2016 Audi R8 V10 Plus vs. 2016 Porsche 911 Turbo S

[Kain]

Which car would you pick? I'd most likely go for the new R8 V10 Plus for the following reasons:

1. N/A V10 with a high rpm redline.
2. Mid-engine instead of rear-engine.
3. Much better sound.
4. More "visceral" (the 911 Turbo S is bit of a softy in most ways).
5. Faster or at least as fast.

I'm sure there are more than I am not thinking of right now.

Note: I'm talking about the 991.2 Turbo S (facelifted) that has 580 hp.

[Sasquach]

probably an Audi R8, cuz it it gots a more exotic supercar look to it.

[Xplode]

Well the Porsche is a better car just about in every way. I doubt the R8 would be faster then even the current 911 Turbo let alone the new one. Sound is debatable but I'd give a slight edge to the R8. But the R8 is one of the prettiest cars ever made IMO so this wouldn't even be close, R8 all day every day.

Now the only problem is the new R8 is coming out in the next 6 months. Although I happen to see it at the Auto Show a month back and it just wasn't as nice. The back end is very nice but the front end looks all squished up and out of proportion.

[Silent-Runner]

not bad, but also not droolworthy.

[Mahjik]

What do you plan to do with the car? If the car will never see a race track, Audi without a doubt. It's a much better "around the town" car. The Porsche is the better handling car out of the box, but it won't matter if you aren't at a track. Even "canyon driving" as some do won't show the differences.

[switchAMG]

What do you plan to do with the car? If the car will never see a race track, Audi without a doubt. It's a much better "around the town" car. The Porsche is the better handling car out of the box, but it won't matter if you aren't at a track. Even "canyon driving" as some do won't show the differences.

IMHO, The Porsche is more practical as a daily driver, having more cargo capacity and a 2+2 configuration that makes it possible to carry two adults or a couple kids in the back.

With the right tires, I would take the 911 over the R8 in winter as well.

And why not pick the one that is not only faster but handles better? who cares if you never take it to the track.

[Elysian]

If I were able to afford either car I'd probably want the Porsche.

[switchAMG]

(also extremely biased)

I have driven both cars, R8 was fun just not my thing.

[Mahjik]

IMHO, The Porsche is more practical as a daily driver, having more cargo capacity and a 2+2 configuration that makes it possible to carry two adults or a couple kids in the back.

2 adults in the back? Maybe for a quick trip, but it's anything but practical. That's obviously not something he's looking for as if he was, neither car is a good option.

With the right tires, I would take the 911 over the R8 in winter as well.

You are really smoking something here... Nothing beats Audi's AWD system. I've seen the Porsche guys in my area as they used to have a winter Auto-X event for the first snow (with the AWD guys).

And why not pick the one that is not only faster but handles better? who cares if you never take it to the track.

The ride quality is more comfortable in the Audi. It's more of a touring type car than a pure sports car. That, and the interior is better...

[switchAMG]

2 adults in the back? Maybe for a quick trip, but it's anything but practical. That's obviously not something he's looking for as if he was, neither car is a good option.

I defined "around the town" car as having "some" practical abilities. At least with the 911 you have the option.

You are really smoking something here... Nothing beats Audi's AWD system. I've seen the Porsche guys in my area as they used to have a winter Auto-X event for the first snow (with the AWD guys).

I knew this as I wrote it BUT like your track example, in day to day experience the driver wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I drove a Carrera 4S for a week last winter, in terrible Canadian winter conditions -- it was great.

The ride quality is more comfortable in the Audi. It's more of a touring type car than a pure sports car. That, and the interior is better...

Its all personal preference I guess.

Also, I would like to ask Kain, have you driven both cars? (on a track) to get a feel for them?

My guess is the average person, if they had to pick one car for their garage, and drove the two they would mostly pick the 911. The R8 just not as fast or as talented as the Porsche and it will force you to become a better driver.

