Super Wagon Video Shootout: Audi RS6 Vs. Mercedes E63 AMG - Which Is Fastest?

Mercedes wins, and if they used the AWD E63 AMG S it would have won the wet drag race. They used the base RWD version here, and it was still good enough for the win. .

AMG for the win. They should have used the 577hp E63S 4wd model. From what I hear, amg was better in everyting except for the drag race in the wet. Equipped with awd and the upgraded s motor I would put my money on the mercedes in the drag race also.

Agree with both points above. BUT, the S-Model AMG will come at a higher price, which would be the only downside…while you're grinning ear to ear driving it :-)

Even the base E63 with 4matic would have kept up with the RS6. The difference between AWD and RWD is especially big since the track was wet. RETEST with S and non-S 4matics and in the dry.

The E63 might have won this comparo BUT in the looks department the RS6 destroys it, inside and out. The Merc has a weird profile, and the rear looks heavy and realy ugly IMO. Didn't think I would like the AUDI so much but I do. The E63 AMG is more fun to drive though, so congrats to MB.

Looks are a subjective point, I personally like the E. The RS6 looks very similar to the S4, especially if you see the drag-test between the S4,RS6 and GTR, by Auto Express I think. The E on the other hand looks quite different that the C, CLA and other Mercs

Although the Mercedes E63 AMG T-Model (i.e., wagon/estate) and Audi RS6 Avant never lapped the same track, it's likely the Audi will be faster than even the Mercedes E63 AMG S T-Model if they lap the same track -- that's because of their laptimes in relation to other cars than lapped both tracks.

- The facelifted Mercedes E63 AMG S T-Modell (the faster version of this wagon) lapped only one track: Sachsenring. The Audi RS6 Avant did not lap this track. The Mercedes time of 1:38.97 was about 0.07 sec slower than the 2011 BMW M5, and 1.5 seconds slower than the 2009 Audi R8 V10 and about 4 seconds slower than 2013 Audi R8 V10 Plus. The Mercedes was 0.33 sec faster than 2009 Audi TT RS Coupe and 0.45 sec faster than 2005 BMW M6.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/sachsenring.html

-At Ring Knutstorp, the Audi RS6 Avant's time of 1:12.20 was only 0.9 sec slower than the 2013 Audi R8 V10 Plus and 1.1 sec faster than 2013 BMW M6 Gran Coupe and 5 seconds faster than 2005 BMW M6.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/ring_knutstorp.html

- At Autocar dry track, the Audi RS6 Avant's time of 1:12.80 was 0.2 sec faster than the 2009 Audi R8 V10 and 1.3 sec faster than the 2011 BMW M5 and 2.3 sec faster than 2009 Audi TT RS Coupe.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autocar_dry_handling_track.html

- At Autocar wet track, the Audi RS6 Avant's time of 1:13.30 was 4 sec faster than the 2011 BMW M5.
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autocar_wet_handling_track.html


It's likely the Audi RS6 will still be faster than the all-wheel drive Mercedes wagons in a drag race -- even though the AWD Mercedes 4Matic (E63 AMG is Mercedes rated at 3.8 sec to 100 km/h and E63 AMG S is rated at 3.7 sec to 100 km/h) is a faster sprinter than the rear-wheel drive Merceds wagon. That's because the RS6's Audi rating of 3.9 sec to 100 km/h is probably underrated. Even Auto Express admitted that they "set a 0-62mph time of 3.6 seconds in the RS6 – in the wet." The Audi S6 with the same engine (less 140 HP) manufacturer rated at 4.5 sec to 60 mph was tested by Motor Trend at 3.7 sec to 60 mph (@3.9 sec to 100 km/h). The Audi S8 with same engine (less 40 HP) rated at 3.9 sec to 60 mph was tested at 3.5 sec to 60 mph (@3.7 sec to 100 km/h). It's likely the RS6 is about 0.4 to 0.5 sec faster than Audi's claim of 3.9 sec to 100 km/h. Unlike recent Audis, the Mercedes cars rarely are faster than their manufacturer ratings.


Although Auto Express ranked the E 63 AMG version ahead of the RS6 verson, in comparison tests of the basic models the Audi A6 Avant was usually ranked better than the Mercedes E class wagon:

- the two largest German car magazines (Autobild, Auto Motor und Sport) ranked the Audi A6 Avant better than the Mercedes E Class wagon, despite the latter's larger cargo volume.
http://tinyurl.com/mywthoj
http://tinyurl.com/oktej33

- Auto Express ranked the Audi A6 Avant ahead of the E-Class and 5 Series wagons
http://tinyurl.com/ksegk77

- Most tests concluded that the

- Most tests point out that the Audi A6 Avant is the style icon of its class, better looking the the Mercedes and BMW wagons (e.g., see Auto Express's earlier review below). The Motor Report: "(The Audi A6 Avant has) the space and versatility of a wagon, with the slinky low lines of a coupe - that's Audi's elegant new A6 Avant. Seductively styled with a sloping D-pillar, wide, wide stance and big guards-filling wheels, it's certainly easy on the eye. And it can carry an enormous load."


