RS4 B7 Stated Power claim of 420ps
When I buy something there is normaly always something wrong with it sometimes it is such a small issue I live with it other times it invovles packing it away going back to the shop and waiting for a new one to be ordered in as the one I had was the last in stock. The only things to have gone wrong with my car so far have been late delivery, boot recall and the automatic boot opening seems not to work in bad weather. If I have any the mentioned issues happed then I will want them fixed at no cost to myself. I do understand Sims but until it happens there is no point in worrying about it probably because I am too old now. People should never be afraid to say what they think!! On that note have a happy day.
Mine was one of those mediocre car's with about 300bhp.Stated claim is 420ps, but someone at MRC mentioned some good cars make 370 or 380ps, whilst the mediocre ones make 300-330ps.
Has anyone ever pursued this with Audi, for it sounds like a misrepresentation.
Took me 6 months to sort, (dealing with the usual job's worth's along the way), but from my persistence, support and help from some people on RS246 - the problems were eventually diagnosed by Audi Camberley.
I may have ranted on here
and bashed the Audi brand abit 
through my frustrations - but as long as it's not over the top 'what's the problem with free speech'? I would have probably sorted the problems out myself, but I'm glad that a site such as this exists with some some really helpful people, which concluded with assisting me to have a car that now runs properly.
Personally, as an enthusiast, I think the RS4 is a fantastic car. Getting back into a B5 which makes more power than my B7 serves to highlight the strengths of the B7 because I'm fairly sure that its ability to cover ground despite the power deficit would still be superior. The car is just so well balanced, has the right power to compliment the inherent level of traction - my B5 will spin all four wheels in the wet in 3rd - has a brilliant suspension system when it works and a lovely feel to the steering. All of this inspires a level of confidence in the car that I do not get in the B5, with the obvious result...
But those of us with an engineering inclination are also keen to understand how the design works and what can be done to make it better.
It will be illuminating to see how the 4.2 has evolved in the RS5 application.
FWIW, me and pippyrips did an experiment the day we picked up his car from MRC post modifications.
We set our cruise control having reset the DIS and drove side by side on the motorway for a good few miles before pulling over and checking our averages.
The experiment demonstrated, rather crudely, that Rob's car suffered a small penalty in gas mileage (~1mpg) which we assumed was down to the removal of the manifold flaps, more so than any deposition (obviously Rob's car had no deposition post MRC tuning). This obviously affects the ability of the intake to generate swirl and subsequently the ability of the design to fill the cylinder in the manner it was designed to do.
I believe SilverRS4 also observed that the engine runs slightly hotter as a result. I cannot recall whether Rob observed the same tendency.
The reason for mentioning the above is that intake valve aerodynamics is inherently nonlinear, dominated by boundary layer effects, possibly transonic effects and without doubt unsteady effects. I can guarantee that BMW, Audi, Porsche and Mercedes are not using Bernoulli to analyse what the hell is going on around those valves. The effect of removing the manifold flaps was measurable. Similarly, I am quite sure the effect of deposition will be measurable, using CFD or an LDA.
A 744 has a wing area of ~540m^2 and can generate >400 tons of lift. How much frost are you allowed on the top surface of the wing prior to departure?
Answer: Absolutely none.
Why? Because even a millimeter of frost will destroy the wings ability to generate lift.
The same applies to the ICE.
The question is, (well at least in my mind), not so much what does this do to the engines ability to generate power, but how can it be reduced.
There are some intelligent minds on here and we should at least be able to have the discussion without throwing our toys out of the pram.
None of the above means we don't enjoy the car.
But those of us with an engineering inclination are also keen to understand how the design works and what can be done to make it better.
It will be illuminating to see how the 4.2 has evolved in the RS5 application.
FWIW, me and pippyrips did an experiment the day we picked up his car from MRC post modifications.
We set our cruise control having reset the DIS and drove side by side on the motorway for a good few miles before pulling over and checking our averages.
