More quattro Concept Death Rumors from Kacher, Maybe Should be quattro Concept Life Rumors

[George@Fourtitude]

On Friday we ribbed our friends over at Fast Lane Daily for suggesting the death of the Audi quattro Concept was as a result of production plans for a model based on the crosslane coupe concept. Since confirmation of the quattro Concept’s death was made last fall, it seemed like more building of drama by those seeking to tell a good story than actual news… but a new story by the well-sourced Georg Kacher over at CAR Magazine this morning has us re-thinking what’s really going on here.

CAR Magazine Kacher Story HERE

First the brief. Kacher’s piece over at CAR does a couple of things. The story officially states the quattro (Concept project) is dead. While an utter shame, this isn’t very surprising. quattro GmbH product boss Stefan Reil confirmed this back in March as part of a round table discussion with American journalists. Granted, internal discussions always seem to go on but it’s safe to say the project as we knew it - a longitudinal 5-cylinder powered car with extensive use of lightweight materials, with a weight matching the original Sport quattro and a price above the R8 GT… well, that’s dead.

The CAR story goes further to suggest sort of an offroad sports coupe is now being considered instead. Kacher sites the lifestyle-oriented Range Rover Evoque as an inspiration for the idea, but the overall story goes a bit beyond that. CAR’s intel (via Kacher) also suggests high performance in the form of the 2.5 TFSI (codename EA 555) – a car that will grab at Audi’s rallying heritage and pull for all its worth. While Evoque is more for going shopping than rallying, this side of the equation might be likened more to an upmarket take on the rally-born Subaru Impreza WRX STi than the Evoque.

Our Own Intel
We recommend you read Kacher’s piece carefully before proceeding. Kacher is well connected with Audi at the highest levels and there’s a lot of intel to be gleaned from the story. Comparing our own intel, we’re trying to form a picture of what is going on here.

Looking at the crosslane coupe on the Audi show stand and now comparing it to the quattro Concept, the similarities are striking. Given the quattro Concept was heavily attributed to Wolfgang Egger even before he assumed the helm at Audi Design, this wasn’t particularly surprising to us. Still, with this new context, maybe there’s more here than meets the eye.

In order to illustrate the line between crosslane coupe and quattro Concept, we’re including several drawings from Audi Design in this story. Several are of the quattro Concept. The red coupe in this story’s header is a drawing of the crosslane… though with a few modifications. We’ve shortened the area below the beltline in order to emphasize the coupe-like nature of the car. We’ve also gone ahead and made it red much like so many ur quattros, and blacked out the newer Egger-inspired grille for a more sporting appearance.

Next, let’s take a look back at the quattro Concept. We’re guessing that even more mainstream plans for the model were likely hard to make a case for given the already wide expanse of Audi sports coupe models. Where you’d position such a car between TT RS, RS 5 and R8 AND maintain or grow volumes for each would be difficult to define. On the day Reil told us about the quattro’s demise, he also explained the theories against the mid-engine R5. There simply isn’t much if any performance room between TT RS and R8. Same goes for a more volume-oriented take on the quattro Concept.

Naturally, we’re guessing Audi product planners reconsidered the plan in the guise of something with more of a crossover stance. By moving the car into a realm of say an Evoque stature with real performance cred, Audi would place a car in a niche that thus far doesn’t really exist. By doing this Audi could further differentiate this product.

Were Audi to go this route, we’d suggest running from the term crossover as if it were the plague. Crossovers don’t suggest credible performance. When people think crossovers they are more likely to think tall SUV wannabes and not of capable vehicles like the BMW X6M. If Audi is to manage the message, perhaps focusing more on the allroad is a better approach, with visions of 6-speed manual biturbo wagons with adjustable suspension setting the bar.

Our own discussions with Audi have us pondering the formula even further. Twice on the Paris stand we loosely heard the term “lifestyle vehicle” and “… good for going shopping” from Audi personnel. That sounds pretty Evoque for us… but perhaps that refers to the crosslane coupe and not this performance Q coupe as described by Kacher. The difference is nuanced, but understandable.

