Improviz,

here is a test of the e55 and xjr done by wheels magazine and the 80-120km/h kickdown numbers looks remarkably similar to the 80-120 increment in the standing start tests. I suppose you get that when you have data from the same magazine!!!!

sorry for the poor photos i don't have a scanner

 

what are you trying to argue then

 

Hey I am guessing the top one is E55 and the bottom one is the Jag?

 

WELL I THINK YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN TROUBLE THE RS4 FROM Audi IS THE NEW KING IN THIS PRICE RANGE SORRY BOYS BUT NO C55 or M3 is going to be able to beat that bad boy 418 hp 0-60 in I think 4.5 sec WOW! WE HAVE A NEW KING AND I"M THE BIGGEST MB FAN EVER, but I have to finally give Audi the nod! THIS ARGUMENT IS FUTILE BOTH M3 AND C55 are cooked

 

Wow. This is lame your comparing a 5 year old M3 ( ancient tech now ) to an C55 and RS4, thats pretty bad. Seeing how old the M3 is, and how well it performs id still take it over anything, im fairly sure the next gen E90 M3 will blow away the competition just like the E46 did in 2000.

 

$78,000 is nowhere near this price range (I'm not paying $78k for a Passat by the way). It's literally 30% more expensive than an M3 or C55. The RS4 is similar in price to a 997 Carrera S, which, by the way, absolutely destroys it.

Thanks for playing.

 

Reggid I have to agree with you & you seem to have the evidence to back you up. I don't see any reason why the rolling runs should be different at those increments to the standing start runs.

I mean, if they want to test say 80-120km/h in kickdown, the mags will start the car off at 70km/h. Floor it so the box kicks down or whatever, & the when the car hits 80km/h the clock starts. Why should the time be any different to if it were from a standing start? The only discrepancy I can think of the the normal one that happens between any 2 runs, like heat soak, etc.

 

Dude you are a mess! Kinda morbid but you are a mess.


Your Rs4 is a PIG after a 0-60 run. By the way,drop the 5.4L motor into your C230k sport so you can keep up with us.

 

1.8 liters of pure power!

 

LOL Don't worry RS4 on the way.....getcha off the line and in the twisties
Unless MB comes up with something better by time my lease is up. But then again it will probably cost an arm and a leg and possibly my other leg too so I won't be able to drive it lol.

I actually enjoy watching you guys argue. I'm too biased towards MB though so I would not bring anything objective to the table other than to say BMW M3 has MB's number in the twisties...... but then again that is nothing that we all didn't already know!!! lol

But seriously what do you guys think about that RS4.......You guys think Audi has finally done it with this car. I can't see what MB will come up with next to fight the upcoming M3 and this RS4.

All I can say is that I'm happy about these HPower wars because pretty soon cars like the c55 and the current M3 will be very affordable as is currently going on with the C32 Cheap horsepower baby....that's what I'm talking about!

 

And lovin every minute of it Hater lol. I could have had your car just figured I'd pay off my school loans first rather than drop 50k on a C class LOL
I may still get your car just at a 30-40% discount in about a year or two SUCKA J/k Great cars guys good luck with them!

 

Oh ya, one more thing. The RS4 doesn't have the torque of the C55, so it still won't be as much fun to drive.

 

1+ second in the world of auto racing is a LOT of difference. Where's the similiarity?? 2.8 versus 4.1? you deserve a for saying they are remotely similiar.

 

And you haven't addressed why the numbers would be so much faster on a car which was tested slower.

How is it possible for a car to be slower from 0-60, 0-100, and through the 1/4 mile and yet be calculated to be 1/2 second or faster in 30-50 and 50-70?

Basically what you are doing is what monkey boy does: presenting one data point and ignoring the others. Unfortunately, the others are still here, and I've provided more below.

Just as it is very convenient for you to ignore each and every question I've presented you with thus far.

