RS6 vs 996TT - observations

[NWRS6]

Hi all:

Finally had a chance to test my RS6 against my Turbo on a nice deserted stretch of highway early in the morning. My buddy drove the RS6 while I was in the 996. Nice dry day.


RS6: Enhanced exhaust is very sporty. Sounds like an American muscle car. Comfortable but not too floaty. Good handling but nose heavy and understeers at the limit. Great daily driver. 450hp (5600 - 6500rpm)/415torque (1900 rpm - 5500rpm)


0-60

996 pulls away from the RS6 in every gear. By fourth gear, I am at least 10 cars ahead. RS6 suffers from noticable lag starting from a standstill contributing to the big difference.

Roll at 50 mph:

RS6 does better but 996 is still convincingly faster but only 5 car lengths.

RS6 leads with 996 behind:

With a 1 sec head start, the lag is eliminated from the RS6 so in this scenario, it takes 3rd gear to catch up and pass the RS6, and that is probably around 100 mph.

Summary: the RS6 comes as close as it can get to a 4-door 911 Turbo. An ECU upgrade will bring it even closer.

[NWRS6]

.

[NWRS6]

.

[NWRS6]

This car is verycomfortable but it really really sucks in terms of driving dynamics, handling, etc....compared to an RS6 of course.

[nene]

Good stuff. Thanks for the post and the comparo. Nice that you let your friend drive the RS6 balls-out like that! I'm sure he's got a grin on his face.

Really nice set of cars.

[eph94]

Great comparo, thanks!

[Bauer]

Very nice write up and great set of cars.

I see you take a liking to silver as I do to black...all of the last couple of cars for me have been black.:D

[UrQ]

JJV-MA,

Is that an auto-x picture with the RS6 ? If so how did it do ?

[eph94]

Originally posted by UrQ
JJV-MA,

Is that an auto-x picture with the RS6 ? If so how did it do ?

It was at the Evolution Autocross School and it handled incredibly well for a 2-ton monster. I had three instructors, who were former national pro-solo and/or solo2 champs, drive it and they said that they couldn't believe how such a heavy car: (a) planted their butts into the seat under heavy acceleration, and (b) handled the transitions without a lot of drama. The only "problem" we had was trying to manage the throttle so it was stay in second gear and not kick down into first in some sections of the track. The DRC works wonders in keeping the car flat around the corners. Now having spent equal seat time autocrossing our MINI Cooper and my RS6, much to my surprise, I actually like using the RS6 more.

Joe V.

[UrQ]

Thanks, I was going to give it a try this weekend, I was successful in my UrQ but 2 tons, should be more fun !

Besides 2nd gear anhy other pointers, I assume you just used "D" and not "S"

[eph94]

Originally posted by UrQ
Besides 2nd gear any other pointers, I assume you just used "D" and not "S"

"S" worked better than "D" since it tended to hold gears longer. I however used the Tip mode. I guess it depends on the course. I needed to bump it out of first into second to keep it smooth through the first slalom. My experience with "D" is that the tranny kept searching for gears, which was quite undesirable. I also turned off the traction control and used left-foot braking to help rotate the car in tight turns.

[Nordschleife]

Originally posted by JJV-MA
[Bd I also turned off the traction control and used left-foot braking to help rotate the car in tight turns. [/B]

Joe

Do you mean
- you braked with your left foot

or
- you braked with your left foot while keeping your right foot on the accelerator


I'm curious as you may be triggering some anomalous behaviour from the car, unbeknownst to you, and your instructors.

R+C

[eph94]

Originally posted by Nordschleife
Joe

Do you mean
- you braked with your left foot

or
- you braked with your left foot while keeping your right foot on the accelerator

I'm curious as you may be triggering some anomalous behaviour from the car, unbeknownst to you, and your instructors.

R+C

At the autocross events, I used the left foot exclusively for braking, so the answer to both scenarios is yes. Sometimes my right foot would still be on the accelerator when I needed to dial in a little brake. If done correctly, I could counter the understeer in some corners by inducing oversteer by a slight tap of the brakes. Or I would still be on the brake as I transitioned to throttle while lifting off the brakes. Of course, I would never simultaneously use full throttle and stab the brakes, or vice-versa. It's something that I just learned this year so I'm not the expert on the topic, but I did feel like I had more control over where I needed the car's weight to be and how to get it there.

Regarding anomalous behavior, I didn't notice any, but that certainly doesn't mean that weird stuff wasn't going on that I was unaware of. When the Pro-Solo and Solo2 national champs drove it, I could actually feel the car pivoting at the front tires around some cones as they utilized left-foot braking technique. Again, I'm far from an expert, in fact I would classify myself as a novice (just 4 track days and 4 autocross events), but I was instructed that left-foot braking is a common practice for nationally-competitive SCCA autocross drivers.

I'm not sure how popular autocross is outside the U.S., but for those unfamiliar, Solo2 in particular is a low-speed event, which rarely exceeds highway speeds, where you pilot your car through an obstacle course delineated by cones. While it depends on the course setup, most often cars never leave second gear. With regard to shifting into third versus bouncing off the rev-limiter, one Solo2 national champ said that he timed it and it was only worth shifting into third if it bounced off the rev-limiter more than six times. Now that's hardcore autocross.

Personally, now that I've gotten a taste of both track days and autocross events. I don't think I'm going to spend much time autocrossing. Getting six runs of under a minute each over the course of a day, and having to shag cones for 3 hours for less than 6 minutes of seat time, is not my idea of a good time. In my opinion, it's the proverbial "long run for a short slide" but I'm glad I tried it, and it was a lot of fun in the RS6.

