: Audi S6



brlong23
05-10-12, 02:31 AM
Not a big fan of Audi (Sans R8)...but 3.7 to 60 made me do a double take...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-audi-s6-test-review

Trapspeed
05-10-12, 07:19 AM
Wow. No joke!

M5eater
05-10-12, 08:00 AM
yeah... C/D's 0-60 times are almost always bull..

you're looking at closer to the higher end of mid 4's..
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1204_2013_audi_s6_s7_first_drive/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/02/2013-audi-s6-first-drive-review/
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/drives/2013-audi-s6-and-2013-audi-s7
the important thing is that it can still do this and probably manage 20+ combined in normal driving. I have to strain to do that in my 200hp Avant, and I'm sure since the TT 4.0L is pretty prolific in Audi's large sedan's there will be some decent aftermarket.

Watch-out for chipped 500chp S6's in the future.

smackdownCTSV
05-10-12, 09:21 AM
$70K too? The CTS-V finally has competition in its price point.

quikag
05-10-12, 09:37 AM
Audi must have provided a juiced model to C&D because 3.7 isn't going to happen with 420hp. Mid 4's sounds reasonable considering the Quattro and broad powerband of that TT 4.0 V8, but 3.7 is BS.

smackdownCTSV
05-10-12, 09:46 AM
3.7 is probable with a good launch and maybe even some vht.

thebigjimsho
05-10-12, 09:50 AM
Maybe Audi did give a juiced up model. But I trust C&D to give the most consistent test results. So I believe that car did do 3.7

A Euro spec TT-RS did a sub 4 0-60 with less power and less weight.

M5eater
05-10-12, 09:57 AM
$70K too? The CTS-V finally has competition in its price point.
yeeeah I'd say that's a streach. Sure it starts at 70K, but a B8 S4 starts a 47K and I've never seen one configured on the lot for less than 56-60. There's also the fact that no one ever pays invoice for a V.

Maybe Audi did give a juiced up model. But I trust C&D to give the most consistent test results. So I believe that car did do 3.7


I have a hard time swalowing an S6 is as fast as an F10 M5 with a 140hp disadvantage. The 36-3700lb B7 RS4 with 420 ponies didn't manage anywhere near sub 4 second 60 times.

smackdownCTSV
05-10-12, 10:07 AM
Still competition rather than $90K price points M5, E63, and XFR.

M5eater
05-10-12, 10:38 AM
Still competition rather than $90K price points M5, E63, and XFR.
indirectly maybe, there's a 11-15% price gap there. If we're just looking at price you could say a 2SS well equipped Camaro is competing with the likes of a Boss 302 or even a 2012 GT 500. Clearly there are two obvious choices for people looking beyond a badge there though.


Cadillac has made it clear they're targeting the fun drivers crowd and trying to make their cars the best in the performance/$ category. It's not like BMW/Audi and Merc who *all* build technology packed, luxury dripping super sedans. With a Cadillac, you're somewhat saying, I'll tone it down a bit everywhere else for the sake of performance.

let me put it this way..

There are 2 reasons to buy a V;
It's really fast,
it's really cheap.

The S6 has advantages in neither of these categories(although some feel that's debatable). No one goes V shopping because they've added (finnaly) rainsense wipers for 2012, similarly, no one is now thinking about an S6 because they feel like paying another 10grand for 90% of the car that the V is. They're buying it for the name brand, the higher level of quality and luxury features/details, because it's a much more liveable car to daily drive. Because you won't have to fill it up every 270miles, and it has 400+Hp and it's pretty fast? That's cool too.

allinmyhead
05-10-12, 01:26 PM
$70K too? The CTS-V finally has competition in its price point.

Not really. Base MSRP on a V is low 60's right, but who's ever seen a stripped car on a lot? True, the only big money option are the recaros, but then you've got gas guzzler and it pushes it into 70K quickly. Audi probably won't have guzzler, but they'll have 'prestige' trim for $8000 that puts in all the luxury items customers expect. Then another $8000 for 'adaptive dynamics' (or whatever they're calling it now days) to add in all the computer suspension and diff stuff to get it to not handle like an understeering pig (I've had four Audis including an S4, no matter what they say, the only handling trait and Audi has is understeer, it's just how much understeer).

