C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

4.0 V8 40v biturbo TFSI - 420 bhp
User avatar
P_G
Cruising
Posts: 8249
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:25 pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by P_G » Tue May 29, 2012 9:52 pm

ArthurPE wrote:
P_G wrote: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?
Because believe it or not they don't always know that their cars are bring used in a comparison test.

User avatar
JCviggen
5th Gear
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:24 am
Location: Belgium / Russia

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by JCviggen » Tue May 29, 2012 10:27 pm

Figures are a bit too fast for a "420bhp" car. 115mph after a quarter mile is serious stuff. I reckon they tweaked it a little at the factory before turning it over for the test.
B7 RS4 saloon Misano red, comfy seats, JHM tune & JHM full exhaust with cats and resonators - gone.
C5 RS6 Avant Daytona/Cognac - gone.
981 Cayman GTS Gray/Orange.
My youtube

User avatar
ArthurPE
Cruising
Posts: 3707
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:15 am
Location: USA

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by ArthurPE » Tue May 29, 2012 10:46 pm

P_G wrote:
ArthurPE wrote:
P_G wrote: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?
Because believe it or not they don't always know that their cars are bring used in a comparison test.
there is no way Audi is giving up a car for testing unless they know all conditions
in this case, if they fare well, great
if not, they were up against cars with more power costing alot more
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein

User avatar
P_G
Cruising
Posts: 8249
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:25 pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by P_G » Wed May 30, 2012 9:49 am

Like said believe it or not. You chose not, that's fine with me.

User avatar
sakimano
5th Gear
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by sakimano » Wed May 30, 2012 3:14 pm

JCviggen wrote:Figures are a bit too fast for a "420bhp" car. 115mph after a quarter mile is serious stuff. I reckon they tweaked it a little at the factory before turning it over for the test.
no possible chance of that. Underpromise, overdeliver is their motto...not 'over pump the car for road tests, then get sued when people can't replicate the performance'. That's Mazda's motto.

The 420hp/406 tq quote assumes you're putting the worse grade gas in the car that is allowable by the manufacturer. That would be California 91 in the US (same as around 93-94 in europe) and that's some shitty fuel. The car is pulling timing, and is sluggish. Put 94 US octane in like I do here...which is like 98-99 in Europe) and like Car and Driver did in Europe when they tested this particular S6, and you have a whole different animal making tons of timing and really runs quite a bit better. B8 S4 quoted at 333 hp, yet it dynos around 300 whp. Again even using 15% losses it's making 350 hp and is underrated 6%. I bet you a coke that on a dynojet wheel horsepower dyno, the new S6 will dyno around 385 wheel horsepower, which at 15% losses means about 450 hp at the crank and likely means around 430 torque to boot.

When you then look at the torque curve...which hits peak at about 1500 rpm and stays there till north of 5000 rpm, you see that this car is a monster. Launch it at 5000 RPM which grabs at about 4000 rpm, and you are NEVER out of the powerband. The dyno sheets provided by Audi also show a sharp drop off at 6000 rpms...a.k.a. their tune is limiting boost artificially up there, as they did with the B8 S4. They've left another 10% on the table in the tune alone. So a tune only C7 S6 should likely see WHP boosted from around 385 to around 420 at the wheels (or from 450 to about 500 hp at the crank).

Fact is from 0 to about 6000 RPMs this car behaves like a 500 hp car would...but then the boost nannies step in and make it behave like a 450 hp car for the last 500 or so RPM before you shift.

User avatar
JCviggen
5th Gear
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:24 am
Location: Belgium / Russia

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by JCviggen » Wed May 30, 2012 4:17 pm

sakimano wrote: no possible chance of that. Underpromise, overdeliver is their motto...not 'over pump the car for road tests
I know of at least one German magazine that received a mapped C5 RS6 from Audi back in the day.

They don't rate engine power for the lowest possible gas quality, ever. That's not to say that (particularly turbo engines) here or there some engine types make more power than they should, but not 30hp difference (that could get them in legal trouble)
B8 S4 quoted at 333 hp, yet it dynos around 300 whp. Again even using 15% losses it's making 350 hp and is underrated 6%
Comparing dynojet numbers to factory ratings is a bit of a stretch..dynojets are well known for being "entertainment only". The numbers that roll out of them are to be taken with a grain of salt (the "wheel" numbers always contain several percent worth of "loss", it's not raw data at all)
That said, I do believe the S4 overperforms by 10 to 15 bhp on average.

