Audi S6 same 0-60 time as new F10 M5!

[Mako]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...s6-test-review



WOW, 0-60 in 3.7 seconds for a car that only weighs 45 pounds less than the M5 and has 140 less horsepower! that is pretty amazing, both cars used launch control to get their 3.7 second times.

Now immediately I thought something was wrong and I do not believe everything I read from C&D. Even their 1/4 mile times were 0.1 seconds apart.

two things the M5 has in its favor:
5-60 rolling start M5 = 4.6 sec, S6 = 4.9 sec
0-100 M5 = 8.3, S6 = 9.2

So obviously the power comes into play on the track, but not in daily traffic!
Also the braking distance on the S6 is only 157 ft, M5 is 165 ft

S6 is supposed to be priced $20K less than the M5 though!
I am a big BMW fan (obviously as I have owned several Ms and currently an X3 plus am a member of these forums) but the S6 is an amazing car/engine for the price!

Edit: Wanted to add that I am shocked that a car weighing 250 pounds more than my C63 and with 30 less horsepower and less torque can be faster! The only thing the C63 wins at is 5-60 rolling start which it is pretty amazing at, 4.2-4.3 seconds which even beats the new M5 time. Strange that there is a 1.2 second difference in the S6 launch control vs rolling start time, usually its 0.5 to 0.6 seconds on most cars.

[Merc1]

I would just wait until they actually test on U.S. soil. Some of C&D's times are really too quick.

M

[AlpWhite11]

0-60 times are fun to benchrace with but that's not what BMWs are only about. Last I checked BMWs still trumps Audi in handling and overall feel and driving dynamics.

Let's see some track times from the S6 as well as subjective comparison of its handling and dynamics vs the M5.

BMWs haven't even traditionally been strong straightline cars until the latest generations of turbo engines. So again, straightline acceleration is jus a part of what makes the M5.

[Flying M]

it's nonsense

F=m*a

if S6 has almost the same weight, 140hp less, it's just not capable of going faster then M5 - it's against Physics laws

[phish_100]

Originally Posted by Flying M

it's nonsense

F=m*a

if S6 has almost the same weight, 140hp less, it's just not capable of going faster then M5 - it's against Physics laws

It was 4 wheel drive so puts the power down from rest much better.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Flying M

it's nonsense

F=m*a

if S6 has almost the same weight, 140hp less, it's just not capable of going faster then M5 - it's against Physics laws

Except It's 50 pounds less with awd which is huge with over 400 torque. Also they might have super aggressive gearing.

[Subway35]

Audi's new front end styling looks ugly to me.

[04S]

And what would you prefer an Audi S car or a BMW M car ?

[04S]

I am also pretty sceptical about the M5 3.7 to 60 mph time. The only way they could have done that is in perfect conditions. And probably with a roll out too which really makes the time meaningless.

It does not surprise me that the S6 jumps faster given it is AWD. The M5 will absolutely eat it once it gets up and running and stops spinning its wheels (which I am finding a real issue, or at least the electronic intervention to stop the wheels spinning is an issue)

[Mako]

Don't get me wrong, I would rather have an M5 if money was not involved, but it is! just like why I bought a C63 over the M3, I would have loved to own either and prefer BMW, but I was able to get the MErcedes for $12,500 off sticker (brand new) and BMW would only give me about $4,000 off (Mercedes had a huge corporate incentive back in 2009 when the economy was crashing). Same goes here, if I can get the S6 for $20K less that would be hard to pass up, lots I could do with that extra $20K, take the family on some nice vacations!

[bimmerjph]

I remember C&D said that the road was a little dusty, so they thought that they could get slightly more out of it. :dunno

[singularity]

C&D results
M5 0-100 mp/h: 8.3
Audi S6 0-100 mp/h: 9.2

Considering Audi's AWD and M5's RWD, at 100 mp/h M5 will be about 9 car lengths ahead, even more a roll. Audi S6 is more a competitor to a Mercedes E550 4matic and BMW 550i xDrive (and new M550d xDrive), and those are all more than $20k cheaper than M5. It's the AWD vs RWD which is helps S6 have equal 0-60 time, after that it gets destroyed. Let's see what the new RS6 will be capable of, I raced an RS6 (C06) yesterday and it was barely visible in the mirror when I was at 300 km/h.

[Mako]

One really interesting thing is that C&D has their standing 1/4 mile times at 12.0 @122mph (M5) and 12.1 @115mph (S6)

so 0-100 times are 9.2 vs 8.3, the M5 reaches a higher top speed for the 1/4 mile, but somehow the S6 is only 0.1 seconds behind? something doesn't seem right here!

Wonder if that 12.1 was supposed to be 13.1, that would make a lot more sense!

Wonder if the guy reviewing it got an S6 for free

[singularity]

Originally Posted by Mako

One really interesting thing is that C&D has their standing 1/4 mile times at 12.0 @122mph (M5) and 12.1 @115mph (S6)

so 0-100 times are 9.2 vs 8.3, the M5 reaches a higher top speed for the 1/4 mile, but somehow the S6 is only 0.1 seconds behind? something doesn't seem right here!

