Some of the figures produced by today’s performance cars are absolutely loopy. Twenty-ish years ago, a Porsche Carrera GT made 603 horsepower, accelerated from a dead stop to 60 MPH in fewer than four seconds, and was essentially considered a hypercar. Now, you can find dozens of sedans and crossovers that achieve those same figures. The new Audi RS5 is a similar exercise in spec sheet ridiculousness, and while more power than a Carrera GT or a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren sounds appealing, it’s the curb weight of this compact sports sedan that stands out the most.
Let’s start with the good news: 630 horsepower and 608 lb.-ft. of torque. You want big numbers? These are some serious ones. Credit goes to an evolution of Audi’s 2.9-liter twin-turbocharged V6, kicking out 503 horsepower on its own and augmented by hybrid assistance. A lithium-ion battery pack with a 22 kWh net capacity feeds a 174-horsepower electric motor in an eight-speed automatic gearbox to produce a claimed zero-to-62 mph sprint in 3.5 seconds. For those keeping track at home, that’s four-tenths of a second quicker than the old RS5. Wunderbar.
Big power requires big brakes, so Audi’s offering the new RS5 with optional 17.3-inch carbon ceramic front discs that have the swept area to help a suitably equipped RS5 stop from 62 mph in a claimed 100 feet and should have enough thermal capacity to do that again and again—at least until the brake fluid is screaming for its mum. However, crossing the 600-horsepower mark likely isn’t the only reason Audi has fitted such gargantuan stoppers to the new RS5.
According to Audi, the outgoing RS5 Sportback tipped the scales at 4,079 pounds. Not exactly light, but still within the realm of cars like the BMW M3 Competition xDrive. However, Audi claims this new RS5 Sportback carries a curb weight of 2,355 kilograms, or 5,191.9 pounds. I get that many of us have put on a little bit of weight in recent years, but wow, that’s a 27-percent jump in curb weight. For context, that’s 69 pounds heavier than a crew cab Ford F-150 XL with 4×4, the 6.5-foot bed, and the five-liter V8.
While it’s easy to blame electrification for the weight gain, 25.9 kWh of batteries and a single electric motor aren’t entirely to blame. If we look at the new S5 with its three-liter V6, Audi claims it weighs 4,288 pounds. That’s 364 pounds more than the previous-generation S5 Sportback and 209 pounds more than the old RS5 Sportback. Considering the old, non-electrified RS5 Sportback weighed 155 pounds more than its S5 sibling, there was always going to be a significant weight penalty to the new RS5 even before factoring in electrification.
Now, the new RS5 isn’t as heavy as the 5,368-pound BMW M5, but it plays in an entire size class down, against the aforementioned M3 Competition xDrive. The plug-in hybrid Mercedes-AMG C 63 S E Performance was already considered cartoonishly hefty for the compact sports sedan segment, and this new RS5 weighs 374 pounds more than that. It’s a gargantuan sum for something generally considered a compact, which means that all the fancy chassis systems will be working overtime.
We’re talking bits like an electromechanical torque-vectoring rear differential that can shuffle torque across the axle for corner entry stability and corner exit agility. There’s a 10-horsepower electric motor just for differential control alone, and Audi claims it can shift 1,475 lb.-ft. of multiplied drive torque in just 15 milliseconds. That’s nearly 10 times faster than a literal blink. Upstream of that sits a center differential that can shuffle torque from a 70:30 front-to-rear split to a 15:85 front-to-rear split – not a new concept, but Audi has introduced a level of preload to the center differential in the aim of aiding off-throttle corner-entry rotation.
Still, even with a fancy all-wheel-drive system, more power than a Ferrari 458 Italia, huge brakes, and 13:1 steering, 5,191.9 pounds is a lot of pounds to manage. Basic laws of physics state that increased mass carries increased inertia, which will require more energy to accelerate, stop, and turn. While being able to drive a few dozen miles without using any fuel at all is a nice perk, there’s good reason to be slightly wary. And that’s before looking at it from the perspective of other road users. For those of us on foot, or on bike, or in old cars, do we really want near-5,200-pound compact sports sedans to become a thing?
As of right now, one thing is undeniable: The new Audi RS5 is officially the big boy of the compact sports sedan segment. Expect it to go on sale in Europe this summer, with arrival in the U.S. sometime thereafter. The big questions? How will it actually drive, and will we get the (admittedly 33 pounds heavier) wagon in addition to the liftback sedan? We’ll just have to wait to find out.