Why read 'car scoops'... instead, read the original Auto Express article that came with the video (see link). The impression you get from the article is more even-handed than how the editing of the video came across. Ultimately, Auto Express also gave the Audi RS6 and the Mercedes E63 AMG the same four star rating.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/audi/rs6/64806/audi-rs6-avant-review-video


In any case, there are several issues with this Auto Express review.

- The Auto Express review missed the point. This is not a coupe or sedan. Car buyers don't buy these high-performance station wagons to "drive to track, hot laps, drive home, repeat next day." They buy these wagons because they want the versatility/utlility to transport passengers and/or cargo quickly and safely, while looking good doing it. The Auto Express testers are out of touch with reality: their irrelevant tests for a track car did not really test what the car would really be used for, e.g., transporting people and cargo between two cities in Britain, quickly, safely and with high class.

- The tested Mercedes was rear-wheel drive because that's what is sold in England (the English Mercedes website sells only the rear-wheel drive version). One of the posters on the Auto Express article (Justin Berkovi) made an insightful remark: "To be honest you cannot really compare a powerful quattro Audi with a rear wheel drive AMG. In most UK conditions the Audi would completely obliterate the rear wheel drive Merc and is a much safer car to drive fast in our wet weather. To me the RS6 is the perfect car - it does everything, luxury, speed, practicality and the new mpg is nothing short of incredible." This poster got it -- but the Auto Express testers were stuck in their tunnel vision.

- It's unlikely that the all-wheel drive Mercedes E63 AMG 4Matic will drive, handle and perform like the rear-wheel drive Mercedes tested.

- This rear-wheel drive Mercedes is not the Mercedes E63 AMG 4Matic wagon probably coming to the USA. Germany's Mercedes website only sells the 4Matic version as well.

- If the RS6 is being sold in mostly in markets where the Mercedes 4Matic is sold (like Germany and USA), then what's more relevant is how the AWD RS6 Avant performs against the AWD Mercedes E63 AMG 4Matic wagon. Thus it's better to wait for a proper German car mag comparison test of all-wheel drive Mercedes and Audi, since German testers understand their German cars better than the Brits and are more competent

...Thus it's better to wait for a proper German car mag comparison test of all-wheel drive Mercedes and Audi, since German testers understand their German cars better than the Brits and are more competent testers than the Brits (who can't even make great cars). And hopefully their test RS6 is fitted with two options: Sports Exhaust and Dynamic Package Plus.

- Furthermore, we don't know what options were on both test cars because Auto Express provided almost no details. The price they mentioned for the RS6 and E 63 AMG Estate were the base price in England (yet they claimed to have a 1,000 Great Britain Pound option on the Audi). The Mercedes may have been fully loaded with $20,000 of options while the tested Audi may have been fitted with no options beyond "Dynamic suspension" (there are other options available for the RS6 to make it a better track car -- Matt Davis's RS6 below was more fully optioned) -- if so, that might give the Mercedes an unfair edge. The tested RS6 was obviously not optioned with the sports exhaust that other reviewers loved. [E.g., in a Motor Trend comparison test between the Audi S7 and BMW 650i Grand Coupe, the reviewer went gaga over some optioned features on the BMW -- but neglected to reveal that these were expensive options on the BMW while the tested Audi did not have options in those areas (the $115,000 BMW was fully loaded with $25,000 options while the $85,000 Audi was under-loaded with only $6,000 options) ]

- The Auto Express reviewers said that the Mercedes won because it had better engine sound, steering feel, rear-wheel drive balance, more 'soul'. It appears the Auto Express RS6 car did not have two key options that they would have liked and addressed their concerns: the Sports Exhaust (1,000 GBP option) and Dynamic Package Plus (rear sports differential, dynamic steering, sports suspension plus with Dynamic ride control (DRC), Ceramic disc brakes, etc, etc -- 10,725 GBP option) for a total cost 88,710 GBP for the car. We don't know what options were on the Mercedes or it's real total cost.

