Rolling Road on 24/11/2007

[rs4v8]

Here you go t_urbo, some light reading.....

http://www.fireblades.org/forums/genera ... m-air.html

That google's quality - Far better explanation as to why you may not see 414 on a dyno.......

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/index.html

[mrdeli]

PS - out of interest the Daytona car was running on 95 ron - the Avus car on 97 ron

[audijohn]

PS - out of interest the Daytona car was running on 95 ron - the Avus car on 97 ron

Aaah now thats interesting, a definate drop in bhp with cheap <beep> then.

[rs4v8]

I'm a wee bit surprised its not a bit more!

[mrdeli]

Yes - but maybe the Daytona would have been the higher powered car on 99RON. I think we may retest them in another few thousand miles to see if any more power has freed up, as the concensus is that, as they loosen up they give a bit more - if that's the case it won't be a long way off what is claimed (414)

[audijohn]

Yes - but maybe the Daytona would have been the higher powered car on 99RON. I think we may retest them in another few thousand miles to see if any more power has freed up, as the concensus is that, as they loosen up they give a bit more - if that's the case it won't be a long way off what is claimed (414)

Yes agreed, mine has covered 6250 Miles now and really is getting quicker, I may get to the RR tomorrow and check it out.

[t_urbo]

Yes - but maybe the Daytona would have been the higher powered car on 99RON. I think we may retest them in another few thousand miles to see if any more power has freed up, as the concensus is that, as they loosen up they give a bit more - if that's the case it won't be a long way off what is claimed (414)

I think AntoRS4 has a Dyno and has carried out runs from when his car was new and then every few thousand miles and he said that the RS4 engine had not gained any additional HP.

[t_urbo]

I'd certainly be in favour of full power in all gears - extra power in 5th gear is pretty useless to me.

Get JD Eng to remap it and you will.

[t_urbo]

Here you go t_urbo, some light reading.....

http://www.fireblades.org/forums/genera ... m-air.html

Your a funny guy.

Who is comparing the RS4 engine with a 20,000 rpm F1 engine?

Wheres the comparison with the motorbike engine? I think your Sat-Nav is broken and it has sent you down a dirt track!

Im not saying the B7 does not like to be forced fed, im saying it is not due to the design of the air box.

RR's will never replicate road conditions exactly but with the B7 engine it wont be far off.

Its nice to hear that K & N still have a few loyal followers after all the MAF claims they had recently.

[simmo]

A RR is fine for measuring comparative changes to engines output (i.e. when doing tuning work) as the drive train losses (which ought to remain relatively the same anyway) can be ignored.

IMHO not sure how you could 'infer' the ABSOLUTE power/torque produced by an engine using a RR. How do you measure the drive train loss? If a % estimate for drive train loss is used then surely the 'result' is nothing more than a fancy guess.

If its absolute power you need to measure - hire a specialist, tear the engine from the car, put it on a bench dyno and go for it.

If you seriously want to try and match the manufacturers figures, run the engine for an equivalent of 10,000 miles, rip off the air-con and all ancillaries, strip the engine and clean all the components, reassemble, replace with fresh light-weight oil, new filters and plugs, ditch the cat use the highest octane fuel available and re-program the ECU with a 'pre-production' optimised map. You might get close

[mrdeli]

A RR is fine for measuring comparative changes to engines output (i.e. when doing tuning work) as the drive train losses (which ought to remain relatively the same anyway) can be ignored.

IMHO not sure how you could 'infer' the ABSOLUTE power/torque produced by an engine using a RR. How do you measure the drive train loss? If a % estimate for drive train loss is used then surely the 'result' is nothing more than a fancy guess.

If its absolute power you need to measure - hire a specialist, tear the engine from the car, put it on a bench dyno and go for it.

If you seriously want to try and match the manufacturers figures, run the engine for an equivalent of 10,000 miles, rip off the air-con and all ancillaries, strip the engine and clean all the components, reassemble, replace with fresh light-weight oil, new filters and plugs, ditch the cat use the highest octane fuel available and re-program the ECU with a 'pre-production' optimised map. You might get close

That may all be correct - the point is that Audi quote the figures of 414 in the brochure - as air con etc is standard then as a consumer, we should expect the cars that we bought (largely based on that brochure info) to produce the power stated.

