ecpChris

I have the Performance box. The best 0-60 I could get was 4.2 stock. It wasn't the best conditions but it wasn't hot and humid either. I tried doing tuned 0-60 at the track but it launched so violently that the times didn't register. I need to figure out a way to absorb some of the impact so that doesn't happen anymore. Pretty sure although there is 3 suction mounts, it moved and hit the windshield

nobbyv

Did someone say they didn't? They referenced the C&D test; C&D DID get a 3.7sec 0-60 result UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF THEIR TEST.

So...knowing that you yourself ran a 4.2 stock under not the "best conditions": is it possible there's another 2-3 tenths that someone COULD get under ideal conditions? Let's say 55deg, 30% humidity, sea level, nice launch surface, decently worn tires.

And your launch: did you use the 1ft roll-out that C&D takes pains to mention they use when calculating their 0-60 times? If not, wouldn't you agree that another 2-3 tenths is possible using a 1ft roll-out?

Take 2/10ths here, 3/10th there off the time you yourself have seen, and you're at 3.7 seconds. Is this really so hard to believe?

So in summary: you want to start a class action lawsuit against AoA for citing a review by a car publication that stated they achieved a specific time under a specific set of conditions. Despite, by your own admission, never having tried to recreate their results under the same set of conditions.

I'm not trying to call you out, but to start talking lawsuits just sounds ridiculous to me.

ecpChris

What is your deal? Can you please tell me where in this thread I said I was going to start or join a lawsuit? All I brought to this thread, or any other thread on this forum, was facts from my experiences with this car. The 4.2 was not poor conditions, but it was not -1500 DA with sticky tires on a prepped track either. It was the best 0-60 out of about 15 attempts in which several were 4.4. No 1ft rollout was used.
A 1/2 second in 0-60 would be the equivalent of adding a tune to the stock car. Not sure if you realize that.

Shredster

Easy there nobyyv... down boy.

nobbyv

My "deal" is that I read the title of this thread, which specifically mentions class action lawsuits. Yours was the first reply, and I inferred that when you said "so I too am a little upset that Audi claimed that on commercials" you also felt that this was class-action worthy. A leap? Maybe, but a small one, I'd say. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

I also realize just fine what subtracting .5 seconds would entail UNDER THE SAME TEST CONDITIONS. I also realize that a 1ft rollout would be the equivalent of subtracting 3/10ths from a standing 0-60 time. Here's C&D themselves pointing this out:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...nce-of-rollout

All of the US automotive magazines use the 1ft rollout. All agree that this is the equivalent of subtracting 3/10ths. Subtracting 3/10s from the best time you posted would get down to 3.9secs. I don't think it's too much of a leap to think that ideal test conditions could shave another 2/10ths.

I am an engineer. I design controlled experiements for a living. Recreating the exact test environment is one of the biggest struggles in recreating test results. But pains must be taken to eliminate whatever variables can be eliminated. You haven't done that, and instead have elected to post in a thread with "Class Action" in the title because you haven't been able to recreate test results that by your own admission were not the same as those that C&D ran their test under.

To me, that's like saying "Audi claims a 155MPH top speed. But I drove my car underwater and the best I saw before the engine quit was 22."

MalibuCANE

I'm waiting until 1000 miles to launch and I doubt I will even hit 200 here in LA where I spend most of my time in bumper to bumper traffic. That said, the shouldn't limit it without a disclaimer.

ecpChris

.....

Shredster

Good info to post in this thread. I was not aware of the rollout factor that Car and Driver uses. This indeed changes the scope of the discussion. This said, ecpChris has a solid rebuttal and anyone can elect to post and comment in any thread... doesn't mean they are in support of a lawsuit and none the less can express their opinions regardless.

nobbyv

As I said, if I was wrong in my inference, I apologize.

I understand. I would like to see this as well. I am just less skeptical in thinking that it can and will happen.

As a former BMW owner, I keep up with what is going on there and have heard rumors about the "press tune" that BMW supposedly flashes/enables in the cars the give to the press. I have not, however, seen data that shows that this tune actually exists, or that it causes a bump in power. A test that showed a dyno plot before/after would make me a believer. It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that this exists. But it's beside the point, because as I said I fully believe recreating C&D's test results under the same conditions is possible with ANY stock C7 S6 (obviously, barring a car with mechanical problems).

Not only would I believe it, I would almost guarantee it (OK, not "the universe", but "on Earth"): C&D (as do the other mags) apply proprietary correction factors to all of their quoted 0-60 times to get an "ideal" result, as if the test were run under ideal conditions. They also take the average of tests run in two directions to eliminate the effect of a head or tailwind. Note that these corrections don't account for the launch pad surface, nor can I find any info on what prep they may/may not do to the surface ahead of time, so that remains an unknown.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p-speed-page-2

These steps effectively guarantee that C&D is able to reliably recreate their testing environment, no matter the actual conditions. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that you didn't apply any such correction factors to your runs. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. And I still believe that a test done under literally *perfect* conditions could easily account for cutting several tenths of a second off of a 0-60 time.

Further, I would submit that potentially the largest factor playing into testing like this is the driver. Clearly, you are quite experienced at ripping off 0-60 runs. But are you as experienced as a C&D driver who does this kind of testing day in, day out as a career? I myself have only been to the track a handful of times. I'd have no confidence in my ability to get the best possible results from any of my cars compared to a professional driver.

nobbyv

Of course anyone can post in any thread they like. But I'm sure you can see how when there's a post entitled "Shouldn't We Start a Lawsuit Because of X" and someone replies, "What about Y, I'm not happy with that, either" it wouldn't be coming from left field in thinking that they supported the original post. I know now that was not the case, stand corrected, and apologized.