But to placate your ever-tightening requirements, I've produced four (count 'em, four) tests of the same car, on the same day, which show exactly the same thing.

Horse****. You're claiming that only tests run on the exact same day, on the exact same car, are now valid, eh? Fine, I'll restrict my results to only that, and still show how full of **** you are.

...which you haven't proven, and I've got a little present for you: look down.

Like the tests I posted below, reg?

That's what you need to explain, because you're the one claiming that your method is perfectly sound and works under all conditions. So explain the following test results...

And I have several tests showing them not to be, which I'll upload now. First, an analysis:

Crossfire SRT-6:
subtracted 30-50 time: 2.0 seconds
actual rolling-start 30-50 time: 2.9 seconds

subtracted 50-70 time: 2.6 seconds
actual rolling-start 50-70 time: 3.3 seconds

Cadillac STS V8:
subtracted 30-50 time: 2.3 seconds
actual rolling-start 30-50 time: 3.4 seconds

subtracted 50-70 time: 3.1 seconds
actual rolling-start 50-70 time: 4.1 seconds

Mercedes SLK55 AMG:
subtracted 30-50 time: 1.6 seconds
actual rolling-start 30-50 time: 2.3 seconds

subtracted 50-70 time: 2.2 seconds
actual rolling-start 50-70 time: 2.9 seconds

Infiniti M45:
subtracted 30-50 time: 2.2 seconds
actual rolling-start 30-50 time: 2.9 seconds

subtracted 50-70 time: 3.0 seconds
actual rolling-start 50-70 time: 4.1 seconds

Want more? I've got a lot of Car & Driver tests of the same car, done on the same day, which show the same thing.

In the meantime, suck on these:

 

the data are from different cars and i was never comparing numbers between the two cars

i.e i gave two seperate examples ( one for the e55 and a separate one for the xjr) showing the 80-120 times in the standing start being the same as the kickdown times.

 

simple the test data are from different sources so theres to many variables to compare them with any accuracy, get over this lame comparison idea and stick to proper data as you seem to have now found!


Don't you agree that same day, same car etc etc should be used to make comparisons between rolling runs and standing start runs for a given car.

My data shows i'm right! So where does the horse**** come from?

I have found a lot of data which shows my theory is correct and you have found data that agrees with you (except you probably don't know why our numbers are different) and yet you haven't acknowledged that my data agrees with what i was saying and that it says something vastly different to yours.

Did you ever think that there are different ways to conduct the rolling run tests? Maybe some mags don't count the actual delay before the kickdown of the gears and maybe some do or for a 50-70 run thaey start at 45 and puch it. Fact is our data is different but both are correct, but you in your immaturity can not admit it can you.

 

No dude even the new M3 coming up with 400 hp gets it's a$$ kicked by That RS4. This car will not only kick the upcoming M3' s butt with the predicted 400hp vs 420 for the RS4 but it will also have more torque--- 317 The C55 would appear to be a better competitor because of its higher torque 376, but then again horsepower will kill it c55 362 vs RS4 420bhp......As you guys mentioned above no replacement for displacement and on the twisties c55 is done!

BTW the car costs 62k USD Pretty damn close to a fully loaded C55and with way more power!

 

True, but 0-60 and the c55 will still be seeing the back of that so-called Passat's A$$ real bad lol........GOT EM REMEMBER There is no replacement for displacement. Sorry I think MB will have to bring in the w204 amg to play in this upcoming new M3 and RS4 battle. Hopefully it will be out in time DOn't get it twisted though I am the biggest MB fan out here. But you have to acknowledge the RS4 as one bad motha SINCE IT IS IN THE SAME PRICE 50-60k price range. 62k to be exact!

Here is the Future IN 1-2 yrs M3 and RS4 will be battling it out fo first while Mercedes develops a new W204 amg or in the meantime come out with a temporary improved W203 C55 which I doubt. So New upcoming M3 or RS4 will be in first until then.