Be very interesting to get a group of us to run RS4's on this dyno (it's truely an excellent peice of kit) - perhaps if others are interested we could have an RS4 day one weekend and try to put the power matter to bed once and for all - it would be good to see different age / mileage cars on the same (and high tec) dyno. Anyone interested?

If we get a few of us, the price will be £40.

Regards Mark

[alex_123_fra]

A RR is fine for measuring comparative changes to engines output (i.e. when doing tuning work) as the drive train losses (which ought to remain relatively the same anyway) can be ignored.

IMHO not sure how you could 'infer' the ABSOLUTE power/torque produced by an engine using a RR. How do you measure the drive train loss? If a % estimate for drive train loss is used then surely the 'result' is nothing more than a fancy guess.

If its absolute power you need to measure - hire a specialist, tear the engine from the car, put it on a bench dyno and go for it.

If you seriously want to try and match the manufacturers figures, run the engine for an equivalent of 10,000 miles, rip off the air-con and all ancillaries, strip the engine and clean all the components, reassemble, replace with fresh light-weight oil, new filters and plugs, ditch the cat use the highest octane fuel available and re-program the ECU with a 'pre-production' optimised map. You might get close

That may all be correct - the point is that Audi quote the figures of 414 in the brochure - as air con etc is standard then as a consumer, we should expect the cars that we bought (largely based on that brochure info) to produce the power stated.

Be very interesting to get a group of us to run RS4's on this dyno (it's truely an excellent peice of kit) - perhaps if others are interested we could have an RS4 day one weekend and try to put the power matter to bed once and for all - it would be good to see different age / mileage cars on the same (and high tec) dyno. Anyone interested?

If we get a few of us, the price will be £40.

Regards Mark

I'd be interested in this. Where is this dyno and what type is it ? I've got a week off coming up this week and would quite like to get it done then if anyone fancies it.

Alex

[mrdeli]

The link is here (Wirral)

http://www.dynodemon.co.uk/

[tartan_rob]

Does no-one use the old MAF figure x 0.8 calculation? It is normally close to crank hp.

Be careful as well, run the same MAF plot in 2nd then in 4th to redline. Will the air intake volumes be the same? One arguement for and one against....this would put some or the arguements to bed for once and for all.

[rs4v8]

Here you go t_urbo, some light reading.....

http://www.fireblades.org/forums/genera ... m-air.html

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/index.html

Your a funny guy.

Who is comparing the RS4 engine with a 20,000 rpm F1 engine?

Wheres the comparison with the motorbike engine? I think your Sat-Nav is broken and it has sent you down a dirt track!

Im not saying the B7 does not like to be forced fed, im saying it is not due to the design of the air box.

RR's will never replicate road conditions exactly but with the B7 engine it wont be far off.

Its nice to hear that K & N still have a few loyal followers after all the MAF claims they had recently.

You're the funny guy chief. Who is comparing an RS4 engine to an F1 car - Em me stupid..... I tried to calm you down a bit before by saying I didn't want an argument but you've clearly not taken your medication(s) this year. Read this to about 2/3rds the way down (if you can). I'm not making this stuff up..... I was actually trying to stop people being so disappointed by figures from the dyno when their car may in fact be a perfectly healthy 414bhp during real motoring conditions (which is what I suspect).

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrou ... i_rs4.html

In case your A.D.D. is preventing you reading this I'll summarise - the RS4 engine at 8200rpm generates a piston speed of 25.5 metres per second which is a match for an f1 car, regardless of its higher rev range.

The comparison with a bike engine is that both are high performance high revving engines with very small opening times for the valves when compared to regular run of the mill engines. In order to deliver enough air to the combustion it helps if the inlet is slightly pressurised. This is what the bike magazine ram air test example is trying to demonstrate to you if you'd actually take the time to read the fecker. This whether you like it or not is partly the reason why the plastic reaches forward to the front of the car for this 'ram air effect'. The other reason is for cold air rather than directly from the hot engine bay.

I've been fortunate to never had any bother with K&N's / MAF and I firmly believe them to be a good product compared to the standard OEM.

Maybe your sat nav is broken it seems to have guided your head up your own arse.....