- Joined
- 26 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 1,940
- Location
- London
I beg to differ, if you perhaps said Superman I would have agreed, but Batman? No just no.
Me and my friend were
- Thread starter PraxxtorCruel
- Start date
- Status
I beg to differ, if you perhaps said Superman I would have agreed, but Batman? No just no.
I think it is largely irrelevant, they are both powerful cars and i would have thought driver skill was the most important thing.
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 1,940
- Location
- London
I think it is largely irrelevant, they are both powerful cars and i would have thought driver skill was the most important thing.
I only said what I said, cause you said Batman had high PWR?
RS6 0-60 - 4.4 seconds
30-70mph through the gears - 3.8 seconds
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/grouptests/242101/audi_rs6_avant.html
BMW e92 M3 4.0 V8
0-60 mph - 4.7 seconds
30-70mph through the gears - 3.7 seconds
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsData/BMW-M3-4.0-V8/227524/
So M3 is quicker through the gears, but the RS6 is quicker on launch due to the 4x4 advantage.
why ?? bear in mind that with a full tank of fuel and a driver the RS6 weighs nearly 2.1 tonnes !!
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 1,940
- Location
- London
2.1 friggin tonnes. I never expected it to be that heavy, we're talking about a rs6 here not no range rover haha. Would that mean the M5 would beat the RS6 hands down?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,346
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
What about screw mod on Pug diesel, how quickly we forget the true performance giants
2.1 tons will from all the luxury crap, compare the two in stripped track form and the audi might do much better
2.1 tons will from all the luxury crap, compare the two in stripped track form and the audi might do much better
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,346
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
M5 would be closer to the Audis weight then M3 I expect
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What?!
E60 M5 saloon is 1.82 tonnes without a driver. So about 1.9 tonnes with a driver. RS6 is over 2 tonnes without a driver !
In comparison the 400bhp M3 is 1.68 kg without a driver.
That puts RS6 at 285 bhp/tonne
M5 at 274 bhp/tonne
M3 at 238 bhp/tonne
the RS6 does actually appear to be faster than the M3 12.7 1/4 mile @ 114mph vs 12.9 @ 111mph for the M3.
RS6 does 0-100 in 9.7 vs 10.7 of the M3
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/224631/audi_r8_v_audi_rs6.html
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/227415/mercedesbenz_c63_amg_v_bmw_m3_saloon.html
So i think the 30-70 result may be down to gear, as in the same gear most of the RS6 times are quicker.
Not by much however.
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 1,940
- Location
- London
Don't think the M6 stands a chance against this RS6 http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/250306/sportecs_700bhp_audi_rs6.html
Its hood contains 700bhp.
No. M6 is a 2 door coupe with exactly the same engine as an M5.
The M5 is the direct compitition for an RS6, in pretty much every way.
That's not a standard RS6 though is it. Heck Gibbo's 600bhp Mustang would destory pretty much everything bar the most expensive supercars but the same cannot be said for a V6 Mustang can it?
It does (Or did they've just stopped making the V10). Same V10 that's in the M5
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 1,940
- Location
- London
Yes I believe you are correct, I saw somewhere in google, production of bmw m6 will be stopped, it could've been the v10 version.
- Status