R8 V10 rips 0-60 mph 3.3, 0-100 mph 7.6 ??

[Bodhii]

R8 V10 rips 0-60 mph 3.3, 0-100 mph 7.6??
I must admit I am a little suspect about these results.
What do you think?


http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...March-2010.pdf

[Audiboy]

um 3.3? im pretty sure thats not possible with standard V10... thats enzo speed. Did they say if they changed anything on the cars? Also fuel type etc,

but otherwise that does seem suspicious.

handy pdf file though to check the stats on cars.

[SteveR]

Hmm.

R8 5.2 - 525 Hp 3745lbs - 3.3s/7.6s 11.5@123
McLaren F1 - 627 Hp 2840lbs. - 3.4s/7.7s 11.6@125
Lambo LP560-4 - 552 HP 3595lbs. - 3.2s/6.9s 11.2@130

It seems impossible for the R8 to beat the McLaren given the vast power/weight difference, but when you look at the LP560-4 numbers it seems plausible. In that R8 vs Gallardo 1/4 mile video, they were running about 12s in the 1/4 mile and taking it easy on the car. Plus they thought the Audi power estimates were on the conservative side.

Cars today are simply amazing. A fast muscle car from the late 60s would typically do 5.5s 0-60 and maybe 13s 1/4 mile. I remember thinking the mid 70s Countach was impossibly fast and it did a 5.6s 0-60. Driving a daily driver off a lot that can rip through a 1/4 mile in 11.5s blows my mind. I can't wait.

[gazza1]

Not achievable in my opinion unless they are rolling starts or its a blueprinted engine on high octane.

They have a GT-R slower than a V10 but I have never seen any footage of the V10 ever being faster.

Even the V8 times seems a little optimistic.

[hmp10]

Motor Trend got a 3.4 second 0-60 time, so maybe 3.3 is attainable in optimum conditions. Let's face it . . . these 1/10 second differences are so small that they can be accounted for by many variables, involving differences in weather, surface, driver, even engine-to-engine differences in the same model.

There's a video on youtube of a GT-R beating the V10 R8 by a fraction of a second in a head-to-head race, but it's clear on the video that the GT-R driver launched marginally earlier than the Audi driver.

Any times consistently south of 4.0 seconds tell you it's a blindingly fast car. I don't know that 3.3 vs 3.4 or 3.6 vs 3.7 really tells you much about a car's relative capabilities.

Right after I got my V8 back in '08 Motor Trend tested one at what they called "a motorcycle quick 3.9 seconds". I had been fretting that my fun, wonderful new car was not posting the published 0-60 times of some other less-expensive cars.

Then one Sunday spring morning I hit Lake Shore Drive in the early hours to run the car through some of the very few curves in the Chicago area. I was in the pole position at a red light in one lane when a racing bike pulled up in the lane next to me. When the light went green, he took off like a shot. I was not planning to run him, but there was almost no traffic, so I thought, "what the hell?" He was already about 50 yards ahead of me when I really got on the gas. He instantly ceased gaining on me, and I held the gap as our speeds escalated pulling up the only long hill on Lakeshore Drive. The bike rider kept looking over his left shoulder as if he couldn't believe a car was hanging in with him. It was an absolute blast.

I quit worrying about published fractional distances in acceleration times after that. Fun is fun.

[franki68]

Those are rubbish figures,produced by american magazines no doubt.

No offence to any of our US cousins,but US magazines record a time,then adjust it to what they think it should be ,the times therefore are not possible,and are always significantly better than all times extracted elsewhwere int he world.I remember they got a 911 carrera to 0-60 in under 4 seconds whcih is just ludicrous,and an sl65 to 60 in 3.3 seconds (drive one and see how utterly impossible that is,you cannot get the traction to do that)
a 0-60 of about 3.9 and a 0-100 of 8.7 seems to be the norm,very similar to a nissan gtr,but race them and the gtr slaughters the v10.

[London Lad]

Don't forget American mags test 0-60 whereas European ones do 0-62.5 (0-100 kph)

I'm not saying the V10 will make 3.3 but I can well believe it's quicker than 3.9

[Audiboy]

Motor Trend got a 3.4 second 0-60 time, so maybe 3.3 is attainable in optimum conditions. Let's face it . . . these 1/10 second differences are so small that they can be accounted for by many variables, involving differences in weather, surface, driver, even engine-to-engine differences in the same model.

That is very true. Well unless they show me a video im still hesitant about the results.

But otherwise happy to see our R8 in the range of those all time super cars.

[Bodhii]

I must admit I am a little suspect about these results.

Actually I now think these numbers in the PDF are probably correct. I have looked elsewhere and found similar numbers. I just never have done any real measuring myself on 0-60 times, nor looked at it as a serious consideration. (LOL ... so much for my test driving skills! )

But I must admit that the R8 does NOT seem quite that fast because of its smooth performance, state-of-the-art platform design and overall build quality. Most of my previous experiences with such quick times are usually in stripped down, very loud, and squeaking race cars, or in something like a very lightweight Noble M400 where the sense of speed is much more visceral. The R8 is a bit heavier, and so smooth that I don't really seem to notice the extraordinary fast acceleration.

Once again, quantitative evidence wins out over the 'seat of the pants dyno'!

[MikeB]

Try racing it down a single track Scottish country road with good viz. The fences and landscape going the other way give you a very real sense of how astonishingly fast the V10 is.