The second point we’d heard a while back was in reference to the TT and more theoretical in where this model could or should go. The comment came after I waxed on how difficult it must be to redesign such a bar-setting original. “What if it morphed from generation to generation? What if it were more offroad… like Steppenwolf?”

Steppenwolf of course was an Audi concept from 2000. From a design (and architecture) standpoint the car was essentially a shooting brake crossover take on the first-generation TT coupe. At that time it was very much what the Evoque is today, but a full decade ahead of the game.

The question referencing TT posed to us by one of Audi’s team member seemed more theoretical at the time. Take it completely literal and you’d wonder if the next TT won’t be such a crossover coupe. Honestly, we take the question less literally, and wonder if this wasn’t more a hint at this Q coupe to come.

What Would be Credible?
When you consider such a Q performance coupe, there are a lot of questions that come to mind. The Evoque is a lifestyle car and one without any real performance cred. The quattro Concept was pretty much all performance cred with no cost constraints inhibiting its accomplishment of that goal. Finding something in between seems to be the target for Ingolstadt, but we still think it is imperative that the car must have impeccable performance chops. If it’s taller, it’s still got to handle well. If it’s rally inspired, it damn well better do more than be good at going shopping. Think Ford Raptor capabilities in a coupe with Sport quattro proportions.

One question suggested by Kacher that Audi’s management are still pondering is that of architecture.

Should this Q-coupe go on the longitudinal MLB platform? No doubt this would be in line with Porsche’s needs. Previous Kacher pieces on Porsche plans for Q5-based Macan expansion suggest that a Q coupe in this form would help Porsche more readily save on development for the Macan family. The down side here is that longitudinal engine fitment likely rules out use of the 2.5 TFSI EA 555 engine.

Should this Q-coupe go on the transverse MQB platform? By going MQB Audi could retain the 5-cylinder engine. This is a pretty key point should they wish to draw on the brand’s rich rallying heritage with this model. Still, going this route then forces Ingolstadt to turn the engine in a way (East-West) that is not consistent with the original rallying quattros. They’d be forced to use the Haldex all-wheel drive system that, while a competent system, is not close in configuration to the drivetrains used in rallying. All of the drivetrain heritage belongs to the longitudinal program.

So which is more important? Engine or chassis/drivetrain? No doubt this is the debate that is currently being waged about a Q coupe. What’s your take? We’d be curious to hear the opinions of Audi’s most die-hard fans. We’re guessing Ingolstadt would be eve more curious.

[StringTheory]

I would suggest the following

A more boxy, Sportback/Fastback version of TT + 2.5 TFSI + Haldex mk5+ VAQ diff front and rear. Call it whatever you like, as long as it sounds like AC/DC's Powerage album and bellowes fire thru the exhaust, it should do OK.

[feels_road]

Longitudinal engine with mechanical center diff and the option of a rear torque-vectoring diff always peaks my interest. When you start from a hatch and throw in adjustable suspension height with a wide track and relatively central mass, you can go from a high-performance sports car to a snow-worthy CUV with a switch of a button.

[Turbio!]

Longitudinal engine with mechanical center diff and the option of a rear torque-vectoring diff always peaks my interest. When you start from a hatch and throw in adjustable suspension height with a wide track and relatively central mass, you can go from a high-performance sports car to a snow-worthy CUV with a switch of a button.

Yes, this. I'm sort of envisioning a cross between a Subaru XV Crosstrek and an S5, with Crosslane Coupe styling and a bat**** insane RS version. And that gives me le tight pants. Audi could do it credibly, it'd hit the X6/Evoque market squarely, but it could still have credible performance attributes and a lower, more hunkered stance over its raised suspension. I think it'd be devastatingly popular, personally.

[George@Fourtitude]

Yes, this. I'm sort of envisioning a cross between a Subaru XV Crosstrek and an S5, with Crosslane Coupe styling and a bat**** insane RS version. And that gives me le tight pants.

hahaha. Nice.

