New S4 Tuning

[Riz_RS4]

I agree.... evidence please. [img]images/graemlins/boots.gif[/img]

Riz [img]images/graemlins/s3addict.gif[/img]

[Thorney]

Hardly comparative I know but I followed the the Listers S4 round Castle Coombe and it was quick.

[jeffw]

It's highly unlikely that AmD would make a public statement regarding the power of this conversion and not be able to back it up. I spoke to Craig at AmD regarding this very issue...ie I suggested that they where in LaLa land regarding BHP figures....he said that it was for real....I can't prove it but I prepared to believe [img]images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Joshie]

It's highly unlikely that AmD would make a public statement regarding the power of this conversion and not be able to back it up.

Have you seen the S4/RS4 Drivetrain Losses thread on Tuning and Mods Jeff? Seems that it is very hard to prove short of lifting the engine and sending it to Audi for expert analysis.

I must admit to being sceptical. In terms of specific output here are some figures:
The AmD Audi S4 4.2 (95 Bhp per litre) [img]images/graemlins/bowdown.gif[/img] [img]images/graemlins/033102bigblink_1_prv.gif[/img]
M3's 3.2 (107 Bhp per litre) - very high state of tune ( did I mention it was rated the finest 6 cylinder in production) [img]images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Porsche Carrera 3.6 (88 Bhp per litre)
Lotus Esprit V8 (84 Bhp per litre)
Jaguar XKR (92 BHP per litre) - and that's supercharged
Merc C32 AMG (109 BHP per litre) - supercharged too.

If it was that easy (exhaust and chip) to get 95 + Bhp per litre normally aspirated wouldn't the likes of Merc and Jag be doing it and they'd be able to throw away the superchargers.

The next thing I'll be hearing is that the fuel consumtion has gone down to 30MPG [img]images/graemlins/roflmao.gif[/img]

[jeffw]

M3's 3.2 (107 Bhp per litre) - very high state of tune ( did I mention it was rated the finest 6 cylinder in production)

Did you tell Honda about this....they may argue with you and then let you drive the best 6 cylinder engine in production ....the NSX.

Also you didn't add

Honda S2000 2 Litre.....227 BHP (113 BHP per Litre)

I don't think there is any doubt (from an engineering perspective) that Honda create some of greatest engines (Honda RC211V V5 990cc 230+ BHP NA).

[Joshie]

M3's 3.2 (107 Bhp per litre) - very high state of tune ( did I mention it was rated the finest 6 cylinder in production)

Did you tell Honda about this....they may argue with you and then let you drive the best 6 cylinder engine in production ....the NSX.

Also you didn't add

Honda S2000 2 Litre.....227 BHP (113 BHP per Litre)

I don't think there is any doubt (from an engineering perspective) that Honda create some of greatest engines (Honda RC211V V5 990cc 230+ BHP NA).

Hehehe, not sure WHO rated the M3 engine the finest - may have been BMW [img]images/graemlins/062802beat_prv.gif[/img]

[Gareth]

M3's 3.2 (107 Bhp per litre) - very high state of tune ( did I mention it was rated the finest 6 cylinder in production)

Did you tell Honda about this....they may argue with you and then let you drive the best 6 cylinder engine in production ....the NSX.

Also you didn't add

Honda S2000 2 Litre.....227 BHP (113 BHP per Litre)

I don't think there is any doubt (from an engineering perspective) that Honda create some of greatest engines (Honda RC211V V5 990cc 230+ BHP NA).

Hehehe, not sure WHO rated the M3 engine the finest - may have been BMW [img]images/graemlins/062802beat_prv.gif[/img]

Honda S2000=zero torque [img]images/graemlins/rocketwhore.gif[/img]

Mega rev meister and a total pain to drive day to day [img]images/graemlins/<beep>_you.gif[/img]

M3=Proper straight 6 and a peach [img]images/graemlins/clap.gif[/img]

[RS4_Barry]

M3=Proper straight 6 and a peach

And blow up frequently [img]images/graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

[Gareth]

M3=Proper straight 6 and a peach

And blow up frequently [img]images/graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

Not really. They have been instances wel documented on www.bm3w.co.uk that some '01 cars went bang. The recall has been done and all is well now.

Probably only affected 50/60 cars all told but gave the car a bad rep for a while...

[DuncS3]

Six months ago, N/A engines were not really considered easy to tune unless you went down the heavy hardware route. Now though all it seems to take is a chip and exhaust and you get the same benefits as if you were chipping a turbo car???

This is the same for the new 3.2 engines as well as the new S4. I recall reading on the TT-Forum lots of discussion about the new 3.2 TT and generally everyone was claiming the lack of tuneability as a disadvantage of the 3.2 over the 1.8T - whereas now that appears not to be the case.

Dunc [img]images/graemlins/s3addict.gif[/img]

[Joshie]

Well I hope that's true although one of the significant benefits of remapping a turbo car is the collosal torque imcrease whch makes the difference. I note from the S4 4.2 (full exhaust and remap) that the torque increase is marginal.

I'm reserving judgement though until I've driven one.

[18ME]

300bhp has been achieved so far from the 3.2 without turbo(s) but I would have thought that is the limit.

Mazda RX8 nearly 200bhp per litre N/A [img]images/graemlins/biggrin3.gif[/img]

[18ME]

I was initially concerned about the lack of torque, but driving it you don't seem to notice, even tootling around town I didn't see it as a problem on my test drive. I've got nearly 300ftlbs in my Audi and thats more of a pain than I thought the RX8 was as you have to be over a certain amount of revs before the turbo gets going.

[S4_SAT]

The RX-8 doesn't have a turbo,the RX-7 had a sequential twin turbo setup where the first one ran up to 5000rpm then the second kicked in till 8500rpm.The next RX-7 will have a renesis engine tuned for 300bhp but without turbos and will have a capacity of 1.6 litres.The RX-8 has a capacity of 1.3 litres and can be had in 189bhp or 237bhp tune.Still,Audis will always kick their asses. [img]images/graemlins/kissmyrings.gif[/img] [img]images/graemlins/burnout.gif[/img]