Rumorpile: Next Audi S8 To Use Panamera's Twin-Turbo V8

Interesting and exciting at the same time. I am surprised it took them this long to raid Porsche for engines for Audi.

Yeah, I guess internal fighting and differing timelines kept this from happening sooner....since VW AGs overall goal is to a have few shared platform/component sets, it doesn't make sense for brands to not share engines, at least the basic engine w/ individual brand tuning and output levels.. 

Much like the outgoing S8 and Panamera, I would take this over the new Panamera.

Good idea from the word go.  Now, how much is that S8 again?

Yeah....that is where it starts, dont it? What Im saying is that Ive seen this happen before!

Im surprised it took this long actually!

From this:

We went to this:

I wonder if any Euro snobs will have anything bad to say about this blatant badge engineering concept where Audi's engines are not bespoke to Audi...

Because Ive witnessed the Chevy engine in a Cadillac negativity shyte many times over.

Sure....these people will try to say its a Porsche V8...but these people also tend to ignore the fact that the Chevy engine is in reality a Corvette engine and these people also ignore the fact that the SBC is in fact the best thing since sliced bread.

Mopar and FoMoCo fans are really the ONLY people that I will accept them dissing the SBC as FoMoCo has the flathead V8 as a starting point to squash Chevrolet dreams and Mopar has the 440 6 pack and HEMI to SMASH and OBLITERATE  any ideas Chevy has for dominance...except that the latest SBC is the GOAT!!!

11 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yeah....that is where it starts, dont it? What Im saying is that Ive seen this happen before!

Im surprised it took this long actually!

I wonder if any Euro snobs will have anything bad to say about this blatant badge engineering concept where Audi's engines are not bespoke to Audi...

 

You are overthinking this...bringing this back to reality, I really doubt if many customers of Audis actually care...it's just a black and silver component under the hood that they never look at...it just doesn't matter.  Remember, these are typically leased luxury cars, people drive them 2-3 years, trade on another....  

Lamborghini has used Audi-based V8s for years now...they still catch fire and crash regardless of the source of the engine.

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

You are overthinking this...ringing this back to reality, I really doubt if many customers of Audis actually care...it's just a black and silver component under the hood that they never look at...it just doesn't matter.  Remember, these are typically leased luxury cars, people drive them 2-3 years, trade on another....  

Lamborghini has used Audi-based V8s for years now...they still catch fire and crash regardless of the source of the engine.

Im just bitchin just for bitchin's sake!

A little light trolling if you will!

I agree 100% with what you quoted me on!

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Im just bitchin just for bitchin's sake!

Heh-heh, yeah...I'm just being a cold-hearted cynical realist.   I used to care about such things also...

My sincere reply to this is as follows.

Using the paragraph above the pics of the different brand specific motors that GM brands engineered for themselves plus those pics along with the LT4 pics...

GM learned a long time ago that nixing the different brands engineering regarding motors saved a lot of money. Sure it alienated many folk that wanted an Olds motor rather than a Chevy one within GM's brand loyalty fanbase...in hindsight all these decades later, I deem it to be a success.

I sincerely do think why it took VAG all this time to finally go full throttle with this. Especially when VAG knows better than GM how to manage multiple brands and keep their identity intact!

Maybe that is the secret?

Keep brand bespoke engines to that brand only???!!!

Maybe this was the misstep that GM took that started the tumble?

Now it seems Im overthinking things...LOL

The last paragraph where I bitchin' about Eurosnobs is where I tread the trolling path...all in the name of fun!

Homologating engines did not kill GM in the 1980s.  Homologating cars did.  Remember "Keep it cheap, keep it common" from Roger Stempel, I think.  GM screwed up because they tried to sell the exact same car across multiple GM lines (usually 5 and sometimes more).  Honda and Toyota and Nissan often only had ONE CAR (per market segment) to push, at least until Acura and Lexus show up.  In too many cases, the differences between Buick, Olds and Cadillac were vanishing right before our eyes.  Chevy and Pontiac had the same set of problems, all because GM corporate kept making them cheap and common.  VW on the other hand never made that mistake here or in Europe.

There is nothing inherently wrong with engine sharing.  It is terminating the unique selling point of the car marque that is inherently wrong and self-defeating.

Or Roger Smith... the horrible, cheap look-alike FWD mediocrity--X-, J-, A-, N-, L- body generics hurt GM immeasurably in the 80s...bland, soulless, styleless appliances.   Anyway, that is best put in the past and forgotten--a sad chapter in GM's history. 

