Is this right?
08-25-2011, 07:51 PM
#1
Rooting for Acura
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Is this right?
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!
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!
Last edited by knight rider; 08-25-2011 at 07:53 PM. Reason: horrible grammer in sentance
08-25-2011, 07:54 PM
#2
Banned
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.
08-25-2011, 08:08 PM
#5
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
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.
Both are great cars, I wouldn't side with either.
The following 2 users liked this post by JS + XES:
Costco (08-26-2011),
Crazy Bimmer (08-26-2011)
08-25-2011, 08:12 PM
#6
Rooting for Acura
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
"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.
08-25-2011, 08:12 PM
#7
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
knight rider (08-25-2011)
Trending Topics
08-25-2011, 08:19 PM
#8
Suzuka Master
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.
08-25-2011, 09:00 PM
#9
Rooting for Acura
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
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. .
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.
.
08-25-2011, 09:04 PM
#11
Your Friendly Canadian
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 31
Posts: 17,431
Received 1,485 Likes
on
1,049 Posts
Would you happen to know the 1/4 mile for these two beasts?
08-25-2011, 09:09 PM
#12
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
^ #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.
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.
Last edited by JS + XES; 08-25-2011 at 09:12 PM.
08-25-2011, 09:17 PM
#13
Registered but harmless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 14,844
Received 1,102 Likes
on
763 Posts
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.
08-26-2011, 02:48 AM
#14
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?
08-26-2011, 07:56 AM
#17
Rooting for Acura
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
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.
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.