RDX vs Q5
09-14-2013, 07:51 AM
#41
Instructor
More gears can help acceleration, but it can also hurt it. Each time you shift, you are no longer accelerating. More you have to shift, the more wasted time there is speeding up. Now, it will let you have lower gearing at the bottom and higher gearing at the top to keep fuel economy and still get good acceleration, but gearing alone isn't going to make up a huge power difference. AWD also may help at the launch, but it will hurt you after that due to more drive train drag, giving you less power at the wheels. If the power numbers were truly accurate, then the Audi should have been an afterthought by 60 mph, much like the Infiniti turned out to be. While I could see a +/-5% variation in reported power numbers, an extra 5% in HP or Torque wouldn't be enough to keep the A4 in the game.
09-14-2013, 07:57 AM
#42
Instructor
The dyno runs I posted were completed on a Mustang AWD dyno. Why would somebody dyno an SUV? To get a baseline number before applying an aftermarket software tune. 'Before' and 'After' numbers are critical if you intend to sell a power upgrade. Even if it were possible to "cheat" the numbers, the tester would have had nothing to gain by doing so. Just the opposite in fact.
I'm not surprised that Audi's website shows a 0-60 time of 6.0 seconds. But it also shows the 2.0T does it in 7.0 secs, and there is plenty of documentation showing that even the older, less powerful version of that engine was quicker than that in testing. Actual test numbers of the 3.0T will soon be available. We'll see how it does in the real world.
I'm not surprised that Audi's website shows a 0-60 time of 6.0 seconds. But it also shows the 2.0T does it in 7.0 secs, and there is plenty of documentation showing that even the older, less powerful version of that engine was quicker than that in testing. Actual test numbers of the 3.0T will soon be available. We'll see how it does in the real world.
My RDX only feels avg to sometimes sluggish, I'm used to the stock 4.6 seconds of my GTO, 4.6 was before I added 50+ horsepower.
Isn't the 3.0 supercharged? If that is the case it should be very easy to mod, just a pulley swap and tune. (At least it was that way on my previous supercharged American cars). We will look forward to seeing real world tests of the 3.0.
09-14-2013, 08:01 AM
#43
Instructor
5 HP? How do you explain the 30-50 and 5-70 acceleration times? I suppose that's the AWD, too? No, that can't be it ... how about the gearing? Or maybe it's the turbo? There's gotta be SOME reason other than the logical conclusion than the engine is simply underrated.
Not that it matters, as I'm sure most have already drawn their own conclusions, but here's some more interesting reading for those that think the whole under-rating thing is BS. If you search you will find there are plenty of articles out there on the topic.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/r...is-underrated/
Not that it matters, as I'm sure most have already drawn their own conclusions, but here's some more interesting reading for those that think the whole under-rating thing is BS. If you search you will find there are plenty of articles out there on the topic.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/r...is-underrated/
09-14-2013, 11:27 AM
#44
You would think that automakers would want to properly rate or in some cases Over-rate their HP ratings for marketing reasons. I don't know any that would purposely under-rate the power # which is always displayed in their advertising. There are many cases of auto mfg being caught over rating HP ratings. Remember the 2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R? They got caught over-rating hp ratings.
When we drove the 2.0T and 3.2 back-to-back, our seat of the pants impression was that the 2.0T was the better engine for around town and stop-and-go driving because of the low end torque. It launched harder and actually felt more powerful when driven the way most people drive a crossover. High speed acceleration and passing power clearly favored the V6, but it was far less important for my wife's commute. I have little doubt that if we tested the Q5 again today, the new 3.0 TDI would be our engine of choice over both the 2.0 turbo four and supercharged 3.0 V6. The TDI has even more low end grunt with the added benefit of highway economy reaching well into the 30's. Of course the SQ5 would be the one to have for speed freaks, but I'd opt for an A7 if I were going to spend that kind of money.
Last edited by HotRodW; 09-14-2013 at 11:32 AM.
09-15-2013, 03:35 PM
#45
Advanced
You don't want to over-rate the power numbers, cause then you'll run into problems when someone does dyno the car and gets a low number. One low run will lead to more, and if all of them are well under the factory spec, the company is in for problems. However, if the power is under-rated, no one complains when they get more power than expected except maybe tuning companies, as it's harder for them to sell their products then.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