Wonder if that 12.1 was supposed to be 13.1, that would make a lot more sense!

Wonder if the guy reviewing it got an S6 for free

Indeed

[PATSIMINI]

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mako

One really interesting thing is that C&D has their standing 1/4 mile times at 12.0 @122mph (M5) and 12.1 @115mph (S6)

so 0-100 times are 9.2 vs 8.3, the M5 reaches a higher top speed for the 1/4 mile, but somehow the S6 is only 0.1 seconds behind? something doesn't seem right here!

Wonder if that 12.1 was supposed to be 13.1, that would make a lot more sense!

Wonder if the guy reviewing it got an S6 for free

Distance: d
Speed: d/t
acceleration: d/t^2

The M5 can have a higher speed at 1/4mile but not better time because it accelerates slowly at first (less traction), but once that is not an issue, its acceleration is much higher than the S6 (=HP difference), but because the S6 had higher acceleration at the beginning, it had already covered more ground, thus its 1/4 time can be low.. but its not gaining as much speed as the M5 once higher speeds are reached.

The 3.6s for 0-60mph for S6 sounds too fast for a 410hp car at its weight, even with AWD, but its ridiculous when the article gives 5.4s for the previous 5.2L V10. Must be the slowest V10 on earth ..

[Mako]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Distance: d
Speed: d/t
acceleration: d/t^2

The M5 can have a higher speed at 1/4mile but not better time because it accelerates slowly at first (less traction), but once that is not an issue, its acceleration is much higher than the S6 (=HP difference), but because the S6 had higher acceleration at the beginning, it had already covered more ground, thus its 1/4 time can be low.. but its not gaining as much speed as the M5 once higher speeds are reached.

The 3.6s for 0-60mph for S6 sounds too fast for a 410hp car at its weight, even with AWD, but its ridiculous when the article gives 5.4s for the previous 5.2L V10. Must be the slowest V10 on earth ..

Except that V10 only had 430 horsepower (less than a C63), but it still should have been under 5 seconds.

I understand that if a car starts out faster but the other car gets to 100 mph quicker how the 1/4 mile can be close, BUT they are both rated 3.7 0-60, so that should not be a factor. If they both got to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and then the M5 took an extra 4.6 seconds to get to 100 while the S6 took 5.5 seconds to get to that speed, how could their 1/4 miles be 0.1 seconds apart?

They need to start doing Dyno tests on these German Turbo cars, you really wonder if the test cars are the same as the ones being sold to customers, I mean they could have shipped that S6 with the S8 tune! Now a S6 with 510 horsepower, 50 pounds less weight than a M5 and with AWD I could see these numbers being real.

[cidair]

Originally Posted by Mako

Except that V10 only had 430 horsepower (less than a C63), but it still should have been under 5 seconds.

I understand that if a car starts out faster but the other car gets to 100 mph quicker how the 1/4 mile can be close, BUT they are both rated 3.7 0-60, so that should not be a factor. If they both got to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and then the M5 took an extra 4.6 seconds to get to 100 while the S6 took 5.5 seconds to get to that speed, how could their 1/4 miles be 0.1 seconds apart?

They need to start doing Dyno tests on these German Turbo cars, you really wonder if the test cars are the same as the ones being sold to customers, I mean they could have shipped that S6 with the S8 tune! Now a S6 with 510 horsepower, 50 pounds less weight than a M5 and with AWD I could see these numbers being real.

+1

I don´t trust these press cars. Too much boost pressure.......

[grimlock]

Yeah, that S6 press car defies physics!

[singularity]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Yeah, that S6 press car defies physics!

Did you draw that yourself?

[Tylerstar]

Originally Posted by Mako

Except that V10 only had 430 horsepower (less than a C63), but it still should have been under 5 seconds.

I understand that if a car starts out faster but the other car gets to 100 mph quicker how the 1/4 mile can be close, BUT they are both rated 3.7 0-60, so that should not be a factor. If they both got to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and then the M5 took an extra 4.6 seconds to get to 100 while the S6 took 5.5 seconds to get to that speed, how could their 1/4 miles be 0.1 seconds apart?

They need to start doing Dyno tests on these German Turbo cars, you really wonder if the test cars are the same as the ones being sold to customers, I mean they could have shipped that S6 with the S8 tune! Now a S6 with 510 horsepower, 50 pounds less weight than a M5 and with AWD I could see these numbers being real.

+1 a lot of these test cars are tuned versions they do this with a lot of cars. ( so they sell more cars)

[MI6]

Sigh.

Is this really that HARD to understand?

Audi like BMW publishes HP figs that are lower than the true power output.

This is NOT news.

More than likely the Audi S6 is putting out close to 460- 470 which explains some of this. That coupled with car magazines often posting ridiculous numbers and times is not unexpected.

The real time is more likely 4.0-4.2. Still incredibly fast for this car and it's price.

Oh wait- we don't know the price.

This is Audi people- expect a decently equipped S6 to run 90-95k..... That's only about 10k cheaper than a nicely packaged M5....

-Bond