EVO tests the Audi TT-RS

[swamp2]

^

We're not all that different - I've never said torque at low rpms and in gear results are totally unimportant. And just like with hp any car will benefit from more of those things. The DCT indeed makes both your and Bruce's arguments about the hassle/difficulty of accessing the true torque multiplication from the M3s high ratios hold much less water.

By the way is this the great flat/high rpm torque you are talking about? Compare the stock yellow torque curve for the TT-RS to the M3s. Get real no comparison in shape nor width, the ONLY place the TT-RS is superior is below 4500 rpm and it is only significantly better below 3500. Christ when you are on it at all in an M3 you have 90-100% of its torque to 8000 rpm! So this case is a very typical one to discuss the general principal. You can have one or the other, not really both and I simply prefer the M3s engine characteristics.

On a related point what rpm do you think is going to be the ideal shifting rpm based on the TT-RS dynos?

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^

We're not all that different - I've never said torque at low rpms and in gear results are totally unimportant. And just like with hp any car will benefit from more of those things. The DCT indeed makes both your and Bruce's arguments about the hassle/difficulty of accessing the true torque multiplication from the M3s high ratios hold much less water.

By the way is this the great flat/high rpm torque you are talking about? Compare the stock yellow torque curve for the TT-RS to the M3s. Get real no comparison in shape nor width, the ONLY place the TT-RS is superior is below 4500 rpm and it is only significantly better below 3500. Christ when you are on it at all in an M3 you have 90-100% of its torque to 8000 rpm! So this case is a very typical one to discuss the general principal. You can have one or the other, not really both and I simply prefer the M3s engine characteristics.

+ ∞! I think when people say the M3 just lacks the torque necessary to be an entertaining daily driver, they instantly lose credability for me. Of course most of these individuals don't even own or drive one, coincidence? You can post all the torque curves in the world but some will continue to believe the S65 is a high-revving Honda engine that doesn't do anything unless you keep the revs above six grand. How many times have you heard that before?

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

+ ∞! I think when people say the M3 just lacks the torque necessary to be an entertaining daily driver, they instantly lose credability for me. Of course most of these individuals don't even own or drive one, coincidence? You can post all the torque curves in the world but some will continue to believe the S65 is a high-revving Honda engine that doesn't do anything unless you keep the revs above six grand. How many times have you heard that before?

I co-sign...Especially at the above highlighted statement.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Of course most of these individuals don't even own or drive one

Guys, to be fair I am a strong proponent of the belief that you do not have to own a particular vehicle to know a great deal about it. Technical knowledge can be well separated from experiential knowledge and a great engineer does not by any means make a great driver. However, the most insight does come from a combination of these complimentary types of knowledge and experience.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^

We're not all that different - I've never said torque at low rpms and in gear results are totally unimportant. And just like with hp any car will benefit from more of those things. The DCT indeed makes both your and Bruce's arguments about the hassle/difficulty of accessing the true torque multiplication from the M3s high ratios hold much less water.

By the way is this the great flat/high rpm torque you are talking about? Compare the stock yellow torque curve for the TT-RS to the M3s. Get real no comparison in shape nor width, the ONLY place the TT-RS is superior is below 4500 rpm and it is only significantly better below 3500. Christ when you are on it at all in an M3 you have 90-100% of its torque to 8000 rpm! So this case is a very typical one to discuss the general principal. You can have one or the other, not really both and I simply prefer the M3s engine characteristics.

On a related point what rpm do you think is going to be the ideal shifting rpm based on the TT-RS dynos?

The TT-RS torque figures are superior from idle right up to 6000rpm, 600rpm sly of it's peak revs, having a superior amount of torque for 90% of it's entire rev range it's a little thing.

Regarding the ideal shift point, that question is constantly varing depending on mood, what type of driving you are doing at the time, whether on the track, etc.

Oh, and you are right, having both isn't possible.

Or is it.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^

Again,

It really all comes down to how much effort you think it is to shift. Grabbing 3 gears with DCT is simply no fuss no jerk and no drama less a bit more noise. There is nothing wrong with "lazy power" (i.e. torque) it is just less important to achieving real results than actual power. On the latter we agree.

As I mentioned before this does relate to the mod of a higher FD ratio. Since you mention that I'll note we debated it fiercely here. My conclusion was at least for the DCT M3 a FD swap is absolutely not a good mod. All it gets you is results above 150 mph and some rare cases the ability to run one single gear higher with equivalent performance. The FD ratio is pretty darn well optimized stock. I suspect a similar thing for the 6MT.

