S3 0-62 5.7 sec's how ????

S

simon-s3

Registered User
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I had driven & owned many "fast" cars so I know how to do 0-60 sprints and Qtr miles well. The question is with the S3 (on a standard map), if you launch it reasonably hard (without abusing the clutch too much) and let it hit the rev limiter in 2nd gear :wtf:, this is about 60MPH and I can get there in 5.4 secs. If you need to get to 62 MPH (100KMH) you need to use 3rd gear and change up nearer to 55MPH so you don't go too far in the red line :rulez: and get some decent torque in 3rd. Now either my car is not as fast as it should be, or these stats are done down hill, wind behind, running 105 Ron fuel and changing gear in about 1 tenth of a second.
any ideas ?
 
According to the audi website its 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, not 0-62, so that tallies with your data.


Another thing to take into account is the fact that at around an indicated 60mph your speedo is probably overreading by 2-3 mph
 
That takes me back to the original question then. How can 0-60 be acheived in the time quoted, if you have to use 3rd gear ? if 60 can't be hit in 2nd ?

Also in the car manual it does say 0-100 KMH 5.7 secs and 100KPH is 62 MPH.

I don't think my car is slow.......it is lively enought and I am suprised how much torque it has "off turbo" too for a small engine. My 2005 WRX STI PPP only really went when the turbo was on song and that was running 320 BHP and 0-60 in 4.6 sec's. Just changed from 350BHP car with a 4.7 - 60.
 
cheers N8KOW, I didn't realise that the Audi transmissio had such a great loss.
I was hoping with a 310BHP remap to get it under 5 secs to 60, but I think that will be impossible if the S3 can't hit 60 in 2nd gear and if you raise the rev limiter to do it, it is not healthy for the engine either. I am still bemused as to how they can quote a 0-62 time that IMHO can't be acheived safley, or in it's standard format.
 
I got a best of 5.44s at Bruntingthorpe GTi International this summer on a slightly damp track (& will a boot full of camping equipment).

I really struggled to get what I'd call a successful launch, and had about 6 goes before I ended up getting it about right. I couldn't rev much beyond 2,000rpm before feeding the clutch out and then planting the power. Any more than 2,500rpm and the Haldex just bogged down before picking back up, and by then I was way over a 14s standing quarter. Although I can only assume the equipment was accurate for measuring times, it felt slower that 5.44s (I counted a clear 6 in my head).

It's always a difficult call, and too much practising kills your clutch. I wonder if the Haldex upgrade module would resolve some of this issue as the S3's not an easy car to launch.
 
Its weird my cousin' Mk 1 TT is 330bhp now (big turbo conversion) that'll do 0-60 = 4.8s, its rapid, seeing as it weighs 1575kg, its a roadster.
 
warrencox said:
I got a best of 5.44s at Bruntingthorpe GTi International this summer on a slightly damp track (& will a boot full of camping equipment).

I really struggled to get what I'd call a successful launch, and had about 6 goes before I ended up getting it about right. I couldn't rev much beyond 2,000rpm before feeding the clutch out and then planting the power. Any more than 2,500rpm and the Haldex just bogged down before picking back up, and by then I was way over a 14s standing quarter. Although I can only assume the equipment was accurate for measuring times, it felt slower that 5.44s (I counted a clear 6 in my head).

It's always a difficult call, and too much practising kills your clutch. I wonder if the Haldex upgrade module would resolve some of this issue as the S3's not an easy car to launch.
Click to expand...

Did you use 3rd gear for your 5.44 ? and have you had any remap done to allow you to rev higher before the rev limiter cuts in ?
 
simon-s3 said:
cheers N8KOW, I didn't realise that the Audi transmissio had such a great loss.
I was hoping with a 310BHP remap to get it under 5 secs to 60, but I think that will be impossible if the S3 can't hit 60 in 2nd gear and if you raise the rev limiter to do it, it is not healthy for the engine either. I am still bemused as to how they can quote a 0-62 time that IMHO can't be acheived safley, or in it's standard format.
Click to expand...

when you have the remap they remove the rev limiter (or move it higher anyway) so this wont be a problem
 
N8KOW, why do you think the audi has significantly greater transmission losses than a subaru?