Again don't misunderstand me......Eventhough the upcoming M3 400hp will soon trounce the c55 I will still be in the market for a CPO c55.......Just to show you how big of a mB fan I am. On top of that that new 3 series........ I saw it and for the first time I thought Bimmer finally got to me, but that interior was DISGUSTING!!!!!!

About RS4
Numerous technical achievements – many of which hail from motorsport – give the new Audi RS 4 its unique class and character. These features include the high engine speed concept now being introduced for the first time in a production Audi, innovative FSI technology, as well as the latest generation of quattro drive with asymmetric/dynamic distribution of torque. Developing a maximum output of 420 bhp, the V8 revs up to a speed of 8250 rpm. With its displacement of 4163 cc, this engine exceeds the magical barrier of 100 bhp per litre - truly outstanding in a production saloon. Maximum torque of 317 lb-ft comes at 5500 rpm in this very compact engine, with 90 per cent of the engine’s torque consistently available between 2250 and 7600 rpm. The result is excellent muscle and pulling force at all times, enabling the driver whenever he – or she – wishes to drive in truly relaxed style without frequent gear changes.

Audi has chosen its trendsetting and groundbreaking FSI technology for the RS 4 saloon, direct gasoline injection ensuring even more effective combustion of the fuel/air mixture and, as a result, an even better power yield. This is matched by the highly responsive development of power, the RS 4 accelerating to 62 mph in 4.8 seconds and reaching 125 mph in 16.6 seconds. Top speed is cut off electronically at 155 mph.

All these features make for a very safe car however they somewhat limit the RS4's reflexes and driving excitement. Nonetheless the RS4 is one of the fewest ways to get into a five-door supercar that is roomy and practical and practically a bargain at just over $62K. The Audi RS4 is the first model to be created and developed in conjunction by both Quattro GmbH and Audi AG and no more than a few cars a day are built at the Quattro plant in Neckarsulm.

Specifications

Base Price, USD 62,000 Engine Type twin-turbo 30v dohc V6
Powertrain Layout front engine/awd Displacement, cc 2671
Power BHP 420 Power(DIN)@rpm 380@6100-7000 Torque lb-ft@rpm 325@2500-6000 Curb Weight, lb 3572 0-62 mph, sec 4.8
0-100 mph, sec 11.6 0-125 mph, sec 17.0
70-0 mph, ft 155 Top Speed, mph 155

 

Oh, BS. Only a fool would argue that it's possible for that to be true, conditions be damned...."Why, Improviz, it *is* possible for a car to run nearly a full second faster from 50-70 mph, and yet be slower in the 1/4 mile, than the same car tested on different occasions, because I say it is!"

Nonsense. A discrepancy that large WOULD show up in the 1/4 mile times, yet it does NOT. Reason: because your methodology is not sound.

Duck and weave...twist and spin....were this the only valid criterion, it would be impossible to compare any cars ever...and when the times from 0-xxx are very close for BOTH cars, yet the measured vs calculated (using your methodology) xx-yy times are WAY off, then something is wrong. Your ducking and dodging doesn't change what the numbers clearly show: that the cars I provided tracked very linearly in 0-xxx and 1/4 mile runs, yet the rolling-start numbers as calculated by your method were WAY off from what was actually measured. When multiple data points correlate in all instances except the theoretical one, something is wrong with the theory.

So, rather than admit your method was not foolproof, you instead act the fool and dance around it, saying that while the two cars are within a tenth or two of every other measured test, only in this one test did they differ, and that's not because you're wrong; oh, no, it's because they were done on two separate occasions!

From my data, which shows you're not. The data clearly show that your theory is not valid under all conditions.

Oh, I love this...when you find data which indicates your method works, you state it "proves your theory is correct", but when reems of data are produced which shows it doesn't, it is merely data which "agrees with me".

And you have the unmitigated gall to lecture me on the scientific method? Give me a break.

