Car&Driver - Supercar Challenge

[Erik]

Car and Driver's yearly test of tuned cars

It’s a fantastic day when the least powerful car in the field has 442 horsepower.

1:st Mallett Cadillac CTS-V 1/4-mile: 12.4 sec @ 125 mph
Road course: 50.8 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 740 feet
Total course time: 103.9 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/105200417350.jpg

2:nd Vishnu Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 1/4-mile: 11.6 sec @ 120 mph
Road course: 48.5 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 710 feet
Total course time: 104.1 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1052004165244.jpg

3:rd () Lingenfelter 427 CTS-V 1/4-mile: 12.3 sec @ 117 mph Road course: 50.2 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 706 feet
Total course time: 107.5 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/105200416478.jpg

3:rd () HPA Motorsports Stage II Twin Turbo R32 1/4-mile: 11.7 sec @ 119 mph
Road course: 51.0 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 742 feet
Total course time: 107.5 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1052004165021.jpg

5:th RENNtech CL55 1/4-mile: 12.7 sec @ 117 mph
Road course: 51.3 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 700 feet
Total course time: 110.1 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1052004164446.jpg

6:th Active Autowerke M3 1/4-mile: 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
Road course: 50.3 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 682 feet
Total course time: 112.7 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1052004164233.jpg

7:th Hoppen/MTM RS 6 1/4-mile: 12.9 sec @ 110 mph
Road course: 51.9 sec
150-to-0-mph braking: 723 feet
Total course time: 117.5 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/105200417721.jpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1006200411253296.jpg http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1006200411253740.jpg



Test from Michigan International Speedway .

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8719


Check the OPEN CLASS here (http://www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5503)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1006200411262152.jpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/1006200411264152.jpg

[Erik]

Test data and specification of the Hoppen RS6

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8745&page_number=4


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8723&page_number=4

[Benman]

Originally posted by Erik
Test data and specification of the Hoppen RS6

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8745&page_number=4


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8723&page_number=4
It just doesn't add up. The car must of not been performing properly. It barely ran any quicker than stock. Especially when you consider the #s that other tests post on a MTM modded RS 6.:confused:

[Aronis]

I'd have to agree...

When I first read about the RS6 the numbers for stock were listed as 0-60 in 4.3 seconds! !?!?!?!?? And car mags still list it as such....

But it's more like 5.3 if you read the new stuff...

Which is it?

I have seen posts of heavily modified cars with numbers in the 4.3 range, but not much better.

I know from the seat of my pants that the car is plenty fast for me....

Perhaps I'll time mine some day!

Mike

[nyrs6]

Car and driver

"Since we didn’t use our usual procedure for testing acceleration time (for example, we did not make runs in two directions), we didn’t apply our normal weather correction to the times, so be wary when comparing these results to ones from previous road tests. Judging by the day’s weather conditions, we figure the acceleration numbers published here are probably a few 10ths of a second higher than what we’d normally record."

That should explain it :D

Could be that the stock rs6 that they tested in may 03 ran at 13.5 @104 but was corrected to 12.9@109 . This however was not corrected.

[Benman]

Originally posted by nyrs6
Car and driver

Could be that the stock rs6 that they tested in may 03 ran at 13.5 @104 but was corrected to 12.9@109 . This however was not corrected.
Yes, but then all the other cars REALLY kicked butt if that's the case (especially the Evo and R32). Still weird.

[TaTaPiRaTa]

Originally posted by Benman
Yes, but then all the other cars REALLY kicked butt if that's the case (especially the Evo and R32). Still weird.

R32 is 550HP and much, much lighter !!

[oswald]

Two CTS-V's in the top 3... i'm ordering one soon...

[nyrs6]

Originally posted by Benman
Yes, but then all the other cars REALLY kicked butt if that's the case (especially the Evo and R32). Still weird.

if you reliaze that the turbo cars did not do good. (gallrado,rs6)

Could be that the R32 and Evo would have ran faster if not for the weather.

And both the r32 and evo are race cars not street cars.

[Benman]

Originally posted by nyrs6
if you reliaze that the turbo cars did not do good. (gallrado,rs6)

Could be that the R32 and Evo would have ran faster if not for the weather.

And both the r32 and evo are race cars not street cars.
The Gallardo is NA not turbo:confused:

The RS 6 did poor yet the other turbo cars did well (and yes they could have done even better with better weather).

As for the R32, not the case at all. I've personally spoken to HPA a # of times and that mod although expensive is very well backed by the company. They even give a 2 year warranty for all work they do! And the car is very streetable to drive from all I've spoken too that have had the wonderful opportunity to do so.

Just my 2 cents

Ben:addict: