I was reading this comparo between the A7 and the CLS
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/24/a...50-comparison/

and had to double-take on the performance numbers





How in the world can the A7 have 92 less ponies, 118 less ft/lbs of torque, be 52 lbs. heavier and only be .3 second slower 0-60 than the CLS? If that's attributed to the Audi AWD, dang!

 

5-60mph or 1-ft roll-out 0-60mph would be more significant. BTW, what impresses me more is that the big twin-turbo Merc gets only 1mpg city worse than the Audi. Of course, AWD is a part of the explanation, but give me the V8 growl any time.

 

That is rather remarkable, but I bet both get less MPG in real world mixed driving.

 

I read this in a car and driver iirc. Except their numbers showed the Benz's 0-60 time .7 faster, not .3.

 

0-60 doesn't really mean anything. The gap probably gets wider as they go further. but the AWD on Audi is pretty damn impressive nonetheless.

Both are great cars, I wouldn't side with either.

 

Yeah, apparently Motor Trend did a comparo to. They mentioned it in this article.
"Motor Trend recently tested these identical vehicles and clocked the Mercedes-Benz CLS550 to 60 mph in a blistering 4.3 seconds. The Audi A7 3.0T also performed unexpectedly strongly, busting through the same acceleration benchmark in just 4.7 seconds (while noting most other A7's do it in 5.3 seconds). However, that was with one test driver on board. Our test cars were not only topped-off with fuel but we were flying with a full cabin, as they say in the airlines."

That's .4 seconds. .3 to .7, that's still damn close for a (according to the numbers) less capable car.

 

Just checked other sources...

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...abfc5d6881.pdf

See? The CLS550 just destroys the Audi. But the CLS550 is like $20k more expensive than the Audi AND ugly.

And it's like my car vs WRX. The latest WRX hits 60 within like 4.5 seconds. It just shoots out of the dig like crazy, but my car catches up at the end of quarter mile and hits the same trap speed @ 100.

 

Mercedes is underrating their new cars by a lot. According to Mercedes the new CL550 will do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, yet Road and Track got a CL550 4matic to 60 in just 4.2 seconds and the CL is 500 lbs heavier. The new twin turbo V8s from Benz are ridiculously fast.

 

Thanks for the link. The CLS clearly pulls away at higher speeds. I actually like the looks of the CLS btw. The A7, not so much and I'm a bit of an Audi fanboy.

 

This.

 

Would you happen to know the 1/4 mile for these two beasts?

 

^ #7

Let me be a good boy..

A7: 13.7@103
CLS550: 12.8@112

and almost 10 seconds difference from 0 to 130.

It's almost like apple vs orange.

 

I got the impression that the writers of a couple of articles (M&T and Autoweek, IIRC) thought they might have gotten a ringer A7-- optimized or tuned.

The numbers don't make sense for that quick of a 0-60 run. '
As an example, the A7 isn't far off the TL SH-AWD based on horsepower to weight ratio (heavier, but more engine torque and 8-sp instead of 6-sp), etc., but the TL is not close to the 4-second range, even with a 6-sp manual.

I do like the looks of the A7, though, after seeing one on the road in person.

 

0-60 is mainly for marketing, it's almost like the 60 ft. number in 1/4 mile runs.... to see how well your car launches from a dig. Except the 1/4 is much more telling, when you take in consideration the trap speed as well it tells you a lot more about a car's straight-line performance.

I wasn't too adverse to the idea of a $40,000 4-cylinder BMW (guessing ahead of time for the base 2.0T 528i) but having a turbo V6 as the only option in the A7 is kinda silly. Maybe they'll offer a V8 or even a V10 for the refresh?

 

I like the cls.

 

CLS is so much better looking IMO... The A7's side profile, towards the rear, just falls apart.

 

Yeah, it did sound that way. I wouldn't doubt it.