C&D: 1M Takes Down Audi TT RS and Infiniti IPL G37 in First 1M Comparo Win

[l888apex]

wish we got some seats like that though...those are proper

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by techthentic

Why are you guys still arguing over the Audi which is 16 grand more expensive lol
The true competitor is the RS3...
Actually, here in Canada, the competitor price wise, is the TT-S

An its still ~5k more.

[///1M]

Originally Posted by l888apex

This comparo is so dumb. I'm not really biased, owned a B5 S4 and love Audi's, but TT's are the GIRLIEST model they offer in the opinion of most people I've seen. I'm sure these guys are excited that M owners are getting all worked up over their girly cars now being quick and GIRLY...

YES!! THANK YOU!! This is what I've been saying (just not as candidly).

It's why I couldn't own a TT at any price, for any performance. Besides the fact that it's tiny. And girly LMAO.

[superchargedman]

i'm giddy! c&d just posted the ipl's video. can't wait for the 1m's and ttrs'. here's the ipl for those who wish to pay their respects to the dead: http://blog.caranddriver.com/

[Peteypab2133]

Originally Posted by l888apex

This comparo is so dumb. I'm not really biased, owned a B5 S4 and love Audi's, but TT's are the girliest model they offer in the opinion of most people I've seen. I'm sure these guys are excited that M owners are getting all worked up over their girly cars now being quick and girly, but the TT-RS is the same price as a well optioned M3, not a bare 1M. The performance is obviously skewed by the AWD and DCT and Launch Control. It's probably building a good bit of boost off the line. The Evo comes with a factory 2-step launch control that lets you floor it while keeping the RPM set at 6k and you will see 7-10 psi before you are moving. I have cut a 1.59 60' on 330 whp with street tires and have the slip too. That's why it does a 12.1 but the trap speed of 113 is about normal for a 340 hp 3100 lbs car. It's not defying the laws of physics it's just quick thanks to it not being very hard to drive. Reminds me of when the GT-R pulling crazy magazine comparo numbers, seemingly impossible at 480 hp and 3800 lbs.

The TT-RS is obviously a bit laggier than the M which is why it's not as strong in the 5-60, and the in-gear pulls. It couldn't even use all it's gears at those speeds which means it probably only shifts twice going to 60 mph too whereas the close ratio 6 speed M has 3 but on the butt dyno it probably feels better to drive the BMW. Both cars seem to have good modding potential too. The 1M deserves to win because it's a much better value and is obviously well balanced and fun to drive as seen by those scores.

Decent logic but it is what it is. The GTR has gearing and runs like a monster. the new one running a 2.9 is something that even the most ANTI GTR hater will have to respect. It is OFFICIALLY the best all around car for under 100k.

back on topic.

The 5cyl they put into the quattros/TTRS is NASTY. Hands down the reason audi is on the map, from back in the day and now reviving the motor that started it all.

It is a girly car, but that makes it even worse that a girl may beat a guy in his 1M if he or she cannot shift it properly. The DSG has technology in it that they would not sell to Ferrari a few years back for ANY amount of money. Unfortunately the US wont get it. big deal, not really. I like the feeling of a 6 speed anyways.

16 grand? Why all of a sudden is everyone sooooo angry that the TTRS is $16,000 over that of a 1M, but when the new 5.0 mustang GT came out no one wants to talk about how the $30,000 price difference REALLY makes the mustang a better buy??? Lets face it, Audi may (or to some may not) have the nicest interiors around. Thats my opinion. I have owned both cars, and I can tell you that it really comes down to a coin flip in most cases.

I dont think this is a good comparo. I think time will tell when REAL people do a review on the cars. Not BMW owners ...

[///1M]

Originally Posted by Peteypab2133

Decent logic but it is what it is. The GTR has gearing and runs like a monster. the new one running a 2.9 is something that even the most ANTI GTR hater will have to respect. It is OFFICIALLY the best all around car for under 100k.

back on topic.

