adansirs5

Do you know how to drive? My best friend has a 2010 S4 fully loaded, I drive a 2009 S5, we have lined it up many times , and allso on the highway , I must admit the S4 is quick but i allways pull ahead easily after 70, the rest is history, all these guys saying the s4 is faster are full of it, allso the s4 is a heavyer car overall, the test results from the german magazine auto motor und sport allso state the S5 as being faster from 60 to 140. as do car & driver.

MikeQuattro

yeah I know how to drive. Like I said I was in third at 80, all I did was step on the gas. Is it possible, that my AWE exhaust has actually made me slower. I don't think so, because the car feels faster since I've installed it.

acadia

Based on the Torque/HP curve, this is exactly what should happen, the theory matches the evidence. At high way speed and after 60, actually after about 30 the S5 will start pulling and you'll visibly start seeing the difference at 60-70, and once you get into the Triple digits it's simply no contest V8's extra HP and longer legs, strokes, take over.
But even simply using empirical data based on the engine curves, the expected result is that highway speeds the S5 should start pulling away.

v6t is a nice strong (fuel efficient engine), the v8 is a stronger, less full efficient engine.

Yes, alot, of people don't realize the S4 is actually heavier, and the v6t engine itself is only slightly lighter, virtually negligable because of the SC plumbing. The v6t is definitely far more fuel efficient.

But, at $60K-$65K for a fully equipped S5, and basically almost $75K after taxes and all do you think, I couldn't care less about saving a couple hundred bucks a year on fuel, come back in 20 years I might be singing a different tune.

IAS5

please explain how the S4 is trapping 3-4mph higher and .4 sec quicker than the S5, when it is "heavier" and has "less hp..."


perhaps someone should go look at the test sheets and see that at higher speeds, the S4 begins to pull away. Google "test sheets" in Car and Driver for these cars.

acadia

Perhaps, I looked and everyone called BS on that data, because, no other publication approached those numbers. Here was thee response, to that 12.9 and 4.5 sec 0-60 S4 run.

=====
S5 4.2 FSI has been tested by
car and driver - 0-60mph 4.8 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.4 seconds
road and track - 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds
Edmonds Insideline 0-60 mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds

The S4 3.0T has been tested by two of the same publications
car and driver - 0-60mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.4 seconds
Edmonds Insideline 0-60 mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds


That guy had either greatest tail wind in history or was running race fuel. Or simply, it's B.S.
Curb weight for both cars was around 3900 lbs in all tests (3850-3950)

spaniardone

Are those number for S5 with 6MT or 6AT???

IAS5

if you're looking at this, is there some selective reading on your behalf?
http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...udi_S4_B8.html

Even this is showing the S4 pulling away.
They comment that the S4 is noticeably faster.

The Road & Track article on the 4.5/12.9 showed calm winds, and three other cars tested at the same time. Why weren't their numbers greatly exaggerated too?

The S4 reached 120 in 16.0 seconds. What did the S5 reach 120 in? 17.3 by the same mag. Even if you don't want to believe the 12.9, all mags are showing the S4 pulling away at higher speeds....

Here's a link to a fellow AW formum member who tracked his stock S4 (DSG)
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/sho....php?t=2776175

Race fuel? you're reaching now....
And the "BS" comment is always the last leg to lean on, isn't it?


Who's everyone?

acadia

hold on, I read your selected reading, and someone else pointed out that no other publication remotely came close to the numbers that fastlap posted, in fact, this was the very comment.

=====
S5 4.2 FSI has been tested by
car and driver - 0-60mph 4.8 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.4 seconds
road and track - 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds
Edmonds Insideline 0-60 mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds

The S4 3.0T has been tested by two of the same publications
car and driver - 0-60mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.4 seconds
Edmonds Insideline 0-60 mph 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds

So, what is there BS, the persons comment to the fastlap article was correct, either fastlap has much better drivers than every other magazine tester out there, or basically, fastlaps numbers are the anamoly not the norm. So, the question remains why are there numbers so out of whack with every other tester.

It's like in the computer world and overclocking your CPU, if 1 reviewer gets 4GHz out of the 3GHz , and everyone else only got 3.5GHz, then you say well 3GHz chip can get 3.5gHz worth of performance overclocked, you don't say that anyone will likely repeat the 4GHz feat.

The point, fastlap's numbers seem suspect because, they aren't anywhere close to anyone elses numbers. If this were a test, someone would be pulled into the principles office.

If fastlap said oh we got 4.7, 4.8 ok, sure, but a whole half a second almost from everyone elses numbers you realize Audi publishes 5.1, Car and Driver, Edmunds were likely going to produce faster numbers than 5.1 , 4.9 was reasonable, but 4.5 there is something definitely wrong. Even, if you told me the S5 got 4.5 and I never heard of an S4, I'd be like ok, but that seems way out of norm.

IAS5

Road & track posted 4.5/12.9. Fastest lap collects the data- shall i post the R & T link of that for you?

BTW, Fastest lap showed 4.8 to 60. They showed 12.9 for the quarter mile. A FELLOW FORUM member clocked 13.0, and has the timeslip to prove it, yet you choose to dismiss that.

runs around the raceways (VIR for example), also show the diff between the two.

And you keep mentioning "somebody else..." who? If you are suspect of the 4.5/12.9, look at all the magazines numbers between the two up to 120 (130...) they all show the S4 being quicker, yet do not acknowledge that. you can search the net, i'm sure you see the numbers. shall i link the car and driver links showing the S4 and S5's stats to 120 and 130?

Go ahead and believe that "somebody else,"---and you're also now repeating yourself, which is kind now becomes a waste of time trying to have some kind of intelligent debate with you, so i'll let this one go. You've provided no basis for your argument.

acadia

Yes please post link, also, post link of fastest ever S5 times you've found, and quarter mile times.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6212023/...yum/index.html

Oh ... wait , here is motortrend of the S5 at 0-60 of 4.5 secs, quarter of 13.1 and trap speed 105.2mph, .... let's see I'm going to keep looking and see how many more I can find to support my argument. Just like you are doing.

This is stupid, like I said the first time based on the torque / hp curve the S5 should pull away but all things being equal, the S4 isn't trouncing on the S5. Both of these cars have similar performance.

And like I said again, a proper GT car deserves a proper V8, and the sound of the V8 S5 alone is worth the price of admission. I'd have never purchased the S5 with a v6t, I'd simply have to wait it out until I found something else I liked although my A4 1.8t 2001 had 140,000 miles on it, so it was about that time, or wait for the RS5, point was I don't want, and still don't want the v6t.