I was lookin around this site when I stumbled onto something, the Audi RS4. It says that the standard RS4 sedan makes 420 bhp and 317 lb-ft. of torque. It also has a curb weight of 3637 lbs. It goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, mighty quick.

Thats not what was bothering me, it was this...

The Audi RS4 Avant makes the exactly same 420 bhp and 317 lb-ft of torque. This makes sense as it's using the same engine. It however has a curb weight of 3769 lbs. This is 132 lbs more then the sedan.

However, the avant runs to 60 in 4.7 seconds.

Does the Avant use a different differential or run a different gear ratio or what? Also considering that the top speed of the wagon is higher then the sedan doesn't make any sense either. I really don't know where rsportscars gets these numbers anyway, but was the other driver really more then 132 lbs heavier in the sedan then the avant? Or was it just not tested as completely?

thats actually quite strange
i mean i think that could be an error on the site i suppose
apart from that i cant see anything apart from a transmission or gearing difference

either there's an error on the site, or the gearing on the RS4 Avant may be closer than on the RS4 saloon, giving it quicker acceleration...

How bout the weather conditions. That could account for .5 sec easily.

How bout the weather conditions. That could account for .5 sec easily.

yeah actually, very true, it could probably count on a lot more depending on how extreme... if it was really windy and really wet a looong time would be cut off :-k

That's what I was mainly thinking, weather conditions. Lots of things can affect the car, moisture, outside temperature, how long the car was sitting outside, wind, air density, driver weight, driver experience, weither or not the driver has a bad hair day can actually affect the 0-60 time by at least .2 seconds. I'm sure its something along those lines, but I guess what my main questions actually is, what does rsportscars get their data from?

just to let you know 137 pounds really doesnt make that much of a difference.

i mean, thats like having a 12 year old or something in the back seat, not gonna change your qaurter mile times too much, you know?

so dont stress it. the avant is like a special edition type thing right? the entire transmission could be different, or maybe its awd, im sure theres something, or it could just be a factory mistake.

Car Buff, Avant is Audi talk for wagon.

I guess its just test conditions. Or maybe the extra weight over the back end helps with traction off the line or something like that.

The Avant is more aerodynamic, also the extra weight in the rear contributes to rear wheel traction. This is why the Merc E55 AMG is faster in wagon form.

i think it might have alot to do with the fact that the wagon could be a little faster due to aerodynamics, and as other people stated conditions of 0-60 times.

Aerodynamic characteristics doesn't mean anything in the 0-60 run, does it? Obviously it will have a slight affect, but you know what I mean.

The Avant is more aerodynamic, also the extra weight in the rear contributes to rear wheel traction. This is why the Merc E55 AMG is faster in wagon form.Bingo....it's weight distribution more than aerodynamics at these "low" speed but the aerodynamics help at higher speeds...

Still... 137 lbs extra would outweigh the slight advantages from traction and aerodynamic. It's AWD, and the wagon only has a .1 lower cd.

In wagon form the aerodynamics are going to be worst so I have no idea what you're talking about there. As the wagon has basically a veriticle back (I know its not 100% verticle but just hear me out) it is going to cause a large wake behind the car due to the air moving faster below it then moving above it. With the sudden drop off space at the back of the car, the air will swirl back and pull against the car. This is why if you follow really closly behind a semi-truck you can improve your gas mileage due to the air pulling you toward it and the air being pushed out of your way.

The weight being over the rear of the car actually may be a reason though. Does anyone know the weight distribution of the two cars?

Different tires maybe?? That would make sense, as well as gearing.

weight of the driver ?

Skill of driver, weather, it could be anything.

just to let you know 137 pounds really doesnt make that much of a difference.



o here he goes
always has to be argumentative....

just to let you know 137 pounds really doesnt make that much of a difference.

i mean, thats like having a 12 year old or something in the back seat, not gonna change your qaurter mile times too much, you know?

so dont stress it. the avant is like a special edition type thing right? the entire transmission could be different, or maybe its awd, im sure theres something, or it could just be a factory mistake.

lol, a 137-pound 12 year old... hes a bit of a big kid then aint he :-k. im about 125lbs and im 16...

