No more seafoam...no more scraping. You excited?

[PJC]

LOL

[sakimano]

lol no shitstorm from me. I honestly don't have the energy to address the absurdity of some of the things Arhtur posts. That's why as I said earlier, I'll ignore him.

As for PetrolDave's question, it was a valid one as we've seen plenty of paid spokespeople telling the forums their garbage is great (Spinner for PES, ngng for VF engineering). It's easy to be skeptical. For those who don't know me, I'm probably the biggest 'call out' artist on these Audi forums as I just can't stand to see people spread bullshit and lies.

Sharing JHM's success on a remote (3000 miles away from north america mostly) forum with a great group of RS4 owners should not however be mistaken for anything other than what it is...genuine excitement for the RS4 and the fact that a tuning company FINALLY gets the platform and is making them significantly better. As referenced above, people who rave about the Milltek sound aren't seen as a 'shill' or accused of being 'paid off'. It's an excellent product, and it earns rave reviews. Same with some of JHM's products. Others that I don't think are great, I'll say so (like I did in the RS4 rotors thread).

[PetrolDave]

As for PetrolDave's question, it was a valid one as we've seen plenty of paid spokespeople telling the forums their garbage is great (Spinner for PES, ngng for VF engineering). It's easy to be skeptical.

I'm always sceptical when I see multiple references to one company in anyone's posts. It's my experience that the best is always achieved by a knowledgable "mix and match" approach of products from multiple companies.

In the areas where I have most knowledge it's clear to those of us "skilled in the art" that there are many companies that rely on over-hyping mediocre, or even downright rubbish, products. PV solar cells on houses is the most obvious current over-hyped scam in the UK - nothing to do with cars I know, but topical.

[sakimano]

As for PetrolDave's question, it was a valid one as we've seen plenty of paid spokespeople telling the forums their garbage is great (Spinner for PES, ngng for VF engineering). It's easy to be skeptical.

I'm always sceptical when I see multiple references to one company in anyone's posts. It's my experience that the best is always achieved by a knowledgable "mix and match" approach of products from multiple companies.

I think that would be the case if we were talking about a high volume car with lots of tuning options like an E9X M3 or the 2.7T of old. However with the RS4 4.2 and the S4 4.2 before it, a 'mix and match' approach revealed that many stalwart Audi tuning companies just flat didn't know what to do to make power with normally aspirated Audis. Audi tuners have been spoiled by the 'low hanging fruit' of HP gains by adding boost to turbo cars. 1.8, 2.0, 2.7 cars all reacted with 10-20% HP and TQ gains from simple ECU tunes by adjusting a boost request. Even a tuner with very little talent could extract great gains with an increased boost request, an increased timing request, increase throttle sensitivity and BANG! you had a huge winner. Try this formula on a B6/7 S4/RS4 and you looked like a kindergarten student trying to understand calculus.

I bought my S4 4.2 4 years ago, and studied the market for a while before buying any modifications. I was supposed to be a beta tester for VF Engineering's supercharger, but asked them to provide me with actual acceleration results and dragstrip times before I'd commit. I saw their great dynos and rave reviews from the staff...but let's be real...that was all internal boasting. They delayed over and over and over until I finally realised...they had terrible results and wouldn't share anything because the results were damning...the product just didn't work as advertised. After a while, it became clear that APR, GIAC, AWE...they just didn't 'get' how to make power from an NA V8 platform. They did (and still do) great things with the more 'typical' Audi platforms...however it didn't seem they were getting any results with the 4.2. I did however start seeing great results from forum members with JHM tuning and exhaust parts. Dragstrip times. side-to-side pulls. Independant dyno numbers. All of it said JHM's performance formula was best for the car.

