B8 S4 - more than 333 stock hp

[SoCalS4Avant]

Autoblog Article. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/report-evidence-mounting-that-2010-audi-s4-is-underrated/) Thanks to the guys at APR!

Discuss.

[adbender]

Here is an E92 M3 stock dyno without and with an aftermarket exhaust.

an impressive comparison...you do the math!

http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/e92stockexhvseisemannrwc6.jpg

"The numbers achieved were very impressive indeed: the M3, equipped with the factory exhaust system, achieved 351 wheel horsepower, a very realistic number when considering the car’s 400 crank horsepower rating, and the repeated runs that corroborated this number. This M3, when tested with the Eisenmann system only an hour and a half later, produced 364hp at peak- a 13hp gain! Even more interestingly, 100rpm earlier, at 7900 RPM, the Eisenmann system produced 363hp, while the factory system only allowed the car to produce 348hp- a 15hp gain!"

[NWS4Guy]

Ugh, then the mud slinging and trash talk starts in the comments:

"what kind of dyno was used, that matters!!"

"Quote someone trustworthy not a tuner"

Makes me wish we could keep these things in the community who actually cares about it. Not to mention the headaches this will likely cause Keith, Arin and company. No on bothers to think what would APR gain from saying the car is stronger than Audi reports in stock form?

[SoCalS4Avant]

^ You've got that right. I cross posted this on the B6/B7 S4 chatterbox, and someone was complaining that APR probably fixed the numbers.

Geesh. How about being happy that our cars can perform out of the box pretty damn well, and be excited about what it can do with a little modification.

[NWS4Guy]

Sadly, I doubt that will happen very often, due to human nature [:|]

** edit - after reading your post over there, I had to comment on it :)

[SoCalS4Avant]

I'm glad you did. You made an excellent point.

+1 rep for you.

[Saracen]

The trolls can trash AB's %20 drivetrain loss estimation, but that's about it.

Either way, the S4 clearly puts down quite a bit more than the claimed 333hp. Even giving it a broad range of 360-400bhp means it is seriously good bang for the buck.

[Keith@APR]

^ You've got that right. I cross posted this on the B6/B7 S4 chatterbox, and someone was complaining that APR probably fixed the numbers.

Geesh. How about being happy that our cars can perform out of the box pretty damn well, and be excited about what it can do with a little modification.


Yup! We fixed the numbers because we are positive noone else in the world will ever dyno a stock S4.[headbang]

[04Ultrasprt]

Yup! We fixed the numbers because we are positive noone else in the world will ever dyno a stock S4.[headbang]

haha, anyone who thought this out would realize that it would only hurt you to inflate the numbers as your company profits by increasing those number through performance parts, and the lower it starts the more room you have to profit.

[SoCalS4Avant]

Yup! We fixed the numbers because we are positive noone else in the world will ever dyno a stock S4.[headbang]

Seriously! I love you guys, and no one can call me a homer for your products. I think you're doing great work - and I'd say that of a lot of your competitors as well. Keep it up.

What's the deal with the second thread on this topic! [>_<] I guess it's that important to discuss twice! [up]

[Keith@APR]

Seriously! I love you guys, and no one can call me a homer for your products. I think you're doing great work - and I'd say that of a lot of your competitors as well. Keep it up.

What's the deal with the second thread on this topic! [>_<] I guess it's that important to discuss twice! [up]

Thanks man!

Maybe Ant will merge them for us?

[L0U]

The sportec kit claims 430hp as well, but the acceleration times for 1/4 mile and 0 to 60 did not improve by much at all....nothing like mtms claims. There were actually questions raised as to why the sportec, putting out 430hp was so slow as compared to the mtm. This is more evidence of the stocker putting out 380ish hp and the 50 extra did less to improve the times. 13.2 is pretty consistant for the stock machine, which is fast for 3950lbs. A 100hp extra would be low 12's which we have not seen yet. I have yet to see sub 13 so far online.

[Arin@APR]

Why would we fix the stock numbers HIGH?

LOL!

[riegeraudi]

Because you guys are great guys and with only a 50hp boost the tune will go for $250.[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Keith@APR]

Because you guys are great guys and with only a 50hp boost the tune will go for $250.[:D][:D][:D][:D]


Thank you! That made me laugh. I needed that.

[NWS4Guy]

The sportec kit claims 430hp as well, but the acceleration times for 1/4 mile and 0 to 60 did not improve by much at all....nothing like mtms claims. There were actually questions raised as to why the sportec, putting out 430hp was so slow as compared to the mtm. This is more evidence of the stocker putting out 380ish hp and the 50 extra did less to improve the times. 13.2 is pretty consistant for the stock machine, which is fast for 3950lbs. A 100hp extra would be low 12's which we have not seen yet. I have yet to see sub 13 so far online.

Very good and valid point that lends further weight to the fact that the stock numbers are very underrated. If someone actually put in another 100HP (close to 25% HP increase) why the HELL would the 0-60 and 1/4 mile not increase a lot more?

[leviathan18]

i see no reason, why apr should lie about the stock power, when they tune the car and it makes the 430 MTM is making they still can market it as 100hp gain from the audi numbers.

Or they can show stock wheel HP as they did now and show the gain the reflash did which i guess its going to be near what MTM got from the S4.

thats why i love when companies show the before reflash and after reflash and you can see for yourself.

wish you luck guys this year at the koni challenge with the S4 and with the GTIs

hope to see soon some stage III B8 2.0tsi and some 1.8tsi love

[Arin@APR]

Here's another tid bit of info. The B8 A4 2.0T FSI quattro tiptronic put down very close to what Audi advertises at the crank, AT ALL 4 WHEELS. It only took us about a 10% drivetrain loss to get back to what audi rated. So when you look at our gains, they look small compared to what the european tuners are reporting. Funny thing is, many european tuners are simply quoting what they measured + their drivetrain loss guesses and laying it over top of audi's advertised numbers. Because if this, it makes it looks like they are making almost double what we and other US tuners are making.


Basically some tuners are over estimating crank gains on top of audi's underrated crank figures. Because of this, the power difference is falsely increased!

[Keith@APR]

stock weight is 3830 with half a tank of gas.

[sakimano]

13.2 is pretty consistant for the stock machine, which is fast for 3950lbs. A 100hp extra would be low 12's which we have not seen yet. I have yet to see sub 13 so far online.

ehh...not necessarily. 1/4 mile is a tough test for these AWD 3850 lb cars.

A B6/7 S4 is 340hp stock...and when supercharged produces about 500hp and 380-400whp. It will murder a Modena on the road, or any RS4/M3 etc...but in the 1/4 mile they struggle to get into the 12s (vs. 13.8 ish stock). Fighting an AWD launch bog and the inertia of 3850 lbs is difficult to say the least.

You can't hang your hat on the success or failure of a product/tune for these cars based on 1/4 mile times, as it's kind of a stacked deck against Audi. Nor can you assume big instant 1320 gains based on expected XX hp pickup. It's just not as simple.

[samtimtom]

This is making the new 3.0 TFSI A6 Avant look VERRRRY appealing.

[sakimano]

Yup! We fixed the numbers because we are positive noone else in the world will ever dyno a stock S4.[headbang]

I think your B8 A4 numbers dynoing way higher than factory claimed might contribute to that...i.e. has anyone else dyno'd the B8 A4 2.0T way over factory when counting a 20-22% drivetrain loss? Or was it just APR? And where is this magic dyno! [:D]

[Keith@APR]

I think your B8 A4 numbers dynoing way higher than factory claimed might contribute to that...i.e. has anyone else dyno'd the B8 A4 2.0T way over factory when counting a 20-22% drivetrain loss? Or was it just APR? And where is this magic dyno! [:D]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

[NWS4Guy]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

I think he is trying to say:


Since you also dyno'd an A4 which showed higher than what is expected for what Audi claims, coupled with the higher than expected run of the S4 - proves your Dyno is broken.

I don't agree with that statement, just trying to translate.

[Keith@APR]

I think he is trying to say:



I don't agree with that statement, just trying to translate.

What B8 A4 dyno of our's shows higher than Audi's claims?

[Arin@APR]

This is making the new 3.0 TFSI A6 Avant look VERRRRY appealing.

Very. It's fast right from the factory with loads of torque right off the line. :) [up]

[edit] I just noticed you said A6 and not S4... that being said, I've been behind the wheel of the new A6 3.0 TFSI and I have to say, for as big of a car as it is, it felt pretty good. :)

[L0U]

I think your B8 A4 numbers dynoing way higher than factory claimed might contribute to that...i.e. has anyone else dyno'd the B8 A4 2.0T way over factory when counting a 20-22% drivetrain loss? Or was it just APR? And where is this magic dyno! [:D]

well 100km is all I could take, it is broken in!....borrowed some test gear from the motor heads at opg.

g-tech pro is calling mine 317hp at 5500rpm at the wheel, so 130hp better than my A3 and the i-pod version is 313hp at 5500rpm. My car is tight, broken-in it will push 325, I didn't want to rev the new beast past 5500 with so little kms on it. My first tank is showing a stellar 12.8 mpg, but it is trending up! I'd put money on a mustang dyno pushing 305 on a car with 5000km on it. They are as conservative as it gets. My stiff o meter was showing 315hp on the sun dial. So it is settled.

the dynojet shows more hp than aprs numbers on the 2.0 litre.

[NWS4Guy]

What B8 A4 dyno of our's shows higher than Audi's claims?

This quote from Arin farther up this thread stating that you guys got roughly the same numbers are the wheels that Audi claimed from the crank on a B8 A4


Here's another tid bit of info. The B8 A4 2.0T FSI quattro tiptronic put down very close to what Audi advertises at the crank, AT ALL 4 WHEELS. It only took us about a 10% drivetrain loss to get back to what audi rated. So when you look at our gains, they look small compared to what the european tuners are reporting. Funny thing is, many european tuners are simply quoting what they measured + their drivetrain loss guesses and laying it over top of audi's advertised numbers. Because if this, it makes it looks like they are making almost double what we and other US tuners are making.


Basically some tuners are over estimating crank gains on top of audi's underrated crank figures. Because of this, the power difference is falsely increased!

[Arin@APR]

This quote from Arin farther up this thread stating that you guys got roughly the same numbers are the wheels that Audi claimed from the crank on a B8 A4

We did not get the same as what Audi rates at the crank with the A4. It was still over 20 hp less IIRC, but it didn't take 20-25% DTL to get back to their advertised numbers! That was the point of my post. From what we have seen, it appears these two engines have come from the factory with power claims undererated. Some tuners are taking these unerrated figures as fact when comparing their over estimated tuned crank figures. Doing so widens the gap for their supposed 'Gain'.

I hope by showing you SAE correced figures, Uncorrected figures and 6 run averages of each we can better paint a good and accurate picture of what you can really expect in terms of gains from this engine once it's safely tuned.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm sure Audi has to base their numbers on 91 octane in the US and our figures were met using 93 octane. I believe our A4 stock figures were also recorded in the winter months when the B8 A4's first started hitting the states. :)

[NWS4Guy]

I totally understand what you are saying Arin, I was just trying to reference why sakimano is saying he thinks your Dyno is off.

[Keith@APR]

I totally understand what you are saying Arin, I was just trying to reference why sakimano is saying he thinks your Dyno is off.

Arin should have quoted Sak. Thanks for helping us understand what he meant.

Arin was on a "wtf b8 a4 dyno graph internet assassination" mission for the last while since Sak posted that.[:D]

[Arin@APR]

Arin was on a "wtf b8 a4 dyno graph internet assassination" mission for the last while since Sak posted that.[:D]

I'll refrain from posting what I found... the universe may explode.

[NWS4Guy]

I'll refrain from posting what I found... the universe may explode.

LOL nice :) I get what you guys are saying and agree.

I think Sak saw "well you have 2 cars lately which are showing a lot more power at the wheels stock than what OEM claims, so it must be a bad Dyno."

I'm more of the persuasion of "let me see someone prove otherwise with a dyno of thier B8 S4. L0U up a few posts here in this thread (which might have been lost in all the chatter) said he took his and Dyno'd it in Canada somewhere and only brought it up to 5500RPM and it's showing 317 at the wheels before getting to peak HP range, not to mention it's not really loose yet :)

[Nvius]

LOL nice :) I get what you guys are saying and agree.

I think Sak saw "well you have 2 cars lately which are showing a lot more power at the wheels stock than what OEM claims, so it must be a bad Dyno."

I'm more of the persuasion of "let me see someone prove otherwise with a dyno of thier B8 S4. L0U up a few posts here in this thread (which might have been lost in all the chatter) said he took his and Dyno'd it in Canada somewhere and only brought it up to 5500RPM and it's showing 317 at the wheels before getting to peak HP range, not to mention it's not really loose yet :)

Nor did he list the octane. I'm hoping he used 91, which would make Lou's data seem consistent with APR's results. What's the highest octane you guys got up there anyway?

[L0U]

I borrowed one of these. They are actually a pretty nice unit if set up right. acceleration is measured via an accelerometer, and knowing the mass, I used 4000lbs, it can calculate hp/torque. It knows the rpm via the cigareet lighter voltage. Ipod has an application that uses its internal accelerometer to do pretty much the same thing.
I was on 91 shell premium gas. It is the business for hp gas in Canada.
http://www.gtechpro.com/ss.html#

[Nickyracer]

The maximum power of S4 B8 is 333 hp on 95 octane (sorry, US and European octane numbers are measured differently). But in Russia and Germany there's 98 octane available, "Premium SuperPlus". Guess, it's US's 91 and 93 respectively.
As I've known, filling a tank of 98 instead of 95 can provide a 5% gain. 333+5%=350 hp. MTM claims 430 hp ONLY for 98 octane. It means just 80 hp gain over stock power figures, which is also impressive, but not as much as nearly 100 hp.

By the way, everyone here have probably seen the famous video of MTM-chipped S4 S-tronic which beaten M3 E92 from 30 mph up to 160 mph.
One fellow in Russia raced his stock S4 S-tronic against M3 E92 with DKT transmission. When they started from 30 mph, M3 beaten him at 60 mph. When they started from complete stop, M3 beaten S4 at 110 mph - got away from S4 very fast (much faster at that speed he said).
It looks nothing like those video, where S4 dominates over M3 up to 160 mph (and they were racing roll-on from 30-40 mph, from a complete stop S4 would beat M3 even more).
What I mean - it merely looks that MTM's chip gives more than 50 hp - it's about 80-100 hp can make such an advantage before M3, not just lsmall amount 50 hp.

One more thing, is new A6's V6T, which is 290 hp, also underrated? I believe it's got the same engine as S4 B8, with slightly electronically decreased output in order not to compete with Audi's 4,2 V8.

[BLACKa4QUAT]

One more thing, is new A6's V6T, which is 290 hp, also underrated? I believe it's got the same engine as S4 B8, with slightly electronically decreased output in order not to compete with Audi's 4,2 V8.

i do believe the only difference between the b8 s4's supercharged v6 and the a6's is all in the software. so with a chip they'd have the same output

[vjma]

Very. It's fast right from the factory with loads of torque right off the line. :) [up]

[edit] I just noticed you said A6 and not S4... that being said, I've been behind the wheel of the new A6 3.0 TFSI and I have to say, for as big of a car as it is, it felt pretty good. :)

This was what I thought when I ordered my S4. They didn't have any test car so I asked for the A6 just to get a feel for the engine (I know it's tuned down). It's much better than what I expected and therefore I went ahead and ordered the S4

[Infra]

I think Sak saw "well you have 2 cars lately which are showing a lot more power at the wheels stock than what OEM claims, so it must be a bad Dyno."



This is a logical fallacy, namely affirming the consequent. P implies Q therefore Q implies P.

If your dyno is broken then your HP readings are high. Your horsepower readings are high, therefore your dyno is broken.

What is reasonable is to have doubt about it being 100% accurate, but if all the pre and post tuning is done on the same dyno, it doesn't matter if it was reading 100 HP stock. It would still be the same % gain - which, if I understand correctly, is APR's point of view.

[L0U]

This is a logical fallacy, namely affirming the consequent. P implies Q therefore Q implies P.

If your dyno is broken then your HP readings are high. Your horsepower readings are high, therefore your dyno is broken.

What is reasonable is to have doubt about it being 100% accurate, but if all the pre and post tuning is done on the same dyno, it doesn't matter if it was reading 100 HP stock. It would still be the same % gain - which, if I understand correctly, is APR's point of view.

And the same dyno showing a B7 s4 with 270 doesn't appear to be "reading high"

[NWS4Guy]

This was what I thought when I ordered my S4. They didn't have any test car so I asked for the A6 just to get a feel for the engine (I know it's tuned down). It's much better than what I expected and therefore I went ahead and ordered the S4

I don't think you will be disappointed at all :)

[sakimano]

LOL nice :) I get what you guys are saying and agree.

I think Sak saw "well you have 2 cars lately which are showing a lot more power at the wheels stock than what OEM claims, so it must be a bad Dyno."

I'm more of the persuasion of "let me see someone prove otherwise with a dyno of thier B8 S4. L0U up a few posts here in this thread (which might have been lost in all the chatter) said he took his and Dyno'd it in Canada somewhere and only brought it up to 5500RPM and it's showing 317 at the wheels before getting to peak HP range, not to mention it's not really loose yet :)

Lou...Infra...NWS4guy...stop speaking for Sak!

I think your B8 A4 numbers dynoing way higher than factory claimed might contribute to that...i.e. has anyone else dyno'd the B8 A4 2.0T way over factory when counting a 20-22% drivetrain loss? Or was it just APR? And where is this magic dyno! [:D]



I just meant that there is some confusion around since APR has found that Audi is seriously under-rating the A4 2.0T (based on the dyno thread for the 2.0T chip) and now again with the S4 3.0T (based on APR posts here). To that end there are 2 possibilities

1. APR's chosen dyno is very generous
2. Audi is under-rating the B8 cars.

My question for APR was has anyone else dyno'd the S4 3.0T and found the same INCREDIBLY under-rated numbers? Because that will determine if it is 1., 2. or a combination therein.

Still seems weird to me that Audi would put out an S4 for $46,900 that puts down the same power as the V10 powered $80-$100,000 S6 and S8...doesn't it? It's awesome...don't get me wrong! Makes me want to put in an order for a 2012 S5 Sportback 3.0T.

[Arin@APR]

What is reasonable is to have doubt about it being 100% accurate, but if all the pre and post tuning is done on the same dyno, it doesn't matter if it was reading 100 HP stock. It would still be the same % gain - which, if I understand correctly, is APR's point of view.

At the end of the day, internally the most important thing to us is to make sure the dyno is consistent. We need to ensure the changes we have made have safely and positively impacted power.


I just meant that there is some confusion around since APR has found that Audi is seriously under-rating the A4 2.0T

I respect your level of skepticism but please do not put words into my mouth. I'm not trying to be offensive by saying that either. I believe you have misread or misunderstood what I said. Now that being said I simply stated it took a very small drivetrain loss figure to calculate back from wheel figures we saw on our own dyno to audi's advertised figures. One must also keep in mind we used a higher grade fuel than audi recommends. This may have something to do with the power figures audi claims since they seem to have switched their nomenclature from "Requires 91" to "Recommends 91". Furthermore, the figures we have posted, to the wheels, are less than the figures obtained by another "Trusted" tuner in this industry and are close to that of another using a lower octane.

[F16HTON]

I think your B8 A4 numbers dynoing way higher than factory claimed might contribute to that...i.e. has anyone else dyno'd the B8 A4 2.0T way over factory when counting a 20-22% drivetrain loss? Or was it just APR? And where is this magic dyno! [:D]

Yes, David Sarabi from Eurocode, took his B8 A4 2.0TSI straight to the dyno right after buying the car. The dyno was fully independent of any chip tuner, however David does own Eurocode which is an APR/REVO/Neuspeed/ASP dealer.

