If the S4 was only RWD, how fast would it do 0-60 mph and 1/4 assuming that an AWD will do a 5.0
06-01-2004, 01:22 PM
#1
AudiWorld Uber User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 38,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the S4 was only RWD, how fast would it do 0-60 mph and 1/4 assuming that an AWD will do a 5.0
0-60 and 13.5 sec @ ??? mph quarter. I am trying to figure out how fast of a car I need to get as my next car and not feel like I am taking a step down speed-wise. I don't think I will be able to afford the SLK55 so maybe the V6 SLK350 is an option. Mercedes says it will do 0-100 hph in 5.6 seconds with manual trans (5.5 with 7-speed auto) including a required shift to third (gears are nice and tight together). The SLK350 is supposed to weigh a good 400 lbs less than the S4 so I am thinking even the V6 might feel close to the S4 speed-wise (without the big torque rush of course). Don't forget I live in the desert so traction is not as big an issue as for the rest of you.
06-01-2004, 01:34 PM
#4
AudiWorld Uber User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 38,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainly I want a two-seater. Problem is there is not much in the "middle" type price range. The jump
from Miata/MR2 to 911 is huge (I am sorry but I just will not own a Corvette). Though the updated SLK which is getting rave reviews would be great with its fancy-schmancy folding hard top, but the 350 and 5 models will straddle the "speed" of the S4.
06-01-2004, 01:36 PM
#5
Elder Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 12,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
think of it as a slightly torqueir 350Z engine, similar hp/tq numbers and also displacement.
should be as fast as a stock S4 at least...your numbers for the S4 look like stage 1 numbers (typical, not best)...
figure teh shift to thrid costs you a couple tenths at least...
it should be faster than a stock S4
figure teh shift to thrid costs you a couple tenths at least...
it should be faster than a stock S4
Trending Topics
06-01-2004, 01:50 PM
#8
AudiWorld Uber User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 38,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the new SLK will be less for the ladies. My Dad has a 97 C2S and I have no interest in it as
a daily driver. I would like a warranty and a nice interior. And my chipped S4 will woop Pop's 993.
06-01-2004, 01:56 PM
#9
AudiWorld Expert
the feeling is real, it's acceleration....
It's funny how the auto market sells Horsepower, yet it's the Torque that really gives you your acceleration. Check out my acceleration log below and tell me whether it correlates to my Horsepower or Torque graph? (granted I started the Acceleration log at a higher RPM than the on the dyno)
Anyway, we're currently looking for a new car for my finacee, and I find it interesting to compare the torque and full RPM band stats with these similar-(peak)HP-engines:
Acura TSX - 2.4L I-4, 200HP(@6800), 166FT-LBS(@4500)
Mazda 6 - 3.0L V6, 220HP(@6300), 192FT-LBS(@5000)
VW Jetta VR6 - 2.8L V6, 200HP(@6200), 195FT-LBS(@3200)
The Acura's 4 cylinder is good for a 4-cyl, but it's peak of 166 ft-lbs is the lowest of the bunch. The Mazda has the highest peak HP, but the torque peak is not until 5000 RPMs!!! The VW has the highest torque peak at the lowest RPM by far. On paper, it sure looks like the VW engine would be the quickest. We've test drove the top two and plan to test the VR6 this week. I honestly felt that her current 170hp Passat 1.8T Tip felt as fast as those first two, which makes sense as it has a torque peak of 166 ft-lbs at 1950 RPMs.
It'd be nice to have an overlay of dyno plots of all of these cars.
Here's that aforementioned comparison of Acceleration versus HP-or-Torque:
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/s4/misc_data/prod12_040415/accel.gif">
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/s4/dyno/mark_93beta_325hp_346tq.gif">
Anyway, we're currently looking for a new car for my finacee, and I find it interesting to compare the torque and full RPM band stats with these similar-(peak)HP-engines:
Acura TSX - 2.4L I-4, 200HP(@6800), 166FT-LBS(@4500)
Mazda 6 - 3.0L V6, 220HP(@6300), 192FT-LBS(@5000)
VW Jetta VR6 - 2.8L V6, 200HP(@6200), 195FT-LBS(@3200)
The Acura's 4 cylinder is good for a 4-cyl, but it's peak of 166 ft-lbs is the lowest of the bunch. The Mazda has the highest peak HP, but the torque peak is not until 5000 RPMs!!! The VW has the highest torque peak at the lowest RPM by far. On paper, it sure looks like the VW engine would be the quickest. We've test drove the top two and plan to test the VR6 this week. I honestly felt that her current 170hp Passat 1.8T Tip felt as fast as those first two, which makes sense as it has a torque peak of 166 ft-lbs at 1950 RPMs.
It'd be nice to have an overlay of dyno plots of all of these cars.
Here's that aforementioned comparison of Acceleration versus HP-or-Torque:
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/s4/misc_data/prod12_040415/accel.gif">
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/s4/dyno/mark_93beta_325hp_346tq.gif">
