How fast will 580hp be?

[3x5PSI]

I'm sure everyone is dying to know. If anyone wants I can run a simulation (I have software for that). But I think its easier to look within Audi. The MTM-RS6 Clubsport BiTurbo has 580ps & was tested. It was also lightened & only weighed 1719kg. The S6 weighs over 2100kg, so of course the RS6 will be more than that, especially if its turbo as the 2x turbos, intercoolers,1wastegates, piping are all heavy

http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/mtmars6cs2004-1.htm

<TABLE cellPadding=5 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Test in sport auto 12/2004</TD></TR><TR><TD>Gewicht </TD><TD align=right>1719 kg</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 80 km/h </TD><TD align=right>3,2 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 100 km/h </TD><TD align=right>3,9 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 120 km/h </TD><TD align=right>5,5 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 130 km/h </TD><TD align=right>- s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 140 km/h </TD><TD align=right>6,7 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 160 km/h </TD><TD align=right>8,7 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 180 km/h </TD><TD align=right>10,3 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 200 km/h </TD><TD align=right>12,3 s</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Let's compare that to the normal 480hp RS6+, of which I found 2 separate tests, the 1st test from the same mag that tested the MTM RS6:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/rs6plus2004-2.htm

<TABLE cellPadding=5 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Test in sport auto 07/2004</TD></TR><TR><TD>Gewicht </TD><TD align=right>1984 kg</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 80 km/h </TD><TD align=right>3,6 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 100 km/h </TD><TD align=right>4,9 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 120 km/h </TD><TD align=right>6,7 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 130 km/h </TD><TD align=right>- s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 140 km/h </TD><TD align=right>8,6 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 160 km/h </TD><TD align=right>10,7 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 180 km/h </TD><TD align=right>14,0 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 200 km/h </TD><TD align=right>17,8 s</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/rs6plus2004-1.htm

<TABLE cellPadding=5 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Test in ams 12/2004</TD></TR><TR><TD>Gewicht </TD><TD align=right>1991 kg</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 80 km/h </TD><TD align=right>3,2 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 100 km/h </TD><TD align=right>4,6 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 120 km/h </TD><TD align=right>6,3 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 130 km/h </TD><TD align=right>7,3 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 140 km/h </TD><TD align=right>8,3 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 160 km/h </TD><TD align=right>10,5 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 180 km/h </TD><TD align=right>14,2 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 200 km/h </TD><TD align=right>18,0 s</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The 280kg weight reduction & the extra 100hp have combined to make the car 5.5 secs faster to 200.

I expect, what with the laws of diminishing returns, that the RS6 will be around 3-4 secs faster than the new S6 seeing as there won't be a 280kg weight reduction along with the power increase (in fact there will be an increase in weight).

Personally I think a stonking NA engine like the one in the RS4 would be a better bet.

[Leadfoot]

Expect something closer to that of the MTM say 1~1.5s slower to 200km/h, something around 13.5s but this is a guess. The belief is a 160km/h will be achieved in 9.0~9.3s but who relieve knows outside of Quattro GmbH.

[3x5PSI]

Expect something closer to that of the MTM say 1~1.5s slower to 200km/h, something around 13.5s but this is a guess. The belief is a 160km/h will be achieved in 9.0~9.3s but who relieve knows outside of Quattro GmbH.

I agree with the 9.3 to 160. I think that's possible.

13.5 to 200, I'm not sure. It will depend on the gearing & weight.

S6 below does 19.8 to 200 & weighs 2 tonnes. You cannot expect a 6.3 second jump from the S6 especially when the weight is going up. Do you know how much power you need to go 6 seconds faster if you not taking weight out? 6 seconds is an eternity & the laws of diminishing returns will play a role.

I think 5 seconds is also a lot, but let's just say it's possible. That would make 0-200 in 14.8. But hey, with the right gearing, maybe a sequential box, maybe 14.5 is on. Anything less that that is asking for too much considering the weight & drivetrain loss at speed.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1622-1/S6vsM5.jpg

[chewym]

Many tuner horsepower appear a bit weak at times.

[artur777]

To my mind,

It will be a great result for RS6 to be faster than 14 sec for 0-200.
More expected figure is something between 14,5 and 15 sec for 0-200.

Everything will depend on HP and Torque for the highest 2000 rpm RS6 is going to have. Also gearing ratios will influence greatly.
Look like it will have 6-speed Super Fast Auto, but it's gearing ratios will be a little bit less efficient than 7-speed SMG in M5.

If RS6 has 10-15% better HP and Torque values comparing to M5 in the highest 2000 rpm it will be even faster. 10-15% better we need due to increased weight and additional Quattro losses over RWD car.

[artur777]

3x5SPI,

regarding the test of MTM Audi RS6.
MTM Audi RS6 is lighter, but it's gearing and transmission wil be less effective than those in RS6. And new RS6 will weight very close to S6 (net weight - 1910 kg, gross weight - app. 2050 kg), because of turbos fron one side and new lightening technologies from other side.

Also we should take into consideration one more thing.
Compare two different engines: NA 4.2L non-FSI and NA 5.2L FSI which are base engines for RS6 cars. It's clear that high HP and Torque range at new 5.2L FSI engine is much wider than those in 4.2L non-FSI. That means that turbos will only improve that figures. AndAudi is goint to use not small turbos, becaue of the difference between 450 hp @5.2L NA and 580 hp @5.0L TT engine. Look like it will be a like VTG technology in the new engine.

So let's see:
- MTM RS6 is 12.3 sec @ 0-200
- Let's add 19% to new RS6 time due to 2050 / 1719 kg of weight increase.
- Let's substract 1 sec for more effective and faster gearing (fast 6 speed VS 5 speed) and more effective Quattro drivetrain losses
- Let's substract 0,7 sec for more effective HP and Torque line at higher RPM (if VTG is implied)
- Finally we get about 13 sec @ 0-200

Let's compare with RS6+.
- RS6+ is 17.8 @0-200
- Add some time due to increase weight - 4%
- Substract 1 sec due to gearing and Quattro
- Subtract 20% due to power increase 580 hp / 480 hp
- Subract 1 sec for more efective HP and Torque range (if VTG is implied)
- We get something like 13 sec @ 0-200 for new RS6

So look like it could be a very fast car, and it's even difficult to imagine if that can be true. Of course my reasearch is an amateur one, but it could give a view of car's potential. Though my own expectations lie in between 14 - 15 sec @ 0-200.