Here are the results from a 100% bone stock dyno that was overlaid with APR programming.

Audi rates the A4 2.0TSI at 211BHP, on California 91 octane fuel, right after delivery, the car put down 182AWHP on a dynojet. Audi calims this motor to put out 211BHP. Mathematics show that the drivetrain loss to be right at 14%, which is just not possible, the Quattro drivetrain has consitently been shown and has a general acceptance of a 22-25% DT loss when dyno'd on a DynoJet dyno.

If you do the convertback from the WHP number using the generally accepted 22%, then the A4 in therory is putting down closer to 233BHP.

Since I have been involved in tuning, driving and racing Audis for the last 8 years, I am comfortable saying that the A4 is underrated from the factory.

Here is a magic dyno for you.

http://www.ecodetuning.com/gallery/B8TSIAPR/reduced/P%205.0.jpg

Because of the way APR does things (they make a pretty dynograph, with the average of six pulls, converted to BHP) they become a target for people to try to discredit their work. To the best of my knowledge, APR has the highest integrity when it comes to reporting numbers and typically their converted BHP numbers are lower than what I have seen their customers cars put out.

I am on no way affiliated with anything APR, I have never purchased anything from them, nor do I have a single APR part on any of my cars.

[notjoefromnh]

This brings me back to my original post when I first picked up my car when I said it felt as quick as an RS4..

It's all starting to make sense now.. Alike BMW they might have under rated it so they would not destroy remaining RS4, 2009 S4 and S5 sales...

I wonder if we might see a "revamp" alike what the 1.8t saw. Instead of changing software though they would just release new numbers. [evilsmile]

[JRMSLINEA4]

APR any evidence that the FSI's 2.0T's are underrated?

[F16HTON]

APR any evidence that the FSI's 2.0T's are underrated?

Dynojet dyno of the B7 2.0T FSI by EuroCode netted 183 to the wheels (on 91). According to Audi's claims of 200BHP, they are underrated the about the same as the S4 (underrated 12-15% or so)

[LODOSS]

If this is all true then it might just persuade me to get get a S4 over a RS4.

I am curious though because on the APR website everything is shown in fwp.. why are we seeing graphs now @wheel?

If the B8 s4 is making ~ same hp as a B7 RS4 then should'nt we have heard or seen more review in the high 12s like the RS4 was able to achieve?

ARP, what is the highest Dyno number you guys seen with an RS4 on the same dyno?

[Arin@APR]

I am curious though because on the APR website everything is shown in fwp.. why are we seeing graphs now @wheel?

Well, quite simply it's time for these boards to get a bit more technical again. I figured everyone would appreciate us sharing the information we've logged thus far. Plus you can use this information to fuel your heated battles with BMW owners. [wrench][:D]

So we basically have all of the following:

6 Dyno Pulls

Uncorrected all wheel power
SAE Corrected all wheel power

Uncorrected average of all 6 runs at the wheels
SAE Corrected average of all 6 runs at the wheels

Direct Dyno 'SAE' conversions don't really apply to forced induction models but since there's no real standard everyone goes by I figured, 'What the heck' and gave you all the information anyways. Some people show it on, some show it off... I rather just give you both so you can make up your mind on your own.

Basically everyone wanted to know what a B8 S4 put down so we decided to show you what we we were seeing. :)


Oh, we also have drift box testing showing dyno figures all around the same as what we put down, and 0-60 times showing an average of low 5's on all OEM equipment with the best time being in the 4's. Hopefully over the next few weeks we can collect more data to share with everyone.

[sakimano]

omg...Greg...be less dramatic

I'm not questioning APR. Nobody is. I like APR a lot...they're quick with a response/PM/help etc. I'm going to buy their tune for my B8 Avant...and I've referred about 5 B8 owners to their products in the past 6 months. I'm just saying that it would be nice to see if the APR dyno is a bit generous, or if it is indeed the case that the drivetrain loss is now, as a standard, way less than previous TorSen Quattro powered cars...or if Audi is understating the power. NOWHERE did I question APR. They have nothing to gain by overstating a baseline...only a retard would do that (they are brilliant, not retarded)...and only retard would accuse them of that (I am not retarded)...and only a retard would defend their honour against such a claim, when that claim that was never made (?).

Why can't everyone just focus on the facts without creating an e-argument. It would be nice to validate the data and figure out which variable is causing the shocking numbers...is it

a) lower drivetrain loss on the new cars
b) Audi's understated power numbers
c) APR's dyno reading a bit high

[F16HTON]

I would venture to say B. My reasoning behind this is purely historical. I have never seen a FWD/RWD car show less than a 13% DTWL, my deductive reasoning tells me that turning the center and rear diff is going to consume power.

Up until APR posted their baseline graph, we have yet to see one from any other tuner that has a dyno...

[NWS4Guy]

Speculation about drivetrain loss is moot right now. Until we get the same car on a wheel dyno, then pull that same engine, it will still be speculation. I suppose we could make due with a different engine dyno, but keeping same to same is best. As more dyno numbers come out, we'll see and know more.

Over on Quattroworld, is a guy in Stamford, CT offering a freee run to get to see what the B8 S4 looks like - so we'll see something else soon I bet.

[JRMSLINEA4]

Dynojet dyno of the B7 2.0T FSI by EuroCode netted 183 to the wheels (on 91). According to Audi's claims of 200BHP, they are underrated the about the same as the S4 (underrated 12-15% or so)Thanks.

[switchface]

Didn't APR mention they had a RS4 on the same dyno a week or so earlier and it put down X numbers (providing a reference point, proving its not 'broken').

Sheesh, you'd think people would appreciate a tuner giving us some insight like this, rather than jumping down their throats.

I remember AWE put out a video about the research/build process of their downpipes (for the S5?), where they mentioned that after all of their testing they didn't find any substantial gains. They could easily not release that data and still blindly push their product, but they decided to share.

I for one appreciate the input APR (and AWE in the above example) lend to our community.

[riegeraudi]

Speculation about drivetrain loss is moot right now. Until we get the same car on a wheel dyno, then pull that same engine, it will still be speculation. I suppose we could make due with a different engine dyno, but keeping same to same is best. As more dyno numbers come out, we'll see and know more.

Over on Quattroworld, is a guy in Stamford, CT offering a freee run to get to see what the B8 S4 looks like - so we'll see something else soon I bet.

Question is why aren't you guys trusting APR numbers? They definitely have nothing to gain from posting high numbers. Give me one good reason for them to post higher numbers.

[L0U]

Question is why aren't you guys trusting APR numbers? They definitely have nothing to gain from posting high numbers. Give me one good reason for them to post higher numbers.

The current, or soon to be b8 S4 owners all believe....it is the ones that own the competition that really are having trouble choking this dyno run down. I am gonna source some t-shirts, might modify them a bit.

http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/e07dfdac4d57ab40b7553029c5cab2a8_image_210x210.jpg

[NWS4Guy]

Question is why aren't you guys trusting APR numbers? They definitely have nothing to gain from posting high numbers. Give me one good reason for them to post higher numbers.

Not sure if quoting me because I was last to post about it or what, but I believe them :)

[GTIBONO]

i thought the new s4 would be alot lighter than the b7 but its way heavier.... how did that work?

[NWS4Guy]

i thought the new s4 would be alot lighter than the b7 but its way heavier.... how did that work?

The car is a lot bigger now, much more room, and that takes weight.

[F16HTON]

Speculation about drivetrain loss is moot right now. Until we get the same car on a wheel dyno, then pull that same engine, it will still be speculation. I suppose we could make due with a different engine dyno, but keeping same to same is best. As more dyno numbers come out, we'll see and know more.

Over on Quattroworld, is a guy in Stamford, CT offering a freee run to get to see what the B8 S4 looks like - so we'll see something else soon I bet.

You will never get the engine on a dyno, even if you do it will not be a representation of how the motor actually operates in the vehicle...there are so many different load based maps thae ECU calls up, power output is constantly varying.

I think the selling factor for ECU calibrations will be the overall quality of driving experience along with the performance increase of the vehicle on the road.

[NWS4Guy]

Agreed, but for the purpose of a baseline, it would show torque and HP numbers at the crank for certain. No one is saying it would be at all representative of how it performs connected to the powertrain.

[L0U]

power to the road is all that matters. too many things can happen from crank to road. If everyone just used numbers that although lower, were at the road, it would be much easier to compare a awd to a rwd. having to account for drivetrain lose stinks. 300 to the road is good, 350 chipped would be a quick machine.

[Nickyracer]

One fellow here in Russia raced his S4 B8 S-tronic versus 360-hp AWD Alpina B3. To 200 kmh (125 mph) S4 were behind by 15-20 feet.
Alpina is a bit lighter, yes, but it seems it's significantly faster even with conventional auto tranny.

[riegeraudi]

Well the B3 only weighs 3460lbs which is about 500lbs lighter than the S4 and also has more hp so looking at those numbers 15ft is not a lot with those numbers. That is about one-one and a half car lengths.

[sakimano]

Sheesh, you'd think people would appreciate a tuner giving us some insight like this, rather than jumping down their throats.



Question is why aren't you guys trusting APR numbers? They definitely have nothing to gain from posting high numbers. Give me one good reason for them to post higher numbers.


it is the ones that own the competition that really are having trouble choking this dyno run down.

reading > all three of you.

Re-read the thread. Nobody is questioning APR...EVERYONE is questioning Audi, or the dyno machine...but nobody is questioning APR. You're smart guys...two of you just bought $50,000 cars. RTFS![:D]

[NWS4Guy]

One fellow here in Russia raced his S4 B8 S-tronic versus 360-hp AWD Alpina B3. To 200 kmh (125 mph) S4 were behind by 15-20 feet.
Alpina is a bit lighter, yes, but it seems it's significantly faster even with conventional auto tranny.

The Alpina is also a coupe for one. It supposedly hits 0-100km/h in ~4.9, and is significantly lighter - under 3200 lbs - more than just a bit I would say.

[jimmyrecluse]

Might have been asked, and im in no way claiming APR is "lying" because why would they do that? To get people to buy more Audi's so they can tune with APR? ya right.

But... If the stock HP is around 400, then how is MTM charging so much for a 30hp gain with their module? And why werent they able to get at least 475?

[S4-Tommy]

Sorry guys, but I do not think that the stock S4s have a lot more than 333 hp. Rumours say that there exists a so called over boost with arund 350-360 hp. But this has never been confirmed by official Audi. 400 hp on stock S4? Never ever...!

[sakimano]

interestingly Porsche will be using this engine in the Panamera Hybrid...tuned to produce about 370hp on its own + whatever the hybrid motor adds.

[AeroSmith]

Could this issue be impacting Audi's stated numbers?


http://www.worldcarfans.com/109103022769/porsche-norway-detunes-the-boxster-and-cayman-for-reduced

[L0U]

Could this issue be impacting Audi's stated numbers?


http://www.worldcarfans.com/109103022769/porsche-norway-detunes-the-boxster-and-cayman-for-reduced

nice find.....appears the game is being played all over. nissan gtr is in the same boat.

ducati actually did the reverse. /They allways measured wheel hp and after years of being called underpowered, they increased the hp rating on all the bikes by 15%, but didn't change the engines at all. My supersport 1000ds went from 85hp(wheel) in 2004, to 95hp(crank) in 2005...zero changes. Looked better stacked uop against the rest of the manufacturers though. ducati doesn't say where they measure though, it is just higher now.

[sakimano]

Could this issue be impacting Audi's stated numbers?


http://www.worldcarfans.com/109103022769/porsche-norway-detunes-the-boxster-and-cayman-for-reduced

that's hilarious. For those who didn't read, Porsche Norway is stating that the Boxster and the Coxster are putting down 211hp, even though they're actually being shipped with the normal 255hp and 265hp. This is to save a few tax dollars that the Norwegian gov't loves to slap on high hp cars.

Of course Porsche isn't doing this around the world...and nor should Audi be.

[switchface]

reading > all three of you.

Re-read the thread. Nobody is questioning APR...EVERYONE is questioning Audi, or the dyno machine...but nobody is questioning APR. You're smart guys...two of you just bought $50,000 cars. RTFS![:D]

Relax. Re-read my post. I never said anyone specifically in this thread was attacking APR. As NWS4Guy joked and SoCalS4Avant referenced in the first few posts of this thread, people (in other threads and on other forums) are questioning APR. I think I even referenced a post from a 6speed thread when I mentioned the rs4 dyno.

[LODOSS]

hmm.. I don't understand why someone can't just go and get a dyno run so we can be done with all of these posts. Car has been out for a while now.

[Nickyracer]

Check out the nearest thread about Stratmosphere's new intake - there's a quote to the dyno graph of a stock S4 B8 - less than 290 HP. Mustang dyno.

[- Jeremy -]

Ugh! Seriously? I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this and/or the MTM numbers...

I'll try and make this simple:

APR puts the car on the dyno BEFORE tuning. It reads ~330 HP at the WHEELS. End of story.

MTM puts the car on the dyno AFTER tuning. They probably come up with around 350 HP or so at the WHEELS. Then they just assume some arbitrary value for drivetrain loss - probably 23% or so. They come up with 430 HP at the CRANK.

So now they have a choice: They can either post a claim of 350 HP (at the WHEELS) or 430 HP (at the CRANK). They obviously choose 430 HP and here we are now.

Now, everyone (before APR came along) assumes that Audi's claim of 333 HP is a crank measurement. This makes MTM look good, because they play on this assumption and make it look like you're gaining 97 HP at the crank. In reality, you're not. Based on APR's measurement of ~330 AWHP, you could magically calculate a value of 406 HP at the crank. This means MTM's tune might only give you around 30 HP, which I think is more realistic.

Here's the way I see it: Perhaps 330 AWHP is a bit optimistic. I think it's safer to say around 300 AWHP on 93 octane. That's about 370 crank HP. That leaves about a 50 HP increase for MTM. That seems more resonable, but not as easy to sell for 2500 dollars/euros. Instead, they post a "100 HP gain" and sell that sucker for a ton of cash. Germans are smart people ;)

Keep in mind that any "crank" numbers are total BS because no one really knows what the drivetrain loss is. IMO, all dyno numbers or power claims ever posted should be wheel HP and nothing more.

- Jeremy -

[NWS4Guy]

Ugh! Seriously? I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this and/or the MTM numbers...

I'll try and make this simple:

APR puts the car on the dyno BEFORE tuning. It reads ~330 HP at the WHEELS. End of story.

MTM puts the car on the dyno AFTER tuning. They probably come up with around 350 HP or so at the WHEELS. Then they just assume some arbitrary value for drivetrain loss - probably 23% or so. They come up with 430 HP at the CRANK.

So now they have a choice: They can either post a claim of 350 HP (at the WHEELS) or 430 HP (at the CRANK). They obviously choose 430 HP and here we are now.

Now, everyone (before APR came along) assumes that Audi's claim of 333 HP is a crank measurement. This makes MTM look good, because they play on this assumption and make it look like you're gaining 97 HP at the crank. In reality, you're not. Based on APR's measurement of ~330 AWHP, you could magically calculate a value of 406 HP at the crank. This means MTM's tune might only give you around 30 HP, which I think is more realistic.

Here's the way I see it: Perhaps 330 AWHP is a bit optimistic. I think it's safer to say around 300 AWHP on 93 octane. That's about 370 crank HP. That leaves about a 50 HP increase for MTM. That seems more resonable, but not as easy to sell for 2500 dollars/euros. Instead, they post a "100 HP gain" and sell that sucker for a ton of cash. Germans are smart people ;)

Keep in mind that any "crank" numbers are total BS because no one really knows what the drivetrain loss is. IMO, all dyno numbers or power claims ever posted should be wheel HP and nothing more.

- Jeremy -

Jeremy has a really good (and obvious) point I should have thought of myself.

Nothing anywhere states that what Audi was claiming was at the crank, it's just assumed so. Perhaps due to marketing, insurance, taxes, or whatever we are not aware of, they are giving WHP.

[Arin@APR]

hmm.. I don't understand why someone can't just go and get a dyno run so we can be done with all of these posts. Car has been out for a while now.

Isn't that what we did? [:D]

[L0U]

mtm should have posted more than just a 0-60 time and a hp output. Where is the hard data. Show me a before and after chart mtm....show me some data on the cars performance before and after. The clip of a mtm s4 vs. a m3 without any explaination is weak.

I can't believe a company can ask for 4 grand for a product, yet have so little data for us. As it goes....no news is usually bad news. If the car is strong, and their 4k tune did very little to make it better...find a shady way to market it. Anyone buy one yet...didn't think so. So far the apr numbers are the only ones that have been explained/discused so far...they are the numbers that are more defendable. At least we have a 6 run average curve on paper, not a hand drawn comic strip like the sportec chart. The rest need to get with it, and show the customers some real data/curves.

Also, there is no way on this car, with its ecu system, a cold air intake made 10hp.......no way. This car can not be fooled into making more boost via a better flowing filter, unlike some older turboed cars. So the curve from strat is suspect in my opinion. Its a noise maker.

[Audi Skate Snow]

Isn't that what we did? [:D]

ahahah seriously.

[NWS4Guy]

I'll also add that the Eaton SC does not supply 100% of the boost it generates to the engine, so there is absolutely a way to close off the blow by valve which internally recirculates the compressed air which is not put to the engine, then likewise adjust all other aspects like valve timing, A/F ratios, etc to compensate for this and get more power without anything more than just computer code changes.

Whether or not the engine will suffer from this extra boost remains unproven.

[Nickyracer]

It's absolutely correct that s/c pumps more air than engine requires - and Audi's 3.0T is no exception. And that is surely the main source of MTM, Abt and Sportec claims for the extensive gains with their signal-conditioning electronic blocks, as closing the bypass valve creates more boost. Other sources are more agressive ignition timing, more fuel etc...
I doubt any tuning company in the world will offer much more gains from the chip than those three German tuners did, without lacking for reliability. But to thios moment there's no first-hand knowledge from the real S4 B8 owners about gains, neither through compared dyno graphs "before and after" nor simply subjective opinions about how far acceleration was improved. Strange thing - hasn't anyone in the whole world already chipped his S4 B8? - there's hundreds of them sold already.

Yes, Sportec and Abt graphs don't look dyno-authentic. But, to my mind, Stratmosphere's graph do. And it shows below 290 WHP. 285+23%=350 WHP. Looks much more real, IMO.
And just tiny 8 HP gains from Strat's intake looks real to me. Ain't worth buying at that price, IMO, but gains look real.

[jimmyrecluse]

Ya, It really unlikely the car is really making 400chp. If Audi says 333, its most likley 350 - 370 max based on what previous cars seem to average.

but whos dyno is right? Fact seems to be that we take our cars to a dyno before and after and the delta is your results, for your car. And we have a baddasss machine.

[LODOSS]

Isn't that what we did? [:D]

You as a tuner should know that a cars output can't be justified by only 1 dyno source.

I can run my 335i on the dyno and say that’s a S4 dyno. Is everyone suppose to rely on my one dyno to conclude the cars output?

At the very least, show a dyno of a car with known dyno numbers on the same day to provide some relationship.

If we all believe that the B8 A4 and the S4 are underrated and then dyno both and find them both to be underrated, that tells you really nothing unless you have something to compare it with.

[Arin@APR]

You as a tuner should know that a cars output can't be justified by only 1 dyno source.


I do!



I can run my 335i on the dyno and say that’s a S4 dyno. Is everyone suppose to rely on my one dyno to conclude the cars output?


Nope!



At the very least, show a dyno of a car with known dyno numbers on the same day to provide some relationship.


Go for it!



If we all believe that the B8 A4 and the S4 are underrated and then dyno both and find them both to be underrated, that tells you really nothing unless you have something to compare it with.

Awesome!

[Arin@APR]

Fact seems to be that we take our cars to a dyno before and after and the delta is your results, for your car. And we have a baddasss machine.

