Is it really this quick?

[gadumah]

09 A4 2.0T 0-60 in 5.7 according to Car and Driver (way faster than Audi's 6.7)

Car and Driver

[MTLA4]

Impossible has to be a mistake. The 335 does it in 5.6 and has less drivetrain loss and has 89 hp more than the A4. It has to be closer to 7 sec because the new S4 does it in 5.1 and has 333 hp while the 3.2 has to be around low 6. I can see a one second spread between each versions.

[dreamcar=rs4]

Impossible has to be a mistake. The 335 does it in 5.6 and has less drivetrain loss and has 89 hp more than the A4. It has to be closer to 7 sec because the new S4 does it in 5.1 and has 333 hp while the 3.2 has to be around low 6. I can see a one second spread between each versions.

Several magazines have clocked the 335i (sedan and coupe) at 4.8.

[nick71692]

the time is said to be 6.9 sec.

[MTLA4]

Several magazines have clocked the 335i (sedan and coupe) at 4.8.

magazines lol from experience stock is around 5.0 for my 135 and more for the 335...Ive never figured how magazines get these results some guy on some forum was talking about a 0.3 roll out dont know if its true.

[sakimano]

335i coupe is 4.8-4.9 according to almost every major magazine on earth. It's also twin turbod and 300hp/300tq. Sedan is about 0.2seconds slower.

5.7 seconds for that 2.0t Audi isn't absurd but does sound pretty quick. Car and Driver had the V6 doing the same trick...5.7. 2.0T is 211 hp and 258 lb/ft torque...more tq than the V6. The previous generation A4 had very similar acceleration numbers between the 2.0T 4cyl and 3.2 V6. The new V6 Accord and Camrys are also in the high 5 second range with similar torque numbers, so don't be surprised. Car and Driver always has the fastest acceleration times for cars in their tests. They had the B6 S4 at 4.99 seconds while everyone else measured it at 5.2.

Audi always quotes 0-100km/h, which is 0-62.2 MPH...not 0-60. Further, Audi ALWAYS underpromises on the acceleration times for its cars. It said the R8 would be about 4.9 seconds, but it's always tested closer to 4.1 or 4.2.

Finally, Audi lies about hp...they give more than stated. For example the wagons tend to clock the same 0-60 times in testing as do their sedans...yet the info from Audi directly is always that they'll be slower because they're heavier. A quick test reveals they give a few extra hp to the wagons to make up for the weight disadvantage.

[BMWBig6]

A quick test reveals they give a few extra hp to the wagons to make up for the weight disadvantage.

You're kidding right? What quick test? Is this backed up by dyno data? I sincerely hope you're right, but I'm awfully skeptical.

Maybe this is another reason the B8 A4 Avant has dual exhaust and 2.0T sedans only have them on one side of the car. :)

[Confusion]

If you guys haven't noticed already, in the specs sheet, they listed Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec, while Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 sec. So I'm guessing they switched it around.

[4-tified]

Several magazines have clocked the 335i (sedan and coupe) at 4.8.

I read nearly all the American auto mags and I haven't seen "several" getting near 4.8. Most show about 5-5.5 0-60.

Also, I can see the 2.0T getting 6.0 or a bit less with a manual, but 0-100 isn't going to look so good, nor will the 1/4 mile trap speed.
This 2.0T has an even more diesel like torque curve. It's fun for light to light fun, but overall, it lacks top end. That's one reason to get the 3.2 IF, BIG IF, it came with a 6 spd. I wouldn't want the 3.2 with a slushbox auto.

[4-tified]

09 A4 2.0T 0-60 in 5.7 according to Car and Driver (way faster than Audi's 6.7)

Car and Driver

That's VERY impressive considering it was with a slushbox auto.
I'll bet this is a ringer though. Even with a bit higher torque compared to the V6, I'd wait for a few more tests.

Of course, it is possible that the actual power numbers are under reported by Audi in an attempt to keep V6 sales.
I'll bet Audi will be fixing this issue by dropping the SC V6 into the B8 A4.
If they do that, the I'll have a good reason to spend more coin for the V6.

[4-tified]

If you guys haven't noticed already, in the specs sheet, they listed Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec, while Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 sec. So I'm guessing they switched it around.

