• 19
Click above for a high-res gallery of the Audi RS6 sedan

Good news and bad news go hand-in-hand, but in this case, it's not entirely unexpected.

According to Audi RS6 project manager Jens Koch, the twin-turbocharged V10 sedan won't be coming to the U.S. in its current iteration. Originally, Audi thought that the four-door body style would be more appealing to Stateside consumers rather than the Avant, but apparently there's too much energy and expense involved in making the V10 powerplant pass the more stringent sniffer standards here in the U.S.

On the upside, the third-generation RS6 is being developed for the global market, so the next iteration should arrive on our shores in 2012. Koch hinted that the RS6's weight problem and 5.0-liter V10 wouldn't carryover to the 2012 model, and that the next RS6 will be more "revolutionary" and "far more RennSport than anything previously developed."

Meanwhile, Audi will take the wraps off the RS5 this January in Detroit, with the next RS4 debuting shortly thereafter.

Audi plans to further its goal of taking on BMW's M division and Mercedes' AMG lineup with more Quattro-branded vehicles positioned above run-of-the-mill Audis, along with more clearly defined R-, S- and RS-derivatives. "S" badged variants will also be sportier than current S models, while the "R" lineup will be "significantly souped-up" and "RS" will be reserved for lightweight, track-friendly models.

[Source: InsideLine]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Years Ago
      I guess another victim of CAFE?
      • 6 Years Ago
      This is most disturbing!! I was waiting for this car to come to the US.
      The S6 has got nothing against the M5 and E63...Audi needs something to go against these!! What the hell are they thinking?
      How can BMW get away with a V10 and Audi cannot seem to import it?
      Audi has a winner here...finally a car that has looks and is upto speed on gadgetry etc...they need this in the US!!!!!
      • 6 Years Ago
      If someone had the money, would it be possible to import this car into the US privately, or through a local Audi dealership?
      Even though it doesn't meet US emission standards?

      If it is possible, I'm sure there would be an RS6 sighting in the US, (although rare). But I'm assuming there would be a waiting list for this car.

      Does anyone know how many they're producing per year?

      • 6 Years Ago
      Is Audi scared? LOL... they should be!
        • 6 Years Ago
        Serge, the engine in my RS4 was co-developed with Honda F1. It makes 420hp out of 4.2L and revs to 8300rpm. It runs on pump 91 octane. It may not like it, but it never pings or throws a CEL. The RS4 also won World Car of the Year last year beating out cars like the 911 Turbo. None of any of that had anything to do with Lambo. You don't think that's a good engine?
        • 6 Years Ago
        I love the sarcasm... although you cant say anything agains my and BigMcLargeHuge comments. Do you want to know why? I think it's because they are true. Seriously, a petrol engine that cannot pass emissions standards and keep it's power is kinda silly... and even with all it's "power" it can't outrun the competition. Besides that Audi wouldn't have such a high-tech engine if it wasn't for Lambo anyway.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Quote from Serge: -
        "by all accounts its a good modern high tech engine, but 317lb-ft torque at over 5,000RPM is just horrible." -

        Yeah, the 295lb-ft max at 3900RPM in the M3 is a huge step forward.

        You failed to back up your assertion with actual numbers and I think we all know why.

        The unfortunate nature of a high revving engine is a loss of torque. Any N/A high-revving engine(8K RPM or greater) I can think of has much less torque than its HP figure would suggest.

        It all makes sense though since Torque is a function of HP and RPM. The actual equation is Tq = (HP x 5252)/RPM. As you can see, with higher RPMs, the torque number will be lower due to RPM being in the denominator. Since any high-revving engine I can think of makes its peak HP at those higher RPMs(otherwise what is the point?), their torque figures are going to be low compared to the HP figure. It's also the same reason(though opposite) that diesel vehicles tend to have very high torque figures compared to the HP numbers. Also explains why engines that make their peak power at middle RPMs also tend to have similar torque figures that are also made around those middle RPMs.

        Granted, it's not all about the numbers and calculations, but they do play a role and tell an interesting story. Plus, the HP -> Torque calculation does only give the figures at a specific RPM as well. This is why a dyno sheet and "area under the curve" comes into play.