Exactly!

Considering some peoples dyno setups are horrible I wouldn't put much faith into many results I see flying around. Some dynos only have little fans on the front that get no where NEAR representing the airflow, engine bay temps, ambient temps, incoming air temps, coolant temps, etc. All that makes a HUGE impact on the outcome of the run as the software is able to compensate and change for these negative conditions.

[L0U]

yeah, cool that intercooler for the supercharge.

[jdorpaudi]

yeah, cool that intercooler for the supercharge.

in a previous post you said that a cold air intake wouldn't gain 10 hp.
cooler air in =more horsepower. so cooling the intercooler is obviously better, so cooler air coming in the intake entering the intercooler, wouldnt that be better too?
ever drive your car in the perfect temperature, where you can still hook up, but nice and cool for your intake air temps? car is definatly faster!

[L0U]

The stock filter does a great job of cooling the air. I was assuming the open filter would be the same for temperature. Mostly the filter reduces the delta p (pressure), so more air flows due to less resistance to flow. but if you have forced induction that works to a predefined presure, the front end won't matter since the bypass will just change position and negate the extra air from the free flowing filter, as it works to the same setpoint for boost.

Unless you tap out the blower, and none is bypassing, then the benifits to a reduced delta presure could be used to exceed the stock arangements max boost pressure.(the higher the suction pressure, the higher the discharge pressure. Or in this case the less negative pressure on the front side...which is the higher pressure)

after compression, there is a lot of heat added to the charge, so cooling the air with the intercooler is good for hp. hot air at 14psi has less oxygen (air air) than cool air at 14psi. just from density diferences, meaning more dense air.

On a set of rollers, without real speed air like driving conditions, it is really easy to rig the numbers to show gains on a filter upgrade. Just raising the hood vs. closed can make 5 more hp on the dyno.

If the cold air intake does reduce the air temperature, then i agree that the numbers would show gains....I just don't think the temps are any better though. rtds could measure temps pre blower and be usefull, or damming data.

Its a noise maker for 90% of its function.

[leviathan18]

The stock filter does a great job of cooling the air. I was assuming the open filter would be the same for temperature. Mostly the filter reduces the delta p (pressure), so more air flows due to less resistance to flow. but if you have forced induction that works to a predefined presure, the front end won't matter since the bypass will just change position and negate the extra air from the free flowing filter, as it works to the same setpoint for boost.

Unless you tap out the blower, and none is bypassing, then the benifits to a reduced delta presure could be used to exceed the stock arangements max boost pressure.(the higher the suction pressure, the higher the discharge pressure. Or in this case the less negative pressure on the front side...which is the higher pressure)

after compression, there is a lot of heat added to the charge, so cooling the air with the intercooler is good for hp. hot air at 14psi has less oxygen (air air) than cool air at 14psi. just from density diferences, meaning more dense air.

On a set of rollers, without real speed air like driving conditions, it is really easy to rig the numbers to show gains on a filter upgrade. Just raising the hood vs. closed can make 5 more hp on the dyno.

If the cold air intake does reduce the air temperature, then i agree that the numbers would show gains....I just don't think the temps are any better though. rtds could measure temps pre blower and be usefull, or damming data.

Its a noise maker for 90% of its function.

FOS are that Noise makers, you will probably get a little bit colder air for what heating it in the supercharger, what everyone with a turbo car needs to get is a better intercooler there is the gain.

so what arin says is right ambien temps, blower in front of the car and all that stuff is very important, the dyno at APR is SICK (from the pics, i wish i could go some day over there) lets wait for more people to dyno the S4.

[MartinH]

OK, Here's some more fuel for the fire...

I coughed up the $13 for the iPhone Dynolicious application - its had pretty good reviews comparing it to dedicated hardware like the G-Tech Pro SS, so it seemed like a fun thing to try.

Did a couple of runs in my 7AT S4 (Prestige, Drive Select). These were not what I would consider optimal - the road was not completely level for the entire run for example. I was also being mechanically sympathetic and so simply floored the gas without holding the car on the brake. Dynamic mode selected, ESP on (default). Gas tank was less than a quarter full, 66 degree F ambient, less than 100 feet above sea level. Car had 3775 miles on it at the time of the tests.

I told the App that the car weighs 4150 pounds with me installed, and Drivetrain loss was 25%, which seems like a conservatively realistic number.

Best run came back at

0-60 in 5.22sec
peak horsepower (adjusted for 25% DT loss) 340BHP
max acceleration 0.8G

http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/S4_dyno1.jpg

The other run was

0-60 in 5.34sec
peak horsepower 338BHP
max acceleration 0.8G

Give a completely flat road and better fuel (I'd had to fill up at a "76" [91 octane], but prefer Shell), and a little less mechanical sympathy I'm sure a sub 5 second run would be possible.

Before doing these tests I could have sworn my S4 was running mid 4's 0-60...

Bottom line for me is that these numbers would suggest Audi's stated performance figures are pretty close for my car.

Of course, YMMV!

[L0U]

my S4 on the scales was 1940kgs with me in it and 3/4 tank of gas. I think your weight figure is 100 lbs low. The light weight figures given by audi is dry. the 7 speed with diff is more like 4100lbs with a full tank. that would push your numbers higher.

I think the drivetrain loss is less than 25%. maybe 20.

[MartinH]

Thanks Lou - I'll find time to do some more runs hopefully this week and report back with updated numbers. Note that the fuel tank was pretty empty - I filled up immediately after testing and got 13.5 US Gallons in, so based on the stated capacity there was less than 3.5 gallons on-board.

If Drivetrain loss is 20% then the calculated crank horsepower from dynolicious is going to go down... although increasing the weight of the car slightly will partially compensate for this.

[LODOSS]

The Dyno that GIAC just put up for the B8 A4 chip seems fairly in line with audis number.

[JRMSLINEA4]

More people need to dyno there S4's to see if they all make 330whp or so or if APR got a "ringer".

[Arin@APR]

More people need to dyno there S4's to see if they all make 330whp or so or if APR got a "ringer".

The only way to tell if we got a "Ringer" is for us to dyno multiple S4's in our own shop. We have two here, but one already has several components, such as AC, removed.

Also, these puppies get hot pretty quickly. I hope everyone out there dynoing takes the proper measures to ensure they are cooling the vehicle on the dyno just as well as it's being cooled on the street. Not doing so will significantly alter the base calibration. No 'SAE' dyno corrections can properly assume what the vehicle would have made in ideal conditions since the actual calibration is changing or compensating for worse conditions.

Dinan had a nice writeup on this. I suggest anyone looking to plunk down a few bucks to dyno would like to read up on this first:
http://www.dinancars.com/bmw/technial-info/dynamometer-testing-and-the-modern-bmw-engine

BTW, they use the same dyno as us.

[s-4man]

More people need to dyno there S4's to see if they all make 330whp or so or if APR got a "ringer".


This s4 runs 0-60 in 4.6 and 13.2@106! wich is good for 400 crank hp
(3900lbs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uULudWLWFP0&feature=PlayList&p=D799A3F36559C3B9&index=0&playnext=1

[L0U]

exactly. (and the car was more with a driver in it and gas) You can't accelerate 4200lbs through a quarter mile in 13.2 seconds on 333 crank HP, it would defy physics.

[sakimano]

Isn't that what we did? [:D]

you don't count...he meant a person, not a company selling stuff.

Just a member...ANY member!

[MartinH]

The Edmunds test quoted 4.9 sec for a standing 0-60MPH, which matches what Audi is quoting. The 4.6 sec was with "roll-out" as part of their quarter mile test and is not a true 0-60 time. For more info on this checkout http://www.insideline.com/features/how-we-test-cars-and-trucks.html and skip down to the section entitled "A Few Words About Roll-Out"

[sakimano]

so...was I right? This leads me to believe the dyno APR used was indeeed reading high.


So we finally got enough miles to do some pulls on the dyno and our initial impressions of the power have been verified with numbers. With an extremely flat torque curve the car RAN BACK TO BACK RUNS OF 285 WHP and 280 WTQ on our states 92 octane.

http://www.addictmotorsport.com/b8_s4_baseline_print.jpg

The factory tune looks good really as the fuel curve is sitting right around 13:1 AFR for peak power. The BOOST IS STABLE AT JUST UNDER 10 PSI, and the total timing curve climbs nearly linear at WOT with RPM.

http://www.addictmotorsport.com/B8_S4_4th_Gear_Dyno_Log.jpg

We also wanted to put the car on the scales to establish the total vehicle weight with our configuration of no Prestige Package, 18" wheels, Stereo Upgrade, and Sport Diff. We found the not only has the front/rear bias improved over previous Audi models as expected, the left/right balance was close in the front and rear. The car had about 3/4 tank of fuel. Unfortunately it's heavy... =(

http://www.addictmotorsport.com/B8_S4_corner_weight.jpg

http://www.addictmotorsport.com/B8_S4_curb_weight.jpg

[riegeraudi]

No your not necessarily correct, because APR's car was putting out more boost than this car actually. It was putting out 4psi more. So APR's car could have put out more hp and not just the dyno reading out more. It could also be that this car wasn't getting enough ventilation as APR did mention that this engine gets fairly hot and must have enough ventilation or the boost will be dialed back.
We need more cars to see what it really is putting out.

[sakimano]

how about this

here's another one from Stratmosphere...

http://www.stratmosphere.com/hyperflow_b8s4_dyno_800.jpg

[sakimano]

No your not necessarily correct, because APR's car was putting out more boost than this car actually. It was putting out 4psi more. So APR's car could have put out more hp and not just the dyno reading out more. It could also be that this car wasn't getting enough ventilation as APR did mention that this engine gets fairly hot and must have enough ventilation or the boost will be dialed back.
We need more cars to see what it really is putting out.

why would APR's car be putting out more boost? They're both stock!

[riegeraudi]

why would APR's car be putting out more boost? They're both stock!

Proper Ventilation? I think keith even mentioned they went to another shop and that dyno even posted the same numbers so I think for some reason or another his car just had more boost from the factory. Hence it wasn't their dyno providing higher numbers just his car possibly.

Really does it matter what the stock HP is? I was just thinking about this and if you go with GIAC, APR, MTM REVO,ABT, etc. They all are going to be putting out roughly the same HP (430-450) at the end of the day if you chip. It will be a matter of pricing and warranty from where I stand.

[sakimano]

Proper Ventilation?

Really does it matter what the stock HP is? I was just thinking about this and if you go with GIAC, APR, MTM REVO,ABT, etc. They all are going to be putting out roughly the same HP (430-450) at the end of the day if you chip. It will be a matter of pricing and warranty from where I stand.

Yeah, it sure does. The whole APR dyno firestorm earned them tons of press in the automotive world. It also put lots of eyes on Audi and the S4 as people wondered what the heck was going on.

Don't forget that some 95% of the S4s that get sold around the world won't have an ECU mod done to them, so in fact the stock hp/torque info does matter...overwhelmingly. APR's dyno suggests that the car comes stock with 410 hp. That's just not the case if we have a look at these two other dynos, and Audi's factory claims.

[riegeraudi]

But really why would they do that. Then the chip that they put out would look really expensive for what 30-50hp instead of the 100hp that most customers think they would have been getting if APR said the S4 was only putting out 330. Logically doesn't make sense at all. And selling more S4 is not possible when Audi is limiting supply only to 3000 for North America. Doesn;t benefit APR all that much if they do sell more because more sales goes to Audi. Like you say only 5% chip so what APR gets 10 more chip sales.
Really I don't get why you can't just believe keiths numbers since it really doesn't benefit him at all. And that it is what it is. Maybe some other cars are just putting out different numbers. Look at the 335i not everyone of those where putting out the same numbers.
Have you also considered that mustang dyno's are also traditionally lower compared to other dyno's.
I am not saying that all S4's put out 400hp but you don't think APR's number is possible but I beg to differ. Sorry your logic in regards to APR fixing their numbers to get more sales doesn't make sense.

[sakimano]

THE DYNO IS READING HIGH!!!! Why are you such an APR fanboy? I'm not saying I don't believe keith. I'm saying the dyno run is NOT representative of a stock Audi...its OFF!!!!!!. Something aint right. Sure you can say "only the delta matters" but if you dyno a car then post on every audi forum on earth that the car is underrated by about 100hp you'd better explain it. For some reason they didn't want to even though people asked them about 20 times....but they sure enjoyed the attention.


What's so hard to understand? If the dyno is reading high, their chipped run will also read high. Holy crap...its so
simple.

[blu04srt4]

THE DYNO IS READING HIGH!!!! Why are you such an APR fanboy? I'm not saying I don't believe keith. I'm saying the dyno run is NOT representative of a stock Audi...its OFF!!!!!!. Something aint right. Sure you can say "only the delta matters" but if you dyno a car then post on every audi forum on earth that the car is underrated by about 100hp you'd better explain it. For some reason they didn't want to even though people asked them about 20 times....but they sure enjoyed the attention.


What's so hard to understand? If the dyno is reading high, their chipped run will also read high. Holy crap...its so
simple.

Damn, someone finally said it!! The thought of a tuner just so happened to get a factory freak and dynoing high is unlikely. However, that tuner could have a dyno that is off.

[L0U]

If apr dynoed the same car with all their cooling fans off....it would read much lower too. Real world conditions have air flow though. (helps the intake charge temperatures)
The other factor is the mustangs allways read lower than the rest. Maybe audi used a mustang. The Delta will tell all in the end. Hp shouldn't sell cars anyway...it can be a lie, but everyone getting sub 5 second 0-60s in a car that is 4250 pounds nearly with a driver....speaks worlds of just how much power is really needed. The slightly slower 335 is 450 lbs less weight...and has less drivetrain lose. That comparison makes it a no brainer. I could give a toss if the car has whatever power stock, or that it is heavy....if it is beating the benchmark 335 in acceleration, and lap times, and gas mileage. If it is faster...bigger is better for real life useage eh, at no real expense for its performance vs. the competition.

[JRMSLINEA4]

I agree that APR's car should not have been making 4psi of boost over other cars if it was stock. 1-2 pounds I could see but not 4psi. So either APR's car was hitting max boost or other S4's are not even comming close. So the question is why?

[L0U]

audi stats are 11.8, apr was +2 more, and amd was -2 less.

[sakimano]

If apr dynoed the same car with all their cooling fans off....it would read much lower too. Real world conditions have air flow though. (helps the intake charge temperatures)
The other factor is the mustangs allways read lower than the rest. Maybe audi used a mustang. The Delta will tell all in the end. Hp shouldn't sell cars anyway...it can be a lie, but everyone getting sub 5 second 0-60s in a car that is 4250 pounds nearly with a driver....speaks worlds of just how much power is really needed. The slightly slower 335 is 450 lbs less weight...and has less drivetrain lose. That comparison makes it a no brainer. I could give a toss if the car has whatever power stock, or that it is heavy....if it is beating the benchmark 335 in acceleration, and lap times, and gas mileage. If it is faster...bigger is better for real life useage eh, at no real expense for its performance vs. the competition.
all very rational and factual. Thank you!

I just got a little sick of everyone saying the S4 is a 410hp car from the factory because of one dyno reading.

[Arin@APR]

This is a very good read:

Dynamometer Testing and the Modern BMW Engine
By Steve Dinan

Dynamometer Testing and the Modern BMW Engine
By Steve Dinan

As dyno-testing facilities have become more and more abundant in recent years, increasing numbers of driving enthusiasts appear to be having their BMWs tested. While dyno equipment has become more sophisticated over the years, there still is no substitute for scientific testing procedures and a deep understanding of the factors that will affect the data obtained. No matter how well a dynamometer is designed, manufactured and supported, the information obtained may be meaningless, or at least misleading, if the operator does not have a clear understanding of the procedures necessary to duplicate "real world" conditions and the associated variables. Given the growing number of questions we receive regarding the results drivers are getting from independent tests, not to mention the inconsistencies, I thought that a bit of a technical discussion on the subject might be of interest to BMW enthusiasts.


A modern BMW engine management system is very sophisticated and has the ability to correct for changes in environmental conditions as well as fuel quality. If we go back fifteen years, engine control systems were not nearly so advanced and so power output was backed off from an engine's full potential in order to ensure longevity. Now that engine control systems have advanced so dramatically, manufacturers can better manage conditions that might otherwise result in engine failure and they can produce more power per cc than ever before. While maximum horsepower has increased, so too has the variability of power output. This is because the engine control systems save the engine from failure by backing off power when conditions are less than ideal. This variability comes from the control system striving to extract whatever power is available, under a given set of conditions.

As you would expect, all of our engine tuning products are dyno tested and the results published as part of our product descriptions. I'll be the first to admit that Dinan's dyno-numbers typically represent the lower of any claimed horsepower and torque increases for a given product type in the market. And in the case of performance engine management software for later model cars, we seem to be the only BMW tuner that has come to grips with the fact that there is simply no horsepower to be gained from engine management tuning alone. Even when it comes to performance engine components such as Cold Air Intakes, Super-chargers, exhaust systems and the like, Dinan's published performance data is often lower than that claimed by our competitors. Does this mean that Dinan products fall short when it comes to horsepower gains? Hardly. We are committed to providing the enthusiast with valid test data that is based upon the results of the very latest equipment, controlled testing procedures and years of experience. Our reputation among automotive journalists as the American BMW tuner that consistently provides realistic and verifiable performance data has been earned by exceeding expectations for nearly 25 years. My philosophy has always been to under-promise and over-deliver, despite whatever shall we say "optimistic" gains are being touted by the competition.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that our competitors or the many dyno testing facilities are intentionally misleading driving enthusiasts by publishing false or exaggerated data. There are tuners that have an understanding of what needs to be done in order to obtain accurate data. I am of the opinion that even the tuners that publish questionable results are actually publishing numbers that reflect the very data that was obtained during their tests. The disparity lies in the dyno testing procedures employed and perhaps a lack of understanding with regard to the variables that can affect the data obtained. A prime example would be the fact that we get reports from customers who have obtained independent dyno results that range from more, to less, to no gain at all when compared to our published data.

Does this mean that most of the test data is invalid? Unfortunately, in most cases the answer is yes. I believe that this underscores the importance of controlling variables that can directly affect the results, as well as the importance of testing and re-testing in order to obtain a valid average. Truly scientific dyno tests are extremely time consuming, tedious and complex to perform when attempting to duplicate real world conditions in the dyno-room. I offer the following information in an effort to explain a bit about the equipment and the procedures we have developed over the past 25 years of BMW performance tuning, perhaps shedding a bit of light on the subject in general terms.

About Dynamometers

By far the most common types of chassis dynamometers employ large rollers that are turned by the vehicle's drive wheels. When we relied on this type of equipment, we would replace the stock rubber with sticky, shaved tires in order to reduce slippage on the rollers. The rear wheels would also be set at maximum positive camber, further improving traction on the dyno rollers. The cars would then be tied down with four steel cables in order to further reduce slippage and provide increased safety. Two of the cables were focused on down-force in order to increase traction and the others positioned to hold the car in place on the rollers. In order to accurately read power output, cable tension was evaluated and adjusted in order to ensure that the tension was not too light, causing an artificially low reading due to slippage and that there was not so much tension that drag would negatively affect the readings. All tires slip to some degree, more so as power increases, therefore it is impossible to measure 100% of any gains that are achieved with this type of equipment. Accuracy can be improved with a roller type dyno by connecting a tachometer to the rollers and wheels, or a strobe light with markings so that the measured output may be adjusted accordingly.


http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg1pic1.jpgEmploying the very latest in chassis dyno technology, our current equipment eliminates the tire slippage issue as it connects directly to the drive wheel axles. By eliminating the tires and any related slippage, the results are far more accurate and repeatable, making this type of dyno superior in my opinion.

