dyno lies....

[ArthurPE]

Arthur, you seem to object to dlextreme1997 posting on this thread, and make him unwelcome. That's not necessary, for this is not anyone's private forum.

Also you do your technical skills no favours by your vile language - save that for the US forums.

Let's deal with facts, and only facts. The comparable 'Ring times are 8:05 & 8:09. Period. These cars are new and I assume provided by the factory -please correct me if I am wrong. If so, I expect both those cars to have made the stated power.

Have you tested your RS4 & your M3 on a dyno under the same circumstances?

practice what you preach

he can do what he likes
but his scorn & ridicule is not appreciated
nor is your selective judgemental tone

[ArthurPE]

and yet, no one has addressed the real issue:
56%+ power advantage, yet ~ the same speed

[Cornishmoocher]

Wheres my gun????

[ArthurPE]

an actual wt from a testing agency Curb Weight 3957
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20061222/free/61207006/

that is pretty much in the middle of all of them I've seen
cars less sunroof & nav are may 100 lbs lighter
sport auto wt was ~3900 iirc

[Sims]

and yet, no one has addressed the real issue:
56%+ power advantage, yet ~ the same speed

I am not convinced by your calculations or data that you provide.

[ArthurPE]

and yet, no one has addressed the real issue:
56%+ power advantage, yet ~ the same speed

I am not convinced by your calculations or data that you provide.

that's the only way it'll be explained...
is to simply deny it, lol
btw: not my data, it's fact. which makes it everybodies

but no matter how much you deny gravity, jump out of a window and see if it agrees with your assessment

[Sims]

and yet, no one has addressed the real issue:
56%+ power advantage, yet ~ the same speed

I am not convinced by your calculations or data that you provide.

that's the only way it'll be explained...
is to simply deny it, lol
btw: not my data, it's fact. which makes it everybodies

but no matter how much you deny gravity, jump out of a window and see if it agrees with your assessment

[ArthurPE]

I am not convinced by your calculations or data that you provide.

that's the only way it'll be explained...
is to simply deny it, lol
btw: not my data, it's fact. which makes it everybodies

but no matter how much you deny gravity, jump out of a window and see if it agrees with your assessment

like I said 'denial'

but then again, I'm not sure anyone here expects you to be objective considering you past posts...especially when it comes to stated power or deposits

so keep on sleeping, you've napped through everything else

[ArthurPE]

as far as S2 & I bantering, just boys being boys...
honestly, it's too hard to get into the tech details on a forum, one, they are complex and require a lot of typing...two, I can't type
I would enjoy sitting around a table and discussing these issues (deposits/power rating) with paper & pencil, much more could be done...
and the personal element would add another, invaluable, dimension to the dynamics...
but alas, we are literally oceans apart, in some cases, both geographically & in ideology, lol

[dlextreme1977]

that's the only way it'll be explained...
is to simply deny it, lol
btw: not my data, it's fact. which makes it everybodies

but no matter how much you deny gravity, jump out of a window and see if it agrees with your assessment

like I said 'denial'

but then again, I'm not sure anyone here expects you to be objective considering you past posts...especially when it comes to stated power or deposits

so keep on sleeping, you've like younapped through everything else

man you seem like quite an unpleasant bloke. Sims comes across as a decent and level minded person, forums are supposed to be a place for some good debate, not quite sure why you are so malicious if people dont agree with what you say. Bit sad really. I actually think that you must be trying to convince yourself and are in denial. If you thought you were right you wouldn't feel it necessary to keep justifying what you say repeatedly like you need somebody to agree with you

Back on topic, i think the reason for your confusion is you are using incorrect weights. Every mag in the uk states 1600 vs 1650kg. Now that may vary a little but that variance could apply to both cars equally. If you use uk weights although you disagree with them- it does explain you're duff calculations. You are telling yourself what you want to here. just my 2p

[ArthurPE]

I can see you and sims being kindred spirits...lol

as far as 'unpleasant', you have your moments also
like trolling with an M3 > RS4 post in an RS4 forum for your first post ever, so if you expect me to place any weight on what you say, it's not within the realm of possibilites...

sims also started out a few months ago with deposits and fake power for his first post...he has >700 posts in <3 months...most on these 2 subjects...go figure

'malicious', 'sad'....if we're done with the personal attacks let's get on point...

