Certified dyno graph:

[Andyuk911]

Hi Anton,

can you see me a trial copy ?

http://www.cmdtec.com/prod_map3d2007.asp

Thanks
Andy

[ArthurPE]

ArthurPE, the Rototest is a hub dyno, not a roller dyno, so please stop talking about whp on the Rototest, as it's power at the hubs, not at the wheels+tyres.

OMG the S3 is more than overrated, it has no drivetrain losses, I didn't know that was even possible, or then Audi really give everyone a lot of BHP for free, that's nice, why are tuners still in business? I really wonder...

Anyway, what are you trying to tell us? That Audi have made a perfect engine that makes 100% of its rated horsepower, is that right?

well the other dyno does not measure 'wheel' torque either...
since there is no such thing, the tire delivers linear thrust...
the number would be ~ 1150 lb (not lb-ft)
you must divide by the final gear ratio (let's assume 1:1 for the tranny) and mult by the tire radius to get the axle torque...
1150 lb x 1.08 ft ~ 1250 lb-ft/4.11 ~ 300 lb-ft

the rotor test is a BETTER measurement of engine power because tire slip and mass inertia are not factors...this may be why everyones numbers are reading low...tire slip may be as much as 5% alone...
less variables in the voodoo power train loss factor, which no one will divulge anyways...

I'm not trying 'to tell you' anything...read it, don't read it, consider it or don't, I don't give a flying fudge...but if you believe Audi is perpatrating criminal fraud, and somehow the tuners have uncovered it thru bogus and manipulated dyno data, and at the same time found the magic solution, which they will sell you, then I can't 'tell you' anything...live in your bliss, and as they say it's ignorant

[SR71]

I reckon Arthur works for Audi!

Thing is Arthur, you're the only one using the words "criminal" and "fraud".

What evidence have you got that tuners are manipulating data? None whatsoever! Your cynicism is clouding your better judgement on that account.

The precedent is already set in the UK. Audi took back a car that, on three seperate dynos did not produce the figures. Some of us were staggered at the time, because we felt that they could have easily played hard ball, got the geeks from GmbH out, moaned about tyre slip, correction factors, ambient conditions, +/- 5% repeatibility, oil quality, spark quality, and/or fired up their engine dyno and backed up their claims.

Why they chose not to is anyones guess...

But, fancy a giant corporation trying to pull the wool over your eyes! I can think of a couple of culprits to that effect...

Bloody hell, it appears even our own Members of Parliament have been doing it for years!

Your faith in big business is admirable, but misguided IMHO.

At what point does the weight of "independent" opinion force you to reassess your conclusions?

How you can maintain that, with the amount of contamination in the inlet, there isn't going to be an effect on power is beyond me...

[S2tuner]

ArthurPE, the Rototest is a hub dyno, not a roller dyno, so please stop talking about whp on the Rototest, as it's power at the hubs, not at the wheels+tyres.

OMG the S3 is more than overrated, it has no drivetrain losses, I didn't know that was even possible, or then Audi really give everyone a lot of BHP for free, that's nice, why are tuners still in business? I really wonder...

Anyway, what are you trying to tell us? That Audi have made a perfect engine that makes 100% of its rated horsepower, is that right?

well the other dyno does not measure 'wheel' torque either...
since there is no such thing, the tire delivers linear thrust...
the number would be ~ 1150 lb (not lb-ft)
you must divide by the final gear ratio (let's assume 1:1 for the tranny) and mult by the tire radius to get the axle torque...
1150 lb x 1.08 ft ~ 1250 lb-ft/4.11 ~ 300 lb-ft

the rotor test is a BETTER measurement of engine power because tire slip and mass inertia are not factors...this may be why everyones numbers are reading low...tire slip may be as much as 5% alone...
less variables in the voodoo power train loss factor, which no one will divulge anyways...

I'm not trying 'to tell you' anything...read it, don't read it, consider it or don't, I don't give a flying fudge...but if you believe Audi is perpatrating criminal fraud, and somehow the tuners have uncovered it thru bogus and manipulated dyno data, and at the same time found the magic solution, which they will sell you, then I can't 'tell you' anything...live in your bliss, and as they say it's ignorant

Dude, it must be your American mentality getting you started with words such as "criminal", "fraud", perpetrading and so on... calm down and relax a bit.