By far the most significant criticism I have for many dyno facilities is the use of fans that are simply too small for the job at hand. The fan size is so significant that we employ a very large unit that was actually designed for ventilation systems installed in high rise buildings! This powerful fan produces 38,000 cfm of air flow @ 75 MPH, which is still less than the 150 MPH air that a modern BMW might see at redline in 5th gear, but it certainly provides a closer to real-world scenario than the more common fans I have seen used in dyno facilities. It should be noted that 5th gear is used for our dyno testing because it is one to one, meaning that the input and output shafts are connected, reducing power losses and transmission wear. I have seen many examples of dyno facilities where low flow fans obtained from the local hardware store are employed, and even situations where there was no fan at all. A minimum of 15,000 cfm and preferably 40,000 cfm of air flow is required for proper heat exchanging. This type of fan will produce a 40-80 mph air discharge velocity.


http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg1pic2.jpgA lack of air-flow during dyno testing will almost always alter the fuel mixture in the rich direction as the radiator cannot exchange enough heat, resulting in the computer compensating by retarding timing and richening the fuel mixture to prevent the engine from overheating and detonating. In addition, the intake air sensor will read substantially higher temperatures than that seen on the road with proper airflow. This issue is particularly important to address when testing high output cars like the M5 or M3, and even more so on forced induction cars with intercoolers as the heat exchanger is not able to cool as efficiently because of the reduced air flow. The engine compartment is normally flushed with air driving down the road, particularly at speed, cooling the manifolds and other associated engine components. Cooler engine components and lower air intake temperatures will result in a leaner air/fuel mixture and ignition timing will be advanced, invariably resulting in greater power on the road than on the dyno. In simpler terms, accurate measurements can only be achieved when the dyno tests are conducted in a manner that simulates the car driving down the road, in as much as is possible.

I believe that the rather large horsepower gains that are being published by some, particularly with regard to "power chips", are the result of tuning the cars back to the stock mixture and ignition timing settings, essentially leaning-out the air/fuel mixture and advancing the timing to compensate for the rich mixture and retarded timing experienced on the dyno. It appears to me that this "increase" in power is then included in whatever gains were actually achieved (if any). In reality, these supposed gains are nothing more than a correction for the testing conditions, resulting in an exaggerated performance claim. In addition, many "power chips" create the perception of an increase in power/acceleration as the re-programming will often dramatically increase the speed of the throttle opening on the drive by wire cars, making the engine feel more powerful.


Dyno Testing Variables and How to Reduce Them
The procedures that we have developed are the result of many years of experience, extensive research and a very real desire to obtain the most accurate data possible. Following is a relatively detailed description of the variables and what we do to reduce the impact on dyno results.

Testing the Dinan S2-M5
The first step is to prepare the vehicle for a "baseline" run. The 91-octane premium pump fuel (the highest octane currently available in California) is replaced with 93-octane fuel, as it is the most common premium pump fuel available in the U.S. In order to ensure that the vehicle being tested is a representative sample, it is inspected for any defects that might affect performance, including tests related to oil consumption, leak down. In the event that a defect is discovered, the car is then repaired accordingly or in some cases even rejected for such testing. The last thing we want to do is test and tune a car exhibiting any sort of issue that might negatively affect the car's performance in stock or modified form.

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg1pic3.jpg
Top: Air Fuel Ratio Recorder
Bottom: Thermal Couple Recorder

Before we place a car on the dyno, we install sophisticated data collection equipment that has been designed to measure the air/fuel mixture, ignition timing the engine's air intake temperature; the engine block and radiator coolant temperatures; as well as the engine, transmission and differential oil temperatures. These measurements are conducted on the road, under normal driving conditions and are only recorded once the temperatures have stabilized at what would be considered normal operating temperature. Once the temperatures are stabilized, we record the data from 2,000 rpm to redline at wide- open throttle. Again, the data is collected with the transmission in the gear that is one to one, typically 5th, so that the input and output shafts are connected, reducing power losses and wear on the transmission. The data is recorded several times in order to obtain a solid average.

Sample Data Aquisition Display
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg1pic4.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg1pic4.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view

Next, the times necessary for the stock car to achieve various speeds are recorded on the road and then loaded into the dyno program in order to simulate road conditions.

The air intake sensor is located under the hood of the E39 M5, absorbing heat produced by the engine. As you can see in Figure 1 below, on the road the sensor absorbs heat from the engine, artificially raising the reading the computer sees to 110&deg; F. As soon as you accelerate at wide open throttle, the ram air coming into the engine flushes out the hot air and cools the sensor. By the time the engine reaches high rpm the temperature sensors are seeing 85&deg;, very close the 80&deg; F ambient temperature that was recorded during the test run.

Figure #1: E39 M5 Intake Air Temperature Measured on the Road

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg1pic5.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg1pic5.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view
Referring now to the stock radiator and engine block temperature graph below (Figure 2), you can see that BMW's engineers did an excellent job of maintaining consistent temperatures in both the radiator and block. As the engine revs friction is increased, as well as load and cylinder cycles. All three of these things produce more heat but as the engine revs, the car is moving through the air faster which rams more air through the radiator, exchanging additional heat and therefore maintaining a very stable temperature.


Figure #2: E39 M5 Engine and Radiator Temperatures Measured on the Road
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic1.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic1.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view


As you will soon see, once we put the vehicle in the stagnant air in the dyno room, all of this changes. The first dyno run we will talk about (Figure 3A - purple line) represents what I would consider the worst dyno testing procedure I have ever seen. The vehicle was placed on the dyno with the hood closed and a small fan positioned in front of the grille, typical of the fans I have seen in most chassis-dyno facilities. The engine is warmed up to normal operating temperature by performing two passes and then the car is left to idle for 10 minutes.


Figure #3A: E39 M5 Dyno Graph
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic2.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic2.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view



This combination of conditions resulted in the lowest recorded output on the graph, producing 335.7 hp. During the two warm up passes the engine, radiator, intake manifolds, and air intake sensor will "heat soak", resulting in a reduction of power. Let's take a moment to look at each graph separately and analyze what has happened.

When the M5 was on the dyno with the hood closed, and there was no ram air or air flowing under the car to evacuate heat from the engine compartment, the under-hood temperature rose significantly beyond what would be seen under normal driving conditions. As you can see in Figure 4 - pink line, the temperature reached 160&deg; F from idling and even after the wide open throttle run was completed the temperature only dropped to 148&deg; F! Comparing this to the road graph (Figure 4-blue line) shows a staggering increase in the temperature reading even though the outside air temperature has not changed at all. Normally when the computer sees a higher air temperature reading, it leans the air/fuel mixture and retards ignition timing in small amounts to compensate for the less dense air. This occurs in order to maintain a proper air/fuel mixture and prevent detonation. However, when the M5 computer sees a very hot value it goes into a portion of the program designed to save the engine from melt down. This mode dramatically richens the mixture and retards the timing, preventing engine damage in two ways: it causes the engine to produce less power, thereby producing less heat; and some of the heat is actually absorbed by the fuel, then carried out through the exhaust. In addition, the rich mixture and retarded timing ensures that the engine will not detonate under these conditions.


Figure #4: Intake Air Temperature Sensor Comparison

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic3.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic3.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The radiator cannot exchange heat as well as it did on the road because there is not enough ram air flowing through it. Looking back at the road temperatures depicted in Figure 5 - blue line, we can see that the radiator stays between 175&deg; F and 178&deg; F. Now compare those readings to the radiator temperature from the dyno acceleration run in Figure 5 - violet line. With the standard dyno fan you can see that the temperature starts at 173&deg; F and climbs to 210&deg; F!



Figure #5: Radiator Temperature Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic4.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic4.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Since the radiator cannot exchange heat on the dyno as efficiently as it did on the road, the engine block heats up significantly. Looking at the road temperature curve in Figure 6 - blue line, you can see that the engine block temperature stays between 191&deg; F and 188&deg; F. However the engine temperature measured during the dyno acceleration run with a standard type of fan starts at 192&deg; F and ends at 203&deg; F (Figure 6 - violet line). It should be noted that the coolant temperature gauge in the instrument cluster will hardly move in this case, even though the engine management system needs to correct for the increase, as 203&deg; is not a high enough temperature to cause the vehicle to actually overheat.



Figure #6: Engine Block Temperature Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic5.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic5.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The combination of the engine heating up and the air temperature sensor reading an artificially high value causes the engine management computer to go into the "engine savior mode". The mixture is richened to an astounding 9.5 to 1 air fuel ratio (see Figure 7 - violet line); whereas the correct mixture measured on the road was 12.2, shown in Figure 7 - blue line. The ignition timing is retarded from a peak value on the road of 27&deg; (see Figure 8 - blue line) down to 15&deg; (Figure 8 - violet line). It is truly amazing how intelligent a modern BMW is. If you were to go back just 15 years, these same conditions would likely result in engine damage!




Figure #7: Fuel Mixture Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic6.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic6.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view

Figure #8: Ignition Timing Comparison


http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic7.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic7.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view

[Arin@APR]

We will begin to eliminate these variables one by one so that you can see which aspects are the result of the intake air temp sensor and what portion is attributable to the engine running too warm.


The next dyno run was performed with only one change: the hood was opened!
As you can see in Figure 3B, with this simple change the power increased by approx 35 hp to 370 hp.


Figure #3B: E39 M5 Dyno Graph.
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic8.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic8.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view



The air intake sensor now absorbs a lot less heat from the engine (see Figure 9 - yellow line). With the hood open, the temperature reached 130&deg; F, as compared to the 160&deg; reading with the hood closed (see Figure 4). After the wide open run was completed, the temperature dropped to 120&deg; F (Figure 9 - yellow line), compared to 148&deg; F (Figure 9-blue line). However, this is still significantly warmer than the temperatures that were measured on the road.


Figure # 9: Intake Air Temperature Comparison- Hood open vs. closed

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic9.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic9.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Looking at the radiator temperature during the dyno acceleration run, using the standard dyno fan and the hood open, you can see in Figure 10 - yellow line, that the temperature is able to cool off more between runs. This enables us to start the run with a temperature of 155&deg; F, ending at 205&deg; F! Once again, this is still substantially warmer than the temperatures measured on the road (Figure 10-blue line)


Figure #10: Radiator Temperature Comparison

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg2pic10.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg2pic10.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view

Since the radiator still cannot exchange heat as efficiently as it did on the road, you can see in Figure 11 - yellow line, that the temperature starts at 182&deg; F and ends at 197&deg;, still warmer than the road test.(Figure 11- blue line)


Figure #11: Engine Block Temperature Comparison

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic1.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic1.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


While we have made some serious progress here, and by now it should be obvious that you should never dyno a car with the hood closed, we are still significantly short of duplicating the normal conditions the car would see on the road. The improvements we have made thus far have leaned the air/fuel mixture from 9.5 to 1 (Figure 7-violet line) to 11.2 to 1 (see Figure 12 - yellow line); however compared to the correct road mixture of 12.2 to 1 (Figure 12 - blue line), the air/fuel mixture is still too rich. Ignition timing has also improved from 15&deg; (Figure 8-violet line) down to 22&deg; (Figure 13 - yellow line). This is still substantially less than the peak road value of 27&deg; (Figure 13 - blue line) that would occur during actual road conditions. I believe that this is how most "power chips" are made, essentially leaning the mixture and advancing the ignition timing back to normal values. This will result in a measured power increase, however this gain is not real because it is merely compensation for the dyno environment.


Figure #12: Fuel Mixture Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic2.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic2.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view

Figure #13: Ignition Timing Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic3.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic3.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view


The hood will remain open for all subsequent dyno runs. The next dyno run was performed with only one change: disconnection of the stock air temperature sensor and the installation of one at the air inlet. This is done in order to get the sensor to accurately reproduce the temperature of the air actually going into the engine. This will stabilize the engine tremendously and result in the computer making proper corrections for the conditions. As you can see in Figure 3C, the power increased by approx 10 hp, with the run producing 380 hp, with significantly less fall off at higher rpm.


Figure #3C: E39 M5 Dyno Graph

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic4.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic4.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The air intake sensor is now rock steady at 81&deg; F (see Figure 14 - light blue line). This matches the actual ambient temperature in the room at this time and is more stable than the temperatures measured on the road (Figure 14 - dark blue line). This should help to explain why we decided to move the intake air temperature sensor as part of our Cold Air Intake System.


Figure #14: Intake Air Temperature Comparison

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic5.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic5.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The radiator and engine block temperatures remain the same as the previous run since we are still employing the small fan.

While we have made even more progress, we are still significantly short of the normal conditions the car would see on the road. The mixture has leaned out to an 11.7 to 1 air fuel ratio (see Figure 15 - light blue line) when compared to the 12.2 to 1 ratio measured on the road (Figure 15 - dark blue line). Ignition timing has been retarded from a peak value on the road of 27&deg; (Figure 16 - dark blue line) down to 22&deg; (Figure 16 - light blue line), but it is less stable. This is due to the cooler air intake sensor value causing the computer to lean out the fuel mixture and advance timing. Since the radiator still can't exchange enough heat, the engine runs warmer than it normally would, causing the engine to detonate which in turn set off the knock sensor causing radical spikes (see Figure 16 - light blue line). The remaining richening and retarded ignition timing shown on these graphs are resulting from radiator and engine temperatures, not the engine intake air temperature reading since it has been stabilized.




Figure #15: Fuel Mixture Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic6.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic6.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view

Figure #16: Ignition Timing Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic7.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic7.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view

The last step in our attempt to reproduce actual road conditions is to employ a fan large enough to exchange enough heat that air temperatures at the end of the run exactly match the temperatures recorded on the road. The only change for this run was to replace the small fan with the Dinan (Level 1) "Hurricane" fan.



http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic8.jpg


As you can see in Figure 3D below (violet, blue and yellow lines), the power increased by approximately 30 hp to 411.4 hp, backed up by a 410 hp run. When the conditions are truly controlled you can usually produce runs with as little as 0.5 - 1.0% variance.


Figure #3D: E39 M5 Dyno Graphs
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic9.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic9.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view



The air intake temperature sensor was stabilized on the last run, so now let's look at the radiator and block temperature graphs. As you can see, the radiator temperature during the dyno acceleration run (Figure 17 - violet line), using the very powerful fan and the hood open, allowed the temperature to cool off more between runs. This enabled us to start the run with a temp of 110&deg; F and end at the exact same value as we saw on the road, 175&deg; F (Figure 17 - dark blue). Even with this huge fan, the largest I have seen on a chassis dyno, we still must start at artificially low numbers so as not to exceed the road value by the end of the run! In other words, even our huge 75-mph fan can't duplicate the air flow the car would see on the road&hellip;but we are getting closer!


Figure #17: Radiator Temperature Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic10.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic10.jpg)

click on the image for a larger view


We are able to match the engine temperature recorded on the road at the end of the dyno run as well (Figure 18 - violet line). Figure 18 shows the engine temperature during the dyno acceleration run with the large fan. You can see that the temperature starts at 182&deg; F and ends at 188&deg; F equal to the road values (Figure 18 - blue line).


Figure #18: Block graph


http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic11.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic11.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The air/fuel mixture and ignition timing now match the road numbers almost exactly (see Figures 19 and 20 ).


Figure #19: Fuel Mixture Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic12.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic12.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Figure #20: Ignition Timing Comparison
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg3pic13.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg3pic13.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


The important thing here is to match the engine temperature as closely as possible. As we have been able to achieve just a 7&deg; variance (see Figure 18) from the beginning to the end of the run, with an ending value that is the same as the road number, the mixture and ignition timing match the road value. Now we know that we have real-world horsepower number. Remember that we have not added or changed any parts on the car during the course of this testing, with exception of the temperature sensor.

Even still, we fall short of duplicating actual road conditions in one area: we can't reproduce ram air to the intake system. We are currently developing a system that will produce enough ram air to get us even closer, but until it is completed we will still measure less power on the dyno than the vehicle will actually make on the road!

Engine Wear
Every engine will produce different power output, even if every variable is carefully controlled! This is due to production tolerances as well as maintenance and care during break-in. Most of the variances occur from cam timing errors and cylinder leak-down variances. Cylinder leak-down variances are the biggest variable. A desirable number for leak-down is less than 5%; however, it is very common to see numbers higher than that. It mostly depends on how the engine was broken in and, of course, maintained. The S2 M5 engine used in this test had an average leak-down just over 4%. The same engine had an average leak down of 3% one year ago. Comparing the previous dyno runs on this engine to more recent runs (see Figures 3E and 21), you can see a loss in power of approx 1%. This is the same car on the same dyno! However, due to normal wear, the power has dropped by 6 hp. You must realize that not every engine of the same type produces the same power. You also must realize that not every engine produces the same power throughout its life. BMW engines are very well manufactured with very consistent tolerances. Our dyno test show that almost all engines, without any defect, will be within a 5% window with the vast majority being within a 3% window.


<center>
Figure #21: Year old E39 M5 Dyno Graph
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg4pic1.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg4pic1.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Figure #3E: Current E39 M5 Dyno Graph

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg4pic2.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg4pic2.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Drivetrain Temperatures
In addition to variances from the engine itself and the dyno environment, more variables come into play as a result of varying drive train oil temperatures. The graph above (Figure 21) depicts the recorded rear wheel horsepower for the S2-M5. As you can see, as the drive train oils heat up during the four dyno runs, the recorded horsepower increases from 406 to 417; an eleven horsepower gain resulting from nothing more than increased drive train oil temperatures! Remember that the engine was already warmed up to normal operating temperature before the four dyno runs were conducted. The temperatures of the air intake sensor, engine block and radiator were strictly controlled during these runs so that the only variables were drive train oil temperatures. The run that indicates the least output at low rpm was the first one after the engine was restarted (See notation- figure 21). The reason for this is that when the engine is first started, the camshaft and ignition timing have a different program to assist in warming up the catalyst for emissions purposes. As soon as the aft O2 sensor determines that the catalizer is operating, it automatically reverts to the normal program. The colder the catalytic converter, the more runs will produce reduced output. You can see that the oils have reached normal operating temperature for the last two runs as the measured output is very similar. Thermal couples can be used to further improve this accuracy. Many Winston Cup teams are now using chassis dyno's to reduce drive-train friction. Since improvements in this area are so small in order for this work to be valid they must strictly control the drive train temperatures.

Data from a Stock E46 M3

The M5 engine is extremely sensitive to temperature control when dyno testing. Any increase in power results in an increase in heat and a corresponding increase in sensitivity. Not every engine demonstrates the same levels or types of sensitivities; some have cooling system sensitivities while others are sensitive to ram air volume and fuel octane. Each engine must be tested to determine what conditions exist on the road that do not exist on the dyno and what must be done to correct for them. Since the M5 started the testing with 93-octane fuel, I wanted to provide an example of how octane affects horsepower. The E46 M3 is an excellent example of an engine that is sensitive to octane. It has a very high volumetric efficiency as well as a very high static compression ratio of 11.5 - 1. The engine being tested was a stock M3 engine. It was first warmed up and stabilized using the method described previously for the M5, running 91-octane fuel. As you can see in Figure 22, where the engine was warmed up and the previously discussed testing procedures applied, the stock M3 produced 280 hp (Figure 22- violet line). We then replaced the 91-octane fuel with 93 (available in most parts of the country). The M3's computer was so quick to determine that the fuel had been improved that it only took four dyno runs for the timing to adapt to the increased octane and raise the power up to 291 hp (Figure 22 - light blue and yellow lines). A gain of 11 hp with just 2 points of octane. The M3 engine is equipped with a very good ram air system. While our large fan is pushing large volumes of air into the ram air duct, the volume and velocity of air seen by the car on the dyno is still less than the engine would see on the road. The power output drops off after 7350 rpm because we simply cannot duplicate the airflow the car would receive on the road in the dyno room, resulting in a loss of power. BMW claims peak power @ 7900 rpm. We have no doubt that if we could accurately reproduce the ram air that the M3 would receive on the road, our peak power would move up from 7350 rpm to 7900 rpm. One of our many engineering projects is to further enhance our ram air capabilities in the dyno room.


