new rs6 engine + rs6 plus

[t0m4s]

579,4 hp

plus: between 620 & 635 hp :O

I love himmm :D

[RS6Driver]

I posted numbers for the RS6 back in May and it's 579PS = 571hp. I haven't heard any confirmation on the RS6+ numbers yet...

[Leadfoot]

Not confirmed but I have been told that the figure 635hp has been suggested.

[buyalemon]

Sounds just great :D ...but I just read a swedish article in Automotor&sport where they tested the S6 ...and the dyno showed 351,9 hp :brag: ..that's pathetic!
I really think the customers should react in some way against the fake figures Audi claim to have :vgrumpy:
Soo it should take around 600hp to smoke the M5 if they can't get it together!

Here is a link ...see last page! http://www.automotorsport.se/biltester/2007/0701/070101.pdf

[Leadfoot]

If I'm not mistaken some dyno results have shown the RS4 to produce 319hp so I think you can read into these result what you like. And we all know that a RS4 is quite a bit quicker than a M3 which will dyno around the same sort of figure as this.

[bober3]

for example, the s6 his producing 435 hp at the crank, they probably (Automotor&sport magazine)

giving you the power at the wheel horse power, who is such a totally diferent

thing. For example, the on a dyno m5 is probably producing around 415 hp at the

wheel

[buyalemon]

No no no and no again ...same magazine same dyno http://www.automotorsport.se/biltester/2005/0517/051701.pdf

M5 puts down 471 hp ...S6 is loosing 20% ..way too much! Just look at the acc ...it's 7 sec behind up to 200km/h ...thats too much!

If the looses that much power from the crank ...audi really need some new gearboxes!!

Don't get me wrong ...I love Auidis ...but loosing 20% of the power isn't the gearbox ..435 hp is made up!

[Ruergard]

AWD and automatic gearbox doesn't really do the trick...

[buyalemon]

well ...does that mean the 997 turbo (aut) looses 96 hp?
Naturally torsendiff and automatic isn't the best way of delivering hp ...but having the markets greatest powerlosses in the top of the line models can't be good!

[Leadfoot]

No no no and no again ...same magazine same dyno http://www.automotorsport.se/biltester/2005/0517/051701.pdf

M5 puts down 471 hp ...S6 is loosing 20% ..way too much! Just look at the acc ...it's 7 sec behind up to 200km/h ...thats too much!

If the looses that much power from the crank ...audi really need some new gearboxes!!

Don't get me wrong ...I love Auidis ...but loosing 20% of the power isn't the gearbox ..435 hp is made up!

Hold on a minute, are you saying that either a M5 is able to accelerate to 200km/h in 12secs or that the S6 is taking 21.5secs because the S6 cars that I have read about take about 18.5~19secs to reach 200km/h and the best I have seen for an M5 is 14.5secs. Which is it?

With regards to dyno tests, I take everyone of them with a pinch of salt, good and bad. And this is proven when one says an M5 is putting 471hp to the rear wheel, please don't make me laugh. It the very least it will be losing 12~15% while an automatic with awd will lose an extra 8~10% more than that.

The real reason for the M5's better acceleration is it's gearbox plain and simple, 7 gears that are tighter stacked and no torque converter.

As for an automatic gearbox, Ruergard is correct. The power lose can be major compared to a manual but some autos like the one in the 335i and the 997tt can actually improve acceleration because they can change gear much quicker.

[buyalemon]

Well ...I've seen several tests of M5 doing 200 in 13-ish secs ...and S6 in high 19 ..soo let's call it 6 secs (still a lifetime)

I think the old M5 (400 hp) did 200 in 18 or so? ...the V10 in S6 doesn't produce any 435 hp!

As the article says "with a loss of 19% is it impossible that the claimed power is correct, about 35 hp is missing somewhere ...normal loss with 4WD and auto is around 12%"

In the M5 article they say that the CLS55 and the M5 loosing about 8-9% is quite normal with this kind of drivedtrain!

Well ...anyone is free to think what they want ...but I think the RS6 must have 580hp to loose an M5 with theese powerlosses!

[Leadfoot]

Well ...I've seen several tests of M5 doing 200 in 13-ish secs ...and S6 in high 19 ..soo let's call it 6 secs (still a lifetime)

I think the old M5 (400 hp) did 200 in 18 or so? ...the V10 in S6 doesn't produce any 435 hp!

You have answered your own question here. You feel that the Audi S6 doesn't produce the said amount (435hp) and this is based on a magazine dyno report, yet you quote an old M5 (400hp) doing the same speed roughly a second quicker. Now you need to check the weight difference between the two, then factor in the extra power lose and I reckon this will account for the extra second. In fact the new M5 will cover the same speed in P400 mode in just 16.2seconds, as I already said before, the improvement the new M5 is making is down to it's SMGIII gearbox.

