|
So C&D tested the Audi S3 and it did the quarter-mile in 12.9 @ 108. I fail to see how this is possible for a 3300 lb car with 290 hp. Alternatively, Motor Trend tested the Golf R which is the same power & weight and it did a 13.1 @ 104.9, which sounds more realistic. Is the press car a ringer? Or is the power underrated? MT got a much slower time for the S3, more in line with the Golf R.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
I dunno, there's probably a lot of variables between the Golf R and the S3 that could affect the quarter mile times. Not least the environment (altitude, weather, surface, tire compound, etc) that the cars were tested with. The transmission programming, materials, etc could all be different between the R and the S3. A lot of VW enthusiasts keep saying that VW intentionally underrates their cars, but that was during the days of the 200hp Mk5 and Mk6 GTIs. I don't see why they wouldn't go balls out on the rated horsepower for the S3 and Golf R.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I just don't see how a 3300 lb car can be that fast with 290 hp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Considering the underrating of the S4, I'd expect so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
The Golf-R is the same engine/transmission/etc. I saw a dyno somewhere where one put down 270ish hp and 280ftlb on a hub dyno using just the front wheels... north of 300bhp. A flash tune picks up a shitload of power, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Yea these engines are certainly capable of much more than they're rated at: http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsi_gen3_mqb_r.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Audi RS2 did it in 13.2 seconds at 310 BHP. Ur Quattro in 14.3 at 220 HP. Just as a benchmark. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Car and driver tested the 320hp, 3525lb M325i at 12.9@109mph Motor trend ran 13.4@102 in the S3, and 13.0@106.6 in the BMW and 13.1@104.4 in the WRX STI with a manual and decade old engine. The differences could be down to the fuel used. the car and driver test was done in england Where their premium fuel would be the equivalent of 93-94 octane in the US. The motor trend test was done in california where 91 is premium. The 2.3 ecoboost in the mustang is rated at 275hp on 87, 310 on 93. If it is under-rated, it's not under-rated by much, as the performance falls pretty much in line with other similar cars. It's not secretly 350hp. It might be 300 under the right conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Yeah there is a huge difference between 13.4@102 and 12.9@108. I can believe 13.4 from 292 hp. That is actually probably a 50 hp difference to get those two numbers. Even that M325i seems really fast. It's pretty well known the new BMWs are way underrated. You will be hard pressed to find any cars with that kind of power-to-weight ratio that can do a 13.0 second quarter mile. You might be on to something with the high octane, but 93 is pretty widely available in the USA. Maybe the 91 octane in California is causing the manufacturers to lower their HP ratings even though the cars are faster on 93. ozziegt fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
ozziegt posted:Yeah there is a huge difference between 13.4@102 and 12.9@108. I can believe 13.4 from 292 hp. That is actually probably a 50 hp difference to get those two numbers. The WRX STI is 305hp, 3400lbs, and can only be shifted as fast as a human can shift it and runs 13.1 and can only be launched as hard as you're wiling to dump the clutch. it uses a 10 year old engine with a relatively large amount of lag compared to modern turbo engines. It has been dyno tested at 247whp, which is what you would expect out of 305hp at the crank. The difference in 0-60 between the manual and PDK in lower end 911s is nearly half a second. The 3300lb 997 carerra with 345hp in 3320lbs was tested by C&D at 12.5@113mph with the PDK. Evo magazine in the Uk tested the euro S3 with the 6 speed, and it took 5.4 seconds to get to 62mph, vs 4.8 for the dct, which falls in line with motor trend's 4.7 with the US spec which is dct only with C&D's 4.4 being the outlier. A modern high tech engine combined with the speed of the transmissions shifts gives it the impressive number. The difference in power from the difference in fuel is likely the reason why motor trend's quarter mile number is so different. The 435i with the same engine as the M235i and a manual transmission at 3621lbs runs 13.7@105. The ecoboost mustang with a manual at 3657lbs runs 13.9@102. It has the same weight, less horsepower, a much faster transmission, and a much more modern engine than the STI, and puts up similar numbers, worse numbers when equipped with the 6 speed stick. If the S3 is underrated, then so is the BMW, and the mustang, and the STI, and the 911. The STi has been dyno'd at 247whp, the mustang has been dyno'd at 275whp. So your answer. No, the power is not under-reported. It's performance is in line with every other car with similar horsepower, weight, dual clutch transmission, and traction at launch. Car and driver achieved a launch much quicker than both the manufacturers performance figures and other magazine tests of the same car.It could have been a tail wind, a ringer, a lucky launch, or a measurement error. You would have to ignore every other fact presented and focus only on that 12.9 to still be convinced otherwise. Every other test, every other similar vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
The S4 is advertised as making 333 and MT dyno'd one at 330 at all 4 wheels (iirc) . 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:The S4 is advertised as making 333 and MT dyno'd one at 330 at all 4 wheels (iirc) . But the 333hp figure audi gives on the S4 is for the entire range from 5500-6500 RPM. It's not hard to imagine it could peak higher anywhere in there, but for them to advertise it as such, it must be at or over 333hp at 5500, 6500, and everywhere in between. most actual owner dynos show 300-306hp in 3rd(1.52) or 4th(1.13) gear because there is no 1.0 gear. that would increase it by as much as 5% at 1:1 that 306hp would be 291whp. The WRX is 16% less at the wheels, if the audi is similar, that's about 350hp at the crank. Car and driver tested the 3869lb, 333hp, 325ft/lb S4 at 13.4@106 and audi's number is 13.5 seconds. The 4395lb, 340hp, 339ft/lb porsche macan runs 13.5@102mph. The infiniti Q50s at 328hp/269ftlbs in 3713lbs ran 13.5@104, and you know nissan isn't under-rating that loving turd. The jaaaaaaaag f-type v6 at 380hp/3800lbs did it in 12.9@109. If they are under-rating it, it has nowhere to go. it's 330whp and 20% drivetrain loss for four hunnert horsepower at the crank, why isn't it faster than the jag? The naturally aspirated 268hp 3484lb v6 camry runs 14.3@100mph. Faster than the turbocharged 272hp 3477lb 2.0 ATS at 14.8@94. Is Toyota under-rating the Camry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
This is a really good thread. Glad this is its own thread as opposed to being in I don't know, the chat thread. or any of the other loving threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
I think you are getting too caught up in the straight line speed. Audi was never building cars to win drag races, they built rally and endurance vehicles, which depend more upon 0-60 times and being able to resume speed faster. The Audi Quattro S1 and S2 rally cars never had awesome straight line speed, or good quarter mile times, and they spent most of their time at 60-80 MPH on courses that were winding and tight. I'm not surprised by the quarter mile time, as that is not an Audi's purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think you are getting too caught up in the straight line speed. Audi was never building cars to win drag races, they built rally and endurance vehicles, which depend more upon 0-60 times and being able to resume speed faster. But they're 30 year old cars and Audi hasn't made a rally car since then. Arguing that the race car only S1 and S2 have anything to do with the road going S3 aside from naming conventions is beyond pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Why did Audi stop being cool, anyway? Was it being bought out or did they just decide to chase the American market like BMW?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Why did Audi stop being cool, anyway? Was it being bought out or did they just decide to chase the American market like BMW? Their buyers turned 60.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Aargh posted:But they're 30 year old cars and Audi hasn't made a rally car since then. Arguing that the race car only S1 and S2 have anything to do with the road going S3 aside from naming conventions is beyond pointless. Not entirely true, a lot of their newer transmission use similar gearing, and they've carried a lot of the mechanical designs over from one generation to the next, despite the updated faces and bodies and the addition of some extra gears. Either way, Audi was never like the Corvette, Challenger, BMW, or others where straight line speed was the goal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not entirely true, a lot of their newer transmission use similar gearing, and they've carried a lot of the mechanical designs over from one generation to the next, despite the updated faces and bodies and the addition of some extra gears. The turbo in my A3 is tuned for boatloads of mid range grunt and it's super fun. At first I was annoyed that it sort of wheezed out before you hit the top end of the rev range but in day to day driving and on the track there's just loads of power available everywhere after 2.5k rpm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not entirely true, a lot of their newer transmission use similar gearing, and they've carried a lot of the mechanical designs over from one generation to the next, despite the updated faces and bodies and the addition of some extra gears. I'm pretty sure the primary design influence behind the Audi A3 is the 2016 VW golf because they are literally the same car. It's not like a Corvette or Challenger in a straight line or anywhere else because it's a cynical re-badge of a goddamn FWD econobox. You are a crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I'm pretty sure the primary design influence behind the Audi A3 is the 2016 VW golf because they are literally the same car. It's not like a Corvette or Challenger in a straight line or anywhere else because it's a cynical re-badge of a goddamn FWD econobox. You are a crazy person. To be fair the S3 usually is a 4WD Golf rebadge, so maybe Golf R? The S3 does however have more lineage with 2.0 litre turbo 4's as when VW was rocking the R32 the S3 was a turbo. Maybe the Golf Rs are debadged Audis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I'm pretty sure the primary design influence behind the Audi A3 is the 2016 VW golf because they are literally the same car. It's not like a Corvette or Challenger in a straight line or anywhere else because it's a cynical re-badge of a goddamn FWD econobox. You are a crazy person. The A3 has always been a remix of the GTI really. My 06' shares just about everything except sheet metal and interior with a MKV GTI
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I'm pretty sure the primary design influence behind the Audi A3 is the 2016 VW golf because they are literally the same car. It's not like a Corvette or Challenger in a straight line or anywhere else because it's a cynical re-badge of a goddamn FWD econobox. You are a crazy person. The Golf is Transverse engine. Nope, I'm wrong, ignore me. I was looking at an older photo of a previous S3 version. You are pretty much spot on, its just a Golf GTI engine layout 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:02
|
|