I'd have thought they'd be about the same, cant see any reason for a huge difference.
 
Julians, I thought you were being sarcy before, they do mate trust me. The 4wd saps power, uprated haldex helps, my cousin's got that, sends more power to the real wheels....hence why I 270bhp evo 8 is quicker than a 270bhp mapped S3 8L etc...
 
N8KOW said:
Its weird my cousin' Mk 1 TT is 330bhp now (big turbo conversion) that'll do 0-60 = 4.8s, its rapid, seeing as it weighs 1575kg, its a roadster.
Click to expand...

What is the actual weight of the S3? The manual claims 1455Kg Unladen. Is this the dry weight, meaning the actual weight with fluids and driver is more like 1530kg?

I've got nearly 330PS and I can hit 62 in 2nd (just), although I don't like revving to 6700rpm!(GIACS soft limiter). I'm not too bothered about 0-60mph, more 0-100mph. Not being able to hit 60 in 2nd in the standard car is the limiting factor for the times though; even the fastest shift must lose you 0.4 of a second.

After remapping the difference I have noticed is the urgency towards 100mph. I've done a number of GPS 60-100mph runs and my fastest yet was 6.0sec flat. That's well under 12secs to 100. RB320 territory...but still quite far of a FQ320...
 
N8KOW, I dont want to sound rude, but it sounds like you're just spouting something heard down the pub/on a forum as fact.

A subaru and an s3 are both 4wd, their tranmission losses are going to be largely similar, I know they use different technology to distribute the drive, but theres nothing there to say that one is vastly more 'lossy' than the other.

obviously an s3 will have far more loss than any fwd car, due to the extra diff, joints and drive shafts, but not compared to other 4wd cars.

Not wanting to get into a debate about which is better, but I'm not sure where you get the impression that an evo will accelerate faster than an s3 from either, a 260bhp evo 8 will go from 0-60 in 6 secs according to the figures I've found, thats largely similar to a current 260hp s3. Now round a track I'm in no doubt that an evo will be faster but thats nothing to do with the evo having a more efficient drive train, and everything to do with it being better handling and having better brakes and an engine with different characteristics and different gearing.

Heres the stats I was using, no idea if they are dead on accurate, but they sound about right.

http://www.fastsaloons.com/cardetails.php?carlist=(486)
 
Have to agree with Julians also.

The 0-60mph times are influenced by a number of mechanical factors, gear ratios, turbo lag, clutch quality, diff quality, ease of use, etc.

The mechanical losses will be largely the same when comparing losses.
 
julians said:
N8KOW, why do you think the audi has significantly greater transmission losses than a subaru?

I'd have thought they'd be about the same, cant see any reason for a huge difference.
Click to expand...

It really depends on which subaru/audi we are talking about, i think...

Audi torsen(in the s4/a4) or haldex (in the S3)?
Subaru vicous coupling or planetary gears for the wrxs, or the fancy diffs available in the STIs?

I'm tempted to think haldex has the least amount of losses among them all when conditions are right (i.e. no wheel spin), while the torsen system is the lease efficient since it's always engaged proactively. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


*sorry to go offtopic.
 
warrencox said:
I really struggled to get what I'd call a successful launch, I couldn't rev much beyond 2,000rpm before feeding the clutch out and then planting the power. Any more than 2,500rpm and the Haldex just bogged down before picking back .
Click to expand...
I don't get that at all tbh:think: if you launch at 2.5k then as soon as you dump the clutch you'll only be at 1500rpm! your turbo will hardly be spooling?if for e.g if your turbo makes full boost by 4k then you need to be launching at 5k.i know i do it often enough:) i take it you take the esp off?also i've found the best way to launch the car is to hold the revs then dump the clutch,try it between 4.5-5k and i guarantee it will not bog down:icon_thumright: my best 0-60 is 4.06 secs doing it this way btw.
Steve
 
N8KOW - dont confuse traction (wheelspin) with transmission loss.