you are incorrect
the weigts are correct, actual scale weights:
RS4 >3900 (from 6 different sources, including sport auto and rototest)
M3 less than 3600 (from the same, rototest 3544)
period, no wiggle room...FACT

power, several dynos, M3>370 wheel HP, 10% loss from 414
RS4 370 crank as claimed by your reference point sims, and numerorus UK dynos, less 100 as measured by many MAHA runs and rototest, result 270 WHP

which leads to a wt/Hp difference of >55%
yet the cars are the same speed as verified by many, many magazine tests and Ring times...

why don't you explain this?
rather than heap on personal attacks and ignoring the facts
focus! stay on point, don't let your hatred cloud the issue
contribute, don't be negative and angry

man you seem like quite an unpleasant bloke. Sims comes across as a decent and level minded person, forums are supposed to be a place for some good debate, not quite sure why you are so malicious if people dont agree with what you say. Bit sad really. I actually think that you must be trying to convince yourself and are in denial. If you thought you were right you wouldn't feel it necessary to keep justifying what you say repeatedly like you need somebody to agree with you

Back on topic, i think the reason for your confusion is you are using incorrect weights. Every mag in the uk states 1600 vs 1650kg. Now that may vary a little but that variance could apply to both cars equally. If you use uk weights although you disagree with them- it does explain you're duff calculations. You are telling yourself what you want to here. just my 2p

[ArthurPE]

let's use your incorrect weights...
and the following actual delivered wheel powers
RS4 270 (370 - 100 in losses) numerous UK crank dynos and many MAHA loss measurments
M3 375 (per rototest and many other dynos, plus it makes sense, 414 HP with a 10% loss, LW driveline, 2wd)

RS4 3630 (I wish my car weighed 3600 lbs, lol)/270 = 13.5 lb/HP or 74 HP/1000 lb
M3 3520/375 ~ 9.4 lb/HP or 107 HP/1000 lb

STILL a 45% difference, yet the cars are ~ equal in speed...<1% difference either way on the Ring, depending on which numbers are used
with this difference in power it should be much, much larger, at least 20 sec, probably a lot more, but it's 4 sec M3 or 7 sec RS4, avg ~ equal
explain?

did you even do the math before you stated using the UK numbers would make it all clear?

even using the incorrect weights 45% is a huge difference!...HUGE
no one will discuss the facts, only sling ridicule and personal attacks

[MoRS6+]

Nooooo! More calculations! I so wanna embed the 1981 movie 'Scanners' head exploding scene, but can't embed them on here.

I did lol at the chimps pic though

Well, what the hell. It's St.Georges day here in the good ol' UK, so many of the folk on here will no doubt be pissed later on tonight. Reckon this thread will be quite funny by then..

Nothing against you Arthur, but my god am I getting a headache trying to process all those equations on a Friday AND St.Georges Day to boot! I find all of this quite amusing... especially when Moocher posts..

[Sims]

sims also started out a few months ago with deposits and fake power for his first post...he has >700 posts in <3 months...most on these 2 subjects...go figure

Arthur, once again you get your facts wrong. I challenged you on this before and you did not have an answer then, as you don't now.

I post on the quite a few sections on this forum. Apart from defending the indefensible and in vile manner, what else is your contribution?

The carbon issue is closed in your mind, and only in yours.

BTW, can we use Kgs rather than lbs?

[ArthurPE]

the only thing to consider:
can a car with a 45% (using the incorrect weights) or 55%+ (using scaled weights), call it 50% in the spirit of compromise, power/wt advantage be the same speed?

using Ring times (a 100 mph high speed power circuit) only (although 1/4 mile times are a similar mix)
one reference RS4 is 7 sec faster
the other, 4 sec slower
call it even...call it +/- 1%, whatever...

how can this be?

ps: don't get too wasted, lol

Nooooo! More calculations! I so wanna embed the 1981 movie 'Scanners' head exploding scene, but can't embed them on here.

I did lol at the chimps pic though

Well, what the hell. It's St.Georges day here in the good ol' UK, so many of the folk on here will no doubt be pissed later on tonight. Reckon this thread will be quite funny by then..

Nothing against you Arthur, but my god am I getting a headache trying to process all those equations on a Friday AND St.Georges Day to boot! I find all of this quite amusing... especially when Moocher posts..