The 5cyl they put into the quattros/TTRS is NASTY. Hands down the reason audi is on the map, from back in the day and now reviving the motor that started it all.

It is a girly car, but that makes it even worse that a girl may beat a guy in his 1M if he or she cannot shift it properly. The DSG has technology in it that they would not sell to Ferrari a few years back for ANY amount of money. Unfortunately the US wont get it. big deal, not really. I like the feeling of a 6 speed anyways.

16 grand? Why all of a sudden is everyone sooooo angry that the TTRS is $16,000 over that of a 1M, but when the new 5.0 mustang GT came out no one wants to talk about how the $30,000 price difference REALLY makes the mustang a better buy??? Lets face it, Audi may (or to some may not) have the nicest interiors around. Thats my opinion. I have owned both cars, and I can tell you that it really comes down to a coin flip in most cases.

I dont think this is a good comparo. I think time will tell when REAL people do a review on the cars. Not BMW owners ...

It sure would get old to have to activate that launch control at every stoplight LOL.

[roo97ss]

To me it sounds like the 1m is the daily car that you can track, vs the TTRS the track car you can daily if you're a glutton for punishment.

DSG/AWD is the way to go for power delivery; i'm surprised the dct isn't offered in the 1m, simply to put down the impressive numbers, even if the drivers (ie non track rats) would simply buy the manual for driving enjoyment.

Also, about the acceleration....
the ttrs is quicker in 1/4 mile, time (of course the big launch) but in mph as well 113 vs 109.

plus 3 sec quicker to 130 (17 vs 20.1)

and 100-130 is 7.7 vs 9.2 seconds. Talk about getting your ass handed to you on the highway.

and 60-130 is 13.3 vs 15.6. Granted these are all already at WOT, but still, that's significantly quicker, plus what about that second on the track.

Fortunately the TTRS in dsg won't make it here, so the actual tests won't be this lopsided, and may actually benefit the 1M. would be interested to see if the Boss 302 isn't going to match it as well...

[PHANTOM666]

I want this. Is it brand new? Including all stencils and everything? Pm me with paypal.

[PHANTOM666]

Yes awesome detector. Mine's saved me way more than I like to admit.

[swamp2]

This car is a RINGER, period.

Let's cover some basics first (based on many misstatements made here prior). Then we will get to the statement above.

1. US standards, drag racing and for magazines, allow a 1 foot rollout. For sub 5 second street cars this gives them a 0.3-0.4 second advantage compared to a test that does not use a roll out (i.e. most of the rest of the world).
2. DSG will provide a 0.2-0.4 second advantage to 60 over an equivalent manual transmission car. It is just one (manual) shift time that is saved.
3. Europe uses 0-100 km/hr which is 62 mph. The difference for a sub 5 second street car for this 2 mph is about 0.2-0.3 seconds.
4. Most of this is irrelevant with "apples to apples" testing which this was. Do not compare ANY US to EU or other numbers without these changes or a disclaimer.
5. Good traction control absolutely helps 0-60 times but after that it is a power to weight battle. Same goes for AWD.
6. A high rear weight bias such as most Porsches helps rear traction and launching, NOT a front wheel bias. This Audi is incredibly front biased.

Power to weight is what rules all performance. Sure a close power to weight between similar cars but with one having AWD has some advantages. Higher torque (with similar power to weight) can also give some advantages. However, both of these are for shorter times, smaller distances and lower speeds, basically <100 mph and right around launch. In general you can predict performance from power to weight alone. This Audi has a power to weight ratio (really weight to power) of 9.9 lb/hp. A 2009 Porsche Carrera S (997) weighs in just about the same but has 385 hp. It also has much wider rear tires and a great rear weight bias good for drag races. It's power to weight ratio is only about 8.6 lb/hp. That is a 13% advantage. Road and Track tested one in the 1/4 mile in 12.3 s @114.8 mph. If I recall this is one of the better or maybe even the best time posted by the major mags for this car. Same weight, 50 more hp and the Audi bests its time? Come on. Don't drink the koolaid. Good launch control is not UFO magic acceleration.

