ecpChris

You are correct in assuming I did not apply any correction factor and can't for the life of me understand why C&D would. That would explain a lot and I feel like that is cheating. I don't know of any sanctioning body of racing that does that and don't feel a magazine should. BTW, the last link you posted was no good - 404 error
If I didn't take magazine's testing seriously before, I sure as heck do not now if what you are saying is correct. People want to know what the car would do in the real world, not in theoretical conditions.
I do have my fair share in drag racing (not just 0-60 rips) for over 15 years. Effectively, I can launch cars or watercraft really well and is basically the majority of what I practice. Many times, winning the launch will help you win the race even if you are slightly outclassed. I wouldn't go as far as saying I do it every day because I do not. With LC, it eliminates a fair amount of the skill anyway as the driver isn't doing much besides mashing the gas and brake then taking off.
That being said, if I was 100 lbs lighter, the gravitational pull of the earth was just right, there was a cold front in my engine bay, my tires were on fire, and I flatulated at the moment of launch, I bet I could muster up a 3.5 0-60 in a stock s6

Phknlwyr

May it please the peanut gallery, Kevin Kane (very unofficially) on behalf of Audi:

Every car has brakes and they are advertised as having the same. Car manufacturers do not advertise the fact that the brakes are a wear item and will stop working at some point. The same applies to tires, oil, belts, hoses, etc. So why would launch control be any different? Your remedy when it reaches the end of its natural life is to replace it. It is understandably much more difficult to replace the components that give launch control new life, but it is, nonetheless, a replaceable component/feature.

My LC counter has a big fat "0" next to it and I plan on keeping my LC virginity for the foreseeable future. I have more fun punching it at speed to make a pass or to merge onto the highway. I'm afraid LC will be like the first beer ****: once you start, you cannot stop.

ecpChris

Interesting point of view, but to play devil's advocate my response would have been "oil, tires, belts, etc, have a quantifiable service life as defined by the manufacturer." Audicare clearly states service intervals for fluids and wear items. Sure an item can and will fail before then, but there is no recommended service life for LC when their is a concrete limit on it.
To clarify, since I have yet to do so in this thread, I do not think we should collectively sue Audi. My morals do not support frivolous lawsuits. I do, however, think that they should:
1) State the LC limit in the owner's manual
2) Be conservative on their advertised acceleration times as most other manufacturer's do (i.e. Bmw, etc) to prevent this type of underachievement by the consumer. I, for one, would rather be ecstatic by beating the manufacturer's advertised acceleration times than be disappointed when I'm not even in the same ball park.

Shredster

Hear hear!

ecpChris

I found a loophole for Audi for the 0-60
On their website, they actually advertise

S6 Technical Specifications

4.0 TFSI®

Engineering | Performance
Engine type - V8 engine with Audi cylinder on demand™ engine efficiency technology
Displacement (cc)/Bore and stroke (mm) - 3,993/84.5 x 89.0
Horsepower (@ rpm) - 420 @ 5,500-6,400
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) - 406 @ 1,400-5,200
Engine block - Aluminum alloy
Cylinder head - Aluminum alloy
Valvetrain - 32-valve DOHC with variable valve timing
Induction/Fuel injection - Turbocharged/TFSI®
Acceleration (0-60 mph) - 4.5 sec.
Top track speed - 155 mph8


I guess their marketing spin *in fine print* is that Car & Driver did it (albeit with correction factors, 1 ft rollouts, professional drivers, and the grace of God). Oh well..

Phknlwyr

I would not even think of suing over this issue...and I file 7,600 lawsuits a month.

ecpChris

my goodness..

nobbyv

They apply a correction factor for the same reasons we've been going over here: because atmospheric variables can play a HUGE role in a car's performance. So to compare results from one car on a test done in Denver with 95deg heat to one done on a cool fall morning at sea level would be meaningless.

What C&D is saying is that they recognize the variables, and are attempting to eliminate them. Their results are the best you can expect for any car they test (which isn't to say that there isn't some location on Earth that matches these corrections). It allows you to objectively compare apples to apples (S6 to M5), but ONLY for testing done by their method. They cannot and will not make any claims for tests that don't follow these methods (or, at least, will note something like MFG EST in the notes).

Dynamometers work the same way: that's why you can't easily compare the results of a Dynojet against a Mustang dyno, for example. They use different correction factors to accommodate for environment, atmospherics, even drivetrain losses. So the same S6 may produce 427HP on a Dynojet, and 436 on a Mustang. Doesn't mean one's more "right".

It's the same reason why "mass" is used instead of "weight" in science: weight is only accurate in relation to the Earth's gravitational pull in the particular spot where it's measured. On another planet (or even at a different elevation on Earth for very precise measurements), "weight" is meaningless, but mass is a constant. And you can take a weight and convert it to a mass, IF you know the correction factor.

Sorry, I'll try it again:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...braking-page-2

Ha!

carnuts3

I believe Motorweek ran a 0-60 time for a 2013 S6 of 3.9 seconds.

ecpChris

If you like your 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, you can keep your 0-60 in 3.7 seconds...... Period. :-p