Considering that the best non-JHM RS4 quarter mile time is still no faster than stock...and every APR/GIAC/REVO RS4 I've seen do pulls barely beats (if at all) a stock car...it's pretty clear that this same problem from the S4 world is present here in RS4 land. Two JHM tune + exhaust + clutch RS4s have now run 12.28 @ 112 and 12.30 @ 112 at the dragstrip. That's bus lengths faster than any other normally aspirated RS4 that has run. While I know people will say 'the RS4 is meant for the track, not the dragstrip, don't lose site of the fact that it's a great measuring stick.

Anyway, it's hard NOT to talk about great parts that deliver proven results. The forums could certainly talk about carbon buildup all day or how 'hard' it is to get performance out of the RS4. I think talking about progress and great results is much more fun. If that's not what RS246 is about...if people would rather be skeptical and reject great things happening to our cars (like Reggie on Audiworld did when I shared the info there) then maybe this isn't the place to be for RS4 owners. However I'm sure the skeptics are the minority...I'm sure the majority of the forum likes to hear about the great progress the RS4 is finally seeing.

[PetrolDave]

I'm sure the majority of the forum likes to hear about the great progress the RS4 is finally seeing.

We would, but I think it's fair to say that we've seen so many "false dawns" that when someone turns up using a single tuners name multiple times per post it brings out the cautious side in many of us.

Add to that the "differences of opinion" between you and ArthurPE, who has contributed a great deal of engineering knowledge based on his day job to this forum, and an extra air of caution regarding your comments is bound to appear.

Over the years we've come to learn that what matters isn't what the tuners say or opinions based on guesswork instead of facts, it's what INDEPENDENT and VERIFIABLE tests say that matters.

[sakimano]

Over the years we've come to learn that what matters isn't what the tuners say or opinions based on guesswork instead of facts, it's what INDEPENDENT and VERIFIABLE tests say that matters.

Let the results speak for themselves. I agree. Do your best not to stifle the sharing of those results though Dave. Skepticism has it's place, but being overtly skeptical really helps nobody.

You know what is telling? JHM's products have produced frankly incredible results with the RS4 from a simple tuning/exhaust/clutch formula. My bone stock rs4 ran 13.1 @ 106.0 mph yesterday while a JHM tune/exhaust/downpipes/clutch RS4 ran 12.28 @ 112.5 mph. That gap is HUGE. But you haven't even mentioned or referenced it. I can tell you that on every other RS4 forum where these results and the news about a carbon solution in the works have been posted, people are VERY excited about it...they're not looking around frantically for the dark clouds.

[PetrolDave]

My bone stock rs4 ran 13.1 @ 106.0 mph yesterday while a JHM tune/exhaust/downpipes/clutch RS4 ran 12.28 @ 112.5 mph. That gap is HUGE. But you haven't even mentioned or referenced it.

0.9 of a second in 13.1 seconds is less than 7%, which in my book isn't huge - it's what any decent tuner should be able to improve any normally aspirated engine by.

It's not the sort of figure that's going to get me dancing in the streets that's for sure.

I'm not wanting to stifle sharing, just trying to put some perspective on the the claims and the numbers.

[adsgreen]

I'm with Dave on this one - I've been in engine tuning for a long time and have seen ten times as many products claiming to be magic and either at best not living up to the hype and most simply downright lies. As such I don't immediately jump on any product claims without some decent independant testing. Its not being skeptical just sensible. Far too many peolple have made money promising the moon on a stick. I think the comment that Dave will try to stiffle the sharing of the results is defensive in the extreme verging on insulting. How about you don't try to slate anybody who doesn't instantly agree with you? How do you think this kind of post makes your claims appear? - many a rogue tuners has resorted to such tactics when trying to defend the indefensible so let the results stand and keep things from getting personal.

