Originally Posted by mkoesel
I am a little confused as to why you seem so adamant against the possibility of the car being underrated? That's usually considered a good thing.
Any comments about my comparison to the E39 M5? After all, the car appears to have much more in common with that car than an either an RS4 or an M3. I.e 3800lbs, 5L V8, ~400hp, ~370ft-lb, RWD, etc.
I would'nt be so adamant about it if it did'nt have a dyno test results available along with the performance results from the same car that is very close to C&D's test results. But it does and it's quite clear that it is around the figure that they have published. Actually the RS4 is not that far from it, just a little bit heavier by 100+ lbs and the M3 is just a little lighter buy about 100+ lbs. Which is another reason why i don't think the results that C&D got is too shocking or impossible. I never thought about the comparison with the E39 M5, but they do seem very similar to each others specificatons. In Swamps point of view, realisticly and mathematicaly, those numbers that C&D came up with is too good and almost too good to be true. And i do understand where he's coming from. Physics is physics there is no buts or ifs. It is what it is. But again, there's always going to be some factors that are not going to show in any simulation software that are used. I'm just in favor of real world results more than simulations. The facts are Automobilemag got 333rwhp on the dyno which equates to around 417 crank hp and they where able to get 0-60 of 4.6secs. Clearly it's not 4.2 like C&D, but it is pretty close. Which brings me back to how C&D launch their cars that gives a possiblity that they where able to pull off those numbers without the car being under rated and actually has more power than it is supposed to be making. Which Swamp predicted to be around 470hp. Oh one more thing, under rating the car is not a good thing. That's cheating or lying or whatever you want to call it.