Test driving the B8 2.0 auto, it felt faster than 7.2.
Was it 5.7 fast? It didn't feel that way to me in my extended drive.
Still, the 2.0T with auto feels quite impressive. I preferred the manual shift in the upgraded slushbox. The auto mode felt odd to me, during hard accel runs. You can hold the brake in "D" or "1", throttle up and stomp the throttle, release the brake, nice launch.

[b6onboost]

I wonder if Audi is pulling a 'BMW' and delivering test vehicles with a slightly different tune. Several 335i test cars showed a few more lbs of boost compared to the off the lot models. It's why those first 335i headlines read '0-60 in 4.8', 'M3 killer?', ect while later tests showed 5.0-5.5 averages.

[JetBlue]

Car and Driver beats the hell out of their cars to get the 0-60 times. They also "correct" the numbers for temperature, humidity and altitude.

Auto mags in general use a 1' rollout when they are measuring accleration times. This can make at .2 second difference in the times achieved. Real world on a 2.0T is going to be around 6.2 seconds. Until a tune at least...

[lvaudisales]

yes its that quick.... I drive b8s all day and they are alot faster (from a dig especialy) than the b7 a4. They make 51 ft lbs more... you can feel the variable valve lift make a noticable torque gain at about 3k rpm. If you put the car on the converter for a couple sec the rpms creeps to about 3 grand (in the sweet spot) and when you launch the car leaves with urgency that the b7 just dosent do.

I own a 08 b7 and have personally raced my car on the track and have sold a b8 to a freind and he pulls me from a roll and a ton from a dig. Even a chipped b7 with exhaust (stasis cat back) gets pulled by the stock b8.

As far as if its a 5.7 0-60 time... donno but I think its a very resonable number.

There quater mile numbers are deffinatly accurate and a 5.7 0-60 works with the 14.4 @ 94 quater mile time...

Just my .02

[oatzel]

I read nearly all the American auto mags and I haven't seen "several" getting near 4.8. Most show about 5-5.5 0-60.

Also, I can see the 2.0T getting 6.0 or a bit less with a manual, but 0-100 isn't going to look so good, nor will the 1/4 mile trap speed.
This 2.0T has an even more diesel like torque curve. It's fun for light to light fun, but overall, it lacks top end. That's one reason to get the 3.2 IF, BIG IF, it came with a 6 spd. I wouldn't want the 3.2 with a slushbox auto.

this has been my impression too. our b8 is quick off the line, but while it seems to be flattening out around 60, my s4 seems to be hitting its stride. the b8 will be fun when they start chipping them.

fwiw, i'm really impressed with the slushbox in the b8. it's much improved.

[thenicholsterr]

Recently, I have checked out the 0-60 on 2.0T Quattro...I think it was one audiusa but not sure

it goes something like this

With Manuel: 6.5
With Tiptronic: 6.7
CVT = fail: 7.1

My next car will be tiptronic + a chip = im guessing 6.0

btw 3.2 Quattro Tiptronic: 6.3

Thus, 2.0T is a better buy.

[Caster]

I've been going back and forth on this, I know the B8 A4 3.2 isn't offered in manual, but is the the 2.0T offered in manual in the US? I thought I read somewhere that the B8 A4 isn't going to be offered in manual at all in the US, but I've reading otherwise lately. Is it possible to order a 2.0T in manual?

[B8_Jim]

Is it possible to order a 2.0T in manual?

Yes it is.

The order guide came out in Mid Nov. Rumor is that cars will start showing up in late Feb or March. The only one I know about for sure is scheduled for production in the 11th week, but it's definitely not at the front of the line.

[Caster]

Thats cutting pretty close, my lease ends in the beginning of April, and if I can get a manual, I'll take the B8 A4 2.0T in a heartbeat. I'll have to look into this, thanks for the info!

[b6onboost]

At first thought I want to say its a typo, and should have read '6.7', however the more I think about it...5.7 for a 2.0T B8 is possible. The 3.2 B8 A4 and A5 tested at 5.7. The 2.0T models are lighter and have a much stronger torque curve.

Also, Audi claims 211hp...but they could be sandbagging to boost 3.2 sales. The new 2.0 TFSI could be pushing 220-230hp. Considering HP is a calulcation of torque, I find it hard to believe that the new 2.0T makes +58ft/lbs but only +11hp.