A theory must work under all conditions, not only under certain ideal conditions...and yours clearly fits the latter, as the data show.

Oh, and you, the Great Wizard of Science, do? So why not explain? Enlighten me...and enlighten me not with an opinion, but with something to back up what you're saying.

Oh, this is rich...despite my presenting reems of data showing cases where your method does not work, you won't concede a single solitary point over the entire course of a debate, but the moment you come up with a few data points which support your case, I'm supposed to bow down and kiss your feet?

I don't think so.

And maybe this is just conjecture on your part--unless you have something to back it up, that is...

Hahaa, so when I finally corner you using data which meets your ever-more-stringent criterion, I'm "immature". What a laugh...particularly coming as it does from someone who has conducted himself in such a condescending manner from the onset.

Do you recall writing the following:
Oh, wait, I just did, using data from four separate tests of four separate cars, and you're still trying to spin your way out of it with conjecture rather than admitting I wasn't simply blowing smoke, but was honestly and accurately reporting scientific test data I'd seen in magazines. And I don't appreciate your implication of dishonesty on my part, because my data is consistent, whether I use data from different tests OR from the same test.

And I believe you owe me an apology for acting as though I was being dishonest or deceitful in my presentation of these facts, when in fact even when your extremely stringent definition of "scientific" is employed, I still had no trouble whatsoever producing data that you implied I could not.

I produced four tests which prove my point with no difficulty. I could just easily have produced dozens. And only now that you painted yourself into a corner with your "same car, same day" criterion, only to have me handily produce the data, do you have the decency to admit that the data I'm producing is not somehow flawed, because of course if you were to do so, you'd have to concede that your data too is flawed...

And so now you gallantly offer an olive pit, rather than even having the decency to offer a branch.

Blah. Choke on it. Unlike some, I don't blithely brandish made-up numbers about; if I say the numbers don't support you, you can damn well believe that I'll produce numbers to prove my point.

If you have any data to support your claim of a difference in methodology, present it. Otherwise, your theory only holds under certain conditions, and is therefore NOT universally applicable.

 

Since you're into magazine racing here is a clip that contradicts your findings of the Rs4 being so much faster:


E46 BMW M3 45k:
Top Speed 155.0 mph / 249.6 kph
0 - 30 mph 1.7 seconds
0 - 60 mph 4.7 seconds
0 - 100 mph 11.6 seconds
0 - ¼ mile 13.6 seconds
Lateral Acceleration 0.91g
EPA City / Hwy 15 / 25 mpg

AMG W203 C55 :Base Price, USD 55,920 Engine Type 24-valve V8
Powertrain Layout front engine/rwd Displacement, cc 5439
Horsepower@rpm 362@5750 Torque lb-ft@rpm 376@4000
Curb Weight, lb 3605 0-60 mph, sec 4.7
1/4 mile, sec@mph 13.3@108 600 ft slalom, mph 67.5
70-0 / 60-0 mph, ft 165/116 Specifications

Older RS4:
Base Price, USD 62,000 Engine Type twin-turbo 30v dohc V6
Powertrain Layout front engine/awd Displacement, cc 2671
Power(DIN)@rpm 380@6100-7000 Torque lb-ft@rpm 325@2500-6000
Curb Weight, lb 3572 0-62 mph, sec 4.9
0-100 mph, sec 11.6 0-125 mph, sec 17.0
70-0 mph, ft 155 Top Speed, mph 155


Question,Why does this older,slower rs4 have more TQ than your newer ,slower,heavier(3600-3800lbs),more expensive than the other cars you mentioned slug P-I-G Rs4?
And the real dumb thing is that you gave us the specs on the old V6 Rs4 ! I guarantee you the new one will cost much much more than 62k.




So when you wake up from this terrible drug induced dream you're having,please let us know because we are very compassionate people on this forum.