This thing will MSRP at the high end of 80K by the time it has decent options. And the only time you're going under invoice on an Audi is if it's a model year left-over and there's trunk money in it.

I might be wrong though; I was honestly surprised when I went shopping that the S4's were on the lots MSRPing at 55-56k. M3s and C63s on the other hand ...

M5eater
05-10-12, 01:39 PM
Not really. Base MSRP on a V is low 60's right, but who's ever seen a stripped car on a lot? True, the only big money option are the recaros, but then you've got gas guzzler and it pushes it into 70K quickly. Audi probably won't have guzzler, but they'll have 'prestige' trim for $8000 that puts in all the luxury items customers expect. Then another $8000 for 'adaptive dynamics' (or whatever they're calling it now days) to add in all the computer suspension and diff stuff to get it to not handle like an understeering pig (I've had four Audis including an S4, no matter what they say, the only handling trait and Audi has is understeer, it's just how much understeer).

This thing will MSRP at the high end of 80K by the time it has decent options. And the only time you're going under invoice on an Audi is if it's a model year left-over and there's trunk money in it.

I might be wrong though; I was honestly surprised when I went shopping that the S4's were on the lots MSRPing at 55-56k. M3s and C63s on the other hand ...

his point is that it's 'still less' than 100K M5's XFR's and E63's... the problem is that there's such a huge pricegap between those cars and a V that there's still a huge pricegap with 'midrange' models that top-out in the high 80s or low 90s..

GM-4-LIFE
05-10-12, 01:44 PM
Don't count on it, guys. Car and Driver didn't verify the numbers or test the car. They were just simply relaying what Audi told them what the car would do. Until they are verified by every car magazine out there, don't believe those numbers. How can a car with that curb weight and that low on power hit 0-60 in 3.7 seconds? Come on!

By the way, GM has raised the price on the V about $3K per model year which makes no sense at all. I don't see many automakers doing that. GM is just going to price themselves out of the market. At $60K, the V was a bargain, but a fully loaded V is now almost $75K!!!

M5eater
05-10-12, 02:09 PM
By the way, GM has raised the price on the V about $3K per model year
the 09 MSRP was 59,995 iirc.

They're not quite 75K base MSRP yet. The 2012 MSRP for a base model was $64515 last I checked, and since you're getting more features for your $$$ compared to the 09, it's almost the same. The 13's are supposed to get the 2piece rotors as standard, so I would assume another price increase, but again, it's justified.

Xaqtly
05-10-12, 02:42 PM
Yeah something about the S6's numbers from C&D don't add up at all. There really isn't any conceivable way that the S6 should be able to get a 3.7 second 0-60 with a power to weight ratio of 10.1 lbs per HP. The V's ratio is 7.9, they're not even close. The V should absolutely murder the S6. The AWD obviously gives the S6 an advantage in the 0-60 and ET categories, but the trap speed should not be 115. Not with that power to weight ratio. That's more like a 110 MPH ratio.

It is possible Audi is just lying about the HP numbers. BMW consistently underrates their cars, and honestly, only 420 HP out of a twin turbo 32v V8? That's fishy. C&D's numbers put it squarely in CTS-V territory, but Audi's specs don't. I think we're going to need to wait until this car is out in the real world before we know if Audi is underrating it or if C&D just got a freak juicer.

M5eater
05-10-12, 02:49 PM
the Supercharged 3.0 has been time and again proven that it's making almost 400 crank.


I'm sure it *is* making more power than that, but I still don't believe 3.7 seconds, not unless this thing is underrated by at least 20%

GM-4-LIFE
05-10-12, 02:52 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. The 0-60 time is just NOT possible with power levels that the car has.

CTS-Vz
05-10-12, 02:55 PM
Which publication said the CTS-V was "3.9 to 60"? MotorTrend and others have said 4.1 - 4.3.
Did Car and Driver hype that number too?

smackdownCTSV
05-10-12, 02:56 PM
his point is that it's 'still less' than 100K M5's XFR's and E63's... the problem is that there's such a huge pricegap between those cars and a V that there's still a huge pricegap with 'midrange' models that top-out in the high 80s or low 90s..