Out of interest did the map include launch control? The reason I ask is that 0.9 seconds on a 1/4 mile run is more than 7% extra power - its more like 20% which is generally is not achievable with a map and an exhaust on a N/A engine unless the base starting point is crippled by bad tunning to begin with which I don't think is the case on the RS4.
To put this into context, I've simluation software that has produced consistently good estimates and it reports a stock RS4 doing 1/4 mile in 13.16 @ 105.18 which tallies excellently with your results.
To get this up to the 12.28 region would need comfortably over 500 bhp to get this kind of boost however this doesn't take into account launch control. Given that the mods don't involve cracking open the engine the rpm limit will be the same so the only way you can get this boost is by increasing torque which is easier said than done one a N/A car.

As you say, tuning a N/A engine is a lot harder than forced induction as you simply can't turn up the boost and fueling and leave it at that. The only way to really get more power out of a N/A car once you've got the basic breathing issues sorted is to cam the crap out of it and increase revs. 99% of the time the loss in torque is more than offset by the additional work the higher rpm's achieve but with the RS4 you're starting with a powerplant that is solid to over 8k rpm. It simply far to expensive to machine internal components and you're going to gain at most a 9k rpm limit.

I hate the drag strip as a measuring stick - it really comes down to driver skill and lack of mechanical sympathy. This can create huge diferences in times... one fluffed shift here or hit the limter there and you can easily lose 1/4 second here. It's why I do like a properly measured 3rd gear 3k to 8k - you completely take out driver and road surface out of the equation making comparisons easier to balance. Add in the environment conditions then you can compare things pretty well even when under different situations.

I don't think the RS4 is untunable but people expectations are pretty realistic.

[P_G]

Over the years we've come to learn that what matters isn't what the tuners say or opinions based on guesswork instead of facts, it's what INDEPENDENT and VERIFIABLE tests say that matters.

Let the results speak for themselves. I agree. Do your best not to stifle the sharing of those results though Dave. Skepticism has it's place, but being overtly skeptical really helps nobody.

You know what is telling? JHM's products have produced frankly incredible results with the RS4 from a simple tuning/exhaust/clutch formula. My bone stock rs4 ran 13.1 @ 106.0 mph yesterday while a JHM tune/exhaust/downpipes/clutch RS4 ran 12.28 @ 112.5 mph. That gap is HUGE. But you haven't even mentioned or referenced it. I can tell you that on every other RS4 forum where these results and the news about a carbon solution in the works have been posted, people are VERY excited about it...they're not looking around frantically for the dark clouds.

saki, what were the conditions you were running your RS4 ad JHM's at? I only ask because those times are both slow. My stock Avant in 79 degree farenheit temps with 3/4 a tank on fuel on board plus 25 kgs of kiddies seats and me with just an x-pipe and 48.5k miles on the clock ran using a Racelogic V-Box somewhere in the region of 12.6 @ 110mph so a JHM tune, downpipes, exhaust, remap and clutch which would be the best part of USD $3K would get me 0.3 of a secondand 2.5 mph more on a quarter mile?

I hope you were high up somewhere or it was damn hot....

[bam_bam]

Over the years we've come to learn that what matters isn't what the tuners say or opinions based on guesswork instead of facts, it's what INDEPENDENT and VERIFIABLE tests say that matters.

Let the results speak for themselves. I agree. Do your best not to stifle the sharing of those results though Dave. Skepticism has it's place, but being overtly skeptical really helps nobody.

You know what is telling? JHM's products have produced frankly incredible results with the RS4 from a simple tuning/exhaust/clutch formula. My bone stock rs4 ran 13.1 @ 106.0 mph yesterday while a JHM tune/exhaust/downpipes/clutch RS4 ran 12.28 @ 112.5 mph. That gap is HUGE. But you haven't even mentioned or referenced it. I can tell you that on every other RS4 forum where these results and the news about a carbon solution in the works have been posted, people are VERY excited about it...they're not looking around frantically for the dark clouds.

saki, what were the conditions you were running your RS4 ad JHM's at? I only ask because those times are both slow. My stock Avant in 79 degree farenheit temps with 3/4 a tank on fuel on board plus 25 kgs of kiddies seats and me with just an x-pipe and 48.5k miles on the clock ran using a Racelogic V-Box somewhere in the region of 12.6 @ 110mph so a JHM tune, downpipes, exhaust, remap and clutch which would be the best part of USD $3K would get me 0.3 of a secondand 2.5 mph more on a quarter mile?