Bingo....it's weight distribution more than aerodynamics at these "low" speed but the aerodynamics help at higher speeds...

ooo yeah!! more weight over the rear wheel - increased traction. nice thinking pal :)

lol, a 137-pound 12 year old... hes a bit of a big kid then aint he :-k. im about 125lbs and im 16...
haha, a 137 pound 12 year old is tiny compared to me. Im 12 and 210 pounds

You need to lose some weight, I don't care how tall you are, that's not healthy.

In wagon form the aerodynamics are going to be worst so I have no idea what you're talking about there. As the wagon has basically a veriticle back (I know its not 100% verticle but just hear me out) it is going to cause a large wake behind the car due to the air moving faster below it then moving above it. With the sudden drop off space at the back of the car, the air will swirl back and pull against the car. This is why if you follow really closly behind a semi-truck you can improve your gas mileage due to the air pulling you toward it and the air being pushed out of your way.

The weight being over the rear of the car actually may be a reason though. Does anyone know the weight distribution of the two cars?I have no idea what your talking about there.

.1 second...

Honestly, that could be anything, weather, track conditions, quicker reflexes, less gas in the tank, etc...

o here he goes
always has to be argumentative....

Oh here he goes again, writing one sentence over two lines for no apparent reason. He's just proving a point, it wouldn't make a difference.

lol, a 137-pound 12 year old... hes a bit of a big kid then aint he :-k. im about 125lbs and im 16...

Eat your greens.

.1 second...

Honestly, that could be anything, weather, track conditions, quicker reflexes, less gas in the tank, etc...
But it isn't uncommon with wagons vs sedans.

Weight distribution, aerodynamics.

frewin, your tiny. i weighed as much as you when i was ten, and unlike many americans ive NEVER been over weight.

as for kr, dude, **** you. your the argumentative one. i was just stating a valid point. thats not being argumentative, thats being conversational.

137 pounds does make a difference when we are talking about Ferrari shedding weight on the CS, or Porsche shedding weight for the RS. That will make a difference from a sport car point of view. So it's all in how you look at it. Sure on a wagon, who cares.

^^ exactly, I mean, if it was a race car, okay, but 0-60 in the higher 4's? i dont think anyone cars about a hundred and a half pounds. seriously, thats less than the average passengar, its not gonna make that much of a diffference besides maybe a couple hundredths of a second. maybe as much as 5 hundredths, but I dont think it makes one tenth of a difference

In wagon form the aerodynamics are going to be worst so I have no idea what you're talking about there. As the wagon has basically a veriticle back (I know its not 100% verticle but just hear me out) it is going to cause a large wake behind the car due to the air moving faster below it then moving above it. With the sudden drop off space at the back of the car, the air will swirl back and pull against the car. This is why if you follow really closly behind a semi-truck you can improve your gas mileage due to the air pulling you toward it and the air being pushed out of your way.

The weight being over the rear of the car actually may be a reason though. Does anyone know the weight distribution of the two cars?

Where were you during physics?

The slipstream doesn't pull you toward a car, it creates a gap in the wind resistance that pushes against you. That's why accelerating close behind a truck is faster.

As for the Avant, put it this way, bullets don't have trunks.

...your mom doesnt have a trunk...

it's an investigation for the X-files

X-Files couldn't handle this.
we need the people from Law and Order, NCIS/Jag, the CIA/FBI/NSA, NASA, Microsoft and the people from Red Bull. If none of them can do it, nobody can.

Still... 137 lbs extra would outweigh the slight advantages from traction and aerodynamic. It's AWD, and the wagon only has a .1 lower cd.

Where did you get that from, exactly? I mean, considering they have the same frontal area, the cd shouldn't really change at all (going by the mathematical definition of the cd of any object).

BTW i'm not having a go at you, I'm just asking, that's all :)

In wagon form the aerodynamics are going to be worst so I have no idea what you're talking about there. As the wagon has basically a veriticle back (I know its not 100% verticle but just hear me out) it is going to cause a large wake behind the car due to the air moving faster below it then moving above it. With the sudden drop off space at the back of the car, the air will swirl back and pull against the car.

Wagons, as you are reffering to, are alos know as blunt or bluff objects. I have no idea who teaches you though, but a bluff object does not creates a wake behind it due to the difference in air speeds between the top and bottom of an object. It has to do with flow separation, and an airflows characteristics in trying to become re-attached to the flow. Sever drag caused by bluff objects are generally more caused by severe edges, but in the case of a wagon, it can still occur.

The reason why bluff objects are bad in terms of drag generation is because they create a lot of pressure drag, caused by the low pressure caused by the wake the object makes. How does air pull against a car considering it has to 'swirl back' in order to do so?


The slipstream doesn't pull you toward a car, it creates a gap in the wind resistance that pushes against you. That's why accelerating close behind a truck is faster.


Exactly, thankyou!

...your mom doesnt have a trunk...

Yeah, real mature -.-

Anyway, here's my take on this thing. I don't know of the exact procedures that go on in the Audi quality regulations, but I would think that they would test each of their cars in similar conditions in order to keep their times as valid as possible. If weather had effected a time, they probably would have done it again in similar conditions.

I don't think aerodynamics would have a whole lot to do with it, although .1 of a second is a fairly marginal difference, so it could be anything, really. Weight distribution, perhaps, aero, maybe, driver traits, again a possibility.

Where did you get that from, exactly? I mean, considering they have the same frontal area, the cd shouldn't really change at all (going by the mathematical definition of the cd of any object).

BTW i'm not having a go at you, I'm just asking, that's all :)I looked it up in some book I have with technical data of 15,000 cars. But I don't think the data is correct, because I just noticed it states that a 2.0 TFSI A4 Sedan has a cd of .33 while a 1.8 TDI Sedan has one of .31... lol. All the wagons were said to have .31 though.

There is a slight aerodynamic vacuum on top of the boot but behind the rear window on sedans. There is another, larger one directly behind the rear bumper.
The wagon only has one, large one behind the car.

There is a slight aerodynamic vacuum on top of the boot but behind the rear window on sedans. There is another, larger one directly behind the rear bumper.
The wagon only has one, large one behind the car.The vacuum on top of the boot of an RS4 must be minimal. The rear window drops very slow, allowing the flow to remain relatively smoothly attached all the way to the trainling egde, so it will hardly cause any flow detachment.
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/256/audirs40512zc5.th.jpg (http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=audirs40512zc5.jpg)

Unlike the avant, which suddenly drops.

Hell, it even has a little spoiler to make things worse.
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3196/audirs4avant2netoc6.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=audirs4avant2netoc6.jpg)

The air must "rebound" off the boot of the sedan, causing drag and even more drag behind the car. And the back of the wagon is pretty rounded...

You guys realize that the air flow in this situation is gonna be so damn minimal that its not gonna make hardly a difference. I really shoulda just thought about for about 30 seconds before making this thread. It could be a million different things that affect a .1 second difference between the two cars.

The Avant is more aerodynamic, also the extra weight in the rear contributes to rear wheel traction. This is why the Merc E55 AMG is faster in wagon form.

Exactly my thoughts, except the Mercedes part.....

You guys realize that the air flow in this situation is gonna be so damn minimal that its not gonna make hardly a difference. I really shoulda just thought about for about 30 seconds before making this thread. It could be a million different things that affect a .1 second difference between the two cars.

I agree, the possibilites are endless. Hell, maybe the timer and radar was inaccurate.....

haha, a 137 pound 12 year old is tiny compared to me. Im 12 and 210 pounds

lol, mate, you need to cut down on the cakes and get to the gym

Eat your greens.

for my height im the right weight... im only 5.7'', and i weigh 120-130lbs, thats not bad at all; im not overly skinny or overly large. also how would me eating my greens put weight on lol. eating more proteins and carbohydrates would, not eating more fibre and vitamins ;). get your facts right pal

frewin, your tiny. i weighed as much as you when i was ten, and unlike many americans ive NEVER been over weight.

lol, you weighed 125lbs when you was 10. thats far overweight. im only 5.7'', and for my height and age, im just about normal...

porsche 944 your a lunchbox:p
im 15 and im 6' and weigh 139, i can lift alot tho for how much i weigh

jsut wanted to point out to whoever said something about a bullets shape

the bullets "rear end" is flat like that not for aerodynamics proposes, but for safty and propulsion reasons.

technically speaking, the the bullet had a concave shape at the end it would ge even faster due to the "catching" effect it would have from the explosion of gun powder, but, the points o other bullets could catch in the bowl shape and hit the (wow, total blank in the head here. its like a fuse, totaly forgot the technical term though)

anyways, moving on, the falt shape deters the points from other bullets hitting the ignitor thingy ma bobber and the provides optimal energy tranfer from the explosion of gun power to forward momentum of the bullet.