        In a strange twist of fate, at it's peak HP RPM, the RS4 engine is still making almost the same torque as the M3's max. The M3's max is 295lb-ft. At 7500RPM(the RS4's HP max), the RS4 makes 294lb-ft.

        As a comparison, the M3 engine makes 2612lb-ft at its peak HP RPM(8300).

        So, realistically, both engines seem to have fairly good powerbands, but the RS4 does indeed make more torque and also makes it farther into the RPM range than the M3. In that case, I'll agree with Matt, both are equally brilliant, but the RS4 engine does seem to be the better one), at least on paper.

        • 6 Years Ago
        The Audi engine has 90% of it's max torque available from 2000-7000rpm. It also has a broader powerband then the M3 enginge.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The weight dist is 56/44 and not even the great Jeremy Clarkson had much to say about the front weight bias when driving the car.

        Here's a dyno comparing the RS4 and R8 engines, which are almost exactly the same except for their air intake and oil lubrication systems (wet vs dry sump)


        Also, note that in many tests the RS4 is faster to 60 and the 1/4 than the new M3, so don't get too high on your horse about how tractable the M3 engine is - it's even more lofty then the RS (albeit equally as brilliant).
        • 6 Years Ago
        Naturally any car that burns so much fuel its illegal is going to go fast. Audi missed that little balance point.

        Don't get me wrong, I fully anticipated Audi to win a lot of comparison tests in US magazines.

        But team that shows up on game day FTW.

        • 6 Years Ago
        Quote from Matt: -
        "Serge, the engine in my RS4 was co-developed with Honda F1. It makes 420hp out of 4.2L and revs to 8300rpm. .............................None of any of that had anything to do with Lambo. You don't think that's a good engine?" -

        Umm, you do know that the engine in the RS6 isn't the 4.2L V-8 in the RS4 right??

        The RS6 does indeed share its V-10 with Lambo, it's just a twin-turbo version of it. Albeit it is updated a fair amount and brought down to 5.0L.

        Sucks, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. We never got the original RS4, we barely got the last RS6, why shouldn't that tradition carry on? I was never expecting the Avant, but I figured the sedan would make a nice substitute.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Scared? Hardly... it's just a business decision. The high costs of making a high performance vehicle meet emissions regulations along with the strong Euro just makes no sense.

        Good to hear they want to up the RS brand though, and make the S the equivalent of M and AMG models. The prices for the rest of their models compared to the competition shows that is their intention.
        • 6 Years Ago
        great, insightful comment. really making a valid point there...
        • 6 Years Ago
        The Caddy wins by default.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "As a comparison, the M3 engine makes 2612lb-ft at its peak HP RPM(8300)."

        I hope that's a typo.

        But I never said that the RS4 engine should have a torque curve of the LS7, that would be silly. I realize that high-rev engines dont have gobbles of torque. But I still think that the M3 engine being smaller and not using DI has an amazing power curve. Those 0.2L and DI add more torque than HP and widen the power band considerably... with that said you could say that those two things save the RS4 engine. I think that's the problem, companies rely on new technology to make otherwise, I wouldn't say bad, but defenately not as amazing as they seem with the tech engines better instead of doing it the "right" way and then adding new tech to make them better. Look at the Porsche GT3 engine... over 400HP from a NA 6 banger! Now when they add DI to that amazing engine it will be even better, but before they do they squeeze every ounce of power they could out of it.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Hey Montoym,

        I was merely pointing out that Audi has respectable and 'high-tech' engines in it arsenal besides those derived from lambo platforms. By the way, if you compare the three V10s they are actually quite dramatically different in design, as the lambo is designed for high rpms, the n/a Audi V10 is designed for more mid-ranged torque, and the TFSI enjoys the best of both worlds.

        Apologies if my points were unclear in reference to the V8 comment.

      • 6 Years Ago
      Whoa you mean America is actually ahead of Europe in air quality and emissions of cars!? (read sarcasm)
      • 6 Years Ago
      I don't think it has anything to do with fuel economy. Unless Audi starts producing some cars in north America to lower the shipping cause there is just not enough demand for Audi to invest in us. Yes they are awesome cars but the economy is crappy right now which is really holding everything back. - http://mys4.org/
      • 6 Years Ago
      The funny thing is, the RS6 Avant is actually more economical then both the M5 and E63.
    • Load More Comments