jmm3668

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...6/pageNumber=1

Pretty good showing for the E63!
0-60mph:
E63 4.3sec
M5 4.8 sec
S6 5.7sec

1/4 mile:
E63 12.7sec@ 113.3mph
M5 12.8 sec@ 115.6mph
S6 14.0 sec@ 102.9mph

Skidpad:
S6 .86g
E63 .84g
M5 .84g

Slalom:
M5 69.2mph
S6 67.4mph
E63 66.0mph

Whoopsy

the numbers looks quite right actually, just don't let the boys in the M5 room see that, they will have ALL sorts of excuses for M5 slower than E63. My favorite one being questioning the launch technique/gearbox setting/traction control/etc setting of edmunds' test driver, then proceed to say they are SURE something is wrong and their beloved M5 is much faster than that blah blah blah.

Just as I have suspected, the S6 is close but definitely NOT in the same league as the M5/E63/E55. It's more or less in the same class as the E550 instead.

AndyAMG

I def. agree. Keep this info out of the bmw forums.

HemantS

There is no way the S6 is that slow. Either Edmunds can't drive Audi's or they deliberately try not to. The S6 has been clocked at 4.9 and 5.1 which is right in line with it's horsepower to weight ratio.

egxpimp

I'll take an M5 please

Carl Lassiter

True. I would of thought it would turn in about a 5.2 to 60.

The M5 and E63 are in a different class to the S6 though. The RS6 will redress the balance.

Fikse

it's slow.... dodge neon's are quicker.... the S6 is overweight and AWD causes large drivetrain losses....

Whoopsy

S6 weights almost 4500lb, which is 500 more than E63/M5.

S6 has 435hp, which is 70+ less than E63/M5.

Simple physics dictates that it CANNOT keep up with the other 2 cars.

Off the top of my head, I think the S6 has around the same weight/hp ratio as a E550 4matic, 10.5 or something like that.

Yes it has a V10 but a V10 no good when it's castrated. For S6 to be in the same ballpark as E63/M5, the V10 needs to produced about 540-550hp, not 435hp.

Carl Lassiter

the 997TT is AWD. I realize it is much lighter but my point is that AWD makes all the hp useable all the time and I would certainly trade a touch of dry highway pickup for that. The RS Audi's don't really run out steam. The 2004 RS6Plus is a great example. It is a genuine 190mph wagon

HemantS

Agreed, I wasn't suggesting that the S6 could keep up with the other two in a straight line, only that 5.7 is way off.

CLS550 and BMW550 are 5.2-5.3, I would think the S6 would be 5.0 give or take.

And I agree with Carl. AWD is a penalty in a straight line, but an advantage on the track.

Case in point the S4 which is 1/2 second slower than the M3 in a straight line, is faster around most tracks.

That being said I'd guess the S6 would be closer to the CLS63 around a track than it would to a CLS550.

MB Fanatic

Around a track it all comes down to the driver.

What niche is the S6 trying to fill? Come on its not in the same league as an AMG or M. The only cars that come close are the RS line of cars from Audi. An E550 Sport is quicker than the S6 and cheaper.

I just dont get Audi sometimes. Is it trying to compete against the stock E550, E63, BMW 550i, or M5?

HemantS

Audi is trying to market their product in between the 550 and the AMG/M, and the RS above the AMG/M.

This way they think (maybe) they can avoid direct comparisons? Who knows.

MB Fanatic

Clearly they have failed in their product placement. RS above AMG/M? What a joke haha.

The only decent product they have put out is the new RS4, and even then its over once the BMW M3 comes out.

HemantS

Well, keep in mind that the S4 (not RS4) is faster around a track than the current M3. The new M3 might be faster in a straight line but that's about it - we shall see.

The previous RS6 came out when the E39 M5 was still current and was certainly placed well above that in terms of performance. In fact, the C5 RS6 can still give the M5 and E63 a run for their money around a track albeit it is closer. The next RS6 is rumoured to have close to 600hp.

It's a good time to be a power hungry buyer

MB Fanatic

1. Around a track in the S4 and M3, its dependent on driver. The times are not that far off. An experienced driver can beat the S4 to shreds.
2. The previous RS didnt have a candle on the M5, though the old E55 was obliterated by it, IMO. The C5 RS6 lacks the power the M5 and E63 lack the high end power that the two cars put down on a track.
3. The next RS6 is rumored to have 550hp from a twin turbo V10. Now thats sad. A V10 that is twin turbo should be puitting out well over 600hp. Not 550. Sure the Mercedes 6 liter V12 twin turbo only makes 604hp, but that is an old school motore with no modern engine gizmos.

Fikse

should also consider what AMG vs S Audi HP means.... when AMG says your getting 604HP, you know you're going to get more.... not so much with the Audi.....

Carl Lassiter

1. True. In dry conditions, the M3 is going to be quicker around more tracks than the S4.

2. Old RS6 was much quicker than the E39 M5. Of course, E39 M5 is a classic and offered much more than just brute power.
3. When Audi bored out the Gallardo V10 to 5.2 liters they were basically warned off putting out a high hp version of the engine. They also wanted more low down torque, to suit the characteristics of an S8 that most buyers expect. If the TTV10 is used, 550bhp has to be seen in the context of low down power and everyday performance. It will also be very easy for owners to extract more power. Audi could of course make it produce over 600bhp but manufacturers rarely release engines at their highest possible state of tune for various reasons. Also, it would make the Lambo engine suitably different in character, Gallardo bosses and owners want. Anyway, it's all conjecture at the moment.

BTW, the engine from the 65 has its output artificially limited due to the gearbox, not because the engine is old. It would produce 700bhp and 900lb/ft if they could fit a gearbox that wouldn't melt at the thought of it. Of course, the 65 engine is also from a totally different price bracket.