My APR Supercharger has arrived!

[bam_bam]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla buy our stuff.

^ Awesome.

So what is your point? I'm certain OP is aware of the power made so re-posting "facts" isn't exactly painting yourself in glory here, in fact, it looks like you're trying to inflame something that isn't actually a problem. Perhaps you have something to contribute, is it that you've recently strapped a supercharger onto a B7 RS, too? Maybe there's something constructive you'd like to add? Well, this is your chance to share with the group, c'mon, shine for us...

[guffy]

I think some people are being way too precious. Awesome has made some perfectly valid points without being rude.

Think if i was going to spend £10k+ on a ca. £25k car, it would certainly have to be a keeper!

[adsgreen]

I've got my hands on some commercial simulation software that seems to tally well with book and actual figures.
If the 8.4 is accurate (no reason that it's not) then the figures are up in the claimed area.
Doesn't matter what the dyno says - to move that car at that speed at that acceleration time requires approx the figures being claimed (590bhp/498 lb/ft).

Using the supplied graph the car would be struggling to break 10 sec to 100.
(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

[PetrolDave]

(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

Since peak power happens at 7800rpm, terminating the N/A run at 7000rpm will under-estimate the pre-conversion power by approx 20hp - according to the Audi power curves.

[bam_bam]

The greenman makes sense, I read the 8.4sec to 100 as most defining (that's Gayhardo Superleggera fast). Dynos are far too varied and should only be taken as 'interesting' yardsticks IMO.

[ollys]

I've got my hands on some commercial simulation software that seems to tally well with book and actual figures.
If the 8.4 is accurate (no reason that it's not) then the figures are up in the claimed area.
Doesn't matter what the dyno says - to move that car at that speed at that acceleration time requires approx the figures being claimed (590bhp/498 lb/ft).

Using the supplied graph the car would be struggling to break 10 sec to 100.
(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

The fastest car in the world (being the TTRS aka TiTsRuS) being the exception to this and to all known laws of physics......

[S4Player]

Car was ran on awesomes dyno but wait didn't you guys just lose your apr affiliation? Coincedence? Let Lee enjoy his car FFs I dealt with all the bs when I got mine I never actually enjoyed going out and beating all the times the doubters said I couldn't do honest I didn't ha

[P_G]

I've got my hands on some commercial simulation software that seems to tally well with book and actual figures.
If the 8.4 is accurate (no reason that it's not) then the figures are up in the claimed area.
Doesn't matter what the dyno says - to move that car at that speed at that acceleration time requires approx the figures being claimed (590bhp/498 lb/ft).

Using the supplied graph the car would be struggling to break 10 sec to 100.
(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

I would also be far more inclined to believe v-Box figures that r/r ones, so long they are the ones from that car.

[adsgreen]

I've got my hands on some commercial simulation software that seems to tally well with book and actual figures.
If the 8.4 is accurate (no reason that it's not) then the figures are up in the claimed area.
Doesn't matter what the dyno says - to move that car at that speed at that acceleration time requires approx the figures being claimed (590bhp/498 lb/ft).

Using the supplied graph the car would be struggling to break 10 sec to 100.
(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

The fastest car in the world (being the TTRS aka TiTsRuS) being the exception to this and to all known laws of physics......

Heh - the only reason the TiTty- aRSe is so quick is down to the desperation to come out of the closet

[ollys]

I've got my hands on some commercial simulation software that seems to tally well with book and actual figures.
If the 8.4 is accurate (no reason that it's not) then the figures are up in the claimed area.
Doesn't matter what the dyno says - to move that car at that speed at that acceleration time requires approx the figures being claimed (590bhp/498 lb/ft).

Using the supplied graph the car would be struggling to break 10 sec to 100.
(also why do the graphs terminate so early? no where near the redline of 8250ish?)

The fastest car in the world (being the TTRS aka TiTsRuS) being the exception to this and to all known laws of physics......

Heh - the only reason the TiTty- aRSe is so quick is down to the desperation to come out of the closet

True - and a v-box time of 7.9 0-100 with only 420 bhp - IIRC

[AwesomeHAssan]

...

[adsgreen]

Dyno's lie. They lie all the time. Esp ones that produce output graphs that cut out very early.

What you can't get away from is that if a decent GPS based logging system is posting times consistent with the claimed figures (possibly even higher) so how you can claim that it's not delivering???
The error margin with 10hz GPS systems whilst present is much smaller than that on a dyno so how do you exaplin the numbers?

[AwesomeHAssan]

...

[adsgreen]

I can not comment on the GPS as I know nothing about it!

The GPS unit used above is accurate form calculating velocity to 0.2 kph or .12 mph.
Assuming the weight of the car is the same then hitting 8.4 seconds for 0-100 even taking into account driver error is very very quick.

Weight x power x time and distance all must equate to something and some sort of CALCULATION of power but it is hardly an accurate measurement of a vehicles power. That's in my head, maybe you can explain it better to me?

You are accelerating an object of a known mass from rest to a specific velocity in a set amount of time.
There is no better definition of "work" or as some people would say "power".
Granted, it shows power at the wheels rather than the flywheel but that figure is no better than pub boasting anyway.
The only variable that would affect this is road angle - if it was 8.4 down a motorway sliproad then thats a whole different story

[PhilT]

Interesting thread, but still not getting the value for money here.... £13k for 100 bhp seems completely illogical to me. I mean, how much is a NoS setup in comparison?

Horses for courses I guess, but £13k+ is a hell of a lot of wanga!!!