[Jacon]

At first thought I want to say its a typo, and should have read '6.7', however the more I think about it...5.7 for a 2.0T B8 is possible. The 3.2 B8 A4 and A5 tested at 5.7. The 2.0T models are lighter and have a much stronger torque curve.

Also, Audi claims 211hp...but they could be sandbagging to boost 3.2 sales. The new 2.0 TFSI could be pushing 220-230hp. Considering HP is a calulcation of torque, I find it hard to believe that the new 2.0T makes +58ft/lbs but only +11hp.

The standard SAE formula for calculating HP based on torque is:

HP = (2*pi*N*T)/33000

where pi = 3.1459; N = RPMs at specified max torque rating; T = max torque

based on this, the max HP of the 2.0t is 206

Thats assuming 258ft-lbs @ 4200rpm

Then if we take the numbers from Audi's website for 211hp at 6000rpm, I get a torque value of 184ft-lbs....something is fishy here. I'm not sure where Audi is getting these numbers...

[B8_Jim]

The standard SAE formula for calculating HP based on torque is:

<snip>
based on this, the max HP of the 2.0t is 206

Thats assuming 258ft-lbs @ 4200rpm

Then if we take the numbers from Audi's website for 211hp at 6000rpm, I get a torque value of 184ft-lbs....something is fishy here. I'm not sure where Audi is getting these numbers...

Yea, but 258ft-lbs at 4300 rpm = 211HP.

184ft-lbs @ 6000 is reasonable (or at least lower torque at higher RPM) since this is a small, fast-spooling turbo that runs out of capacity above 42-4300 RPM. The increase in RPM that would drive higher HP is offset by the decrease in torque due to the insufficient turbo capacity and they nearly cancel out -- leading to 211 HP.

That being said -- I seriously doubt that if you put this engine on a Dyno it would give you exactly a perflectly flat torque curve from 1500-4200 and perflectly flat HP from 4200-6000. Audi has decided the #'s to publish based on marketing/etc...

[-Audi_tuning-]

The standard SAE formula for calculating HP based on torque is:

HP = (2*pi*N*T)/33000

where pi = 3.1459; N = RPMs at specified max torque rating; T = max torque

based on this, the max HP of the 2.0t is 206

Thats assuming 258ft-lbs @ 4200rpm

Then if we take the numbers from Audi's website for 211hp at 6000rpm, I get a torque value of 184ft-lbs....something is fishy here. I'm not sure where Audi is getting these numbers...

ok I just gunna point something out, if your taking the number 211 at 6000 then your right, ur at the end of the torque curve so it makes sense if its at 184ft lbs... if you take the max torque numbers and get a lower hp thats also true because hp doesnt peak until 6000.... audi goes with ultra conservative numbers and wouldnt talk up stuff that wasnt true, they would under rate it if anything, just for futrue reference

[B8_Jim]

<snip>
...because hp doesnt peak until 6000....
<snip>

Actually Audi claims 211HP from 4300-6000 RPM.
They also claim 258 ft-lbs from 1500-4200 RPM.

Maybe APR will have a Dyno curve of the stock engine once the introduce their ECU mod...

[thenicholsterr]

I've been going back and forth on this, I know the B8 A4 3.2 isn't offered in manual, but is the the 2.0T offered in manual in the US? I thought I read somewhere that the B8 A4 isn't going to be offered in manual at all in the US, but I've reading otherwise lately. Is it possible to order a 2.0T in manual?

Im pretty sure that they are offering manuals for 2.0T sedans but probably not for avants.

[marcus1701]

They don't offer a manual....at least for this year, which is really too bad. I would hope S-tronic will be coming soon at least.

[B8_Jim]

They don't offer a manual....

They do offer a manual -- the 2.0T Sedan is available with a 6 speed. Availale for ordering since Mid Nov...

"Audi A4 Lineup Expands With New FrontTrak and Manual Models
- The Audi A4 2.0T FrontTrak sedan pairs the multitronic transmission with the award-winning Audi 2.0 TFSI engine
- The Audi A4 quattro sedan is now available with a six-speed manual transmission
..."

http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=1156

[sakimano]

Very possible for a couple reasons...