Top graphic image: Audi
Maybe at some point there will be one country, or one government in an important market, that will provide an incentive to make cars lighter. Given how expensive it is to build and maintain roads I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. I guess it’s just easier to raise taxes or expand existing taxes to cover the roads than it is to convince a bunch of manufacturers to invest the research necessary to lighten these pigs up, even a little.
Because it is quite obvious the manufacturers (and perhaps the buyers?) do not care about this, even a little.
This is so stupid. I am not paying extra just for your overloaded horsepower. Jesus.
Cheap, safe, light: pick 2 😉
To be fair, the weight of a vehicle hasn’t really been advertised ever. At the same time we’ve gotten really good at squeezing as much efficiency and performance out of heavy cars these days. But I do agree that some sort of incentive to actually make cars lighter would be nice.
It’s simple – anything over 4000lbs should need a CDL.
I have often advocated for a weight-based driver’s license restriction. I actually think it would be better to introduce a new class in between standard and CDL but whatever. It’s splitting hairs.
Manufacturers know if someone had to go to all the extra effort/trouble to drive one of their oversized tubs they won’t do it and they’ll buy something else. So this is another way to incentivize weight reduction by the manufacturers. Great point.
Oh, I agree. Doesn’t need to be a full-on CDL (though one can dream), but more the extra training and endorsement you need in Europe to tow more than the smallest of trailers, as an example. But for sure, the average moron in the US has absolutely NO business behind the wheel of a 5000lb++ road missile that can do zero to 60 in hypercar timespans.
As I said, the carnage one of these sleds can do when an idiot loses it ala the M2 dude from the other day and wipes out another car doesn’t bear thinking about.
Many places are picking the option of just letting the road go to hell as we slip into being a failed nation.
And I remember how controversial the added weight of an advanced-for-the-time Tiptronic transmission was when Porsche and others began introducing it. By today’s weight conventions, that was a rounding error.
Doesn’t look a that heavy . . . maybe just “big-boned.”
It looks better than the regular S5 at least. I looked at one when I took our Q5 in for an oil change last month and man, that new design is bland. The old one was one of my favorite Audis.
At this weight, why even opt for a gasser? This is nearly 400lbs heavier than an Ioniq 5N, 700lbs heavier than a base Taycan(the Turbo S weighs 5100lbs but has almost double the horsepower), 150lbs more than an i4 M60. Even a three row EV9 is lighter!
I’m willing to take the compromises 5000lbs bring, but I’ll at least get the benefit of reduced maintenance and no gas station stops.
For a track weapon, of course gas is still the way to go. But the RS5 is no track weapon, especially at this weight.
Valid points, but the potential cost of tire replacement is concerning…
Some EV6 drivers have been wearing out their tires fast enough to qualify for full warranty replacements.
However, any car that weighs 5000lbs and has 400+ hp will eat tires, maybe a little slower without full torque at 0rpm. So it’s not like the tires will last much longer on the RS5. Also, the full EVs have a lot more regen braking power than most hybrids so the brakes will likely last a lot longer.
What are all these people doing to their EVs? My Focus ST ate tires well faster than my Mach-E does.
I’m not sure, I have a Kia Niro EV and the tires seem to last a normal length of time.
Although I think a lot of this is just dependent on what tires you pick. Was your ST on higher performance tires than your Mach-E?
I always seem to need tires right before I am planning to sell the car and I can never decide whether to get the tires I would normally buy(usually one of the top tier manufacturers) or cheap out.
I actually used the same DWS06 on both, although I think the ST encouraged a slightly higher level of hooliganism than the MME.
If it gets any fatter, they will have to add a fifth ring.
LA28′ here we come. Perfect partnership opportunity.
Not just COTD, but COTY so far for me.
It weighs just shy of 2 Audi Quattros from the early 1980s.
Well over 2X of my beloved ’84 Jetta GLI with me in it – a car more than fast enough to get in trouble in.
A 1,000 more lbs in weight to add 100ish HP to the engine’s output? Clearly they put a Harley Road Glide in the trunk and called it a day.