Figure #22: E46 M3 Dyno Runs
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg4pic3.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg4pic3.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view


Stock E46 M3 Ignition Timing Adaptations

Figures #23 and #24 below are taken directly from the BMW factory diagnostic tool, demonstrating how ignition timing adapts to different fuel octane ratings. The same car is represented here, the only difference being the octane rating of the fuel. If you were to add 1&deg; of ignition advance, the engine management system would detect it and retard the timing 1&deg;. You can see that adding timing in the engine management software or "power chip" is futile because the computer will negate the change, as sufficient octane does not exist. However, you can see that adding higher octane fuel is like adding a "power chip" as the system adapts to the better fuel, making more power.


Figure #23: 91 Octane Knock Adaptations Diagnosis

http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg4pic4.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg4pic4.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view

Figure #24: 93 Octane Knock Adaptations Diagnosis
http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/dyno pg4pic5.jpg (http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white papers/big dyno pg4pic5.jpg)
click on the image for a larger view



Intercooled Forced Induction Systems
Cars with intercooled forced induction systems (superchargers or turbo chargers) provide an even bigger challenge on the dyno. A separate fan must be employed in order to sufficiently cool the intercooler. Thermal couples must be installed in the inlet and outlet of the intercooler so that the temperature drop seen on the road can be measured. Once the temperature drop has been established, the fan speed must be adjusted until the same drop in temperature is maintained on the dyno as that was measured on the road. If the temperature drop cannot be achieved on the dyno, the error can be corrected for mathematically and the results will be very close.

Corrections
Once we have determined the specific baseline procedure for a vehicle, the car is allowed to sit until early the following morning when the temperature is as close as possible to 77&deg; F, the SAE standard. There are formulas for temperature, humidity and barometric pressure corrections from the SAE; however the correction tables are not completely accurate for a digitally controlled car. This is due to the corrections the car's computer is making based on the conditions previously discussed. We reduce this error further by performing all tests as close to 77&deg; F as possible. An alternative would be to turn the corrections off in the software but this is a potentially dangerous approach. The most accurate results are obtained when the tests are performed in a climate-controlled dyno-room where temperature and humidity can be completely controlled for each test. By running our tests as close to 77&deg; F as possible, we still must employ the SAE correction tables, but the amount of correction necessary is reduced and accuracy improved. <em>Be aware that not all dynos correct for temperature, humidity and barometric pressure! </em>


Conclusion
If you decide to test your car on a dyno, whether in stock or modified form, be advised that you will not see the same results as BMW or Dinan. Putting the time consuming and tedious procedures aside, any number of things can cause your measurements to be different from those published. Even in a best case scenario, assuming that there is no need to be concerned about calibrations because the performance software has been supplied, it still takes the better part of three days to go through the proper testing procedure and collect the necessary data.

If the engine is detonating or in the "savior mode" because of excessive temperatures, gains can not be measured. In fact if the car sits and heat soaks or cools for an excessive period of time between runs, enough variance can be created that the performance component enhanced car may show less power than the stock car, or even a very exaggerated gain.

By way of summary, following are some of the more significant factors that you should keep in mind when considering dyno testing in general terms, as well as what to look for in the facility itself.

1) Each dyno will produce different results (even with the same brand of dyno).


2) The octane rating of fuel varies in different parts of the country (you must have a controlled fuel supply).

3) Cold weather increases the gains and hot weather decreases them, even with temperature corrections.

4) Lack of oxygen from exhaust in a dyno room will cause a loss in power.

5) Slipping tires on the rollers will reduce the measured gains.

6) Inertia type dynos have a lighter load than the car will see on the road. This is especially true for cars with heavy drive trains because some of the power will get absorbed spinning the masses faster. The inertia correction programs employed in these types of dyno's are not completely accurate.

7) Fixed load dynos have a higher load than what the car sees on the road. This excessive load will result in a large mixture shift and the detonation sensor will be activated prematurely.


8) No dyno can accurately simulate wind resistance, the ram air effect into the airbox or cooling of the intake tract under the hood.

9) The size of the fan used during testing will change the power output.

10) Oil temperatures will affect output due to changes in friction.

11) The air intake temperature sensor will trigger adjustments to fuel mixture and ignition timing.


Dinan is certainly not the only BMW tuner in the world that understands the variables and complexity of proper dyno testing and tuning. I have a great deal of respect for the handful of BMW tuners around the world that share our passion for accuracy. Unfortunately, this level of dyno testing sophistication appears to be the exception and simply won't be found in common dyno facilities that rent their time. The purpose of this paper is to provide our customers with a deeper understanding of our test procedures and why they have been developed. We too are constantly learning more about the science and updating our equipment whenever significant improvements in the technology occur in an effort to provide our customers with the most valid data possible. In addition, Dinan also employs an engine dyno test cell, but we'll save a discussion on that technology for another time.

[riegeraudi]

THE DYNO IS READING HIGH!!!! Why are you such an APR fanboy? I'm not saying I don't believe keith. I'm saying the dyno run is NOT representative of a stock Audi...its OFF!!!!!!. Something aint right. Sure you can say "only the delta matters" but if you dyno a car then post on every audi forum on earth that the car is underrated by about 100hp you'd better explain it. For some reason they didn't want to even though people asked them about 20 times....but they sure enjoyed the attention.


What's so hard to understand? If the dyno is reading high, their chipped run will also read high. Holy crap...its so
simple.

Before you call someone a fanboy why don't you look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a hater. Your just upset because keith said the B8 platform was better than the B6/B7 when he voiced his opinion, and that you wouldn't want the 3.0T V6 to look better than the 4.2 V8.
Your idea of APR inflating it's initial numbers so that they can have a higher chipped number is stupid.
B5 1.8T APR chipped 200hp; Revo 195hp; Giac 205hp
B7 2.0T APR chipped 241hp; Revo 255hp; Giac 247hp

So looking at these numbers supplied by the manufacturers how is APR inflating their numbers. To be a reputable tuner even though you personally may not think so while others do and to build a long term bussiness you can't trick customers in the way you are thinking. If APR releases a B8 chip and produced 50hp more than anyone else you think enthusiasts won't be shouting what the F@ck?
KEY THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT IN THE PAST SO CAN'T SAY THEY ARE DOING IT NOW, LIKE IT OR NOT.
Like Lou indicated it was only 2psi out from factory specs while the other dyno the car was only producing 10psi so obviously they didn't ventilate correctly and the car dialed it back hence the lower hp.
Do I have APR in my car yes but I was actually going to change it to GIAC because I want a K04 and APR doesn't have K04 program for my car. I am not so much as a fanboy as you are a hater.

[SebringSilver]

Putting aside all the theoretical crank hp numbers based on the few dyno pulls that have been recorded thus far, I'm just interested in what the new S4 can do on the dragstrip, and of course, on the street as well (when it's safe, naturally).

[adam.smith]

Putting aside all the theoretical crank hp numbers based on the few dyno pulls that have been recorded thus far, I'm just interested in what the new S4 can do on the dragstrip, and of course, on the street as well (when it's safe, naturally).

Well said. I've read this thread on and off over the past couple of weeks and while at times it has been interesting, ultimately whether the engine actually produces 333hp, 400hp or even 600hp, the only thing that matters is how it that translates into the real world. Even if the damned thing produces more power than an M3, the M3 is still faster. Don't get me wrong, I bought an S4, not an M3, I just don't really see the use in such a theoretical debate.

[riegeraudi]

No use in it for sure but it is always fun and good way to past some time away.

[sakimano]

Before you call someone a fanboy why don't you look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a hater. Your just upset because keith said the B8 platform was better than the B6/B7 when he voiced his opinion, and that you wouldn't want the 3.0T V6 to look better than the 4.2 V8.
Your idea of APR inflating it's initial numbers so that they can have a higher chipped number is stupid.
B5 1.8T APR chipped 200hp; Revo 195hp; Giac 205hp
B7 2.0T APR chipped 241hp; Revo 255hp; Giac 247hp

So looking at these numbers supplied by the manufacturers how is APR inflating their numbers. To be a reputable tuner even though you personally may not think so while others do and to build a long term bussiness you can't trick customers in the way you are thinking. If APR releases a B8 chip and produced 50hp more than anyone else you think enthusiasts won't be shouting what the F@ck?
KEY THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT IN THE PAST SO CAN'T SAY THEY ARE DOING IT NOW, LIKE IT OR NOT.
Like Lou indicated it was only 2psi out from factory specs while the other dyno the car was only producing 10psi so obviously they didn't ventilate correctly and the car dialed it back hence the lower hp.
Do I have APR in my car yes but I was actually going to change it to GIAC because I want a K04 and APR doesn't have K04 program for my car. I am not so much as a fanboy as you are a hater.

My dictionary says a fanboy is someone who is blind and loves someone/thing off no matter what. It also says a hater is someone who hates something and paints them in a negative light no matter what.

You - constantly crying that APR is great and defending them...even though they're not under attack
Me - talking about a dyno machine...not apr...not keith .... Not arin.

Wake up mate...this is about understanding a dyno reading, not hating. Stop being so defensive and listen to what everyone is saying. This also has nothing to do with my other car...I'm not a fanboy there....a car is a car and I'll likely have a new one in a year or so. I test drove a b8 on Saturday and may buy one when I sell my B7...in understanding the car as a customer I find it odd that there's a magic dyno run that's 50-60 hp stronger than any other one in the world. Don't you??? Maybe you're hoping the APR run is true a little too hard since you plan on ordering a B8 S4?

As for me being stupid re; the baseline and chipped run reading high, thanks. Really though? I was saying if the dyno is fukt, and the baseline is too high. You keep defending APR against some un-said accusation that doesn't exist. In this here thread I've already said a few times they clearly aren't inflating the numbers on purpose. I'm saying the dyno numbers are off. You keep preaching "then they'll look bad on the chipped run". That makes no sense. If a dyno is reading high its going to read the chipped run high too, so there's no disadvantage to APR. Their delta will still be there if the dyno is fukt and reading high.

APR needs to give us a simple answer on their opinion of why the run was sooooo high. I've asked them about 5 times. No answer. Arin's 29,000 word Dinan essay may hold a clue, but I just want APR's opinion. Not sure why they're so hesitant to answer that question.

But hey...thanks for making it personal.[rolleyes]

[Arin@APR]

Arin's 29,000 word Dinan essay may hold a clue, but I just want APR's opinion.


The Dinan 'essay' was actually a pretty good read and can directly relate to our situation.

I don't know if many know how our dyno room is setup but the air in the room is replaced around 36 times a minute and a fan capable of creating 140mph winds is placed in front of the vehicle. Some shop dyno's I've visited have tiny room room fans of even no fans at all! We tend to see vehicles operating much closer to their real world operating conditions while on our dyno compared to the results found from using only tiny fans or less sophisticated dyno rooms.

If you were to data log the vehicle on the street and compare it to data logs in poor conditions on the dyno you'll quickly see how well the ECU pulls back power to protect the engine.

Take this example from the read:



http://www.dinancars.com/assets/Image/white%20papers/big%20dyno%20pg3pic9.jpg

This combination of conditions resulted in the lowest recorded output on the graph, producing 335.7 hp. During the two warm up passes the engine, radiator, intake manifolds, and air intake sensor will "heat soak", resulting in a reduction of power. Let's take a moment to look at each graph separately and analyze what has happened.

When the M5 was on the dyno with the hood closed, and there was no ram air or air flowing under the car to evacuate heat from the engine compartment, the under-hood temperature rose significantly beyond what would be seen under normal driving conditions. As you can see in Figure 4 - pink line, the temperature reached 160&deg; F from idling and even after the wide open throttle run was completed the temperature only dropped to 148&deg; F! Comparing this to the road graph (Figure 4-blue line) shows a staggering increase in the temperature reading even though the outside air temperature has not changed at all. Normally when the computer sees a higher air temperature reading, it leans the air/fuel mixture and retards ignition timing in small amounts to compensate for the less dense air. This occurs in order to maintain a proper air/fuel mixture and prevent detonation. However, when the M5 computer sees a very hot value it goes into a portion of the program designed to save the engine from melt down. This mode dramatically richens the mixture and retards the timing, preventing engine damage in two ways: it causes the engine to produce less power, thereby producing less heat; and some of the heat is actually absorbed by the fuel, then carried out through the exhaust. In addition, the rich mixture and retarded timing ensures that the engine will not detonate under these conditions.




I would post all of the other logs related to this statement (IAT's, AFR, Timing, Engine Temps, etc) but I'm sure if anyone's interested they can read though the article.

[SebringSilver]

Just curious: how do the automakers test their engines for horsepower and torque output? Surely they don't struggle with issues like those being discussed on this thread...do they?

[sakimano]

Just curious: how do the automakers test their engines for horsepower and torque output? Surely they don't struggle with issues like those being discussed on this thread...do they?

I believe they dyno the engine, not the car.

[SebringSilver]

I believe they dyno the engine, not the car.

Thanks, Saki.

I'd love to find out more on the specific process they use, and whether there's any consistency with the equipment/methodology employed by various automakers before going public with their official numbers.

[riegeraudi]

"NOWHERE did I question APR. They have nothing to gain by overstating a baseline...only a retard would do that (they are brilliant, not retarded)...and only retard would accuse them of that (I am not retarded)...and only a retard would defend their honour against such a claim, when that claim that was never made (?)."
These are your words on reply #50.
So are these. reply #99
"you don't count...he meant a person, not a company selling stuff.

Just a member...ANY member!"

reply #106

"The whole APR dyno firestorm earned them tons of press in the automotive world"

reply #108

"What's so hard to understand? If the dyno is reading high, their chipped run will also read high. Holy crap...its so
simple."

You first say no retard would insinuate what you are insinuating. In the later replies you can see for yourself that is exactly what you are insinuating. If you say you aren't attacking APR I think you better read what you wrote again.
What you are basically saying is that the baseline is high so that the chipped number will be higher than the competitors so that they can sell more chips and that they are getting also free advertising because of it. That surely sounds like an attack on APR.
I also provided you chipped numbers on the B5 and B7 with APR numbers and competitors chipped numbers and it shows that APR has never done what you are insinuating here.
I think APR numbers are not incorrect if you look at the S4 reviews compared to the 335i. In most tests and the S4 is either dead even or beating the 335i in acceleration tests. The 335i has been dynoed at stock rwhp at 275-285 as you can see in this thread.http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-218879.html
The 335i also is 300-400lbs lighter. So if the S4 has only 290hp then how is it possible? Well if you say it is because of the Torque than you might also consider that the S4 out accelerated the 335i in all gears and at all speeds, so it couldn't be just all torque. What I am saying is if you look at all the facts the APR S4 dyno is not only possible but also possibly correct and the others was not if their cars wasn't dynoed correctly especially if you consider also the car reviews that have the S4 beating the 335i and a lot of the 335i guys dyno their cars and they are getting 275-285 rwhp. Keith has also mentioned that the S4 also gets very hot and it needs to be cooled properly in which possibly the other guys didn't do it correctly or as advanced equipment as APR. Audi numbers are off maybe to keep a distance from the RS4 and RS5 numbers and it wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer underestimates the number as you can see with the 335i.
Please answer some of the facts and questions that I have posed and others like Lou instead of just saying the numbers are off and it is up to APR to prove it is correct.
You have not given any facts to defend your position but say that APR hasn't proven to you that the dyno was correct. Well the others haven't proven to you that they are correct either. Compare the S4 with the 335i also and I think you will have your answer as to which dyno's was done correctly.

[sakimano]

"NOWHERE did I question APR. They have nothing to gain by overstating a baseline...only a retard would do that (they are brilliant, not retarded)...and only retard would accuse them of that (I am not retarded)...and only a retard would defend their honour against such a claim, when that claim that was never made (?)."
These are your words on reply #50.
So are these. reply #99
"you don't count...he meant a person, not a company selling stuff.

Just a member...ANY member!"

reply #106

"The whole APR dyno firestorm earned them tons of press in the automotive world"

reply #108

"What's so hard to understand? If the dyno is reading high, their chipped run will also read high. Holy crap...its so
simple."

You first say no retard would insinuate what you are insinuating. In the later replies you can see for yourself that is exactly what you are insinuating. If you say you aren't attacking APR I think you better read what you wrote again.
What you are basically saying is that the baseline is high so that the chipped number will be higher than the competitors so that they can sell more chips and that they are getting also free advertising because of it. That surely sounds like an attack on APR.
I also provided you chipped numbers on the B5 and B7 with APR numbers and competitors chipped numbers and it shows that APR has never done what you are insinuating here.
I think APR numbers are not incorrect if you look at the S4 reviews compared to the 335i. In most tests and the S4 is either dead even or beating the 335i in acceleration tests. The 335i has been dynoed at stock rwhp at 275-285 as you can see in this thread.http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-218879.html
The 335i also is 300-400lbs lighter. So if the S4 has only 290hp then how is it possible? Well if you say it is because of the Torque than you might also consider that the S4 out accelerated the 335i in all gears and at all speeds, so it couldn't be just all torque. What I am saying is if you look at all the facts the APR S4 dyno is not only possible but also possibly correct and the others was not if their cars wasn't dynoed correctly especially if you consider also the car reviews that have the S4 beating the 335i and a lot of the 335i guys dyno their cars and they are getting 275-285 rwhp. Keith has also mentioned that the S4 also gets very hot and it needs to be cooled properly in which possibly the other guys didn't do it correctly or as advanced equipment as APR. Audi numbers are off maybe to keep a distance from the RS4 and RS5 numbers and it wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer underestimates the number as you can see with the 335i.
Please answer some of the facts and questions that I have posed and others like Lou instead of just saying the numbers are off and it is up to APR to prove it is correct.
You have not given any facts to defend your position but say that APR hasn't proven to you that the dyno was correct. Well the others haven't proven to you that they are correct either. Compare the S4 with the 335i also and I think you will have your answer as to which dyno's was done correctly.


your quotes fail on an HTML basis and on a content basis. Stop speaking for me. I NEVER INSINUATED APR DID ANYTHING UNTOWARD OR UNDERHANDED!

I'm saying THE DYNO IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why is it so hard for you to understand? I'm not saying they faked it high so their baseline and chipped run will be high...I'm saying that if the machine is fucked up to the high side, it will happen on their baseline and their chipped run. That means the overly high baseline won't hurt them when showing delta...but I'm not saying they're faking the fucking numbers to look cool. Wake up man.

weeks ago when you pulled the quote re: retards, I was saying that APR wouldn't fake the baseline high because it raises the benchmark. If they legitimately dyno super high on the baseline, then have a more normal dyno for the chipped run, that would make their chip look like shit...and only a retard would do that. They won't. They'll use the same dyno for both, calibrated the same and with the same test conditions to keep their gains measurable. If it reads a bit higher than it should, fine. Doesn't hurt anyone...but B8 S4 fanboys like you who cling to the high numbers as the true S4 numbers will be a problem.

Look...stop trying to cook up controversy. There is only one guy on earth who thinks APR's dyno run was a normal, indicative of stock S4 dyno run...and that's you. Everyone else, including APR, understand that the numbers coming out of this S4 on this dyno are extraordinary. By extraordinary, I mean NOT ordinary. APR doesn't care about that fact though for two reasons

1. they sell delta, not stock performance, so it won't hurt them
2. publicity never hurts

[riegeraudi]

I was speaking for you? those are your words.

You still haven't explained the S4 and 335i numbers and review results.

I am not the only one who thinks the numbers are possibly correct. Reread the thread.