All I and others have been saying, is that, funnily enough, other vehicles, and for instance Porsche GT3s do put out their numbers on any dyno in any sort of conditions, yet, the RS4 or the R8 don't. Strange too that the S3 TFSI you posted here does what the factory rates at the crankshaft, at the wheel hubs.

I do know the hubs allow for more accurate measurements, BUT what no one knows with them, is how much the drivetrain losses to take into account are, if I take your dyno numbers for a B7 RS4, they'd be around 20%, if I take the S3 TFSI, they'll be 0, so you tell me where the extra accuracy of this certified (certified by who? is that a TÃœV approved dyno???) dyno is.

Oh and another story for you, I know the guys/owners of Sportec pretty well, and Sportec have swiss homologation with every single kit they sell. Now for the little story, swiss homologation for a vehicle has authority in the EU, including over German TÃœV. Anyway, to make a long story short, Sportec's dyno is recognized by the swiss TÃœV institution for power measurements, and I have seen with my own eyes B7 dyno runs done on their dyno, where a decent average was 380 PS to the crank.

With this said, I'll try to stay out of every discussion related to engine power on the B7 RS4 (or any discussion where ArthurPE is involved), simply because I'm starting to wonder if ArthurPE isn't on Audi's payroll.

[ArthurPE]

s2tuner, I am 'calm', wetf that means...but I see you have a vested interest...hmmmm...dood

'American mentality'?
we kicked your 'arsses' out once and bailed them out twice...
so if American mentality means help others and take no shyte from posers...guilty...
so sod off...American and proud of it...not perfect, but as good as any...

Audi states the car makes 414 SAE
many(mostly dyno owners/tuners) are saying it doesn't, it makes 380-ish and Audi knows it...
so that would be fraud and therefor criminal...period

let me postulate/hypothesize about the other side of the low dyno coin:
a tuner has a free dyno day for all of the same car type
he has 2 cars there he tuned
the tuned cars make quoted HP, everyone else is down...
let's say for arguements sake the dyno cf's were manipulated...

good marketing, huh?
sell a re-map, run a dyno, use more appropriate dyno cf's, voila, the 'lost' HP has been recovered by the tune...
never happen? right...whole wars are waged on deceit, why not a little profiteering?

from the dyno day:
we have seen no raw data, cf's, etc.
why?
printer is broken, software needs upgraded...
well, printers are a dime a dozen, and software can be downloaded in minutes, no hard copy needed...

everybody 'knows' somebody to back up their claims...
or has secret info, or the 'inside line'...
I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy....
well, I'll let the science do the talking...

the engine is rated 414 in the states, SAE Certified...in the land of lawsuits there have been none re:RS4
although there have been many others: Mazda, Mustangs, Nissan, etc.

how do you like 'em apples, lol

now I'm tired, just installed 2 new door openers in my garage with custom aluminum brackets, concealed wires, etc.

recently did fresh concrete on the floors, fresh paint, recessed lighting, a couple of Pollack prints...looking good, the under-powered RS4 and the Mini Clubman look good in their new home...

peace out:

[booski]

LOL

[pippyrips]

let me postulate/hypothesize about the other side of the low dyno coin:
a tuner has a free dyno day for all of the same car type
he has 2 cars there he tuned
the tuned cars make quoted HP, everyone else is down...
let's say for arguements sake the dyno cf's were manipulated...

good marketing, huh?
sell a re-map, run a dyno, use more appropriate dyno cf's, voila, the 'lost' HP has been recovered by the tune...
never happen? right...whole wars are waged on deceit, why not a little profiteering?

from the dyno day:
we have seen no raw data, cf's, etc.
why?
printer is broken, software needs upgraded...
well, printers are a dime a dozen, and software can be downloaded in minutes, no hard copy needed...

everybody 'knows' somebody to back up their claims...
or has secret info, or the 'inside line'...
I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy....
well, I'll let the science do the talking...
how do you like 'em apples, lol

Arthur,

MRC did the work on my car and used a competely independent rolling road to measure results at each stage along the way.

At the recent RR day at Paramount, only 1 car had been tuned by Paramount - raudiguy's. If your theory rings true you would expect their car to have topped the charts that day and it didn't, mine did.

Maybe the reason only 2 cars went above 400 that day is because the tuning work completed on each of them really does work...

All I can say is my car is noticably quicker & stronger now that it was before MRC worked on her so trust me when I say there is no funny marketing going on here..

[SR71]

Problem is Arthur, most argue from the data to a conclusion.

