LS3 SS V. RS6

[El-Diablo]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

how is 9.13 lb/hp (4057/444) better than 9.06 (426/3860)? And thats from crank hp. The AWD system in the Audi will rob a few more percent than in the RWD Camaro, giving them roughly the same wheel hp. But thats splitting hairs in my opinion.

It's better because a higher number is better, but splitting hairs non the less. You also have to consider that the Audi has a lower coefficient of drag than the Camaro. .31 vs .36 is somewhat significant.

OP run from a roll if you can, it's your only chance. The audi is going to rape you out of the hole, especially in cold weather.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

how is 9.13 lb/hp (4057/444) better than 9.06 (426/3860)? And thats from crank hp. The AWD system in the Audi will rob a few more percent than in the RWD Camaro, giving them roughly the same wheel hp. But thats splitting hairs in my opinion.

It isn't, but your specs are off a bit from the ones I used (Edmunds.com):


2003 RS6: 4024/450 = 8.94 lbs/hp

2010 2SS: 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp

So, those extra 164lbs have 24 horses hauling them; just over 6lbs/hp for those extra pounds.

Might there be extra driveline losses? Sure. But the traction difference is big off the line. Also, the extra horses are going to make a difference on the top end, where HP and drag matter more than 164lbs.

It's no shame to be outrun by a car so expensive and fast: Audi "R" cars are impressive. My guess is it would be similarly close on a road course; both the Camaro and Audi have issues with understeer. The Camaro has less traction for acceleration, but more torque so I'd guess it would balance out and just come back to the deficit in straight line acceleration.

Pedders, CAI and an exhaust and the Camaro runs off and hides from it. Similarly for the Audi: a tune and the Audi is way ahead so that's no bragging point for either of them.

It's pointless to talk about what any car can do modified, whether the mods are "easy" or "cheap" or not. We can "Mod" all the way until we have a Formula 1 car if we want. So what?

[0-60n4.6]

the camaro will get drug from a dig.....lets say the camaro is faster on the top end then it would take more than the 1/4 to even start to make up any ground i would put money on a 3 car length affair in the 1/4....esp on the street

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by El-Diablo

It's better because a higher number is better, but splitting hairs non the less. You also have to consider that the Audi has a lower coefficient of drag than the Camaro. .31 vs .36 is somewhat significant.

OP run from a roll if you can, it's your only chance. The audi is going to rape you out of the hole, especially in cold weather.

True, but Audi is bigger negating some of its advantage. After figuring calculating drag force at 100 mph, I found that the Audi has 180-185 lb(F) of drag vs ~195 lb(F) on the Camaro (you had its drag coeffcient wrong, its 0.35 not 0.36). Anyway, 10-15 lbs of drag is nothing to these cars compared. Sort of ironic that in drag racing, drag doesn't matter (in stock cars at least).

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

It isn't, but your specs are off a bit from the ones I used (Edmunds.com):


2003 RS6: 4024/450 = 8.94 lbs/hp

2010 2SS: 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp

So, those extra 164lbs have 24 horses hauling them; just over 6lbs/hp for those extra pounds.

Might there be extra driveline losses? Sure. But the traction difference is big off the line. Also, the extra horses are going to make a difference on the top end, where HP and drag matter more than 164lbs.

450 hp is incorrect, its 450 ps or 444 hp. After looking again, I have seen 4024 listed as weight more often than 4057 so I'll concede there. When I was looking yesterday I saw 4057 listed and another trim/style was 41xx so I used the lighter one. But this is getting down to superfine details.

The driveline losses however are significant and negate the power advantage. A typical 18% AWD loss gives 364 hp (369 ps) at the wheel, which is perfectly in line with what LS3 cars are putting down.

In the end, all this determines is who gains on who after the Audi gets the jump and probably amounts to about a tenth of a second. No matter what, the Camaro should lose but it won't get blown out of the water, given equal drivers.

[faninc]

I read advantages of AWD cars, so why are new camaros not AWD like RS6? cost???

[TommyTSquared]

Originally Posted by El-Diablo

It's better because a higher number is better, but splitting hairs non the less. You also have to consider that the Audi has a lower coefficient of drag than the Camaro. .31 vs .36 is somewhat significant.

OP run from a roll if you can, it's your only chance. The audi is going to rape you out of the hole, especially in cold weather.

A higher number is better if you're doing hp/lb. In your math you're doing lb/hp. Thus, a higher poundage per horsepower which you would want a lower number.

More weight with less hp (lb/hp) to push it would make a slower car from this standpoint.

You were thinking right, just not showing it right

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by faninc

I read advantages of AWD cars, so why are new camaros not AWD like RS6? cost???

Cost, weight, efficiency, handling. AWD improves acceleration in situations where there isn't enough grip for the tires. Handling suffers partly because of weight but mostly because it increases the tendency for a car to push in the corner (also known as understeer or 'tight'). The extra drive line losses reduce available power (you'd need ~4% more power at the crank to give the same as at the wheel). It also hurts fuel economy by 1-2 mpg on average.