Anyway, back on topic, sharing components across brands shouldn't be a problem for VW, nothing new--Porsches have used Audi engines and products in the past, Audis have used VW engines, etc.   They have been sharing platforms and some engines across the brands for a while, yet keep distinct styling (and presumably driving characteristics).

Keep in mind it's been less than a decade since the full Porsche acquisition by VW AG, Audi's current V8 and Porsche's current V8 were developed before that...long time lines in the car biz...

It would not make sense for Porsche to make a 4 liter V8 then Audi to make a different 4 liter V8 then Bentley make a 4 liter V8, etc. Of course they should all use the same, Audi and Bentley shared V8 and W12 before, Audi gets their V10 from Lamborghini.  

If Porsche designs the V8s Audi-Lambo-Bentley which I think share one manager can provide the hybrids and the 12s.

7 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Homologating engines did not kill GM in the 1980s.  Homologating cars did.

Do not forget the lawsuits in the '70s over homologated GM engines. IIRC, GM lost/paid on that charge, and that set the stage for homolgated cars, because GM 'went with' massive cross-sharing.

Most enthusiasts 'draw the line' at corporate engines / 1982 as the 'beginning of the long slide' @ GM.

17 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Do not forget the lawsuits in the '70s over homologated GM engines. IIRC, GM lost/paid on that charge, and that set the stage for homolgated cars, because GM 'went with' massive cross-sharing.

Most enthusiasts 'draw the line' at corporate engines / 1982 as the 'beginning of the long slide' @ GM.

Not sure what you mean by 'homologated' in this context, maybe 'homogenized'?   Homologation is a racing term, i.e. a certain # of a street car or engine built to quality it for a racing series. 

I can't really understand why there were lawsuits--- a case of ignorant buyers?  There were certain GM models that used Chevy engines since the early 70s...  All the X-bodies in the 70s used Chevy 6s, the Pontiac Le Mans used a Chevy 6 from '70 onward, didn't some of the '60s Cutlasses also use a Chevy 6?    

The whole separate engines for each brand idea seems insanely expensive...Chrysler abandoned that idea in the late 50s/early 60s, Ford did at some point in the 60s... 

Was simply using riviera74's term in responding to him. 'Homogenized' is correct here.

It wasn't ignorance- the engine origins were not specified. GM swapped in other Division engines with no public announcement.
While a bit of this did start with the A-bodies in the '60s (Buick 215 optional in the Tempest, for example) there didn't seem to be any fallout there. But by the '70s, I believe it became widespread. I also believe it was a bit different- in '70, for example, when you wanted a I-6 Firebird, there was only 1 offering, the 250 (built by Chevrolet). In the '70s, if you wanted a small block V8 Ventura, sometimes you got a Pontiac 350 (355), sometimes it was a Buick 350, etc.

The cost thing comes into context when you realize that the first 70 years of GM, these were independent brands under a parent corporation. You might be amazed at the tiny fraction of parts exchangability at GM in 1960- I would estimate Division-to-Division it was 5%. It's under today's auto industry practices where more is the same & less if different (not to mention the cost factor of the Fed) that it doesn't make fiscal sense. GM was printing money into the 1970s doing it the way they did.

I had forgotten that homologation was a racing term.  The first time I saw that word was a Car and Driver article some years back that concerned racing engines and those same engines available in street-legal cars. Homogenized is a better word for what I described.

'rationalized' and 'standardized' work also...basically adopting a common component across multiple brands. 

'GeneralMotorized', perhaps?

On 7/16/2017 at 6:45 AM, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

You are overthinking this...bringing this back to reality, I really doubt if many customers of Audis actually care...it's just a black and silver component under the hood that they never look at...it just doesn't matter.  Remember, these are typically leased luxury cars, people drive them 2-3 years, trade on another....  

Lamborghini has used Audi-based V8s for years now...they still catch fire and crash regardless of the source of the engine.

Cadillac owners in the 70's cared enough to sue GM about the Oldsmobile Rocket engines in their cars. 

At least GM is doing it the right way now... debuting the tech on Cadillac or Denali and then letting the other brands at it a year later. 

That's a great news one can hear about Audi. I'm a blogger and also a fan of this car and follow the news closely.

My Blog: طراحی سایت