[3x5PSI]

Arthur, good post. I agree realistically it will be between 14-15ecs. I wish modifications were cumulative & you could subract X time for X mod, etc. But I have found that mods that in isolation yield X & Y time, do not necessarily yield X + Y time when done in conjunction. Also the laws ofd diminishing returns apply & when you start with a fast car, taking the last second off gets harder & harder.

But 0-200 in 14 secs would indeed be a good time.

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

thanks for reply.
Agree with you notions-)))
Hope, we have to wait only for 2 weeks before it finally comes.

[Leadfoot]

To my mind,

It will be a great result for RS6 to be faster than 14 sec for 0-200.
More expected figure is something between 14,5 and 15 sec for 0-200.

Everything will depend on HP and Torque for the highest 2000 rpm RS6 is going to have. Also gearing ratios will influence greatly.
Look like it will have 6-speed Super Fast Auto, but it's gearing ratios will be a little bit less efficient than 7-speed SMG in M5.

If RS6 has 10-15% better HP and Torque values comparing to M5 in the highest 2000 rpm it will be even faster. 10-15% better we need due to increased weight and additional Quattro losses over RWD car.

The estimated Power to weight of the RS6 will be 285~290hp and a Torque to weight of 235ft/lbs that compares to the M5 which is 275hp and 208ft/lbs. Clearly it will all depend on how much torque the RS6 will be producing over it's final 2000rpm, if it maintains the advantage then it should be able to keep the advantage it gained at the first of the race, so say by 100mph the RS6 is 0.6s ahead of the M5 that would be equal to 5.5 car lengths which if the above is true and it's still producing more torque at the end of it's rev range the RS6 will maintain this 5.5 car length advantage if not extend it. That would put it squarely in the range of the M6.

I know this is all just talk and there is no hard evidence to back any of this up but it gets you thinking.

[audi_ch]

dont worry, the new rs6 will be faster than m5, then this was a goal on developing.

There was even once a talk that for initial acceleration 700nm should be shortly available (means 50 nm plus than standart). If that is know the case i dont know, but the rs6 will take m5 for sure, i know that from first hand

[3x5PSI]

dont worry, the new rs6 will be faster than m5, then this was a goal on developing.

There was even once a talk that for initial acceleration 700nm should be shortly available (means 50 nm plus than standart). If that is know the case i dont know, but the rs6 will take m5 for sure, i know that from first hand

Ok I agree with Leadie that the key will be the ability to hold torque at high rpm. But just throwing around the headline torque number means nothing in a race. You say it will have 700NM at the engine. My 335 has 575NM ON THE WHEELS! That's roughly 680NM based on RWD drivetrain losses. A 4WD car with 700NM will make around 500NM on the wheels. And the RS6 weighs half a tonne more than a 335.

The point is that all my 680NM doesn't help me in a race. It's the power that matters. I used to read the headlines & used to get lulled by torque numbers but it means nothing on the road. A modified 335 with race fuel makes 423hp & 503lb/ft at the crank. The power curve is very flat & looks very impressive in the dyno below. But what you want is a power curve that rising all the way to the redline, like the B7 RS4 has. 680NM in a 1500kg car still loses to a V10 after 100mph. The horsepower prevails over torque.

I'm not saying the RS6 will be the same. Maybe they will have some revolutionary new technology whereby turbo cars designed for mid-range torque can keep the torque from falling. If they do, then they will have a winner.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1648-1/fly2.JPG

[audi_ch]

i say they talked about and they tested it, during a short period of time on acceleration give 50 nm aditionaly. to be honest i dont no what the result was, means if they use this solution or not, have to ask. But i know for sure that the m5 was a "tartet" on doveleping the new rs6 concerning acceleration. And i know from first hand that the goal was to outperform the m5. The person how gives my this informaiton comes from the quattro gmbh itselfs, there is no point to lie on that. Believe it or not, as you want to

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

if I have got you right:
1) Torque always higher than HP
2) But HP is much more important for acceleration
3) HP should be as close as possible to Torque during the wide revv range, especially at higher RPMs
4) Best engines are the engines where Torque and RPM are close for as much as possible revv range
5) Turbo engines usually are very good in mid-range - very useful for daily driving
6) Professional NA engines are very good in high-range - best for racing
7) VTG Turbo by Porsche is unique due to its high and close Torque and HP during mid-range and high-range - very useful both for daily driving and racing

How many mistakes have I made?-)))

[3x5PSI]

Hey Artur, that sounds about right. If you can keep the torque flat then the hp will be rising. VTG turbos are the future for that. The angle of the blades changes as the revs rise so the turbine wheel does not become a restriction at high rpm & cause excess backpressure. Lots of turbo-diesels have been using variable vane turbos but in a diesel the engine cannot rev so its not much help.

I think the way to get turbo cars to maintain power up top is:

1. High compression ratio - that will have a positive knock on effect on so many areas. Lag with be less with high CR, power will be better everywhere, the engine will be more efficient, & when the turbos run out of steam at high rpm, you can taper the boost down & let the high CR engine make the power.

2. Direct injection - If you gonna' run high CR with boost, you need to prevent detonation & direct injection is the best way to do that. Also adds to the efficiency & the more efficient the better you can make the engine hold its power.

3. Trick turbo technology - VTG or some other way of preventing the turbine wheel from choking the engine at high rpm. It's almost like you want to use the turbo in the mid-range & then ditch it at the point where it becomes a restriction. Sequential turbos are another way. Use a very small turbo at low rpm to have spool-up just off idle, & at the rpm when the turbo runs out of steam have some bypass valves & flaps that direct the air around the small turbo to a larger one that can hold power all the way to the top.

[Leadfoot]

By the way the RS6 was pegged back from the 5.2L to 5.0L for a number of reasons two of which were to allow a higher than normal compression ratio and higher than normal rev limit for this size of motor with forced induction.

The VTG technology was something I just threw in to the mixed of the discussion I don't know if the RS6 is getting this but with the recent tie up between VAG and Porsche if ever it was going to happen now would the most likely time.

