0-60 in 5.7 seconds for A4 2.0T Quattro 6sp-auto, according to Car and Driver

[belzebutt]

I know that my car (ok so it's an Avant and with larger wheels) gets nowhere near that , I'm just wondering how they got that figure. I believe Audi Canada says 6.5 for 0-100 km/h. Of course I didn't really mash the throttle while keeping brakes on and I didn't use real instruments but still, 5.7 seconds...

Basically I'd like to compare apples-to-apples to a BMW 328i XDrive and other cars, I normally use Car and Driver but in this case they seem very optimistic.

[sakimano]

I know that my car (ok so it's an Avant and with larger wheels) gets nowhere near that , I'm just wondering how they got that figure. I believe Audi Canada says 6.5 for 0-100 km/h. Of course I didn't really mash the throttle while keeping brakes on and I didn't use real instruments but still, 5.7 seconds...

Basically I'd like to compare apples-to-apples to a BMW 328i XDrive and other cars, I normally use Car and Driver but in this case they seem very optimistic.

C&D apparently tests 0-60 mph by giving a 1 foot rollout before the timer starts. The B6 S4 was tested at 4.99 seconds to 60mph by them a few years ago.

[gtrab]

down hill ??


.

[{PMS}fishy]

down hill ??


.

w/tailwind

[scottyuk]

C&D apparently tests 0-60 mph by giving a 1 foot rollout before the timer starts. The B6 S4 was tested at 4.99 seconds to 60mph by them a few years ago.

That's the most ridiculous method of testing I've ever heard of. I guess they do it to grab headlines and get figures that are discussed on forums and hence they get publicity.

I think we should ban any reference to them as they're simply misleading and add no value whatsoever.

[HobbesA5]

That's the most ridiculous method of testing I've ever heard of. I guess they do it to grab headlines and get figures that are discussed on forums and hence they get publicity.

I think we should ban any reference to them as they're simply misleading and add no value whatsoever.

I believe most U.S. publications use a similar method, and have for quite a long time.

[buckeye96]

That's the most ridiculous method of testing I've ever heard of. I guess they do it to grab headlines and get figures that are discussed on forums and hence they get publicity.

Read edmunds, they do both.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=154386

The SRT8 posts a 5.3-second run to 60 mph (5.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=130988

A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

[belzebutt]

That's the most ridiculous method of testing I've ever heard of. I guess they do it to grab headlines and get figures that are discussed on forums and hence they get publicity.

I think we should ban any reference to them as they're simply misleading and add no value whatsoever.

I don't care how they do it as long as they're consistent, because I always compare cars with figures that come from the same publication, and thus using the same methodology. I don't care about the "real" time, that always changes depending on temperature, altitute, wind etc.

The troubling thing is that in another Car & Driver issue, where they compare the A4 2.0T 6sp auto to a BMW 328i (and G37 and TL SH-AWD), they get a 0-60 time of 6.7 sec. Which is more in line with reality.

[hoppy6698]

I don't care how they do it as long as they're consistent, because I always compare cars with figures that come from the same publication, and thus using the same methodology. I don't care about the "real" time, that always changes depending on temperature, altitude, wind etc.

The troubling thing is that in another Car & Driver issue, where they compare the A4 2.0T 6sp auto to a BMW 328i (and G37 and TL SH-AWD), they get a 0-60 time of 6.7 sec. Which is more in line with reality.[/QUOTE]

Ditto - as long as its apples-apples comparison, then all is equitable. However, the comment on the comparison they did is a little more disconcerting. Both were done in tiptronics, so its not a tranny issue - sounds like the edit/test team were just completely different. I think most here would agree the mid-6s range is common for the 2.0, but add a chip and you can drop under 6 easily.

[KGB]

They probably chipped it










w/ tailwind

[Toecutter]

Maybe they use metric seconds? 1 metric sec. = 1.2 english sec.

[JasonR]

Keep in mind that the A4 2.0T 6MT will do 0-60 in two gears. That may not be the case with cars you're comparing to.

[scottyuk]

It's that 2nd or 3rd gear issue that really means it's hard to compare cars.

That gear change if needed is about 0.5secs of zero acceleration. Some cars that lose of 0-60 easily win out on 0-70 etc etc.

2nd gear on the 2.0T 6MT seems to run up to something crazy with 80mph. Not sure why they went to high with it.

[b6onboost]

The 2nd to 3rd shift point is a big factor. Shifts add 0.3-0.5 secs to your time. Every publication uses the 1 foot roll out method. Cars end up testing about 0.3 secs faster than the true 0-60 time.

A true 0-60 time for a B8 2.0T is at best low 6s. With Tips and Avants being mid-high 6s. A chip should drop any B8 into the mid-high 5s.

[MiracleWhips]

FWIW, MotorWeek tested the Avant at 6.2 seconds....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq81iyP9UVc

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2812b.shtml

[Scorpio]

The new A4 brochure says:

FWD - 7.1
Tip - 6.6
Man - 6.4

[joung300]

Just to let you know I've posted some videos of stock acceleration for the 2009 a4 2.0t tip quattro

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=313784

I was able to achieve low to mid 6's pretty consistently

[A5MD]

Has anyone posted 0-60 times with the Apr or GIAC upgarde?

[Auditude2.0T]

The 2nd to 3rd shift point is a big factor. Its why a 09 WRX is as fast 0-60 as a 09 STI. The WRX can hit 60mph in 2nd gear, the STI requires an extra shift, which takes 0.3-.5 secs off its time.

Every publication uses the 1 foot rollout method. Cars end up testing about 0.3 secs faster than the true 0-60 time.

Best bet is to go by the law of averages. If C/D gets 5.7 while everyone else gets 6.X, you can assume the car is more of a 6.X car.

.3 to .5 seconds for one shift?? thats slow as all hell i can probably do that driving with one foot. more like .05 0.1 seconds tops