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

[Memphis1]

3.6 is a TYPO...



the correct time is 4.6

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

http://newautocars.org/2011-audi-tt-rs/

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...udi_tt_rs.html

http://www.autospies.com/news/geneva...seconds-41595/

DSG only cuts 0.1 of a second tops .02, not 1 full second...

[HaroldC]

Interesting how no one noticed the fact that the RS was 1 sec faster per lap! That's an eternity at the track......

FYI - I traded in my '11 135i for a '09 TTS. Love it!

[Alpine*]

Originally Posted by HaroldC

Interesting how no one noticed the fact that the RS was 1 sec faster per lap! That's an eternity at the track......

FYI - I traded in my '11 135i for a '09 TTS. Love it!

We traded our 09 135i for a TTS (with a sequential box), now we have sold the TTS and am waiting for delivery of the 1M (the 11th of April production date ).

IMHO, that time is rubbish for the TTRS, the best the the magazines here have achieved in Aus is 5.0 for the 0 - 100k/h time (say maybe ~4.9 0-60mph)(granted it was a manual, they are the only option in Aus too), Audi only says 4.6 to 100 on their local website! Maybe they had some NOS in that test car or something.

[rps1m]

Originally Posted by ///1M

I think that one "important bit" to know is that DSG will not be available in the US... considering that DSG plays a huge part in the TT-RS's advantage in acceleration.

Not to mention the launch control that comes with it.

[wisesoul]

People mention 3.6 for the TT-RS as a typo when they clearly meant to put it there. That's why they compare it to the Zr-1 and SL BS acceleration stats. Mighty impressive, but that thing is pricey.

[superchargedman]

No, 3.6 is explained in the article, and they detail it furthermore. Those articles you quoted were using the MT, not the DSG.

Originally Posted by Memphis1

3.6 is a TYPO...



the correct time is 4.6

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

http://newautocars.org/2011-audi-tt-rs/

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...udi_tt_rs.html

http://www.autospies.com/news/geneva...seconds-41595/

DSG only cuts 0.1 of a second tops .02, not 1 full second...

[BrokenVert]

MT vs DSG doesn't make a 1 second difference.

It is because american car magazines use a 1 ft roll out when sprinting to 60. They make everything artificially faster than it actually is. The Europeans do not use the roll outs as the Americans do. That is why the 1 second difference exists.

[Mako]

US spec ttrs is claimed 0-60 in 4.2 by Audi with manual saw the number at the Chicago autoshow on their display. Throw in a DSG and the fact German companies post conservative times (they all do) I could see 3.6.

Will it take away sales from Porsche now? Bet it will steal some M3 coupe sales.

[jkoral]

"At $47,010, the base 1M is about $12,000 more than a standard 135i."

Shouldn't that be about $8,000? (47,010 - 39,050)

[Malbolge]

if only the 1M had the Audi's engine it would perhaps be my perfect car. That Audi sound is magic, the 1M sounds like a tuned 335i.

[seej333]

When you look at the numbers I wouldn't really say the 1M smoked the TT/RS...

[strati1]

Originally Posted by ///1M

How can the TT-RS have such lofty acceleration numbers and get defeated by the 1M?

3.6 really is insanely fast... though it is $66 grand.

Launch control can make any car pretty damn quick to 60.

basically heres why the bimmer is better

(TT)Launch Control<Broad Torque Band(1M)

[ArabianSensation]

Damn the Infiniti is slow. 5.4 to 60 for a 50k "performance" car?? Really?? Must be heavy as it has more hp than the 1 ///M... and people think BMWs are bloated.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

MT vs DSG doesn't make a 1 second difference.

It is because american car magazines use a 1 ft roll out when sprinting to 60. They make everything artificially faster than it actually is. The Europeans do not use the roll outs as the Americans do. That is why the 1 second difference exists.

How many AWD cars with aggressive launch control programs are out there? It's possible to get so much more from a launch with AWD.

The GTR seems to be quite an outlier with its 0-60, and so is this, because of the launch control + AWD.

[amgthis]

1 M looks fabulous. That TT-RS seems to be running a bit too fast. I wonder if it is TRULY stock. And it is also very light for an AWD car

[as7920]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

MT vs DSG doesn't make a 1 second difference....

It can make a BIG difference but maybe not 1 sec.

Check out Autocar comparison of Golf R DSG and manual on You Tube.

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by Memphis1

3.6 is a TYPO...

the correct time is 4.6

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

http://newautocars.org/2011-audi-tt-rs/

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...udi_tt_rs.html

http://www.autospies.com/news/geneva...seconds-41595/

DSG only cuts 0.1 of a second tops .02, not 1 full second...

You have to take mag numbers in context, you can't really compare times from different testers and pick and choose the ones you want. Different testers have different timing gear and methods, so if you are comparing you need to compare times from the same testers. For example, no mag in the UK or Germany has tested a standard 135i better than 5.2s 0-60.

If you take the Evo test you posted (as it is the only one that used timing gear (the C&D were estimates and the others just regurgitated marketing blurbs), the manual TTRS posted a 4,4s 0-60, in their test of the e92 M3 they got 4,8s.

The dual clutch transmission does not only help with it's launch control but also with the gear changes as boost is held, saving ~0.3s per gear change.

I'd say if both were manual, the difference would be ~0.5s to 60 and ~1.0s to 100 rather than the 0.9s and 1.6s they found with the S-Tronic.

If you look at the SportAuto tests (posted here http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=51 ) this seems likely. They tested the manual RS @ 4,6s 0-100km/h and 10,8s 0-160km/h, in the S-Tronic they got 4,2s & 10.1s respectively.

In their test of the E92 M3 they got 4,8s 0-100km/h and 10,2s 0-160km/h

[elitt13]

please anyone have a scann of a test of the 135i in Car and Driver mag, thanks

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by elitt13

please anyone have a scann of a test of the 135i in Car and Driver mag, thanks

Here is their data panel for the comparison test with the RX8, 370Z and Solstice.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...49e0b474e2.pdf

and compare that to a European mag's test figures.

[superchargedman]

Yes, correct. For god's sake, people need to start reading previous posts before they start posting. It's all context dependent with multiple added variables, which include dag and launch control. Add into the possibility that it's a ringer.

Originally Posted by chris719

How many AWD cars with aggressive launch control programs are out there? It's possible to get so much more from a launch with AWD.

The GTR seems to be quite an outlier with its 0-60, and so is this, because of the launch control AWD.

[IS3andME]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

MT vs DSG doesn't make a 1 second difference.

It is because american car magazines use a 1 ft roll out when sprinting to 60. They make everything artificially faster than it actually is. The Europeans do not use the roll outs as the Americans do. That is why the 1 second difference exists.

Nope, some maga do and some mags don't. C&D even did the 5-60. Until you know definitively that C&D uses a 1 ft rollout, then don't state that as fact. Check their vids to see if they do from standstill or a 1 foot rollout.
As it is, 3.6 is no typo, and they explained it. But, why nobody has wondered aloud, is what if the 1M had DCT...hmmmmm

[MrRoboto]

Anyone else a little disappointed in these results? Honestly I expected a bit more from the 1M...it doesn't appear to be that far off the 135.