Article Comments: 2006 Audi A6 Follow Up

5 messages, Last post on Apr 05, 2009 at 10:10 PM

You are in the Audi A6 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Audi A6, Sedan, Wagon

Article comments for Follow-Up Test: 2006 Audi A6 4.2 Quattro S-Line - Audi's A6 is a well-liked luxury sedan around these parts. Outstanding dynamics, unique/good looks and a high-quality interior have left all who've driven it impressed. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 2: 1; 2; Prev; Next; Last

#4 of 5 Re: A6 4.2 S-Line [rjlaero] by actualsize Aug 30, 2006 (7:57 am)
Replying to: rjlaero (Aug 24, 2006 5:03 am) The time was slower than we expected, but the same driver who measured the RAV4 0-60 weeks back tested this Audi as well. The Benz and Bimmer were tested on the same day as the Audi, again by the same driver, and they returned low to mid 5-second runs. We use the same measuring equipment each time, and follow a standard procedure. So the relative differences stand. Manufacturers have a vested interest in publishing a low number. We test to confirm their claims. Why is it that the failure to match a manufacturer claim is seen as a "bad" result? Performance numbers generated by certain car manufacturers consistently fail to match up with our observations, while those of other makers are frequently quite close. Many European manufacturers test the home-market version of a car, and then translate the results into a 0-60 mph time for US sales & marketing use. What if the home version has less standard equipment than a US model and is therefore lighter? Our test cars are almost always loaded to the gills with options. Does the different European exhaust emissions calibration result in a faster time? Did they have 1 gallon of fuel on board or, like us, a full tank? Was their test car a development prototype or a product-correct production example? I ask all manufacturers procedural questions such as this, not just the overseas ones, but few give me a straight answer. Most regard their testing methods and standards as proprietary information. It's a slippery slope when a tester gets into the "I can beat their time" game mindset. They may end up trying all sorts of unreal-world tricks to get a "good" run. And then there is the complicated topic of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) atmospheric correction factor formulas, the most up-to-date of which results in slower times than the long-standing, but recently replaced outgoing one. Our aim is to serve the interests of those who are in-market shoppers. Entertainment is all well and good, but accuracy and real-world results are paramount. Dan Replies to this message: tmartin93 (Apr 05, 2009 10:10 pm)
#5 of 5 Re: A6 4.2 S-Line [actualsize] by tmartin93 Apr 05, 2009 (10:10 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Aug 30, 2006 7:57 am) I don't care about one word you just wrote because that time is complete BS. I have personally timed the A6 to 6.5, 6.3 and even to 6.2 times to 60. With human error in my times included, there is still no way 7.1 is the best time a professional drive could get. Do you just hate Audi or what?

#4 of 5: Re: A6 4.2 S-Line [rjlaero] by actualsize; Aug 30, 2006 (7:57 am)

Replying to: rjlaero (Aug 24, 2006 5:03 am)

The time was slower than we expected, but the same driver who measured the RAV4 0-60 weeks back tested this Audi as well. The Benz and Bimmer were tested on the same day as the Audi, again by the same driver, and they returned low to mid 5-second runs. We use the same measuring equipment each time, and follow a standard procedure. So the relative differences stand.

Manufacturers have a vested interest in publishing a low number. We test to confirm their claims. Why is it that the failure to match a manufacturer claim is seen as a "bad" result?

Performance numbers generated by certain car manufacturers consistently fail to match up with our observations, while those of other makers are frequently quite close. Many European manufacturers test the home-market version of a car, and then translate the results into a 0-60 mph time for US sales & marketing use. What if the home version has less standard equipment than a US model and is therefore lighter? Our test cars are almost always loaded to the gills with options. Does the different European exhaust emissions calibration result in a faster time? Did they have 1 gallon of fuel on board or, like us, a full tank? Was their test car a development prototype or a product-correct production example? I ask all manufacturers procedural questions such as this, not just the overseas ones, but few give me a straight answer. Most regard their testing methods and standards as proprietary information.

It's a slippery slope when a tester gets into the "I can beat their time" game mindset. They may end up trying all sorts of unreal-world tricks to get a "good" run. And then there is the complicated topic of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) atmospheric correction factor formulas, the most up-to-date of which results in slower times than the long-standing, but recently replaced outgoing one.

Our aim is to serve the interests of those who are in-market shoppers. Entertainment is all well and good, but accuracy and real-world results are paramount.

Dan

tmartin93 (Apr 05, 2009 10:10 pm)

#5 of 5: Re: A6 4.2 S-Line [actualsize] by tmartin93; Apr 05, 2009 (10:10 pm)

Replying to: actualsize (Aug 30, 2006 7:57 am)

I don't care about one word you just wrote because that time is complete BS. I have personally timed the A6 to 6.5, 6.3 and even to 6.2 times to 60. With human error in my times included, there is still no way 7.1 is the best time a professional drive could get. Do you just hate Audi or what?