Never knew about these

[Doctor Gollum]

There may be some confusion over the new trim level badging of these new Audis. 50 Q8 (or the other way round?) does not mean 5.0 litre, 50 is the trim level.

I'm sure Audi use the Lambo V10 5.0 in something.

.....or did.

The RS6 had the 5.0 V10 for a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0M1Tn_FlzQ

Also the S6 & S8 IIRC. I think they also did a 6.0 v12 diesel in the q7 for a while, but obviously no one bought them. 

Four chains, presumably at the back of the engine, with three piece heads to stop it grenading itself. 

[STEMO]

There may be some confusion over the new trim level badging of these new Audis. 50 Q8 (or the other way round?) does not mean 5.0 litre, 50 is the trim level.

Doesn't the 50 relate to the KW power output of the engine? Audi dropped badging the engine litre size for the KW rating several years ago.

Read the link I posted earlier. They might say it does, but it doesn't 

This very informative link suggests that trim levels are nothing to do with engine power output, although certain engines are only available with certain models and levels of trim, varying between entry level models upto and including S and RS models.

https://www.hippoleasing.co.uk/news/different-types-of-audi-cars/

And with regarding to the engne designation (bhp or kwH), this helps to explain Audis very confusing rear badging..

https://www.leasefetcher.co.uk/guides/car-technology/audi-engine-codes

So the trim levels and engine power outputs are different aspects of each model, and don't go hand in hand.

So much easier with the previous 1.2TFSI, 1.6, 2.0 TFSI, and 2.0 TDi or 3.0 TDi, 4.2 V8 etc etc

If only someone had posted an almost identical link yesterday, eh?

[Doctor Gollum]

 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If I paid £65k for a car that only produced 50Kw, I would feel pretty short changed.

Not that I would be retarded enough to buy an Audi in the first place. 

How much is this in old money, Al?

About 77bhp

My brain only works in BHP and LB FT  ( or is it FT LB? )

Can't deal with PS....newton metres, or KW.

[Nick W]

If I paid £65k for a car that only produced 50Kw, I would feel pretty short changed.

Not that I would be retarded enough to buy an Audi in the first place. 

How much is this in old money, Al?

About 77bhp

My brain only works in BHP and LB FT  ( or is it FT LB? )

Can't deal with PS....newton metres, or KW.

Lb/Ft and Ft/Lb are measuring different things. Which makes KW so much more sensible.


1Hp is about 0.75KW


PS is just one of several standards for how the number is derived.

[Doctor Gollum]

No use dressing it up 50Kw isn't going to pull the skin off a 2.5t rice pudding 

[Sir Tigger KC]

If I paid £65k for a car that only produced 50Kw, I would feel pretty short changed.

Not that I would be retarded enough to buy an Audi in the first place. 

How much is this in old money, Al?

About 77bhp

My brain only works in BHP and LB FT  ( or is it FT LB? )

Can't deal with PS....newton metres, or KW.

Do you insist on buying a pound of bananas and an ounce of coke as well M'lud? 

[johnnydog]

There may be some confusion over the new trim level badging of these new Audis. 50 Q8 (or the other way round?) does not mean 5.0 litre, 50 is the trim level.

Doesn't the 50 relate to the KW power output of the engine? Audi dropped badging the engine litre size for the KW rating several years ago.

Read the link I posted earlier. They might say it does, but it doesn't 

This very informative link suggests that trim levels are nothing to do with engine power output, although certain engines are only available with certain models and levels of trim, varying between entry level models upto and including S and RS models.

https://www.hippoleasing.co.uk/news/different-types-of-audi-cars/

And with regarding to the engne designation (bhp or kwH), this helps to explain Audis very confusing rear badging..

https://www.leasefetcher.co.uk/guides/car-technology/audi-engine-codes

So the trim levels and engine power outputs are different aspects of each model, and don't go hand in hand.

So much easier with the previous 1.2TFSI, 1.6, 2.0 TFSI, and 2.0 TDi or 3.0 TDi, 4.2 V8 etc etc

If only someone had posted an almost identical link yesterday, eh?

True. But the original link was obviously confusing if 50 in the model designation was being confused  with the trim level......

[Rangie]

Why can't it be simple 5.0 V8 would have meant something to me
the Ford Mustang makes it simple displaying that on the front wings , where as the disgusting 2.3 version has nothing, who would want a tiny engined Mustang anyhow ?  Could this start something..😂😂😂

[Doctor Gollum]

The 2.3 turbo is quicker than the V8, so there's that. Oh and it's cheaper. And, carefully optioned, even looks like it... 

The current one is an SUV, so a Mustang in name only.

[Nick W]

The 2.3 turbo is quicker than the V8, so there's that. Oh and it's cheaper. And, carefully optioned, even looks like it... 

The current one is an SUV, so a Mustang in name only.

The performance difference makes me wonder why anyone would bother with the V8. Especially when you consider the price difference, although that is much less here. Mustangs have always been available with engines other than V8s, as they were cheap cars based on ordinary saloons. That were usually fitted with straight six or even four cylinder engines.


I saw a Mustang SUV yesterday, and it looks like somebody crashed a Focus into a Mustang and spent 10 minutes with a welder and big tub of filler.

[henryd]

The 2.3 turbo is quicker than the V8, so there's that. Oh and it's cheaper. And, carefully optioned, even looks like it... 

The current one is an SUV, so a Mustang in name only.

At the classic car show I had a ride for charity in a 5.0 mustang that had been played with, 860bhp with suspension and brake mods to suit. Performance was absolutely brutal and handling seemed pretty impressive too

[Raeturbo]

At 860 horsepower I'm not surprised 

[Rangie]

The 2.3 turbo is quicker than the V8, so there's that. Oh and it's cheaper. And, carefully optioned, even looks like it... 

The current one is an SUV, so a Mustang in name only.

At the classic car show I had a ride for charity in a 5.0 mustang that had been played with, 860bhp with suspension and brake mods to suit. Performance was absolutely brutal and handling seemed pretty impressive too

. 

That's exactly what I mean why bother with any thing less ..😁

[henryd]

At 860 horsepower I'm not surprised 

Acceleration was quite uncomfortable to be honest, noise was superb