When people talk about transmission loss they mean they power that is lost through friction/noise/heat etc within the various transfer mechanisms between the engine flywheel and the cars wheels, ie the cogs that mesh and the various cv joints etc.

I'd agree with boggysv, I'd have thought that the haldex would be one of the least lossy 4wd systems, but the difference between all the systems would be pretty small as to be negligable as far as performance figures are concerned.

also, Sorry to be off topic, I'll not post anymore on the subject of transmission loss. :sorry:
 
When I had my old 8L S3 on the rolling road (it was 269 bhp) it lost around 65-70bhp in transmission losses and this was the norm for a vast amount of other similar cars too.
 
I can't believe the Haldex is any worse than another 4wd system. I also find it hard to believe that a 4wd system loses 70bhp! Surely that's the power taken to move a small hatchback with 4 people in it!

I'm guessing to get a good 0-60 time you need to drop the clutch at very high revs and change gear without lifting - not good for the car but that's what the magazines and manufacturer's do. Isn't 30-70 a much better measure for real performance?
 
s3mike said:
I can't believe the Haldex is any worse than another 4wd system. I also find it hard to believe that a 4wd system loses 70bhp! Surely that's the power taken to move a small hatchback with 4 people in it!

I'm guessing to get a good 0-60 time you need to drop the clutch at very high revs and change gear without lifting - not good for the car but that's what the magazines and manufacturer's do. Isn't 30-70 a much better measure for real performance?
Click to expand...


Well thats what the rolling road print out and numerous other peoples said!
 
julians said:
N8KOW - dont confuse traction (wheelspin) with transmission loss.

When people talk about transmission loss they mean they power that is lost through friction/noise/heat etc within the various transfer mechanisms between the engine flywheel and the cars wheels, ie the cogs that mesh and the various cv joints etc.

I'd agree with boggysv, I'd have thought that the haldex would be one of the least lossy 4wd systems, but the difference between all the systems would be pretty small as to be negligable as far as performance figures are concerned.

also, Sorry to be off topic, I'll not post anymore on the subject of transmission loss. :sorry:
Click to expand...

It does lose power, its not a debate, its a fact, sorry to disappoint, if you want all out power buy jap crap :jump:
 
N8KOW, I dont understand what you're getting at. All types of transmission systems lose (or more accurately cost) power , the 4wd of the s3 will be largely no better or worse than any other 4wd system, certainly not enough to be a significant factor in a cars performance when comparing two different cars with the same number of driven wheels.

S3mike, I can believe those figures, and just for more info, my old s2000 showed 190hp at the wheels, and the flywheel power should have been 240hp, so a 50 hp loss in the transmission for a RWD car. My caterham 7 (also RWD) showed similar % losses .
 
ok then , we'll agree to disagree, I'll leave it at that.
 
julians said:
N8KOW, I dont understand what you're getting at. All types of transmission systems lose (or more accurately cost) power , the 4wd of the s3 will be largely no better or worse than any other 4wd system, certainly not enough to be a significant factor in a cars performance when comparing two different cars with the same number of driven wheels.

S3mike, I can believe those figures, and just for more info, my old s2000 showed 190hp at the wheels, and the flywheel power should have been 240hp, so a 50 hp loss in the transmission for a RWD car. My caterham 7 (also RWD) showed similar % losses .
Click to expand...

Sounds about right IMO:icon_thumright:
 
steve-tt said:
I don't get that at all tbh:think: if you launch at 2.5k then as soon as you dump the clutch you'll only be at 1500rpm! your turbo will hardly be spooling?if for e.g if your turbo makes full boost by 4k then you need to be launching at 5k.i know i do it often enough:) i take it you take the esp off?also i've found the best way to launch the car is to hold the revs then dump the clutch,try it between 4.5-5k and i guarantee it will not bog down:icon_thumright: my best 0-60 is 4.06 secs doing it this way btw.
Steve
Click to expand...

I tried a few launches with varying success. If I fed too much power in it completely bogged for a split second whilst the drivetrain decided what to o with the power. ESP was off. I was slightly slow off the line, but considering the weight of sh1t in the boot I was amazed to get the time I did. I have the print out from Brunters somewhere so I'll scan it in.