[3x5PSI]

Ok here's an EXCELLENT example for predicting RS6 performance. The CL65 weighs about the same as the RS6 will and it has BOTH HORSEPOWER & TORQUE! IT has 612PS & 1000NM. It's got it all. Problem is it has 612PS as 4800. That's way too low a power peak. This is with a huge engine & bigger turbos that in the CL600 & yet it still peaks so early.
It's 0-200 time is not that impressive. ALso remember the RS6 will lose more power to the wheels being 4WD.

http://www.ilpistone.com/downloads/sa/5.jpg

[Leadfoot]

You are forgetting that it only rwd and as such has serious problem putting the power down below 70mph and also it's traction control can't be disengaged which means quite a lot of this power isn't getting used anyway. Check how quick it is when it finally does get traction say after 120km/h upto 200km/h, it gains 2.3s over the Ferrari 612.

Personally 3x5PSI you have shot yourself in the foot this time. The RS6 will be able to put all of it's power down right from the beginning with traction control or traction problem.

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

but nevertheless CL65 is faster from 100 to 200 than any of its competitors. And its competitors has a peaque torque much higher than it is and both of them are lighter. Why is it so?

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

but RS6 will lose against RWD cars after 70 mph due to increased drivetrain losses. And where will be its peaque HR and Torque? And also will it be higher than 7000 RPM or not?

[Z07]

I predict about 1s of the 480bhp RS6+'s 0-160kph time and 2.5s off its 0-200kph time.

[artur777]

And some more information about Porsche 911 Turbo to compare.
Look:

http://files.porsche.com/filestore.aspx/normal.gif?pool=uk&type=image&id=tu997-indetail-drive-power-xl&lang=none&filetype=normal

Every 911 shares the same fundamental engine characteristics. Key among these are the ‘flat-six’ cylinder layout and rear-mounted installation.
There is, however, one essential feature that is unique to the 911 Turbo. The twin turbocharger system that gives the car its name now includes Variable Turbine Geometry. Thus equipped, the 3.6-litre engine develops 353 kW (480 bhp) at 6,000 rpm. Weighing 1,585 kg, the standard 911 Turbo (with manual gearbox) has an excellent power-to-weight ratio of 302.8 bhp per tonne. Specific power output is 133 bhp per litre of engine displacement.
Maximum torque is a phenomenal 620 Nm, rising to 680 Nm with the overboost function in the optional Sport Chrono Package Turbo. Thanks to VarioCam Plus and the new turbocharger system, all of that torque is fully available between 1,950 and 5,000 rpm.
The resulting acceleration is inspirationally quick. Equipped with Tiptronic S, the new 911 Turbo requires just 3.7 seconds to reach 100 km/h (62 mph), and just 12.2 seconds for 200 km/h (142 mph). Facilitating this performance is the additional traction provided by the new electronically controlled all-wheel drive system. In appropriate track conditions, the car’s maximum speed is 310 km/h (193 mph).

Now some info about VTG:
The 911 Turbo has always been synonymous with performance. Now the car is more capable than ever thanks to a new twin turbo system featuring Variable Turbine Geometry (VTG).
On a conventional turbocharger, the exhaust flow drives a turbine that is connected to a compressor in the air intake tract. By ‘squeezing’ the incoming air, the amount of oxygen in a given volume is increased. Since compression also causes an increase in temperature, the air must be passed through an ‘intercooler’ unit. With more oxygen present in each cylinder charge, more fuel can be burnt yielding greater energy. Since higher exhaust pressures generate corresponding loads on the intake side, the intake pressure must be carefully controlled in order to protect the engine. On the new 911 Turbo, the ‘boost pressure’ is limited using ‘wastegate’ valves that bypass excess pressure around the twin exhaust turbines.
Another important factor is the size of the turbo unit. Since a smaller turbine has a lower mass, it generally responds more quickly to increasing pressure, spinning up easily to its optimum speed. The key disadvantage of using a smaller turbo is that the back-pressure generated at higher engine speeds causes a significant reduction in performance. Resistance is caused by the smaller cross-sectional area through which the exhaust is required to flow. Larger turbo units, which create lower back-pressure at higher rpm, take considerably longer to spin up under power due to the large cross-sectional area and relative inertia of the heavier turbine. Generally, this type of turbo will only be effective in the medium rpm range. This phenomenon, known as ‘turbo lag’, means there is virtually no turbocharging effect at lower engine speeds. To overcome this problem, the twin water-cooled turbochargers on the new 911 Turbo feature Variable Turbine Geometry (VTG). With this technology, the gas-flow from the engine is channelled onto the turbines via electronically adjustable guide vanes. By changing the vane angle, the system can replicate the geometry in all types of turbo, large or small.
With Variable Turbine Geometry (VTG), it is possible to achieve higher turbine speeds, and thus higher boost pressure, at lower engine rpm. Cylinder charging is significantly improved, with a corresponding increase in both power and torque. Maximum torque is reached at lower rpm and is retained across a wider rev range. A full 620 Nm is available from as low as 1,950 rpm up to 5,000 rpm. Every throttle input is met with exceptional response and phenomenal acceleration. When the boost pressure reaches its maximum value, the guide vanes are opened further. By varying the vane angle, it is possible to achieve the required boost pressure over the entire engine speed range. As a result, there is no need for excess-pressure valves as found on conventional turbocharged engines.
Matching the superlative performance of the car is the efficiency with which it is generated. In spite of the increase in power and torque, the new 911 Turbo offers a further reduction in fuel consumption.

