Anyone see the Audi Q7 at Detroit? 6.0l V-12 diesel throwing out 450 horses. Detuned from the R10 racer. Now that is a diesel.

 

I would love to be able to buy one of those for my wife.

 

I read about that thing. As amazing as it is, why put a 500HP, 737lb/ft of torque engine in an SUV. Porsche is also putting out a 500HP Cayenne. The funny (in a scary sort of way) part is these SUV's are spoken about as though they're sports cars. They're talking about the Audi as having a 0-60mph time of 5.5 seconds. That's nearly as fast as my wifes much lighter 382HP, 391lb/ft of torque, actual sports car. It scares me to think that these things are capable of speeds that used to be only for cars that had the proper tires and suspension set-up and were designed for speed. Does anyone even make a Z-rated M/S tire for a SUV?. Or am I just missing the point of these SUV's and they were never meant to go off-road to begin with?

 

I would love to be able to buy one.

 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...ntroduces.html
it's a 6.0l 493 hp and 737 ft.lbs. meets

 

Thanks for the link. Did you note the 30,000lbs fuel rail pressure. Probably as good as it gets until the V-12 Peugeot diesel next year.

 

OK, that's just crazy. I wonder how long the components are going to last at that pressure.

 

A good point. The first guy to fill the tank with gas will probably find out.

 

Bingo.

The SUV's that are no longer based on truck designs are almost always intended to be the replacement for the '70's and '80's station wagons. That is to say, they haul people and stuff, but never on anything worse than an unpaved parking lot. And the owner needs therapy after the unpaved parking lot.

-blaine

 

I think I was just surprised to hear them talking about those things like sports cars. My wife just recently got rid of her Land Rover LR3 because of persistent electrical bugs (no surprise there) and that thing didn't do too bad off-road. We also have a Suzuki Samurai rockcrawler and we took her LR3 to a couple of spots that we normally take the Sammi and surprisingly, the LR3 did well. We didn't get stupid with it, but we challenged it on some pretty tough obstacles. But from the specs on the Audi, off-roading never really crossed the engineers minds.

 

Hmmm... I wonder if there is more than one definition of "off-roading" to be considered?

Audi's Quattro system (and it's successors/derivatives) is highly capable, and lauded by most of the off-roading press, in some of the most demanding races on the planet; that is to say, places like the Paris-Dakar rally, the Pikes Peak run, and others. But we should note that the system is rarely (if ever) used in a rock-hopping/crawling scenario.

Perhaps in this instance, we're comparing apples and oranges?

Last I knew, Jeep (or Suzuki) didn't have too many entrants in the Pikes Peak challenge. And don't they normally just barely merit an "also-ran" status in the Paris-Dakar? (it's been a while since I knew anything...)

I know that when speaking of off-roading, I usually make a distinction between two basic types: 1) dirt roads, logging roads, fields, shallow mud etc; 2) rock trails, quarries, stream-beds, etc.

In this instance, even a plush Audi Quattro would succeed in the #1 category, but fail miserably in the #2. (heart failure of it's yuppie driver from scratched paint not counted.) And a lifted, "loosely" sprung Jeep or Suzuki would kick butt and take names in category #2, but hardly make it out of the gate w/o rolling in #1.

One wonders if we shouldn't perhaps make a distinction somewhere, or at least wonder if the automotive press does at any point?

-blaine

 

I think the audi V-12 diesel actualy won the 24hrs at LaMans last year at least in their division.

 

Mako314 if I'm not mistaken the win was with a 4 lap lead. At least on the race that I watched.
What a powerplant!!!

 

but Dan, diesels are so dumb and slow

 

The fastest vehicle up the Pikes Peak Hill Climb last year was a Suzuki Escudo (Spelling?). That thing is a demon!