Yup, +1.

----------

So the 0-60 is not plausible, but it's accepted in a TT-RS (Euro)?

M5eater
05-10-12, 03:05 PM
Yup, +1.

----------

So the 0-60 is not plausible, but it's accepted in a TT-RS (Euro/Export)?
The RS is under rated, just like the B8 S4.
http://www.audiboost.com/showthread.php?7483-Audi-TT-RS-stock-dynojet-dyno-numbers
Either the 4.2TT is making 500 HP or the C/D numbers are false.

Moneypenny
05-10-12, 05:01 PM
I haven't looked fully at the specs yet, but that 3.7 figure is conceivable if there is some sort of launch control coupled with the quattro, and if the redline is high enough that the car can hit 60 in first. Just speculations on my part...

Pphilthy
05-10-12, 06:55 PM
AWD, dual clutch trans, launch control, and 300 pounds lighter than the CTS-V... I recall people doubting a certain 3900 pound car (GTR) that only made ~500hp running sub 3 second 0-60 times - yes, it's called technology and it is possible...

I guess once they start hitting the market in the fall, consumers will post up numbers and we'll have the final verdict...

M5eater
05-10-12, 07:45 PM
AWD, dual clutch trans, launch control, and 300 pounds lighter than the CTS-V... I recall people doubting a certain 3900 pound car (GTR) that only made ~500hp running sub 3 second 0-60 times - yes, it's called technology and it is possible...

I guess once they start hitting the market in the fall, consumers will post up numbers and we'll have the final verdict...
300lbs lighter?

The weights I've seen are all over the place, from 4160 to 4300.

I've acutally weighed my car. an automatic sunroof V weighs exactly 4265lbs with > half a tank of fuel.

Xaqtly
05-11-12, 01:07 AM
Yeah the weight of the S6 is very, very close to the CTS-V. So the fact that the V has 130 more HP means that it should wipe the street with the S6, and it also means that the S6 should not be getting anywhere near 3.7 0-60. Not even close. Let me put it this way: My STi was making about 350 HP, and it weighed 3300 lbs. That's a power to weight ratio of 9.42 lbs per HP. Audi's numbers say the S6 is SLOWER than that, with a power to weight ratio of 10.1 lbs per HP.

The STi was also AWD and built to run hard, it had a very good AWD system and a strong clutch and gearbox. It still couldn't do 0-60 anywhere close to 4 seconds, it was closer to 5. And my STi wasn't even vaguely close to 115 MPH in the 1/4 mile, it was more like 105-107. And remember this is a car with a BETTER power to weight ratio than the S6.

C&D's results are so far off from Audi's numbers for the car, I've never seen such a wide discrepancy before. It's almost literally a 150 HP discrepancy. There is no conceivable way a car that weighs as much as the S6 can do 0-60 in 3.7 seconds with only 420 HP. It's simply not possible. Somebody needs to get that S6 on a dyno.

StealthViggen
05-11-12, 01:37 PM
0-60 is all about traction. With launch control/AWD it might be possible. I v-box'ed my CLS55 AMG with hoosiers at the track and had several 2.8-.9 0-60 runs with low 1.60 60's. Granted that car did make 550whp, but still pretty awesome it ran like a veyron out of the hole. These new DCT Trans and electronic launch aides do wonders for the cars performance.

Xaqtly
05-11-12, 03:07 PM
0-60 is all about traction. With launch control/AWD it might be possible.

Again, my STi had a better power to weight ratio than the S6, with very likely a better AWD system, and it couldn't do sub-4 second 0-60s. I think we all recognize that the CTS-V could do better than 4 flat if it had AWD and maybe the ZR1's PTM, but the point is that the S6 is down 130 HP from the CTS-V. And as you said, your car had 550 whp. If the S6 has 420 HP, it's not making more than about 350-360 at the wheels, since it has to deal with AWD drivetrain loss.