And some official specs:
<TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Engine</TH><TD class=subCategory>Layout / number of cylinders</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>6</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Displacement</TD><TD>3,600 cm³</TD><TD>3,600 cm³</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Engine layout/Drive</TD><TD>Rear engine</TD><TD>Rear engine</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Power</TD><TD>353 kW (480 bhp)</TD><TD>353 kW (480 bhp)</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Max. torque (Nm) at rpm</TD><TD>620 Nm (Overboost: 680 Nm)</TD><TD>620 Nm (Overboost: 680 Nm)</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>at rpm</TD><TD>1,950 - 5,000 1/min</TD><TD>1,950 - 5,000 1/min</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Compression ratio</TD><TD>9.0 : 1</TD><TD>9.0 : 1</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Charge cycle</TD><TD>Two-stage resonance intake system</TD><TD>Two-stage resonance intake system</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Performance</TH><TD class=subCategory>Top speed</TD><TD>310 km/h (193 mph)</TD><TD>310 km/h (193 mph)</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Acceleration from 0 - 100 km/h (0 - 62 mph)</TD><TD>3.9 s</TD><TD>3.7 s</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Acceleration from 0 - 160 km/h (0 - 99 mph)</TD><TD>8.4 s</TD><TD>7.8 s</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Elasticity 80 - 120 km/h (50 - 75 mph)</TD><TD>3.8 s</TD><TD>3.5 s</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Transmission</TH><TD class=subCategory>manual-shift gear</TD><TD>6 Gear</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Tiptronic S available</TD><TD></TD><TD>optional</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Body</TH><TD class=subCategory>Length</TD><TD>4,450 mm</TD><TD>4,450 mm</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Width</TD><TD>1,852 mm</TD><TD>1,852 mm</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Height</TD><TD>1,300 mm</TD><TD>1,300 mm</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Wheelbase</TD><TD>2,350 mm</TD><TD>2,350 mm</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Drag coefficient (Cd)</TD><TD>0.31</TD><TD>0.31</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Unladen weight (DIN)</TD><TD>1,585 kg</TD><TD>1,620 kg</TD></TR><TR class=alternate><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Unladen weight (EG)</TD><TD>1,660 kg</TD><TD>1,695 kg</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Permissible gross weight</TD><TD>1,950 kg</TD><TD>1,980 kg</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Capacities</TH><TD class=subCategory>Fuel tank</TD><TD>67 l</TD><TD>67 l</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=features><TBODY><TR class=firstRow><TH></TH><TD></TD><TH class=optional>Manual</TH><TH class=optional>Tiptronic S </TH></TR><TR class=alternate><TH>Fuel consumption</TH><TD class=subCategory>Urban</TD><TD>18.8 l/100 km (15.0 mpg)</TD><TD>19.8 l/100 km (14.3 mpg)</TD></TR><TR><TH></TH><TD class=subCategory>Non-urban</TD><TD>9.5 l/100 km (29.7 mpg)</TD><TD>9.6 l/100 km (29.4 mpg)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


What could you say about effectiveness of comparing RS6 to 911 Turbo?
And also what weight from the stated above should we count as comparable to 2050 kg of RS6?

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot,

but RS6 will lose against RWD cars after 70 mph due to increased drivetrain losses. And where will be its peaque HR and Torque? And also will it be higher than 7000 RPM or not?

Agreed the RS6 will lose due to it's driving train but all dyno systems can't give a true measurement of this lose, it ranges from 25% down to 19%, plus it's will be ahead of it's competition at 100mph by as much as 5+ car lengths, we know the M5 can easily pull in the RS4 but don't expect the same thing to happen with the RS6.

I don't think any of us discussing this at the minute know for sure how the RS6 will compare to the M5 in acceleration.

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

a special question for you.
Why at the 911 Turbo graph Torque goes down after 5000rpm, but hp continues to rise?
And it's look like that Porsche has limited Torque at 620Nm not to overloas the engine.

[3x5PSI]

3x5PSI,

but nevertheless CL65 is faster from 100 to 200 than any of its competitors. And its competitors has a peaque torque much higher than it is and both of them are lighter. Why is it so?

Because it has so much more horsepower (And torque) than them. When its torque peaks and comes down, its still probably higher than the other cars in the test.

CL65 does 100-200 in 9secs. That not that impressive. It's pretty good, but now what is expected. Here's an M6 with half the torque of the CL65 doing 100-200 in less than 8.6 secs in 2 separate tests. Leadie, look at the in gear tractability tests between the Cl65 & M6 from the same mag. Take for example 100-180km/h in 4th gear.

http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1631-1/M6vsGall.JPG
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/1634-1/M6+vs+575M+_8a_.jpg

[Z07]

3x5PSI,

but nevertheless CL65 is faster from 100 to 200 than any of its competitors. And its competitors has a peaque torque much higher than it is and both of them are lighter. Why is it so?
The 65 produces 737lbft from 2000-4000rpm, the article doesn't tell the full story. It also produces 612ps from 4800-5100rpm. Reading into the figures the 65 is above 600ps from about 4250-6000rpm. That's about 35% of the whole rev range (1000-6000rpm)!

The CL is rarely producing less than 600ps on the run. At high speed, it's weight becomes less important and because of its weight it doesn't need any aerodynamic downforce, hence less drag. Autocar recorded a 4.8 0-100 and a 9.0 0-160. Most low-end supercars get completely humiliated by any 65 AMG Merc.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3497/111qi1.gif

[Leadfoot]

3x5PSI,

The CL65 is only a 5 speed box compared to a 7 speed, so you should be looking at possibly 5th gear for the M6 or even something in between that and 6th gear but lets keep to 5th gear, OK.

CL65 in 4th gear 80~120km/h is 4.5s
M6 in 5th gear 80~120km/h is 5.1s

CL65 in 4th gear 80~180km/h is 11.2s
M6 in 5th gear 80~180km/h is 13.1s

Now if you tell me that the M6's 4th will take it's speed to the same as the CL65 you will be talking more than just BS.

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

interesting figures:
M6 left for dead Gallardo due to the very similar graphs and figures.
And M6 is a heavier one ! How could it be? Even better HP and Torque peaques and more effective gearing?

[Z07]

3x5PSI,

interesting figures:
M6 left for dead Gallardo due to the very similar graphs and figures.
And M6 is a heavier one ! How could it be? Even better HP and Torque peaques and more effective gearing?


The Gallardo is AWD so will suffer roughly 25% losses between flywheel and wheels. The M6 is RWD so suffers only about 15%. The M6 and M5 are also known to put out nearer 534ps and 406lbft from magazine dynojet tests. The rest is explained by the fact the results are a little perverse. The M6 tested very fast and the Gallardo tested slower than usual. Both take around 5.0s between 100 and 160 usually and the Gallardo usually hits 100 about 0.5s earlier. I have no idea how the testers managed to figure the AWD Gallardo slower to 100kph.:vhmmm:

[3x5PSI]

3x5PSI,

The CL65 is only a 5 speed box compared to a 7 speed, so you should be looking at possibly 5th gear for the M6 or even something in between that and 6th gear but lets keep to 5th gear, OK.

CL65 in 4th gear 80~120km/h is 4.5s
M6 in 5th gear 80~120km/h is 5.1s

CL65 in 4th gear 80~180km/h is 11.2s
M6 in 5th gear 80~180km/h is 13.1s

Now if you tell me that the M6's 4th will take it's speed to the same as the CL65 you will be talking more than just BS.

Leadie, Leadie, LEadie. When you line up with an M6 in your CL65 are you going to tell him, "you have more gear then me, so you go into 5th, I will stay in 4th".

