C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

[ArthurPE]

quotes:
You either decide your reviewing performance or day to day practicality first.
To think you can reduce this to a Single number is a bit, well, comical.
Which is what makes it quite a pointless exercise to go into these details and declare a 'winner'.
My issue with it is that whilst an amusing distraction it's a bit of a curve ball review.

sure sounds like you are saying the review is worthless
and worthless implies anyone who would use it as part of the evaluation for purchase is making a mistake

the review was done against these cars because the RS6 is not made yet (The base Panamera would have been a good choice)
all are hipo, 4 door, luxury cars (and Audi DID pitch this against them, look at the plate, it's got the Audi factory pattern: IN S6xxx, meaning THEY supplied the car)
and it is good press, a car not actually in the segment, and a lot cheaper, held its own (and when other criteria is factored in, 'won'
and the M5/AMG are definitely luxury cars, not sports cars or track cars, not even GT's or tourers, they are large luxury sedans, draped in leather, with all kinds of do-dads
for every day use these cars all offer similar performance and accoutrements
they happen to have sport suspensions, big brakes, and big/powerful engines, but like any car, their avg road speed will avg 40 mph over its lifetime
any one of these cars would serve the same practical purpose

and since the S6 and the M5 are:
the same to 60
and 2 tenths in the 1/4 (although trap speed difference is substantial)
then again, how often do we travel faster than 100 mph? or even 80 mph?
so for road cars, which they are, they have more in common than not

[sakimano]

A 4 door saloon is never going to be as good to handle as a lighter 2 door coupe.
It's all a compromise.

there's an M3 saloon as well don't forget.

[P_G]

It's a press car given to a magazine to test rather than Audi saying these cars are pitched agaains M//AMG cars. Audi I guesss would know the RS6/7 is the actual competiton of those cars.

[sakimano]

Ask Audi which cars they would pitch the S6 and S7 against and it is not the M5, E63 and GT-R. S6 is 550i / E500 / Jag XF V8; S7 if anyone is CLS 500 / possibly basic Panamera

That's is my perpsective on how pointless that test is.

Well, this isn't Audi's road test. This is a magazine trying to sell copies. They don't need to be so regimented and limited to boring old 'this is who Audi markets the car against'. That whole rationale is silly. The Cadillac CTSv is not on Audi or BMW or MB's stated list of competitors for the M5/RS6/E63...yet it beats them pretty comfortably for $30,000-40,000 less money. Compare the CTSv to the similar money 550i/E550 etc. and it's a joke. They get murdered.

The point Car and Driver are making is that the S6 can hang with the big boys. That's pretty cool if you ask me. The article makes remarks a few times that this is not an ideal comparison, that the S6 is grossly underpowered/underpriced...and that this is not each other's target competitor. DESPITE THAT they felt the Audi held it's own and deserved consideration. The numbers, when they added them up, even WITHOUT price as a consideration showed the Audi right on the heels of the BMW and ahead of the MB. Road and Track measured the Boxster Spyder vs. the B8 S4 for a laugh...and it was only to demonstrate how capable some of these cars are. Same thing with the new Mustang vs. the E92 M3 test C&D did...nowhere near each other's target, but more a spotlight shining on how great that new Mustang is (it basically matched or even beat the M3 across the board).

Finally to adsgreen, if you don't like that they evaluate executive saloons points for interior etc and only care about performance...why on earth are you bothering to look at executive saloons? Look at GTRs and R8s and Corvettes if that's the case. If performance is all that matters, buy a sports car, and don't fuss about with the extra seats and space and weight.

If you insist on buying an executive saloon with 4 doors and 4000lbs+ of girth behind it, and don't care if you pay $20-30,000 more or if you have a nice leather seat with support vs. using an upturned mop bucket for a seat...and are happy to use your iPhone and headphones for nav and music, that's fine. Ignore that part of the review, and just look here at the performance section: M5 in first, S6 in second, E63 in third.

Then factor in the other stuff, not to mention the price...or the fact that an RS6 is coming that will make something like 580 hp....and you see that this comparison isn't so empty or useless after all. It's addressing the fact that Audi is not far from the M5 and in many measures better than the AMG car...both of which are brand new offerings...and Audi hasn't even played its trump card yet.

[adsgreen]

See.. there you go again... I specifically ask not have words put in my mouth and you've inserted the words "worthless" and "mistake".
Curve ball review is exactly that - not a review what I would have expected.

[rs6666]

These new Bi-turbo V8 engines are gonna be monsters, Also turbos on top of the engine, maybe cheaper to upgrade or tweak in the future due to not having to pull the engine all the time.

[adsgreen]

Saks - All I was commenting on was the weighting given the interior and other subjective stuff. I mean, interior and exterior styling? Ultimate subjective statement.
I do prefer the S6 in looks over the M5 and AMG - but I would never factor that in when building a comparison to gice to somebody else.

[ArthurPE]

It's a press car given to a magazine to test rather than Audi saying these cars are pitched agaains M//AMG cars. Audi I guesss would know the RS6/7 is the actual competiton of those cars.

then why would they give it to them to test against these cars?

[sakimano]

Saks - All I was commenting on was the weighting given the interior and other subjective stuff. I mean, interior and exterior styling? Ultimate subjective statement.
I do prefer the S6 in looks over the M5 and AMG - but I would never factor that in when building a comparison to gice to somebody else.

I agree that when evaluating an AMG/S/RS/M car we shouldn't use the same weighting that we use when evaluating an A4 vs. 328 vs. c300

I'm not sure what they do (C&D et al)...but I'd hope they tailor the review.

