RS4 B7 Stated Power claim of 420ps

[Sims]

Play nicely now boys or this thread WILL be locked..
Had some complaints and if it goes down the road of abusive it goes aginst the rules of the forum.
Your choice
jr

The topic is carbon build-up, and its effects (if any) on the B7 RS4 engine. It's not about people.

[Sims]

This March 2 2010 pic shows the coking reoccurring on the RS4 1300 miles after it was cleaned.

http://www.tt-forum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &start=165

[Sims]

A forum member sent me this link. I am posting here to keep all the data together on this thread.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthrea ... or-RS4-4.2

[sonny]

A forum member sent me this link. I am posting here to keep all the data together on this thread.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthrea ... or-RS4-4.2

Good links.

[ArthurPE]

just saw some pics, deposits back almost 100% in ~1200 miles
you can't clean them, does no good, they return quickly...why? becasue it is a NATURAL consequence of the design, ALL DI designs...
good new, seem to be self-limiting after 6-8k miles
like any natural deposit formation: not linear, not exponetional, but natural log

I thought about cleaning mine, just to run some 3-8k tests, no reason to, they come back very quickly and do not seem to affect performance...
and may cause more consequential problems
many cars out there with >25k miles (100% deposits) and yet, few complaints...only the folks that 'believe' that it causes 'issues' seem to be experiencing such...

the member who had a big thread about them (same who just posted the 1200 mile pics):
had it cleaned by an independent shop, now he thinks he has piston damage...and probably does, but not because of deposits
my WAG:
1 debris got in from cleaning
2 the real problem was not found (the dealer should have found it) low fuel pressure resulting in detonation/pre-ignition pitting the pistons
3 coating on the valves were damaged by cleaning allowing more debris in the cylinder

that engine may be scrap now...and Audi will say 'unathorized service by an independent facility', a new engine is probably $25k or so...
leave well enough alone until Audi is footing the bill (and the resultant consequences)
imo there is a reason Audi is hesitant to clean: it is a very short term solution (to appease the customer, because the 'problem' it solves is debatable, it may cause more issues)

[Terry1948]

I think that is wise advice Arthur because any manufacturer would void the warranty if any unauthorised tampering had taken place on their product and in truth who can blame them.

[PetrolDave]

This March 2 2010 pic shows the coking reoccurring on the RS4 1300 miles after it was cleaned.

http://www.tt-forum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &start=165

There's no dispute about WHETHER the coking happens (coking has always happened in all IC engines and probably always will), the dispute is about whether it has any significant effect on engine power output.

And so far everything I've seen here and on other Audiforums makes me come to similar conclusions as AuthurPE... namely, the build up happens rapidly initially but levels off after less than 10k miles AND it occurs in places where the effect on air flow into the engine (and hence power output) is hardly affected, if at all.

[SR71]

Its worth remembering that here in the UK, over 2 years ago, Audi took a car back off an owner because on three seperate instances the car failed to produce the quoted power on the dyno.

Whilst the settlement was "out of court", the suggestion was, I believe, that it was unreasonable for an owner to have to pull the engine to demonstrate the manufacturer's claims. VARSITY could confirm.

We can argue about what Audi really believed at the time.

Being dogmatic about "coking associated with DI isn't an issue" is like saying "asbestos is a fantastic roofing material".

The lead time between paradigm inception and undesirable consequences might be generally longer than we've had the cars for, but shorter than the design life-cycle...

What one wants is for Audi to say that isn't the case.

[ArthurPE]

Its worth remembering that here in the UK, over 2 years ago, Audi took a car back off an owner because on three seperate instances the car failed to produce the quoted power on the dyno.

Whilst the settlement was "out of court", the suggestion was, I believe, that it was unreasonable for an owner to have to pull the engine to demonstrate the manufacturer's claims. VARSITY could confirm.

We can argue about what Audi really believed at the time.

Being dogmatic about "coking associated with DI isn't an issue" is like saying "asbestos is a fantastic roofing material".

The lead time between paradigm inception and undesirable consequences might be generally longer than we've had the cars for, but shorter than the design life-cycle...

What one wants is for Audi to say that isn't the case.

I'd have to see documentation on the 'settlement', call me a skeptic, but this is the internet...

don't believe anything you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see, and as far as the internet...it's less than 0, applies equally to all...you, me and the guy who 'had his car bought back'...

time to write Audi GB a letter...
can anyone provide info on this event
owners name
model year
dealer
time frame
dyno charts
etc.