[Mahjik]

The R8 just not as fast or as talented as the Porsche and it will force you to become a better driver.

The R8, as I mentioned, is more of a touring car (GT as they are called today). It's not as nimble as a pure sports car, and it's not supposed to be. However, these are also the things that make it nicer to daily drive (in the same vain as your MB being much more "practical" for everyday use).

As far as an ill handling car making people a better driver, that is an old wise tale..

[vitocorleone]

Audi, but I'd want to compare the Acura NSX as well at that price.

[Silent-Runner]

....but I'd want to compare the Acura NSX as well at that price.

"Pricing has yet to be finalized but is expected to start in the “mid-$150K range,” according to Fini, with production starting this fall and deliveries to follow later in the year. "

While it looks kinda [email protected], 150k is a hefty pricetag. But, as usual, that might just be me

[curio]

Why do you guys ask questions about cars I'll never be able to afford? Bastards.

[switchAMG]

The R8, as I mentioned, is more of a touring car (GT as they are called today). It's not as nimble as a pure sports car, and it's not supposed to be. However, these are also the things that make it nicer to daily drive (in the same vain as your MB being much more "practical" for everyday use).

As far as an ill handling car making people a better driver, that is an old wise tale..

The R8 is classified as a Touring car but its a Supercar -- I have driven the car twice, once on a track and once on a 3 hour road trip, awesome car but was I feeling, "Wow, this is so much more comfortable than my 911." -- not even a little bit.

Don't agree, owning a 911 fundamentally and completely changed how I viewed driving. And I never said ill handling -- it is just different.

[switchAMG]

Why do you guys ask questions about cars I'll never be able to afford? Bastards.

You and me both.

[Mahjik]

And I never said ill handling -- it is just different.

There is a reason the Cayman is limited on power and that no one else puts the engine in the same spot as the 911.

Don't get me wrong, I love 911's but they are fundamentally flawed by design. That doesn't produce a great driver just from driving 911's. A great driver can learn the traits of any car.

[OverclockN']

Voted 911, because that one interests me more. I haven't driven either one yet.

[switchAMG]

There is a reason the Cayman is limited on power and that no one else puts the engine in the same spot as the 911.

Don't get me wrong, I love 911's but they are fundamentally flawed by design. That doesn't produce a great driver just from driving 911's. A great driver can learn the traits of any car.

The Cayman is limited on power because it is an entry level Porsche, and it outperforming a 911 would look bad -- that is the one and only reason. That said, the engine placement is superior on the Cayman versus the 911 -- superior sports car platform IMO, which is why I want one.

The flawed design theory was true in the early 60's, since then with wider wheels, tires, a longer wheelbase and technology has changed that. Longer and wider over time making it easier to move and much more stable -- particularly when more power was injected. No other car has ever shown a production life 50+ years without an entire re-style or re-engineering of its basic foundation -- pretty sure if it was flawed they would have made a change...

[OverclockN']

The flawed design theory was true in the early 60's, since then with wider wheels, tires, a longer wheelbase and technology has changed that. Longer and wider over time making it easier to move and much more stable -- particularly when more power was injected. No other car has ever shown a production life 50+ years without an entire re-style or re-engineering of its basic foundation -- pretty sure if it was flawed they would have made a change...

I don't see how it could be anything but a flawed design, the weight is entirely in the wrong place. But, after 50 years of engineering...they simply made it work. The evidence of this is in the Cayman, as already mentioned.

[switchAMG]

I don't see how it could be anything but a flawed design, the weight is entirely in the wrong place. But, after 50 years of engineering...they simply made it work. The evidence of this is in the Cayman, as already mentioned.

Go spend a weekend driving one and let me know if the word flawed is the first thing comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

[Mahjik]

Go spend a weekend driving one and let me know if the word flawed is the first thing comes to mind.

