RS4 B7 Stated Power claim of 420ps

[Sims]

Just to remind ourselves of what we're potentially looking at:

against this one from Arthur's 26k engine - maybe US engines/fuel are different?

[ArthurPE]

Arthur, Why do engine tuners spend endless hours on a flowbench trying to extract the most flow from a cylinder head?

Also you insist that you have proven that carbon build up has no effect on performance. I have read your posts here and on on other sites and yet to see any conclusive evidence that supports your claim. Maybe you can summarize the data that supports your claim. I am talking real world performance data not theory.

The other thing I am trying to understand is your motivation. You are clearly obsessed with defending Audi, and even mention that it would be very difficult to win a lawsuit against them.

Are you working for Audi in some way?

in a race car tuned to the limit, it may help perfromance a few %, may
the RS4 is not at the limit and any restriction can be overcome by throttle

we have a data base of >50 runs, 3-8k rpm/3rd gear, no difference between cleaned-unlceaned and all cars are as good or better than factory new as tested by 4 different magazines...

in fact the average is better than cars doing the same run using ALL gears!

[ArthurPE]

the pictures are meaningless...I can show you a gash gushing blood and a sucking chest wound caused by a bullet, no blood, sealed tight...
most people will react to the bloody mess...
it takes somebody who knows what they are looking at...

I've never denied the existence of the deposits, it's a naturally occurance in all engines, mitigated in DPI type by the fuel...and other methods in DI
but it does not impact performance in ameasurable way...
diesels suffer from this for the last 100 years, yet NEVER lose torque...I've actually dyno'ed these engines on engine dynos or connected to a generator or pump and measure their output (KW or Q/head)

[ArthurPE]

I do not believe that an excessive build-up of debris on the inlet valves of this engine will have no effect on engine performance when the throttle is wide open and the engine is operating at maximum speed. My initial post in this thread was to question a post stating otherwise. The engine is attempting to draw the same volume of air through a smaller opening in the same amount of time. This will result in a slightly higher load on the engine and a slight reduction in the density of the air at the point when the cylinder is sealed.

The interweb is littered with information and maths proving both sides of this debate.

Maths in engineering requires testing because there is too much to consider, otherwise Toyota wouldn't be where they are now. Without the specific data, dimensions, flow-rates, etc which I'm sure only the boffins at Audi have access to these sums cannot be completed - they're just formulae, theory and presumption.

It is widely known that improving the ability of a naturally aspirated engine to breathe through subtle reductions in flow restrictions around the valves improves engine performance and I'm sure the people at Cosworth or any other such company would consider the removal of these deposits as essential for high flow at high engine speed.

I don't wish to malign an excellent car any more, I'd just like to see the manufacturer accept and eliminate this issue. And that's not going to happen if the owners are led to believe that the issue is irrelevant.

yes it will, pumping losses will increase slightly to overcome the additional DP required to flow the Q of air, but rest assured, the pump will pump the same volume of air...

what if the owners who believe it to be 'irrelevent', as does Audi/Porsche/VW/BMW/Ferrari/et al are correct?

I know, they are wrong, you are right...

[ArthurPE]

With the engineering skill you have, you have failed to convince other engineers, those who are not intimidated by you and those with common sense.

However, you have convinced me about this - that your conduct is threatening; abusive; harassing; vulgar; obscene; offensive; objectionable as anyone who reads your posts will confirm. To use words like whore, choads, loser, whiner etc devalues any contribution you do make. Does anyone here know what choad means?

I am not the 1st on these forums to suffer your insults, and I am sure your trait will forever remain whereas the carbon build up issue will not.

Have a good day.

again, personal character assassination
kettle meet pot

and I'm not the first to suffer yours...
glass houses and all...you need to check yourself and stop worrying about me and deposits...you have bigger issues to deal with...

are you anti-American? why?

have a nice day from the great USA

[ArthurPE]

ok, let me catch my breath....
between my last post and this one...
I removed the manifold
took pics
reinstalled
whew!

26k miles, never cleaned

This is a joke post right? In the 10 minutes between your posts you managed to remove, inspect and re-install the intake manifold.......! That truly defies all logic and physics

Also, I have seen that picture posted on another forum by a member who actually had their valves cleaned after a build up. It will come to me soon which one

yes it was a joke
like some of the other stuff posted here

[Sims]

With the engineering skill you have, you have failed to convince other engineers, those who are not intimidated by you and those with common sense.

However, you have convinced me about this - that your conduct is threatening; abusive; harassing; vulgar; obscene; offensive; objectionable as anyone who reads your posts will confirm. To use words like whore, choads, loser, whiner etc devalues any contribution you do make. Does anyone here know what choad means?

I am not the 1st on these forums to suffer your insults, and I am sure your trait will forever remain whereas the carbon build up issue will not.

Have a good day.

again, personal character assassination
kettle meet pot

With respect, your language has been awful. and unbecoming for this forum. Without any foundation and based entirely on your prejudice, you have accused me of lying. I shall await your apology. And in the meantime, I hope you will not inflict your foul language on others.

and I'm not the first to suffer yours...
glass houses and all...you need to check yourself and stop worrying about me and deposits...you have bigger issues to deal with...

Nonsense. I only have 200 posts (including some with light banter, but not offensive,derogatory, rude) - others can check them out. You, Sir, have a reputation for wildly lashing out at people who disagree with you and that is a big issue for you to deal with.

[SR71]

Arthur,

No where have I stated anyone has to accept my opinion.

Nor do I care if they do.

I'm a pilot for ****'s sake. What would I know?

Neither am I trying to sell anyone anything. I'm just a curious owner...like you.

