Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: S6 faster than RS5 - what gives?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6

    S6 faster than RS5 - what gives?

    Car and Driver tests an S6 and an RS5.

    An Audi S6, which has 420hp, weighs 4255, has a 7 speed DCT tranny – does 1/4 mile in 12.1 secs. 0-60 in 3.7 secs.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...s6-test-review

    And here’s an Audi RS5. With 450hp, (+30hp) and more torque - weighs in at 4040 (that’s 200lbs less! ), same (or similar) 7 speed DCT tranny - but only manages a 1/4 mile time of 12.8. 0-60 of 4.4 secs.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

    I would imagine if the final drive ratio was dramatically different, so I checked that out and...

    FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4 38:1 for the RS5

    For the S6 is 4.093

    Again, the RS5 should be faster. Yet...?

    What gives?

    MY 9 year old RS6 is faster than the RS5 – but weighs more and has an old-fangled slushbox (but same hp.)

    Yeah, I know there are differences in asphalt, altitude, temperature, but really...this just doesn't fiture.

  2. #2
    Registered User The RS6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,686
    It's quite simple, the new S6 and your RS6 have turbos. The RS5 doesn't.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6
    That makes sense to you, huh?

    It might if the test was done at altitude in which case the RS5 would not be producing max hp.

  4. #4
    Registered User The RS6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,686
    How about this?

    RS5: 430Nm at 4,000 – 6,000rpm
    S6: 550Nm of torque from 1,400-5,300rpm

  5. #5
    Moderator RXBG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,838
    the in gear acceleration that can be programmed into/created in a vehicle with twin turbos is phenomenal when it is paired with a DSG. the GTR was one of the first cars to do this. before the GTR the TT DSG could do somthing similar but could not overcome the lag created by a single turbo. auto trannies are getting better, though, with their refinement and addition of more speeds- this is why the S8 can rocket the way it does.

    it is also the reason why the mclaren MP4 is so phenomenal.

    weight loss can overcome the advantage but as you state above the car would have to weigh even less (maybe 400 lbs less!) in order overcome the advantage by the heavier but twin turbo'ed DSG car.

    it's too bad audi has had such a hard time with the mid engine TT set up in the R8 model. on the other hand nothing sounds like a 9000RPM redline.
    Past- A4, TT, S4

    Present- R8 V10

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    341
    Yup...we all like to talk HP, but the brutal acceleration is all due to torque, and when it hits.. The RS5 has to get all the way to 4K before you get its maximum oomph, whilst the S6 and your beast are delivering a mighty push almost immediately upon gear change.

    This is why we LOVE forced induction!

    Stephen


    Quote Originally Posted by The RS6 View Post
    How about this?

    RS5: 430Nm at 4,000 – 6,000rpm
    S6: 550Nm of torque from 1,400-5,300rpm

  7. #7
    Registered User Toto89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    634
    In my opinion, it is because the S6 can deliver the claimed performance, while the RS5 is not even close. That is maybe because the twin-turbo is a better engine concept and I wouldn't be surprised if S6 engine would put down even more hp than claimed.
    5 Audis so far...currently:
    2007 Audi A4 B7 2.0 TDI Multitronic

  8. #8
    Registered User JavierNuvolari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    1,830
    Well, I guess here is all said and done, it's all about the torque delivery my friend. IMHO, the RS 5 came late to the N/A party, it should have some sort of F/I V6...like an updated B5 RS 4 engine so to speak.

    Saludos

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis,IN USA
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Toto89 View Post
    In my opinion, it is because the S6 can deliver the claimed performance, while the RS5 is not even close. That is maybe because the twin-turbo is a better engine concept and I wouldn't be surprised if S6 engine would put down even more hp than claimed.
    Now we have the s8 with a 3.5 60 and 11.8 1/4 mile, it tested out at 570 and 440 on the wheels. Hot Press Car?

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by dab View Post
    Now we have the s8 with a 3.5 60 and 11.8 1/4 mile, it tested out at 570 and 440 on the wheels. Hot Press Car?
    On another forum a guy who says that he has driven multiple S8s says they are all that quick.

    And he also confirms that the S6/S7 "420" hp V8 and the S8 "520" V8 have significant mechanical differences as they use different crankshafts, main bearings, pistons, compression ratios, cold side of the turbo, air intakes and others as well. Good news as the S8 and RS6 V8 should be much stouter.
    Last edited by chewym; November 7th, 2012 at 19:00.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis,IN USA
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by chewym View Post
    On another forum a guy who says that he has driven multiple S8s says they are all that quick.

    And he also confirms that the S6/S7 "420" hp V8 and the S8 "520" V8 have significant mechanical differences as they use different crankshafts, main bearings, pistons, compression ratios, cold side of the turbo, air intakes and others as well. Good news as the S8 and RS6 V8 should be much stouter.
    We have been told that in the us we will get the rs/7 which should be a rocket based upon what have been done with the S models.