technically the best shape for a bullet as far as stright out velosity would be a fusiform shape, meaning that the widest point is in the middle, and it tapers to a point at either end from the middle, simlar to the shape of a shark.

but, the energy tranfer from a gunpowder esplosion to a shape like that is fariyl little cause the shape actually helps deter energy transfer.

but, that doesnt nessacarily mean the wagon car is less aerodynamic than the sedan car.

doesnt the fact the RS4 has AWD have somthing to do with 0-60 times

doesnt the fact the RS4 has AWD have somthing to do with 0-60 times
Umm..................................... ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ................. What?

doesnt the fact the RS4 has AWD have somthing to do with 0-60 times uuuummm yea but thats only relevant if you are comparing RWD vs. AWD. Here both the cars are AWD and have the same AWD system so it doesnt matter.

^Your much nicer than I am.

haha, a 137 pound 12 year old is tiny compared to me. Im 12 and 210 pounds
thats scary! you weigh as much as an good sized adult male and your only 12! you are gonna have problems for a long time

uuuummm yea but thats only relevant if you are comparing RWD vs. AWD. Here both the cars are AWD and have the same AWD system so it doesnt matter. my bad, for some reason i thought we were comparing it to an E55AMG:o

it has a bigger engine??

if its RS4 vs RS4 Advant then is prob just diff test conditions, there are soooooo many variables

According to the two magazines I'm reading, the Avant is 0.1 seconds slower

wow, you guys are funny, your going into a huge technical debate, when the answer is sitting right on front of in rsportscars
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/audi_rs4_avant.asp
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/audi_rs4_avant.asp

now if you check the 0-60 times the rs 4 avant is faster, but wait, one is 0-60 and one is 0-62,
cars do 0-60 faster , take the enzo for examlpe, 0-60 3.3 and 0-62/0-100 km/h 3.65

Ok, that would make sence. Thanks, but that still doesn't answer where rsportscars gets their information from.

1/2 a second could be attributed to anything from different gear ratios to different altitudes... a slipping drive tire, better driver, etc... Weight is a big factor for race cars, not as much for passenger cars.

one is 0-60 and one is 0-62,
cars do 0-60 faster , take the enzo for examlpe, 0-60 3.3 and 0-62/0-100 km/h 3.65That was a good point but... it takes over three tenths of a second to go 2 mph??? I don't think so. Just because a car can do 0-60 in a certain time doesn't mean that it will do that everytime. My dad runs my Monte two tenths quicker in the 1/4 mile than I do. I can't get it to run that quick but he can. I would be willing to bet that there are probably only a handfull of people on this site that could come close to the posted 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of high performance street cars...

lol, a 137-pound 12 year old... hes a bit of a big kid then aint he :-k. im about 125lbs and im 16...

haha, a 137 pound 12 year old is tiny compared to me. Im 12 and 210 pounds
I am 137 pounds and i am 12...and i aint fat!:p
You need to lose some weight, I don't care how tall you are, that's not healthy.
He is a freak of nature...in his own words...
porsche 944 your a lunchbox:p
im 15 and im 6' and weigh 139, i can lift alot tho for how much i weigh
he is a freak of nature....in his own words...
thats scary! you weigh as much as an good sized adult male and your only 12! you are gonna have problems for a long time
i say again he is a freak of nature!:p :p

That was a good point but... it takes over three tenths of a second to go 2 mph??? I don't think so. Just because a car can do 0-60 in a certain time doesn't mean that it will do that everytime.

thats the thing, i to find it hard to believe that a car will take that long to do 2mph, but when you check, most cars seem to 0-60 faster with a 0.1 or more difference, i'm not sure why but check a few cars if you want, alot do seem to follow that,

Gearing mabye? Regardless, put them on the same drag strip on the same night, with equal drivers, and I'll put my money on the sedan. Too many factors, was it the same test driver? What was the weather conditions? Different tires? Or one could be an estimated 0-60. Maybe the fact that the Wagon has more weight out back helps it get more traction due to the rear wheels being more smashed.

Honestly, the wagon maybe faster to 60, but as I said, probably due to more traction from the weight shifting. Trap speed and 1/4 et should be higher for the lighter sedan.