I mean all of the German cars besides basically just gave up engineering cars in the past 5 years when they decided their entire product ranges would be built off of one platform each. Why would a 2026 Audi be any different from the 5500 pound 5 series or the 4800 pound C-Class?
When is the GLP-1 industry reach out to the automakers?
No wonder it’s got 6 billion horsepower, it’s the only way to make a planet feel sporty.
too busy making skinny houses in urban areas
5192 pounds? The next poor Miata won’t stand a chance.
I really don’t think Ze Germans are going to come back to be honest. They’re just so lost in the wilderness adding more and more weight and screens to everything that they’ve lost the plot. I get that European regulations force these hideous monstrosities into existence but I always wind up asking the same question…why?
It’s the worst of all worlds. You have all the complication of an overstrung, over engineered German engine plus the weight penalties of an EV. It’s a worse gas car and a worse EV for it without the full benefits of either. If this is the only way for these cars to continue to exist I’d personally rather they just die.
Just make it a BEV at this point with a dead simple powertrain and use all the extra resources on figuring out how to make it engaging to drive. RS, AMG, M, etc. cars were never meant to be environmentally friendly. Forcing them to be keeps resulting in these bad, heavy, dumb, disposable products that no one actually likes. Focus on making a good ICE car (if possible) OR a good EV.
Trying to do both is just absurd, and I know Ze Germans have very high opinions of themselves and their engineering but they’re not fooling anyone anymore. There’s nothing sporty about a car that weighs as much as a body on frame truck. Who is it even for? Clout chasers who just care about the badge? They’re not reliable customers because they just move onto the next big thing every 2 years.
Customers who move onto the next big thing every 2 years are exactly who they need.
I absolutely agree about your ICE vs EV point. I hadn’t seen your comment yet when I posted mine, but I looked up several powerful EVs and pretty much every single one is lighter. Even a Porsche Taycan Turbo S weighs 100lb less!
Audi has truly lost the plot, obscene weight, FoRgEd CaRbOn accents, an awful interior with exclusively haptic and touch controls, and a gaping Predator face that only a mother and German car fanboy could love.
By who?
A3, sure, but not the A4 & A5.
considered a compact by F-150 owners, who can’t see it over their hoods.
I’m pretty sure BMW 1&2 and Audi 2&3 are subcompact, BMW 3&4 and Audi 4&5 are compact, BMW 5&6 and Audi 6&7 are mid-size, and BMW 7&8 and Audi 8&9 are full-size.
It’s interesting that they effectively have the same scheme just Audi is one number larger for the equivalent vehicle.
By the looks of it, every single one of those 1,112 pounds are also ugly
Oof insert obligatory “look how they massacred my boy” meme here, that front end looks like the Joker, and the back is just ill proportioned with ’90s teen JDM car level of tail pipe sizing. Rare styling miss for Audi the outgoing car looked so good too.
While I do like some of the styling cues and the big numbers, I’ll stick with my ’19 RS5 Sportback.
Better not park that near an Audi A2, or the poor A2 will start to orbit around it.
I wonder how long that will last before being scattered. Hopefully for the length of the inevitable lease.
This trend makes little sense to me.
“It needs to be a performance hybrid”
“But that will add a lot of weight”
“So make sure it is really powerful then”
“But that’s going to add more weight”
“Well, keep adding power and weight until both are HUGE, and let’s pretend that we’ve accomplished something even though it’s barely quicker or more efficient than before”
“It’s going to be way more complicated and is going to break in horrendous and expensive ways”
“Lease ‘n chuck, my friend. Lease ‘n chuck. They always fall for it”
And then, for some reason Toyota looks at this strange back-and-forth and thinks, “what if we did something similar for our trucks?”, and then does it.
Please budget $2k a year for tires, and $6k every 4 years for pads and rotors all around. More than the fuel bill.
Not with carbon ceramics, it’s more like $20K for new rotors but street driven cars should never need to replace them. Not sure how 5100 lb cars affect this assumption.
True, but the ceramics are actually an option ($$$). The base is steel. I’m trying to pinch my pennies here.
Ah, I missed that.
Carbon ceramics are a scam, change my mind
Give me a few more years of driving on them and I’ll let you know.
I always thought ceramics would be awesome from a longevity aspect, especially for something driven sparsely to avoid corrosion. But that cost….ooof.
