Anyone seen this in Road & Track - S4 vs C55

[mtfour]

Wonder why they only got a 0-60 of 5.5 and a 1/4 mile of 14.6? That seems much slower than any other ratings I've seen for the S4, much slower than Car & Driver and Motortrend. Hope this isn't a repost.

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?...ber=1&preview=

[vananron]

It is because most of the magazine testers do a "drop clutch" start, they will not slip the clutch, as required to get the best time for the S4 and for all AWD cars.

[rendyx]

I Gtech'ed a B5 A4 and got 0-60 in 8.1" or so, while all the mags were getting around 8.4. I slipped it at about 3.5k

[vananron]

Always base your numbers on MT, they have the best drivers who use proper launching techniques. Also, they will get higher skidpad numbers as well.

[neoprufrok]

Originally posted by vananron
It is because most of the magazine testers do a "drop clutch" start, they will not slip the clutch, as required to get the best time for the S4 and for all AWD cars.

That's not true at all. Almost all respectable magazines do multiple runs and try various techniques. They've been testing many cars for years, so they have devised a methodology that allows them to find the best 0-60 times. Plus, many of them have motorsport and factory experience working with/driving/testing cars. I doubt that they wouldn't know to slip the S4 clutch.

What the variation is likely due to is other things: weather, traction, etc.

[Richard 350z]

I agree with the Motor Trend comment. When they tested the '04 EVO RS (my new track car), they managed 0 - 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. Not bad for a new car I paid $26,100 for.

[JetBlue]

Actually Motor Trend is the WORST! They do not correct for temperature and humidity. C&D corrects for both of these plus does true bi directional top speed runs. Neither Road and Track nor Automobile correct either.
MO