The experiment demonstrated, rather crudely, that Rob's car suffered a small penalty in gas mileage (~1mpg) which we assumed was down to the removal of the manifold flaps, more so than any deposition (obviously Rob's car had no deposition post MRC tuning). This obviously affects the ability of the intake to generate swirl and subsequently the ability of the design to fill the cylinder in the manner it was designed to do.
I believe SilverRS4 also observed that the engine runs slightly hotter as a result. I cannot recall whether Rob observed the same tendency.
The reason for mentioning the above is that intake valve aerodynamics is inherently nonlinear, dominated by boundary layer effects, possibly transonic effects and without doubt unsteady effects. I can guarantee that BMW, Audi, Porsche and Mercedes are not using Bernoulli to analyse what the hell is going on around those valves. The effect of removing the manifold flaps was measurable. Similarly, I am quite sure the effect of deposition will be measurable, using CFD or an LDA.
A 744 has a wing area of ~540m^2 and can generate >400 tons of lift. How much frost are you allowed on the top surface of the wing prior to departure?
Answer: Absolutely none.
Why? Because even a millimeter of frost will destroy the wings ability to generate lift.
The same applies to the ICE.
The question is, (well at least in my mind), not so much what does this do to the engines ability to generate power, but how can it be reduced.
There are some intelligent minds on here and we should at least be able to have the discussion without throwing our toys out of the pram.
None of the above means we don't enjoy the car.
58 C6 RS6 Stage 2+
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
58 C6 A6 Allroad 2.7 TDi
Previous:
2000 B5 S4 MRC 550 Saloon
2007 B7 RS4 Saloon
1994 S2 Coupe
I'd say the people who think they have replaced 100% of all DRC's and that deposits cost 50-60 HP are the 'believers'...sims wrote:Finally something sensibleArthurPE wrote:..put on some Miles Davis, perhaps Kind of Blue...
As SR71 says, it is very clear there are two camps - the believers & the independents.
These same believers think less than 1% of cars had/have DRC problems. Is there anyone in the UK who really believes that? I don't, but I am optimistic that issue can and will be resolved. Is the DRC for other markets different, otherwise there is a credibility issue.
The other issue has faced debate for good reason, and RR's are just a small part of it. I shall pursue that in my own time, in my own way.
Adios & Happy motoring
P.S. BTW I have owned a RS2, 4 and 6.
they let the internet guide their 'beliefs'
now they believe in something, but it's not reality based...
I believe in science, engineering and fact...not the disingenuous ramblings of those with an agenda, I stand nothing to gain by my position...but those trying to convince others that scrubbing (for not so a nominal fee) the manifold will net 50= HP, now that's another story ... or that a magic chip can get back the 50 HP that Audi has under-rated, again, for a not so nominal fee...if not believing in that horseshyte is 'blind', I'm glad I can't 'see'...
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein
we are not talking about lift...talk about disingenuous...SR71 wrote:Personally, as an enthusiast, I think the RS4 is a fantastic car. Getting back into a B5 which makes more power than my B7 serves to highlight the strengths of the B7 because I'm fairly sure that its ability to cover ground despite the power deficit would still be superior. The car is just so well balanced, has the right power to compliment the inherent level of traction - my B5 will spin all four wheels in the wet in 3rd - has a brilliant suspension system when it works and a lovely feel to the steering. All of this inspires a level of confidence in the car that I do not get in the B5, with the obvious result...
But those of us with an engineering inclination are also keen to understand how the design works and what can be done to make it better.
It will be illuminating to see how the 4.2 has evolved in the RS5 application.
FWIW, me and pippyrips did an experiment the day we picked up his car from MRC post modifications.
We set our cruise control having reset the DIS and drove side by side on the motorway for a good few miles before pulling over and checking our averages.
The experiment demonstrated, rather crudely, that Rob's car suffered a small penalty in gas mileage (~1mpg) which we assumed was down to the removal of the manifold flaps, more so than any deposition (obviously Rob's car had no deposition post MRC tuning). This obviously affects the ability of the intake to generate swirl and subsequently the ability of the design to fill the cylinder in the manner it was designed to do.
I believe SilverRS4 also observed that the engine runs slightly hotter as a result. I cannot recall whether Rob observed the same tendency.
