https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2010-audi-rs-5-vs-2011-bmw-m3-vs-2011-cadillac-cts-v-
Motor Trend got 0-100 mph in 9.1 seconds, 0-110 mph in 11.4 seconds and 0-120 mph in 13.9 seconds
Price in Europe | €79,350 |
Car type | Coupe |
Curb weight | 1617-1670 kg (3565-3682 lbs) |
Dimensions | 4.62 m (182 in) long, 1.80 m (71 in) wide, 1.42 m (56 in) high |
Wheelbase | 2.76 m (109 in) |
Introduced | 2010 |
Origin country | Germany |
Gas mileage | 18.4-10.1 l/100 km (13-23 mpg US / 15-28 mpg UK) |
Views | 50.4k |
Submitted by | autocar |
0 - 50 kph | 1.9 s |
0 - 80 kph | 3.2 s |
0 - 100 kph | 4.2 s |
0 - 120 kph | 6.1 s |
0 - 130 kph | 7.0 s |
0 - 140 kph | 7.9 s |
0 - 160 kph | 9.9 s |
0 - 180 kph | 12.8 s |
0 - 200 kph | 15.3 s |
0 - 250 kph | 28.8 s |
Est. 100 - 200 kph | 11.1 s |
0 - 30 mph | 1.8 s |
0 - 40 mph | 2.4 s |
0 - 50 mph | 3.1 s |
0 - 60 mph | 3.9 s |
0 - 70 mph | 5.1 s |
0 - 80 mph | 6.5 s |
0 - 90 mph | 8.1 s |
0 - 100 mph | 9.1 s |
0 - 110 mph | 11.4 s |
0 - 120 mph | 13.9 s |
0 - 150 mph | 24.6 s |
Est. 1/8 mile | 8.8 s @ 96.9 mph |
1/4 mile | 12.4 s @ 114.3 mph |
Top speed | 280 kph (174 mph) |
Est. max acceleration | 0.74 g (7 m/s²) |
18m slalom | 69.9 kph (43.4 mph) |
Lateral acceleration | 0.95 g (9 m/s²) |
100 kph - 0 | 34 m (112 ft) |
190 kph - 0 | 131 m (431 ft) |
60 mph - 0 | 34 m (110 ft) |
Engine type | V8, 32v |
Displacement | 4.0 l (244 ci) |
Power | 420 ps (414 bhp / 309 kw) |
Torque | 400 Nm (295 lb-ft) |
Power / liter | 105 ps (104 hp) |
Power / weight | 256 ps (252 bhp) / t |
Torque / weight | 243 Nm (180 lb-ft) / t |
Efficiency | 29 PS per l/100 km |
Power / €5000 | 26 ps |
Layout | front engine, rear wheel drive |
jeremyclarkson1 11m ago
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2010-audi-rs-5-vs-2011-bmw-m3-vs-2011-cadillac-cts-v-
Motor Trend got 0-100 mph in 9.1 seconds, 0-110 mph in 11.4 seconds and 0-120 mph in 13.9 seconds
BR2, 13y ago
There Top Magazine/s count it, we do to, regardless of the testing methods. Fastest Zero-60Mph, is 4.0s flat without that method, but whatever is used will get published with the fastest time. so 3.9s to 60, n 4.2s to 100, meh, it all works out.
BR2, 13y ago
Not sure, US mag C&D got 3.9s to 60mph, so 4.2 is pretty accurate, the 4.2s could be just a guess based on the 0-60.
FadeToBlack 15y ago
@FastestLaps, I've sent updated times with the Car and Driver reference. Now will you update?
Also, the E63 AMG Performance Package has estimates from an US magazine, not real times.
FadeToBlack 15y ago
No, I did not. It was Car and Driver, US magazine, with this PDF link: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/11b0e54abe3c786ee5f44aaf8a28559a.pdf . I did not forget to attach a link, I always remember. Please, take a look and update the corresponding times or validate the ones I've sent.
FastestLaps 15y ago
@FadeToBlack Most likely you forgot to provide references to source where youre performance data was published.
FadeToBlack 15y ago
Why doesn't someone updated the times for this car? I've sent a few performance times and the times haven't been updated.