REPORT: Evidence mounting that 2010 Audi S4 is underrated
To many people, Audi is replacing BMW as the go-to yuppie-mobile of choice. For one thing, Walter de'Silva's designs are almost universally lauded (Q7 notwithstanding) whereas the new crop of Bangled Bimmers are... controversial to put it as nicely as humanly possible. But it's not just down to looks and interior -- it can't be.
For the past decade or so Audi, BMW and of course Mercedes-Benz have all been engaged in mercilessly meeting each other tit-for-tat. 3/5/7 Series vs. 4/6/8 vs. C/E/S-Class, M/AMG/S, X5/ML/Q7, etc. It goes on forever. But the point is, Audi and BMW appear to be on equal footing and it looks like Audi has taken the copycat game to new heights.
Everyone knows that the BMW 335i is the most underrated car currently on the market in terms of raw thrust and grunt. BMW claims 300 hp and 300 torques, but even dogs know that BMW's trick 3.0-liter twin-turbo engine puts out much closer to 350 hp and 350 tire-spinning pound feet of torque. Why? Well, lower insurance rates for their customers probably isn't one of the reasons. However, remember that when the E90/E92 3 Series came out, BMW was still selling the 333 horsepower E46 M3. Meaning that it would be pretty hard to sell an older, $55,000 car with less power than a newer and just as quick $40,000 car. Or so the theory goes, though we should point out that BMW engineers angrily call us liars when we bring this scenario up.
And guess what? Looks like Audi is pulling the same trick with their new supercharged S4. Volkswagen and Audi tuner APR stuck a 2010 Audi S4 on an AWD-dyno and discovered the following. Instead of the 333 hp and 325 torques Audi is claiming, they pulled 331 hp and 336 pound-feet of torque... at the wheels! Figuring that AWD cars have about a 20% parasitic drivetrain power loss, the actual crank output of the S4 is huge. How huge? By our calculations just about 400 horsepower/torques. Gulp. Tip of the Audi driving cap to Brenton!
Gallery: Review: 2010 Audi S4
[Source: Quattro World]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
nsx4life 7:35PM (10/28/2009)
The GTR is the most underrated car on the market and find a credible source not one from a tuner.
And if the BMW 135i made 350 hp it'd be faster than the equivalent weight 370Z which it isn't.
Reply
Al 7:39PM (10/28/2009)
Maybe its only the 335(and even the 535/635) that is underrated and not the 135?
Franz 7:44PM (10/28/2009)
The GT-R isn't as underrated as the naysayers originally thought:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/30/mt-claims-nissan-not-lying-about-gt-r-horsepower/
But back to the Audi, that dyno sheet looks impressive, but I'll reserve final judgement until I see what kind of dyno it was tested on.
Jens 8:33PM (10/28/2009)
So a slow news day or just plain laziness AB. Rip of an article that was initially ripped from a tuner house homepage. If this is what is you guys consider "EVIDENCE", you boys and girls at AB have a lot to learn about journalism... unless you're pining for a job at Fox News, then this is about right.
Aprime 2:11AM (10/29/2009)
Fox News? You mean MSNBC. MSNBC's journalist believe MediaMatters.com to be a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE, while a ****load of the stuff they say is literally coming out of the least credible sources on the Internet, namely forums and personal opinion blogs, and the material is then interpreted as factual. Heck, even factual material is perpetually taken out of context to serve their points. The fact of the matter is media sources ought to be checked and journalists to be heavily criticized for the piss poor job they're doing in this century. You just don't quote someone quoting someone else (who's probably quoting another person quoting a modified Wikipedia article), you go directly to the SOURCE.
mike 6:26AM (10/29/2009)
@Aprime
MSNBC's slogan... The Place for POLITICS...
Fox News.... claims to be a "Fair and Balanced" "news" organization... FAIL....
back to car news...
Infra 9:42AM (10/29/2009)
Claims of HP at the crank are solely for bragging rights, all that matters is HP at the wheels. Even APR doesn't back calculate crank HP, as it's all based on a fictitious "drive train % loss" which no one knows the actual value of.
The dyno numbers are APR's base from which to compare when they complete their ECU tuning. It's not meant to be a de facto statement of how much hp/tq the S4 is making.
roadkillrob 9:51AM (10/29/2009)
The car probably is underated a bit, just like a 335, but it isn't underated 100hp, that dyno is optomistic at best and the numbers are totally useless for comparison unless you compare numbers on another vehicle on that dyno on the same day. If the author wishes to compare the S4 to a 335, then they both need to run back to back on the same dyno to see the real difference. If I was a betting man, the 335 would put down pretty similar numbers on that dyno, the S4 has proven to be a bit faster in real world testing, so I am guessing the difference is more in the 15hp range.
Al 7:36PM (10/28/2009)
Does this also mean the A6 with the same motor is also underrated?
Reply
ynnekdude2003 7:58PM (10/28/2009)
I'd assume so seeing as it does 0-60 in the same time as the 4.2 A6 which has 50 more ponies under the hood.
Jensen 7:37PM (10/28/2009)
It would help to know if that dyno result was obtained on a Dynojet, Dynapack, Mustang Dyno, etc and the correction factor used, if any.
Reply
Evel 8:04PM (10/28/2009)
The source states that it was a Dynopack dynometer, and SAE correction was used.
Jensen 8:31PM (10/28/2009)
Ah, so the numbers can vary by a bit, depending on who "calibrated" the unit. It would be interesting to see the numbers on a Dynojet.
foo 9:38PM (10/28/2009)
Here are the numbers straight from the ECU:
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3456.phtml (first post).
T3hD0gg 7:37PM (10/28/2009)
But what type of dyno did APR use? If we want to compare the numbers of the S4 to those of the 335i, it better be a dynojet.
Audi's quattro drivetrain has been thought to actually have a ~22% drivetrain loss (at least in the B5/B6 era). That would put it up to at least 425hp. That's amazing.
Reply
flc 7:45PM (10/28/2009)
The dyno also indicated APR ran this on 93 octane...not saying it makes a huge difference, but question is what would be the difference?
Reply
cit09 7:47PM (10/28/2009)
I think 93 octane and 91 octane are the same...i think 93 is used in Europe and other places of the world. Can someone confirm cause I read this before in another blog.
bhtooefr 8:14PM (10/28/2009)
IIRC, the major grades in Europe are 91 RON, 95 RON, and 98 RON. 93 is obviously possible, but AFAIK, doesn't exist.
The main US grades are 87 AKI, 89 AKI, 91 AKI, and 93 AKI. Some areas don't have 93 for emissions reasons.
87 AKI = 91 RON
89 AKI = ~93 RON
91 AKI = 95 RON
93 AKI = 98 RON
(this is pretty rough, though, and doesn't match perfectly, and there's no perfect conversion, as MON is calculated using a different method. For gasoline to gasoline comparisons, it's usually close, although for stuff like butanol, MON is significantly lower than premium gasoline, but RON is in the same ballpark.)
bhtooefr 8:15PM (10/28/2009)
Oh, and the sheet specifically says it's 93 octane (R+M)/2 (short for average of RON and MON,) which is the method used to obtain AKI octane.
James Sonne 8:18PM (10/28/2009)
They are not the same. Many gas stations offer the fourth, 93, octane if it's in a large area with lots of traffic, or just skip the 91 or 89, depending on their clientelle.
I've seen gas stations that offer ~100 octane gas, and nitrous refills, back when I lived in Florida. Kentucky doesn't have that kind of thing, though. It depends on your area.