# Official performance figures



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

Under what circumstances did they achieve official performance figures?
For example:
0-60mph: 5,2 sec -> did they use S-mode or maybe launch control to achieve these figures? Or was this from standstill in regular D-mode? [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## KevC (Jul 12, 2016)

Probably launch control on a rolling road.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I think they use launch control and supposedly 70kg driver and full fuel tank.


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

powerplay said:


> I think they use launch control and supposedly 70kg driver and full fuel tank.


Seems like they should post regular non launch control times and then put in brackets the time achieved with launch control. (Same how they posted in brackets automatic transmission times in comparison to manual)

All of this is very non transparent if you ask me!


----------



## Steve2017TTS (Aug 2, 2017)

Venom7000 said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > I think they use launch control and supposedly 70kg driver and full fuel tank.
> ...


Why?
If you want max acceleration from the traffic lights - simply use launch control
It's very easy to use - so no excuses not to use it, when necessary.
For the other 99% of driving - you are not normally using the maximum 0-60 driving style anyway!


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

Steve2017TTS said:


> Venom7000 said:
> 
> 
> > powerplay said:
> ...


Steven I think you didn't understand me. I have no gripes with the launch control function. I was talking how the car manufacturers need to separate the acceleration times. Measure 0-60 with out launch and with launch. And post results separately. If you buy a car, do you want to know how it performs 99% of the time or that 1% when the car is not under standard factors? Im saying that their brochures and performance data needs to stress the difference for honesty purposes.

Also the launch control is not exactly a standard thing that cars do. That is why Audi and every other manufacturer tells you that the engine needs to warm up in order to do launch control (it wont simply activate on cold engine) and they recommend using it sparingly because it puts the strain on your engine and parts. (Audi says that it will go into a "cooldown mode after few tries" before you can do it again)
You dont put measurements that were created by using something that cannot be replicated continuously. Its not represenble data.

Ford handled something similar when they introduced "EcoBoost" in Focus.They stated that the torque was for example 195Nm and 220Nm in EcoBoost. Why because the EcoBoost button & function can be used for a limited time before it shuts off. And then you are left with your realistic specs.

I want to know how realistically in 100% of times will my car accelerate. (Under normal dry tarmac circumstances). Sure they can also post the launch control times too. It would make a nice comparison.

Do you understand what I mean?


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Personally I think it's fine to use LC for the quoted 0-60 time. It is, after all, supposed to be the benchmark and the best a car can achieve under optimal conditions. As a manufacturer, I'm not going to tell you what the car can can do on average, I'm going to tell you what the best it can do is; likewise as the consumer I am only interested in the best it can do.

At least Audi tend to down-play their quoted figures unlike some; an article in a recent Audi magazine on the very subject had their head of sport Stephan Winkelmann say they deliberately underplay the figures to ensure that anyone can reasonably achieve them time and time again.


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

powerplay said:


> Personally I think it's fine to use LC for the quoted 0-60 time. It is, after all, supposed to be the benchmark and the best a car can achieve under optimal conditions. As a manufacturer, I'm not going to tell you what the car can can do on average, I'm going to tell you what the best it can do is; likewise as the consumer I am only interested in the best it can do.
> 
> At least Audi tend to down-play their quoted figures unlike some; an article in a recent Audi magazine on the very subject had their head of sport Stephan Winkelmann say they deliberately underplay the figures to ensure that anyone can reasonably achieve them time and time again.


Powerplay me too. I dont mind them using it but NOT as sole data. (Only show LC time)
But thats the thing powerplay, LC is not something that can be used every time. You can only use it few times before cooldown. Even Audi ill advises against using it too many times because you can screw up the engine.

However I think that LC is a neat thing. But let me put it this way. Say you have a microwave and a bag of popcorns. Bag tells you that at 1000w you need 3min to make the popcorn. So you naturally look at your booklet that says "max power" 1000w. So you set it to 100power. 3min later popcorn is underdone. Why? Because Bosh forgot to tell you that it standard power is 900w and to get 1000w (100w boost) you need to press x & y & z. 
See what I mean?
Unless LC can be activated all the time and with press of a single button (instead of pressing 3 looking like a pilot doing pre check for plane take off) they should not post LC times as only data presented to you.
Why would you object to something that looks like this:
Engine
2.0tfsi
230hp
Acc. (0-60):
Without Audi LC: 6.0 sec
With Audi LC: 5.2 sec

Unless the feature is highly mentioned and adverised many people wouldn't know about it. I never even saw a mention of this LC on any promptional material except a small paragraph in your user manual.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

I think this is one of those arguments that can go around and around and around lol.