- These two options on the RS6 can make a huge difference to car testers who crave such attributes. Autoblog's Matt Davis -- co-chair of the World Car Awards -- is a more experienced and prominent car reviewer (than the two Auto Express' reviewers Matt Watson and James Disdale). Matt Davis was smitten with the properly optioned RS6 that he tested: "Buyers of the RS6 Avant can get the stock setup limited to 155 mph, or they can grab the Dynamic package that takes things to 174 mph. My test car... includes the Dynamic Package Plus – cue the chorus of angels – and is let out to 190 mph. To go with the added speed, the "Plus" includes carbon ceramic brake discs, a rear sport differential, RS sport suspension plus with dynamic ride control, dynamic steering..." Read his review: it sounds like he was driving a totally different car.
http://tinyurl.com/3buvu9k
http://www.wcoty.com/web/steering_committee.asp

- The inconsistent Auto Express testers made a big deal out of the cargo volume in this test. But in an early test of the basic A6 Avant and E Class wagon, Auto Express said: "The Audi A6 Avant is not as big as the enormous Mercedes E-Class Estate, but with 565 litres of boot space with the seats up and 1,680 litres with them down (versus 695/1,950 for the Mercedes), it's got more than enough for most people. It's very slightly up on the BMW 5 Series Touring too, which has 560 litres and 1,670 litres. The boot is full of helpful features, too." "(Audi) doesn't beat the Mercedes E-Class Estate for maximum space, but it's spacious enough for most needs, and it offers a great driving experience with excellent comfort and refinement... Styling: The Audi A6 Avant is a very handsome car - better looking than its BMW 5 Series Touring and Mercedes E-Class Estate rivals... Inside, the cabin is beautifully made and logically laid out. The dials are clear and classy, and there's a great mix of metals, woods and leathers." In this high-end market, style is as important as -- or even more important than -- cargo volume. Yet Auto Express made the cargo volume more of an issue for the RS6 Avant than for the A6 Avant. Go figure. [Furthermore, the Audi (1966 mm) is longer from the front passenger seats to the tailgate compared to the Mercedes (1825 mm); the Audi (1181 mm) is longer from the rear passenger seats to the tailgate compared to the Mercedes (956 mm) ].


Audi has said it will produce an RS6 Plus and RS7 Plus, probably with around 600 HP, weight savings and other performance/driving improvements.


It was a big mistake of Audi not to make an RS6 sedan. After all, Car and Driver mag ranked Audi's S6 first place (213 points out of the maximum 240 points) over the second place Mercedes E 63 AMG sedan (210 points) and third place BMW M5 (193 points). The Audi S6 had the best scores for 11 of the 22 measures (on almost all other measures it did not lose by more than 1 or 2 points). Had the S6 been optioned with the RS6 options such as Sports Exhaust and Dynamic Package Plus, it would have decimated the E 63 AMG and M5.
http://tinyurl.com/n3trq8s
http://tinyurl.com/cqntdwx
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

One does not often see well thought out comments in this forum. Comments here tend to be colored by personal preference and hormonal influences. Kudos to Satriani1 for his insightful remarks.

Your kidding right?? He just wrote 3000 word rant to try and put into question, and contradict a legitimate and fair review review b/c he did not like that the Audi lost. If the Audi won he would post it in every post, never question it.

94geo: It’s obvious that your poorly-thought comments are colored by personal preferences and hormonal influences.

First, it’s irrational, delusional and shameless exaggeration to fantasize that I wrote a “3000 word rant”. A simple word count proves that my comments nowhere near 3,000 words (not even 2,000 words). You obviously do not understand what a rant is (see link). What I said was rational, calm, measured, factual, certainly not a rant – on the other hand, your post was more like a rant. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rant?s=t

Second, I did not “try and put into question, and contradict a legitimate and fair review review”. I DID IT. I proved with facts and logic that there are certain aspects of this Auto Express review that are questionable, isleading and unfair. If the Auto Express reviewers were competent, they would have tested an RS6 with the Dynamic Package Plus and Sports Exhaust options – or they would have at least explained that their RS6 did not have the Dynamic Package Plus option and how it affected the test results. This Auto Express review even contradicts (in some parts) an earlier review they did on the basic A7 Avant and E Class Estate/Wagon model.

What I said is important because the earlier posters jumped to conclusions after reading the Auto Express review without questioning the Auto Express review.

Instead of your ranting, why don’t you try to back up your rant with sound and factual arguments to try to rebut what I said. Let’s find out if you know what you’re ranting about :)

Eyecarehawaii: Thank you kindly for your generous comments.

Here is Car and Driver mag's first-drive review of the 2014 Audi RS7 -- I think this review was published after I wrote my original post. This Car and Driver review and Matt Davis's autoblog review both support what I said. These reviews contradict Auto Express's attitude towards the RS6.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-audi-rs7-sportback-first-drive-review

which has the same engine as the RS6 (the RS7 is only 100 lbs lighter).