To get the numbers C&D were claiming then either it would have to have about 535 crank HP (yes, the S6's weight is that close to the CTS-V) or with only 420 HP it would have to weigh about 3350 lbs. The times that C&D got are equivalent to a current base model or Grand Sport Corvette. It just does not add up. Even putting the 0-60 times aside for a minute, they got a trap speed of 115, which is just horsepower or power-to-weight, not traction.

Another example would be the Porsche Panamera Turbo, whose numbers mirror what C&D got for the S6. The Panamera Turbo is AWD, and it got 3.7 0-60, with a 12.0 @ 155.5. Almost identical to C&D's S6 numbers. But the Panamera has 500 HP, 516 tq, and weighs only 80 lbs more than the S6. Power to weight ratio is 8.6, so it's slower than the CTS-V but because of the AWD it's faster 0-60.

The S6's power to weight is 10.1. Even with AWD, even with launch control, even with the DCT, it cannot achieve a 3.7 0-60 with Audi's claimed statistics. It just can't. There is a MASSIVE discrepancy between Audi's claimed numbers and C&D's results. I'm still going for the "juiced press car" theory, or possibly the "Audi is trying to get away with underrating the S6 by 100 HP" theory.

DangFoo
05-11-12, 03:13 PM
Competition is good and Audi is one of the few foreign makes that I like, so I'm curious to see how the S6 rings-out at the hands of the other mags too. I'm also inclined to believe that the math is not adding to a 60mph run in 3.7; not passing the smell test. Anyhow, probably close enough to our Vs, that driver input can make the difference.

M5eater
05-11-12, 03:17 PM
Competition is good and Audi is one of the few foreign makes that I like, so I'm curious to see how the S6 rings-out at the hands of the other mags too. I'm also inclined to believe that the math is not adding to a 60mph run in 3.7; not passing the smell test. Anyhow, probably close enough to our Vs, that driver input can make the difference.
it's managing mid 4s in every other publication I've seen..

thebigjimsho
05-12-12, 11:28 AM
Which publication said the CTS-V was "3.9 to 60"? MotorTrend and others have said 4.1 - 4.3.
Did Car and Driver hype that number too?

hmm...

CTS NV
05-12-12, 09:32 PM
That 12.1 quarter mile says there's a lot more power under the hood.

Audi's N/A 4.2 v8 is rated 372 HP in the Audi A8. http://models.audiusa.com/a8/engines

How could twin turbochargers only bump output to 420 HP? There's no chance that number is right -- Audi's lying.

TriTexan
05-13-12, 01:41 AM
Audi's lying.

Positively. I guess I have to do the math, but in the end we'll crunch the numbers. 0-60 times, even with unlimited traction, ultimately come down to the output of the engine over the rpm range. At 60 mph, a 4255 lb car has a known amount of kinetic energy. To impart that much kinetic energy to the car in 3.7 seconds requires a specific amount of force to be delivered over that 3.7 second interval. No amount of technology or traction can overcome the basic laws of physics. We should easily be able to calculate the theoretical HP and torque needed. Then we can PROVE that Audi is lying about the specs of the car and we'll have an exact number that is the MINIMUM output of that engine.

Anyone feel like cranking out the numbers? Here's a start:

Mass = 1930kg
1/4 mile = 1320 ft = 402.336 m
1/4 trap speed = 115mph = 51.4096 m/s

My rough math says that's about 272,658 Joules/sec, or about 365 horsepower at the rear (er, all four) wheels. That's the theoretical MIN needed to perform this feat, and that doesn't account for aero drag, rolling resistance, power needed to accelerate rotating masses like the wheels and such, or any other losses.

Someone check my math, but if we factor in 15% loss in the drivetrain, that's a MINIMUM of 430hp at the crank. Probably more like 460-470 once you factor in all the other losses I haven't calculated. Don't forget - that's an AVERAGE of 460hp...the engine's peak will probably be higher than the average. So this engine is probably peaking out around 500hp - that would make it appear someone is really dialing up the boost off those turbos.

Now I'm just throwing all this down off the top of my head, but the data doesn't pass the smell test at first blush. Can someone out there do a better job than me at properly calculating the minimum required RWHP (dangit - WHP) just based on the pure physics?