I do agree though that activating LC, at least in Audis, is too fiddly and a single button would be a better more logical option; I've not even bothered using it on my current RS lol.

Sport mode, TC off, Left foot brake, must hold at least 1 second, what a pain. Just give me a LC button on the steering wheel, press once to engage, maybe press again to an "are you sure" prompt, mash throttle, car is held automatically with no need to use left foot, press again to go. How much better would that be!

As to publishing with/without LC, never going to happen. Probably 10% of cars have LC? Look at all the (already crammed for space) new car listings in the back of magazines with a column for the 0-60; having another column that's 90% empty makes no sense to anyone. 0-60 is just the best that model can do, regardless of limited use or not. I think if you want to know more... get a test drive


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

*FULL DISCLAIMER * :wink: 
I am not arguing or trying to pick a verbal fight with anyone. I made this thread out of curiosity on how did Audi achieve this 5.2 sec on my car.
The thread on its own turned about a sub discussion on LC and data validity, and I LIKE IT! 
_*Please
I highly encourage debating and everyone's opinion on this subject.  *_

This topic was very straight forward back in the day when only manual transmissions existed and you knew the deal:
1.Audi says 7 sec to 60 (because its best driver achieved this result multiple tries)
2. Your times will varry depending on how much you suck at shifting. So get good! :lol:


----------



## KevC (Jul 12, 2016)

Even the times for cars without LC are done unrealistically. Often after lots of optimisation of the surface (if done outdoors), tyres pressures, weight and setup. The clutch is dumped and gear shifts often done without the clutch. Any 'normal' person would struggle to get close.

All the figures are like that though. Fuel economy is done on a rolling road in a sealed room with super smooth pedal operation at exactly the right revs etc for lowest use of fuel. It's nothing like you or me would ever get.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Venom7000 said:


> This topic was very straight forward back in the day when only manual transmissions existed and you knew the deal:
> 1.Audi says 7 sec to 60 (because its best driver achieved this result multiple tries)
> 2. Your times will varry depending on how much you suck at shifting. So get good! :lol:


So does this still not deserve two quoted times - what a good experienced driver can achieve and what an average driver can achieve? :lol:

And good shout on economy figures, if anything needs revising it's this!!


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

Powerplay I meant it more like: "put this data format with & without LC" on your official Audi brochure for that model and on your Audi website (the part where you click for spec)
LOL I haven't picked up a physical magazine in years. All of the good ones are readily available for free online. But yes I agree that would be too much space on traditional magazines.

Powerplay I also agreed on AUDI LC. Judging on how much you have to do it feels like an afterthought rather than a feature. When my friend showed it to me on his 911 I thought it was a hack! :lol:


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

KevC said:


> Even the times for cars without LC are done unrealistically. Often after lots of optimisation of the surface (if done outdoors), tyres pressures, weight and setup. The clutch is dumped and gear shifts often done without the clutch. Any 'normal' person would struggle to get close.
> 
> All the figures are like that though. Fuel economy is done on a rolling road in a sealed room with super smooth pedal operation at exactly the right revs etc for lowest use of fuel. It's nothing like you or me would ever get.


Agree 100% on all of your points for the way they measure all of it!
However with Audi I have yet to see any discrepancies on their fuel economy. I get the milage that they more or less promised. Which is strange because on my girlfriends Alfa Romeo they lie out their ass. :lol:

What about your fuel economy experience? Not as they promised ? :?


----------



## Steve2017TTS (Aug 2, 2017)

Put simply - it's not possible to post a meaningful 0-60 time on a modern sports coupe - without using launch control.
Launch control removes many of the variables that mean normal drivers find it difficult to replicate 0-60 figures, time after time.
Even with launch control - you will get some variation, compared with manufacturer quoted figures - outside air temperature (affects air mass and therefore engine power output), grade of fuel used, amount of fuel in tank, weight of driver, how worn tyres are, road surface grip levels.
Without launch control - there are even more variables.
My car, for instance is slower off the line if I use the hill-hold button and don't keep my foot on the brake.
If I keep foot on the brake pedal and simply transfer that foot quickly to the throttle pedal - car moves away quicker than if hill hold was used to keep car stationary at the lights.
As mentioned in a previous post - car magazines need to be quite brutal to get the best 0-60 launch times - especially on manual gearbox cars.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Most of the time it doesn't really matter as you are looking at 0-60 times for comparison with other cars. Presumably the same test criteria are applied across the industry. 
However it may become misleading when one manufacturer quotes a time obtained using LC whereas its non-LC time is much slower. This may win custom from another car which doesn't offer LC but had a fast normal 0-60.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

