Either way, a nicely modded S4 will still embarrass you anywhere but the highway, or on the track with some serious slicks aired way down. The S4 is definitly an all around better car. Its unfortunate that you had the problems with the Audi, and also that you didnt come on here and troubleshoot. I bet alot of the problems could have been taken care of with some help from others on here...

But oh well, If everyone was into Audi's, then we wouldn't have Lightning's and Supra's to walk now would we.

 

Audi's aren't for everyone. My first was an A4 2.8Q that was a the biggest peice of crap I had ever owned. I work on all my cars and came to this forum to fix it. I did fix it, but that's all I ever did. One thing after the other. I found my A6 and it has been 100% reliable and a good car. The A4's werent the best and the S4's have thier fair share of issue. Its all about how you look at it.

Someone had mentioned a stock S4 would beat a Lightening...here are the numbers to chew on.

2001 S4: 250 horsepower (SAE Net) @ 5800 rpm (187 kW) Torque 258 lbs. Ft. @ 1850 rpm (350 Nm)

2002 Lightening: The SVT F-150 Lightning continues as the fastest production pickup truck available. The SVT Lightning has a 5.4L supercharged and intercooled V8 engine as standard equipment, producing 380hp and 450 ft.-lb. of torque.

This equals a stock S4 getting smoked. Even a modded S4 wouild have its hands full. The torque is what gets you a nice view of the Ford's tailights.

Here is a 1994:

Horsepower (SAE net) . . . . . . . . 240 hp @ 4200 RPM

Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 lbs./ft. @ 3200RPM

This would also beat a stock S4 due to the torque. BTW - IMO Ford's suck but the numbers don't lie.

 

QFT. He must have bought one that was abused like a motherf*cker. Either that or he's just retarded.

And in regards to post above mine... Who would say that a stock S4 is faster than an SVT Lightning? That's retarded.

 

This is a really odd post. I don't understand why you say the SVT would win due to torque? They are fast trucks, and they would most likely win against a S4. But to say its because of torque is weird.

 

LMAO at this thread You mean bastards lol

 

Because torque is what carries you down low and hp is what carries you way up high. It's torque that gives people insane starts off the line. For the most part, hp is just the icing on the cake: attractive and delicious; but not much else.

 

Was this brand new, or used?
If you're whining about a used S4... you'll get no sympathy here. If you didn't have the car checked out properly, you were asking for it. It's a car that, if neglected, will OWN you. Like in Russia. Car own you. Seriously.

So yeah, give us some effin' details.

 

Ever heard of power to weight ratio? Or gearing differences?

EDIT : These are stock figures with a .3 second difference form 0-60 between the 2 and .2 second difference in the quarter mile.....now the lightning has a 122 horse power and 192 pounds of torque gain over the S4. So what tail lights were you talking about?

2001 S4 = 5.5 0-60 and 14.1 1/4 mile
2002 lightning = 5.2 0-60 and 13.9 quarter mile.

 

^ I think the SVT crew chose gearing that made the truck accelerate like a bullet but also was a decent cruising ratio. I think 3.73 or 3.92. They could have used 4.10s but that's more of a drag racing gear.

 

^ A stock lightning is extremely under tuned! Those are actually tall gears.

4.10 would make it a little un-driveable on the street when you tap the gas. I have a 2000 f-150 with intake, exhaust and tuning and it like to spin the tires in first if I get on it and even worse when cornering under throttle.......and don't even get me started on what happens in the rain