PM me if you don't want to go 'public'

I expect 1 of 3 responses:
no, it did not happen, and I will believe them, no reason to lie, they could use the other excuses, a lie about already public information would blow up in their face...

yes

no comment, confidential, ie, yes it may have happened


btw: again with the 'we are stupid' and you are smart stuff, we are kidding ourselves, and you see the light...'dogmatic', it's not I who approach the issue with religious fevor and magic oils...or polished manifolds...there are actually engine builders who have posted that polished actually DECREASES peformance, the dimples/roughness actually help flow charcteristics...I also find amusing 'the wait and see, it takes time' attitude, since the doom & gloom crowd has been in a rush to judgement mode and demanding a lynching, lol

a car will NEVER make rated power on the dyno:
ramp test vs steady state

the load is never sufficient, ie, engine will never make max power, it's a variable torque machine...the load would have to be increased until the engine 'stalled' at peak HP, all runs exceed peak HP ~7600-7800
think top speed run and the car stalls against air drag at HP peak (if not gearing limited, the RS4 is not)

ram air, read the EC typing procedure

put a world class sprinter on a treadmill, see if he runs a 9.5 sec 100m, lol

[ArthurPE]

found this while searching for gearbox lube specs

last page http://renewablelube.com/pdf/080617%20S ... 20Oils.pdf
anybody know these owners screen names?

next time someone tries to sell you on a non-approved bio-syn oil, consider who's 'vested', and who is not

[PetrolDave]

Being dogmatic about "coking associated with DI isn't an issue" is like saying "asbestos is a fantastic roofing material".

Bad anaolgy - actually asbestos IS a fantastic roofing material, PROVIDED it is 100% white asbestos.

ONLY brown asbestos is harmful, but our "powers that be" are too stupid to be able to distinguish between them, so they have labelled (incorrectly) all forms of asbestos as harmful.

[S2tuner]

Its worth remembering that here in the UK, over 2 years ago, Audi took a car back off an owner because on three seperate instances the car failed to produce the quoted power on the dyno.

Whilst the settlement was "out of court", the suggestion was, I believe, that it was unreasonable for an owner to have to pull the engine to demonstrate the manufacturer's claims. VARSITY could confirm.

We can argue about what Audi really believed at the time.

Being dogmatic about "coking associated with DI isn't an issue" is like saying "asbestos is a fantastic roofing material".

The lead time between paradigm inception and undesirable consequences might be generally longer than we've had the cars for, but shorter than the design life-cycle...

What one wants is for Audi to say that isn't the case.

I'd have to see documentation on the 'settlement', call me a skeptic, but this is the internet...

don't believe anything you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see, and as far as the internet...it's less than 0, applies equally to all...you, me and the guy who 'had his car bought back'...

It may be the internet, but we at MRC happen to know this guy personally, and the story is 200% true. Up to him to let you see the documentation on the settlement, but his car was taken back by Audi, that is a FACT.

[ArthurPE]

It may be the internet, but we at MRC happen to know this guy personally, and the story is 200% true. Up to him to let you see the documentation on the settlement, but his car was taken back by Audi, that is a FACT.

I already have 1/2 dozen PM's
names, etc.

I'll be contacting Audi UK and cc'ing Germany

did you repurchase an RS4 (owners name, etc.) for the stated reason:
mis-rated HP, as proven by wheel dyno figures
and are you acknowledging all RS4's are mis-rated?
or was there a specific isolated issue with that car...
this is being proferred on the internet as fact and is being used as 'proof' that Audi intentionally and knowingly over stated the HP rating of these cars...
(this link attached)

[Dom81]

Arthur - you didn't believe Varsity (quite publicly) when he posted in May last year

http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... torder=asc

I know it to be fact, but for what it's worth still think he's the one that lost out...

[ArthurPE]

Arthur - you didn't believe Varsity (quite publicly) when he posted in May last year

http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... torder=asc

I know it to be fact, but for what it's worth still think he's the one that lost out...

no, I don't, and still don't...but 've been wrong before nd am sure I will be again...

people want Audi's head on a pike, we'll see what their response is...
we are only getting 1/2 of the story, which on the internet mens 1/4 of less than 0, lol

can't hurt