ZephyR2 said:


> Most of the time it doesn't really matter as you are looking at 0-60 times for comparison with other cars. Presumably the same test criteria are applied across the industry.
> However it may become misleading when one manufacturer quotes a time obtained using LC whereas its non-LC time is much slower. This may win custom from another car which doesn't offer LC but had a fast normal 0-60.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is exactly my original question!! 
*Does Audi quote their acceleration with LC or without it? 
Is 5.2 for 2.0tfsi or 4.6 for TTS times with usage of LC or not??!*
*There is no disclaimer!!*
Thank you ZephyR2 mate you always seem to get the gist of my questions ever since I started on this forum. :x

I never got to test the LC so I cant say if my car goes faster than 5,2 or thats its LC time.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Definitely 100%, Audi's quoted times are assuming launch control.


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

powerplay said:


> Definitely 100%, Audi's quoted times are assuming launch control.


How happy are you with the "traffic sign recognition system"?
Its the only feature I didnt get. The nav speed limits are either slow to change or wrong.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Venom7000 said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely 100%, Audi's quoted times are assuming launch control.
> ...


I find it's a bit pointless really. In fact I might disable it as almost every day on my commute to work I get a bong and message about traffic sign recognition being unavailable.

My own eyes are far more reliable :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Audi say 5.3 in their brochure.
It's a pointless measure and only really relevant within the same range. It's a test that meant removes all reaction time and show incremental variances within the range

Try getting that performance number at 10,000ft AMSL


----------



## gAgNiCk (Dec 25, 2017)

How much slower is 0-60 without lc? I must admit I'm yet to use it in my TT 2.0, it just doesn't seem relevant for day to day use...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Just look towards the manual times, that will give you an idea but even then I doubt anyone on here would be as quick with a manual box as the testers..


----------



## jonstatt (Mar 30, 2017)

powerplay said:


> Definitely 100%, Audi's quoted times are assuming launch control.


But there are TTS YouTube videos showing the quoted 4.6s without launch control and demonstrating it is 4.1 with launch control. So now I am confused


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Audi always underplay their figures, eg the mk2 TTRS was quoted as 4.3 but could manage it in 3.9.


----------



## Mr TTS (Dec 23, 2017)

I think the marketing departments just make them up.

For example, the RS's 0-60 needs to be sufficiently lower than the R8's or they won't sell any.

Cars are never made to be as good as they can be. They make them to fill a step in their product line up. If something like the real 0-60 messes this up they just lie to make it fit.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Mr TTS said:


> I think the marketing departments just make them up.
> 
> For example, the RS's 0-60 needs to be sufficiently lower than the R8's or they won't sell any.
> 
> Cars are never made to be as good as they can be. They make them to fill a step in their product line up. If something like the real 0-60 messes this up they just lie to make it fit.


Yeah, but as above the R8 is understated too... So its not just marketing.
My R8 on a RR hits 2.7 to 2.8 everytime. Audi say 3.2.... so the difference is linear across the board.


----------



## Venom7000 (Jul 23, 2017)

Toshiba said:


> Mr TTS said:
> 
> 
> > I think the marketing departments just make them up.
> ...


I think also with sufficient milage the parts "settle in" and the performance and fuel economy go up slightly.


----------



## Mr TTS (Dec 23, 2017)

Toshiba said:


> My R8 on a RR hits 2.7 to 2.8 everytime. Audi say 3.2.... so the difference is linear across the board.


Got to keep the R8 artificially down to make the lambos look worth the extra ££££.

Everything has it's place in the VAG ladder.


----------



## Steve2017TTS (Aug 2, 2017)

Everybody - don't forget the quoted times in the brochures are generally 0-100 km/h (62 mph)
On some cars the difference between 0-60mph and 0-100km/h can be 0.5 second (especially on manual cars that require a gear change around the 60mph speed).


----------