Somehow the test numbers don't really add up though. The 0-60 is insane, the 60-130 very mediocre by comparison (12.4 seconds) which doesn't seem to match with the trap speed of 115mph after a quarter mile. Anyway, regardless, that car had more than 420hp if it trapped 115 (whether they are all this way or not is another question)
I mean that's very close to the 580bhp C6 RS6.
B7 RS4 saloon Misano red, comfy seats, JHM tune & JHM full exhaust with cats and resonators - gone.
C5 RS6 Avant Daytona/Cognac - gone.
981 Cayman GTS Gray/Orange.
My youtube

User avatar
sakimano
5th Gear
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by sakimano » Wed May 30, 2012 4:41 pm

Considering the quarter mile for the S6:

1st gear = launch control at 5000+ rpms, grabbing around 4000+ rpms, then run out to to 6500 rpms and shift
2nd gear = 3700-6500 rpm then shift to 3rd
3rd gear = 4200-6500 rpm then shift to 4th
4th gear = 4700-6200 rpm (end 1/4 mile, trapping at 115 mph)

You're using plenty of that powerband where the car acts/behaves like a 500hp car. No wonder it kicked so much ass.

Lets look at 2nd gear alone for fun on the S6 at the start of its engagement in the quarter mile, to half way through the gear, to redline. Assume the Audi supplied dyno curve is accurate, and that on good gas the car is 6% under-rated from the factory numbers (as they've done on the other recently released forced induction cars).

Audi S6 (C7)
At 3700 rpm when second is engaged, the car is making around 430tq/300 horsepower.
At 5000 rpm, about half way through 2nd gear's service in the 1/4 mile, it is making about 430 tq/410 hp
At 6500 rpm it is making about 365tq/450 hp

Now lets look at another '420 hp' car in 2nd in the quarter mile:

Audi RS4 (B7)
At 4500 rpm when second is engaged, the car is making around tq/300 horsepower.
At 6250 rpm, about half way through 2nd gear's service in the 1/4 mile,it is making about 380 hp
At 6500 rpm it is making about 400 hp (peak 420 is made around 500 rpm earlier)

Add to this the fact many think the RS4 is if anything slightly OVER-rated...not underrated...and you can see the gap could be even bigger. This is 2nd gear...where the cars both hit 60 mph...so weight is not much of a factor here on in. The difference is about 300lbs for interests sake.

Considering the RS4 is launching with around 300 tq and the S6 is launching with 430 tq with launch control...and DSG to make shifts INSTANT vs. a 2 to 4 tenths of a second stretch where the RS4 is shifting/not accelerating...then add in the power gap at the various points and the superior curve/work the S6 exhibits, and you have your 6-7 mph difference in trap speed and 6-7 tenths ET difference.

Image

User avatar
sakimano
5th Gear
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by sakimano » Wed May 30, 2012 5:00 pm

JCviggen wrote:
1. I know of at least one German magazine that received a mapped C5 RS6 from Audi back in the day.

They don't rate engine power for the lowest possible gas quality, ever. That's not to say that (particularly turbo engines) here or there some engine types make more power than they should, but not 30hp difference (that could get them in legal trouble)

2. Comparing dynojet numbers to factory ratings is a bit of a stretch..dynojets are well known for being "entertainment only". The numbers that roll out of them are to be taken with a grain of salt (the "wheel" numbers always contain several percent worth of "loss", it's not raw data at all)
That said, I do believe the S4 overperforms by 10 to 15 bhp on average.

3. Somehow the test numbers don't really add up though. The 0-60 is insane, the 60-130 very mediocre by comparison (12.4 seconds) which doesn't seem to match with the trap speed of 115mph after a quarter mile. Anyway, regardless, that car had more than 420hp if it trapped 115 (whether they are all this way or not is another question)
I mean that's very close to the 580bhp C6 RS6.
1. you know of one magazine, so that's the Audi defacto standard? What magazine? Why was it mapped?

Then you go on to say Audi would get in trouble for selling the car with 30hp more than advertised (even though you have not addressed the fact the car was tested on 98 rather than on 93-94, the lowest Euro rating Audi approves and uses for hp/tq ratings). So...you think they'd commit a fraud of sorts, by sending a pumped up car to a test, loaded with an ECU calibration that will not be used in production...and that this is less dangerous or trouble causing than selling a 420hp car that actually makes 450 hp on good gas (even though you admit 10 seconds later that they already do this on the B8 S4 lol)

OK. That's a funny perspective.