----------

Hot Rod magazine published this formula for backing into HP based on 1/4 mile times...

HP = [(MPH/234)^3 * Weight

So, 115mph/234^3 * 4255 lbs = ~505hp.

Between my math and a completely different route from Hot Rod magazine, we're getting similar results...this Audi needs 470-500hp to pull off this quarter mile time. And if you do the math, it needs even MORE to do 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.

M5eater
05-13-12, 09:38 PM
That 12.1 quarter mile says there's a lot more power under the hood.

Audi's N/A 4.2 v8 is rated 372 HP in the Audi A8. http://models.audiusa.com/a8/engines

How could twin turbochargers only bump output to 420 HP? There's no chance that number is right -- Audi's lying.

possible, unlikely, but possible.

They only made 50 more HP with 2 turbos in the APB(2.7L V6) and that was based off the 200hp 2.8L.

TTuned
05-13-12, 11:36 PM
about TIME! the V10 s6 was such a disappointment.

Good to see they are back to Turbos and better times! Now just add fat fenders so it will look different on the road than the base since we don't normally get RS versions.

Moneypenny
05-14-12, 03:52 PM
Additional info: looks like Audi does indeed use a launch control on the S6. C/D claims their 3.7sec 0-60 was achieved with this feature. Their rolling start (5-60, no launch control) was 4.9 seconds.

M5eater
05-14-12, 09:43 PM
about TIME! the V10 s6 was such a disappointment.

Good to see they are back to Turbos and better times! Now just add fat fenders so it will look different on the road than the base since we don't normally get RS versions.
It's not like the good old days of $500 chips for an extra 80hp though. B8 people pay in excess of $1,000 for pre-made tunes because they're so loaded with subsystem computer crap these days.

DrVolkl
05-15-12, 06:59 PM
It's not like the good old days of $500 chips for an extra 80hp though. B8 people pay in excess of $1,000 for pre-made tunes because they're so loaded with subsystem computer crap these days.

I had a chipped B8 S4... it was no joke.. and yes, the flash was $1500 if I recall and I had to send my ecu to APR.

There's a chipped B8 doing high 11's in the 1/4. I bet money the S6 is underrated.

Lord Cadillac
05-15-12, 07:33 PM
Additional info: looks like Audi does indeed use a launch control on the S6. C/D claims their 3.7sec 0-60 was achieved with this feature. Their rolling start (5-60, no launch control) was 4.9 seconds.

You're exactly right... Good catch.


I had a chipped B8 S4... it was no joke.. and yes, the flash was $1500 if I recall and I had to send my ecu to APR.

There's a chipped B8 doing high 11's in the 1/4. I bet money the S6 is underrated.

...and APR has one of the least agressive tunes...

Otherwise... There's PROBABLY going to be an RS6 as well.. I'm guessing that'll be a very impressive car. Keep in mind the Mercedes-Benz CLS550 does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. I believe the E550 is even a bit quicker. These aren't AMGs or Ms... Regular cars are getting pretty fast...

There are a couple of conversations in the lounge about this stuff:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/community-lounge-introductions-general-discussion/246104-2012-mercedes-cls550-0-60-4-a.html

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/community-lounge-introductions-general-discussion/259629-2013-audi-s6-0-60-3-a.html

M5eater
05-15-12, 09:06 PM
Regular cars are getting pretty fast...

well, I think we keep forgetting that all of these cars are the mid-tier versions of real sports sedans, that they typically cost beyond what a fully-loaded V2 does, that these cars are on brand new platforms and that the V2 , when it goes on sale for the 2013 Model year will be in it's 5th year run. It's old.

If I were spending $70K+ on a true german sports sedan, I'd wouldn't exactly expect to be left in the dust by some guy in a SHO. I mean, there is No smaller version of the CLS, it's the 550 or the CLS63 AMG, that's it, and we're talking about a Car that has a $50 option for a 2GB SD card.. so you're NOT going to be paying the base MSRP for one.

smackdownCTSV
05-15-12, 09:36 PM
Quite a markup, those are only $5 now.