The net result of an AWD Camaro SS would be a more expensive 4000 lb car that understeers worse, can't accelerate as hard unless its from a dead stop, gets a gas guzzler tax, and can no longer do fun things like a proper powerslide or a big smokey burnout. The gain is a 0-60 in maybe 4.2s instead of 4.6s, and typical 1/4 mile times of perhaps 12.8 vs 13.0.

[75rusty]

The Audi is a totally different animal. Limited production, high maintenance luxury sedan. They are great fun to drive, as is the camaro.

Apples and oranges if you ask me.

[El-Diablo]

Originally Posted by TommyTSquared

A higher number is better if you're doing hp/lb. In your math you're doing lb/hp. Thus, a higher poundage per horsepower which you would want a lower number.

More weight with less hp (lb/hp) to push it would make a slower car from this standpoint.

You were thinking right, just not showing it right

Oh I'm embarrassed now, I know all about power to weight and can't believe I made that error. Thanks for not being harsh, I left myself open to get blasted.


On a side note Audi's quality was still dipping in 2003, maybe he'll breakdown mid-race.

[TommyTSquared]

Originally Posted by El-Diablo

Oh I'm embarrassed now, I know all about power to weight and can't believe I made that error. Thanks for not being harsh, I left myself open to get blasted.


On a side note Audi's quality was still dipping in 2003, maybe he'll breakdown mid-race.

No worries, I'm sure everyone knew what you meant which is why it seemed confusing. I added that last bit to make sure I wasn't coming off as an ass (which I often do ).

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

450 hp is incorrect, its 450 ps or 444 hp. After looking again, I have seen 4024 listed as weight more often than 4057 so I'll concede there. When I was looking yesterday I saw 4057 listed and another trim/style was 41xx so I used the lighter one. But this is getting down to superfine details.

OK

The driveline losses however are significant and negate the power advantage. A typical 18% AWD loss gives 364 hp (369 ps) at the wheel, which is perfectly in line with what LS3 cars are putting down.

I don't think so.

First, you assume the Audi has the same AWD losses as this spec you provided. Second, I don't think there's ANY chance the Camaro can actually "Put Down" anywhere NEAR the power through two underweighted tires, that the Audi can "Put Down" through all four.

Having said all that, there's no way I'd trade a 2SS MT for a 7 year old Audi - too much liability on too expensive of a drivetrain. Nonetheless, the Audi was WAY impressive when new (as it should be for $80k+ in 2003!).

But, NONE of that was the question. The QUESTION was, is the Audi faster. The answer is YES, in ANY comparison.

In the end, all this determines is who gains on who after the Audi gets the jump and probably amounts to about a tenth of a second. No matter what, the Camaro should lose but it won't get blown out of the water, given equal drivers.

Agreed.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

OK




I don't think so.

First, you assume the Audi has the same AWD losses as this spec you provided. Second, I don't think there's ANY chance the Camaro can actually "Put Down" anywhere NEAR the power through two underweighted tires, that the Audi can "Put Down" through all four.

Having said all that, there's no way I'd trade a 2SS MT for a 7 year old Audi - too much liability on too expensive of a drivetrain. Nonetheless, the Audi was WAY impressive when new (as it should be for $80k+ in 2003!).

But, NONE of that was the question. The QUESTION was, is the Audi faster. The answer is YES, in ANY comparison.




Agreed.

I'm assuming thats what you're referring to spining the tires due to lack of grip? If so, what you are saying is true, but not for the duration of the race. In 1st gear, it is definitely true. This is why AWD cars get such great launches. But once you get into 2nd and 3rd, the extra traction of AWD no longer helps much

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm assuming thats what you're referring to spining the tires due to lack of grip?

Yes.

If so, what you are saying is true, but not for the duration of the race.

Well, your strongest acceleration is in 1st gear, and that's where it happens most. However, my guess is there's a decent amount in 2nd and 3rd W/O traction control. With it, the car is depowered to prevent it.

In 1st gear, it is definitely true. This is why AWD cars get such great launches. But once you get into 2nd and 3rd, the extra traction of AWD no longer helps much

Yea, in a straight line, probably not "much". But with a car that's already unlikely to keep up, "much" just puts it further behind.

In the twisties, the Audi should be able to lay down more power, sooner, out of the curves.

Whatever. As I said before, I wouldn't cross shop those two anyway; I'd take the Camaro in a heartbeat vs. a 7yr old Audi.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Yes.




Well, your strongest acceleration is in 1st gear, and that's where it happens most. However, my guess is there's a decent amount in 2nd and 3rd W/O traction control. With it, the car is depowered to prevent it.




Yea, in a straight line, probably not "much". But with a car that's already unlikely to keep up, "much" just puts it further behind.

In the twisties, the Audi should be able to lay down more power, sooner, out of the curves.

Whatever. As I said before, I wouldn't cross shop those two anyway; I'd take the Camaro in a heartbeat vs. a 7yr old Audi.

According to this they're pretty even on the tracks...
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html

Camaro SS- 8:20
Audi RS6- 8:20