Audi RS5 Straight Line speed

[bmwrjs]

Any guesses on 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile,

BMW M3:

0-60: 4.1
0-100: 9.6
1/4: 12.5 @ 114

[BMW269]

Make the RS5 a RWD it will be slower than M3. Audi is nothing without Quattro. RS5 is a bit faster than M3, as 50 Nm more torque and 4WD so no splip. Modded C 63 AMG blow both away, but only on straight line.

[CSanto]

Are there weight figures out on the RS5? 30 hp more wont do much, and the quattro will give the car slightly more drive train loss than the M.

I say the numbers will be even.

[1MOREMOD]

isnt 0-60 of 4.1 a little optimistic for the m3? i thought it was more like 4.6-4.8?

[BMWCadet]

Originally Posted by chriszeh

isnt 0-60 of 4.1 a little optimistic for the m3? i thought it was more like 4.6-4.8?

I think the real world numbers put it around 4.3-4.4.

[drivendriver]

Originally Posted by chriszeh

isnt 0-60 of 4.1 a little optimistic for the m3? i thought it was more like 4.6-4.8?

IIRC, Car and Driver got 4.1 with 1ft rollout (with DCT). Without rollout, the time was 4.3.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

I think the real world numbers put it around 4.3-4.4.

+1

[BMW269]

0-60 mph is not the same as 0-100 km/h. 100 km/h is 62 mph.
M3 Coupé: 0-100 km/h in 4.8 sec (6MT) / 4.6 sec (7DCT).

[shiggy]

Road and Track has M3 with DCT at 4.3
Car and Driver had it at 4.1
my iphone app had it at 2.9....LOL....I kid!
I think i seen something from Footie that the RS5 0-60 was 4.6.

[drivendriver]

Originally Posted by shiggy

I think i seen something from Footie that the RS5 0-60 was 4.6.

I believe the 4.6 was for 0-62.

If Audi is as conservative as BMW, my guess is that car mags will get 4.1-4.2 for 0-60 without rollout.

[991GT3]

As has been pointed out here before a 1' rollout will shave .2-.3 seconds off most cars in the performance segment and going to 62mph will add about .2.
So a car going from a dead stop to 62 will take at least a half second more than the same vehicle with a 1' roll out going to 60.

A C&D 60 MPH in 4.1 seconds is a real world 0-60 in 4.3-4.4 and a 0-62 in 4.5-4.6.

[mixja]

Originally Posted by HREM3

Are there weight figures out on the RS5? 30 hp more wont do much, and the quattro will give the car slightly more drive train loss than the M.

I say the numbers will be even.

DIN weight of the RS5 is 1725kg - the DIN weight of the M3 Coupe DCT is 1600kg (or 1575kg without DCT)...

The extra weight + transmission losses to me means performance will likely be very similar. Basically the RS5 gets around 7.5% more power than the M3 with a very similar shaped torque curve. The weight difference alone in the case of the M3 DCT is around 7.8%. Of course at high speed absolute horsepower is far more important than power to weight so I think the key will be in the transmission losses...

[1MOREMOD]

i tend to think the numbers magazines get are optimistic. i think the m3 is high 4's and high 12's for 60 and 1/4 especially for me in the 6mt.

[adc]

Originally Posted by shift@red

M3 coupe is a 12.6-12.7 car ~111 mph. 114 mph has never been duplicated, certainly not be a real world driver and it wont be.

Disagree.

http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes

Best speeds for stock cars seem to be in the 114mph range for coupe and 113mph for sedan, around 12.5-12.8 sec.

[1MOREMOD]

nice thanks. those are most likely dct cars correct going 12.5 at 114.

[ONE92]

I think people get confused by real world numbers, they often forget that the M3 is NA. I often find that you will get a huge loss of power in these cars, depending on where you are driving. When judging the M3 speed you really have to take into account where you are driving your car. I have a buddy with a e92 dct that lives up in NorCal close to Yosemite, he can barely beet his dad and often loses to a non modded E90 335i, which on paper is a .8 of a second slower to 60. I have raced c63 amg and beat them 60-130 and I weigh 260 lbs. What I am trying to say is everyone is going to get different results based on where they are driving.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by ONE92

I think people get confused by real world numbers, they often forget that the M3 is NA. I often find that you will get a huge loss of power in these cars, depending on where you are driving. When judging the M3 speed you really have to take into account where you are driving your car. I have a buddy with a e92 dct that lives up in NorCal close to Yosemite, he can barely beet his dad and often loses to a non modded E90 335i, which on paper is a .8 of a second slower to 60. I have raced c63 amg and beat them 60-130 and I weigh 260 lbs. What I am trying to say is everyone is going to get different results based on where they are driving.

Power loss with altitude is not black magic and can be calculated very precisely - more so than changes from temperature or humidity. Yosemite valley is about 3000 to 4000ft above sea level, which corresponds to a loss of 35 to 50 hp at the crank for an M3. Turboed cars take elevation better, but also have some power loss, mostly due to much reduced charge cooling and a bit from reduced turbo efficiency. So let's say at 3000 ft M3 loses 35HP and 335 loses 5 or 10HP - they are still far from equal.

So losing to a non-modded 335i near Yosemite valley cannot be explained by elevation alone. Maybe that 335 was modded after all?

[auggiem3]

Does anyone know the price point on the RS5? I remember looking at an RS4 a few years ago and it clicked the 80k box. 12 to 15k over a nicely optioned m3 seemed steep even with the performance gap over the e46 but it did fulfill the 4dr super sedan dream (kind of a more performance oriented competitor to the m5 with awd rather than competing with the e46 m3).

Add in a 4dr e90 M3 with v8 powerplant and that price justification becomes almost unfathomable to me. I understand that you still don't get awd but the e90 is even cheaper than the e92....but I guess audi never produced the RS4 in an e90 m3 year.

Just curious as to whether the rs5 is a competitor for an m3 or an m6?

[Cabinetman]

Originally Posted by auggiem3

Does anyone know the price point on the RS5? I remember looking at an RS4 a few years ago and it clicked the 80k box. 12 to 15k over a nicely optioned m3 seemed steep even with the performance gap over the e46 but it did fulfill the 4dr super sedan dream (kind of a more performance oriented competitor to the m5 with awd rather than competing with the e46 m3).

Add in a 4dr e90 M3 with v8 powerplant and that price justification becomes almost unfathomable to me. I understand that you still don't get awd but the e90 is even cheaper than the e92....but I guess audi never produced the RS4 in an e90 m3 year.

Just curious as to whether the rs5 is a competitor for an m3 or an m6?

I'll bet it is every bit of $80k or more. A well optioned S5 is close to $65k so you have to assume at least a $15k premium for the RS. It might even be more. I hope I'm wrong, but if the car does end up well over $80k I would have a hard time buying it over a 911 C2S.

[mtndog]

Originally Posted by auggiem3

....but I guess audi never produced the RS4 in an e90 m3 year.

?...both were produced for '08

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by ONE92

I think people get confused by real world numbers, they often forget that the M3 is NA. I often find that you will get a huge loss of power in these cars, depending on where you are driving. When judging the M3 speed you really have to take into account where you are driving your car. I have a buddy with a e92 dct that lives up in NorCal close to Yosemite, he can barely beet his dad and often loses to a non modded E90 335i, which on paper is a .8 of a second slower to 60. I have raced c63 amg and beat them 60-130 and I weigh 260 lbs. What I am trying to say is everyone is going to get different results based on where they are driving.

If you raced a stock car with your modified car I can believe your claim. However, a stock vs modified comparison is pointless. I have ran a DCT E92 several times up until the same speed as you and I was about 2 CLs when I was stock. How was your run like? Was it a random meet up in "Mexico".

[gorun]

Official 0-200 km/h figure for the E92 DCT is 14.9. I can only find one site quoting 0-200 for the RS5 and it is 15.5 secs.. It would probably be closer in reality...