Found ome more on other forum... Some more pics from the track?
doesnt make me sleep better, but if we wanne be correct we have to be correct. By the way first test of the r8 v10 was slightly over the 12 secs..
just to be correct....
@Kerso, no not all tested v8 were low km, remember one with over
22000km witcht definitly didnt match the time
We all now the na engine v8 of audi had a certain performance problem witch was due to the air conduct in and around the engine. (Simple missing air for the engine)
Apperently this problem is solved on the rs5, which should give him this time the reall 450 hps ewg
just
I agree with you till some point... Current Audi NA engines indeed needs more kms to achieve factory figures. Turbos on the other hand do not. Just, the same thing is with other car manufactures... Most Turbo engines produce more power then in specs(specially press cars).
BTW, my name is Kreso, not Kerso as Leadie write all the time...
Sorry about that Kreso.
@Audi_ch
Are you going to be picky over a 0.1s difference from test result vs official. I look forward to plenty more results to see if this is normal or just a one off, either way it's a very quick car.
Another thing, the 997 should hold an advantage off the line, it's got greater traction but you will notice that the R8 doesn't lose any time between the 100-200km/h section so I'm guessing it will pull ahead as the speeds increase.
Search and you will find the truth.
sorry dont get that, based on those figures:
3.7s and 11.9s 911 Turbo
3.9s and 12.1s R8 5.2 FSI
the turbo is faster up to 100kmh, as fast as r8 up to 200kmh.
neither turbo or r8 loses ground between 100-200kmh.
So how you get to the conclusion the turbo looses ground at higher speed...
I think you should just be more realistic, there is not only audi witch do fast or faster cars a few other brands do that as well and even better
And since we know that the turbo is faster with the manuel gearing then with his old 5 speed automatic box, i just hope r8 had the manuel as well, otherwise we should wait for the new 911 turbo with double clutch.
Still in this case i would definitly go for the turbo, not only becaus of his great tunning potential.
anyway, i dont see in this test how the r8 get the turbo in strightline acceleration. Around the corse the new r8 is favoret.
sorry Kreso for the name mistaken..
of course the na high reving engines need km to develope the horsepower.
Some of the v8 Rs4b7 enigines needet almost 30000km to develop their ouput.
But 22 000 km to messure the r8 is fair enoug isnt it. And it is neither our problem nor any owner problem if audi has this kind of powerplant problems...
and yes with turbos, remember my old rs4b5 had 400 hps (ewg) in stanard trim...
So therefor i am a turbo friend
It's a generally acknowledged that an engine that revs higher and produces most of it's power and torque at these higher revs the balance of acceleration starts to tip in it's favour at higher speeds.
I am not saying conclusively that the R8v10 will always be the quicker as these speeds increase but if we exclude the PDK from this discussion I believe that the R8 will more times than not prove to be first to the 280km/h point.
Search and you will find the truth.
Sorry didnt get that.
The high reving engine will turn to its max at every gear to reatch his maximum output.
So why should he not get at 100 or 200kmh to his power why he must go to 280kmh to win.
Say the 911 has better traction up to 100kmh, does mean both cars has the same output. 100-200 equal, no advantage of traction for the 911, so both car the same output.
So why should it be different up from 200-300kmh, why should be a na high reving engine better on high speed, with high rmp than on lower speed with the same high rpm.
There could just be that mor airpressure (ram air) goes to the intake of the high reaving na engine, but the same happend to the turbo as well, higher speed mor ram air..
Sorry didnt get it, may you explain the general knowledge missing to me.
I think way more an effect will have the drag, and devloping downforce drag than the engine concept..
Guys,
997 Turbo 0-300km/h is 40.7s-tested by AMS two years ago. Current examples from MY09 are at least as fast. NO Gallardo LP560-4 was able to touch that time, in fact fastest LP560-4 did 0-300km/h in around 44s...
...and lets end discussion about R8, 997 Turbo etc. This thread is about RS5.
Kreso agree completly with you, but probably not leadfoot.
There were even a few test with the standard turbo, manuel gearing under 40 sec.
GT2 had 35 secs in standart version.
What i wanted to know was why in his eye a normal aspirated high reaving eninge on higher speeds should performe better than a turbo, given acceleration from 0-200 is on both car the same. Doesnt make sens at all..
the acceleration after 250 km/h is all in wheel torque and aerodynamics.
wheel torque is derivative from gearing - 5, 6 or 7 speed means much more than in accelerating up to 250 km/h
look at M6 - it is faster after 250 km/h than most cars which are faster than M6 before 250 km/h. Youtube proves that. For example, F430 is that car.
Is somebody ready to bet their lives on the fact that the engine on RS5 is a 4.2 NA engine ? or is there still any sort of cahnce it will be a twin turbo engine ?
@artur777, yes of course, nothing else to say, but again my question why should the na r8v10 outperfome the slightly faster 911 turbo (to 200kmh) above 200kmh. turbo is 6 speed manuel, (automatic 5 speed,) R8v10 is 6 speed manuel or r-tronic, so there is no gearing advantage.
And i dont see the point of leadfoot, as he says the na high reving engine from the r8v10 should performe better than the turbo engine 911 at higher speed. (>200kmh)
Me question is just about his statement, witch i dont believe
I can't believe we are still going on about the final engine spec. It's a N/A engine......end of discussion.
Search and you will find the truth.
Just picked up on this thread so I'm a bit late to the party...
I was curious about the dry sump system. To my mind if you're designing a car from the top and you have a dry sump engine, you can mount the engine lower in the chassis than if it is standard sump and benefit from lower centre of gravity that brings.
However, given the A5 is already out there, presumably the flywheel from a dry sump engine has to marry up with the gearbox in the same was as standard sump so it can't be mounted any lower or am I talking out of my butt (which incidentally I will not be photgraphing to post on the forum)
Marv