But to have a sensible discussion, if your position disagrees with the observed data, I'm sorry, but you have 3 choices:

1) Stick your head in the sand.
2) Modify your theory to accomodate the observations.
3) Reject your theory.

I'd prefer it if you didn't select 1), but then you're an intelligent guy, so you don't need to...

So 2) and 3) are the options. I don't care which one you do but you have failed to explain (amongst other things) what the source of the error is when VAGCOM measures an increased mass flow rate through the engine post-cleaning.

The percentage is small, but we are interested in it. Let me know a petrolhead who isn't?

Whilst we're on the subject, why the increased flow rates when the manifold is ported and polished?

Way back when Anto_RS4 first ported, polished and cleaned his manifold, he saw a whopping great increase in the performance of the car. Granted he sorted the timing issue as well by disabling the knock sensors but thats what kicked off the whole debate on this side of the pond on this site...

Suddenly everyone sat up and took notice of the advantages of smoothing out the rough edges in the manifold casting etc etc.

Is your suggestion that he is lying, making it all up, got something to sell?

He's done the community a massive favour surely?

What I don't understand is that if Audi really thought this wasn't an issue, it'd be the easiest thing in the world for them to issue a statement to that effect.

If they had data to support that contention, why not release it into the public domain...via whatever mechanism...

I'll hazard a guess I know why.

Because American owners, in particular, would just laugh them out of town.

We're lucky that it would appear our gasoline is of better quality than theirs, hence less susceptibility to the matter.

I would quite happily modify my position if the explanation fits the data.

Why can't you?

[karl]

SR71 - well said!

[ArthurPE]

SR71
you forgot the 4th option, you are wrong...I'm sure it was an oversight...
the observed data is subject to interpretation, ie, Gulf War...

btw: it's not my 'theory', it is everybody's physics, and it applies equally whether you believe it or not...

as far as dynos: they lie, are manipulated, and have a margin of tolerance > than the changes measured...other words, useless for all but the most rudimentary comparisons, and even then...same cars, different days, 50 HP swing...engine dynos excepted

with my extensive understanding of flow and control of such (plus that of many others opinion) deposits do not impact flow...period
not my OPINION, but my reasoned professional conclusion...
from the 3-8k runs, a whole bunch of them, I can not see any performance loss or difference between cars...

Anton: I blieve he has a vested interest...does he not? I do not believe the gains he claimed are possible...period...I have been communicating with an Audi VP NA...very reasonable man...

issuing a statement about a non-issue, is well, bad strategy, why acknowledge a non-issue and lend credence to to it? makes no sense...
ignore it, let the people saying there is an issue prove it...because Audi knows they can't...

in the land of split coffee lawsuits don't you think some lawyer would have seized the issue and sued? a big deep pocket company like Audi? why have they not done so?
well I'll tell you, some have looked at it, and have actually contacted me about my opinion...
they have not sued yet, and probably will not...

again, this comes down to:
you are smarter than me
I 'miss the point'
you are right, I am wrong

but that's OK, I've met more than a few that thought the same, and they usually end up paying me to fix their mess...it's cool

[HYFR]

[ArthurPE]

Nonsense. I only have 200 posts (including some with light banter, but not offensive,derogatory, rude) - others can check them out. You, Sir, have a reputation for wildly lashing out at people who disagree with you and that is a big issue for you to deal with.

I agree, nonsense...
you are subtle, but backbiting...and anti-American
I get to the point, I call them like I see them...

I sleep well, can look in the mirror and have a developed conscience...
I take your 'free advice' for what's worth...nothing...
and don't roll over on an issue just because I am attacked by folks like you...

you need to check yourself, you can't change me, but with some help perhaps you can change yourself...
the sick machine can't fix itself...it introduces positive feedback and becomes unstable, possibly unbounded...error added to error, instead of subtracted, negative feedback...

a 'reputation'? lol get serious
to those that have sent PM's, thank you for the kindness exhibited...

now if we are done about making this about us, instead of deposits, let's each move on with our dysfunctional lives
after all, we will never have to suffer the company of each other, lol
peace

[ArthurPE]

lol

http://www.eventsounds.com/wav/funnyhow.wav

[karl]

FFS Arthur, get your head out of where the sun don't shine, get down off your pedestal, stop belittling people and face up to the fact that you are talking BS. The deposits that we are seeing are not normal for any engine, they are not part of any engine designers requirements, they shouldn't be there and without doubt they affect engine performance, no question!

I know you will reply to this and dribble on about all sorts of <beep> but I'm really not interested in what you've got to say. Your constant defence/denial of this issue is laughable. I will no longer entertain reading this thread as my understanding is clear; it is a problem, it's not designed in, it needs sorting. Have a nice day.

[SR71]

Yet again, your professional conclusion is nothing more than your opinion. You can state it all you like but without data its as good as anybody elses.

We are talking about a compressible, viscous, highly unsteady flow regime with thermochemistry involved...

I care little for your ad hoc acceleration tests as well when they are done using the OBC and you have chosen to ignore the blatant error therein pointed out to you in another forum.

I'll profer up another set of observations to the table, which I have yet to see anyone else do...

On the day that pippyrips picked up his car post-modifications, I took him up there in my B7.

Two virtually identical RS4's except one remapped* with a clean, ported and polished manifold, tested at exactly the same time, under exactly the same conditions.

On the way home we did roll on after roll on at various speeds in various gears and what was the result?

Well anyone with any knowledge of the fluid dynamics of internal combustion engines would be able to tell you.

Now that is an incontrovertible fact inspite of any protestations of yours to the contrary.

Until you have done likewise and demonstrated the converse conclusion, I'm afraid your professional opinion is just wrong.

* I accept the comparison would have even more validity if the car hadn't been remapped.