Still, it's just cool that Audi is competing nicely.

As for the RS6 I'm not sure why anyone thinks an RS car will share an engine with an A/S car. Hasn't happened yet...won't happen soon. I believe someone from quattro actually said it will NEVER happen. So the 4.0TT S8 engine as it sits in the S8 will not be used.

Likely a heavily worked over version of the 4.0TT but not a 'hey bring us some of those S8 engines!' and stuff them in the C7 body.

[adsgreen]

Saks - All I was commenting on was the weighting given the interior and other subjective stuff. I mean, interior and exterior styling? Ultimate subjective statement.
I do prefer the S6 in looks over the M5 and AMG - but I would never factor that in when building a comparison to gice to somebody else.

I agree that when evaluating an AMG/S/RS/M car we shouldn't use the same weighting that we use when evaluating an A4 vs. 328 vs. c300

I'm not sure what they do (C&D et al)...but I'd hope they tailor the review.

Still, it's just cool that Audi is competing nicely.

That I do 100% agree with. Maybe it was lost in hubbabaloo but it is encouraging that in sheer pace the s6 is up there with the best. Does hold good promise for the RS6
.

As for the RS6 I'm not sure why anyone thinks an RS car will share an engine with an A/S car. Hasn't happened yet...won't happen soon. I believe someone from quattro actually said it will NEVER happen. So the 4.0TT S8 engine as it sits in the S8 will not be used.

Likely a heavily worked over version of the 4.0TT but not a 'hey bring us some of those S8 engines!' and stuff them in the C7 body.

The S8 engine would be the obvious candidate - right power levels, we know it fits and the connections and stuff should be incredibly similar.
Be hard case for somebody to turn it down doing it.

It's hard to use traddition as a bench mark as the RS models have usually used two big fat turbo's which naturally sets them apart from the normal A and S range.

[bam_bam]

Likely a heavily worked over version of the 4.0TT but not a 'hey bring us some of those S8 engines!' and stuff them in the C7 body.

I hope so, everything I've read says it'll be a version of the current S8 engine but it can't be, it'll be a lot better... I hope. I wished they'd used the Panamera 4.8L in turbo S tune. It's got about 750Nm and the 7 speed PDK. T'would be good marketing too, "Audi and Porker are back together again!"... all the car hacks would be dusting off their old RS2 reviews... hmmm, that could get dull, scratch that.

[HYFR]

it will be the S8 4.0TT with 600PS, stop start, cylinder de-activation etc, 25mpg and decent CO2

[sweegie]

To date, the RS6 has never shared an engine with another model...... I'm betting there will be a few demon tweaks

[HYFR]

TTRS and RS 3 share an engine

S4 and RS 4 B7 share the same block

RS 5 and RS 4 share same engine

B5 RS 4 and S4 shared the same block

[sakimano]

1. TTRS and RS 3 share an engine

2. S4 and RS 4 B7 share the same block

3. RS 5 and RS 4 share same engine

4. B5 RS 4 and S4 shared the same block

1. TTRS and RS3 are both RS cars. Neither is A or S. No big deal if they share an engine with each other.

2. S4 and RS4 (B6/7) shared absolutely nothing other than coil packs, number of cylinders and displacement nomenclature (4.2). Not even close to the same engine. MPI vs. FSI. Totally different heads. Totally different block. Totally different cams...totally different everything.

3. RS5 and RS4 are both RS cars. Neither is A or S. No big deal if they share an engine with each other (and the R8 in principle).

4. S4 and RS4 (B5) were VERY different. The engines (different blocks and heads) again shared displacement and parts are often interchangeable but the RS4 was a fully reworked engine touched by the hand of Cosworth (like the C5 RS6 motor) vs. the S4 2.7T.

So I will say it again...it won't be 'the S8 engine'. It may be a 4.0 V8 with two valley mounted twin scroll turbos and FSI...but when quattro is done with it, it will be a VERY different animal.

It's hard to use traddition as a bench mark as the RS models have usually used two big fat turbo's which naturally sets them apart from the normal A and S range.

well, Audi RS tradition is not that simple and I think you'll find that 'usually' isn't exactly so easy to say.

RS2 - fully reworked version of the 2.2T single turbo with massive changes, big turbo, big intercooling etc. Shared with no other car.
RS4 B5 - fully reworked 2.7T ...major changes to block, heads, exhaust/intake cams, intake, clutch etc. with lot of input by Cosworth
RS6 C5 - an engine developed just for that car and not used on any other. Nothing like the BHF B6/7 engine...nothing like the previous timing belt A6 4.2/S6/A8/S8 engine. Twin turbo 4.2 V8, fully reworked by Cosworth.
RS4 B7 - fully new engine...4.2 FSI. Shared almost nothing with any of the other 4.2 engines that came before it.
RS6 C6 - new engine used in no other Audi; reworked and re-inforced 5.0 V10 and twin turbocharged. Related to the old Gallardo engine, but with hundreds of changes.
TTRS - all new 5 cyl 2.5 single turbo used in no other car other than...
RS3 - see above
RS5 - newly updated 4.2 FSI used in no other cars other than R8 4.2, RS4 B8
RS4 B8 - see above

Now that's 9 models, of which:

3 are single turbo
3 are twin turbo
3 are NA 4.2 V8

Don't forget quattro's R models...the R8 4.2 and 5.2
R8 4.2 - closely related to RS4 B7 engine
R8 5.2 - closely related to Lamborghini Gallardo engine

So really the R/RS models include:

3 are single turbo
3 are twin turbo
4 are NA 4.2 V8
1 is NA 5.2 V8

So...what's 'normal' again?