[Turbio!]

hahaha. Nice.

Now, another question is...how big would it be? Like a slammed Q5, or smaller than that, more Evoque size?

[l88m22vette]

I want them to base it off an S5 in the slightest, but raise it a few inches and use the boxy styling as shown, that's closer to the urQ (make sure it doesn't look like a Corrado!). Give it a 4cyl and the 2.5T in longitudinal form, and all the best drivetrain/chassis bits the company has, mine the rally angle for everything its worth. I've always wondered why there was no I5 in the A5/S5, take the original's approach and that car would be evil...

[George@Fourtitude]

They did build one. I drove it.

http://fourtitude.com/features/Revie...-beast-part-1/

the problem is that the I5 is longer than the V10. This makes it tricky to fit it in the A5 body shell.

-G

[mookieblaylock]

do not want

[Mcstiff]

They did build one. I drove it.

http://fourtitude.com/features/Revie...-beast-part-1/

the problem is that the I5 is longer than the V10. This makes it tricky to fit it in the A5 body shell.

-G

I call BS, the 07K is not much longer (crank pulley to trans mounting surface) than a 1.8T and shorter than an ABZ. I know the timing chain V8s are shorter than an ABZ but I don't think by >2".

[Turbio!]

I call BS, the 07K is not much longer (crank pulley to trans mounting surface) than a 1.8T and shorter than an ABZ. I know the timing chain V8s are shorter than an ABZ but I don't think by >2".

He's got better info than you do, by far. Why don't you ask questions, since he has firsthand experience with the vehicle and direct interaction with its designers and engineers, instead of calling BS?

[Air and water do mix]

If it were up to me, I'd say go longitudinal. Anyone who knows anything about the original would rather have the better awd system and anyone who doesn't know anything about it wouldn't care. Would some bemoan the loss of the 5? Sure, but I think a 4 or 6 would make a better vehicle and I believe most objective observers would as well.

[Mcstiff]

He's got better info than you do, by far. Why don't you ask questions, since he has firsthand experience with the vehicle and direct interaction with its designers and engineers, instead of calling BS?

If the statement is that "the I5 is longer than the V10" and I know how big the I5 is are I'm not sure how the statement contains better info, "by far". If anyone has a V10 to measure we can know for sure; the V10 and I5 have the same, 88mm, cyl spacing.

Perhaps the statement should be that using the I5 does not meet project cost requirements.

[Turbio!]

If the statement is that "the I5 is longer than the V10" and I know how big the I5 is are I'm not sure how the statement contains better info, "by far". If anyone has a V10 to measure we can know for sure; the V10 and I5 have the same, 88mm, cyl spacing.

Perhaps the statement should be that using the I5 does not meet project cost requirements.

Well, he's getting his information from the engineers that actually worked on the project, and frankly my money is on firsthand knowledge, not on some guy on the internet calling BS from a spec sheet. For what it's worth, though, you're probably right that it boils down to cost; he did say that it was "tricky," not impossible. They had to modify the intake manifold and some other items on the 2.5T A5 prototypes to get the engine to fit at all, which was probably more expense than desired for series production, and that may have changed the lengthwise packaging as well.

[Mcstiff]

Well, he's getting his information from the engineers that actually worked on the project, and frankly my money is on firsthand knowledge, not on some guy on the internet calling BS from a spec sheet. For what it's worth, though, you're probably right that it boils down to cost; he did say that it was "tricky," not impossible. They had to modify the intake manifold and some other items on the 2.5T A5 prototypes to get the engine to fit at all, which was probably more expense than desired for series production, and that may have changed the lengthwise packaging as well.

I am not brokering my opinion, just measurements and comparisons. I do not believe that the V10 is shorter because of the bore and cyl spacing. The timing chain housing at the top of the image is above the flywheel and behind the trans mounting surface. For the V10 to be significantly shorter they would have had to of done some real magic. BTW, that is a 2.0T head next to it.



