Drag race: new Audi RS6 vs Mercedes-AMG E 63 S, BMW M5 and Panamera Turbo S

Drag race: new Audi RS6 vs Mercedes-AMG E 63 S, BMW M5 and Panamera Turbo S

February 23, 2020 0 By autotimesnews

Three all-wheel drive German station wagon fought in dynamics with the BMW M5

Carwow YouTube channel compared the new Audi RS6 Avant C8 series with the top-end station wagons – the Mercedes-AMG E 63 S Estate S213 and the Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid Sport Turismo. Since the BMW M5 F90 series does not have a two-volume version, the M5 Competition sedan was put up against the station wagons.

The new Audi RS6 Avant was equipped with a moderate-hybrid powerplant consisting of a 4.0-liter biturbo-eight and a 48-volt starter-generator. Unit power – 600 horsepower, torque – 800 Nm. Drive – full, transmission – 8-speed automatic, weight – 2075 kilograms.


The plug-in hybrid Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid is the most powerful and heavy car in the four. The electrified power plant consists of a 550-horsepower V8 with a torque of 770 Nm and a 136-horsepower electric motor with a peak torque of 400 Nm. The total return is 680 horsepower and 1000 Nm, the transmission is an 8-speed robotized gearbox, the drive is full. Weight – 2325 kilograms.

The assets of the BMW M5 Competition are a 4.4-liter 625-horsepower (750 Nm of torque) “twin-turbo eight”, the drive is a full, 8-speed automatic, the mass is 1940 kilograms.

Although the upgrade of the E-Class is just around the corner, the Mercedes-AMG E 63 S Estate does not look obsolete: under the hood of the V8 BiTurbo is a volume of 4.0 liters, the return is 612 horsepower and 850 Nm of torque. Transmission – 9-speed automatic. The all-wheel drive station wagon is only 55 kilograms heavier than the M5 sedan and weighs 1995 kilograms.

At a distance of 402 meters rivals were divided 0.2-0.3 seconds, and the difference depended on the reaction of the driver and the “hook” in the first meters of the distance. Interestingly, in the video a week ago, the same BMW M5 Competition systematically drove the “quarter” 0.6 seconds slower. An unexpected result was shown by a comparative test of brake efficiency: carbon-ceramic mechanisms were inferior to conventional discs.