LeadToRome

... from the following numbers?

Weight:
S4: 4000#
Camaro SS: 3860#
Mustang GT: 3580#

0-60 (in seconds):
S4: 4.9
SS: 4.6
GT: 4.6

0-100
S4:12.0
SS:10.5
GT: 11.0

1/4 Mile:
S4: 13.4 @106
SS: 13.0 @ 111
GT: 13.2 @ 109

Rolling 5-60:
S4: 5.6
SS: 5.3
GT:5.1

Top Gear 30-50:
S4: 8.9
SS: 11.2
GT: 9.3

Top Gear 50-70:
S4: 7.5
SS: 10.8
GT: 8.1

Mfr. reported HP:
S4: 333
SS: 426
GT: 412

Mfr. reported TQ @ RPM:
S4: 325 @ 5500
SS: 420 @ 4600
GT: 390 @ 4250

All numbers as reported by and (c) 2010 Car and Driver Magazine

zerinS4

Some cars are better than the others at some things? What conclusions do you want us to make? Numbers on paper don't tell the entire story.

Reds4Phil

Not bad for a V6 4-door sport sedan! That gets 18-28 MPG! Lets put these three through some curves. See Yah!

LeadToRome

edit: to ZerinTT: I don't know that I really want you to draw any particular conclusion at all. It's just data. To me it screams that Audi is under-reporting HP pretty drastically or Ford and Chevy are over-reporting it (or both, I guess). I was wondering if the numbers said the same thing to others, thus the lack of editorializing in the original post.

zerinS4

I can guarantee you neither Chevy nor Ford are over-reporting the horsepower out of their V8s. I think if you lined up all 3 cars, the GT would surprise you a bit more than these numbers would lead you to believe. We've reviewed and tested the 5.0 on the track and it's an absolute monster. A simple look at the trap speeds indicates where those V8s really shine.

LeadToRome

I'm quite sure that you're right, especially since it would be so easy to catch them at it. Thus naturally it makes me think about the other conclusion.

Reds4Phil

=+1

NWS4Guy

Well as we already knew, GOBS of TQ low down in the range, you can see these from the top gear pulls from 30-50 and 50-70.

Also underrated power numbers more than likely

DrGP

Based only on the numbers posted, its obvious that the Camaro and Mustang will win a drag race against the S4. And if that is the only criterion that you are using to judge the merits of a car, then the s4 is grossly overpriced. Fortunately most of us haven't purchased a car just to take to the drag strip. Put those 2 cars on a track and see what happens then. For that matter, try running those car in the rain or snow. I don't think anyone feels they should have gotten a Mustang or Camaro in stead of the S4. They are just too different and appeal to different buyers.

m444

Here is some more data from Car & Driver reviews;

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...c32_amg_page_4

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests

Weight:
2010 S4: 4000#
2004 S4: 3864#
2003 C32: 3651#

0-60 (in seconds):
2010 S4: 4.9
2004 S4: 5.0
2003 C32: 5.2

0-100
2010 S4:12.0
2004 S4: 12.8
2003 C32: 12.6

1/4 Mile:
2010 S4: 13.4 @106
2004 S4: 13.6 @ 103
2003 C32: 13.6 @ 105

Rolling 5-60:
2010 S4: 5.6
2004 S4: 5.9
2003 C32: 5.8

Top Gear 30-50:
2010 S4: 8.9
2004 S4: 7.7
2003 C32: 2.6

Top Gear 50-70:
2010 S4: 7.5
2004 S4: 7.0
2003 C32: 3.1

Mfr. reported HP:
2010 S4: 333
2004 S4: 340
2003 C32: 349

Mfr. reported TQ @ RPM:
2010 S4: 325 @ 5500
2004 S4: 302 @ 3500
2003 C32: 332 @ 3000

Different gearing and torque curves give different results. Also these cars have been tested at other times with different results. The flat torque curver with the supercharger gives fairly good results for 30-50 and 50-70 times. Note also, there are production differences in different cars of the same model with some variability in performance.