911 v RS6
Author
Discussion

mike996

Original Poster:

230 posts

268 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
Can any help me with this? My own experience is that a 911 Turbo beats an RS6 (on track). I have been on track, in a Turbo, and kept on getting away from an RS6. Objectively, this may have been down to the driver though.

A mate of mine (owns an RS6), says that (despite my experience) an RS6 is "significantly" faster than a 911 turbo. Now, I have checked the figures on paper and cannot get a single relaible source as a comparator.

Has anyone got any views / evidence / etc. on this?

996tt_stevo

4,078 posts

258 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
I would say no in a straight 1/4 mile and a definate no chance on track. The RS6 is a tank! I had an RS4 and although quick (I was roughly 460bhp) the car always felt very heavy!

BRoCceRs

3,237 posts

283 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
Maybe a MTM version would be similar Id say.

Koln-RS

4,127 posts

242 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
On a track the 996TT should be quicker, given drivers of equal ability.

When I drove an RS6 last year I found it to be, like most Audis, pretty dull. Yes, it is very fast in a straight line and, yes, it has lots of grip. But it has a hard ride, over-sensitive brakes, numb steering and fairly sterile handling.

For me, the TT is far more rewarding to drive than the Audi, but a GT3 is better still.

cyberface

12,214 posts

287 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
Not really the same sort of cars? Next up, range rover versus elise.

TIGA84

5,594 posts

261 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
RS6 wouldn't see which way a TT went, any road, anywhere. End of.

chillerman

191 posts

242 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
I've owned both, (although my 996 is X50), and its a no brainer, the 996 is better in every dept, except load lugging and (whisper) ride quality. They are both pretty hard riding, but the 996 is definitely more choppy.

That being said, I have to say that the RS6 seems very underrated by most people who express an opinion. I wonder if some of these people have lived with one and really know them. For its type, its a hell of a allround package. IMHO of course.......

clubsport

7,415 posts

288 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
strange comparison, but having seen heavier Audi on track, not many seem to last too long. They are such a relatively heavy car unless the brakes and suspension have been upgraded these are normally the first componnts to throw the towel in. Quite possible an RS6 with a competent driver is quick on track, but not for long

chillerman

191 posts

242 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
I'd agree with all the above.
thumbup

AL001

831 posts

300 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
Your mate is talking bollox.

You are asking if a 450bhp car weighing c 1900kg (with options) is quicker than a 420bhp car weighing significantly less at c. 1540kg? The answer is obvious for standard examples of each.

RS6's are great cars though - fast/discrete/practical.

rumplestiltskin

1,084 posts

252 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
A 996TT is 24 secs faster round the Nurburgring than an RS6.

R.

ED965

5,697 posts

253 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
996 TT, would be quicker, track and road.
Do like Audi's though and would opt for the RS6 over an M5 anyday of the week.

Phil Dicky

7,194 posts

293 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
ED965 said:
996 TT, would be quicker, track and road.
Do like Audi's though and would opt for the RS6 over an M5 anyday of the week.


If i had to get rid of the Griffith and get an everyday car then an RS6 would be sat on my drive

guyvert1

2,161 posts

272 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
A friend of mine has a tweaked RS6 (520bhp/600+lbs). I’ve got a boggo 996 C4 (’02)... 0-60’s I always get away quicker , come 80ish he’s starts to pull away from me, mid range 80-120’s the gap is not as big as you’d imagine, he’ll be about a cars length in front, above this speed the gap obv. widens... I’d imagine a Turbo would alter that in the porca’s favour, as for cornering, be it slow or fast corners, I def. have the edge.. I was as surprised as any that he does not flatten me in every speed range, but 400 odd KG makes a HUGE difference, especially dynamically 

Geneve

4,018 posts

249 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
ED965 said:
996 TT, would be quicker, track and road.
Do like Audi's though and would opt for the RS6 over an M5 anyday of the week.


I think the RS4 is nicer than the RS6.

Koln-RS

4,127 posts

242 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all

eek

guyvert1 said:
A friend of mine has a tweaked RS6 (520bhp/600+lbs). I’ve got a boggo 996 C4 (’02)... 0-60’s I always get away quicker , come 80ish he’s starts to pull away from me, mid range 80-120’s the gap is not as big as you’d imagine, he’ll be about a cars length in front, above this speed the gap obv. widens... 


Blimey. Where do you play that little game ? eek

adam b

29,724 posts

284 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
mike996 said:
A mate of mine (owns an RS6), says that (despite my experience) an RS6 is "significantly" faster than a 911 turbo.


your mate has very poor judgement (apart from choosing you as a friend obviously)

classic case of pride > reality

sfl993t4

202 posts

271 months

Sunday 17th September 2006
quotequote all
I ran an RS6 for 18months but have now gone back to my 993TT for every day. As you all say the RS6 is a big heavy car, and not nearly as much fun as the Porsche, but not as far behind as you'd guess (the DRC suspension helps a lot through fast corners). I ran mine on track a few times and as you say, the brakes give out first, but SRF and Pagid RS14's cure them without needing to upgrade hardware. I also entered it in the Autocar "How Fast" thing at Bedford. Admittedly this is a one lap sprint in effect (and very much dependant on driver, line etc.), but on the day it came 6th ahead of the only 996TT (but roundly beaten by a couple of GT3's)
As a road car with loads of space, its a great compromise and under-rated by many.

mike996

Original Poster:

230 posts

268 months

Sunday 17th September 2006
quotequote all
Me: 500 points, mate: sheepishly not returning calls. Knew it was bollox, but wanted the combined wisdon of fellow pistonheaders before slamming the door shut on that argument. Doubt crept in as he was soooo adamant, but he is soooo wrong. Again. But then again, this is the same guy who told me that first gear was a "high gear" and 5th a low gear. Huh? Also told me that, for safe driving in icy conditions you should keep the car in low gear and use high revs (and he meant high revs) - perhaps useful for Ice Rally, for keeping a car on a road in snowy conditions - a no no (having spent many years in Chamonix, bitter experience is the best teacher!!)

Cheers guys - time to go and settle this argument.

LeeME3

1,502 posts

256 months

Sunday 17th September 2006
quotequote all
mike996 said:
....then again, this is the same guy who told me that first gear was a "high gear" and 5th a low gear. Huh? Also told me that, for safe driving in icy conditions you should keep the car in low gear and use high revs (and he meant high revs) - perhaps useful for Ice Rally, for keeping a car on a road in snowy conditions - a no no (having spent many years in Chamonix, bitter experience is the best teacher!!)


Blimey, you'd better post his numberplate then i can keep out the way if ever he's driving near me, sounds lethal!!!