I will reply, "Well you take the 2 turbos out out then we go".

Each car has its method of making power. M6 doesn't have the torque so its weapon of choice is gearing. You have to test both cars in the same gear, that is the universal way of testing cars. I know its not fair, but life's not fair. It's also not fair to compare an 4.9 litre engine to a 6.0 V12 with 2 turbos.

[artur777]

Z07,

interesting figures for CL65.
It shines between 3000 and 5000 rpm, but not so good from 5000 rpm.
That's why for expample M6 with 7-speed SMG is always able to be in higher prms where it really shines. This is the explanation why M6 ia quicker.

But at the usual road CL65 will always be better because M6 needs time to jump in higher rpms-)). And if you have to accelerate and brake quite often, mid-range engines are an advantage.

[3x5PSI]

Yeah good points but funnily enough both M6's ran similar times. The 0-200 from SPort Auto was 12.8, from Auto Bild was 13.1. But all that time was lost at the start. Sport Auto got a very good launch & got 0-100 in 4.2, while Auto Bild got 4.4. From that point on the times between the M6's was very close.

[artur777]

3x5PSI,

I forgot that Gallardo is AWD-)))
But Leadfoot always says that it's almost impossible to count exact drivetrain losses - it lies between 19 and 25% due to different measurements. And RWD also - from 8 to 15%. Where is the truth lie?

[artur777]

And look at the power graph of 911 Turbo - it increase HP up to the end!!!!
Even when Torque start falling.
This is an engineering miracle-)))

[Z07]

Leadie, Leadie, LEadie. When you line up with an M6 in your CL65 are you going to tell him, "you have more gear then me, so you go into 5th, I will stay in 4th".

I will reply, "Well you take the 2 turbos out out then we go".

Each car has its method of making power. M6 doesn't have the torque so its weapon of choice is gearing. You have to test both cars in the same gear, that is the universal way of testing cars. I know its not fair, but life's not fair. It's also not fair to compare an 4.9 litre engine to a 6.0 V12 with 2 turbos.
You're not seriously trying to argue that an M6 will beat a CL65 AMG?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9812XblaCMI

M6 vs Gallardo (Gallardo quicker until after 160kph):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUfJ94aKO0g&mode=related&search=

[3x5PSI]

No. A 65 will walk a V10 every time. It simple has too much power & too much torque. I was merely using an example.

[Z07]

Z07,

interesting figures for CL65.
It shines between 3000 and 5000 rpm, but not so good from 5000 rpm.
That's why for expample M6 with 7-speed SMG is always able to be in higher prms where it really shines. This is the explanation why M6 ia quicker.

But at the usual road CL65 will always be better because M6 needs time to jump in higher rpms-)). And if you have to accelerate and brake quite often, mid-range engines are an advantage.
All high rpm accomplishes is slightly higher drivetrain losses and huge inertial loading on conrods. Power across the rev band being used is what counts.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4962/001hk2.jpg

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8716/01iq1.jpg

[artur777]

CL 65 AMG will not walk any time!
If you looked at the tables in the video - you could see that at the moment of finish M6 has already more speed than CL65 AMG and in some more seconds it wcould have outrun CL65 AMG.

[Leadfoot]

Leadie, Leadie, LEadie. When you line up with an M6 in your CL65 are you going to tell him, "you have more gear then me, so you go into 5th, I will stay in 4th".

I will reply, "Well you take the 2 turbos out out then we go".

Each car has its method of making power. M6 doesn't have the torque so its weapon of choice is gearing. You have to test both cars in the same gear, that is the universal way of testing cars. I know its not fair, but life's not fair. It's also not fair to compare an 4.9 litre engine to a 6.0 V12 with 2 turbos.

Sorry I thought you were making a big deal about the fact that though the CL65 had 1000Nm of torque the M6 with almost half as much equalled it by proving as much with this 4th gear acceleration.


Here's an M6 with half the torque of the CL65 doing 100-200 in less than 8.6 secs in 2 separate tests. Leadie, look at the in gear tractability tests between the Cl65 & M6 from the same mag. Take for example 100-180km/h in 4th gear.

All you are showing us is that the M6's 4th gear is set of a low speed and thus easier for the engine to drive, a bit like a mountain bike up a hill. It not a fair comparison and as such shouldn't be used.

If you wanted to compare like with like, compare the M5 with the E63 as both have roughly the same power and both have 7 gears. If in a similar test of 4th gear acceleration from 80~180km/h that the M5 can out gun the E63 then your point is valid.

[Leadfoot]

A better example of the SL65amg sheer power is this video against a tuned Z06 C7.

SL65amg_vs_Z06(Tuned) (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R9tQUgrO1yE&mode=related&search)

Now a stock Z06 vs M6 (Tuned)

Z06_vs_M6 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0i04HegA8)

To me the Z06 is way quicker than an M6 stock and the stock SL65 is quicker than the stock Z06.

[3x5PSI]

Well the E63 has been tested by AMS at 16.5 to 200, so I doubt it will be anywhere in the frame. I'll wait for the SPort Auto Supertest to compare in gear times, but judging by the 0-200 I wouldn't hold my breath

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/merce63amg2006-1.jpg

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/merce63amg2006-1.htm

<TABLE cellPadding=5 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Test in ams 16/2006</TD></TR><TR><TD>Gewicht </TD><TD align=right>1935 kg</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 80 km/h </TD><TD align=right>3,7 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 100 km/h </TD><TD align=right>4,9 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 120 km/h </TD><TD align=right>6,6 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 130 km/h </TD><TD align=right>7,5 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 140 km/h </TD><TD align=right>8,5 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 160 km/h </TD><TD align=right>10,8 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 180 km/h </TD><TD align=right>13,5 s</TD></TR><TR><TD>0 - 200 km/h </TD><TD align=right>16,5 s</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Lateknight]

Ooooh! Can of worms opening here.

Many variations to consider.

Horsepower is a measurement of workrate of an engine.
Torque is the turning force of an engine.
- Hp is a direct relation of torque;

torque(lb/ft) multiplied by engine rpm, then divide by 5252 = Hp at the given rpm.
or
Hp divided by given rpm, then multiply by 5252 = torque in lb/ft at given rpm

The reason why BMW and lambo V10s produce lots of HP and only nominal torque- because they rev high. (also see Honda vtec)
Diesels produce lots of torque and only nominal power -because they don't rev high.