Trust me, the S6 is producing the full 435hp regards of the magazine. And in any case, even with it's as you said it acceleration that takes a lifetime it was still able to match the M5 around a tight test track. I reckon the awd is one of those benefit worth keeping regards of it's straight line acceleration, don't you think. :)


As the article says "with a loss of 19% is it impossible that the claimed power is correct, about 35 hp is missing somewhere ...normal loss with 4WD and auto is around 12%"

In the M5 article they say that the CLS55 and the M5 loosing about 8-9% is quite normal with this kind of drivedtrain!

I could recommend Dan Brown's books as good bed time reading since you clearly like to read fiction. :hihi:


Well ...anyone is free to think what they want ...but I think the RS6 must have 580hp to loose an M5 with theese powerlosses!

I think I must know a little bit more about the RS6 than you, so I think you will be pleasantly pleased with the results. ;)

[buyalemon]

Glad you think you know more than me :thumb:

Audi S6: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=645 :deal:
Audi A6 4,2: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=621 :deal:
E60 M5: http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=153 :deal:

Now ...do you have a dyno at home? ...these figs are from a objective company who have tested as you can see on their page a great number of cars! The tests are done on same dyno with same conditions :0:

Audi would never release the RS6 before it's faster than an M5 ...but why do they claim numbers they can't deliver? :vhmmm:

I'd be pissed bying a 435 hp V10 car doing 200 in 20 secs ...a chipped 95 aero leaving 280 hp can easy keep up in sheer acc in the dry ..ofcourse with weight on its side but anyway :noshake:

[GeCcO]

Isn't it a well known fact that AWD cars are harder to dyno than RWD/FWD cars? And that AWD + Automatic is even more inaccurate. Quattro, or any other type of AWD system always tries to stop wheels from slipping, and to do this they shift the power from the the wheel with the less grip to the wheel with the best grip. And during this process as i see it is very likely that power is lost.

I haven't looked that much into this, so if anyone has more info please tell.

[Klint]

550+ is borderline stupid in a car straight out of the factory!

i still remember the late 90s when the E39 M5 was regarded as 'overly powerful' like it was yesturday. :MTM:

[S6driver]

I'd be pissed bying a 435 hp V10 car doing 200 in 20 secs


actually, I am anything but pissed with my S6. I live at 8400 feet, and engine still does fine. I've actually timed my car at 4.9 sec 0-60, and its plenty fast for me regardless of the HP. I highly recommend the car. and as far as the Mk2 RS6, I will believe Audi's horsepower #'s. can't wait for mine.:rs6kiss:

[skiwi]

Glad you think you know more than me :thumb:



this is all stuff very suitable for anal retentives.....

check out the car and driver track test of the m5 and s6. the s6 was all of 1/2 second slower over the circuit. why?

awd.

oh, and they preferrd the s6.

[buyalemon]

this is all stuff very suitable for anal retentives.....

check out the car and driver track test of the m5 and s6. the s6 was all of 1/2 second slower over the circuit. why?

awd.

oh, and they preferrd the s6.

When did I say the car sucked? It's an Audi ...a great car ...I just don't like the idea of making up numbers about hp! The car only produces 350 hp on the wheels ...no more no less ...it might be the best car in the world in other aspects ..that's not the point!!

I would prefer if the RS6 delivers what they say ..rather than having 100 more hp than an M5 and still be just as fast ..u with me? :rs6kiss:

Just because this is an Audi forum ...I hope we are old enogh to handle som critisism? :vhmmm:

[chewym]

The S6 probably makes 435 at the crank. And the RS6 will probably make 580 at the crank. You know in the US you get the hp certified, so they are not making up any figures. And I am pretty sure the RS6 will put down excellent acceleration

[skiwi]

there is no fudging on the numbers. all the manufacturers have to abide by sae or din rules for their power figures - which means that they are accurate and comparable.

there is undoubtedly more power loss in an awd transmission, but as the real world shows, an awd transmission puts the power to the road so much more effectively than a rwd or fwd transmission, that it more than compensates for the power loss.

put this another way, drive an e55 or m5 on a wet, slippery road and your effective power, and hence speed, is a fraction of what is stated because the power cannot connect with the road. in many cases (e55 is worst), all you see is the traction control light blinking.

it is why rally cars are all awd, and awd is banned for all other motorsport.

witness the track test i referenced, a heavier, slower, less powerful s6 almost beats a faster, more powerful and lighter m5.

this issue is a red herring.

[buyalemon]

well ...since no one seems to get the point of this discussion it's maybe time to end it! just a few thoughts!

how in earth could Audis problem of loosing 20% power end up with answers of the good handling and tracktimes? :doh:

How about loosing some more power then, perhaps 25%... if it's the best way to go around corners? :thumb:

[Erik]

There is already a thread, or two, about this "news".