As I wasn't watching the speedo I had no idea whether I hit 60 in 2nd or 3rd, but I was changing at around 7,200rpm for the early changes.

It felt slower than 5.44s TBH, but then I guess it could have been dodgy timing.
 
julians said:
According to the audi website its 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, not 0-62, so that tallies with your data.
Click to expand...

Nah, the brochure quotes 0-62 figures (@ 5.7) as they always give 0-100kph. Thus, 0-60 should be nearer 5.5ish

Also not sure how the Haldex system could be any worse on drivetrain power loss. In fact, during normal driving, the car is FWD, the extra drag at that point is the gearbox turning the driveshaft for the rear wheels, it's only when the computer decides to close the clutch pack on the rear diff does it turn into a 4WD car. Oddly enough that's both its weakness and its strength...
 
8113082679.jpg


apologies, its not that clear but gives the general impression.

And yes, I know it says 0-6mph, their typo!!!
 
0-100 Km/h in 5.7 sec... Pretty achievable... Trick is getting to know how to get off line cleanly... when car was new did some runs... first ones where really crap... mid 6 sec... but after finding sweet spot to get off line managed less than 6 sec....

Pedro
 
well first attempts I revved a lot and dropped the clutch... the car almost died on me... no good... trick with the haldex is not to drop clutch, revs around 4000 or a bit less and feed the clutch not dropping it... like this you get out of the line smoothly and without engine bogging in....

The way I do it... feel where the clutch pedal bites, revv to 3500-4000 and when you are ready, gently let the car go (start relieving clutch pedal) and step almost immediatly on full throthle.. you should be able to change to second gear very quickly... and like this the RPM don;t drop and car really goes forward... I left ESP on but feel free to try with it off..

This way, OK clutch might suffer a little bit but there is less stress/shock on the entire transmission system... unlike when dropping clutch... I prefer to worn a little bit clutch disks than putting excessive torsion forces on the rest...

Pedro
 
S3Steve said:
Thats interesting I would have thought the new S3 would manage a better 1/4 than that.
Click to expand...

I had a boot full of camping equipment (tent etc..), and camera kit. Had nowhere to store it so car was heavy. That said I expected lower than 14s. I over ran 3rd gear and changed late if remember right which slowed me down a bit.
 
audi upgrades
warrencox said:
I had a boot full of camping equipment (tent etc..), and camera kit. Had nowhere to store it so car was heavy. That said I expected lower than 14s. I over ran 3rd gear and changed late if remember right which slowed me down a bit.
Click to expand...

I see, that explains it better mate. Should be good for 13's then?
 
newbiecrg said:
well first attempts I revved a lot and dropped the clutch... the car almost died on me... no good... trick with the haldex is not to drop clutch, revs around 4000 or a bit less and feed the clutch not dropping it... like this you get out of the line smoothly and without engine bogging in....
Click to expand...
i find i can launch it from approx 4500 without it bogging down too much simply dumping the clutch... slight wheel spin and everythings fine, turbo's spooled and away you go... dump clutch between gears and you can do it in under 6
 
well the way I do it there is no wheelspin just real forward drive and it is below 6 sec... But each one with its own technique... like I said I prefer to be a bit less agressive on the transmission components and shafts... And RPM loss is almost none so almost immediatly you are in second gear... Doesn't matter I don't do it anymore... it was fun in the beginning now I just drive normally and go fast but not drag racing...

Pedro
 
just in from pub so apologies from not searching before asking, but can you not get an S3 with DSG? (i.e. with launch control?)

If not than that would be a major turn off for me>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Compkiler
0-62 times for a stage 2+ ??
Replies
17
Views
19K
Compkiler
Compkiler
RobinA3
0-60 in 5.52secs!
Replies
16
Views
3K
paddy
paddy
L
0-60
Replies
9
Views
2K
julians
J
Ads
0-60's
Replies
75
Views
7K
Shane.
Shane.
G
Real world 0-60 S3 Sportback manual
Replies
21
Views
6K
S.
S.
Top
Back