dyno lies....

[ArthurPE]

it is not my 'job' to entertain you as you sit bleary eyed in front of your electronic friend at almost 3 AM on a work night...

rest assured, I am not the reason you don't have a family, if that were the case, pathetic

I play along, YOU say Audi pays me, I have said on more than 1 occasion:
I bought my car
I do not have any association with Audi (other than owning one)

my science probably does bore you, it's a natural reaction for material not understood...

nothing you can say or do will have any impact on my life, and I hope the same holds true in reverse...

Blah blah blah, you're boring. My employer? I guess he's happy, as my employer is yours truly. Family? I don't have one, because I spend too much time calling BS to all your posts that make you sound like Audi is paying you to come here and bore us to death with your facts, figures and formulas.

I do think you're someone very intelligent and bright though, but can be soooo boring just rambling on and on and on the same darn thing. Ok you win dear Arthur, the B7 RS4 DOES HAVE 420 PS and everyone stating otherwise is a crook only with a vested interest. Does that make your life better if I say it?

[S2tuner]

note, only run to 7300, there were a few more ponies available

Care to explain how more ponies were available? So now Audi are liars and sell cars with more power than has been homologated by the SAE??? OMG!!!! If you look at that graph carefully, it shows the blue curve (wheel power) dropping quite severely after peaking at ~6900 RPM, even by adding driveline losses (BTW Maha dynos aren't the only one that measure losses, and also since when are Maha dynos believeable in the US? I thought Mustang was the industry standard over there), derived/measured engine power doesn't look like it'll keep climbing after 7305 RPM where they stopped the run. Also, if you claim a full Milltek exhaust (full meaning including at least 200cpsi cats), you're just a fool. Downpipes with 200cpsi cats on a B7 RS4 has been proven (oh of course, only by people who have a "vested interest") to provide gains as high as 20PS...

Just my 0.02, I have nothing but my time to lose posting all this. Please tell us what you think dear Arthur.

[ArthurPE]

wow

since HP ~ rpm, rev'ing it up a few 100 more = few more HP
actually the power still has positive slope, and T is not dropping quickly...yet, another 400 rpm, and it will start to...

unless you have a variable load, and stall the engine, then back off, at steady state, NOT ramp, you'll never get a true picture of an engines torque production...it is a variable torque machine and will respond to load...this run looks good, the engine was stalling at ~7300 (load > power), hence a true measure of output...if the engine can exceed peak power rpm 7600-7800, then the load it too low...and peak power will NEVER be demanded of the machine...the resultant, artificially low numbers...

the fact that the engine began to stall (overcome by load, load > power output) is the reason this engine made rated power...alldynos should be done this way...

he had no cats or tune, just a cat back...
de-cat or hi-flows may give some mid-range torque, but no high end power...at least not real, measurable, repeatable power...

I did not say MAHA was the only one, but the only commercial grade, widely available one...

we use all sorts of dynos, but we avoid making up crank numbers unless we measure losses...dyno's are useless for absolute numbers, they are marginal for comparative purposes, smae car, same conditions, they are OK

Care to explain how more ponies were available? So now Audi are liars and sell cars with more power than has been homologated by the SAE??? OMG!!!! If you look at that graph carefully, it shows the blue curve (wheel power) dropping quite severely after peaking at ~6900 RPM, even by adding driveline losses (BTW Maha dynos aren't the only one that measure losses, and also since when are Maha dynos believeable in the US? I thought Mustang was the industry standard over there), derived/measured engine power doesn't look like it'll keep climbing after 7305 RPM where they stopped the run. Also, if you claim a full Milltek exhaust (full meaning including at least 200cpsi cats), you're just a fool. Downpipes with 200cpsi cats on a B7 RS4 has been proven (oh of course, only by people who have a "vested interest") to provide gains as high as 20PS...

Just my 0.02, I have nothing but my time to lose posting all this. Please tell us what you think dear Arthur.

[P_G]

Wow, you lot have been going at it tooth and nail haven't you?

Suffice to reiterate that dynos' are not an accurate measure of absolute power but a good base line from which to modify cars and track consequent power changes.

The whole RS4 not making power debate has been done to death, and it's not just the RS4 on certain dyno's. On the same dyno's that say RS4's are down I have personally seen R8 V8's and D3 S8's not produce the on the box figures. So what does that say, they were down on power too. Unlikely. And all dyno's 'crooks'. Doubtful, morelike the dyno comes with the same programmable correction factors in its software which makes the situation universal. Only a few tuners I would suggest know how to use their roads properly, provide enough ventilation or static cell conditions for the r/r to function properly. I still suspect it has much to do with a combination of the ESP version run on our cars and the Quattro drivetrain system. Antything pre B7 RS4 model used vs 8. or less, afterward C6 RS6 a newer version.

I've never used a MAHA dyno so can't comment, but my experiences have been from various Dyno Dynamic Roads and Dastek roads, the latter being the most consistent in its data output.

Bets for all involved to leave this one alone because you ain't going to find the answer on this thread. BTW from experience the best way stop a poster in their tracks of you don't believe in what they say is simply not to post; ignore it. Afterall, it is only a forum, does it really matter? Perhaps to insomniacs?

[philipwalker]

John, fancy locking this one..........

[P_G]

Don't think it needs locking, the heat appears to have gone from the discussion.

[MoRS6+]

Even I'm getting bored with these equations. Arthur's posts are the only ones I never read all the way through...

My brain doesn't think like that. When it is nigh-on impossible to prove something one way or another using calculations (and you can't always), then you have to think outside the box. If all you needed to explain everthing in life was a set of figures, calculations and equations, by heavens life would be boring.

I've said it before: Take the rolling-road day a step further - pit 2 cars against one another whose figures have just been recorded on the dyno and see how they actually compare (on a private test track). Hell, not just B7 RS4s, but put one against an RS6 (which btw IS heavier). Have our own little shoot-out day a la M5 board. It would be a massive, monumental event - one to which I'd have a front row seat - that's for sure. Hell, I'd be a participant!

And one final point that really bugs me. Owning an RS4 is not just about what the dickens the engine puts out. It's the shape of it, the curves, the sound of it, how it makes you feel when you drive it, the thoughts it provokes in others, the road presence, the handling - the RS4 has all of these in spades. If you ask me, a 40 or 50bhp (if there is one) loss is a small price to pay to experience the whole rest of the package.

[mark758]

Owning an RS4 is not just about what the dickens the engine puts out. It's the shape of it, the curves, the sound of it, how it makes you feel when you drive it, the thoughts it provokes in others, the road presence, the handling - the RS4 has all of these in spades. If you ask me, a 40 or 50bhp (if there is one) loss is a small price to pay to experience the whole rest of the package.

Very well put

Instead of locking the thread or re-loading the personal insult gun it might be more constructive if someone could counter argue or validate this single point. Seems quite key to my simple mind

no one has yet offered a reason or explanation:
RS4 3980/270 ~ 14.7
M3 3550/378 ~ 9.4
the M3 has a 56% (115.1/9.4) advnatage, yet the cars are of similar speed...
how can this be?

[Sims]

Owning an RS4 is not just about what the dickens the engine puts out. It's the shape of it, the curves, the sound of it, how it makes you feel when you drive it, the thoughts it provokes in others, the road presence, the handling - the RS4 has all of these in spades. If you ask me, a 40 or 50bhp (if there is one) loss is a small price to pay to experience the whole rest of the package.

Very well put

Instead of locking the thread or re-loading the personal insult gun it might be more constructive if someone could counter argue or validate this single point. Seems quite key to my simple mind

no one has yet offered a reason or explanation:
RS4 3980/270 ~ 14.7
M3 3550/378 ~ 9.4
the M3 has a 56% (115.1/9.4) advnatage, yet the cars are of similar speed...
how can this be?

I agree with the sentiment. I am not sure I understand those figures.

The RS4 is 1650kgs, compared to 1600 kgs (1625 for the saloon) for the M3. And the 270 & 378 numbers? A simple explanation please.

[^Qwerty^]

[
The RS4 is 1650kgs, compared to 1600 kgs (1625 for the saloon) for the M3. And the 270 & 378 numbers? A simple explanation please.

And an RS6 weighs in at only a few kg more........ LOL (well the US version anyway)

[Sims]

[
The RS4 is 1650kgs, compared to 1600 kgs (1625 for the saloon) for the M3. And the 270 & 378 numbers? A simple explanation please.

And an RS6 weighs in at only a few kg more........ LOL (well the US version anyway)

Clearly the RS6 weighs a lot more than just a few more kgs.... Also if we are comparing, it's better to provide exact stats. Does anyone here know the exact unladen weight of the RS6? This quotes 1840kgs

http://www.fastestlaps.com/car_Audi_RS6_C5.html


But whilst we are talking kgs, can we please, please stay with kgs & metric measurements on this UK based forum. lbs is old school. The US guys can convert for their benefit.

[Sims]

well, well, well, look who's showed up, lol

I also stated, depends on the tests...some have the RS4 faster
as it is around the Ring, but in reality, they are evenly matched
despite a 56% wt/Hp disadvantage...

no need to get your panties in a bunch sally...no need to insult
dribble...I think you mean drivel, you should learn that one
childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

the Ring times are accurate 7:58 vs 8:05, RS4 favor
even if you chose the slower, 8:09 a 4 sec difference (0.8%), over 13.2 miles, with a 56% wt/HP deficit? really?
that means the RS4 only has 64% (1/1.56 ~ 0.64 or 64%) of the power/pound as the M3!?
and yet is as fast?

I posted a dyno of a car making 420 HP

again, how can a car with a 56% wt/HP deficit, be as fast, or equal, or only a bit slower, depending on test?

btw: better to have had the 'plot', and 'lost' it, than never have had it...
I know what to look for, you are still stumbling blindly

Has this guy lost the plot? I won't speak for the rest of the chaps on here but in the last thread you stated (and i quote) 'all the mag tests have the M3 a bit faster...times are close, trap sppeds a bit higher' and then posted 3 pages of dribble contradicting himself saying an rs4 is faster including bogus ring times.

Now you are telling everybody on this forum that all the dyno fun days and runs they have conducted are a joke despite not one car in the uk having made stock horsepower and they must be talking nonsense? This cat has his head in the clouds. I'm out of here before he starts fumbling through more magazines with his magnifying glass and dishing out some tasty new formulas

Arthur, you seem to object to dlextreme1997 posting on this thread, and make him unwelcome. That's not necessary, for this is not anyone's private forum.

Also you do your technical skills no favours by your vile language - save that for the US forums.

Let's deal with facts, and only facts. The comparable 'Ring times are 8:05 & 8:09. Period. These cars are new and I assume provided by the factory -please correct me if I am wrong. If so, I expect both those cars to have made the stated power.

Have you tested your RS4 & your M3 on a dyno under the same circumstances?

[P_G]

I agree with the sentiment. I am not sure I understand those figures.

The RS4 is 1650kgs, compared to 1600 kgs (1625 for the saloon) for the M3. And the 270 & 378 numbers? A simple explanation please.

But even that is not right because if you revert to caldy's thread on 'kerb weight' his car was 1730kgs. 1650 may be dry weight.

[ArthurPE]

Instead of locking the thread or re-loading the personal insult gun it might be more constructive if someone could counter argue or validate this single point. Seems quite key to my simple mind

no one has yet offered a reason or explanation:
RS4 3980/270 ~ 14.7
M3 3550/378 ~ 9.4
the M3 has a 56% (115.1/9.4) advnatage, yet the cars are of similar speed...
how can this be?

bingo...how can this be?
that is an astronomical difference...
67 HP/1000 lb vs 106 HP/1000 lb almost 58% more power
yet the times are close enough to call even
each eeking out an advantage under certain circumstances

[ArthurPE]

I agree with the sentiment. I am not sure I understand those figures.

The RS4 is 1650kgs, compared to 1600 kgs (1625 for the saloon) for the M3. And the 270 & 378 numbers? A simple explanation please.

no it isn't every test that has weighed each car (I have 6 iirc)
RS4 3940 to 3980 lbs
M3 3540 to 3570 lbs

the BMW wt is a EU/DIN unladen and included 75 kg of load
1600 = 3520 lbs

the RS4 is NOT 1650, the actual weighed weight is close to 4000, not 3600

378 = road delivered HP from many different dyno tests (378 is from rototest)
270 = claimed 370 - 100 in losses (the losses appear on many graphs)

the ONLY power that matters is what is delivered to the road