All I see here is a person with no facts waving his arms in the air saying the the dyno is wrong not looking at any facts, no supporting facts or even logical reasoning.[headbang]

Ok just aswer this. Assuming you are correct and the two other dyno's that show the S4 has 280-290hp at the wheels, then explain to me how the S4 in all the reviews has or come even or beaten the 335i even though it is 300-400lbs more. Don't tell me it is torque either because the S4 has beaten or matched it in all gears and speed so hp definitely has to be greater than that of the 335i. The 335i also has dynoed many times with 275-285rwhp as the link above indicated in the thread and numerous threads say the same. So explain away how this is possible if the APR dyno is incorrect and the other dyno's are correct how this can happen.

[NWS4Guy]

I'm leaning towards the APR numbers being correct, and rather than delving into the back and forth with Sak and others, I will state why:

1) I read the Dinan piece, which APR had referred people to on another post weeks ago. It's a VERY detailed piece, and shows specifically how engines behave when they Dyno run is done wrong. Specifically, wrong being, not an accurate representation of what real world cooling looks like and reproducing that as closely as possible for the Dyno runs.

2) I have not seen any of the pictures of any of the other shops which have done Dyno runs. I have seen much of the APR space from their copious pictures on their site, from events they sponsor, and from the current S4 Grand Am tear down project, and some nice photos of their Dyno area when testing what looked like a TTS. Seeing these and the caliber space they have for operations leads me to believe that their Dyno area would be equally as top notch.

3) Dinan, APR, and a few other places have stated (with data to back this) that most places do not understand or have inadequate ventillation, airflow, and overall correct setup to provide a Dyno run which simulates real world conditions. Again referring to the Dinan article, with many graphs and explainations - it is shown how the ECU will drastically scale back timing, F/A ratios and overall power under adverse conditions which can result from the above mentioned poor Dyno testing conditions in order to protect the engine - thus causing power output reading to likewise scale down.

4) 3rd party magazines and online car reviews all have the S4 neck and neck, or beating the 335i in the 0-60 times and tests. This from a car which is much heavier than the 335i. This from a car with AWD, and thus more drivetrain to move and parasitic losses from this. This from a car which is tested against the 335i - a car proven time and again to have an understated HP rating from the factory.

So we have a heavier, higher drivetrain loss S4, which according to the Audi MFG claims, should have about the same rough WHP as the 335i, yes somehow is faster?



Doesn't compute.

[sakimano]

I was speaking for you? those are your words.


I didn't accuse APR of any of that shit you wrote, so without your apology, I'm not sure why I'm still listening to anything you have to say. If someone thinks APR's dyno is accurate, all the power to them (i.e. NWS4guy or whomever) but if someone talks shit about me, I'm not going to take it.



You still haven't explained the S4 and 335i numbers and review results.

Ok just aswer this. Assuming you are correct and the two other dyno's that show the S4 has 280-290hp at the wheels, then explain to me how the S4 in all the reviews has or come even or beaten the 335i even though it is 300-400lbs more. Don't tell me it is torque either because the S4 has beaten or matched it in all gears and speed so hp definitely has to be greater than that of the 335i. The 335i also has dynoed many times with 275-285rwhp as the link above indicated in the thread and numerous threads say the same.

So a 335i puts out 275whp to 2 wheels. Great. The B8 S4 puts out about 285 to all 4 wheels. Even better. In a race from a dig, you're wondering how the AWD Audi (TorSen AWD no less) which is putting about 10 or so more hp to All wheels, and weighs 3-400 lbs more is running even with the BMW? Chalk it up to whatever you want, but drawing a linear comparison to results using dyno info+weight will never work. Cars just put power down differently if you're comparing TorSen AWD with RWD...and especially in a sprint to 60mph or the 1/4 mile.

Here's another 'test' for you to explain where I'm coming from:

Car A puts 414hp out at the crank...is RWD and if you assume 15% drivetrain loss on the RWD car, let's call it 350 rwhp

Car B puts 420hp out at the crank...is AWD and dynos at about 325 to the wheels. Car B also weighs about 200 lbs more than its fellow competitor.

So to summarize, car A has more 'at the wheel power', and weighs hundreds of pounds less.

YET

In almost every road test, they run neck and neck. Here's Road and Track's comparison. If you haven't guessed, the cars are the big brothers to the 335i and B8 S4. The E90 M3 and the B7 RS4. They have Identical 1/4 mile times...and the RS4 was FASTER to 60mph by a full tenth in this road test. Results are the same in just about every other similar comparison test.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0608_comp_chart.pdf

The point being, you can't use stats of a RWD car vs. an AWD car to deduct who the winner would be in a road test/race. If I told you the M3 vs. RS4 specs up front...you'd assume the BMW would murder the RS4. You shouldn't. Just as you shouldn't assume that with similar power and less weight the 335i should murder the S4. Nobody on earth has suggested that Audi has under-rated the RS4 dramatically...yet according to your and NWS4's thesis on weight vs. power vs. AWD/RWD to determine a winner, we should be! If anything, the world decries the RS4 as being nowhere near 420 hp ... many think it's more realistically a 380hp car producing about 300whp.

So, no...I don't think calculating backwards from a road test is relevant considering you're comparing AWD vs. RWD. Compare two RWD cars and your methodology makes more sense, but as we've all seen, AWD vs. RWD is WAY less clear.

In case you think that test was 'off', here's another from MotorTrend. Same results, and they used the E92 M3 which is even lighter than the E90.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0712_german_v8_performance_car_comparison/audi_rs4_conclusion.html

[SebringSilver]

4) 3rd party magazines and online car reviews all have the S4 neck and neck, or beating the 335i in the 0-60 times and tests. This from a car which is much heavier than the 335i. This from a car with AWD, and thus more drivetrain to move and parasitic losses from this. This from a car which is tested against the 335i - a car proven time and again to have an understated HP rating from the factory.

So we have a heavier, higher drivetrain loss S4, which according to the Audi MFG claims, should have about the same rough WHP as the 335i, yes somehow is faster?



Doesn't compute.

0-60 mph times really don't mean very much. Gearing also plays a big role in that number because an extra shift before hitting 60 mph will easily add a tenth of a second or more to that result. We should also be looking not only in terms of absolute numbers generated during a dyno test but actually at where in the curve the power and torque is peaking.

Just my two cents...

[sakimano]

0-60 mph times really don't mean very much. Gearing also plays a big role in that number because an extra shift before hitting 60 mph will easily add a tenth of a second or more to that result. We should also be looking not only in terms of absolute numbers generated during a dyno test but actually at where in the curve the power and torque is peaking.

Just my two cents...

Funny...I was looking at a road test of the ZR1. It covers 60mph in first gear!

[NWS4Guy]

All well and good that the ZR1 (which has gobs more torque) can do this. True gearing can and does matter, but when you are talking about 2 engines which are supposed to be putting down the same rough figures in HP and Torque, yet one has to pull an AWD system on a heavier car, there is no amount of gearing or ratio of the drive which will compensate for this.

Is BMW stupid? Is Audi? Do you not think they computer model to find the best performance for their engines against a wide range of gearing knowing that the people buying these cars are performance minded and care more about 0-60 than fuel economy?


Lets break the factory numbers down:

S4 - 333hp@ 5500RPM, 325lb/ft @ 2900RPM
335i - 300hp@5800RPM, 300lb/ft @ 1400RPM

The S4 is generating 10% more HP and 8% more torque.

The S4 also has to pull around 9.5% more weight as well.

S4 takes longer to get to peak torque by more than double the RPMs.

Pretty much level all things considered, until you also consider it has more parasitic loss from extra drivetrain components to haul around to all 4 wheels.

On paper the 335i should outperform due to these differences, yet it does not. This is using the factory claimed numbers - which years since the 335i has come out, has been dyno'd stock many, MANY times now to prove that the engine was underrated from the factory.

Considering this, the 335i should easily walk on the S4, yet doesn't. We can either deduce that BMW for some reason, chose a less than optimal gearing on the 335i, causing it to perform less than a near equal car which wieghs more and has more drivetrain loss. Or we can reason that both cars were actually underrated from the factory.

To me, it's more believable that the S4 is underrated. People will still draw their own conclusions, though.

[sakimano]

interesting post. The ZR1 comment was out of interest's sake, relating to sebring's comment. Nothing else.

Nobody is saying the S4 isn't underrated...I'm just saying that the dyno 'evidence' that has been gathered so far says it's not 80 hp underrated...more like 30. Anyway, go ahead and explain the RS4 vs. E90 M3 running even using the same logic as your S4vsM3 explanation. I'm eagerly waiting [:D]

Also, if a 335i is dyno'd at 275ish RWHP, that would put it at what...about 310-320 at the crank? If the S4 is putting out about 285 AWHP..that would put it at what...365hp at the crank? Is 45hp not enough to make up for the weight...when you also factor in the traction advantage the S4 has from a dig? Because the 'races' you guys are referencing are from a dig.

Take another example...a 420hp AWD RS4 vs. the RWD 335i. On paper, the 335 is quite a bit slower. Half a second in the quarter mile...almost a half second in the 0-60mph sprint...all while being 400 lbs lighter than the RS4

The RS4 and B8 S4 weigh about the same. The RS4 and the B8 S4 both have a rear biased TorSen AWD system. The RS4 and the B8 S4, according to APR's dyno that you guys are hanging your hats on, have about the same crank hp...and the B8 S4 has WAY more torque 80lb/ft more actually).

So why does the RS4 kill the S4 in every professionally conducted road test we've ever read? I'll tell you why...because the B8 S4 is NOT 410hp and 400torque!


All well and good that the ZR1 (which has gobs more torque) can do this. True gearing can and does matter, but when you are talking about 2 engines which are supposed to be putting down the same rough figures in HP and Torque, yet one has to pull an AWD system on a heavier car, there is no amount of gearing or ratio of the drive which will compensate for this.

Is BMW stupid? Is Audi? Do you not think they computer model to find the best performance for their engines against a wide range of gearing knowing that the people buying these cars are performance minded and care more about 0-60 than fuel economy?


Lets break the factory numbers down:

S4 - 333hp@ 5500RPM, 325lb/ft @ 2900RPM
335i - 300hp@5800RPM, 300lb/ft @ 1400RPM

The S4 is generating 10% more HP and 8% more torque.

The S4 also has to pull around 9.5% more weight as well.

S4 takes longer to get to peak torque by more than double the RPMs.

Pretty much level all things considered, until you also consider it has more parasitic loss from extra drivetrain components to haul around to all 4 wheels.

On paper the 335i should outperform due to these differences, yet it does not. This is using the factory claimed numbers - which years since the 335i has come out, has been dyno'd stock many, MANY times now to prove that the engine was underrated from the factory.

Considering this, the 335i should easily walk on the S4, yet doesn't. We can either deduce that BMW for some reason, chose a less than optimal gearing on the 335i, causing it to perform less than a near equal car which wieghs more and has more drivetrain loss. Or we can reason that both cars were actually underrated from the factory.

To me, it's more believable that the S4 is underrated. People will still draw their own conclusions, though.

[SebringSilver]

Unfortunately, road test results from magazine to magazine will vary, and even those results coming from the same magazine for different cars aren't necessarily directly comparable either, owing to the fact that there are so many variables that play a part in the numbers being generated.

Weather, temperature, altitude, driver skill, tarmac conditions, wind factor, tire choice, and more will all have their say in the numbers that we as enthusiasts delve so deepy into whenever we pick up a copy of R&T or C/D or any other reputable print source. And that's not even taking into account the possibility that sometimes (strange but true) there really are factory freaks that may have been built on a Wednesday that really skew the numbers one way or another.

Let's not get too up in arms over the numbers being reported by APR at this time. All of you are intelligent people, so while it's fine to debate the merits of some of these data sources, it's probably not necessary to take these arguments too personally.

[:)]

[SebringSilver]

Funny...I was looking at a road test of the ZR1. It covers 60mph in first gear!

Yeah, that car is pretty amazing.

[NWS4Guy]

The RS4 and B8 S4 weigh about the same. The RS4 and the B8 S4 both have a rear biased TorSen AWD system. The RS4 and the B8 S4, according to APR's dyno that you guys are hanging your hats on, have about the same crank hp...and the B8 S4 has WAY more torque 80lb/ft more actually).

So why does the RS4 kill the S4 in every professionally conducted road test we've ever read? I'll tell you why...because the B8 S4 is NOT 410hp and 400torque!
[:D]



You are mistaken sir.

Per your own links, the RS4 has nearly identical torque to the B8 S4, perhaps you mistook the HP for the torque? I would hardly call 8 entire lb/ft "way more."
RS4:
HP - 420
Torque - 317

B8 S4:
HP - 333
Torque - 325

Considering HP significantly more for the RS4 and considering that the RS4 and B8S4 are nearly equal in weight, the results are not at all surprising to me:

RS4:
0-60 - 4.5Sec
1/4 mile - 13.0@ 108mph

B8 S4:
0-60 - 4.9Sec
1/4 mile - 13.4@ 106mph


Taking the RS4 and M3 into the equation, these engines are not nearly as similar to each other as the B8 S4 and the 335i engines. The M3 has less overall torque, yet reaches it's max torque much sooner than the RS4, allowing it to get into the sweet spot of the power band sooner in 1st gear.

Generating high torque down low is not very important in top speeds or track runs, since you are already at speed for most if not all the run, staying in the top of each gear then shifting will drop you back into the thick of the torque with the proper engine and gearing. Generating all of the torque very high in the RPM is not desirable, unless you have already climbed rapidly and are slowly building to a small peak late. High low-end torque is only important from a standstill allowing the car to initially pull ahead faster to the shift points, and then carry it along at that same pace (hopefully).

This becomes more apparent where the higher speeds come into play and the M3 walks on the RS4 once they hit 70, and continues to from there. Why? Because at each shift (assuming a shift at or VERY near redline), the RS4 drops back below the peak torque, requiring it to build back to the max part of the curve where the pull is at. The M3, having a much lower peak torque is dropped at a redline shift back down already in the sweet spot - pulling hard back through the entire next gear again.

[boombastic]

after driving my c63(auto), M3 (DCT) and the S4(DSG) all together at one night, along with many people here, i agree the S4's hp is underrated. S4 vs C63, c63 has all the torque and hp advantage, so i could not tell the true number of S4 when i compared the 2. then i switched to M3. S4 feels quicker in first 2 gears, also it may get similar 0-60 result (why? coz S4 is easier to launch, faster off the line), however, 1/4 miles S4 could not pick up the M3; that leads me to believe that S4 could be around360-370bhp, but not 400 for sure.

[sakimano]

Ummm....no

You, and riegeraudi said you think the apr dyno is accurate. If that's the case the whp and wtq are both around 320. If that's the case, being awd, the S4 is about 410 hp and 410 tq at the crank vs the Rs4 at 420-317.

If you want to compare whp #s...fine. RS4 usually dynos around 310whp/260wtq...and if APR's dyno is accurate the b8 s4 is about 320whp and 320 wtq. Shouldn't the S4 kill the RS4? Or at least be neck and neck?

No...because APR's dyno #s for the s4 are useless in reality...somethings way off.

So either
A) you now agree with me that the APR dyno is hyperinflated (using normal drivetrain loss assumptions)
B). Well there is no b. Clearly you've seen the light :)




You are mistaken sir.

Per your own links, the RS4 has nearly identical torque to the B8 S4, perhaps you mistook the HP for the torque? I would hardly call 8 entire lb/ft "way more."
RS4:
HP - 420
Torque - 317

B8 S4:
HP - 333
Torque - 325

Considering HP significantly more for the RS4 and considering that the RS4 and B8S4 are nearly equal in weight, the results are not at all surprising to me:

RS4:
0-60 - 4.5Sec
1/4 mile - 13.0@ 108mph

B8 S4:
0-60 - 4.9Sec
1/4 mile - 13.4@ 106mph


Taking the RS4 and M3 into the equation, these engines are not nearly as similar to each other as the B8 S4 and the 335i engines. The M3 has less overall torque, yet reaches it's max torque much sooner than the RS4, allowing it to get into the sweet spot of the power band sooner in 1st gear.

Generating high torque down low is not very important in top speeds or track runs, since you are already at speed for most if not all the run, staying in the top of each gear then shifting will drop you back into the thick of the torque with the proper engine and gearing. Generating all of the torque very high in the RPM is not desirable, unless you have already climbed rapidly and are slowly building to a small peak late. High low-end torque is only important from a standstill allowing the car to initially pull ahead faster to the shift points, and then carry it along at that same pace (hopefully).

This becomes more apparent where the higher speeds come into play and the M3 walks on the RS4 once they hit 70, and continues to from there. Why? Because at each shift (assuming a shift at or VERY near redline), the RS4 drops back below the peak torque, requiring it to build back to the max part of the curve where the pull is at. The M3, having a much lower peak torque is dropped at a redline shift back down already in the sweet spot - pulling hard back through the entire next gear again.

[sakimano]

Anyone else still think the b8 s4 is a 400hp car from the factory?

[NWS4Guy]

I never said I thought it was a 400hp car from the factory.

You also nicely dodged most of what I stated, even when I pointed out you were quoting incorrect numbers though.

[Arin@APR]

You can't use a fixed DTL to assume crank figures based on our dyno figures.
using a variable DTL, 20% at redline matches Audi's advertised claims.

[riegeraudi]

Here is a link to Automobile magazine that dynoed a 335i. They found it to have 350bhp and 360tq with 275rwhp and they said it was 20% drivetrain loss. Read the article and you can see how they arrived at these numbers.
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/index.html
Here is the powertrain numbers and you can see the gear ratios
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/1f6edf33ef36341db1ba38eb2bb9f13b.pdf
I don't know what info you can deduct from the numbers but someone who is technical can elaborate maybe.
So if you look at the Automobile dyno of 350bhp for the 335i and look at the gear ratios you tell me what hp you think the S4 would need with the 300-400lbs extra to match or beat the 335i performance.

[SebringSilver]

Here is a link to Automobile magazine that dynoed a 335i. They found it to have 350bhp and 360tq with 275rwhp and they said it was 20% drivetrain loss. Read the article and you can see how they arrived at these numbers.
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/index.html
Here is the powertrain numbers and you can see the gear ratios
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/1f6edf33ef36341db1ba38eb2bb9f13b.pdf
I don't know what info you can deduct from the numbers but someone who is technical can elaborate maybe.
So if you look at the Automobile dyno of 350bhp for the 335i and look at the gear ratios you tell me what hp you think the S4 would need with the 300-400lbs extra to match or beat the 335i performance.

Oh boy, so if we are to assume that Automobile Magazine's numbers are reliable, then how do you explain the fact that the E46 M3 is still faster to 60 and to the 1/4 mile than the 335i when it has, reportedly, less horsepower than the underrated 335i? Did BMW understate the E46 M3's crank hp as well?

What a can of worms this discussion is turning out to be.

[sakimano]

I never said I thought it was a 400hp car from the factory.

You also nicely dodged most of what I stated, even when I pointed out you were quoting incorrect numbers though.

that's my point...I wasn't quoting factory specs...because APR's dyno, if you believe it, destroy the factory specs. You guys keep clinging to the notion that this dyno is an accurate depiction of the S4...well then why not do a comparison of the car vs another AWD similarly powered car to see if those specs transfer to the road?

On one hand you're saying APR's dyno is correct...then you're using car vs. car, hp vs hp and weight vs. weight comparisons to prove your point that the APR dyno is correct since the S4 can hang with the 335i (which is unrealistic since you're comparing an AWD and a RWD but that's besides the point).

However when faced with overwhelming evidence comparing two AWD cars (RS4 vs. S4) where the seemingly underpowered RS4 (vs. APR S4) manages to crush the S4 performance in every metric, you backtrack.

Nowhere did you point out my error...you pointed out your own!

Make up your mind...is the APR dyno correct, or are Audi's claims correct?

[sakimano]

I saw that...but since when does a RWD car experience 20% drivetrain loss? Just wondering.