Let's look at 0-100. The E92 M3 M-DCTs best time is 9.4 sec. Its power to weight ratio is about 8.9 lb/hp. Thus it ends up performing quite close to the Carrera S in a wide variety of different contests (but typically getting slightly bested). Sure the Audi may get the jump on the M3 to 60 but by 100 it is mostly a power to weight contest. 9.3 seconds for the Audi???

If the Audi had the power and torque quoted it would deliver a low 4 sec 0-60, a mid 11 sec run to 100 and do the 1/4 in about 13@108.

To obtain the figures in this test the car would need just shy of 400 hp and 400 ft lb of torque. Along with the ability to basically disengage the AWD system right after launch so that it does not dissipate way too much power (which to be fair it probably does have). This is the most grotesque underrating I have seen of all time. The GT-R was the prior winner here as everyone in the know agreed the 1st model year car was putting down about 530 hp with only 480 claimed. The 480 number "coincidentally" matched the Porsche Turbo output exactly which Nissan clearly identified as the car it would best with the GT-R. That is a "mere" 10% underrating. This case is closer to 20%. I'd pay a bundle to see the rri.se awd hub dyno results for this particular car...

RINGER, RINGER, RINGER.

The Audi boys are eating this up over on some of the Audi forums. Noting how much faster the car is than model X, model Y, model Z.

Now BMW is not innocent here either. They admit the overboost feature can crank up the torque on the 1M by about +15 ft lb to about 385 ft lb, but it leaves the hp unaffected. I strongly believe it also gains about 15 hp, making it closer to 350 hp. Those figures give simulations (see below) that agree pretty well with actual delivered results.

I would be happy to post up some of the physics based car simulations I ran to verify and produce the estimates above. But as far as simply realizing that something is very fishy here all you need is some common sense and knowledge about power to weight ratios. Heck even just some comparative knowledge of what some other sport cars obtain would do the trick. This thing is not just 5-10% off (and by "off" I mean underrated).

[as7920]

I don't care.

I could have got a used TT-RS.
I could have got a RS3.
I could have got a 1M.
I could have got a used M3.
I could have got a used 911.

I don't give a damn.

I bought the 1M because it was the car I wanted. Period.

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by swamp2

To obtain the figures in this test the car would need just shy of 400 hp and 400 ft lb of torque. Along with the ability to basically disengage the AWD system right after launch so that it does not dissipate way too much power (which to be fair it probably does have). This is the most grotesque underrating I have seen of all time. The GT-R was the prior winner here as everyone in the know agreed the 1st model year car was putting down about 530 hp with only 480 claimed. The 480 number "coincidentally" matched the Porsche Turbo output exactly which Nissan clearly identified as the car it would best with the GT-R. That is a "mere" 10% underrating. This case is closer to 20%. I'd pay a bundle to see the rri.se awd hub dyno results for this particular car...

RINGER, RINGER, RINGER.

. . .
Now BMW is not innocent here either. They admit the overboost feature can crank up the torque on the 1M by about +15 ft lb to about 385 ft lb, but it leaves the hp unaffected. I strongly believe it also gains about 15 hp, making it closer to 350 hp. Those figures give simulations (see below) that agree pretty well with actual delivered results.

Why are you so fixated on peak figures, a car does not operate at it's peak output 100% of the time? The TTRS has a quite muscular curve, it holds peak power from 5,400-6,500rpm and peak torque from 1,600-5,300rpm. The 1M has peak power just @ 5,700rpm and hold peak torque between 1,500-4,500rpm.

The overboost on the BMW does not affect the peak hp figure because it does not increase the boost all the way to the redline, it is basically a mid range increase in performance.