Gearing can over come lack of turning force by torque multiplication. :idea:

The more revs an engine is allowed to make per rotation of the roadwheels the higher the effective torque the roadwheels will receive. (discounting driveline loss calculations).
An obvious example would be why your car accelerates harder in 3rd than it does in 4th.
Probably why the M6, with its 7 relatively short ratios beats a Gallardo with 6 relatively longer gear ratios. In, say 3rd gear the BMW will be able to put out more torque to the wheel (even if the engine torque at flywheel was the same) because of the torque multiplication would be higher due to its slightly shorter ratios.
Although I believe Lambo have shortened the gear ratios in the last year to compensate. This will automatically give the Gallardo higher wheel torque than the old one at any given engine speed per gear. They do say the newer SE Gallardo is quicker than the old one.
It is after all TORQUE that accelerates you.

Unfair to complain how a certain manufacturer gets torque to the wheels. Whether its large turbo engines with monster torque, or high revving unit with shorter gearing: its who gets the most usable torque to the wheels that will win the race

[Z07]

CL 65 AMG will not walk any time!
If you looked at the tables in the video - you could see that at the moment of finish M6 has already more speed than CL65 AMG and in some more seconds it wcould have outrun CL65 AMG.
Yes but it took half a second longer to reach roughly the same speed (120mph) - 11.9 vs 12.4s.

[Z07]

A better example of the SL65amg sheer power is this video against a tuned Z06 C7.

SL65amg_vs_Z06(Tuned) (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R9tQUgrO1yE&mode=related&search)

Now a stock Z06 vs M6 (Tuned)

Z06_vs_M6 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0i04HegA8)

To me the Z06 is way quicker than an M6 stock and the stock SL65 is quicker than the stock Z06.
C6 Z07. C7 isn't out yet.

[Leadfoot]

Like I say 3x5PSI,

I think you need to test the M5 against the E63 to see if it extra torque shows up when both are accelerating in-gear. You are under the impression that the E63 isn't quick enough to compare, I say it is and so do Motortrend who tested both along side the S6 and the results prove that both are within a whisker of each other in outright acceleration.


Originally by Motortrend
<TABLE class=insettxt cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=1><TBODY><TR class=hdr><TD colSpan=4>TEST DATA .................S6................... M5................. E63.............</TD></TR><TR class=hdr2><TD colSpan=4>ACCELERATION TO MPH </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-30 </TD><TD>1.6 sec </TD><TD>1.8 sec </TD><TD>1.8 sec </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-40 </TD><TD>2.8 </TD><TD>2.5 </TD><TD>2.5 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-50 </TD><TD>3.8 </TD><TD>3.8 </TD><TD>3.3 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-60 </TD><TD>5.1 </TD><TD>4.4 </TD><TD>4.3 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-70 </TD><TD>6.7 </TD><TD>5.6 </TD><TD>5.5 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-80 </TD><TD>8.4 </TD><TD>6.9 </TD><TD>6.8 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-90 </TD><TD>10.2 </TD><TD>8.3 </TD><TD>8.3 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-100 </TD><TD>12.5 </TD><TD>10 </TD><TD>10.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD>PASSING 45-65 MPH </TD><TD>2.6 sec </TD><TD>2.0 sec </TD><TD>1.9 sec </TD></TR><TR><TD>QUARTER MILE </TD><TD>13.6 @ 104.4 mph </TD><TD>12.7 @ 114.6 mph </TD><TD>12.7 @ 113.0 mph </TD></TR><TR><TD>BRAKING 60-0 MPH </TD><TD>110 ft </TD><TD>114 ft </TD><TD>113 ft </TD></TR><TR><TD>BRAKING 100-0 MPH </TD><TD>322 ft </TD><TD>325 ft </TD><TD>329 ft </TD></TR><TR><TD>LATERAL ACCELERATION </TD><TD>0.89 g </TD><TD>0.87 g </TD><TD>0.83 g </TD></TR><TR><TD>MT FIGURE EIGHT </TD><TD>26.2 sec @ 0.68 g avg </TD><TD>26.4 sec @ 0.68 g avg </TD><TD>26.7 sec @ 0.68 g avg </TD></TR><TR><TD>TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH </TD><TD>2100 rpm </TD><TD>2300 rpm </TD><TD>1600 rpm </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Leadfoot]

C6 Z07. C7 isn't out yet.

:doh: Big fingers on small keys.

[3x5PSI]

Leadie wasn't that the 6-speed M5 Motortrend tested? The one where you cannot switch off the traction control?

[Leadfoot]

Leadie wasn't that the 6-speed M5 Motortrend tested? The one where you cannot switch off the traction control?

Yeah, but tell me, what is the best 0-60mph time for an M5 SMG with LC. If I remember right they said that the manual was as quick as the SMG but if I am wrong I don't believe it's ever been quicker than this, but like always if wrong I will admit it.

[chewym]

The MT data proves that the S6 handles better than M5/E63 even with its additional 391 pounds. How can you explain this? Do I hear Quattro?

0-200 km/h doesn't matter much in US as you can't go that fast, and many race tracks don't even have space for that speed. As much as people try to bash 0-60 times as overused and cliche it makes sense here in US. Even better is the C/D rolling 5-60 mph times (this prevents high RPM clutch drops and brake torquing) something that most are unlikely to do in the street.

Nope, the MT M5 was an SMG.

Also, if you have seen the virtual race lap from the MT test you can see that the S6 takes off much quicker in the beggining even though we know that the M5 is quicker. Why? Probably because they didn't race on a drag strip but a real life race track.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/sedan/112_0702_luxury_sports_sedan_comparison/specs.html

[3x5PSI]

The US mags will always get different results as they have a watered down launch control. It revs to 1800 due to legal reasons & not wanting clutch warranty claims.

Can you imagine a car with a power peak at 8000rpm & a torque peak at 6300rpm, being launched at 1800rpm? It's a total waste of time & on a good surface it will be bog city all night long. The Euro LC launches at 4000rpm. At least you are closer to getting into the powerband then.

[artur777]

Lateknight,

thanks for the desciption.
Due to it I can say that at rpm = 5252, hp is equal to torque in lb/ft.
If you remember, torque in lb/ft * 1, 34 = torque in Nm.
That means that HP / Given RPM * 5252 = Torque in Nm /1,34 at Given RPM
Or HP / Given RPM * 7040 = Torque in Nm at Given RPM
If Given RPM is 7040, we have HP = Torque in Nm.
If Given RPM is 8200, we have HP * 0,86 = Torque in Nm
If Given RPM is 3500, we have HP *2 = Torque in Nm.
That shows one thing. HP is always lower than Torque at low and mid RPMs and always higher than Torque at high RPMs after 7000.
The equation point is 7040 RPM. Very interesting.

