Pictures of my inlet ports....

[zorbs]

OK, yes nearly there lol. So hows the car been since the new lease of life?

Just pm'd you.

It's thoroughly addictive to drive now and I spent too much time in it before... I'll be burning my own hole in the ozone layer at this rate I think... Contacted Doug today actually to report back what I thought and ask some other advice. They're so helpful I can't imagine going anywhere else now.

Good luck and pm with your progress.

[Sims]

http://audisrs.com/about13519.html

Good & extended discussion on this subject on audisrs.com.

[scaghead]

groundhog day

[HYFR]

yup

[ArthurPE]

groundhog day

agree, lol

[sonny]

Started off as a good thread, until today. oh well.

[Sims]

groundhog day

Did you read the thread on that link? It includes contributions from the people who carried out the work, and quite a few others.

Did you not learn anything from it?

[Blue_Thunder]

groundhog day

Did you read the thread on that link? It includes contributions from the people who carried out the work, and quite a few others.

Did you not learn anything from it?

Only that you seem exceptionally antagonistic Sims.

Rather than adding to these discussions in a beneficial way, you only seem to be picking holes in what is posted, particularly when it's Arthur contributing. And that is exactly what he is doing - contributing! I'm all for debate, it's not the disagreement thats a problem. After all, these are 'discussion threads'. It's the manner in which these disagreements are communicated.

Whether you choose to agree or disagree with his posts is up to you, but to try and pull his posts to bits without adding any substance behind your goading just seems pointless. Rather than have an interesting an mostly factual discussion (as factual as they ever are on these forums), these 'carbon buildup' threads always seem to descend into page after page of playground bullsh1t.

[/rant]

[Golfather]

B7's are full of sh!te....

or should that be B7 owners....

[Sims]

Only that you seem exceptionally antagonistic Sims.

I am happy to challenge. You have read that thread?

Rather than adding to these discussions in a beneficial way, you only seem to be picking holes in what is posted, particularly when it's Arthur contributing.

Care to give examples,also of where I have praised him. BTW , have you noticed Arthur does not use foul language on that forum, and has reduced it on here? I welcome that.

Whether you choose to agree or disagree with his posts is up to you, but to try and pull his posts to bits without adding any substance behind your goading just seems pointless.

Care to give examples, and whilst you are it you may also look for the many instances when Arthur has villified people. Or is that not relevant?

Rather than have an interesting an mostly factual discussion (as factual as they ever are on these forums), these 'carbon buildup' threads always seem to descend into page after page of playground bullsh1t.
]

Do you know the exact answer to this problem? Do you even believe there is a problem?

[Sims]

B7's are full of sh!te....

or should that be B7 owners....

Rather simplistic.

B7's are great except for the carbon build up issue (subject of this thread), the DRC problem and the stupidly expensive extended warranty at £1665. Porsche charge £1,100 for the 911 and BMW charge £890 for the M3/5/6.

The £1665 does not even cover the DRC suspension for Audi are picking up the tab for that.

[P_G]

Back to your best on SRS Sims, credit to you for that.

Having just read the 9 (?) pages in my lunch hour my summation is as follows;

-Carbon build up happens and occurs very quickly again after cleaning
-It may account for up to 2% loss of power but steady state measurements pre and post cleaning have never been ascertained to verfiy this.

-The increased airflow post cleaning appears not to have been separated from the function of porting so hard to tell what % split of the extre 10g.s quoted by MRC for eample is down to cleaning / porting.

-There are cars out there that have had new engines because of this, equally there are cars that have run 50+K miles and appear to have no issues and produce as much power as suggested.

-The often referred to source of measurement, dyno's vary per manufacturer and operator and software used on them. And it is not just B7 RS4 that don't produce their rated power on them. Some R8's don't, I personally saw a D3 S8 V10 not do so. Interesting to see if a TTRS and the new RS5 with its quattro vectoring will do.

-no one has yet answered the question that needs to be answered which is how Audi certify their power claims? I'm pretty sure they don't just take an engine brand spanking new out of the box, let it warm up on a bench dyno, standardise the conditions to those on normal road driving, do three runs and then say 'Right lads that is how much power our engine produces'
It is done over a testing life span so it is fair to assume given what has been seen of carbon build up in 'cleaned' cars that whilst Audi are power rating their engines carbon build up is occuring in those engines tested? Yet the figure still averages 414 bhp.

So theoretically there may be a case that the cleaned engines by MRC et al may even produce more then the rated power?

And then there is the cost to benefit ratio and perhaps commercialisation of an 'issue'. Not slagging MRC off because they obviously are producing results.

Make of it what you will. I have.

[SR71]

P_G,

SilverRS4 tested his car over 2 years ago (?) pre and post cleaning (not porting) and measured a 2% increase in g/sec. Everyone forgets about that. We can argue about VAGCOM's accuracy suffice to say if you're going to use it to validate acceleration claims, you ought to accept others using it to validate mass flow rates.

Independent bench tests of a ported manifold's ability to flow more, reveal, funnily enough, better flow although I don't know the raw data, only that when you couple it back up to the engine, you get an improvement of ~10g/sec per bank, which is better than 5%.

The absolute biggest question that no one has even bothered (inspite of my asking a number of times) to answer is how does a dyno cope with the 40:60 torque split in the B7? If it is not measuring the torque individual wheels are generating, the numbers will be suspect...they have to be because you're making assumptions that each wheel is generating the same amount of torque...

I'm convinced that this is a big source of all the anguish.

[Sims]

The absolute biggest question that no one has even bothered (inspite of my asking a number of times) to answer is how does a dyno cope with the 40:60 torque split in the B7? If it is not measuring the torque individual wheels are generating, the numbers will be suspect...they have to be because you're making assumptions that each wheel is generating the same amount of torque...

I'm convinced that this is a big source of all the anguish.

Good point, for I do not subscribe to the theory that RR's are rubbish or conspire against B7 RS4's.

Is the RS4 the only Audi that has this configuration?

[P_G]

P_G,

SilverRS4 tested his car over 2 years ago (?) pre and post cleaning (not porting) and measured a 2% increase in g/sec. Everyone forgets about that. We can argue about VAGCOM's accuracy suffice to say if you're going to use it to validate acceleration claims, you ought to accept others using it to validate mass flow rates.

Independent bench tests of a ported manifold's ability to flow more, reveal, funnily enough, better flow although I don't know the raw data, only that when you couple it back up to the engine, you get an improvement of ~10g/sec per bank, which is better than 5%.

The absolute biggest question that no one has even bothered (inspite of my asking a number of times) to answer is how does a dyno cope with the 40:60 torque split in the B7? If it is not measuring the torque individual wheels are generating, the numbers will be suspect...they have to be because you're making assumptions that each wheel is generating the same amount of torque...

I'm convinced that this is a big source of all the anguish.

SR-71, unlike some I am not refuting anyone's data and did remember about SilverRS4's figures hence why I suggested steady state figures have never been recorded pre and post cleaning or with / without porting.

Like you I am sceptical of the r/r figures because of the power split is not uniform between the rollers. Also why on Dyno Dynamics roads Shoot 44 mode is not ideal for an RS4 because it is based on a 4 cylinder 4 wheel drive car with uniform power distribution through all 4 wheels (Scooby) and neither is Shoot 8 as it was programmed for GM LS series engines.

That is also why I said I would be interested to see how an RS5 gets on as well as a new S4, although they would be different again because they use newer ESP versions and we don't know what the variation between programs is with power distribution through the quattro system. If one wheel slips on the roller or does not have same traction because of differing PSI the power is distributed differently?