I hope you were high up somewhere or it was damn hot....

I've got a theory that Canook fuel isn't as good as UK prem V-Bastard, hence, rubbish times.

[P_G]

I was under the impression their RON rating was different so 92 is equivalent to 97-98 and V-power is 99?

[adsgreen]

yup - over the pond they use the average of the ron and mon figures.
We just use the higher Ron figure.
Mon is actually more useful as this is the resistance to knocking under high rpm and load where as ron is under light to medium rpm and loads.

[ArthurPE]

Over the years we've come to learn that what matters isn't what the tuners say or opinions based on guesswork instead of facts, it's what INDEPENDENT and VERIFIABLE tests say that matters.

Let the results speak for themselves. I agree. Do your best not to stifle the sharing of those results though Dave. Skepticism has it's place, but being overtly skeptical really helps nobody.

You know what is telling? JHM's products have produced frankly incredible results with the RS4 from a simple tuning/exhaust/clutch formula. My bone stock rs4 ran 13.1 @ 106.0 mph yesterday while a JHM tune/exhaust/downpipes/clutch RS4 ran 12.28 @ 112.5 mph. That gap is HUGE. But you haven't even mentioned or referenced it. I can tell you that on every other RS4 forum where these results and the news about a carbon solution in the works have been posted, people are VERY excited about it...they're not looking around frantically for the dark clouds.

he is not being overly skeptical...you are saying he is....that does not make it so
he has an abundance of automotive engineering knowledge, his 'opinion' on these matters is a professional one...
again, we have 0 info on the 'carbonator', only your promotional hype, perhaps once we have some we can be as overly enthused as you are

[RS4POWER]

I'm with Dave on this one - I've been in engine tuning for a long time and have seen ten times as many products claiming to be magic and either at best not living up to the hype and most simply downright lies. As such I don't immediately jump on any product claims without some decent independant testing. Its not being skeptical just sensible. Far too many peolple have made money promising the moon on a stick. I think the comment that Dave will try to stiffle the sharing of the results is defensive in the extreme verging on insulting. How about you don't try to slate anybody who doesn't instantly agree with you? How do you think this kind of post makes your claims appear? - many a rogue tuners has resorted to such tactics when trying to defend the indefensible so let the results stand and keep things from getting personal.

Out of interest did the map include launch control? The reason I ask is that 0.9 seconds on a 1/4 mile run is more than 7% extra power - its more like 20% which is generally is not achievable with a map and an exhaust on a N/A engine unless the base starting point is crippled by bad tunning to begin with which I don't think is the case on the RS4.
To put this into context, I've simluation software that has produced consistently good estimates and it reports a stock RS4 doing 1/4 mile in 13.16 @ 105.18 which tallies excellently with your results.
To get this up to the 12.28 region would need comfortably over 500 bhp to get this kind of boost however this doesn't take into account launch control. Given that the mods don't involve cracking open the engine the rpm limit will be the same so the only way you can get this boost is by increasing torque which is easier said than done one a N/A car.

As you say, tuning a N/A engine is a lot harder than forced induction as you simply can't turn up the boost and fueling and leave it at that. The only way to really get more power out of a N/A car once you've got the basic breathing issues sorted is to cam the crap out of it and increase revs. 99% of the time the loss in torque is more than offset by the additional work the higher rpm's achieve but with the RS4 you're starting with a powerplant that is solid to over 8k rpm. It simply far to expensive to machine internal components and you're going to gain at most a 9k rpm limit.

