Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

The 2013 Audi S8 - A Closer Look

A few days ago, I made a post about about Motor Trend's test of the Audi S8. It does a 0-60 mph sprint in 3.5 seconds and goes through the 1/4 mile in 11.8 @ 118.3 mph.. very impressive numbers. Even more so when you look at a couple other cars:

2012 Porsche Panamera Turbo S
0-60 mph: 3.5 s
1/4 mile: 11.8 s @ 118.0 mph
Power: 550 hp
Torque: 553 lb-ft
Weight: 4,388 lb

2012 Audi R8 GT
0-60 mph: 3.5 s
1/4 mile: 11.5 s @ 125.1 mph
Power: 560 hp
Torque: 398 lb-ft
Weight: 3,484 lb

Now let's compare those to the Audi S8
0-60 mph: 3.5 s
1/4 mile: 11.8 @ 118.3 mph
Power 520 hp
Torque: 481 lb-ft
Weight: 4,619 lb

The Panamera and R8 have weight to power ratios of 7.98 lb/hp and 6.22 lb/hp. The S8? Well, that one has a weight to power ratio of 8.88 lb/hp... The identical 0-60 time of the R8 GT and S8 can somewhat be explained by their engines' way of induction. Since the R8 is NA, the torque curve probably isn't as meaty so even though it weighs a lot less and has a higher weight to torque ratio, the torque curve is probably more peaky and the Audi S8 has a lot more torque off the line. The 1/4 mile reflects the additional power and superior weight to power ratio compared to the S8

But what about the Porsche? It has more power, a lot more torque, it has the same method of induction and it is significantly lighter (231 lbs). How could the Audi match its numbers? I immediately thought of 3 possibilities: someone spent a lot of time on gearing to get the numbers that low for bragging rights, the car is hugely underrated (again, for bragging rights) or a combination of both. A few days ago, I was hoping someone would dyno the S8 which could tell part of the story.

Luckily, Motor Trend did just that. In fact, they dyno'ed two cars on the same day which is even better for comparison. I know dynos are mainly tuning tools and not measuring tools because there are so many parameters that could change - both external and inherent to the dyno - that could alter the results. It can provide some insight though in this case, especially when you have two different cars dyno'ed back to back.

The two cars are the car in the question - the 2013 Audi S8 - and a 2013 BMW Alpina B7.
The BMW is rated at:
540 hp and 538 lb-ft of torque
and put down:
414 hp and 437 lb-ft of torque

The Audi is rated at:
520 hp and 481 lb-ft of torque
and put down:
479 hp and 422 lb-ft of torque

The Audi started out with a 20 hp disadvantage and yet it came out with a 65 hp advantage, before drivetrain losses.. Using 15% drivetrain losses (MT used 20% but I think that's too high for a modern car), The Audi should be making about 564 hp at the crank and the BMW 487 hp - a 77 hp advantage for the Audi which, on paper, was the "underdog" of the comparison.. and that's only half the story.

BMW is known for underrating their engines. A lot of factors could have caused a low reading on that day and at that time. If that is true, the BMW should be making a lot more than 487 hp.. which would mean that the Audi is also making a lot more than 564 hp. I wouldn't be surprised if the Audi is making as much as 600 hp under ideal conditions - much more than the rating of 520 hp. Next time you look at a test of an Audi and the acceleration numbers look too good for the specs on paper, remember that they probably are because it seems like Audi is joining the "doing more with less" club.

Comments







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Falken Azenis RT615k+ Street and Track Review

Last year, I picked up a 2009 Lancer Ralliart to do a long term test with it as a dual duty track/daily. One of the first things I knew I was going to do was put a decent set of tires on it. The car came without OEM wheels which was actually good because I didn't have to hesitate about getting a good set of aftermarket wheels to support going wider. Thankfully, my friends at YST Auto Halifax  set me up with a great set of Superspeed RF03RR wheels. The Wheels I had never even heard of Superspeed but I trusted the good folk at YST Auto who mentioned some customer cars running on track with them. These wheels are rotary forged which is basically a prerequisite to be taken seriously in this market populated by companies like TSW and Fast Wheels. The wheels looked like a high quality, well finished wheel and each had a "QC" check sticker on. Just for appearances? Maybe, but I found no defects. The wheels seemed easy to balance (didn't need many weights) and at 18.1 lb. f...

2016 Mustang EcoBoost Track Review

Photography by: Graham MacNeil Ford really wants to sell you a Mustang with a turbo four cylinder. They started by derating the V6 engine in the 2015 S550 compared to the 2011-2014 S197 V6 to make the EcoBoost 2.3 litre more differentiated. Then, they offered a performance pack on the EcoBoost but not on the V6. Now, they killed the V6 all together for 2018 and will only sell you a V8 or this EcoBoost. I love a good V8, everyone who knows me knows that. This is a Mustang, which means it needs a V8. If those aren't enough reasons, I always prefer natural aspiration over forced induction. That's three strikes against the EcoBoost-powered Mustang. But I'd be lying if I said the idea never intrigued me. It's the lightest (if you account for features). It has the best weight distribution. It has the same great chassis as the GT. It's very affordable and it has a lot of potential to make more power. Aftermarket? Endless support. There's plenty of good about it....

All Mainstream AWD and 4WD Systems Compared and Explained

Mitsubishi Evo X GSR at Atlantic Motorsport Park - Kevin Doubleday  © If you live in Canada or the US, you'll find that plenty of people hold sacred the terms '4x4' and '4WD' to describe a 'true 4x4', where you have a butch transfer case with a low speed, perhaps a body on frame chassis, and ideally a solid axle or two. I'm not sure how that translates to the rest of the world. My extensive research into the motoring industry in Europe (which exclusively consists of watching Top Gear and The Grand Tour...) concluded that most people across the pond simply refer to any vehicle that is capable of sending any power to all four wheels as a 4WD vehicle, further muddying the waters. Where I grew up, 4x4 was more or less synonymous with 'Jeep' so that's not much help either. However, despite all various systems attempting to do the same sort of thing - distribute power between all four wheels instead of two - not all systems are created equal,...

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity. Grip is noticeably l...