down on power?!im not so sure...

[HYFR]

so people think these cars are down on power...

I dont!

Had a 30 mile chase with a 59 plate M3 on some private roads

RS kept up no problem and on an open straight it was neck and neck full throttle in 4th until we came to a bend then he put his balls on the table!(still getting used to this car!)

So if the V8 M3 is pushing out 400bhp then so is my RS....

Its defo not 100bhp down on my RS6 (although the 6 would have eaten the M3)

Its also defo feels at least 60bhp up on my S4's

So as long as it feels like this im staying way away from a Dyno!!

[HYFR]

i also had x4 boxed alloy wheels in the boot!

[stumpyrs4]

Wait for the Milltek and remap then DK !

[mark758]

[aidanjaye]

so people think these cars are down on power...

I dont!

Had a 30 mile chase with a 59 plate M3 on some private roads

RS kept up no problem and on an open straight it was neck and neck full throttle in 4th until we came to a bend then he put his balls on the table!(still getting used to this car!)

So if the V8 M3 is pushing out 400bhp then so is my RS....

Its defo not 100bhp down on my RS6 (although the 6 would have eaten the M3)

Its also defo feels at least 60bhp up on my S4's

So as long as it feels like this im staying way away from a Dyno!!

David, try AurthurPe's 3000-8000 rpm in third gear timing test. See if you get near 8sec. Will give you a rough idea on whether HP is low or not.
I came from a R33GTR with dyno proven 420 HP (lightly modded) and the RS4 doesn't feel any slower although doesn't have that same turbo kick which puts a smile on faces.
My old S4 (B6 V8) was way slower by comparison. Didn't think 60hp would be noticable and did ask a lot of forum users on here whether it was such a big jump. Glad I did though.

[Gumball0r]

so people think these cars are down on power...

I dont!

Had a 30 mile chase with a 59 plate M3 on some private roads

RS kept up no problem and on an open straight it was neck and neck full throttle in 4th until we came to a bend then he put his balls on the table!(still getting used to this car!)

So if the V8 M3 is pushing out 400bhp then so is my RS....

Its defo not 100bhp down on my RS6 (although the 6 would have eaten the M3)

Its also defo feels at least 60bhp up on my S4's

So as long as it feels like this im staying way away from a Dyno!!

David, try AurthurPe's 3000-8000 rpm in third gear timing test. See if you get near 8sec. Will give you a rough idea on whether HP is low or not.
I came from a R33GTR with dyno proven 420 HP (lightly modded) and the RS4 doesn't feel any slower although doesn't have that same turbo kick which puts a smile on faces.
My old S4 (B6 V8) was way slower by comparison. Didn't think 60hp would be noticable and did ask a lot of forum users on here whether it was such a big jump. Glad I did though.

I just did that test. flat surface at 1,5 degrees celcius. Averaged 7,7 seconds with no mods. I too am very satisfied with my cars power, no need for dyno here.

[HYFR]

OH MY GOD

Jus got milltek valved non res fitted!

It sounds like a Lambo!

Picked up some race cats also so a trip to MRC is on the cards!

[P_G]

I have noticed that petrol and traction control makes a difference on the timings. Using Tesco 99 I could only do consistent 8.6 with a full tank of petrol with TC on, same road 20 mins later with TC off 8.4. Car was always bogging down between 3-5k rpm with TC on given the roads were wet and it is p***ing it down in the NE. Given a couple of weeks ago I was doing 8.2 average on V-Power. Mind I was also carrying a good half tank of fuel more this time as well.

[ArthurPE]

....

I just did that test. flat surface at 1,5 degrees celcius. Averaged 7,7 seconds with no mods. I too am very satisfied with my cars power, no need for dyno here.

factor in temp and you're ~8 flat
rated is ~8.4
8 flat is what was done in tests using ALL gears
a 4000 lb car with 350 HP (as some claim) can't do that

the flexibility of the engine amazes me

[ArthurPE]

I have noticed that petrol and traction control makes a difference on the timings. Using Tesco 99 I could only do consistent 8.6 with a full tank of petrol with TC on, same road 20 mins later with TC off 8.4. Car was always bogging down between 3-5k rpm with TC on given the roads were wet and it is p***ing it down in the NE. Given a couple of weeks ago I was doing 8.2 average on V-Power. Mind I was also carrying a good half tank of fuel more this time as well.

yep, fuel makes a difference
also your car is an avant, correct? so a bit heavier
stock is 8.4 for a sedan
most mag accel testing is done on low fuel loads so the numbers are good

the fact the TC was interferring in 3rd gear seems to indicate power is OK

[krakatoa]

....


the flexibility of the engine amazes me

This what makes this engine so fantastic.

People get so hung up on peak power figures, it's the area under the graph that is important - i.e spread of power which allows for flexibility.

[aidanjaye]

I have noticed that petrol and traction control makes a difference on the timings. Using Tesco 99 I could only do consistent 8.6 with a full tank of petrol with TC on, same road 20 mins later with TC off 8.4. Car was always bogging down between 3-5k rpm with TC on given the roads were wet and it is p***ing it down in the NE. Given a couple of weeks ago I was doing 8.2 average on V-Power. Mind I was also carrying a good half tank of fuel more this time as well.

Was the TC light flashing?? Never had that in the third gear (apart from snow and ice).

[ArthurPE]

....


the flexibility of the engine amazes me

This what makes this engine so fantastic.

People get so hung up on peak power figures, it's the area under the graph that is important - i.e spread of power which allows for flexibility.

agree 100%

in gear flexibility/elasticity is far more useful, imo, than power at any given rpm...and much harder to design, BMW has the knack of it, their M engines have a wiiiide torque band (>90% peak) and still rev very high...Audi got this one right...although they did steal the BMW M engineer to design the RS4 V8

it seems that the euro testers have figured this out: you see many 'in gear' accel tests, etc., rather than straight up, rip tearing accel runs...
Evo has some very nice charts, as does AM und S


Within the Volkswagen Group, Wolfgang Hatz has been affectionately dubbed "Mr. Engine." His career began in 1983 when he joined BMW's Formula 1 program. He then developed the four-cylinder engine for the first E30-based BMW M3 before joining Porsche's Formula 1 program in 1989. Returning to road cars, he developed the 3.8-liter engine in the Porsche 964 RS 3.8 before leaving to join Opel's motorsport division in 1996. Victory in the International Touring Car Championship followed before he joined Fiat in 1997 as the man in charge of the group's engine development — including Alfa Romeo and Ferrari. He joined Audi in 2001 as its head of powertrain development and became the head of powertrain for the entire Volkswagen Group at the beginning of 2007.

[mark758]

Even discounting his estimated power from his remap I can't see too much being wrong with this engine even when it was on the factory map and limiter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH7obaj5Ekw

[ArthurPE]

Even discounting his estimated power from his remap I can't see too much being wrong with this engine even when it was on the factory map and limiter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH7obaj5Ekw

that is THE only true indicator of HP
top speed knowing Cd and A
and for this car to hit 190, it needs >420 HP

here's one: http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/aerohpcalc.html
data from AM und S aero testing
Coefficient of Drag (Cd): 0.31
Frontal area (sq. ft.): 23.36 ft^2
Vehicle and Rider Weight (lbs): est 4100 lbs
Speed (mph): 187 mph (highest GPS I've seen for a stock delimited RS4)

HP ~ 416
lost to drag ~ 315 (the most a dyno can measure)
parasitic losses ~ 100
this is in line with data from MAHA dynos that measure losses...

190 would require ~435, I would guess 15-20 HP MIGHT be possible from software