Thanks MRC - Todays health-check and Dyno Figures

[P_G]

I have also had my car on a dyno as a comparitive from my run last year on the same dyno. So some 18 months later and 25,000 more miles on the clock my car is 2.3 engine Bhp down but has increased torque by 7.2 ft lbs.

Only things that have changed are free flowing back boxes and more mileage. I already had my x-pipe and panel filter installed for the last r/r in June 2009 which are still present.

BHP 396.5@7984 rpm (2009) vs. 394.2@ 7702rpm (2010)
Torque 312.0 @3594rpm (2009) vs. 319.2 @ 3565rpm (2010)

[Dom81]

I have also had my car on a dyno as a comparitive from my run last year on the same dyno. So some 18 months later and 25,000 more miles on the clock my car is 2.3 engine Bhp down but has increased torque by 7.2 ft lbs.

Only things that have changed are free flowing back boxes and more mileage. I already had my x-pipe and panel filter installed for the last r/r in June 2009 which are still present.

BHP 396.5@7984 rpm (2009) vs. 394.2@ 7702rpm (2010)
Torque 312.0 @3594rpm (2009) vs. 319.2 @ 3565rpm (2010)

Does this mean (without opening the can of worms) that Paramount was under-reading? Your numbers suprised me, so I've just double checked and you ran 360 at the rr day in April 09

[P_G]

It means Paramount was a Dyno Dynamics Rolling Road and the one I used for the figures quoted from Motoscope In Northallerton was a Dastek Rolling Road. It's the closest 4WD road I have to me so I decided to go back to it and will continue to do so on a yearly basis to see how my car is fairing unless I do any significant engine performance modifications to it that warrant testing for their viability. However at present it is fast and loud enough as is!

[adsgreen]

I'd put that down to margi of error.
You can get more of a variance by changing you're tyre pressures.

[P_G]

I'd put that down to margin of error.
You can get more of a variance by changing you're tyre pressures.

Indeed and that is what I have done. I'm happy my non-res cat back has not robbed me of power and neither has carbon build up. And if all the CB doomsayers who were on this forum were to be believed, at 78k miles I'm amazed my car even works !

[steve_70]

Is it just me, as I cant see all the pictures in the thread... did it make a noticeable difference with having the carbon clean-up done. Thanks

[P_G]

Who is that question directed at Steve? I haven't had my engine touched or cleaned.

[steve_70]

Who is that question directed at Steve? I haven't had my engine touched or cleaned.

sorry should have put Sonny's quote with the link...was aimed at Sonny or anybody who can see the graphs on that thread... do they show improvement after cleaning...as cant see the pics/power graphs in threads it refers to.Thanks.

Supersprint was testing a header for the RS4 and they was struggling to get any resuts out of it. There is Italian member Tweety, who I was chatting with who was working with SS on the header as I looked into this. More on this link http://audisrs.com/about13337.html&high ... upersprint

[P_G]

Varying results and threads have suggested anything from a 5-15 bhp gain from cleaning although it is only temporary and decreasing with time.

The forums in the US however are suggesting that even with s/c's, water meth kits and catch cans there is always CB so none appear to cure the issue (perhaps slow it) which would support the theory the oil / carbon is from initial valve seal leakage on warm up and valve overlap.

[steve_70]

Varying results and threads have suggested anything from a 5-15 bhp gain from cleaning although it is only temporary and decreasing with time.

Thanks. from an outsiders view and being new to these cars I would have thought that those that are driven in a 'Spirited sense' that explore the rev range and get their throats cleared are less prone to this, couldbe completely wrong though, if its just down toan inherent design/ engineering problem,so maybe I am wrong here, but I remember from when I was in my teens and dad was in the motor trade and it was the era of the XR31/ RS turbos etc, pepole use to complain of poor running, they used to clean all the fuel system, injectors and give it a good thrash and it would be lije a different car-alldue to being driven like miss daisy. Maybe those that drive these round in 6th and let it pootle at under 2-3k and not loading the engine and probably do more harm than those that drove them like they stole them

[lengster1]

+1 and ive had mine cleaned

[Timster]

+1

(I also remember a couple of months ago, someone was selling an RS4 and proudly claimed that it had never been over 7000 rpm !!. I remember thinking at the time, that the car certainly wasn't going to be one for my shopping list)... it may have been on pistonheads...

[Dom81]

Nothing beats an Italian tune!

[S4Player]

I'm fitting nos on my car in the hope using that every now and then will help keep the carbon at bay

[adsgreen]

IIRC part of the VW patent mentions that the carbon build up is affected by heat - certainly adds to the feeling that a properly used car is better than one that's babied.

Thing is with the RS4 engine it's just so well setup that it's very wasy to drive sub 2k rpm without any problems and I think thats the problem. if it stuttered and coughed under 2k then it'd be fine

BMW put in the new M3 manual something along the lines "the M3 is fitted with performance brakes and to maintain the system in optimum operation condition, the brakes should be used in the spirit in which the car was designed." Class