The logic is that engine produces some Torque. When we raise RPM Hp is beginning to reach the Torque and after 7040 RPM HP becomes even higher.
Car manufacturers have only 2 choices:
1) to struggle for higher RPM is the engine is not torquey
2) to struggle for higher torque if the engine is not high-revving

As far as I understand, NA engines are the 1st choice, Turbo engines are the 2nd choice.
The ideal engine is both torquey and high-revving-))
With its new RS6 Audi tries to make it high-revving (more than 7040 RPM) and Torquey due to Turbos.
And acceleration depends not only on maximum values, but on broader RPM band of high Torque / HP values.
Higher CR, FSI, Turbo are all supposed to make the curve flatter and broader and not falling after 6000 RPM.

But where did it appeared from - this figure 5252?

[artur777]

And some more.
HP/Torque formula means that HP is a certain proportion to Torque.
HP is more usable figure if I have got right.
But everything starts from Torque that engine is generating.
This Torque could be converted to a certain HP at a certain RPM.
And after that we take into consideration Torque multiplier to understand how much Torque and consequently HP we have at the wheels at a certain RPM.

[Leadfoot]

The US mags will always get different results as they have a watered down launch control. It revs to 1800 due to legal reasons & not wanting clutch warranty claims.

Can you imagine a car with a power peak at 8000rpm & a torque peak at 6300rpm, being launched at 1800rpm? It's a total waste of time & on a good surface it will be bog city all night long. The Euro LC launches at 4000rpm. At least you are closer to getting into the powerband then.

Interesting and something I clearly hadn't heard of, so I take it this will be true for the M6, M3 and new M3 when it finally gets SMGIV. Surely Audi and all other brand have a similar policy or is this solely BMW?

Back to the results of the test, has there been an M5 in Europe that has covered the 0-60mph quicker if don't them the argument about the LC being different means little, the facts are the E63 is as quick so until we see an in-gear time comparing both the facts of it's extra torque can't be dismissed like what has been say about comparing a 5 speed box with a 7 speed, an unfair comparison if ever there was one.

Please don't try and work results to suit because when it backfires you end up looking desperate. ;)

[3x5PSI]

Back to the results of the test, has there been an M5 in Europe that has covered the 0-60mph quicker if don't them the argument about the LC being different means little,...

Please don't try and work results to suit because when it backfires you end up looking desperate. ;)

I just posted a Sport Auto test with the M6 against the Gallardo where they ran 0-100km/h in 4.2. That's a 0-60mph of 4.0-4.1.

And I believe Sport Auto use the main straight of a circuit for the acceleration runs. The Americans have some specialised test facilites with much better traction. Hell some Euro mags test on a dusty airfield!

And yet Sport Auto got 4.0-4.1 to 60mph. That is due to the Euro Launch control.

[Leadfoot]

I just posted a Sport Auto test with the M6 against the Gallardo where they ran 0-100km/h in 4.2. That's a 0-60mph of 4.0-4.1.

And I believe Sport Auto use the main straight of a circuit for the acceleration runs. The Americans have some specialised test facilites with much better traction. Hell some Euro mags test on a dusty airfield!

And yet Sport Auto got 4.0-4.1 to 60mph. That is due to the Euro Launch control.

Did you say M6, sorry I though we were comparing the M5, so what's the best for an M5?

And by the way, 4.2s to 100Km/h will be 4.1s to 60mph, no less.

All I am trying to prove is that the E63 is as close as be damned to the M5 in acceleration and because both are fitted with 7 speed boxes their in-gear acceleration will be best used to show if like I think the extra torque of the E63 will be superior. The torque plays a more important role than hp does especially away from the dragstrip and as I often say who here drives to work on a race track or a dragstrip.

[Lateknight]

But where did it appeared from - this figure 5252?

Its just a mathematical figure for converting one to the other.
I've no idea why ?? (i'm not a mathematician):vhmmm:

I suppose any engine capable of revving to 5252rpm will produce equal hp and torque in lb/ft at that RPM.

Have a look at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question622.htm

To me, torque is the important figure. It is after all the measurement of turning force an engine is capable of putting into your transmission.

Imagine if you bolt together a 240hp 2litre Honda Vtec directly opposite an Audi 2litre 140hp 2.0 Tdi diesel - which do you think would 'out muscle' the other one?

x 1.35 is a closer figure for converting lb/ft into Nm
I also use 1.35 to convert kw into hosepower (its roughly right for converting both metric and imperial Hp)

:trash: Sorry this is getting a little off topic

[Z07]

Its just a mathematical figure for converting one to the other.
I've no idea why ?? (i'm not a mathematician):vhmmm:

If everything is in SI units, e.g. Power in Watts, Torque in Nm and Engine Speed in radians per second, then:

Power = Torque x Engine Speed

However, we use hp, lbft and rpm

1hp = 746W
1lbft = 1.357Nm
1rpm = 2*pi/60 rad/s = 0.1047

So

Power(hp)*746 = Power(W)

Torque(lbft)*1.357 = Torque(Nm)

RPM*0.1047 = radians/s

Therefore

Power(hp)*746 = (Torque(lbft)*1.357) * (RPM*0.1047)

and

so

Power(hp) = Torque(lbft)*RPM*(1/5252)

Note: Rounding may cause small inaccuracy.

[chewym]

Use google to convert nm to lb-ft and vice versa. Just type in 680 newton meters in pound feet and it gives you an answer. You can do the same with European/us fuel economy: 35 miles per gallon in liters per 100 km. Or use a web site calculator.

or go here for many different conversions

http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html

Here is a web site to calculate hp and torque

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepower/horsepower_equation_rotating_torque.php

You type in hp (or torque) at a certain RPM and it will give you the torque (or hp) that is developed at that same RPM. All of course is theoretical.

for example, Audi RS6 that makes 580 hp @ 7,000 will also make 435 lb-ft (590 nm) of torque @ 7,000 rpm. The computer does all the work for you.

[artur777]

Lateknight, Z07, chewym - thanks for the notion.
The link is very useful.