Pretty much agree on all points - but of course I was talking about high gear lunge in a stick car. From my point of view, any good auto negates that issue entirely. Downshifts are nearly instantaneous, unlike a stick, where you'll need about a second or so before the fun begins.

I don't see the point of a final drive swap with a DCT for that reason. The car is traction-limited in first gear as delivered, and whatever gear you want is available with essentially zero delay, so no real benny to getting more aggressive with gearing.

With a stick, though, I think the M3 will be more fun with a more aggressive final drive. As with any car, you'll actually slow down a bit in traffic with this type of change, but once you're cruising, the car will definitely be more responsive.

You should know that in general I'm skeptical of any real benefits of a more aggressive final drive, but in the case of a stick M3, I think it'll work. No, the car won't show much benefit in a classic quarter mile duel, and as mentioned, you'll actually slow down a tad in traffic, but I speculate that the increased punch at cruise will more than make up for that - for me, at least.

Bruce

[graider]

I think the m3 v8 is perfect for the car. the only enemy of the new m3 is weight. loose some of that weight and it is a rocket (check out the e30 m3 with m3 v8 engine). but loosing weight for a sport saloon like the m3 is not easy and it is only possible with more exotic material. the m3 is already the lightest in its class.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

The TT-RS torque figures are superior from idle right up to 6000rpm

Ugh, you are correct here. I completely misread the axes and tick marks of the chart. What a f-up... The shapes of both torque and hp vs. the M3 are still worth commenting on. As we know once you look at torque delivered to the wheels the M3 will likely be superior, both from its higher ratios and less losses! As well is the fact the for ultimate acceleration redline probably is not the best shift point for the TT-RS.

By the way have you been able to find the gear ratios for the TT-RS. I can't find them anywhere.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Ugh, you are correct here. I completely misread the axes and tick marks of the chart. What a f-up... The shapes of both torque and hp vs. the M3 are still worth commenting on. As we know once you look at torque delivered to the wheels the M3 will likely be superior, both from its higher ratios and less losses! As well is the fact the for ultimate acceleration redline probably is not the best shift point for the TT-RS.

By the way have you been able to find the gear ratios for the TT-RS. I can't find them anywhere.

Actually I will correct you about the transmission lose, the TT-RS uses Haldex which only shifts power to the rear when required, and normal runs 95%/5% Front to Rear, so while it will shift it's power 50/50 on launch, it normally sit 95/5 or near enough that the rest of the time until you come to a corner. So while in normal mode it's basically a fwd car and as there no prop shaft etc to travel through it actually got less lose.

I do agree that gearing should help the M3 but this will only happen close to the limits of the TT's rev range. I bet that when we actually see a race between the two (hopefully both manuals) that it will show a bungee effect, where the TT showing an advantage at the start of each gear and the M3 coming strong towards the end of the gear.

Would you concur with that opinion.

P.S.
Hopefully you are starting to see why I posted the original thread and this one after the data proved what I earlier thought would happen. The TT-RS is a potential rival to the M3, if only from a performance perspective.

[swamp2]

^

I'm still willing to bet the M3 will in general (and by general I mean under most rpms in its torque power band) put more torque to its wheels than the TT-RS. Recall that hp is generally a decent approximation of torque to the wheels. Even if the TT-RS does some fancy torque splitting its AWD system will still causes more losses and all losses hurt. Perhaps the loss will be less painful than with older technology but it is still there.

I'm not really willing to speculate on a gear by gear blow of a comparison between these cars. Once launch effects are negated you may be able to see some of this "bouncing" like effect. As always this is best captured with relative video from one car to the other which highlights differences in acceleration and even jerk.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^

I'm still willing to bet the M3 will in general (and by general I mean under most rpms in its torque power band) put more torque to its wheels than the TT-RS. Recall that hp is generally a decent approximation of torque to the wheels. Even if the TT-RS does some fancy torque splitting its AWD system will still causes more losses and all losses hurt. Perhaps the loss will be less painful than with older technology but it is still there.

swamp,

You can believe what you will, but I am telling you that the lose is no more and probably less in normal conditions than a rwd setup. I'm not going to get into a debate on how much drivetrain lose quattro or any other awd system has because it's something none of us all will agree on because some are convinced that the data supplied by dyno is accurate.

Wheel torque is all related to what revs are produced at a certain speed, the more revs required the probability that more torque will be present. So I conclude that chances are on some of the TT-RS rev range the M3 will indeed produce more wheel torque.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'm not really willing to speculate on a gear by gear blow of a comparison between these cars. Once launch effects are negated you may be able to see some of this "bouncing" like effect. As always this is best captured with relative video from one car to the other which highlights differences in acceleration and even jerk.