You're doing the reverse, on the basis that you believe there is no way Audi could get the figures wrong. And from that point, you pick and choose the "science" that justifies your conclusion.

Its as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. There must be hundreds of cars across multiple dynos all over Europe that have now demonsrated the same results and you keep posting the same SportAuto + RRI figures as if that proves your case! In your opinion, everybody East of Nova Scotia has an anti-Audi agenda, a dodgy printer, fiddled correction factors, or wants to sell me something?

Isn't that stretching your credibility a little?

You're quite happy to accept Audi might have over-rated the S3 (Why would they do that?) but not that they could under-rate the RS4?

Doesn't make sense.

Do they, or do they not know what they're doing in that test centre?

It need not be sinister either...in the same way Mr Quattro Gmbh might have mis-read the engine dyno when testing the S3, maybe he did the same when testing the RS4? Au contraire, maybe they knew the E92 was going to spit out 400+ from a 4.0L, so...

The whole point of the debate is to get Audi to engage with what is a general consensus as to the cars under-performance.

PS: Using "calm" and "wetf" in the same sentence betrays you...

[P_G]

let me postulate/hypothesize about the other side of the low dyno coin:
a tuner has a free dyno day for all of the same car type
he has 2 cars there he tuned
the tuned cars make quoted HP, everyone else is down...
let's say for arguements sake the dyno cf's were manipulated...

good marketing, huh?
sell a re-map, run a dyno, use more appropriate dyno cf's, voila, the 'lost' HP has been recovered by the tune...
never happen? right...whole wars are waged on deceit, why not a little profiteering?

from the dyno day:
we have seen no raw data, cf's, etc.
why?
printer is broken, software needs upgraded...
well, printers are a dime a dozen, and software can be downloaded in minutes, no hard copy needed...

everybody 'knows' somebody to back up their claims...
or has secret info, or the 'inside line'...
I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy....
well, I'll let the science do the talking...
how do you like 'em apples, lol

Arthur,

MRC did the work on my car and used a competely independent rolling road to measure results at each stage along the way.

At the recent RR day at Paramount, only 1 car had been tuned by Paramount - raudiguy's. If your theory rings true you would expect their car to have topped the charts that day and it didn't, mine did.

Maybe the reason only 2 cars went above 400 that day is because the tuning work completed on each of them really does work...

All I can say is my car is noticably quicker & stronger now that it was before MRC worked on her so trust me when I say there is no funny marketing going on here..

Ah, but that was only after you were cajoled into running your car again against Jimbo's after it had cooled down, his was on top after your first runs togther, a cooler car for you meant better results and you came out on top.

[Dom81]

a couple of Pollack prints...

That's a damn ugly fish to hang on your wall...

[pippyrips]

let me postulate/hypothesize about the other side of the low dyno coin:
a tuner has a free dyno day for all of the same car type
he has 2 cars there he tuned
the tuned cars make quoted HP, everyone else is down...
let's say for arguements sake the dyno cf's were manipulated...

good marketing, huh?
sell a re-map, run a dyno, use more appropriate dyno cf's, voila, the 'lost' HP has been recovered by the tune...
never happen? right...whole wars are waged on deceit, why not a little profiteering?

from the dyno day:
we have seen no raw data, cf's, etc.
why?
printer is broken, software needs upgraded...
well, printers are a dime a dozen, and software can be downloaded in minutes, no hard copy needed...

everybody 'knows' somebody to back up their claims...
or has secret info, or the 'inside line'...
I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy....
well, I'll let the science do the talking...
how do you like 'em apples, lol

Arthur,

MRC did the work on my car and used a competely independent rolling road to measure results at each stage along the way.

At the recent RR day at Paramount, only 1 car had been tuned by Paramount - raudiguy's. If your theory rings true you would expect their car to have topped the charts that day and it didn't, mine did.

Maybe the reason only 2 cars went above 400 that day is because the tuning work completed on each of them really does work...

All I can say is my car is noticably quicker & stronger now that it was before MRC worked on her so trust me when I say there is no funny marketing going on here..

Ah, but that was only after you were cajoled into running your car again against Jimbo's after it had cooled down, his was on top after your first runs togther, a cooler car for you meant better results and you came out on top.

Agreed - but Arthur is implying Paramount fixed the results so "their cars" came out on top with factory claimed figures.

The point i was trying to make was Paramount had only worked on one of these two cars, the other being tuned by essentailly a compeitior - MRC.