  12. #12
    Registered User hahnmgh63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    3,127
    Anyone see the latest Automobile Magazine test: BMW M3, Boxster S, RS5, Merc C63 AMG. They rank Boxster S (new model), M3, RS5, then Merc C63 AMG. Looks like the RS5 and M3 could be almost and even match in their opinion, we all know given some wet weather and the Audi would shine but I would have expected closer to 500bhp from the RS5, I'm kind of disappointed.
    2003 White RS6 2013 Midnight Blue S5
    2013 Daytona RS5 2x944 Turbo's 1974 911 w/'91 3.6ltr motor
    Roy, WA

  13. #13
    Registered User ZCD2.7T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    472
    Quote Originally Posted by hahnmgh63 View Post
    Anyone see the latest Automobile Magazine test: BMW M3, Boxster S, RS5, Merc C63 AMG. They rank Boxster S (new model), M3, RS5, then Merc C63 AMG. Looks like the RS5 and M3 could be almost and even match in their opinion, we all know given some wet weather and the Audi would shine but I would have expected closer to 500bhp from the RS5, I'm kind of disappointed.
    The RS 5 dusted all the other cars in lap time @ Grattan Raceway, so that tells you something about its overall balance.

    Also, FWIW, APR just took their in-house development RS5 to the drag strip to document before/after performance with their new tuning. Stock it ran 12.4xx @ 110.xx MPH. Their tune improved that to 12.2xx @ 111.xx mph. http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...29484#msg29484

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by ZCD2.7T View Post
    The RS 5 dusted all the other cars in lap time @ Grattan Raceway, so that tells you something about its overall balance.

    Also, FWIW, APR just took their in-house development RS5 to the drag strip to document before/after performance with their new tuning. Stock it ran 12.4xx @ 110.xx MPH. Their tune improved that to 12.2xx @ 111.xx mph. http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...29484#msg29484
    Yep, the gap was quite large which shows what AWD can do on the track. The RS5 actually posted very similar acceleration as the M3 in that test which isn't bad at all as the RS5 is heavier and shows that the RS5 V8 was making some extra power over the M3.

    The C63 was the quickest by far (about the same as the S6) but it finished last in the test.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by chewym View Post
    Yep, the gap was quite large which shows what AWD can do on the track. The RS5 actually posted very similar acceleration as the M3 in that test which isn't bad at all as the RS5 is heavier and shows that the RS5 V8 was making some extra power over the M3.

    The C63 was the quickest by far (about the same as the S6) but it finished last in the test.
    After reading the article and reviewing the stats, their ranking system had no relavence. Basically, the others were more fun to drive because they had less control (which can be very true) or they were paid off (which is common as well).
    2013 RS5 Sepang Ti
    2013 Q7 S-Line
    2008 Jeep Rubicon Unlimited AEV Lift

  16. #16
    Registered User johnnie27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    melbourne, aust
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by ZCD2.7T View Post
    The RS 5 dusted all the other cars in lap time @ Grattan Raceway, so that tells you something about its overall balance.

    Also, FWIW, APR just took their in-house development RS5 to the drag strip to document before/after performance with their new tuning. Stock it ran 12.4xx @ 110.xx MPH. Their tune improved that to 12.2xx @ 111.xx mph. http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...29484#msg29484

    well of-coarse .....but about 1% of car owner track there cars..torque rules on the streets
    as my 400 hp evo 6 would rape my Rs6 everywhere bar top speed...

    and APR have a S8 with a re flash running low 11's and on 100 oct 10.9 ..wow

    these new TT, merc's, BMW's and Audi's are a tuning dream.
    2004 RS6
    APR, KW, REMUS

  17. #17
    Registered User Kgnast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Brooklyn, NYC
    Posts
    225
    It's all about the square area "under" the curve. I'm gonna guess and say that the turbo'ed S6/S7 just has more of it. I would love to know what the avg horsepower/tq numbers are for both of these cars as applied to their respective RPM ranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribbonaire View Post
    Car and Driver tests an S6 and an RS5.

    An Audi S6, which has 420hp, weighs 4255, has a 7 speed DCT tranny – does 1/4 mile in 12.1 secs. 0-60 in 3.7 secs.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...s6-test-review

    And here’s an Audi RS5. With 450hp, (+30hp) and more torque - weighs in at 4040 (that’s 200lbs less! ), same (or similar) 7 speed DCT tranny - but only manages a 1/4 mile time of 12.8. 0-60 of 4.4 secs.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

    I would imagine if the final drive ratio was dramatically different, so I checked that out and...

    FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4 38:1 for the RS5

    For the S6 is 4.093

    Again, the RS5 should be faster. Yet...?

    What gives?

    MY 9 year old RS6 is faster than the RS5 – but weighs more and has an old-fangled slushbox (but same hp.)

    Yeah, I know there are differences in asphalt, altitude, temperature, but really...this just doesn't fiture.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •