Audi's reply to why our cars don't hit 414BHP

[ArthurPE]

this is a calculator based on a large sample of cars http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm
3 different analysis/calculators
this is not an estimate, it a statistical data base with a very tight coorelation and std dev
plug the following in
wt with driver 4100 lbs (US cars 3960 w/o driver), actually closer to 4150
HP at clutch = 420, actually 414 SAE

13.3/107.4
12.6/108.5
13.5/106.7

avg trap ~ 107.7
ET 13.1

the numbers all match the numerous magazine tests and tests posted by owners

I have no dog in this fight, I sold mine (with some regret)
but the facts are the facts: engineering understanding, the law requires the rating to be accurate within <1.5%, all test data, all objective analysis and comparisons
vs a rolling road dyno using a ramp test and not even a steady state test
where the driveline losses are estimated most of the time, and when measured thru a coast down measurement frought with error

[sync24]

I am with PetrolDave here. Ben @ AMD said almost the same thing to me at the RR day when I enquired why my car was down 25bhp "it's not about chasing numbers it's about how the car drives" - It rammed home there really isn't much point throwing money at the engine as the gains are just so minimal [with the exception of a supercharger] - sure an exhaust is a must for most people and a carbon clean is almost mandatory every 20k or so - but beyond that its lost money IMO

[Graeme4130]

I am with PetrolDave here. Ben @ AMD said almost the same thing to me at the RR day when I enquired why my car was down 25bhp "it's not about chasing numbers it's about how the car drives" - It rammed home there really isn't much point throwing money at the engine as the gains are just so minimal [with the exception of a supercharger] - sure an exhaust is a must for most people and a carbon clean is almost mandatory every 20k or so - but beyond that its lost money IMO

Exactly that

[Golfather]

That Daytona opticd B7 saloon on foreign plates was fookin quick in the convoy to Millbrook.
Whos was that?
I thought it was charged!

[RIV]

That Daytona opticd B7 saloon on foreign plates was fookin quick in the convoy to Millbrook.
Whos was that?
I thought it was charged!

That's fire starters car, he's just got that back from MRC, it's only running around 420 ish

[Golfather]

Goes to show numbers mean jack.
My C6 struggled to gain on him and only went past way into triple digits.
That was one quick car!

[Teutonic_Tamer]

do the math
a 4000 lb car
with high driveline losses due to awd: 4 1/2 axles, 2 diffs, a xfer gearset
and yet will do sub 5 0-62 and high 12's/108+ in the 1/4 mile
it pulls the Ring ~ as fast as a 997 S (same tires)

8:05 BMW M5, 560 PS (Horst von Saurma 09/12)
8:05 Porsche 997 Carrera S, Walter Roehrl (!) the Master
8:05 BMW M3 E92 Horst von Saurma
8:09 Audi RS4 Horst von Saurma
8:09 BMW M6 E63 Horst von Saurma ( a lighter car with 500 HP) used sport tires
8:13 Mercedes-Benz_C63 AMG Horst von Saurma

these are the only numbers that are relative

That time would have been set by a well tuned Rs4, certainly one running peak power. If most Rs4s lose this power and drop 50 or so BHP, then that's an issue as such a time would not be set by them. If I owned an RS4, Audis answer, above, would not satisfy me as it's overlooking the clear problem and coming up with excuses.

Where is your evidence to support that comment?

The simple fact that you do NOT own an RS4 certainly does nothing to support your POV . . . .

[sulli]

Just my opinion, would you like me to submit a peer reviewed study?

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Just my opinion, would you like me to submit a peer reviewed study?

If you have a peer reviewed study - that would help imensely.

Otherwise, like you state - it is just your opinion, rather than fact. And an opinion which is grossly misleading.

[sulli]

Calm down dear, bit touchy?

[sakimano]

Just my opinion, would you like me to submit a peer reviewed study?

sure

or submit some acceleration data/dragstrip timeslips that show all non-new stock RS4s are running like a 364 hp car (you said -50 hp)

If we're losing that much HP and some torque, that puts us in the B6/7 S4 4.2 and B8 S5 4.2 territory (340hp/302 ft lbstq and 354/325 respectively).

My RS4, with 3 years and 35,000 miles (never carbon cleaned) on it went 12.75 @ 108.36 in a standing quarter mile at an NHRA certified track. 6 months later in better DA conditions it went 12.82 @ 109.9 MPH, still bone stock, still never carbon cleaned.

If you can find me an AWD 3900 lb car that matches that with only 365 hp/300 tq, I will be well impressed. You won't.

Want to know what the fastest stock S5 4.2 FSI has ever run? 13.3 @ 104 MPH (indicating it's down about 50-60 hp)
Fastest ever stock B6/7 S4 4.2? 13.6 @ 102. (indicating it's down about 70-80 hp)

The only thing that comes close is the B8 S4 (I am saving you some time) which as we all know makes more like 370 hp / 370 tq stock. They runat best high 12s at 107-108 MPH stock, thanks to an incredible powerband with all of their torque available practically off idle. The RS4 does it with 414 hp and amazing top end, but 50 less peak tq (and a huge area under the curve disadvantage until high RPMs).


The other question I have is, why aren't the people on the BMW M forums complaining that they were robbed of 50 hp? Because BMW advertises the lighter M3 at 414 hp as well, however it runs neck and neck with the RS4 in acceleration tests until high speeds where it's RWD drivetrain loss (or lack thereof) advantage over the AWD Audi shows up, once tractoin is a non-issue.

[ArthurPE]

stop being objective and logical, you're bound to make someone's head explode


I'm not sure how fast people think a 4100 lb (laden) awd (lots of driveline losses) car should be with 414 HP and moderate torque ~320 lb ft?

Just my opinion, would you like me to submit a peer reviewed study?

sure
or submit some acceleration data/dragstrip timeslips that show all non-new stock RS4s are running like a 364 hp car (you said -50 hp)
If we're losing that much HP and some torque, that puts us in the B6/7 S4 4.2 and B8 S5 4.2 territory (340hp/302 ft lbstq and 354/325 respectively).

My RS4, with 3 years and 35,000 miles (never carbon cleaned) on it went 12.75 @ 108.36 in a standing quarter mile at an NHRA certified track. 6 months later in better DA conditions it went 12.82 @ 109.9 MPH, still bone stock, still never carbon cleaned.

If you can find me an AWD 3900 lb car that matches that with only 365 hp/300 tq, I will be well impressed. You won't.

Want to know what the fastest stock S5 4.2 FSI has ever run? 13.3 @ 104 MPH (indicating it's down about 50-60 hp)
Fastest ever stock B6/7 S4 4.2? 13.6 @ 102. (indicating it's down about 70-80 hp)

The only thing that comes close is the B8 S4 (I am saving you some time) which as we all know makes more like 370 hp / 370 tq stock. They runat best high 12s at 107-108 MPH stock, thanks to an incredible powerband with all of their torque available practically off idle. The RS4 does it with 414 hp and amazing top end, but 50 less peak tq (and a huge area under the curve disadvantage until high RPMs).


The other question I have is, why aren't the people on the BMW M forums complaining that they were robbed of 50 hp? Because BMW advertises the lighter M3 at 414 hp as well, however it runs neck and neck with the RS4 in acceleration tests until high speeds where it's RWD drivetrain loss (or lack thereof) advantage over the AWD Audi shows up, once tractoin is a non-issue.

[Covkiller]

Mines a lot faster after a terraclean and an MRC full carbon clean and polish and porting and and and. But the most important test was a race with a black B8 RS4 on the unrestricted A14 to Berlin last summer, we were neck and neck all the way from 80 mph to 184 mph and a good lad the other chap was, one of the best races I've ever had.

[PetrolDave]

Mines a lot faster after a terraclean and an MRC full carbon clean and polish and porting and and and