Can you please focus on why the 400hp/400tq S4 doesn't come close to the RS4?

There are too many subplots here. I'm getting the feeling that nobody here thinks the S4 is a 400hp/400tq car...everyone's just trying to justify their posts.

START FRESH






Here is a link to Automobile magazine that dynoed a 335i...lots more things

[sakimano]

What a can of worms this discussion is turning out to be.

Exactly - and if APR, day one, had come out and said "here are the reasons we think this particular car dyno'd so well", this would never have happened.

Arin/Keith - why do you think your dyno'd S4 shows dramatically different numbers to the other 2 or 3 dyno reports we've seen? I get dyno vs. dyno...etc. I don't want to know dyno theory...I want to know YOUR OPINION.

Also, didn't you think it might make sense to get a second opinion before launching this information on every Audi site on earth, and being quoted across the web? (and quietly casting negative light on MTM and ABT in the process?)

[boombastic]

ok, lets think it this way, from the performance result, we know 335i and S4 are close. 335i whp avg should be around 260 to be fair (check e90 post or http://www.burgertuning.comi believe 275 whp is too extreme, a 135i gets around 260-265whp stock also) if the powertrain loss is estimated to be around 20%, bhp should be around 331. the power to weight ratio for the 335i coupe (weights around 3600lb) is abt 10.88. now, lets assume audi has the same power to weight ratio (why assume that? base on caranddriver.com test result). a 4000lb S4 in order to have a power to weight ratio 10.88, its bhp should be abt 367.

[NWS4Guy]

Nowhere did you point out my error...you pointed out your own!

Make up your mind...is the APR dyno correct, or are Audi's claims correct?

Dude, serisouly? You quoted the B8 S4 having 80 more torque than the RS4. It has eight more as I said a few posts up.

I've no problems comparing cars, since that is ultimately what happens on the road and among friends anyway. No one doesn't drive the cars, compares Dyno readings and makes decisions. There is another huge factor as well - the human factor. 2 people driving identical cars will have different results even.

[riegeraudi]

that's my point...I wasn't quoting factory specs...because APR's dyno, if you believe it, destroy the factory specs. You guys keep clinging to the notion that this dyno is an accurate depiction of the S4...well then why not do a comparison of the car vs another AWD similarly powered car to see if those specs transfer to the road?

On one hand you're saying APR's dyno is correct...then you're using car vs. car, hp vs hp and weight vs. weight comparisons to prove your point that the APR dyno is correct since the S4 can hang with the 335i (which is unrealistic since you're comparing an AWD and a RWD but that's besides the point).

However when faced with overwhelming evidence comparing two AWD cars (RS4 vs. S4) where the seemingly underpowered RS4 (vs. APR S4) manages to crush the S4 performance in every metric, you backtrack.

Nowhere did you point out my error...you pointed out your own!

Make up your mind...is the APR dyno correct, or are Audi's claims correct?

I think that APR dyno is correct but not for every S4. Like I said APR's S4 had 2psi more than factory since someone said factory had 12psi boost and APR had 14psi boost.
The other cars had only 10psi boost so they were actually 2psi less than factory. I suspect this because as Arin indicated is probably due to improper ventilation while on the Dyno.
Question 1.
Do you agree with this being possible?

So this leaves us at basically I think if it was factory at 12psi boost than we should be getting roughly 310awhp which times 25% drivetrain loss equals about 388hp.

Question 2.
Do you think this is correct? If not please let me know what you think than.

So in this case Audi numbers are not correct. Is APR's number incorrect for all S4's most likely yes but was it wrong for APR's car or was the dyno wrong for their particular car NO. Does that mean that some of the S4 out on the street aren't getting 400hp no, because as you can see with some of the 335i dyno's some are getting 275rwhp and some are getting 285rwhp. So is it the norm for S4 to get 400hp, again NO. But is it possible Yes.

[dbc112]

ehh...not necessarily. 1/4 mile is a tough test for these AWD 3850 lb cars.

A B6/7 S4 is 340hp stock...and when supercharged produces about 500hp and 380-400whp. It will murder a Modena on the road, or any RS4/M3 etc...but in the 1/4 mile they struggle to get into the 12s (vs. 13.8 ish stock). Fighting an AWD launch bog and the inertia of 3850 lbs is difficult to say the least.

You can't hang your hat on the success or failure of a product/tune for these cars based on 1/4 mile times, as it's kind of a stacked deck against Audi. Nor can you assume big instant 1320 gains based on expected XX hp pickup. It's just not as simple.

Murder a modena? Seriously? I am thinking about this mod, but thought putting the $ towards a good used Rs4 made more sense..

[sakimano]

Dude, serisouly? You quoted the B8 S4 having 80 more torque than the RS4. It has eight more as I said a few posts up.

I've no problems comparing cars, since that is ultimately what happens on the road and among friends anyway. No one doesn't drive the cars, compares Dyno readings and makes decisions. There is another huge factor as well - the human factor. 2 people driving identical cars will have different results even.

WTF are we talking about? APR dyno'd the B8 S4 with 320+ WHEEL torque. The RS4 is 317 CRANK torque...and about 250-260 wheel. If you apply your magic drivetrain loss numbers, you end up with about an 80 peak tq advantage for the APR dyno'd B8 S4. Yet the RS4 kills the S4 performance wise. That's what I'm saying.

We're talking about the APR dyno here...not Audi factory specs. You yourself have said that you think APR's dyno is right and thus Audi's factory specs for the S4 are bullshit. So why are you quoting Audi factory specs in your argument? SO strange. I'm losing my mind here....because I swear you said this yesterday


I'm leaning towards the APR numbers being correct

[sakimano]

FINALLY! We've had a breakthrough.

That's what I've been saying all along...this particular dyno run has no real relevance for the S4 itself...the numbers are too frigging high, and why are we not talking about the causes, rather than arguing back and forth about motive.

Yes, it could be too much boost...Nissan sent MotorTrend a GTR with some bonus boost...and they dyno'd it way above another GTR they tested. Could be co-incidence in that case, but I would surmise Nissan had a hand in that somewhere. In APR's case, I believe they bought the car, didn't they? And obviously Audi barely knows APR exists so wouldn't likely give them a bonused car. Just a fluke. Probably other factors as well.

With that being said I don't subscribe to the theory that the 335i is a 350-360hp car. The B7 S4 is a 340hp/304tq AWD 3850 lb car, and it doesn't get murdered by a stock 335i. It should if the 335i was a 350hp car...but it doesn't.






I think that APR dyno is correct but not for every S4. Like I said APR's S4 had 2psi more than factory since someone said factory had 12psi boost and APR had 14psi boost.
The other cars had only 10psi boost so they were actually 2psi less than factory. I suspect this because as Arin indicated is probably due to improper ventilation while on the Dyno.
Question 1.
Do you agree with this being possible?

So this leaves us at basically I think if it was factory at 12psi boost than we should be getting roughly 310awhp which times 25% drivetrain loss equals about 388hp.

Question 2.
Do you think this is correct? If not please let me know what you think than.

So in this case Audi numbers are not correct. Is APR's number incorrect for all S4's most likely yes but was it wrong for APR's car or was the dyno wrong for their particular car NO. Does that mean that some of the S4 out on the street aren't getting 400hp no, because as you can see with some of the 335i dyno's some are getting 275rwhp and some are getting 285rwhp. So is it the norm for S4 to get 400hp, again NO. But is it possible Yes.

[NoTec]

My opinion FWIW:
1. Either Apr's dyno is very optimistic, sort of like most Dynapack dynos, or their car had optimum fuel, a lot of fresh air, and more boost. I also think the Rs4 dyno they listed as reference was crippled.

2. Audi is lying. That's a given. Just like BMW did with the 335i, Mitsubishi did with the Evo 9 and 10, and Nissan with the GTR. Notice a trend...

3. B8 S4s, with a 30% drivetrain loss (since the two more accurate and believable dynos were mustang dynos), are producing 365-375 chp stock. I believe that chp range to be accurate.

4. Back to Apr's car again. With all conditions perfect and 2psi more boost, I can agree with riegeraudi that 400 chp from this particular S4 is/was possible but is far from the norm.

[sakimano]

My opinion FWIW:
1. Either Apr's dyno is very optimistic, sort of like most Dynapack dynos, or their car had optimum fuel, a lot of fresh air, and more boost. I also think the Rs4 dyno they listed as reference was crippled.

2. Audi is lying. That's a given. Just like BMW did with the 335i, Mitsubishi did with the Evo 9 and 10, and Nissan with the GTR. Notice a trend...

3. B8 S4s, with a 30% drivetrain loss (since the two more accurate and believable dynos were mustang dynos), are producing 365-375 whp stock. I believe that chp range to be accurate.

4. Back to Apr's car again. With all conditions perfect and 2psi more boost, I can agree with riegeraudi that 400 chp from this particular S4 is/was possible but is far from the norm.

good rational summary...although I think you meant 365-375 bhp in point 3.

[NoTec]

Murder a modena? Seriously? I am thinking about this mod, but thought putting the $ towards a good used Rs4 made more sense..

No doubt in my mind that a s/c S4 would pull away from a Modena pretty easily. I also think the Rs4 would make more sense for someone who is more focused on the driving experience and total package. If you plan on doing many highway pulls and crave acceleration, a supercharged S4 would probably be the way to go.

[NoTec]

good rational summary...although I think you meant 365-375 bhp in point 3.

Yes my mistake.

[boombastic]

i believe that number too. been saying too many times.


Yes my mistake.

[sakimano]

Murder a modena? Seriously? I am thinking about this mod, but thought putting the $ towards a good used Rs4 made more sense..

Murder's probably not the best term to use...but yes, beat a Modena. 500 hp sent to a TorSen T3 is serious business! Not to mention 380tq.

[Arin@APR]

Exactly - and if APR, day one, had come out and said "here are the reasons we think this particular car dyno'd so well", this would never have happened.

I don't believe that's our responsability. We have a B8 S4. We dynoed it. Everyone wanted to see a dyno.

We shared our results on here and quattroworld.




Arin/Keith - why do you think your dyno'd S4 shows dramatically different numbers to the other 2 or 3 dyno reports we've seen? I get dyno vs. dyno...etc. I don't want to know dyno theory...I want to know YOUR OPINION.

My opinion is the B8 S4 is underrated. It seems Audi/VW is underrating lots of new cars. Lots of independent dynos of the 2.0 TSI in the A3 and GTI have near, exactly, or higher than claimed crank power. My opinion is the engine is underrated. In this sense, I'm no different than you. It's an opinion. I also think people are trying to get back to crank figures by assigning a arbitrary fixed drivetrain loss to the entire dyno run, which is overestimating low end torque. These methods seem to have very little science behind them.


Also, didn't you think it might make sense to get a second opinion

To be hones, no. That's not my responsibility. I mean no disrespect, but I honestly do not think that's my responsibility. I unfortunately did not predict showing a dyno graph would be such a huge debate. I had no idea it would be on every board in the universe, in magazines, blogs, and so on. Even if I did know all this, I probably still would have posted it anyways because if I was on the outside looking in, I'd want to see the results.


before launching this information on every Audi site on earth and being quoted across the web?

We posted the results on Audizine and Quattroworld. I don't remember if we even posted it on VWVortex. I never imagined our dyno graphs would show up on so many sites. That's not our fault. It's not even a fault.


(and quietly casting negative light on MTM and ABT in the process?)

This is unfair. We have posted data. Raw data. Corrected data. Uncorrected data. 6 Dyno runs. Average of each run.

What has MTM and ABT posted?
ONE RUN from MTM

One run that everyone misread.

MTM's graph showed a chipped run at the wheels and the crank. Since it showed such low chipped numbers to the wheels (something in the 200's) everyone thought that must be 'stock'. However, it wasn't. They were not reading the graph correctly. I pointed this out. Not because it's bad, but because it is what it is. It's the truth. Fact. I was correct. I was showing and teaching others how to read a MAHA graph just like I was taught long ago. The only reason it looks like I was "casting negative light on MTM and ABT" was because the dyno calculated the car put down 2XX HP to the wheels which translated to 4XX at the crank. The absurdity is not my fault. It's the readers interpreting the data in front of their faces and coming up with their own opinions.

---

Why did we post the results we measured?

Why not?!?!

People wanted to see what this car can do! We were just as excited as you. I was elated! I'm an enthusiast. You're an enthusiast. Everyone here is an enthusiast. I want to share for the sake of sharing.

It's long been a policy of APR not to publish wheel dyno graphs. All it seems to do is cause problems. Everyone argues. If they don't see exactly what we see then people cry foul. So a policy of only showing crank figures was enacted way before I came to work here. And, what did that do for us? Nothing. People still wanted to see wheel number. I wanted to show wheel numbers. I, along with Keith, decided to get back into the technical discussion arena and share our results. We are sharing because that's exactly what WE would want to see.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe we need to purchase a MAHA, Mustang and Dynojet, a few more S4's, dyno, data log, compile the data for month's and then say "Whoa, check this out".

I've respected all of your skepticism and discussion so far. That being said I do not care for this quoted post at all. I believe you're reading too far into it. Our intention behind showing the S4 dyno was simply "Check this out, here is what the car put down completely stock. We're excited!"

[sakimano]

ok, lets think it this way, from the performance result, we know 335i and S4 are close. 335i whp avg should be around 260 to be fair (check e90 post or http://www.burgertuning.comi believe 275 whp is too extreme, a 135i gets around 260-265whp stock also) if the powertrain loss is estimated to be around 20%, bhp should be around 331. the power to weight ratio for the 335i coupe (weights around 3600lb) is abt 10.88. now, lets assume audi has the same power to weight ratio (why assume that? base on caranddriver.com test result). a 4000lb S4 in order to have a power to weight ratio 10.88, its bhp should be abt 367.

interesting way to think about it...but I think power to weight ratio of a RWD vs. power to weight ratio of an AWD car isn't apples to apples...AWHP owns RWHP for everything but drifting. i.e. AWD car can do more with less perceived power.

Do the same math you just did on the M3 (E90) vs. RS4 (B7)

414hp crank power for the M3...
M3 weighs 3700 lbs on the road...RS4 3900
performance is equal

Power to weight, as you calculated it, is 11.1. Apply this to the RS4's heft 3900lbs and you get 436 hp for the RS4. If anything it's closer to 380.

Does that mean that the M3 is actually overrated...and is really a 400hp car? Nope. It means that AWD HP at the wheels is more effective than RWD hp at the wheels.

This is what I was trying to explain to the guys a few posts up who were obsessing on the S4 vs. 335i and extrapolating backwards to come up with an answer. They (and you) missed a variable...AWD. While it eats HP on the way to the wheels...once it's there AWHP is a beautiful thing.

[boombastic]

i dont think M3 is neither overrated nor underrated. stock avg M3 has 350whp on dynojet, M3 has about 15-17% powertrain. so it has abt 411-422 bhp which is what bmw claims. my e92 M3 weights about 3760lb, its power to weight ratio is 9, right on the bar before i tuned it. i do agree with your AWD statement. thats why 335XI is slightly faster than 335i 0-60. thats also one of the reason why GTR is damn fast off the line.

[sakimano]

good answer!

while you may not think it's your responsibility, as a corporation, you're held to a higher standard than some random user like me who is here on a forum posting for fun. If something comes from APR...the experts...it might be nice to back it up a bit and avoid endless speculation.

What I was saying about ABT and MTM was that your dyno showed 320 something wheel hp. Everyone and their brother extrapolated that this means about 400 crank hp. Then, everyone took a run at MTM and ABT extrapolating further that they're only delivering 30 crank hp for $4000. I'm not sure you guys threw any water on that fire...gasoline maybe, by your absence.

Thanks for posting though. Your opinion is that the car is under-rated. OK...other dynos bear this out. Any thoughts on why your car appears to be a hair more overpowered than theirs? i.e. if you dyno'd 7 B8 S4s on that dyno, is it your opinion that they'd all put down similar numbers? Or is it your opinion that this might also be a bit of a ringer?







I don't believe that's our responsability. We have a B8 S4. We dynoed it. Everyone wanted to see a dyno.

We shared our results on here and quattroworld.




My opinion is the B8 S4 is underrated. It seems Audi/VW is underrating lots of new cars. Lots of independent dynos of the 2.0 TSI in the A3 and GTI have near, exactly, or higher than claimed crank power. My opinion is the engine is underrated. In this sense, I'm no different than you. It's an opinion. I also think people are trying to get back to crank figures by assigning a arbitrary fixed drivetrain loss to the entire dyno run, which is overestimating low end torque. These methods seem to have very little science behind them.



To be hones, no. That's not my responsibility. I mean no disrespect, but I honestly do not think that's my responsibility. I unfortunately did not predict showing a dyno graph would be such a huge debate. I had no idea it would be on every board in the universe, in magazines, blogs, and so on. Even if I did know all this, I probably still would have posted it anyways because if I was on the outside looking in, I'd want to see the results.



We posted the results on Audizine and Quattroworld. I don't remember if we even posted it on VWVortex. I never imagined our dyno graphs would show up on so many sites. That's not our fault. It's not even a fault.



This is unfair. We have posted data. Raw data. Corrected data. Uncorrected data. 6 Dyno runs. Average of each run.

What has MTM and ABT posted?
ONE RUN from MTM

One run that everyone misread.

MTM's graph showed a chipped run at the wheels and the crank. Since it showed such low chipped numbers to the wheels (something in the 200's) everyone thought that must be 'stock'. However, it wasn't. They were not reading the graph correctly. I pointed this out. Not because it's bad, but because it is what it is. It's the truth. Fact. I was correct. I was showing and teaching others how to read a MAHA graph just like I was taught long ago. The only reason it looks like I was "casting negative light on MTM and ABT" was because the dyno calculated the car put down 2XX HP to the wheels which translated to 4XX at the crank. The absurdity is not my fault. It's the readers interpreting the data in front of their faces and coming up with their own opinions.

---

Why did we post the results we measured?

Why not?!?!

People wanted to see what this car can do! We were just as excited as you. I was elated! I'm an enthusiast. You're an enthusiast. Everyone here is an enthusiast. I want to share for the sake of sharing.

It's long been a policy of APR not to publish wheel dyno graphs. All it seems to do is cause problems. Everyone argues. If they don't see exactly what we see then people cry foul. So a policy of only showing crank figures was enacted way before I came to work here. And, what did that do for us? Nothing. People still wanted to see wheel number. I wanted to show wheel numbers. I, along with Keith, decided to get back into the technical discussion arena and share our results. We are sharing because that's exactly what WE would want to see.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe we need to purchase a MAHA, Mustang and Dynojet, a few more S4's, dyno, data log, compile the data for month's and then say "Whoa, check this out".

I've respected all of your skepticism and discussion so far. That being said I do not care for this quoted post at all. I believe you're reading too far into it. Our intention behind showing the S4 dyno was simply "Check this out, here is what the car put down completely stock. We're excited!"

[Arin@APR]

Any thoughts on why your car appears to be a hair more overpowered than theirs? i.e. if you dyno'd 7 B8 S4s on that dyno, is it your opinion that they'd all put down similar numbers? Or is it your opinion that this might also be a bit of a ringer?

Overpowered compared to which car/company/dyno?

In my opinion if we threw several B8 S4's on the same dyno, same day, we'd see the same results, however I don't have any data to back this up. That's just a guess.

[boombastic]

1 additional thing i found out funny about both 335i and S4 is the number they use. 335i claims to be 300bhp, but indeed to be 333ish (33hp different), the S4 claims to be 333bhp, but indeed closer to 367. (also about 33hp different) Oo.

[sakimano]

1 additional thing i found out funny about both 335i and S4 is the number they use. 335i claims to be 300bhp, but indeed to be 333ish (33hp different), the S4 claims to be 333bhp, but indeed closer to 367. (also about 33hp different) Oo.

remind me: if I ever need someone to sit in for me at a math test...to NOT pick you [:D]

[blu04srt4]

I think the only real way to clear this up is to have a few bone stock S4s go to their dyno and post up the same or similar numbers. This back and forth used to be interesting now its just repetitive.