The reason for mentioning the above is that intake valve aerodynamics is inherently nonlinear, dominated by boundary layer effects, possibly transonic effects and without doubt unsteady effects. I can guarantee that BMW, Audi, Porsche and Mercedes are not using Bernoulli to analyse what the hell is going on around those valves. The effect of removing the manifold flaps was measurable. Similarly, I am quite sure the effect of deposition will be measurable, using CFD or an LDA.
A 744 has a wing area of ~540m^2 and can generate >400 tons of lift. How much frost are you allowed on the top surface of the wing prior to departure?
Answer: Absolutely none.
Why? Because even a millimeter of frost will destroy the wings ability to generate lift.
The same applies to the ICE.
The question is, (well at least in my mind), not so much what does this do to the engines ability to generate power, but how can it be reduced.
There are some intelligent minds on here and we should at least be able to have the discussion without throwing our toys out of the pram.
None of the above means we don't enjoy the car.
we are talking about Q flow thru an orifice (lift x valve area), that preceeds a much smaller orifice (valve area only)...which is the limiting factor?
Q = k x area x sqrt(DP)
if the DP increases across the valve face, just crack the throttle a tad more, problem solved...the throttle is oversized, that's why they have a rev limiter, because the throttle is NOT the limiting factor...but that is moot, because you are pumping (drawing) into a closed system with a positive dispacement pump! forced by atm pressure, neither of which change...
a PhD on another forum used CFD to model the valve and concluded that deposits have no measurable impact (as did Audi, BMW, Ferrari, et al), after which he was called a moron and a liar, and derided until he was silenced..
it's rather amusing that you state BWM (et al) did not use Bernoulli's work to perform flow engineering (that's laughable) and yet you use it, ie lift, to try to make your point...lol
a ll the gobblty gook about non-linear/laminar flow, boundry layers and such is hogwash...it's less than a few % of a factor in this system (and most)...the air velocity is <<<<< supersonic....btw, what is the air flow vel into 1 valve at 7800 rpm?
it's like saying h = 1/2 g t^2 doesn't work becasue of relativistic considerations when we are talking about speeds on the order of 1/10000 c...lol
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein
all you guys who hate your car (among other things) should start a new forum...
'audi haters les miserable' or 'he man audi haters club'
there is enough crap (real crap, the wars, haiti, etc.) to 'worry' about, I come here for a diversion, not to listen to a bunch of well to do guys moan about their imaginary issues with their expensive hipo cars...although it mildly amuses me, it also makes me sad for the human race that we biotch about things of absolutely no consequence...and don't even exist!
it is a sad state of affairs...we fret depsosits while others have amputations without anesthesia or seek a piece of rat meat to feed their kids...get over it...
all the time, thought, effort and $$$ wasted on this non-issue could have put to good use...we could have FED someone or rendered medical aid, or housed them...it's embarressing
just drive the damn car (it's only a CAR!!!!) and get on with your lifes
'audi haters les miserable' or 'he man audi haters club'
there is enough crap (real crap, the wars, haiti, etc.) to 'worry' about, I come here for a diversion, not to listen to a bunch of well to do guys moan about their imaginary issues with their expensive hipo cars...although it mildly amuses me, it also makes me sad for the human race that we biotch about things of absolutely no consequence...and don't even exist!
it is a sad state of affairs...we fret depsosits while others have amputations without anesthesia or seek a piece of rat meat to feed their kids...get over it...
all the time, thought, effort and $$$ wasted on this non-issue could have put to good use...we could have FED someone or rendered medical aid, or housed them...it's embarressing
just drive the damn car (it's only a CAR!!!!) and get on with your lifes
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe...Albert Einstein
Calm down dearArthurPE wrote:all you guys who hate your car (among other things) should start a new forum...