The reason why they both got the results they did was because both have had resonably substanial & similar modifications - not because someone fiddled the figures to get them there!

[Andyuk911]

Agreed Rob .... I think the results were true and correct.

I have just seen Scagheads Dyno plot for a company in Essex .... unbelievable for just a map ... I am just going to send him a note so I might be able to post ..

[rAudiguy]

Arthur, MRC did the work on my car and used a competely independent rolling road to measure results at each stage along the way. At the recent RR day at Paramount, only 1 car had been tuned by Paramount - raudiguy's. If your theory rings true you would expect their car to have topped the charts that day and it didn't, mine did. Maybe the reason only 2 cars went above 400 that day is because the tuning work completed on each of them really does work... All I can say is my car is noticably quicker & stronger now that it was before MRC worked on her so trust me when I say there is no funny marketing going on here..

Ah, but that was only after you were cajoled into running your car again against Jimbo's after it had cooled down, his was on top after your first runs togther, a cooler car for you meant better results and you came out on top.

Agreed - but Arthur is implying Paramount fixed the results so "their cars" came out on top with factory claimed figures. The point i was trying to make was Paramount had only worked on one of these two cars, the other being tuned by essentailly a compeitior - MRC. The reason why they both got the results they did was because both have had resonably substanial & similar modifications - not because someone fiddled the figures to get them there!

Rob I agree with you totally. the Black and White of the RR day was that the two cars with custom maps and other work done were in the 400 club and the other cars were all at least 30bhp down. this is in no way a fix of any kind.

Arthur I already explained in another post that Paramount had nothing to gain from this RR day. It was for my personal interest to see what a group of RS4's would be like running a closely as possible in the same conditions. It was never as a marketing exercise for either my own benefit or others.

Without being rude and with the greatest of respect in future when I post things can you BUTT OUT and I will keep of yours, because most of the time your arguments are just bollocks and don't stack up!! All for freedom of speech and all that but you are getting a little tiring mate a view I think shared by others.

Thanks

Jim

[scaghead]

arthur, i think you are barking up the wrong tree mate.. i went on the rolling road day at paramount and as rob and jim have said there was nothing dodgy going on or hard sales pitches ... mine showed something like 310hp on the rr when the fella who worked for paramount took it for a spin after he returned with a puzzled look on his face and said that car aint running 310 that is strange... [they could have said that jims was running <beep> and since they had done this ,and that it now gives him this etc... but they didnt] cheers jas

[ArthurPE]

Problem is Arthur, most argue from the data to a conclusion.

You're doing the reverse, on the basis that you believe there is no way Audi could get the figures wrong. And from that point, you pick and choose the "science" that justifies your conclusion.

Its as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. There must be hundreds of cars across multiple dynos all over Europe that have now demonsrated the same results and you keep posting the same SportAuto + RRI figures as if that proves your case! In your opinion, everybody East of Nova Scotia has an anti-Audi agenda, a dodgy printer, fiddled correction factors, or wants to sell me something?

Isn't that stretching your credibility a little?

You're quite happy to accept Audi might have over-rated the S3 (Why would they do that?) but not that they could under-rate the RS4?

Doesn't make sense.

Do they, or do they not know what they're doing in that test centre?

It need not be sinister either...in the same way Mr Quattro Gmbh might have mis-read the engine dyno when testing the S3, maybe he did the same when testing the RS4? Au contraire, maybe they knew the E92 was going to spit out 400+ from a 4.0L, so...

The whole point of the debate is to get Audi to engage with what is a general consensus as to the cars under-performance.

PS: Using "calm" and "wetf" in the same sentence betrays you...

only your data is suspect at best...incomplete at best...out right manipulated at worst...

and although you may consider my arguement lacking logic, yours has no facts period...only bogus , manipulated, dyno runs...

not one quantitative top speed run or 1/4 mile...

the 'data' is the car runs 13/108 all day long on certified strips...
it weighs ~4200 loaded...

and dyno'ed can be made to read anything the operator desires...for whatever reasons...

'betrays' me, again, wetf that means

because under-rating is a violation of the law, over-rating is not...
you don't understand that?

let me break it down:
I advertise a dozen apples...
I sell you 11...
I give you 13

see?

the only 'credibility' being stretched here is the tuners who are falsifying data to sell people stuff they don't need...

I want nothing from anybody, so my position means nothing, does no harm, and costs nobody anything...

where as the position I counter has vested interest...they want your money to fix a problem that doesn't exist...