RS246.com Forum :: The World's #1 Audi R, S and RS Enthusiast Community

Marcus-RS4 wrote:Out of interest, do the R8 guys have the same power (or lack of) issues when rolling roading the car?

graemep wrote:

Marcus-RS4 wrote:Out of interest, do the R8 guys have the same power (or lack of) issues when rolling roading the car?

EVO did a comparison between the R8 and RS6 recently, and both cars were down on power according to the RR figures. They still produced similar performance figures to those quoted officially.

Marcus-RS4 wrote:

graemep wrote:

Marcus-RS4 wrote:Out of interest, do the R8 guys have the same power (or lack of) issues when rolling roading the car?

EVO did a comparison between the R8 and RS6 recently, and both cars were down on power according to the RR figures. They still produced similar performance figures to those quoted officially.

I only ask, because the engine is essentially the same as our B7 RS4 and whenever we have RR'd our cars, the power is pretty much always down on quoted

graemep wrote:

Marcus-RS4 wrote:

graemep wrote: EVO did a comparison between the R8 and RS6 recently, and both cars were down on power according to the RR figures. They still produced similar performance figures to those quoted officially.

I only ask, because the engine is essentially the same as our B7 RS4 and whenever we have RR'd our cars, the power is pretty much always down on quoted

TBH, I wasn't too surprised to see the bhp from the rolling road figures for the R8, given the results/history of the same engine in the RS4 - I think the article was about a month or so after the Surrey RR day.

Reading my post again, I probably wasn't clear that it was interesting to see that 0-60, etc was still the same, if not better, when neither car made quoted figures on the RR. The RS6 was about 100bhp down, although much of that was probably the auto box.

The first round, in the unreal world, has already been completed: yesterday we padded down to Thorney Motorsport’s rolling road in Milton Keynes. Padding is something the R8 does rather well, too. Smeared close to the tarmac and painted a stealthy, menacing black (the shade is even called Phantom Black), it slides and glides with panache.

Pity, then, that it failed to reach its promised potential on the dyno, being all out of puff at 400.5bhp against a claim of 414. However, Chris Thorney pointed out that most cars can only be considered fully run-in once they have 15,000 miles on the odo, and our R8 was just 5000 miles old, which might explain the shortfall.

This wasn’t good news for the RS6 either: Harry’s new long-termer had covered just 1800 miles when it was strapped down. Even so, it ought to have bettered 486.4bhp – well down on the claimed 572. It would have done too, were it not for the big Audi’s automatic gearbox being confused by the rollers beneath the car’s wheels and insisting on always throwing in an upshift before peak power arrived.

Never mind. With the first round declared null and void, we agree to reconvene at the Millbrook Proving Ground next morning for the serious business.

Sixty is gone in 4.1sec – two tenths faster than the RS6 managed and a whopping half-second quicker than Audi’s 0-62mph claim for both cars. One more shift and the ton is done at 9.9sec, now two tenths behind the RS6. And it’s from here that the bigger Audi really hits its stride, covering 100-150mph nearly two seconds faster than the R8. Designed for life on the autobahn, obviously.