R8 V10 AMS test

[KresoF1]

The AMS results:

0-100 in 3.9sec

0-200 in 12,3sec

0-400m in 12,0sec

60-100 in 4.3(IV) 5.6(V) 7.1(VI)

80-100 in 4.1(IV) 5.4(V) 7.0(VI)

Slalom 18m with 70km/h

ISO-Wedelgasse with 146km/h

VDA-Ausweichgasse IN 77km/h OUT 58km/h

Breaking Performance 100-0 in 35m ... 190km/h-0 in 124m

Fuel Consumption in test 16,2l/100km


Weight figure soon...

Thanks to Rookie from rennteam.

[Leadfoot]

A tad slower to 200km/h than factory claims (0.3s) which could easily be variations for car to car, but all in all a decent set of figures.

[KresoF1]

Just for comparison Gallardo LP560-4 results from AMS...

0-100Km/h: 3.7s
0-160km/h: 7.5s
0-200km/h:11.3s

BUT....!!!

Slalom 18m with 68.2km/h
ISO-Wedelgasse with 140.9km/h

[Ruergard]

A bit disappointed about the 0-200 km/h time, but I'd like to see more tests before making a judgement.

But the salom speeds are very, very good. :R8:

Thanks!

[Leadfoot]

Just for comparison Gallardo LP560-4 results from AMS...

0-100Km/h: 3.7s
0-160km/h: 7.5s
0-200km/h:11.3s

BUT....!!!

Slalom 18m with 68.2km/h
ISO-Wedelgasse with 140.9km/h

Different times of the year will yield different results, but there is no denying that the LP560-4 is a quicker car in a straight line. Everything else for these figures point to the R8 being the quicker on any track that doesn't allow the Lambo to get into it's stride.

Hockenheim will be interesting as it's more about balance and less about outright speed.

[andreadebi]

A bit disappointed about the 0-200 km/h time, but I'd like to see more tests before making a judgement.

But the salom speeds are very, very good. :R8:

Thanks!

Well,lp560 factory claim 0-200 time is 11,6. Audi r8v10 factory time is 12.0.so only 0.3s difference from ams test.
Above all,the handling test are better for r8v10,amazing setup and mechanical grip.

[RXBG]

wait, was this AMS test with an r-tronic or manual?

if it was a manual it seems they quoted the exact manufacturer times. 0-200 manual 12.3, r-tronic 12.0. further, with the V8 no mag has ever gotten more than 4.4 sec in independent instrumented testing. usually 3.9-4.3 sec which is under the manuf numbers. i am extremely surprised that AMS could only get 3.9 for 0-60. i would expect 3.8 at most. this car's stats indicate that it is a 3.6-7 car even without roll-out. i bet the US mags get 3.4 out of this car.

[KresoF1]

For your comparison here is R8 4.2 FSI numbers from AMS.

0-100km/h: 4.5s
0-200km/h:16.1s

60-100: 4.8s(IV)/6.9s(V)/9.1s(VI)
80-120: 6.4s(V)/8.7s(VI)

ISO 146km/h

Slalom 18m 68.9km/h

[Damienr8]

wait, was this AMS test with an r-tronic or manual?

if it was a manual it seems they quoted the exact manufacturer times. 0-200 manual 12.3, r-tronic 12.0. further, with the V8 no mag has ever gotten more than 4.4 sec in independent instrumented testing. usually 3.9-4.3 sec which is under the manuf numbers. i am extremely surprised that AMS could only get 3.9 for 0-60. i would expect 3.8 at most. this car's stats indicate that it is a 3.6-7 car even without roll-out. i bet the US mags get 3.4 out of this car.

Leadie the car that they tested could possibly be new and not 'broken in' yet. I can definitely see 3.5.3.8 for the R8V10 and i am sure that some upcoming publications will show those figures. Note that they also claim 3.7 for the LP560 when we know that Motor Trend has tested it @ 3.4....

Same with the 1/4

[KresoF1]

BTW, latest Auto Bild Sportcar Edition compared R8 5.2 FSI against 997 Turbo and Nissan GT-R on Hockenheim GP Kurs(which is longer then Klein Kurs Hockenheim used by Sport Auto).

Acceleration results are irrelevant since track was wet. BUT, track times are interesting(against-wet track)...
GT-R was ONLY 0.35s faster then R8 5.2 FSI despite the fact that GT-R had Dunlops all weather and R8 5.2 FSI normal Pirelli P Zeros. 997 Turbo was 2s slower...

Weight is another indicator that V10 is indeed heavier then V8(yes, we already know it!) since that example of R8 5.2 FSI(manual, Ceramics, Buckets) measured 1668kg... GT-R is 1776kg BTW...

Last thing-acceleration wise both R8 5.2 FSI and 997 Turbo were faster in 0-200km/h(wet road) then GT-R...

[RXBG]

Damien- remember that US mags use roll-out which makes the times .1-.3 faster than european mags. Regardless, though, the R8 is the most balanced sportscar in the upper echelon- as witnessed by the kreso's quote of the auto bild test in the wet.

[artur777]

BTW, latest Auto Bild Sportcar Edition compared R8 5.2 FSI against 997 Turbo and Nissan GT-R on Hockenheim GP Kurs(which is longer then Klein Kurs Hockenheim used by Sport Auto).

Acceleration results are irrelevant since track was wet. BUT, track times are interesting(against-wet track)...
GT-R was ONLY 0.35s faster then R8 5.2 FSI despite the fact that GT-R had Dunlops all weather and R8 5.2 FSI normal Pirelli P Zeros. 997 Turbo was 2s slower...

Weight is another indicator that V10 is indeed heavier then V8(yes, we already know it!) since that example of R8 5.2 FSI(manual, Ceramics, Buckets) measured 1668kg... GT-R is 1776kg BTW...

Last thing-acceleration wise both R8 5.2 FSI and 997 Turbo were faster in 0-200km/h(wet road) then GT-R...

Dear KresoF1,

you see that GT-R is better track car than both Turbo and R8 5.2.
GTR is fantastic. We have one person with GTR and Hennessy 700 package. The car accelerates for 0-160km/h at 7 sec.


acceleration wise - I agree with you.
we had several races of GTR VS Turbo and Turbo starts pulling away from 220 km/h.

[KresoF1]

Dear KresoF1,

you see that GT-R is better track car than both Turbo and R8 5.2.
GTR is fantastic. We have one person with GTR and Hennessy 700 package. The car accelerates for 0-160km/h at 7 sec.


acceleration wise - I agree with you.
we had several races of GTR VS Turbo and Turbo starts pulling away from 220 km/h.

Honestly,
I disagree with you regarding GT-R beeing a track car. It is NOT. Also R8 is not track car, neither 997 Turbo.

For true track driving I would buy 997.1 GT3(no ESP or PSM) with normal brakes. Or some small Lotus...

[andreadebi]

little o.t.: for me it's a strange strange result however italian magazine Autosprint tested lp560



0-100 3.52

0-160 7.06

0-200 10.61


0-400m 11.31



0-200 km/h time is 1 second faster than factory claim!!!



for comparison,sport auto supertest lp560

0-100 3,8
0-160 7,8
0-200 11,6

[Leadfoot]

Dear KresoF1,

you see that GT-R is better track car than both Turbo and R8 5.2.
GTR is fantastic. We have one person with GTR and Hennessy 700 package. The car accelerates for 0-160km/h at 7 sec.


acceleration wise - I agree with you.
we had several races of GTR VS Turbo and Turbo starts pulling away from 220 km/h.

After reading what Kreso posted I must agree with him and disagree with yourself, the R8 5.2 looks to be the better car for the track given it's on tyres that aren't as well suited to wet conditions.

[KresoF1]

wait, was this AMS test with an r-tronic or manual?

if it was a manual it seems they quoted the exact manufacturer times. 0-200 manual 12.3, r-tronic 12.0. further, with the V8 no mag has ever gotten more than 4.4 sec in independent instrumented testing. usually 3.9-4.3 sec which is under the manuf numbers. i am extremely surprised that AMS could only get 3.9 for 0-60. i would expect 3.8 at most. this car's stats indicate that it is a 3.6-7 car even without roll-out. i bet the US mags get 3.4 out of this car.

Little bit late response...

It is R Tronic with standard seats.

Weight: 1647kg
Weight distribution: 43,7% front/56,3% rear

BTW, AMS was very impressed with the car and gave it five stars. Only critics were about R Tronic...