.
Motortrend
.
PS. I was going to post this earlier in the week but I’ve been busy so… This car - well, that and the Bentley Continental GT Speed currently in all the rags – exemplifies what’s unique about MLB Audis, Porsche and Bentley. ;-)
.2013 Audi S8 First Test
Faster Than All of You (excerpts)
October 22, 2012 By Scott Evans | Photos Robert Kerian
.
.
How fast is your new whatever? Doesn't matter -- this full-size, four-door Audi is faster. That's right, kids, unless you're driving one of the absolute quickest cars on the market, the 2013 Audi S8 luxury sedan will probably show you its taillights.
.
Let's look at the numbers. This all-wheel drive luxo-cruiser weighs a stout 4619 pounds and packs a 520-horsepower, 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8 with 481 lb-ft of torque. Hah! Your Chevord Mustaro GZ-51 makes more power than that! Well, you'd better get that launch right, or you'll be explaining to your passengers why you just lost to a sedan. See, this new Audi S8 hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds and runs the quarter mile in 11.8 seconds at 118.3 mph. Your Camaro ZL1 doesn't have a chance, and your Shelby GT500 better hook up or it's done, too. Of course, S8 buyers don't usually cross-shop Mustangs and Camaros, but it's still worth noting that you'd have to pay nearly the same coin for a Nissan GT-R or a Corvette ZR-1 that will actually beat the $110,000 Audi.
.
The only car in the class that can match the S8 for straight line speed is its distant cousin, the Porsche Panamera Turbo S, and it's still a dead heat. The Panamera will hit 60 mph in 3.5 seconds, same as the S8, and run the quarter in 11.8 seconds at 118.0 mph to the Audi's 11.8 seconds at 118.3 mph.
The CTS-V has also ran 11.9x stock down to the air filter, and will easily do so by normal drives with a drag radial. The S8's issue for me is that it is simply a shrinking violet, and I desire more gravitas for the fiscal expenditure.A mighty fast sedan. Currently Porsche -with both the Turbo and Turbo S- has the only sedan(s) to duck under 12 seconds in the quarter. Looks like this is as fast as the Turbo and not much slower than the significantly more expensive (and less attractive IMO) Turbo S.
For sedans in this price range, the S8 is a great choice.
For all intents , and purposes the CTS-V is capable of performing in a way that is only marginally divergent from the S8 and for far less money.That's a full-size luxury sedan faster than the CTS-V. Nothing against the CTS-V at all - which is amazing in itself. I read about this S8 a few months ago and was thoroughly impressed. That's having your cake and eating it too (I hate that stupid phrase). Full size and F'ing fast...
Pray tell can you remind me when the last STS V was made in relation to today?Way faster than the STS V. Did they publish the mileage figures?
I drive a RWD car quite regularly with very near to 400 hp, and 400 lb ft of torque. I can emphatically assure you that this car could easily handle another 100 horsepower, and that is utilizing a simply not notable in any way 255 mm width tire.Cadillac (and Chevrolet with the Camaro and Vette) had better learn a little more about high performance AWD or they won't be able to compete into the future. Over 400hp to just the rear wheels is just pissing away the power.
As someone who owns two of each vehicle type in some ways I am quite qualified to speak on this subject. Take my 300C for instance which I specifically bought RWD despite the best efforts of my dealer to offer me an AWD 300C. In exchange for better inclement weather traction I would have to put up with compromised ride/ handling balance, fuel economy, and performance as well as aesthetic things like a slightly raised ride height. Keep in mind that the Audi Quattro system mainly masks the chassis inherent FWD based AWD system, and does not propel it to the front of the class for handling. AWD in , and of itself is a beneficial addition to an inherently good RWD chassis which makes cars like the GTR notable in many ways.I disagree, and also have experience with cars in mid 300hp RWD range.
In this country, unless you are taking it to a track, the operating speed is 0-80 or so. Once you pull second or third, you're right, 400 to the rear wheels, or even 500 is fine - and that's on near perfect pavement on a dry day. But while you're in first, this is just too much power and is pissed away by torque management (human or computer). Throw in our awful roads, etc and even 500 in second has to be limited. We don't have an autobahn - there's no public place to rocket to 150. That's why AWD is so key, it allows full torque to the wheels in first and second gear. That's where most Americans are going to get the thrill and use the power. Further, a touch of water, or a ripple in the pavement doesn't mess anything up. Forget the benefits in real weather where RWD just doesn't compare in any meaningful way (and you know that). Also, making the tires any larger adversely affects performance in weather. Also hurts fuel economy.
I'm surprised that Germany leads us in technology that is more applicable here, than there!
.I also would prefer the V over all of these cars, and although it gives up launch traction no one aside from myself would ever call a vehicle with a 118 mph trap speeds slow. Simply put AWD is a band aid utilized on these vehicles because they are inherently FWD , and that would never work for a true performance vehicle.