1. is that Car And Driver almost always has the fastest 0-60mph time...they clocked the B6 S4 at 4.99 seconds when everyone else had it around 5.1-5.3

2. Audi always reports a sandbagged time. It also reports a 0-100 km/h time which is about 0-62.5 mph.

Consider the new R8 5.2...Audi is reporting 0-62.5mph in 3.9 seconds. The R8 4.2 does it in 4.2 seconds...you really think another 130hp is going to shave ony 0.3 seconds off that time?

It'll be closer to the LP560-4 in the low 3 second range (i'll guess 3.4)

09 A4 2.0T 0-60 in 5.7 according to Car and Driver (way faster than Audi's 6.7)

Car and Driver

[sakimano]

Impossible has to be a mistake. The 335 does it in 5.6 and has less drivetrain loss and has 89 hp more than the A4. It has to be closer to 7 sec because the new S4 does it in 5.1 and has 333 hp while the 3.2 has to be around low 6. I can see a one second spread between each versions.

your post is not even close to reality...manufacturer times are always sandbagged so they don't get sued (see Mazda). Further, the A4 2.0T is lighter than the 3.2 and it has more torque. This is a 0-60mph test, not a dyno hp test...there's no way on earth the 2.0T would be 1 second slower than the 3.2

finally, you quote a 5.7 second time for a 335 (what...coupe? sedan? x?) yet in your very next post you claim that you have a 135i that does 5.0 with the same engine (detuned slightly in 1 series) and a marginally lighter setup. Why are you so confused?

magazines lol from experience stock is around 5.0 for my 135 and more for the 335...Ive never figured how magazines get these results some guy on some forum was talking about a 0.3 roll out dont know if its true.

that's because magazines employ professional drivers, and you are...not.

[sakimano]

this is true. Audi exec explained it to me...and they build the cars.

You're kidding right? What quick test? Is this backed up by dyno data? I sincerely hope you're right, but I'm awfully skeptical.

Maybe this is another reason the B8 A4 Avant has dual exhaust and 2.0T sedans only have them on one side of the car. :)

[BMWBig6]

this is true. Audi exec explained it to me...and they build the cars.

Then why does Audi publish slightly slower 0-60 figures for Avants? Are you saying without the slight factory bump in power (exclusive to Avants), they would be even slower? Seems that if Audi was going to the trouble of bumping power, they'd at least make the Avants match the sedan's performance and not still lag behind by .2 seconds to 60 MPH.

I'm not challenging your story or the source, just the logic (doesn't make sense, and I've never heard of another OEM doing this for different body configurations of the same car). Does anybody bump power for heavier convertible models, as they would seem to suffer the same extra weight problem as Avant wagons.

[B8_Jim]

<snip> the A4 2.0T is lighter than the 3.2 and it has more torque.

It's true the 2.0T has more torque at lower RPM -- the 3.2 revs higher and keeps it's torque longer -- the 2.0T turbo is too small to keep the 258 lbs past 4200 RPM. For 0-60 times where you go to redline -- that matters for 0-60 times, but you could argue that the higer torque from 1500-4200 RPM make it a better daily driver.

That being said -- the 2.0T keeps up with the 3.2 very well, but the lower redline means one more shift for the 2.0T, and lack of torque at high RPM's mean the 3.2 just edges out the 2.0T.

The attached is using Audi's published torque/HP values for both engines, the tip gear ratios with a 0.2 sec shift lag to approximate the tip shifts. I also applied a 0.85 factor to torque to account for the crank-to-wheel losses... The numbers I got look amazingly close to what Audi published -- I was surprised

[sakimano]

Then why does Audi publish slightly slower 0-60 figures for Avants? Are you saying without the slight factory bump in power (exclusive to Avants), they would be even slower? Seems that if Audi was going to the trouble of bumping power, they'd at least make the Avants match the sedan's performance and not still lag behind by .2 seconds to 60 MPH.

I'm not challenging your story or the source, just the logic (doesn't make sense, and I've never heard of another OEM doing this for different body configurations of the same car). Does anybody bump power for heavier convertible models, as they would seem to suffer the same extra weight problem as Avant wagons.

Yes.

not uncommon for factory power vs. published to be different...look at the GTR...'480 hp', yet Car and Driver dyno'd 3 of them, all closer to 520-530

Look at the 335i...same published output as the 135i...yet despite the size weight difference, performance is almost identical.

Audi is not going to be able to match the performance because a little bump is one thing, but erasing the handicap of an extra 200-300 pounds would require SERIOUS work.

[BMWBig6]

Yes.

not uncommon for factory power vs. published to be different...look at the GTR...'480 hp', yet Car and Driver dyno'd 3 of them, all closer to 520-530

Look at the 335i...same published output as the 135i...yet despite the size weight difference, performance is almost identical.

Audi is not going to be able to match the performance because a little bump is one thing, but erasing the handicap of an extra 200-300 pounds would require SERIOUS work.

I'm not discounting that actual measured power varies from published figures. But one thing has got nothing to do with the other, and that fact doesn't prove your claim that the Avants received a bump in power from the factory. Dyno runs (preferably pulled back-to-back on the same day at the same facility, corrected to SAE) for a sedan and Avant would settle this matter quickly, though mileage, fuel, production variances, etc. would no doubt contribute to a few hp difference either way. I'd really like to believe you, but I just have no evidence to use as basis for this theory. I sincerely hope you're right! Perhaps one of the tuners (APR, GIAC, etc.) can confirm this for us, as they'll have countless hours of dyno time in each vehicle over the next few months.

Is there even a confirmed precedent for this practice of "bumping" Avant power (like on the previous B7, B6, and B5 series)?

[sakimano]

oh please...what are you an engineer? so detail oriented. Actually don't answer that. I already know you are.

come to the next dinner I have with the President of Audi Canada, and you can argue with him. Life's too short for me to bother with your nitpicking.

I'm not discounting that actual measured power varies from published figures. But one thing has got nothing to do with the other, and that fact doesn't prove your claim that the Avants received a bump in power from the factory. Dyno runs (preferably pulled back-to-back on the same day at the same facility, corrected to SAE) for a sedan and Avant would settle this matter quickly, though mileage, fuel, production variances, etc. would no doubt contribute to a few hp difference either way. I'd really like to believe you, but I just have no evidence to use as basis for this theory. I sincerely hope you're right! Perhaps one of the tuners (APR, GIAC, etc.) can confirm this for us, as they'll have countless hours of dyno time in each vehicle over the next few months.

Is there even a confirmed precedent for this practice of "bumping" Avant power (like on the previous B7, B6, and B5 series)?

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[BMWBig6]

oh please...what are you an engineer? so detail oriented. Actually don't answer that. I already know you are.

come to the next dinner I have with the President of Audi Canada, and you can argue with him. Life's too short for me to bother with your nitpicking.

I'm not interested in arguing, I just want the truth. But I'll bite: Why would attention to detail lead you to believe that I'm an engineer? Did you ever consider that many other professions value this quality? Maybe if more people were detail-oriented, the world would be a better place.

Back on topic, I'm just trying to learn more about this "quick test" you originally referenced in this thread:

A quick test reveals they give a few extra hp to the wagons to make up for the weight disadvantage.

What quick test do you speak of, and where can we all see the results? You would have said "a quick test would reveal" if you were talking about a hypothetical test, but your statement implies the test has already been conducted. So I want to see the test data (or at least the results) that support your assertion. And please don't tell me your "quick test" was cocktails and weiners with an Audi executive, LOL.

And let's try to tone down the drama. You've been very critical of other people's posts here (not just mine), but you don't have to be so hostile and antagonistic about it.

[sakimano]

You've been very critical of other people's posts here (not just mine), but you don't have to be so hostile and antagonistic about it.

the only posts I have been critical of are those that reek of inaccuracy. Those I was hostile towards are those who reek of hostility.

I used to own an Avant, and I was chatting with a couple of Audi execs at a dinner. We were talking about how great Avants were, but how baffling the Americans are for not embracing them, DESPITE all the whining about rising gas prices. During the discussion we talked about the 1.8T engine and the 2.0T engines and how the performance differences between Avant and Sedan aren't as wide as they ought to be. This is because the Avants leave the factory with slightly higher power than sedans. Nothing to write home about of course, but enough to minimize the weight damage. I accepted that as truth...since these guys kind of RUN THE COMPANY.

But, go ahead and dyno test the cars (stock avant vs stock saloon). Let us know how it goes. Quick test indeed...dynos only take a minute. Of course, you'll need to ensure a proper sample size since you're engineerish. Do 30 of each...all brand new cars...all with the same options...all on the same dyno machine. Get back to us when you're done.

