dyno lies....

[scaghead]

what car you running fella..

[ArthurPE]

the car makes 410+ HP
if you had 50k, that would be 50k more than you have
you lie and the video is moot

1/4 mile
RS4 12.8 108.7
M3 13.0 110.4

Ring
RS4 7:58
M3 8:05

If I bought a car 400 lbs lighter with more HP due to lower losses (a >50% power advantage) that is actually slower, I'd be suing BMW...

what's not right is your understanding of the reality...ie, your 'head'
you are mistaken, misguided and misleading...
you are not happy or cool, you are jealous, miserable and a troll...

I (and others) have proven you wrong in every single one of your absurd assertions...the HP, the weight, everything...you have not been correct once...not a single instance...and I'm not holding out hope that you ever will be, lol, if you had a clue you still wouldn't be dangerous

so they lock your BS thread, and you carry on here...loser

you never have answered the question:
how can a car with a 50% power/wt disadvantage be as fast (or faster) than the one with the advantage?
Ring: +4 sec or -7 sec depending on test, avg ~0 difference (actually it's 1.5 sec faster avg) over 13.2 miles at an average 100 mph...

Hey no reason to be rude. Fair play, i respect you for if i had a car that cost the equivalant of £50k and it made 350-370hp when it should be making 414hp i would be pretty annoyed. Call me what you want but video proof does not lie. I think if you actuallly went to a 1/4mile day and came across an m3 or what not you would be in for a reality check. Has anybody here run a 1/4 mile and actually seen what results you get? Forget dyno's proper runs would be much more clear cut and far more meaningful than chatting rubbish and talking about calculations. Are you afraid to expose the truth or what.

There are remapped rs4's on here that struggle to break the 400hp barrier so i don't see why you claim it makes a big difference anyway. At the end of the day if you don't care i dont, if you are happy then cool- i'm not here to cause trouble but if i had an rs4 i would be looking for explanations for the under performance instead of being confrontational and critical to anybody who flags up the fact that clearly there is something not right.

[ArthurPE]

sport auto 0-200 km/hr (times & weights from sport auto, HP from forum claims, dynos and rototest)
CSL 16.7 (360/320HP delivered/3126 lbs) 9.7 lb/HP
RS4 16.9 (370/270HP delivered/3911) 14.4 lb/HP ... a 50% deficit
Corvette C6 17.0 (400/365HP delivered/3180) 8.7 lb/HP... a 67% deficit!!! torque monster >400 lb ft

despite a 50% power/wt deficit the RS4 is only 0.2 sec slower to 124 mph 1%, < 2 car lengths...
vette 115 HP / 1000 lbs, the RS4 69 HP / 1000 lbs...a 67% difference....yet the RS4 is slightly faster

in reality these 3 cars are ~the same speed to 124 mph, despite the RS4 having huge power/wt disadvantages, 50 & 67%...

can ANYONE explain this?
despite a 65% power/wt deficit the RS4 is a bit faster than a Corvette...

0-200-0
CSL 21.4
RS4 21.8
C6 22.0

the brakes don't seem too bad either, considering it weighs >700 lbs more than either of the others...

[P_G]

Hey no reason to be rude. Fair play, i respect you for if i had a car that cost the equivalant of £50k and it made 350-370hp when it should be making 414hp i would be pretty annoyed. Call me what you want but video proof does not lie. I think if you actuallly went to a 1/4mile day and came across an m3 or what not you would be in for a reality check. Has anybody here run a 1/4 mile and actually seen what results you get? Forget dyno's proper runs would be much more clear cut and far more meaningful than chatting rubbish and talking about calculations. Are you afraid to expose the truth or what.

There are remapped rs4's on here that struggle to break the 400hp barrier so i don't see why you claim it makes a big difference anyway. At the end of the day if you don't care i dont, if you are happy then cool- i'm not here to cause trouble but if i had an rs4 i would be looking for explanations for the under performance instead of being confrontational and critical to anybody who flags up the fact that clearly there is something not right.

That's the problem though dlextreme1977, you appear to have been persuaded from reading inconclusive power related and dyno threads that there is an issue with RS4 power delivery and support it with video clips which are not direct stock comparisons and figures from rolling roads that are not accurate for a myriad of reasons which have all been discussed to death. Largely because the shoot mode the RS4 is measured in is not programmed for its layout but then add in air delivery, roller slip, ESP 9.0, Quattro sensing etc etc. But feel the need to put it upon us owners like a Jehovah's Witness.

I have put my car on 8 rolling road sessions in a 3 year period and it was orginally dyno'ed at 358bhp with 16,500 miles on a Dyno Dynamics Road all the way through to this year when it was dyno'ed at 406bhp on a Dastek Road. This is a stock car with an x-pipe so as best the modification gives a 3bhp gain so for arguments sake say 403bhp (and at present it has an EPC warning on it so who knows what it could produce once fixed?).

So in three years and 48,000 miles my car has gained 45bhp? Torque has always been fairly consistent at 305-311. If you can find a clip on a standard, OEM non modified in any way M3 vs a similar RS4 and they have the same fuel levels and weight i.e. passenger weight in them and the M3 wins then fair enough and I hope it satisfies you. Until then, please stop trying to compare apples and pears to justify your and perhaps others theory there is somethig universally wrong with RS4's.

As for me, I have a car that didn't cost me £55K and it has no issues. That's not denying that there aren't cars out there that do have issues because they have been documented but to suggest that they all have issues is just ridiculous to the point that even as tolerant as I am, you got some stick from me.

And as for actual runs, having had a couple of run ins with an R8 V8, C63 saloon, M3 Coupe and M3 saloon local to me; invariably between 30 and 100 on dual carriageway, whether on straights or slight inclines none have gotten away from me and vice versa. The car is much more than just power and apart from the R8, if it were damp or worse still, snow most others would struggle to match the RS4.

[woodlum]

An old Aberdeenshire farmer is digging up some tatties one day when a loud American tourist pulls up at the side of the field and asks the farmer what he's doing.
The farmer explains that he's digging up potatoes and shows the tourist a handfull of the vegtables.
The American looks at the spuds and starts shaking his head in disbelief and says to the farmer "Hell son back home in the states we got potatoes this big" and holds up his large hands cupped togther.
To this the old farmer says "Aye maybe so, bit we jist grow tatties to to fit the size of oor mooths"

[ArthurPE]

google: much simpler...
A Scottish farmer was in his field digging up his tatties (a Scots word for potatoes). An American farmer looked over the fence and said "In Texas we grow potatoes 5 times larger than that!" The Scotsman replied " Ah but we just grow them for our own mouths!"

"So you're from England?"
"How can you tell?"
"Cos you sound smart even when you say stupid things."

Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign.

you added not one single useful this to this discussion...not a one

so rather than continue to slag each others Countries, let's get back to the one simple question:
Ring +/- 1% depending on test
M3 50% better HP/wt than RS4, yet same speed

0-200
RS4 faster, marginally, than the vette with >65% HP/wt advantage

how?

An old Aberdeenshire farmer is digging up some tatties one day when a loud American tourist pulls up at the side of the field and asks the farmer what he's doing.
The farmer explains that he's digging up potatoes and shows the tourist a handfull of the vegtables.
The American looks at the spuds and starts shaking his head in disbelief and says to the farmer "Hell son back home in the states we got potatoes this big" and holds up his large hands cupped togther.
To this the old farmer says "Aye maybe so, bit we jist grow tatties to to fit the size of oor mooths"

[ArthurPE]

has anybody looked at the weight stickker on their car?
I found one for an RS6
loaded 5300
load 1150
curb 4150
~5% more than a RS4
yet has 8% more HP (20% if you think the RS4 has 370)
but is slower around the Ring 7:58 or 8:09 vs 8:20

Corvette C6 65% power/wt advantage (405 HP/ ~3200 lbs)
Ring 8:15...slower than either RS4 time, same driver as the 8:09 time

how?

no one wants to talk facts, easily verifiable, made by outside, established testing agencies, no one will address this one simple issue...

[ArthurPE]

here's a couple of clues, despite an enormous power/wt deficit >50% Audi has been able to acheive ~ equal performance
better by a bit at times, lagging by a bit at times...real world, equal, test wise, equal..

1 the engine makes rated power, maybe more, the electronics are not dyno friendly
and the dyno methods are flawed, ramp runs = no good, variable load, steady state, is the only way to know power
2 it's delivery/usability/flexibility/elasticity is better
3 quattro is an equalizer on the real world road, even though it absorbs MORE power, and allows less to the road
4 Audi has built a better all around, more usable, more accessible system

people focus on peak power, it's meaningless, who runs at 7800 steady?
how does an engine respond to throttle change, either + or - ?
how wide is the power band?
how linear is it?
how does it react to load variations?

the fact is that despite the huge power/wt deficit the RS4 has compared to the M3 it can hold it's own, that is a testiment to Audi, considering the jewel the M3 engine is...8 TB's, etc., a highly developed and sophisticated unit...

yet with it's over-rated, over-weight, deposit ridden, barge of a car, Audi has found a way to stay lock step with it...

look at the totality of the system, not some you-tube ricer boy videos...
look at Ring times, they are for all intents and purposes, equal, they encompass power runs, corners, braking...imperfect roads, rough curbs, etc., a power track, 100 mph avg for a street car! over 13.2 miles!
with braking down low, and the following acceleration...
where power to wt is almost everything, and what it isn't, absolute wt is most of the balance...and 300-400 lbs is a big difference!
big impact on braking and acceleration, a (or -a) = F/m, the higher the m (wt) the lower the a, accel or decel...
a true test of the mettle of a car...against a benchmark like the M3, a newer design to boot...

[PetrolDave]

This thread is going the way of so many recent threads on here...