2. the B8 S4 is under-rated. You yourself just said 10-15...15 hp is about 5% and means 348 hp factory. I said 350. Not sure what you're arguing here. Dynojet, dynapack, mustang dyno...you take your pick...the B8 S4 produces 290-310 whp routinely no matter how angry and stingy the dyno. NO CHANCE that car is really making 333hp crank only on good gas (and by good gas 93-94 north america spec, 98 or 99 using Euro spec).

3. the numbers add up nicely. 0-60 is excellent thanks to 430 tq available at idle (1500 rpm really, but who is counting) and a launch control program that launches from 5500 rpm. Factor in the DSG shifting in about 0.1 seconds (it's indiscernable on an acceleration PBOX chart on B8 S4s for example) and you have a flawless run to 60mph.

The car makes decent power, but nothing crazy....and that is reflected in the bigger MPH measurements. The torque, and area under the curve mean it gets the most out of its gifts...but its not fooling physics.

The 580 hp Rs6 had

no launch control
nowhere near as effective a transmission for shifting briskly (NOWHERE!)
more drivetrain losses thanks to that transmission
300 lbs more heft to haul about

That explains it's difficulty matcher the nimbler, and far more technologically advanced C6 S6 in the short end of the tests...and don't forget, despite those shortcomings, the C6 RS6 trapped 119-120mph routinely. That's a clear 5 mph more than the new S6...and that's monstrous as far as a difference goes. Adding those 5 mph require pretty serious power gains when you're up around 115-120. It's not the same as the power required to go from car trapping 105 to 110 .
Last edited by sakimano on Wed May 30, 2012 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ArthurPE
Cruising
Posts: 3707
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:15 am
Location: USA

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by ArthurPE » Wed May 30, 2012 5:14 pm

P_G wrote:Like said believe it or not. You chose not, that's fine with me.
it defies logic and sound business practice
but doesn't matter either way
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein

adsgreen
Cruising
Posts: 5571
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:54 am

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by adsgreen » Wed May 30, 2012 5:15 pm

sakimano wrote:
JCviggen wrote:Figures are a bit too fast for a "420bhp" car. 115mph after a quarter mile is serious stuff. I reckon they tweaked it a little at the factory before turning it over for the test.
no possible chance of that. Underpromise, overdeliver is their motto...not 'over pump the car for road tests, then get sued when people can't replicate the performance'. That's Mazda's motto.

The 420hp/406 tq quote assumes you're putting the worse grade gas in the car that is allowable by the manufacturer. That would be California 91 in the US (same as around 93-94 in europe) and that's some shitty fuel. The car is pulling timing, and is sluggish. Put 94 US octane in like I do here...which is like 98-99 in Europe) and like Car and Driver did in Europe when they tested this particular S6, and you have a whole different animal making tons of timing and really runs quite a bit better.
Not quite soo... In Europe manufacturers are allowed to specify the fuel when representing power figures (there are rules so they can't put 120ron race fuel in for example ;)). As such almost all cars (esp performance) are rated using the best fuel available that is allowed for the test. For example, the RS4 was 414bhp using 98ron (euro fuel) - the manual pretty much confirms this when it says performance will be worse with below 98 ron fuel. If it had been rated 414bhp using 95 ron fuel then manual would have said the reverse that performance is improved with 98 ron.
All the cars I've had over the last few years had said similar.

User avatar
ArthurPE
Cruising
Posts: 3707
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:15 am
Location: USA

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by ArthurPE » Wed May 30, 2012 5:16 pm

JCviggen wrote:Figures are a bit too fast for a "420bhp" car. 115mph after a quarter mile is serious stuff. I reckon they tweaked it a little at the factory before turning it over for the test.

it's not the HP that counts
it the torque, over a wide band with good gearing
launch control
awd
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein

User avatar
ArthurPE
Cruising
Posts: 3707
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:15 am
Location: USA

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by ArthurPE » Wed May 30, 2012 5:18 pm

adsgreen wrote:
sakimano wrote:
JCviggen wrote:Figures are a bit too fast for a "420bhp" car. 115mph after a quarter mile is serious stuff. I reckon they tweaked it a little at the factory before turning it over for the test.
no possible chance of that. Underpromise, overdeliver is their motto...not 'over pump the car for road tests, then get sued when people can't replicate the performance'. That's Mazda's motto.