I was right wasn't I? You are an engineer, or studied some kind of academic path similar to engineering. You at least thought of it. You are unable to accept things without having them played out before your eyes, under your control. You stifle everything with an insufferable requirement to know absolutely every little detail about almost everything in your life...buying a car must be a nightmare for you. I respect that we're all different though...I just find it taxing having to cater to engineerish thinking too often, especially when it goes overboard.

Be careful what you wish for...if there were too many attention-to-detail folks in the world, we wouldn't have enough big-picture vision to move us forward. Of course if there were too many big picture thinkers, everything would fall apart and burst into flames.

[BMWBig6]

the only posts I have been critical of are those that reek of inaccuracy. Those I was hostile towards are those who reek of hostility.

And while I'll be the first to admit I am wrong if I am somehow proven mistaken, your claim reeks of urban legend.

I used to own an Avant, and I was chatting with a couple of Audi execs at a dinner. We were talking about how great Avants were, but how baffling the Americans are for not embracing them, DESPITE all the whining about rising gas prices. During the discussion we talked about the 1.8T engine and the 2.0T engines and how the performance differences between Avant and Sedan aren't as wide as they ought to be. This is because the Avants leave the factory with slightly higher power than sedans. Nothing to write home about of course, but enough to minimize the weight damage. I accepted that as truth...since these guys kind of RUN THE COMPANY.

But, go ahead and dyno test the cars (stock avant vs stock saloon). Let us know how it goes. Quick test indeed...dynos only take a minute. Of course, you'll need to ensure a proper sample size since you're engineerish. Do 30 of each...all brand new cars...all with the same options...all on the same dyno machine. Get back to us when you're done.

I see, so there was no "quick test" (and results to speak of) after all. I apologize if you're offended that I don't accept your claim at face value. "Facts" obtained via idle chit-chat over pigs-in-blankets and champagne with an "exec" hardly constitute credible evidence. But I'm sure it was interesting party conversation nonetheless.

Since every vehicle configuration has to be individually crash- and emission-tested before coming to the U.S., then why not just publish unique figures for the Avants? Audi already publishes unique weights, cargo capacities, and 0-60 MPH figures. Why stop there, and not go ahead and advertise the "bump" in horsepower for Avants? If what you say is true, then wouldn't all the aftermarket tuners offer a "Sedan tune" and an "Avant tune?" Because the tunes would exceed the safety and performance margins of the Avant much sooner if they simply applied their sedan tunes to the already "bumped" Avant (assuming this is even true).

I only ask: where is the physical evidence that supports the practice of factory "bumping" Avant horsepower? The evidence wouldn't be so hard to come by if the Avants made more power, since ECU reflashes, Technical Service Bulletins, and other service actions would have to be unique to the Avants.

I was right wasn't I? You are an engineer, or studied some kind of academic path similar to engineering. You at least thought of it. You are unable to accept things without having them played out before your eyes, under your control. You stifle everything with an insufferable requirement to know absolutely every little detail about almost everything in your life...buying a car must be a nightmare for you. I respect that we're all different though...I just find it taxing having to cater to engineerish thinking too often, especially when it goes overboard.

Nope, not an engineer, not even close. You may want to practice your fortune-telling and palm reading skills a little more before your next dinner party with Audi Execs.

Be careful what you wish for...if there were too many attention-to-detail folks in the world, we wouldn't have enough big-picture vision to move us forward. Of course if there were too many big picture thinkers, everything would fall apart and burst into flames.

I think we finally agree on something.

[Jacon]

Yea, but 258ft-lbs at 4300 rpm = 211HP.

184ft-lbs @ 6000 is reasonable (or at least lower torque at higher RPM) since this is a small, fast-spooling turbo that runs out of capacity above 42-4300 RPM. The increase in RPM that would drive higher HP is offset by the decrease in torque due to the insufficient turbo capacity and they nearly cancel out -- leading to 211 HP.

That being said -- I seriously doubt that if you put this engine on a Dyno it would give you exactly a perflectly flat torque curve from 1500-4200 and perflectly flat HP from 4200-6000. Audi has decided the #'s to publish based on marketing/etc...

I took the number of 4200 right from Audi's website. You would have to see the torque curve to get an accurate calculation of torque. According to them the torque curve that produces the 258ft lbs ends at 4200 rpm. It's obviously a marketing scheme by audi to yield such numbers