A6/S6/RS6 MTM Audi S6

[DeDe]

- 556 hp @ 6075 rpm
- 714 Nm @ 3965 rpm
- 290 km/h
- 0-100 km/h: 4,2 s
- 0-200 km/h: 13,9 s



http://www.mtm-online.de/en/Audi/S6-C7/4-0-TFSI-309-kW-420-hp-quattro?FZID=S6C7309q&KIT=m2s6420555qm

 

[Tumbo]

Eh?

- 0-100 km/h: 4,2 s
- 0-200 km/h: 13,9 s

Those times can be done by the standard S6. What tha hell...?

 

[DeDe]

Eh?

- 0-100 km/h: 4,2 s
- 0-200 km/h: 13,9 s

Those times can be done by the standard S6. What tha hell...?

I would be surprised. The best I've seen is 4,4 and 15,7 s (AMS), followed by AutoBild SC (4,4 and 16,3 s).

 

[JHF]

I would be surprised. The best I've seen is 4,4 and 15,7 s (AMS), followed by AutoBild SC (4,4 and 16,3 s).

I think it's(MTM-S6) can do better, even the S6 Sedan can do better, if Avant can. Not 0-200 km/h.

 

[DeDe]

I think it's(MTM-S6) can do better, even the S6 Sedan can do better, if Avant can. Not 0-200 km/h.

On a very cold day the Sedan may be capable of a 0-100 km/h time of 4,2 sec, but I highly doubt that it would do 0-200 in less than 15 seconds. So the advantage of the MTM-version is clear.

Btw. NZ Autocar's testresults are highly questionable. They are the ones that got 6,9 s (!) with the Toyota GT86 and stopped from 100 km/h in less than 30 metres with a stock 991 Carrera S. They probably tests on a ridiculousy grippy track.

 

[JHF]

On a very cold day the Sedan may be capable of a 0-100 km/h time of 4,2 sec, but I highly doubt that it would do 0-200 in less than 15 seconds. So the advantage of the MTM-version is clear.

Btw. NZ Autocar's testresults are highly questionable. They are the ones that got 6,9 s (!) with the Toyota GT86 and stopped from 100 km/h in less than 30 metres with a stock 991 Carrera S. They probably tests on a ridiculousy grippy track.

Maybe

 

[Deckhook]

If you exclude the obsurd times that some of the US rags have got for the S6 then the MTM S6 is indeed a significant improvement over the standard car.

What I find surprising is that this car weights less than the M5 and E63, has similar power and equipped with a super quick gearbox yet and despite having the added traction of AWD it can't quite match their acceleration figures. I'm guessing that both the Beemer and Merc also make much more than claimed.

 

[ACE]

I don't believe MTM claims for the following reasons:

1. They don't post their stock dyno results, without the stock results we can't determine exactly what they have added.
2. They claim the S6 ran 0-100km/h in 4.9 secs stock in their own test. That seems a bit slow and if they can run a stock 0-100km/h test rather than using the Audi numbers, then I don't understand why they use the Audi numbers for stock power.
3. They claim 350PS at the wheels and have determined that equals 556PS at the crank without publishing the assumptions used. Drivetrain losses of over 37% and >200PS!

Basically, this MTM claim is a marketing document not a scientific test in my opinion. I am sure there is huge potential that can be released from this engine but I wouldn't pay EUR 3.5k based on those unscientific MTM claims.

 

[Deckhook]

Not an exact sience but most feel that AWD power lose ranges from 20~25%, if you believe Audi's output figures of 420hp and use this yardstick then it's ATW power ranges between 315hp~336hp, if the MTM S6 is making 350hp at the wheel then it's probably true figure is something between 438hp~467hp. I might add I believe the S6 makes more than claimed but I somehow don't believe based on these acceleration figures that the MTM car is making 556hp at the crank..... no f'ing way.

 

[AudiQuattro]

So if an RS8 is on the cards we can expect it to get the RS6 Plus engine