MRC trip.

[Shoppinit]

If the TC isn't locking up, it can have a torque multiplying effect. Rolling roads is all voodoo and fudge factors, innit.

[Weiß-sechs]

Makes you wonder why they went ahead & mapped it though.
First time I was there they did the health check, found that the tc was borked and told me it's a bit pointless to map it really.....

[Shoppinit]

End of the month. Wages to pay. :-p

[Classik]

I'm no expert but 866Nm torque sounds seriously out of specs for the transmission capabilities (440Nm?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_5HP_transmission.

The RS6 has the 5HP24A - not a 440Nm limit. The RS6 was 580Nm straight out of the box.

So Wikipedia is wrong? If so, what are the real figures for our boxes?
Nevertheless jumping from 580 to 866Nm is a crazy 50% increase in torque!!

[Shoppinit]

Also the 5HP24A was further modified specifically for the RS6 application to allow it to handle more torque.

[Classik]

Good to know, thanks ! Any chance to find out how much it can really handle?

[Mark-RS]

Makes you wonder why they went ahead & mapped it though.
First time I was there they did the health check, found that the tc was borked and told me it's a bit pointless to map it really.....

I was going by their advice. I asked if there was any point to mapping it as it was slipping I was told it wouldn't make any difference as it was likely to slip at times anyway, weather it was mapped or not. They said, if it was theirs, they would map it. So I did.

If I do end up paying full price for a map given that they knew there was an issue, that "They" pointed out, then I certainly won't be returning.

[Nobby]

Be interested in the before figures - could have been making less than standard for all we know. An increase in that much torque should feel epic from standard.

[Mark-RS]

So after not hearing from them at all yesterday, I gave them a rang today to see what was happening. Was told that all the work was done and they just needed to talk to the guy that did the mapping to see how that went in the end and that they would get back to me.

Still waiting......

[chunky79]

So after not hearing from them at all yesterday, I gave them a rang today to see what was happening. Was told that all the work was done and they just needed to talk to the guy that did the mapping to see how that went in the end and that they would get back to me.

Still waiting......

MRC have always had bad customer service imo. Their mapping is brilliant, but I've had issues with their work unfortunately.

[PipRS6]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the balance is off by so much. I know it's the torque that creates the issues for the boxes, but surely for torque to be that high, the BHP should be higher along with it ? I'm not entirely sure how the two are linked.

I haven't heard from them at all today and they said they will update me when they have more info. That was yesterday, early afternoon. It's going to run into tomorrow now it seems as it takes me around an hour to get there.

Tomorrow is my day off, so if I don't hear from them by early afternoon, I'll give them a poke, but in all fairness their contact has been very good.

Maybe I can help here.....

Torque and Power are directly related at a given engine speed. In direct terms Torque = power / engine speed, but this only works for Metric SI units... When talking HP, Nm, Lbs ft, rpm etc you need a conversion factor. If you are using Horsepower, lbs ft and RPM then it becomes Torque = 5252 x power / engine speed. That's why on a dyno readout using this the lines will ALWAYS cross at 5252 RPM. This is where the conversion factor and engine speed cancel each other out.

However, when cars / engines specs are read out they only give peak numbers. So they will say 500bhp @ 7000rpm and 500lbs ft @ 3000rpm for example. These figures tell you very little. They tell you the power the car is making at ONE POINT in their range. What you can infer from it is that if it makes good power up top and good torque at a low rpm then it SHOULD be a good engine. But in theory you could have anything between those points. So just because a car makes loads of PEAK torque doesn't mean it will make loads of PEAK power.

Good example of this is F1 engines before the turbo era. All their power was made at 18000rpm. So they had up to 1000bhp but next to zero torque....

Hope this helps.

To your point of paying for a map that is basically the same as the first one, not necessarily. You may have the same peak power but it could have loads more power lower down. Which would explain the huge torque increase. So it will feel much faster.

[bam_bam]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the balance is off by so much. I know it's the torque that creates the issues for the boxes, but surely for torque to be that high, the BHP should be higher along with it ? I'm not entirely sure how the two are linked.

I haven't heard from them at all today and they said they will update me when they have more info. That was yesterday, early afternoon. It's going to run into tomorrow now it seems as it takes me around an hour to get there.

Tomorrow is my day off, so if I don't hear from them by early afternoon, I'll give them a poke, but in all fairness their contact has been very good.

Maybe I can help here.....

Torque and Power are directly related at a given engine speed. In direct terms Torque = power / engine speed, but this only works for Metric SI units... When talking HP, Nm, Lbs ft, rpm etc you need a conversion factor. If you are using Horsepower, lbs ft and RPM then it becomes Torque = 5252 x power / engine speed. That's why on a dyno readout using this the lines will ALWAYS cross at 5252 RPM. This is where the conversion factor and engine speed cancel each other out.

However, when cars / engines specs are read out they only give peak numbers. So they will say 500bhp @ 7000rpm and 500lbs ft @ 3000rpm for example. These figures tell you very little. They tell you the power the car is making at ONE POINT in their range. What you can infer from it is that if it makes good power up top and good torque at a low rpm then it SHOULD be a good engine. But in theory you could have anything between those points. So just because a car makes loads of PEAK torque doesn't mean it will make loads of PEAK power.

Good example of this is F1 engines before the turbo era. All their power was made at 18000rpm. So they had up to 1000bhp but next to zero torque....

Hope this helps.

To your point of paying for a map that is basically the same as the first one, not necessarily. You may have the same peak power but it could have loads more power lower down. Which would explain the huge torque increase. So it will feel much faster.

That was some very meh Arthur. Whip up since lurvly matlab output and we'll be impressed. We're all jaded here, this forum survived VAG carbonbuildupgate...

[PipRS6]

That was some very meh Arthur. Whip up since lurvly matlab output and we'll be impressed. We're all jaded here, this forum survived VAG carbonbuildupgate...

Who needs Matlab when you have Excel?? I did create an engine power output calculator in Excel. Its on a memory stick somewhere so if anyone is interested I will post it up. Its useful for predicted power gains from certain modifications. I used it a lot for my old 3000GT. I worked out that by using a bigger intercooler and decreasing my inlet temperature by 5 degrees it added the same power as adding something like 1psi of boost. So I could achieve the same power increase more safely. Its best use is comparing mods to see what will be more cost effective.

The fun part was that if you logged boost, AFR and IAT on a datalogger and then put that information into the spreadsheet you could plot a dyno graph. Useful for road mappers I guess....

[Mark-RS]

Well, I know have the car back. Bill escalated for some reason to £2200 ! I got charged full price for the map, had their high flow panel filters added which I never asked for, but hey ho....

With all the suspension work done, top mounts etc, the car feels totally different. Actually feels brand new, the only noise I can hear when driving now is the squeak of my arse on the leather. No knocks or bangs or anything of the sort. In hindsight though.... None of that work was specialist which I could have gotten done for less than half of what I paid, aside from the map, which isn't effective due to the box slipping.

So I guess I could have paid 7-800, not had the map done AND still had nearly enough money left to get the box sorted

Kinda feeling sad somewhat.

Having said that, the car does drive really nicely and I can certainly feel there is more there despite the box not playing nicely.

Oh... also paid £165 for wheel alignement ! Is that not a little excessive ?

[Shoppinit]

It's ok if it includes a wheel refurb.