audi49

They especially loved the engine.
0-60 in 6.4 sec (with manual trans)
lat accel .86g
Overall beat the Volvo S40 T5 AWD (although they did like the Volvo too)

Tom

nyyankee

i also reaad that story, very happy with it!

DukeLeto

I thought the manual had 7.1 0-60?

T.

jsamans

Audi claims 0-60 in 7.3 seconds for 2.0T quattro MT (7.1 for MT FrontTrak).

The recent Edmunds shootout vs. the 330i gave the 2.0T MT a 7.7 second 0-60.

So yeah something is fishy.

A4Driver

... that 0-60 time seems a little bit optimistic (more like the 3.2 figures).

DukeLeto

Indeed, i knew that the 3.2 had 6.something seconds. On the Audi site, though, i saw that both the 2.0T and 2.0TQ have the same 0-60 timing and that is 7.1

T.

IM AUDI5000

R&T knows how to launch a quattro, thats it. The car is quick, look at the A3's #'s

bozata

The difference between 7.1 and 7.7 is so small that could be very well explained by the driver. In general AT timing (although slower) is more accurate than MT - you just floor the pedal....

MylesPH1

... since Car and Driver got 6.5 seconds out of an A4 2.0T quattro. It was red, though, just like the R&T test car - maybe it was the same ringer

DukeLeto

If the timing is more accurate on AT how come that even though i have 9.1 0-62 declared for my manual 2.0 FSI A3 i managed to beat both a 325CI and a 2.4CLK with the same specs(the 325 has 8.9 or 9.0 and the CLK has 9.1), but both automatic? We raced 'First to 100(62mph)'. Are the specs calculated differently(i.e changing gears at different rpms on manual, and letting AT go all the way to the red line)?

This has always been a question of mine, and i could not understand how that happened either. I always assumed that AT will beat MT with same or close to same specs exactly because it changes when it should. I do exclude(until i have more evidence) the possibility of me knowing my car so good and AT failing