 

omg

 

All i want from you is to explain why my numbers show that the times are similar, and i have enough of them so they are not an anomaly. The test results we have posted are so different and there must be a logical reason behind the difference. Maybe my theory isn't universal and is dependant on test method but i'm not concerned enough to contact the magazine to get proof of this. Do you agree the most likely reason for the variation is the kickdown time which more than likely was not included by my sources.

btw, do you have any data for manual cars? most testers don't usually do runs in 2nd gear which is an important test for a rolling start.

edit: The main point of this discussion comes back to how do you determine which car is faster from a roll! The main point i wanted to show with my last half a dozen or so posts is that the incremental times from a standing start can be used, the kickdown rolling runs from some sources confirmed what i was saying and others did not whether due to a difference in test method or something else. I still can not see why the times should be significantly different apart from the delay in the kickdown of an automatic transmission, and nobody has given any physical reason to doubt my suspicions

 

That's a whole lot of assumptions you are making, but if you are very serious about the twisties, etc., you shouldn't be driving a C230 to begin with.

As far as the RS4, I think it's awesome, and in fact it's what the S4 should have been to begin with. But 62K + options for an Audi? Where did you get this number? I think I am still going to stand in line for a Porsche Cayman S. It's not the same car, but I will really have to be convinced behind the wheel of the RS4 to even consider one.

Cheap power? You might want to get a used 05 'Stang and dump a supercharger in it.

 

RS4 vs( M3 and C55) = PIG RS4. I like the RS4 but I wish this guy would just get real.It's a fine track car but in a mile run it will get buried by the M3 and C55. And all of the facts he's laid down with the RS4 vs the M3 and C55 have been inaccurate to invisible to this point.Like the movie says "Show Me The $$$$$"!

 

Nope sorry bud your wrong again DODO HEAD! THE SPECS I GAVE YOU AT THE END WERE FOR THE V6 older RS4, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THE V* $@)BHP WILL EAT UP THE NEW UPCOMING M3 And The C55 anyday buddy. GET OVER IT BUDDY WHY CAN"T YOU TAKE IT THAT MB AMG IS NOT ALL THAT IN EVERY CATEGORY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU IGNORANT FOOL! CAR MAGS ARE BIASED to begin with, but your dumb comparison once again proves what I SAID FROM THE BEGGINING FOOOL>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IT"S GOING TO BE the new 400hp M3 vs RS4 at 62k foool still same price dodo head lol C55 is outdone by both of these cars. Straight line twisties you name it.................. C55 is done DODO head! Get over it. Until W204 amg comes out then MY PEOPLE AMG WILL BE BACK ON TOP.......WHY MY PEOPLE BECAUSE I WOULD STILL TAKE A C55 anyday over an Audi, but facts are facts and the new RS4 and the Upcoming M3 will outdue the current c55 ANY DAY........aGAIN UNTIL AMG COMES OUT WITH W204 C...WHATEVER!
NO WONDER THIS THREAD HAS GONE SO LONG YOU ARE A VERY STUBURN DUDE AND WILL DEFEND MB TILL THE END............REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS!

ONCE AGAIN MY FINAL ARGUMENT TO REPEAT.......... THE NEW V8 RS4 420BHP AND THE NEW UPCOMING M3 400HP WILL BE BATTLING IT OUT FOR FIRST AND THE C55 HAS IT'S SPOT CURRENTLY SECURED AT THIRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FINAL POINT I AM A BIGGER MB FAN THAN YOU! C55 IN THIRD IS OK WITH ME ID STILL BUY IT JUST IN 1-2 YRS WHEN THE 30-40% PREDICTED DISCOUNT SET BY THE CURRENT ASKING PRICE OF 2-3YR OLD C32'S I'M NOT AS STUBBORN AS YOU ARE WITH THE FACTS........UNTIL MB IMPROVES C55 IT WILL NOT BEAT THESE TWO CARS ABOVE COMING UP!