You just have to compare the times in context. Look at the SportAuto figures (posted here http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=51) for an example and you see the relative differences are similar

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by techthentic

Why are you guys still arguing over the Audi which is 16 grand more expensive lol
The true competitor is the RS3...
Actually, here in Canada, the competitor price wise, is the TT-S

Here the 1M base price is smack in the middle of the TTS and RS.

TTS . . .1m/RS3 . . . TTRS . . . . . . . M3
£35k . . . £40k . . . . £45k . . . . . . . £55k

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by ///1M

It sure would get old to have to activate that launch control at every stoplight LOL.

Launch control active all the time....it's called a clutch.

[mad chemist]

Originally Posted by YVES1M

WTF Guys!!! the TT-RS is amasing but MORE EXPENSIVE than the 1M!!!!!!! some of you will start comparing the performance of a Ferrari enzo!!!!!! it's not the fastess car in the world but the best bang for the buck for power and handling..

Both TTRS & 1M have identical lease payments in the UK due to higher residual value of the TTRS (I know I have quotes for both).

Mad.

[mad chemist]

Originally Posted by poverty

Thanks someone understands. Im on here because im passionate about the car, I havent bashed the BMW at all, infact I have registered interest in the car and have the 1M brochure at home.

Before I got my TT I was worried I might have made the wrong choice as info about the 1M was just being revealed, and I was wondering whether I should hold fire, but impatience got the better of me and I now happily own the audi.

Lets face it, the performance between the two cars are pretty even and both excel all round. For certain things the beemer is better, and for others its the audi.

No point getting worked up over these things. I only joined up here because people where saying that the TT cant do this, or cant do that, and I just wanted to balance the discussion by saying hold up guys, there are us joe average guys who have achieved as good as or better than the magazines figures, so it is possible!

0-60 really isnt my thing either Mr.Roboto, my previous car was a high powered fwd car which when rolling from 30mph would leave a stock TTRS behind by about two-three car lengths. Throw in some bends or damp/wet road and the TT did obliterate it though.

You pays your money and take your pick, I look forward to meeting some 1m owners and getting to experience the car first hand

+1

[EmmDrei]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Launch control active all the time....it's called a clutch.

Did you forget the smileys?

Drive a mt off any line like a lauch control does and you won't have a clutch for very long. Even using the launch control, the clutch in an automated box won't stand that kind of treatment all to often. A driver that can actually match a launch control and/or a really good traction control should just dump the ABS in the next step, since he's better than any chip anyhow. There's many that would like to be there, but I am yet to meet one that is.

[superchargedman]

I think you are speculating somewhat and have holes in you facts. The m button gives no increased hp. It gives more than 15 lb/ft. Also various euro stats are 0-60 and not -62. I'm not gonna detail all the faults in your argument but it's definitely poorly validated.

Originally Posted by swamp2

This car is a RINGER, period.

Let's cover some basics first (based on many misstatements made here prior). Then we will get to the statement above.

1. US standards, drag racing and for magazines, allow a 1 foot rollout. For sub 5 second street cars this gives them a 0.3-0.4 second advantage compared to a test that does not use a roll out (i.e. most of the rest of the world).
2. DSG will provide a 0.2-0.4 second advantage to 60 over an equivalent manual transmission car. It is just one (manual) shift time that is saved.
3. Europe uses 0-100 km/hr which is 62 mph. The difference for a sub 5 second street car for this 2 mph is about 0.2-0.3 seconds.
4. Most of this is irrelevant with "apples to apples" testing which this was. Do not compare ANY US to EU or other numbers without these changes or a disclaimer.
5. Good traction control absolutely helps 0-60 times but after that it is a power to weight battle. Same goes for AWD.
6. A high rear weight bias such as most Porsches helps rear traction and launching, NOT a front wheel bias. This Audi is incredibly front biased.