Torque is a basic engine figure.
It could be converted to HP.
And HP is a thing we look for when thinking about car acceleration and maximum speed (after counting gearing and drivetrain losses).

Lateknight, then answering your question about Honda and Audi TDi:
Honda will be faster due to higher HP, but Audi is more torquey.
Honda is faster because of high-revving engine and capability to maintain high HP value at broader band, and TDi engines are great mid-range performers, but not a straight-runners.
Hope, I am right. What will you say?

[Leadfoot]

Use google to convert nm to lb-ft and vice versa. Just type in 680 newton meters in pound feet and it gives you an answer. You can do the same with European/us fuel economy: 35 miles per gallon in liters per 100 km. Or use a web site calculator.

or go here for many different conversions

http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html

Here is a web site to calculate hp and torque

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepower/horsepower_equation_rotating_torque.php

You type in hp (or torque) at a certain RPM and it will give you the torque (or hp) that is developed at that same RPM. All of course is theoretical.

for example, Audi RS6 that makes 580 hp @ 7,000 will also make 435 lb-ft (590 nm) of torque @ 7,000 rpm. The computer does all the work for you.

I hope Quattro GmbH has produced something similar to the Mk1 RS4 which had a produce peak output @6000~7000rpm, now that in the RS6 would be lovely, 560~580hp over the whole of the last 1000rpm giving something close on 590Nm over the same range.

Like 3x5PSI said a totally remarkable engine. Alas I somehow doubt that this will be the case. :looking:

[Leadfoot]

You know something, this argument will be irrelevant in the not to distance future if the Torotrak gearbox starts production because it's design to take the engine's optimum torque figure and stay at those revs, adjusting the ratio of the box infinitely to increase it's speed in much the same way as a CVT only with a third of the power loss that a normal transmission system has.

I reckon the days would be numbered of the very high revving engine when that happens.

[artur777]

I have tested this link.
Interesting figures for new RS6.

Basic input:
Torque - 650Nm
HP - 580

Solution:
Rev = 6350

That means that RS6 will have peak torque at 6350 RPM.
Hopefully it won't fall below 550 Nm up to the end.

Even if the Torque is 550 Nm at 7000 RPM, we will have 540 hp at this RPM.
Very good figure and very close to M5 counting increased drivetrain losses.
We don't know anything about the gearing but hopefully it won't be much worse than those in M5. Even if it is 6-speed against 7-speed in M5, we remeber the much wider band of close to maximum HP / Torque figures than those in M5 - this will help to stay in very effective HP / Torque zone after every gear changing. And the gearing hopefully would be short enough to keep going along with M5 on the straights.

So, my thoughts are the following:
- RS6 will be a match or 95% match for M5 on the straights, but slower than M6. So, RS6 time 0-200 will be better than 15 sec, but slower than 13,5 sec.
- RS6 will leave for dead both BMWs and E63 on the twisties. Lateral G-figure will be much higher than those in RWD competitors and there wil be no chance for them.

[chewym]

No, the torque calculator that I posted isn't that smart. It can only tell you 1 varialbe if you know the other two (hp/torque/rpm) Like all modern turbos the RS6should put out peak torque at around 2,000 RPM. The calculator then shows us that the RS6 should make 183 hp @ 2,000 RPM if it makes 650 nm of torque at that RPM.

[artur777]

chewym, at 2000 rpm 183 hp is a normal figure.
If you remember any turbo car power graph, you would notice that HP rises constantly in line with RPM increasing. And Torque is almost at max already at 2000 rpm as you have said.

About RS6 figures and torque calculator:
I agree with you that we need to know 2 exact figures to define the 3rd one. Until we know it for sure, we can't use the calculator effectively.

[chewym]

Ok, here's my guess.

0-60: Below 4 seconds. Why? Bentley Continental GT has done it in 4.2-4.4 second range (4.3 in the R&T in my hand) to this we add 30 hp, keep the same torque, from this we subtract about 850 pounds or about 400 kg. In the same issue a 3580 pound R8 does it in 4 second. The RS6 will have a better power to weight ratio than the R8.

0-100: Le'ts say mid to low 9 second range R8 does it in 10.1 and the AMG CLK 63 Black Series with a very similar power to weight ratio does it in 9.6 seconds.

1/4 mile: 12-12.5 seconds @ 118 mph

[Leadfoot]

Ok, here's my guess.

0-60: Below 4 seconds. Why? Bentley Continental GT has done it in 4.2-4.4 second range (4.3 in the R&T in my hand) to this we add 30 hp, keep the same torque, from this we subtract about 850 pounds or about 400 kg. In the same issue a 3580 pound R8 does it in 4 second. The RS6 will have a better power to weight ratio than the R8.

0-100: Le'ts say mid to low 9 second range R8 does it in 10.1 and the AMG CLK 63 Black Series with a very similar power to weight ratio does it in 9.6 seconds.

1/4 mile: 12-12.5 seconds @ 118 mph

Those figures sounds about right to me. :thumb: But like 3x5PSI says, it after this point where things will get interesting and just possibly the M5 will regain the lead.

[artur777]

Don't forget about gearing and AWD / RWD losses when counting.
Though these figures are quite appealing.

[Z07]

Given the same weight to haul, the same Cd*A product and the same max speeds for each gear, the RS6 will need ~10-12% more power than the M5 to be as fast after 100mph. It will be close! Before 100mph, the AWD and power-band breadth should give the RS6 an advanatge.

[artur777]

Z07,

RS6 will weight more than M5 anyway.
If gross test weight of M5 is about 1850 kg, RS6's base weight will be not less than 1900 kg. Adding the fuel and driver it will be not less than 2000 kg.

Up to 100 mph - TT engine is an advantage to NA engines,
But after that - M5 have more chances to regain the lead counting increased AWD losses and weight. My expectation M5 will achieve RS6 at 0-200 and start outrunning RS6 after that speed.

[Leadfoot]

Aerodynamics plays a very big part in speeds in excess of 125mph, so more power in theory will mean it's easier to push through the wall of air. This is the main reason why up to 200km/h the bugatti is only ahead of the Enzo by 2 seconds but by the 300km/h mark it more than 8 seconds. I'm not saying the same will apply here but aerodynamics will play it's part.

[artur777]

M5 and RS6 both have similar aerodynamics.
Heavy 4-door sedans, not a Ferrari-)))

[chewym]

Most 4 door sedans have better cD than a Ferrari, of course total area facing against the air also matters.