material differences, relocation of the battery, and other differences that have already been mentioned. The base engine in the current TT is much more powerful (and more efficient) than the base engine in the GTI, as well. 

These differences will only get greater with a move to MQB. MQB will allow even more material differentiation than is in the current car, so more lightness in the right places will be possible. It will allow more dimensional differences than with the current car as well, so changes in wheelbase, track width, etc, will all be much more possible without the corresponding giant increase in pricing that we'd see on the current platform. Other than being discriminatory out of some sort of snobbery, I don't really see how the next TT using MQB is a bad thing. Sure, we'd all love to see a dedicated platform for the car that would make it more competitive with things like the Boxster, but along with that would come Boxster pricing. 

As to the pricing argument about the current car, it's not twice as expensive as a Golf. I don't have Euro market pricing handy, but the current US market Golf GTI (as I think comparing the TT to a base Golf is so much of a stretch it's not even worth it) starts at $24,200. The base TT starts at $38,650. That's a 38% price differential, and the Golf is FWD only. If you want to compare an AWD Golf, you have to go Golf R, which is $34,195, giving only a 12% price increase, and you're getting a much more dynamic, stylish car for the money. Yes, I know in Euro and ROW markets there are more engine and drivetrain options, but in short, I don't think the TT is particularly bad value compared to the Golf. 

-Tim


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Who said the blue sport is even coming? 

A r4/r5 is not a 25-30k car. That would be a r2. 

A r4/r5 would be between the tt and r8.


----------