'audi haters les miserable' or 'he man audi haters club'
there is enough crap (real crap, the wars, haiti, etc.) to 'worry' about, I come here for a diversion, not to listen to a bunch of well to do guys moan about their imaginary issues with their expensive hipo cars...although it mildly amuses me, it also makes me sad for the human race that we biotch about things of absolutely no consequence...and don't even exist!
it is a sad state of affairs...we fret depsosits while others have amputations without anesthesia or seek a piece of rat meat to feed their kids...get over it...
all the time, thought, effort and $$$ wasted on this non-issue could have put to good use...we could have FED someone or rendered medical aid, or housed them...it's embarressing
just drive the damn car (it's only a CAR!!!!) and get on with your lifes
i get the essence of Aurthurs rant thou....
I half worried about the so called carbon build up before buying the B7 purely due to the posts on this forum, but as soon as I owned one, I let the enjoyment of driving it take over
problem is, all this is going to do is put off potential buyers....as the B7's become more and more affordable, you can guarantee there will be more and more "buying guide" requests from prospective new owners and they will all state DRC and carbon as the two main things to look out for on these car....when in actual fact, assuming DRC III is a good fix, none are valid and the car is fairly bullet proof
I half worried about the so called carbon build up before buying the B7 purely due to the posts on this forum, but as soon as I owned one, I let the enjoyment of driving it take over
problem is, all this is going to do is put off potential buyers....as the B7's become more and more affordable, you can guarantee there will be more and more "buying guide" requests from prospective new owners and they will all state DRC and carbon as the two main things to look out for on these car....when in actual fact, assuming DRC III is a good fix, none are valid and the car is fairly bullet proof
Daviddavidkoulakis wrote:i get the essence of Aurthurs rant thou....
I half worried about the so called carbon build up before buying the B7 purely due to the posts on this forum, but as soon as I owned one, I let the enjoyment of driving it take over
problem is, all this is going to do is put off potential buyers....as the B7's become more and more affordable, you can guarantee there will be more and more "buying guide" requests from prospective new owners and they will all state DRC and carbon as the two main things to look out for on these car....when in actual fact, assuming DRC III is a good fix, none are valid and the car is fairly bullet proof
I believe Arthur's style of rants does more harm than good. Hopefully he will already be on a flight to Haiti
You had concerns, because you heard about carbon build up - that was not imaginary, that was fact. The effect of that build up continues to be debated, and I expect it will get fully resolved regardless whether we are in denial about it or not.
You assume DRC III is a good fix. I hope it is too. If it is not 100% a good fix, I am confident DRC IV will be. The problem will ultimately be resolved.
However to pretend less than 1% of cars are affected creates a credibility issue for us all.
The car otherwise is, as you say, bullet proof.
I started this thread, and I am happy for this thread to be closed if the Mods feel this has run it's course.
[/quote]
I believe Arthur's style of rants does more harm than good. Hopefully he will already be on a flight to Haiti [/quote]
That's a rather cheap shot. Arthur's input has been both reasoned and informed. You may not like a particular members' style of post but that's what makes up a forum.
This particular subject has been "debated" to death and I think we're all getting tired of it. Let's move on.
I believe Arthur's style of rants does more harm than good. Hopefully he will already be on a flight to Haiti
[/quote]That's a rather cheap shot. Arthur's input has been both reasoned and informed. You may not like a particular members' style of post but that's what makes up a forum.
This particular subject has been "debated" to death and I think we're all getting tired of it. Let's move on.
I agree with you, that was a cheap shot, but he did bring Haiti etc into it. And yes, he is prone to many,many cheap and unnecessary shots (just look at this thread alone) that devalue some of his contributions.Nib wrote:That's a rather cheap shot. Arthur's input has been both reasoned and informed. You may not like a particular members' style of post but that's what makes up a forum.I believe Arthur's style of rants does more harm than good. Hopefully he will already be on a flight to Haiti
Agreed, and so I am happy for the thread to be closed.Nib wrote: This particular subject has been "debated" to death and I think we're all getting tired of it. Let's move on.
yes but posts like that are just as bad as what your accusing ofsims wrote:I accept that we have more culturedavidkoulakis wrote:could just be an element different culture between us brits and USAians
No, the US folk seem to like like fighting.davidkoulakis wrote: have you seen some of the US forums! they proper lay into one another!
I like Aurthers posts, its like being in a science lesson
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 84 guests