Well the lack of brake dust is incredibly awesome, I assume the car handles better with less unsprung weight, and they do look really cool, but I’m torn on whether I would have ponied up the $8500 for them if I ordered my car new.
I obviously am banking on never needing to replace rotors; if I do, yikes.
I’m really only familiar with carbon ceramic brakes in race cars where they have to be about 800 degrees to function properly. Obviously that’s not feasible for a road car, but is there any warm up or other procedure you have to follow?
I believe you’re thinking of carbon-carbon brakes which are not suitable for road cars because of the heat requirement you mention.
Carbon ceramics function like any other brakes in my experience, other than producing no dust and being virtually impossible to fade.
Poorly, that’s how.
I’m not a fan of recent Audi designs, but man, this thing hits the right notes for me. What a menacing looking thing.
To me, it’s an lazy rounded pastiche of the outgoing car, which looked good to my eye.
That giant chain-link-fence styled faux plastic grille that’s trying to pretend the front bumper doesn’t exist isn’t doing the car’s looks any favors.
We may be the only two in the comments haha.
Edit: There are more!
You are heretics and will be persecuted until you see the light.
Great advertisement for annual additional registration taxes on size, power, and mass.
I’ve been on Team Tax-by-Weight for a while now… I just know it’ll never happen because poor people can’t afford the heavy cars they want to tax.
Lots of states tax by weight. But they don’t tax nearly enough. My 4klb Mercedes wagon is less than $100/2yrs in Florida.
Ours taxes by age so our a$$hole legislators and their handlers can drive $90K Denalis and pay the same annual registration as someone who stretched to get into a new Trax for their commute.
Excellent!
My summer home state taxes by original MSRP, which is bullshit as that means your $5K used Range Rover costs $500+ per year, while a $5K used Corolla costs $100.
Now much of a disincentive isn’t it…. IMO, if done well it’ll actually cause some people thinking of extending themselves (and their credit) to think twice because affordability changes.
Nope, not at all. It’s completely pointless.
The right way to tax vehicles is via consumption. Either via the gallon consumed or the kw/hr consumed, and high enough to make it matter, not the joke pittance we have today. That incentivizes both buy as efficient as possible AND USING the vehicle as efficiently as possible. Both electricity and gasoline are far too cheap for the average person in the US to actually care about efficiency, even if they give lip service to caring.
We have a TON of tax on consumption here in Canada… and I suspect there’s some consternation about how to do the same with EV’s. Partially because we already pay taxes there, and partially because electricity is really cheap. Overall consumption taxes don’t do anything to change behaviours…it just gets everyone upset at taxes. Everyone has to consume, and the really efficient cars aren’t the affordable cars (and we have people who drank the koolaid and believe their fullsize pickup is getting 30mpg). But if you could get a big pass on taxes because your car is smaller/lighter, it could actually motivate people away from the worst/heaviest vehicles on the road. It would piss off everyone with a pickup, but I’m ok with that.
Consumption taxes absolutely change behavior. Do you think people would use 6000lb pickups to 99.9% of the time only commute to work if gas were taxed to $15/gal? Or very many 300hp CUVs for that matter. And it would also make you think very hard before buying that McMansion waaaay out in suburbs if the cost to get to work each day mattered other than in your time. The problem with ONLY taxing on weight is it penalizes someone who needs a heavy vehicle occasionally, but otherwise rarely drives the thing. Consumption taxes are tied to actual usage, not just possession. Though I would have no problem ALSO taxing by weight enough to hurt.
Taxation on cars is largely a joke in the US, with minimal impact on buyers, and not much less of one in Canada.
Not the biggest fan of Audi’s designs right now, but those hips on the rear look really nice, and I do like that wagon.
If they could tame down the giant maw up front, it would be an incredibly appealing design. Those fender flares look amazing
I’m even ok with the front, it’s the rear diffuser/exhaust that gets me. If you want massive dual pipes, put them in the corners. That’s such a weird placement for them and I hate the look so bad!
Ya it’s too much in the back too. That side profile though 😉
Yeh that rear valance with the semi-centered massive pipes and all the vertical divisons is really weird and busy looking. And while theoretically cool and “racecar” I could live without the forged carbon, which frankly feels almost insulting on a car this heavy and I hate to think what that piece costs if you get in a bumper bender.
Well, I hope they increased the width of the tires, because physics gonna physics if you try to quickly change directions.