Power to weight is what rules all performance. Sure a close power to weight between similar cars but with one having AWD has some advantages. Higher torque (with similar power to weight) can also give some advantages. However, both of these are for shorter times, smaller distances and lower speeds, basically <100 mph and right around launch. In general you can predict performance from power to weight alone. This Audi has a power to weight ratio (really weight to power) of 9.9 lb/hp. A 2009 Porsche Carrera S (997) weighs in just about the same but has 385 hp. It also has much wider rear tires and a great rear weight bias good for drag races. It's power to weight ratio is only about 8.6 lb/hp. That is a 13% advantage. Road and Track tested one in the 1/4 mile in 12.3 s @114.8 mph. If I recall this is one of the better or maybe even the best time posted by the major mags for this car. Same weight, 50 more hp and the Audi bests its time? Come on. Don't drink the koolaid. Good launch control is not UFO magic acceleration.

Let's look at 0-100. The E92 M3 M-DCTs best time is 9.4 sec. Its power to weight ratio is about 8.9 lb/hp. Thus it ends up performing quite close to the Carrera S in a wide variety of different contests (but typically getting slightly bested). Sure the Audi may get the jump on the M3 to 60 but by 100 it is mostly a power to weight contest. 9.3 seconds for the Audi???

If the Audi had the power and torque quoted it would deliver a low 4 sec 0-60, a mid 11 sec run to 100 and do the 1/4 in about 13@108.

To obtain the figures in this test the car would need just shy of 400 hp and 400 ft lb of torque. Along with the ability to basically disengage the AWD system right after launch so that it does not dissipate way too much power (which to be fair it probably does have). This is the most grotesque underrating I have seen of all time. The GT-R was the prior winner here as everyone in the know agreed the 1st model year car was putting down about 530 hp with only 480 claimed. The 480 number "coincidentally" matched the Porsche Turbo output exactly which Nissan clearly identified as the car it would best with the GT-R. That is a "mere" 10% underrating. This case is closer to 20%. I'd pay a bundle to see the rri.se awd hub dyno results for this particular car...

RINGER, RINGER, RINGER.

The Audi boys are eating this up over on some of the Audi forums. Noting how much faster the car is than model X, model Y, model Z.

Now BMW is not innocent here either. They admit the overboost feature can crank up the torque on the 1M by about 15 ft lb to about 385 ft lb, but it leaves the hp unaffected. I strongly believe it also gains about 15 hp, making it closer to 350 hp. Those figures give simulations (see below) that agree pretty well with actual delivered results.

I would be happy to post up some of the physics based car simulations I ran to verify and produce the estimates above. But as far as simply realizing that something is very fishy here all you need is some common sense and knowledge about power to weight ratios. Heck even just some comparative knowledge of what some other sport cars obtain would do the trick. This thing is not just 5-10% off (and by "off" I mean underrated).

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by superchargedman

I think you are speculating somewhat and have holes in you facts. The m button gives no increased hp. It gives more than 15 lb/ft. Also various euro stats are 0-60 and not -62. I'm not gonna detail all the faults in your argument but it's definitely poorly validated.

If tq changes something else has to change...hp or rpm.

[BrokenVert]

Don't bring up the 1 ft rollout or the DCT or the AWD.

They don't like to hear it here for some reson

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

If tq changes something else has to change...hp or rpm.

I think he is referring to peak hp. It will give you more hp in the rpm range the boost is increased but overboost does not boost as it were in higher rpm's, so it is not going to affect peak hp figures. Swamp2 (who superchargedman was replying to) questioned why it did not change peak hp

[roo97ss]

To the RINGER, RINGER, RINGER claim, maybe it is, maybe it's just underrated.

The 305 hp LS1 cars weighed 3500 +lbs and would trap 107-109 mph and dynoed 290-300 at the wheels. the corvette was rated 345 at same time, with essentially zero performance improvements (little better exhaust really) and lo and behold would only dyno 300-310 hp...

Maybe audi is just going to provide more for your money and is keeping power down a bit to not step on say porsche toes.

Or perhaps it's just flashed and running some extra boost to be the ringer that embarresses the 1m both in a straight line (3 sec to 130) and on the track (1 sec)