People like driving Porsche's because they are sheep. Pure and simple. Again, I am one of those sheep, but there is nothing technically ground breaking with their design and no one is following it. They've kept it that way as that's what the heritage expects. Just like we'll never see a mid-engine Corvette as that's not what the owners expect. They add more electronics to make it "better", but that's just putting more lipstick on a pig.

[Sazar]

Which car would you pick? I'd most likely go for the new R8 V10 Plus for the following reasons:

1. N/A V10 with a high rpm redline.
2. Mid-engine instead of rear-engine.
3. Much better sound.
4. More "visceral" (the 911 Turbo S is bit of a softy in most ways).
5. Faster or at least as fast.

I'm sure there are more than I am not thinking of right now.

Note: I'm talking about the 991.2 Turbo S (facelifted) that has 580 hp.

Seems like you like the Audi better. Go with whatever gives you the fizz

[OverclockN']

Go spend a weekend driving one and let me know if the word flawed is the first thing comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

You're missing the point. As Mahjik mentioned, the design itself is fundamentally flawed. After 50 years of engineering and redesigning the car around the PROBLEM, they finally got it under control.

You basically said it yourself:

The flawed design theory was true in the early 60's, since then with wider wheels, tires, a longer wheelbase and technology has changed that. Longer and wider over time making it easier to move and much more stable

Other cars may have also had design changes, but not with the problems inherent in the early Porsche's. The other cars didn't have the reputation that the early 70's Turbos did when hustled around turns.

[switchAMG]

They had the issue figured out by 1968. I didn't miss the point.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

[switchAMG]

People like driving Porsche's because they are sheep. Pure and simple. Again, I am one of those sheep, but there is nothing technically ground breaking with their design and no one is following it. They've kept it that way as that's what the heritage expects. Just like we'll never see a mid-engine Corvette as that's not what the owners expect. They add more electronics to make it "better", but that's just putting more lipstick on a pig.

Ba Ba

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

[Mahjik]

[yt]ZBKfJaPHp0c[/yt]

If AWD is not a requirement (but it might be), the McLaren is what I would do before either of the other two listed.

Ba Ba

lol...

I do like 911's.. I'm thinking about building a race car for a German racing series using a 996 (since they can be found cheap).

[Kain]

I don't really like how the 570S looks. Might grow on me though.

By the way...

[yt]e16tfyzYhSU[/yt]

[yt]7RJenKlCfD0[/yt]

[Mahjik]

By the way...

Sounds like you are still favoring the Audi. FWIW, while I'm too cheap to buy a new one, I do wish I had went ahead an gotten a slightly used one instead of my Jaguar.

[Mahjik]

Any thoughts of adding in the MB into your possible choices?

[MasterGoa]

Any thoughts of adding in the MB into your possible choices?

As a week-end racer, the first thing you will need to do is totally
forget what they recommend for tire pressure and invest in a front
camber kit and get a proper alignment.

Other than that, MB are very reliable and you can find lots of excellent
prices on parts and maintenance on sites like MBparts.com.

From a drivability standpoint, solid cars that are silky smooth all around.
I drive a manual and let me tell you the shifter feel if unlike anything
I have ever driven before and after. Adaptive sports suspension is great also
for a daily driver.

Very stiff chassis. Everything is over built. (Tie rods larger than an F-150).

Also, it loves 94 gas...

[Mahjik]

That is all likely true with the sedans. I highly doubt that is going to be the case with the AMG GT.

[MasterGoa]

That is all likely true with the sedans. I highly doubt that is going to be the case with the AMG GT.

I used to think this untill I test drove my C300, a 328 and an A4 in succession.

As for the alignment and stuff, it is actually policy at Merc to make the front
end softer and understeer so people do not through themselves in ditches...

Switch's AMG has the exact same alignment specifications which
calls for 0.3 degree negative camber on a strut layout.

I added the Merc camber bolts with a fixed -0.3 degree and it was a huge improvement.

I also did the shoe white on the sidewall trick and discovered
my ideal tire pressure is 34PSI front and 38PSI back with my summer tires.