We can agree that accounting is to blame

[George@Fourtitude]

If the statement is that "the I5 is longer than the V10" and I know how big the I5 is are I'm not sure how the statement contains better info, "by far". If anyone has a V10 to measure we can know for sure; the V10 and I5 have the same, 88mm, cyl spacing.

Perhaps the statement should be that using the I5 does not meet project cost requirements.

Okay, so I'll be happy to tell you what I know. My information is from when I drove the quattro concept and again when I drove "The Beast" an A5-bodied ASF (likely MLB-evo)... but identical in dimension to A5/S5/RS 5 and fitted with the 2.5 TFSI.



I spoke to the engineer who was the head of installation of the engine in both that chassis and the quattro concept chassis that was then shipped to Giugiaro to build the body, etc. I shot photos under hood of the A5, and they show the intake that had been fabricated. At first Audi would not let you shoot photos under hood (when I drove the quattro Concept) but then when I drove the A5 they had decided that was okay. I'm posting one shot in this thread, but the rest can be found here...

http://fourtitude.com/galleries/?c=s...%20The%20Beast

Okay, so first I want to say that I don't handle these motors like my engineer friend or perhaps like you. I am going on what I was told by him, as he'd done the installation in both cars. Clearly the engine sits higher in the engine bay so even the same length will cause issues that may be attributed to length. He is a native German speaker who speaks English. I speak virtually no German so translation may have played a part. Unfortunately, we don't have shots of the 2.5 TFSI or the V10... particularly in like engine bays and with all necessary piping including intercoolers with which to compare. Block for block, you might be right... but I'm talking installed engine by a guy who's done it to two cars.

One other thing to consider regarding height, don't forget they're now dealing with pedestrian safety laws. See how high that engine sits in that bay above? Now consider the quattro concept is lower... and tighter. I'm guessing this played a part also.

I can ask for specifics if there's something you wish to know. I can't guarantee an answer but I can ask.

Regarding costs, costs may or may not have been part of the concern. I actually think not (in the case of the engine) for several reasons. First, the costs for quattro Concept to be built were in the multi-material chassis, the weight goals and the bespoke interior (not shared components with other models like R8 using plenty of TT switchgear). Costs may have played a part, but likely not dealing with this engine. Further, the engineer working on it wasn't involved by job description with cost analysis or business case. He and his team were directly involved in fitting the engine and building these projects... so his perspective came from that.

On the engine, as far as I know only the manifold had to be modified. I'm guessing that wouldn't have been serious cost. I've also heard though that this engine has been fitted in other cars for testing. Why not use it in S4? S5? R8 etc? In all likelihood there are test mules that have gone with this configuration, but in the end the belief I've heard from several sources is that they weren't happy with the torque levels and thus drivability. Of course these were issues for the old I-5 cars as well... and while the 2.5 TFSI has a more robust torque curve, it's not as drivable for the everyday consumer as say the 3.0 TFSI or the 4.2 FSI that are currently in the cars we'd probably all like to see using this motor.

[Mcstiff]

Thanks for the info! It sounds to me like the modifications to fit the I5 would not be profitable.

Looking at the 2.0 the I5 looks to sit taller and is ~2" longer:



To be clear, my comments were specifically aimed at I5 vs V10 length.



The only question I have is can I borrow "The Beast"

[Remedy]

@ George

So, the 2.5 wouldn't be feasible in the A5 chassis. Got it. While the 2.5 in the TTRS is such a low volume product, is there anything Audi can do to turn a profit with the 2.5 motor? I mean, the TTRS isn't a high volume product and the motor doesn't seem to be compatible with anything other than the TT.

[Mcstiff]

@ George

So, the 2.5 wouldn't be feasible in the A5 chassis. Got it. While the 2.5 in the TTRS is such a low volume product, is there anything Audi can do to turn a profit with the 2.5 motor? I mean, the TTRS isn't a high volume product and the motor doesn't seem to be compatible with anything other than the TT.