I hate the drag strip as a measuring stick - it really comes down to driver skill and lack of mechanical sympathy. This can create huge diferences in times... one fluffed shift here or hit the limter there and you can easily lose 1/4 second here. It's why I do like a properly measured 3rd gear 3k to 8k - you completely take out driver and road surface out of the equation making comparisons easier to balance. Add in the environment conditions then you can compare things pretty well even when under different situations.

I don't think the RS4 is untunable but people expectations are pretty realistic.

Yes it does have LC. Your thoughts are spot on..

[ArthurPE]

increasing power in a car with 12.5 Cr, wide power band 90% torque 3k to 7.5k, and a redline of 8k is no easy feat...
maybe with better fuel, a remap (on the ragged edge), an intake with no consideration for noise or filtration, no cats, and an increase in revs, maybe 5-10%...maybe

Torque = comp ratio x vol eff x displacement / 4Pi, (comp ratio x vol eff) ~ MEP
comp ratio is the same
displacement is the same
obviously 4 and Pi are the same
so all gains are achieved with vol eff, the RS4 is already >1, getting it to >1.1 (10% increase in torque) without boost is doubtful (without extensive internal mods, valve size, cams, headers, manifold, etc.)

peak power is a bit easier since P = T w (w = 2 Pi rps), so as long as air, fuel and spark can be supplied, while maintaining vol eff (easier said than done...it may decrease due to pressure/pumping losses which increase with rpm), increasing rpm by 10% (>8500) may get you 10% more peak HP...but no torque increase throughout the entire power band
but this won't help on the street or strip much
perhaps one less shift in a drag and an increased top speed of a few mph on a long enpough road...but no increase of in-gear acceleration, since only P increase and not torque/force (a = F/m)

I'm with Dave on this one - I've been in engine tuning for a long time and have seen ten times as many products claiming to be magic and either at best not living up to the hype and most simply downright lies. As such I don't immediately jump on any product claims without some decent independant testing. Its not being skeptical just sensible. Far too many peolple have made money promising the moon on a stick. I think the comment that Dave will try to stiffle the sharing of the results is defensive in the extreme verging on insulting. How about you don't try to slate anybody who doesn't instantly agree with you? How do you think this kind of post makes your claims appear? - many a rogue tuners has resorted to such tactics when trying to defend the indefensible so let the results stand and keep things from getting personal.

Out of interest did the map include launch control? The reason I ask is that 0.9 seconds on a 1/4 mile run is more than 7% extra power - its more like 20% which is generally is not achievable with a map and an exhaust on a N/A engine unless the base starting point is crippled by bad tunning to begin with which I don't think is the case on the RS4.
To put this into context, I've simluation software that has produced consistently good estimates and it reports a stock RS4 doing 1/4 mile in 13.16 @ 105.18 which tallies excellently with your results.
To get this up to the 12.28 region would need comfortably over 500 bhp to get this kind of boost however this doesn't take into account launch control. Given that the mods don't involve cracking open the engine the rpm limit will be the same so the only way you can get this boost is by increasing torque which is easier said than done one a N/A car.

As you say, tuning a N/A engine is a lot harder than forced induction as you simply can't turn up the boost and fueling and leave it at that. The only way to really get more power out of a N/A car once you've got the basic breathing issues sorted is to cam the crap out of it and increase revs. 99% of the time the loss in torque is more than offset by the additional work the higher rpm's achieve but with the RS4 you're starting with a powerplant that is solid to over 8k rpm. It simply far to expensive to machine internal components and you're going to gain at most a 9k rpm limit.

I hate the drag strip as a measuring stick - it really comes down to driver skill and lack of mechanical sympathy. This can create huge diferences in times... one fluffed shift here or hit the limter there and you can easily lose 1/4 second here. It's why I do like a properly measured 3rd gear 3k to 8k - you completely take out driver and road surface out of the equation making comparisons easier to balance. Add in the environment conditions then you can compare things pretty well even when under different situations.

I don't think the RS4 is untunable but people expectations are pretty realistic.