If we move the relevance of a 1/4 mile time to the side (as I think it's pretty apparent the two camps will never agree) I just wanted to add my comments on the 1/4 results from MRC.
Firstly they looks stunning and as Sak's says this puts it flat in the ball park for the Merc SLS and Ferrari 458 cars which I don't think anybody would complain about.
But also worth pointing out both have double clutch gearboxes with seemless shifting (ferrari claim 0.06 sec shift time). So even a driver with no mechanical sympathy is going to struggle to make 3 manual shifts in 0.18 seconds total... lucky to get anywhere near that for one shift!
Now, putting my Arthur hat here:
I would say a manual change time of between 0.3 - 0.5 seconds is fair.
So if you were redlining each shift and not taking into account aero resistance, you would cover the following distance in feet whilst changing gear:
1st to 2nd 17.6 - 29.3
2nd to 3rd 29.4 - 49.1
3rd to 4th 43.1 - 71.8
Total between 72.1 and 132.3 feet with no engine power.
Given that a 1/4 mile is only 1320 feet thats 5%-10% of the whole event.
Now if the RS4 had a 458 DCT gearbox...
1st to 2nd - 3.5
2nd to 3rd - 5.9
3rd to 4th - 8.6
Total 18 feet or just over 1%.
It also highlight what critics of this test have been putting accross.
330' time is frankly not so good...must have been a bad 1-2 shift and or 2-3 shift. For perspective dan@jhm ran with tune/exhaust/clutch 12.29...with an identical 330 foot time. This car should be in the 4seconds at 330'.
Now it wouldn't be a thread with Sak's participating without a JHM reference but this one statement has a couple points.
I don't think JHM will claim 620ps/630nm with a tune and exhaust so what does this mean that the cars pulled similar times as 330ft is a fair distance.
- Limit of traction - not likely with a tune+exhaust however in gears 1-2 I suspect the TTS could very easily overwhelm the available traction.
- Driver Error/Experience - As we've said all along, launching an N/A car is relatively straightforward. You find the rev that works for you and point n go. Forced induction adds something that most drivers can't deal with easily without practise as the low down torque is high enough to mean that full throttle mashing isn't an option. As soon as you get to this power output level it's all about the driver balancing power and traction in the lower gears.
As an anecdote, I've driven two almost identical cars with the only difference being the addition of a supercharger. One worked out to be circa 400bhp/ton and the SC about 600bhp/ton. Both launching and turn one entry speed was way higher with the N/A car and the lap times broadly simlar (certainly not what you'd expect with such a massive engine boost). The reason was the power was there (and I believe the builder's dyno after driving it) but with me driving it couldn't get the power down (fecking thing would light up the rears even with slicks in 4th) and so on paper the stats didn't match up. It's possible to add too much power...
Overall a nice distraction and adds to what most people were happy with but not the be all and end all.
As for:
If the quarter mile is such a terrible benchmark, why do Car & Driver put every car they test down the 1320? (in addition to 0-60 and other such data).
Simple. It's all about selling magazines. Also, just because a journalist puts a statistic in print doesn't mean that it's some form of holy grail.