TBH I thought the issue of most wheel dynos being just about useless to determine absolute power figures had been done to death on here, but it seems that opinions are still getting in the way of facts.

Because of work I'm not visiting here daily any more, only once every 2 or 3 days, and I don't think I'll bother any more often that once a week.

Dynos are only as good as their operators, and the vast majority of operators don't know how to actually measure the powertrain losses so they just make a wild guess - hence the engine power figures they tell you are just a wild guess too. Hence why I've been supporting the 30-100 test - that is based on basic O-level Physics, and gives a much more accurate power figure in most cases. There's 4 YEARS of debate on that subject on this forum alone...

[P_G]

Thank you Dave, sense at last

[SR71]

MRC's dyno measures wheel power.

The first graph in this thread has measured a Miltek mapped(?) B7 RS4 making 350ftlbs of torque.

Experience says that unless you remap a Miltek B7 you lose power, so the car has been remapped, and the gain is typically, 20-30ftlbs.

So lets call the car a good one, which generates 317ftlbs.

So knock ~10% off the quoted power and this car was making ~380hp at the crank. (Anyone see the flaw in the argument?)

Arthur quotes some good figures for the M3 and some bad figures for the B7.

I think typically the M3 is ~350hp at the wheels, whereas my B7 made ~310hp at the wheels:

M3 3550/350 ~ 10.4 lb/HP

RS4 3980/310 ~ 12.8 lb/HP

So ~20% difference.

Now look at the cube of the difference in ET's for the 1/4 and its about 20%.

All seems fine to me Arthur.

Not that I give a hoot because my B5 was faster than a E92 even before it went into the workshop.

[ArthurPE]

MRC's dyno measures wheel power.

The first graph in this thread has measured a Miltek mapped(?) B7 RS4 making 350ftlbs of torque.

Experience says that unless you remap a Miltek B7 you lose power, so the car has been remapped, and the gain is typically, 20-30ftlbs.

So lets call the car a good one, which generates 317ftlbs.

So knock ~10% off the quoted power and this car was making ~380hp at the crank.

Arthur quotes some good figures for the M3 and some bad figures for the B7.

I think typically the M3 is ~350hp at the wheels, whereas my B7 made ~310hp at the wheels:

M3 3550/350 ~ 10.4 lb/HP
RS4 3980/310 ~ 12.8 lb/HP

So ~20% difference.

Now look at the cube of the difference in ET's for the 1/4 and its about 20%.

All seems fine to me Arthur.

Not that I give a hoot because my B5 was faster than a E92 even before it went into the workshop.

the car is not mapped, only a catback exhasut...

the M3 puts down 375 according to most of the dynos I've seem...reference rototest, 10% in losses

if the RS4 makes 310 at the wheels, and as obvious from many MAHA runs, losses 100+, it MUST be making 410+ HP, correct?
the MAHA in this thread has 130 stock losses, and makes 250 at the wheels
in the dyno day thread crank power was 370 avg, or 270 with losses
let's call it 300 for the RS4, 375 for the M3
3980/300 ~ 13.3
3550/375 ~ 9.5

still a 40% difference...can't have it both ways
either it's 300 and 100+ in losses = >400 HP
or 370 - 100+ i losses ~ 270 WHP

1.4^1/3 ~ 1.12 the M3's times should be 11.6 using a 13 RS4 baseline
cube is for top speed, not accel, accel is square, which would make the M3 an 11 sec car...

using your erroneous figure of 1.27 (not 1.2)
3980/310 ~ 12.84
3550/350 ~ 10.14
12.84/10.14 ~ 1.27 cube root ~ 1.08, 27% NOT 20%...
so if the RS4 runs 13 the M3 should run 12 et
using the sq rt, M3 ~ 11.5 sec car...nope...
they both run ~13 flat, give or take either way a few 10'ths

but...and a big but...speed around the Ring is a linear progression, not exponentially cubed...
so even using your 27% difference, and assuming the car makes 410+ HP, the Ring times seem in error since between the multiple runs there is <1% difference...

you've not clarified anything
if you use my 40%, gets worse, if you use the more accurate 50%, like mud

[HYFR]

soooooooooooooo....my Miltek, not mapped, RS 4....measured 308 at the wheels.....im thinking = good ??

[ArthurPE]

soooooooooooooo....my Miltek, not mapped, RS 4....measured 308 at the wheels.....im thinking = good ??

I would guess, yes

with losses ~100+ (anywhere from 100 to 130 I've seen)
that would put you at 410+...

[ArthurPE]

SR71, just noticed, your numbers assume almost the same losses for each car
M3 ~ 65/414 ~ 16%
RS4 ~ 60/370 ~ 16%
or 70/380 ~ 18%

nope...

rototest avg peak power loss
RS4 19%
M3 10.5%
almost twice as much, as would be expected...

the MAHA RS4 losses in this thread
104/420 ~ 25%
130/380 ~ 34%