I am willing to speculate because I am sure about it. In fact view any race between the M3/5/6 and an equivalent performing turbo car and it's here to seen.

[mixja]

The advantage the M3 has is its high redline - if you geared the TT-RS and M3 identically such that they both made the same speed in each gear (i.e. TT-RS speed in any gear @ 6600RPM = M3 speed in same gear @ 8400RPM), the M3 makes ~27% more torque to the wheels because it will need 27% higher ratios than the TT-RS to make the same speed (assuming same wheel size).

So in equivalent terms, where the Audi TT-RS makes 450NM from 1600RPM to 5300RPM, the M3 would start making effectively the same 450NM (350NM real torque + 27%) around 2250RPM (at this M3 engine speed, the TT-RS engine would be spinning @ 1750RPM), peaking to 510NM (400NM peak torque + 27%) @ 4000RPM (~3200RPM in the TT-RS) and maintaining that torque all the way to near redline where it tails back to 450NM (350NM real torque @ redline + 27%)....

It's easier to understand the above if you talk in absolute wheel torque terms, but if you look at it this way, you can see that the M3 is easily the much quicker car, even with its slight weight disadvantage...

The Audi TT-RS gearing is located here - http://www.audi.ee/file.php?ID=8415

[footie]

Originally Posted by mixja

The advantage the M3 has is its high redline - if you geared the TT-RS and M3 identically such that they both made the same speed in each gear (i.e. TT-RS speed in any gear @ 6600RPM = M3 speed in same gear @ 8400RPM), the M3 makes ~27% more torque to the wheels because it will need 27% higher ratios than the TT-RS to make the same speed (assuming same wheel size).

So in equivalent terms, where the Audi TT-RS makes 450NM from 1600RPM to 5300RPM, the M3 would start making effectively the same 450NM (350NM real torque + 27%) around 2250RPM (at this M3 engine speed, the TT-RS engine would be spinning @ 1750RPM), peaking to 510NM (400NM peak torque + 27%) @ 4000RPM (~3200RPM in the TT-RS) and maintaining that torque all the way to near redline where it tails back to 450NM (350NM real torque @ redline + 27%)....

It's easier to understand the above if you talk in absolute wheel torque terms, but if you look at it this way, you can see that the M3 is easily the much quicker car, even with its slight weight disadvantage...

The Audi TT-RS gearing is located here - http://www.audi.ee/file.php?ID=8415

I wish I had the data at hand for the maximum gear speeds for the TT-RS but I don't. I do know that you had to shift just before 100mph (think it was 97mph) into forth which compares to the M3 at 105mph.

Of the two gear I can sort of recall roughly their shift point I think this is approximately the gear speeds per 1000rpm for each (it will be near enough).

TT-RS (M3)
2nd : 9.7mph (8.43mph) Roughly 15% difference
3rd : 14.7mph (12.65mph) Roughly 16% difference.

Not quite your 27% so how much does that affect your estimates.

[swamp2]

Couple of things.

1. The dyno charts I showed is not consistent with the peak figures quoted by Audi. So a few things could be in play, bad dyno corrections, poor assumptions on DT loss or an under rating situation. Just look at peak torque Audi claims 450 Nm, the chart clearly shows 490+ Nm (for the unmodded car). The hp curve looks OK though.

2. The torque multiplication advantage the M3 has over the TT-RS on a gear by gear basis is:

E9X 6 MT / TT-RS, E9X M-DCT / TT-RS
1.16 1.12
1.12 1.14
0.86 0.95
0.85 0.98
1.14 1.30
1.19 1.34

There is not a constant advantage, nor even an advantage in all gears, just as there is not a constant torque advantage from the engine - that is rpm dependent. However, giving the benefit of the doubt to the Audi it PEAK torqu advantage over the M3 (ratio actually...) is 1.12. 3rd and 4th are going to be strong in the TT-RS. Interesting gearing choice,

3. What you really need to look at is torque to the wheels vs. rpm (or speed). Mixja: Doesn't your software do that? Note the TT-RS does use a dual final drive ratio! CarTest does produce this type of output chart but it has some bugs getting an accurate interpolated power curve and the standard fit is generally poor for a turbo.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Couple of things.

1. The dyno charts I showed is not consistent with the peak figures quoted by Audi. So a few things could be in play, bad dyno corrections, poor assumptions on DT loss or an under rating situation. Just look at peak torque Audi claims 450 Nm, the chart clearly shows 490+ Nm (for the unmodded car). The hp curve looks OK though.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the torque curve, Audi quote 450Nm over a set rev range and it's meeting that requirement, they say nothing that in places it will exceed it.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

2. The torque multiplication advantage the M3 has over the TT-RS on a gear by gear basis is:

E9X 6 MT / TT-RS, E9X M-DCT / TT-RS
1.16 1.12
1.12 1.14
0.86 0.95
0.85 0.98
1.14 1.30
1.19 1.34

There is not a constant advantage, nor even an advantage in all gears, just as there is not a constant torque advantage from the engine - that is rpm dependent. However, giving the benefit of the doubt to the Audi it PEAK torqu advantage over the M3 (ratio actually...) is 1.12. 3rd and 4th are going to be strong in the TT-RS. Interesting gearing choice

Interesting choice but it has the desired effect on in-gear performance.

IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
M3 -----TT-RS
20-40 3.3 - 2.8
30-50 3.1 - 2.4
40-60 3.0 - 2.4
50-70 3.0 - 2.5
60-80 3.0 - 2.6
70-90 3.1 - 2.8

IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.2 - 4.3
30-50 4.2 - 3.3
40-60 4.1 - 3.1
50-70 3.9 - 3.3
60-80 4.0 - 3.4
70-90 4.2 - 3.5
80-100 4.3 - 3.7
90-110 4.5 - 4.0

But on looking at your data 5th / 6th gears, it should throw to advantage firmly back towards to M3 but doesn't in fact it really takes 6th to match the TT yet by all accounts the opposite should be true as this is firmly below the levels where the M3 is producing anything like the same amount of torque per rpm as the TT would. I wonder why this is?

IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 4.8 - 6.3
30-50 4.8 - 4.7
40-60 4.9 - 4.1
50-70 4.8 - 4.1
60-80 4.5 - 4.3
70-90 4.9 - 4.5
80-100 5.3 - 4.6

IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
30-50 6.2 - 8.3
40-60 6.2 - 6.9
50-70 5.9 - 5.8
60-80 5.8 - 5.5
70-90 5.9 - 5.9
80-100 6.2 - 6.2

I imagine the only reason for the M3 to be better on the areas I highlighted red is all due to a slight lag on pick up from the turbo. Would you agree?

P.S.
I would very comfortably say that the TT-RS feels and probably is much stronger in-gear than ever the RS4 would have been.

[mixja]

The gearing on the TT-RS seems really strange - just a 12.5% drop from 2nd to 3rd, but a 24% drop from 3rd to 4th...

The in-gear acceleration times on the TT-RS are fairly close to the C63 times EVO recorded - M3 DCT is pretty close to the C63 in-gear times so I think the DCT and TT-RS will be pretty close for in-gear acceleration...

[footie]

Originally Posted by mixja

The in-gear acceleration times on the TT-RS are fairly close to the C63 times EVO recorded - M3 DCT is pretty close to the C63 in-gear times so I think the DCT and TT-RS will be pretty close for in-gear acceleration...

I never really looked at the in-gear times for the C63, I suppose given it's huge amounts of torque and the capacity of the engine I just assume it destroyed the TT-RS with ease at such a discipline but after checking the little 2.5L put up more of a fight than I thought possible. Here the two groups of figures matched up for comparison.

Audi TT-RS 6sp vs C63 7sp

IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
20-40 2.8 2.7
30-50 2.4 2.6
40-60 2.4 2.5
50-70 2.5 2.4
60-80 2.6 2.5
70-90 2.8 2.8

Between 30mph and 90 mph there is very little to choose either way.

IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.3 4.7
30-50 3.3 3.9
40-60 3.1 3.7
50-70 3.3 3.5
60-80 3.4 3.5
70-90 3.5 3.5
80-100 3.7 3.5
90-110 4.0 3.8

Between 30mph and 90mph the TT is the quicker of the two.

IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 6.3 5.3
30-50 4.7 4.2
40-60 4.1 4.4
50-70 4.1 4.4
60-80 4.3 4.3
70-90 4.5 4.3
80-100 4.6 4.4

Between 40mph and 80mph again the TT is the quicker.

IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
30-50 8.3 5.0
40-60 6.9 5.2
50-70 5.8 5.2
60-80 5.5 5.1
70-90 5.9 5.1
80-100 6.2 5.1

Only in 6th gear does the bigger capacity Merc win out and remember it's the one with 7 gears and not 6. Just imagine what BMW could do with their know how and a little bit bigger capacity in the next M3.

[mixja]

The C63 transmission ratios are relatively short up to 3rd gear then goes very tall which explains the results above...