The 420hp/406 tq quote assumes you're putting the worse grade gas in the car that is allowable by the manufacturer. That would be California 91 in the US (same as around 93-94 in europe) and that's some shitty fuel. The car is pulling timing, and is sluggish. Put 94 US octane in like I do here...which is like 98-99 in Europe) and like Car and Driver did in Europe when they tested this particular S6, and you have a whole different animal making tons of timing and really runs quite a bit better.
Not quite soo... In Europe manufacturers are allowed to specify the fuel when representing power figures (there are rules so they can't put 120ron race fuel in for example ;)). As such almost all cars (esp performance) are rated using the best fuel available that is allowed for the test. For example, the RS4 was 414bhp using 98ron (euro fuel) - the manual pretty much confirms this when it says performance will be worse with below 98 ron fuel. If it had been rated 414bhp using 95 ron fuel then manual would have said the reverse that performance is improved with 98 ron.
All the cars I've had over the last few years had said similar.
my car says rated performance is at 91 octane, we can get 93/94 here
they do this because in some areas you can only get 91 and for truth in advertising

I have the DIN power rating standard at home, I'll see what it says
in general rated HP is at the octane inside the filler flap
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein

adsgreen
Cruising
Posts: 5571
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:54 am

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by adsgreen » Wed May 30, 2012 5:19 pm

I can believe the trap speed - it's the same power as the RS4 with <beep> load torque and near zero shift times plus launch control and only slightly heavier (IIRC).

adsgreen
Cruising
Posts: 5571
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:54 am

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by adsgreen » Wed May 30, 2012 5:20 pm

ArthurPE wrote:
my car says rated performance is at 91 octane, we can get 93/94 here
they do this because in some areas you can only get 91 and for truth in advertising

I have the DIN power rating standard at home, I'll see what it says
in general rated HP is at the octane inside the filler flap
On mine it sayd "98 Only" on the filler cap (or recommended - would need to check).

User avatar
ArthurPE
Cruising
Posts: 3707
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:15 am
Location: USA

Re: C&D comparison: S6 vs M5 vs AMG E63

Post by ArthurPE » Wed May 30, 2012 5:23 pm

perfect example of HP vs Torque
HP is simialr, yet the heavier car is much faster
HP +10%
torque +35%
wt, the S6 is about 10% heavier, negating any power/wt advantage
but yet the S6 is much faster...torque

sakimano wrote:Considering the quarter mile for the S6:

1st gear = launch control at 5000+ rpms, grabbing around 4000+ rpms, then run out to to 6500 rpms and shift
2nd gear = 3700-6500 rpm then shift to 3rd
3rd gear = 4200-6500 rpm then shift to 4th
4th gear = 4700-6200 rpm (end 1/4 mile, trapping at 115 mph)

You're using plenty of that powerband where the car acts/behaves like a 500hp car. No wonder it kicked so much ass.

Lets look at 2nd gear alone for fun on the S6 at the start of its engagement in the quarter mile, to half way through the gear, to redline. Assume the Audi supplied dyno curve is accurate, and that on good gas the car is 6% under-rated from the factory numbers (as they've done on the other recently released forced induction cars).

Audi S6 (C7)
At 3700 rpm when second is engaged, the car is making around 430tq/300 horsepower.
At 5000 rpm, about half way through 2nd gear's service in the 1/4 mile, it is making about 430 tq/410 hp
At 6500 rpm it is making about 365tq/450 hp

Now lets look at another '420 hp' car in 2nd in the quarter mile:

Audi RS4 (B7)
At 4500 rpm when second is engaged, the car is making around tq/300 horsepower.
At 6250 rpm, about half way through 2nd gear's service in the 1/4 mile,it is making about 380 hp
At 6500 rpm it is making about 400 hp (peak 420 is made around 500 rpm earlier)

Add to this the fact many think the RS4 is if anything slightly OVER-rated...not underrated...and you can see the gap could be even bigger. This is 2nd gear...where the cars both hit 60 mph...so weight is not much of a factor here on in. The difference is about 300lbs for interests sake.

Considering the RS4 is launching with around 300 tq and the S6 is launching with 430 tq with launch control...and DSG to make shifts INSTANT vs. a 2 to 4 tenths of a second stretch where the RS4 is shifting/not accelerating...then add in the power gap at the various points and the superior curve/work the S6 exhibits, and you have your 6-7 mph difference in trap speed and 6-7 tenths ET difference.

Image
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein

Post Reply

Return to “S6 (C7 Typ 4G) 2012-”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest