R8 Ring time achived by Sport auto is...

[KresoF1]

Leadie,
I agree with you on this-R8 is a great car!

BTW, let me give you some hint about forthcoming Gallardo Superleggera Supertest in German Sport Auto(September issue):

7.46min Ring time!

[Leadfoot]

Leadie,
I agree with you on this-R8 is a great car!

BTW, let me give you some hint about forthcoming Gallardo Superleggera Supertest in German Sport Auto(September issue):

7.46min Ring time!

Now that's a time for the R8v10 to aim at.

[QuattroFun]

Well, the R8 delivers on more complex tracks like HH and is more fun to drive, but in more road-like conditions like NBR the gain over RS4 is really minimal (5s in nearly 21km is nothing) - as was to be be expected all along. Where is the surprise?

Hyping the RS6 in the wrong places does it no favours - it will surely deliver as an all-round road going package like the RS4 and I will get one if and when it does. However, ceramic brakes will not be standard and they will not save a 2 tonne monster with 60% upfront on the track anyway and you can forget 0-200 km/h in 13s when you do the power-to-weight math and account for the likely 20% transmission loss...

[Iceman]

With "Magnetic Ride" the R8 would be 10-15 sec faster.

Hans.

[KresoF1]

With "Magnetic Ride" the R8 would be 10-15 sec faster.

Hans.

According to Stephan Reil you are WRONG.

[Iceman]

According to Stephan Reil you are WRONG.

Stephan Reil. ???

Hans.

[Leadfoot]

Well, the R8 delivers on more complex tracks like HH and is more fun to drive, but in more road-like conditions like NBR the gain over RS4 is really minimal (5s in nearly 21km is nothing) - as was to be be expected all along. Where is the surprise?

Hyping the RS6 in the wrong places does it no favours - it will surely deliver as an all-round road going package like the RS4 and I will get one if and when it does. However, ceramic brakes will not be standard and they will not save a 2 tonne monster with 60% upfront on the track anyway and you can forget 0-200 km/h in 13s when you do the power-to-weight math and account for the likely 20% transmission loss...

Power to weight matters in acceleration when you are talking about torque and not horsepower. If an M6 can do 0~200km/h in 13.4s with only 383ft/lbs of torque, I reckon the RS6 will be able to match of possibly better this with an estimated 550ft/lbs of torque.

I am not hyping to RS6, I am only relaying what I have been told about the car. It is meant to be an animal and it's handling is like-wise meant to be very impressive for such a large car.

[QuattroFun]

Power to weight matters in acceleration when you are talking about torque and not horsepower. If an M6 can do 0~200km/h in 13.4s with only 383ft/lbs of torque, I reckon the RS6 will be able to match of possibly better this with an estimated 550ft/lbs of torque.

I am not hyping to RS6, I am only relaying what I have been told about the car. It is meant to be an animal and it's handling is like-wise meant to be very impressive for such a large car.

Leadie, these comments are in no way aimed at you personally, but are really much more general - we all hope the RS6 will be great, but all the expectations on the RS6 popping up on this forum are simply not realistic given what we know about the car as well as its intended role and physical limitations. We have seen this hype movie before - first with the RS4, then the S6 and finally with the R8. Of course Ingolstadt will try to hype its current and forthcoming offerings, but there is no reason to take their word for it too literally...

Torque plays a role in acceleration only if gearing is strange/very long, the powerband is very narrow or the driver (or the auto) is too lazy/sub-optimal - otherwise bhp is what counts in straightline acceleration with optimal gearchanges. Acceleration (i.e. against clock) and in-gear acceleration (i.e. real world) are two very different things as we all know. The fact remains: in 0-200, the RS6 will not beat the M6, which has seven tightly packed gears, relatively low weight and a highly potent engine with only 7% transmission loss - but it does not have to really and distance will not be too big and it will for now be the fastest road going Audi. This is realistic and should be good enough.

Btw, KresoF1's: I really appreciate and enjoy your in-depth analysis and there may well some truth to it - but is not trying to explain away/downplay the R8's very good - albeit not spectacular - NBR time essentially clutching a straw? Maybe the test car was flawed somehow, who knows - but as we all now, standards allow for a 5% tolerance from the quoted power for one thing and maybe the standard suspension and Corsas are better suited for HH and than NBR or EVO's Bedford. The same test car delivered big time in HH, which of course is a less flowing and lower average/peak speed track - is that not enough? Another test car, another day and the NBR time in HvS's hands might dip to 8 min dead from 8.04 - so what? It will not hit 7.46 in any circumstance...

[Leadfoot]

Leadie, these comments are in no way aimed at you personally, but are really much more general - we all hope the RS6 will be great, but all the expectations on the RS6 popping up on this forum are simply not realistic given what we know about the car as well as its intended role and physical limitations. We have seen this hype movie before - first with the RS4, then the S6 and finally with the R8. Of course Ingolstadt will try to hype its current and forthcoming offerings, but there is no reason to take their word for it too literally...

I know it wasn't a personally dig at me, it was more a wake-up call to say that reality doesn't live up to expectations. I disagree that the RS4, S6 and R8 haven't done this though, RS4 was a revelation when it hit the streets and even with it's 6yrs old chassis design and poor weight balance it will still keep even the soon to be launched M3v8 on it's toes. The S6 has also beat the mighty M5 to overall honours in more than one or two reviews and even matched the M5 to within half a second around a twisty track, all this with more weight and less power. As for the R8, well how many times have we not hear things like 'a new dawn in supercar standards' being used to describe it.

The only area where they haven't performed is our own expectations, no where else.

Torque plays a role in acceleration only if gearing is strange/very long, the powerband is very narrow or the driver (or the auto) is too lazy/sub-optimal - otherwise bhp is what counts in straightline acceleration with optimal gearchanges. Acceleration (i.e. against clock) and in-gear acceleration (i.e. real world) are two very different things as we all know. The fact remains: in 0-200, the RS6 will not beat the M6, which has seven tightly packed gears, relatively low weight and a highly potent engine with only 7% transmission loss - but it does not have to really and distance will not be too big and it will for now be the fastest road going Audi. This is realistic and should be good enough.

Sorry but torque plays a much bigger role than HP in acceleration, just look no further than the 130i and the S3, both has the same HP but the S3 walks the 130i because of it's broad torque band and all this with an inefficient awd system. The RS6 will have an equally broad torque band but more than twice as much and more than twice as much power as well, we are also assuming that it's a 6sp auto but to date no one knows this for sure, it might be a 7sp auto.

I don't disagree that it might not beat the M6 up to 200km/h but I reckon it will be pretty close and as for the M6 only having a 7% tranny lose, come on that impossible, the only way this could happen is the BMW quoted figures were less than was really the case. The same was found when EVO tested the 599 and found it's power was much greater than quoted. But in any case it's not the M6 which is the RS6's real rival, that's the M5 and I do believe it will out gun it, out handling it and better it overall.

Btw, KresoF1's: I really appreciate and enjoy your in-depth analysis and there may well some truth to it - but is not trying to explain away/downplay the R8's very good - albeit not spectacular - NBR time essentially clutching a straw? Maybe the test car was flawed somehow, who knows - but as we all now, standards allow for a 5% tolerance from the quoted power for one thing and maybe the standard suspension and Corsas are better suited for HH and than NBR or EVO's Bedford. The same test car delivered big time in HH, which of course is a less flowing and lower average/peak speed track - is that not enough? Another test car, another day and the NBR time in HvS's hands might dip to 8 min dead from 8.04 - so what? It will not hit 7.46 in any circumstance...

I don't know about other manufacturers but all Porsche have to equal or better their quoted output, I doubt Audi follow such a practice but who knows. I expected the R8 to beat the 8.00 barrier if only by a tenth or two but the time in Sport Auto did seem to be at odds with other reviews and like everyone here I hope it's re-run proves this to be true. But in no way could the R8 ever approach the Z06 or GT3RS times around the ring, it is after all just a everyday sportscar for the road, not a trackday special which has been civilised for road use which in the GT3RS case has been done extremely well.