Joe

[Nordschleife]

Joe

You may recall some years ago Audi had an issue with what became known as "Unintended Acceleration". Basically some people thought the car was accelerating when they were trying to brake. This cost Audi its US market for a number of years. Subsequent investigation has suggested that most people had simple overlooked the need to remove their foot from the accelerator.

Well, fast forward to the EGas generation.

- If you have your right foot on the accelerator and put your left foot on the gas, the ECU will cut the engine power. In other words it will interfere with the "Left Foot Braking Process".

- Secondly, although you can turn ESP "Off", it will turn on again under braking or if it senses that the car is about to or has already become uncontrollably unstable. So it will cut engine power and brake the wheels individually.

You may not have noticed either of the above situations, possibly for several reasons.

- You only LFBd for less than 1 second at at time, it takes about a second to react.

- By the time ESP cut back in, you were off the gas and were too busy negotiating the cones. This is set to trigger at quite high thresholds, some people manage to spin out without activasting the ESP, particularly on ice.

What can be done to counter this behaviour?

Well a knowledgable tuner can modify your chip program to permit LFB. The ESP can be prevented from cutting back in with a separate switch on the ESP powerline. Again, I would only go to a knowledgable tuner.

I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of days with a champion rally driver (S) and an assortment of cars, there was also a guy there(X) with a tuned RS6, he was not so experienced.
Around tight cones and down the slalom, I was faster in the A4 3.0 litre than X in the RS6. Around a fast autocross course, driving an A8 (modified to permit LFB), I was faster than S in the A4 3.0 litre. Now, I am not a fast driver and S is one of the fastest in the World, so this says a lot about the new A8, in short chassis form anyway.

The RS6 is best on a highspeed course, it is very uncomfortable when negotiating twisties at very high speeds. To help improve matters, you can increase the front camber which sharpens up the turn-in. You are stuck with the stock shock absorbers because of the DRC. If I were modifying the car to improve its Autocross performance, I would use the camber kit first, then change the springs and experiment with different Anti Roll Bars front and rear. Just going to stiffer ARBs might harm your handling.

HTH

R+C

[avdh]

Originally posted by Nordschleife
Joe


To help improve matters, you can increase the front camber

HTH

R+C

HOW? without using lower springs....

[Nordschleife]

You use camber plates, available from MTM.

[Toto89]

I would love to see what could do an RS6 with an E60 M5...I haven't found correct datas about what is deffinitelly faster than the other:confused: I would be very happy if one of your friends had an M5:D

[Rupert]

Nice choice of cars NWRS6.

Here's my two :)

http://tinypic.com/4jrnzp

http://tinypic.com/6qa6a0.jpg

http://tinypic.com/6qae50.jpg

Great minds, yada yada ... :D

[rks838]

Nice cars - what year is the Turbo?

[Toto89]

Great cars Rupert:thumb: Some tuning on the RS6 and it would be even faster than Porsche.

[shimmy]

Originally posted by Toto89
I would love to see what could do an RS6 with an E60 M5...I haven't found correct datas about what is deffinitelly faster than the other:confused: I would be very happy if one of your friends had an M5:D

Try this link.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=57964


E60 M5 blasts the 996TT in all areas except from syanding starts where the 4wd gi=ves teh 996TT an advantage. E60 figures are quite amazing.

[SpinEcho]

Well, from a power to weight ratio standpoint, the 996 Turbo should be beat (barely). But then again, so should the E39 M5 versus the RS6, particularly at higher speeds, where it has a raw hp disadvantage. But it just ain't so....

Consider Autocar's test results. Granted, Autocar is the Motor Trend of British car mags, extracting better acceleration figures from most cars than anyone else, but they also tend to be quite pro-BMW:

996 Turbo

0-60 3.9s
0-100 9.4s
30-70 3.4s (through gears)
50-70 5.7s (top gear)

E60 M5

0-60 4.6s
0-100 9.8s
30-70 3.6s
50-70 7.3s

[shimmy]

Originally posted by SpinEcho
Well, from a power to weight ratio standpoint, the 996 Turbo should be beat (barely). But then again, so should the E39 M5 versus the RS6, particularly at higher speeds, where it has a raw hp disadvantage. But it just ain't so....

Consider Autocar's test results. Granted, Autocar is the Motor Trend of British car mags, extracting better acceleration figures from most cars than anyone else, but they also tend to be quite pro-BMW:

996 Turbo

0-60 3.9s
0-100 9.4s
30-70 3.4s (through gears)
50-70 5.7s (top gear)

E60 M5

0-60 4.6s
0-100 9.8s
30-70 3.6s
50-70 7.3s

Interesting data but what gets me is the times that seem to therefore be relevant if you take the differences in the times given. e.g. 996TT 60-100 in 5.5s and M5 60-100 5.2s. Looks like the M5 takes prize anything above 50 mph which really surprises me.

Obviously top gear 50 -70 is irrelevant (unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

[SpinEcho]

Originally posted by shimmy
Looks like the M5 takes prize anything above 50 mph which really surprises me.

Well, you're partly right - at least at serious speeds! The 996 TT is faster to 100 mph, but (here come the magazine stats again) Evo tested the 996 TT to 150 mph at 24.9s and the E60 M5 recently at 22.9s!! The M6 should shave a bit more from that - pretty amazing.

All very relevant in the current motoring environment (not!)