I carried a 65-inch LG television from Costco in my RS5. Not an exaggeration, not a story that's improved with time. Rear seats down, flat, TV in, hatch closed. A sports car that could haul a living room appliance and still make you feel slightly reckless on the onramp home.
That car weighed 4,100 pounds. Got 21 miles per gallon combined. Felt half its size from the driver's seat and handled like it wanted to be somewhere specific. Aggressive outside, sorted inside, and honest about what it was built to do.
The new one weighs 5,200 pounds.
Sit with that.
Audi added 1,100 pounds to an RS5. The payload is a 22-kilowatt-hour battery mounted over the rear axle, a 174-horsepower electric motor, and a revised twin-turbo V6 at 503 horsepower, with a combined system output of 630 horsepower. That's more than the R8 ever produced. The zero-to-60 time went from 3.3 seconds in the previous generation to Car and Driver's estimate of 3.2 in the new car.
One tenth of a second. You'd miss that checking a notification.
The analogy that keeps finding me is Formula 1. The hybrid era began in 2014 promising that more complexity would produce better racing. It produced cars that were heavier, more expensive to run, and harder to watch than what they replaced. The sport heard the complaints for a decade and moved slowly on them.
Then 2026 arrived with a full regulation overhaul, a new 50/50 split between combustion and electrical power, and the sport's best drivers started saying things that should sound familiar to anyone following the RS5 story. Max Verstappen called the new cars "Formula E on steroids" and said they don't feel like Formula 1. Lando Norris, the reigning world champion, said F1 went from the best cars he'd ever driven to the worst in a single regulation change. Fernando Alonso named the whole project "the battery world championship." Drivers are now lifting and coasting through high-speed corners to harvest battery charge instead of pushing the limits of grip. Norris watched his speed drop 56 kilometers per hour on a straight during qualifying. The FIA is already making emergency mid-season rule changes.
This is the year Audi chose to enter Formula 1. Cadillac too.
Worth mentioning: Audi didn't stumble into F1. They committed specifically because the 2026 power unit regulations — that 50/50 combustion-to-electric split that's currently making drivers miserable — aligned with where they were already going on road cars. The regulations weren't an obstacle they adapted to. They were, at least in part, shaped with manufacturer input, and Audi signed up for a series that happened to mirror their product direction. Cadillac's parent company has its own electric inventory sitting on lots. Both brands needed a global stage to make this technology look like the future rather than an expensive experiment consumers keep declining.
I'm not saying the regulations were written to benefit manufacturers who needed the platform more than the sport needed better racing. I'm saying it fits. And I'm saying Formula 1 is the most-watched motorsport on earth, and right now the drivers hate the cars, the FIA is making emergency fixes, and two of the new entrants sell road cars built around the same technology that made it all go sideways.
The FIA president confirmed this week that V8 engines are returning to Formula 1 by 2030. He called it a no-brainer. This is the same person who oversaw the 50/50 hybrid mandate that drove the sport into emergency mid-season rule changes four races in. Four years into a regulation cycle they spent years building, and the conclusion is already: go back. A no-brainer, he said. The word he used was no-brainer.
The fuel economy is where the greenwashing starts in earnest. The new RS5 returns 18 miles per gallon combined on gasoline. The previous generation returned 21. Audi built a complete electrification system into this car and ended up with something that burns more fuel than what it replaced. The combined figure climbs to 55 MPGe if you fold electricity in, which covers the first 40 miles. After that it's 5,200 pounds running on premium until you find a charger or get where you're going.
Car and Driver, the first publication to drive it, compared the interior screen to the one in a Chevy Trax, Equinox, Blazer, or Traverse. That isn't a reviewer being contrarian. That's a reviewer being accurate. The Audi Sport team did cover the base A5's budget materials with forged carbon fiber, Alcantara, and leather, and the difference between the two interiors is real. A covered problem and a solved problem are not the same thing.
The driving experience isn't the issue. Every journalist who got behind the wheel came back saying it's fast and genuinely capable. The electric rear differential creates authentic oversteer. Car and Driver compared the chassis to a Nissan GT-R — near-zero body roll, sharp steering, the kind of car that lets you find a rhythm and push it. At 5,200 pounds, that's a real accomplishment.
The sentence that keeps attaching itself to every positive claim is "for its size." Corners well for its size. Moves like something lighter for its size. That qualifier earns its spot in every favorable paragraph. You notice after a while.
The expected price is around $110,000. The Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing — made by the other company now in Formula 1 — makes 668 horsepower, weighs roughly 4,000 pounds, runs to 60 in 3.7 seconds, and does it with a supercharged V8 that requires no battery management strategy and no lifting through corners to harvest charge. Different car entirely. But the numbers are what they are.
Audi isn't confused about any of this. The battery sits over the rear axle because Audi has been chasing 50/50 weight distribution for decades and the RS5 lands at 49/51. One forum reader said it cleaner than any press release: you can achieve 50/50 weight distribution in a front-heavy car if you add enough weight to the rear. He meant it as a joke. He wasn't wrong.
They should call it something else. At 5,200 pounds it's closer to RS7 territory than RS5. The RS6 Avant has its own well-documented weight problems, but at least the RS6 doesn't pretend to be something compact and tossable. It's a big fast wagon and it knows what it is. The RS5 name earned its reputation as something specific. Smaller, lighter, focused, a car that made driving the point. Putting that badge on this one is either optimistic marketing or a failure of self-awareness. Given everything else, hard to say which.
A V8 version of this car would make sense. Not because the PHEV system isn't technically impressive, but because a V8 RS5 would at least know what it was built to do. One engine, one purpose, no energy harvesting strategy required, no lifting through corners to manage battery state. It would probably sound more like an RS7 at this weight. It might be a better car than the RS6 for people who want something that moves and doesn't need a charging plan. The point is it would be honest.
The previous RS5 was exactly that. A tossable, overachieving sports car with five seats, a practical hatch, and interior quality that made the money feel well spent. It embarrassed sports cars on canyon roads. It also fit a 65-inch LG television without ceremony.
The new one has two powerplants, a 22-kilowatt-hour battery, an energy harvesting algorithm, and worse fuel economy than what it replaced. There's a word for building a system that complicated to arrive somewhere simpler.
Progress.
