Another dissapointing tear up

[Shadow6ix]

1/3) I'm assuming he means that the torque curve is the same as for the other gears, rather than peak torque being available at less than 5000rpm. Peak torque is listed in the books as being at 5500rpm I think, which is consistant with a graph I've just found. Having said that, everything I've read on the RS4 so far in here suggests that Audi have capped the torque in the first 3 gears. Someone who's mapped the cars would be able to confirm that, and the process by which it is achieved.

2) Does the R8 have a different gear box?

[lengster1]

Good questions,Arthur..........

The only reason i can see for limiting the power/torque in the first three gears is to protect it from launches and abuse,or possible they couldnr get enough good cold airflow in until the car has good ramair effect at high speed?

Yes i can confirm the rs4 is restricted slightly in the first three gears and to my knowledge MRC are the only tuning company to remove this.

[gottanS]

The engine torque limiting will be to protect the drive train and give it a reasonable service life. If anyone remember the old metro turbo, the boost was modulated via the wastegate to limit the engine torque as the gearbox couldn't handle it for long. Soon as people started tuning them the gearboxes failed soon afterwards..

[lengster1]

Im not so sure of the reasons you can look at it in many different ways according to your own personal views i suppose, my gsxr 1000 was limited in the early gears purely to protect hamfisted muppets no other reason whatsoever.I can see good logic to not having good enough airflow until higher speed for the system to work given the ducting etc is compromised in its design due the engine bay being so full,i can also apply logic to it being there to protect the drivetrain but having not heard of any gearbox or diff failures in 5 years now im inclined to believe not but will have to wait and see

[Ice_Coffee]

In reality lengster I'm with mrc on this one (the car was limited for marketing purposes, so it was not as fast as an r8) . The point I was making (if I read it right) arthur is stating there is no limiter and that for scientific purposes it is entirely valid to not open the throttle the whole way.

The r8 must have a different gear box as it is mid engined, but if arthur is right and the throttle plate does not open the whole way for good reason, then surely the r8 should do it too.

[Shadow6ix]

It can't be a shortage of airflow, otherwise people with remaps would be having problems, it will simply be to give the drive train an easier time. Not sure what the weak link is on these cars, gearbox, diffs, drive shafts?

[Shadow6ix]

In reality lengster I'm with mrc on this one (the car was limited for marketing purposes, so it was not as fast as an r8) . The point I was making (if I read it right) arthur is stating there is no limiter and that for scientific purposes it is entirely valid to not open the throttle the whole way.

The r8 must have a different gear box as it is mid engined, but if arthur is right and it is limited for good reason, then surely the r8 should do it too.

I don't think the airflow thing is valid, MRC would be able to confirm if the remap adjusts throttle position, or something like fueling/timing.

[Ice_Coffee]

This is the second time I have heard of a manufacturer deliberately restricting airflow for marketing purposes. The Vauxhall 1.6 16v engine was designed by Cosworth, at the same time GM where designing the 1.8 16v engine in house, when Cosworth gave them back the engine it was 125 bhp, the same as the in house 1.8, GM then had to reduce the bore of the intake manifold on the 1.6 to restrict it so it would look right in the range.

[Shadow6ix]

I think I'm more inclined to believe the marketing thing than the physics of airflow in to the engine being the reason to limit throttle position.

[P_G]

Torque limiters would surely be there to protect the clutch, gearbox and transmission from agreesive launches as said, not for marketing purposes.

[Ice_Coffee]

I have pm'd doug @ mrc so hopefully he will get back to me.

[Shadow6ix]

Having said that regarding marketing, would it really be an issue for Audi if the RS4 had similar performance figures to the R8? They are very different cars for different areas of the market. It wouldn't make sense surely?

[Ice_Coffee]

Torque limiters would surely be there to protect the clutch, gearbox and transmission from agreesive launches as said, not for marketing purposes.

If that were true it would only be needed in 1st (like the old cavalier and calibra turbos used to do)

[P_G]

But on some circuit times the stock RS4 has been seen to be quicker than stock R8, particulalry in the wet. So I don't see what marketing ploy there would have been?

[Ice_Coffee]

The R8 is supposed to be a super car, despite the differing demographic it is not cool when it's common knowledge that a much cheaper estate in the same family can keep up with you.

Buyers are looking at the stats on paper R8 4.3 to 60 rs4 4.9/4.8 to 60 (you pay the extra for the exclusivity in performance)