It's in the RS3, I wish they'd put a detuned version in the S3.

[50fridge]

They really should just make the Audi Quattro Concept the next gen Audi TT. They could offer it with multiple engine options and then have a high performance one with the turbo inline 5 tuned to 400hp. They need to base it off the Audi's MLB platform so it can have the sports differential and a real AWD system. The current TT handles pretty well but the B8 S4 with the sports differential handles even better. If they make Evoque competitor that would be stupid.

[mookieblaylock]

T If they make Evoque competitor that would be stupid.

bean counters call the shots so that's where the market is apparently. Sad to see yet another suv but people buy them i guess

[50fridge]

bean counters call the shots so that's where the market is apparently. Sad to see yet another suv but people buy them i guess

Yeah it is pretty depressing. That Audi Quattro Concept has been one of the nicest looking concept cars in the last few years. Too bad Audi does not want to make it. What do people see in the Evoque. My dad drove one recently and it was very mediocre and overpriced. The Q5 is a much nicer car.

[George@Fourtitude]

The only question I have is can I borrow "The Beast"

[George@Fourtitude]

@ George

So, the 2.5 wouldn't be feasible in the A5 chassis. Got it. While the 2.5 in the TTRS is such a low volume product, is there anything Audi can do to turn a profit with the 2.5 motor? I mean, the TTRS isn't a high volume product and the motor doesn't seem to be compatible with anything other than the TT.

Here's the thing on the 2.5 TFSI. It's often compared to the I5 in various VWs. "It shares the block" is often an understandable misnomer. There are dimensional changes, but the I5 is one of VW's cheapest engines to build and this is naturally done through cost-streamlined components (a nice way of saying cheaper components). The 2.5 TFSI in comparison is the highest hp per liter in the entire VW group with the exception of the Bugatti Veyron SS. Worth noting, I figured that out before Porsche was part of the group so this may have changed with inclusion of a car like the 911 GT2 and I haven't checked that... but the point is still made.

Given all of this, the 2.5 TFSI needed much higher tolerances than the I5. The block is of a different and more exotic material, etc., etc., etc. Thus far it has only been used in less cost-sensitive models such as TT RS and RS 3. I believe it's been considered for a Volkswagen CC-R (a rumor I'd heard) and I know for certain that VW's head of development Ulrich Hackenberg (also formerly the same at Audi before Michael Dick) has said that he'd like to see the engine in wider use at Volkswagen. He hasn't been specific about this, but one can assume that if it is to go into higher volumes then some costs would come down... but even still they'd likely need to d-tune it just a bit in order to bring some cost out of it. Such an example has been employed over the years in engines like the 1.8T, 2.0T FSI, as well as the new EA 888 2.0 TFSI (TSI at VW) and the new 4.0 TFSI. It's reasonable to think that this could happen because this and the VR6 are the only real choices for higher powered transverse cars and the I5 has better power and efficiency.

[Turbio!]

I am not brokering my opinion, just measurements and comparisons. I do not believe that the V10 is shorter because of the bore and cyl spacing. The timing chain housing at the top of the image is above the flywheel and behind the trans mounting surface. For the V10 to be significantly shorter they would have had to of done some real magic. BTW, that is a 2.0T head next to it. )

You're also seemingly interpreting "shorter" to mean length, not height.

[Mcstiff]

You're also seemingly interpreting "shorter" to mean length, not height.

Well, I am interpreting "the problem is that the I5 is longer than the V10" as not height.

[Turbio!]

Well, I am interpreting "the problem is that the I5 is longer than the V10" as not height.

Uh...yep. Let's pretend I never posted that. Derp.

[allroad]

"If Audi is to manage the message, perhaps focusing more on the allroad is a better approach, with visions of 6-speed manual biturbo wagons with adjustable suspension setting the bar."



They're after mainstream volumes, not niche numbers. Hence cutting the Neu Quattro out of the plan. Going back to the way the allroad was originally marketed truly is going backwards.