Far away from the 28-32 in the door sticker.

So I would definitely try is out, but if you feel the front end
lacks immediacy and precision, there is a quick fix.

[OverclockN']

I added the Merc camber bolts with a fixed -0.3 degree and it was a huge improvement.

You noticed a huge improvement from -.3 camber? What was it originally?

[Mahjik]

I used to think this untill I test drove my C300, a 328 and an A4 in succession.

If you drive any normal street car, they all understeer.

As for the alignment and stuff, it is actually policy at Merc to make the front
end softer and understeer so people do not through themselves in ditches...

Technically, the front end being softer enduces oversteer. However, I get what you are trying to say. Every street car is designed for understeer. Most people don't know the difference until they've driven something that isn't setup for understeer.

Switch's AMG has the exact same alignment specifications which
calls for 0.3 degree negative camber on a strut layout.

And it's a sedan...

I also did the shoe white on the sidewall trick and discovered
my ideal tire pressure is 34PSI front and 38PSI back with my summer tires.

Far away from the 28-32 in the door sticker.

Tire pressures will vary based on two things:

1. Desired ride quality
2. Tire manufacturer

So tires have stronger sidewalls and can use a lower pressure. Some tires have softer sidewalls and need higher pressures when driven hard. The manufacture is recommend tire pressures for a mix of gas mileage and ride quality.

[MasterGoa]

When I mention the front tires and camber, the front actually is not softer from a suspension perspective,
only tires and very little camber which hakes you ride the sidewalls.
I have the Sport Edition BTW, with larger sway bars, lower springs and variable shocks from the factory.

The car went from -0.3 to -0.6 camber. I had -1.0 to -1.3 on all my previous
cars, which were Japanese FWD or various rigidity. (Nissan being rigid and Honda not in the slightest).

I agree that tire pressure varies, this is why I do the tests I do with the sidewall white shoe polish. The tires I have for summer are Vredestein Ultrac Cento
which offer a LIA of 97 XL in my size...

I also mention this because a friend of mine went from an R8 to a 911S to a Merc CLK 63 Black Edition and absolutely hated the handling.
When I tried the car, I totally recognized the loose front end where
you clearly feel the sidewalls give. She sold the car though

[Mahjik]

When I mention the front tires and camber, the front actually is not softer from a suspension perspective,
only tires and very little camber which hakes you ride the sidewalls.
I have the Sport Edition BTW, with larger sway bars, lower springs and variable shocks from the factory.

Again, we are talking apples to oranges. Your car is a sedan, the AMG GT is a sports car. The suspension geometry is completely different.

I also mention this because a friend of mine went from an R8 to a 911S to a Merc CLK 63 Black Edition and absolutely hated the handling.

Same as above... Your friend went from two sports cars to a sedan. Apples to oranges...

[MasterGoa]

Might be, but easily fixed.

IMHO, the hadeling issues are marketing more than anything else.

Absolutely nothing is preventing MB from providing a proper front end geometry.

Another issue about your question is that the AMG GT is a 2016 model
to replace the SLS. It is improbable someone got to drive them back to back
with competitive models.

But this should shed light on your research:

http://www.caranddriver.com/mercedes-amg/gt-gt-s

Also, you question was if you should add MB in your possible choices.
My answer is yes, but keep in mind the front tires will feel soft.
If not, great, but if so, it is by design.

[Mahjik]

Absolutely nothing is preventing MB from providing a proper front end geometry.

Yes there is... Their customers.. There is a compromise to "sporty" suspension geometry (ride quality, around-the-town handling, tire wear, suspension wear, etc). That is not the target market for their sedan customers. Audi tried it a years ago with their A6 line had had people replacing bushings and other suspension parts in under 60k miles (and had MANY unhappy customers).

However again, that shares little with the AMG GT which shares only the manufacturers name in resemblance to your car.

[Mahjik]

[yt]CRubofSy7jE[/yt]