[NWS4Guy]

WTF are we talking about? APR dyno'd the B8 S4 with 320+ WHEEL torque. The RS4 is 317 CRANK torque...and about 250-260 wheel. If you apply your magic drivetrain loss numbers, you end up with about an 80 peak tq advantage for the APR dyno'd B8 S4. Yet the RS4 kills the S4 performance wise. That's what I'm saying.

We're talking about the APR dyno here...not Audi factory specs. You yourself have said that you think APR's dyno is right and thus Audi's factory specs for the S4 are bullshit. So why are you quoting Audi factory specs in your argument? SO strange. I'm losing my mind here....because I swear you said this yesterday

Sorry but if you want an apples to apples, I am going to compare the Dyno to Dyno, or factory sheet to factory.

What you are suggesting is to compare APR's dyno results at the wheel then use an arbitrary, unscientific, non-empirical, pull-it-out-of-your-ass, % drivetrain loss to wild-ass guestimate the crank HP.

Then you want to compare that to the RS4 numbers from Road and Track, which is a quote of the factory specs at the crank - not a dyno run. Not even a dyno run that was put through the same foolishly flawed method I referenced above to come out with something you can say is the actual crank HP.

You are very adament about people not putting words in your mouth or speaking for you on many posts I have seen across these forums, so in the sense of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) I'd accpreciate reciprication. I've said I am starting to lean towards the APR numbers. I've also said things like "IF you take into account a 22% drivetrain loss, you would end up with XXX Crank HP."

Never once have I stated, "OMG WTFBBQ this car is so crazy underrated and has 400 or more crank HP!!!!!111oneone"

So please, read into what I am saying whatever you like, but don't assume that you read more into what I have said than what was actually typed out that you know what I was thinking or trying to say.

[sakimano]

sure thing...my whole point was not to compare the two, but to point out the absurdity of citing a road test as validation for a dyno number of two different drivetrain cars. (S4 vs. 335i that you quoted in your four point affirmation of APR's dyno.

So while we're doing that, why, if the S4 is a 320whp car, is it getting its ass whipped by the RS4 (also a 320 whp car...less actually)? You yourself said you think these numbers ring true for the S4. Yes? If so...why can't it hang with the RS4?

The method, if foolishly flawed, was yours my friend. Professional road test data doesn't lie...but dynos, as Arin pointed out, can tell a million stories depending on a few tiny variables.

Again - if you believe the S4 to be a drastically underrated car...producing 300something wheel horsepower...why can't it hang with the big boys it supposedly is equal in power to? let's keep it civil.


Sorry but if you want an apples to apples, I am going to compare the Dyno to Dyno, or factory sheet to factory.

What you are suggesting is to compare APR's dyno results at the wheel then use an arbitrary, unscientific, non-empirical, pull-it-out-of-your-ass, % drivetrain loss to wild-ass guestimate the crank HP.

Then you want to compare that to the RS4 numbers from Road and Track, which is a quote of the factory specs at the crank - not a dyno run. Not even a dyno run that was put through the same foolishly flawed method I referenced above to come out with something you can say is the actual crank HP.

You are very adament about people not putting words in your mouth or speaking for you on many posts I have seen across these forums, so in the sense of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) I'd accpreciate reciprication. I've said I am starting to lean towards the APR numbers. I've also said things like "IF you take into account a 22% drivetrain loss, you would end up with XXX Crank HP."

Never once have I stated, "OMG WTFBBQ this car is so crazy underrated and has 400 or more crank HP!!!!!111oneone"

So please, read into what I am saying whatever you like, but don't assume that you read more into what I have said than what was actually typed out that you know what I was thinking or trying to say.

[NWS4Guy]

good answer!

while you may not think it's your responsibility, as a corporation, you're held to a higher standard than some random user like me who is here on a forum posting for fun. If something comes from APR...the experts...it might be nice to back it up a bit and avoid endless speculation.

What I was saying about ABT and MTM was that your dyno showed 320 something wheel hp. Everyone and their brother extrapolated that this means about 400 crank hp. Then, everyone took a run at MTM and ABT extrapolating further that they're only delivering 30 crank hp for $4000. I'm not sure you guys threw any water on that fire...gasoline maybe, by your absence.

Thanks for posting though. Your opinion is that the car is under-rated. OK...other dynos bear this out. Any thoughts on why your car appears to be a hair more overpowered than theirs? i.e. if you dyno'd 7 B8 S4s on that dyno, is it your opinion that they'd all put down similar numbers? Or is it your opinion that this might also be a bit of a ringer?

What precisely are you asking for? Calibration tests of their dyno to prove it was within specs for this test?

I'd say it's ABT and MTM who are making things worse by not responding as to their dyno numbers and testing methodology.

Likewise there are other data points which support discrepencies of the MTM/ABT data.

This post - http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3457.phtml

Is a graph created using ECUxplot to track out the data pulled from a stock car, the data was pulled real world on the streets, not a dyno - from the ECU itself, via Vag-Com data logging.

See the entire thread here:
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3456.phtml

[NoTec]

Seems pretty clear to me what Sak's asking. If the B8 S4 supposedly has 400 bhp per Apr's dyno, why does it lose out so easily to the RS4?

The answer, because either Apr's car was "juiced" (more boost) or their dyno is optimistic. Or the better answer, the B8 S4 does not have 400 bhp but is actually closer to 360-375 bhp as the other two more believable dyno graphs have verified.

[SebringSilver]

Actually, the whole deliberate underrating of HP and Torque numbers is nothing new. Japanese automakers had that ridiculous gentlemen's agreement that they wouldn't produce cars that were over 280 bhp for years, and yet the R34 GT-R and the NA2 NSX-R were both in fact well over that figure in spite of what they said publicly.

[sakimano]

Actually, the whole deliberate underrating of HP and Torque numbers is nothing new. Japanese automakers had that ridiculous gentlemen's agreement that they wouldn't produce cars that were over 280 bhp for years, and yet the R34 GT-R and the NA2 NSX-R were both in fact well over that figure in spite of what they said publicly.

interesting. Same for the NSX? Lots of people used to wring their hands about how that car got so much out of reasonably modest hp numbers

[sakimano]

No your not necessarily correct, because APR's car was putting out more boost than this car actually. It was putting out 4psi more. So APR's car could have put out more hp and not just the dyno reading out more. It could also be that this car wasn't getting enough ventilation as APR did mention that this engine gets fairly hot and must have enough ventilation or the boost will be dialed back.
We need more cars to see what it really is putting out.

where'd you get that info?

AMD said on their car the boost was stable at just under 10PSI

Don't see where APR said the car was ~14 psi

[riegeraudi]

Seems pretty clear to me what Sak's asking. If the B8 S4 supposedly has 400 bhp per Apr's dyno, why does it lose out so easily to the RS4?

The answer, because either Apr's car was "juiced" (more boost) or their dyno is optimistic. Or the better answer, the B8 S4 does not have 400 bhp but is actually closer to 360-375 bhp as the other two more believable dyno graphs have verified.

1. Why are you guys saying 360-375bhp?

AMD dyno 290whp -2psi = 290*1.25 = 362.5bhp
But this car according to Lou if he is correct has - 2psi of boost. post #112

APR dyno 320whp +2psi = 320*1.25 = 400bhp

Assuming Lou's post # 12 is correct that stock is 12psi
than = 305*1.25 = 381bhp

I took 25% drivetrain loss is because that is what I have been reading in the forums on awd car drivetrain loss and that seems to be the sentiment.

RS4 question, well the numbers you gave were great but those numbers was from different tests and different dates, temp.etc., you get the idea.
If we take a look at this video though the 400bhp idea is not out of the question. Just watch it. the first race the S4 just beats the RS4 in the second race even though the RS4 got a slight jump because he gassed it first the S4 caught up and passed it both cars were stock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irFK8VJ_vDs

So it looks like APR's car might not be the norm but there are probably other cars out there that have an overboost and not just APR's car.

[sakimano]

stock is 11.6 PSI...MAXIMUM BOOST 11.6

I asked APR...does Audi have ECU protection for the car to stop it at 11.6? if so how did their car show 14 PSI

Their answer was a question "where did we ever say the car was 14 PSI?"

Good question!...I never said it once, but a few of you keep quoting the APR as 14 PSI...4 more than AMD

Where'd you get that info Rieger? You were comparing the AMD dyno who said "consistent at just under 10 PSI"


No your not necessarily correct, because APR's car was putting out more boost than this car actually. It was putting out 4psi more. So APR's car could have put out more hp and not just the dyno reading out more. It could also be that this car wasn't getting enough ventilation as APR did mention that this engine gets fairly hot and must have enough ventilation or the boost will be dialed back.
We need more cars to see what it really is putting out.

and the second


Proper Ventilation? I think keith even mentioned they went to another shop and that dyno even posted the same numbers so I think for some reason or another his car just had more boost from the factory. Hence it wasn't their dyno providing higher numbers just his car possibly.




If APR's car was indeed a ringer, I reckon they should get a 'regular' S4 on the dyno pretty soon...as that ringer/extra boost will eat into their potential delta. Of course that's if they were indeed at 14PSI

[Arin@APR]

Many people have said the APR car was running 14lbs of boost.
Can someone please quote where we said this?

I think this may be a mix-up or some sort of misunderstanding, however it may lead credit to what we were seeing vs some others. Let me explain or rather, let me speculate a bit.

Lets assume the following:
One guy records 14psi on the road.
One guy records 10psi on the dyno.

If the dyno room and vehicle were hot and not well ventilated, the calibration may dial back boost to protect the engine. In doing so, it will see less power on the dyno than the car is capable of producing. To understand this, please view the lengthy article I posted several posts back.

If anyone has ever seen our dyon room they will know we have a fan capable of 140mph winds and a complete air recycle system that replaces all of the air in the room with new air something like 36 times per minute. This is what we would call a rather ideal setup. It's getting close to representing what the vehicle would see on the road in comparison to some setups.

If anyone has ever been to a dyno I'm sure you've encounterd vehicles strapped down with no fans, little floor fans, or a big worthless fan that does little to nothing in terms of cooling a vehicle closely to what it really encounters on the road. Because of this the engine will be hot. Incoming air will be hot. Coolant will be hot. Hot = Less power. The modern ECU will retard timing, pull load, pull boost, richen the air fuel ratio, etc. It will do everything in it's power to make sure the car runs safely, and it will do that by redicing power.

So what we see is our example is in a more ideal situation while others are in a less ideal situation. Because of this, if we had the exact same car, and exact same dyno, and everything else was exactly the same, our vehicle would produce more power.

This would help to reinforce my thoughts that some companies with low results simply do not have adequate cooling to represent cooling seen on the road.

I think we have shown our data to the fullest extent we possibly can at this time. We've shown our dyno testing room and cooling equipment. I think our results are accurate. I believe those with lower power claims need to specify their testing conditions, equipment, dynos, cooling equipment, etc.

[sakimano]

it was LOU!


audi stats are 11.8, apr was +2 more, and amd was -2 less.


Audi stats are 11.6 for the record.

[riegeraudi]

Let me try to find the 14psi. I think I read it either on another forum or blog or somewhere like that honestly I will need to find that out can't recall.

Second give me your idea of what you saw on that video though. Because I am wondering how the new S4 can beat that RS4 if it had less than 400bhp.

If it is at 360bhp I can imagine the gearing be that much off to affect the power difference and outcome that much.

[sakimano]

Let me try to find the 14psi. I think I read it either on another forum or blog or somewhere like that honestly I will need to find that out can't recall.

Second give me your idea of what you saw on that video though. Because I am wondering how the new S4 can beat that RS4 if it had less than 400bhp.

That video where Russians were street racing from a dig, and the S4 beat the C63 up to about 90 mph? Nevermind the variables involved there (WHOA!) but that doesn't add up either. C63 should annhillate an S4 after it grabs traction...and it wouldn't take more than a 1/4 mile to do so. Ground was a bit wet looking wasn't it? Might factor in. Same video the RS4 leapt out ahead of the S4, then got walked. Of course I've referred to it a few times here...hardly any RS4s seem to perform at their factory fresh best after any length of time. That one was 2 years old...and from the looks of it chugging plenty of carbon. Are you familiar with the FSI engine problem?Anyway, all around a weird video.

It's about as weird as the MTM S4 vs. M3 on gtboard. S4 kills the M3 up until 100+mph where the BMW walks by. That makes no sense either. They weigh only about 100 pounds different...yet the BMW runs past the S4 towards the top end. Why? S4 has way more top end hp.

All those videos are sketchy. Fun to watch though.


I think I'd hang my hat on professional road tests by automotive journals. Highly skilled drivers driving the same cars at the same facility in the desert in California in stock factory peak condition and in a location where conditions are incredibly consistent.

[NWS4Guy]

Let me try to find the 14psi. I think I read it either on another forum or blog or somewhere like that honestly I will need to find that out can't recall.

Second give me your idea of what you saw on that video though. Because I am wondering how the new S4 can beat that RS4 if it had less than 400bhp.

If it is at 360bhp I can imagine the gearing be that much off to affect the power difference and outcome that much.

Without knowing the state of the intake on that RS4, it's very likely that being a few years old, with the typical Audi DI engine, the intake is already quite gummed up with oil from the PCV which has plagued all DI VW/Audi cars to date. It verly likely has nowhere near the same power it had off the showroom floor (sadly), unless the intakes were recently removed and cleaned.

[Arin@APR]

Let me try to find the 14psi. I think I read it either on another forum or blog or somewhere like that honestly I will need to find that out can't recall.

This may be it:

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3499.phtml

what sort of boost did you measure for these curves?

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3522.phtml

We didn't measure boost, just ran some dyno pulls.

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3656.phtml

What we saw on the logs of dgibbs car is that it was running ~14+ psi boost, higher than the advertised 11.8 psi (0.8 bar) stock.

[sakimano]

This may be it:

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3499.phtml


http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3522.phtml


http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3656.phtml

you're like a groundhog...how'd you dig that up so fast!

what is that 14psi a reference to anyway? (dgibbs) and why are people referencing that as your car that was dyno'd...error?

[Arin@APR]

I did that on my lunch too. ;)

I could not find any of his logs other than acceleration.

[NoTec]

1. Why are you guys saying 360-375bhp?

AMD dyno 290whp -2psi = 290*1.25 = 362.5bhp
But this car according to Lou if he is correct has - 2psi of boost. post #112

APR dyno 320whp +2psi = 320*1.25 = 400bhp

Assuming Lou's post # 12 is correct that stock is 12psi
than = 305*1.25 = 381bhp

I took 25% drivetrain loss is because that is what I have been reading in the forums on awd car drivetrain loss and that seems to be the sentiment.

RS4 question, well the numbers you gave were great but those numbers was from different tests and different dates, temp.etc., you get the idea.
If we take a look at this video though the 400bhp idea is not out of the question. Just watch it. the first race the S4 just beats the RS4 in the second race even though the RS4 got a slight jump because he gassed it first the S4 caught up and passed it both cars were stock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irFK8VJ_vDs

So it looks like APR's car might not be the norm but there are probably other cars out there that have an overboost and not just APR's car.

I'm saying 360-375 bhp because I used a drivetrain loss of 30%. Mustang dynos and Dyno Dynamics dynos are typically lower reading than Dynojets. Most dynojets that I have been to and reviewed typically show a drivetrain loss of 25% on AWD cars from Mitsubishi, Subaru, and Audi. This is assuming that there are no correction factors used. At least in my own experience, every mustang dyno and dyno dynamics dyno has shown a drivetrain loss greater than that of a dynojet for a particular vehicle. This is assuming the unit has not been altered from factory spec.

So in short, the 30% loss that I'm using is in reference to the two mustang dyno plots posted by the other shops. Both cars were @ 280ish whp on the mustang dynos.

[boombastic]

M3 has flat torque curve, longer power band. thats wht high rev engine for, flat torque with high end hp.


That video where Russians were street racing from a dig, and the S4 beat the C63 up to about 90 mph? Nevermind the variables involved there (WHOA!) but that doesn't add up either. C63 should annhillate an S4 after it grabs traction...and it wouldn't take more than a 1/4 mile to do so. Ground was a bit wet looking wasn't it? Might factor in. Same video the RS4 leapt out ahead of the S4, then got walked. Of course I've referred to it a few times here...hardly any RS4s seem to perform at their factory fresh best after any length of time. That one was 2 years old...and from the looks of it chugging plenty of carbon. Are you familiar with the FSI engine problem?Anyway, all around a weird video.

It's about as weird as the MTM S4 vs. M3 on gtboard. S4 kills the M3 up until 100+mph where the BMW walks by. That makes no sense either. They weigh only about 100 pounds different...yet the BMW runs past the S4 towards the top end. Why? S4 has way more top end hp.

All those videos are sketchy. Fun to watch though.


I think I'd hang my hat on professional road tests by automotive journals. Highly skilled drivers driving the same cars at the same facility in the desert in California in stock factory peak condition and in a location where conditions are incredibly consistent.

[riegeraudi]

Could have been not sure.
LOL looks like they are having the same kind of long thread discussion as we are.

[riegeraudi]

Without knowing the state of the intake on that RS4, it's very likely that being a few years old, with the typical Audi DI engine, the intake is already quite gummed up with oil from the PCV which has plagued all DI VW/Audi cars to date. It verly likely has nowhere near the same power it had off the showroom floor (sadly), unless the intakes were recently removed and cleaned.

Man I feel for the RS4 owners if that is the case. I heard of the carbon buildup issues as I have started a few threads on the catch can myself but had no idea that it was really that bad and predominant.
I can't imagine paying the money Audi wants for those cars and 2 years or less you lose over 100hp. That is just not good brand marketing for the longterm. The Germans are really bad in this area.

[NWS4Guy]

you're like a groundhog...how'd you dig that up so fast!

what is that 14psi a reference to anyway? (dgibbs) and why are people referencing that as your car that was dyno'd...error?

Funny, this is the thread I referenced above regarding other data showing a car with a strong pull. Apparently you chose to not look at it. dgibbs owns this car, it's not the car that APR Dyno'd. He owns the car and as I stated, he pulled this data using Vag-Com, compiled it and used ECUxplot to extrapolate the estimated numbers at the crank based on the car's weight, etc.

So if this car showed 14psi of boost, that means that at least the ECU was reporting via the Vag-Com cable that it was pushing this much boost.

[L0U]

Sorry i confused cars. I was sure it was the apr pushing 14...seems it was another car. my bad. I need an in car boost guage!

[highPSI-S4]

Haven't read this thread in awhile, but it sure was a long interesting read.

[riegeraudi]

That video where Russians were street racing from a dig, and the S4 beat the C63 up to about 90 mph? Nevermind the variables involved there (WHOA!) but that doesn't add up either. C63 should annhillate an S4 after it grabs traction...and it wouldn't take more than a 1/4 mile to do so. Ground was a bit wet looking wasn't it? Might factor in. Same video the RS4 leapt out ahead of the S4, then got walked. Of course I've referred to it a few times here...hardly any RS4s seem to perform at their factory fresh best after any length of time. That one was 2 years old...and from the looks of it chugging plenty of carbon. Are you familiar with the FSI engine problem?Anyway, all around a weird video.

It's about as weird as the MTM S4 vs. M3 on gtboard. S4 kills the M3 up until 100+mph where the BMW walks by. That makes no sense either. They weigh only about 100 pounds different...yet the BMW runs past the S4 towards the top end. Why? S4 has way more top end hp.

All those videos are sketchy. Fun to watch though.


I think I'd hang my hat on professional road tests by automotive journals. Highly skilled drivers driving the same cars at the same facility in the desert in California in stock factory peak condition and in a location where conditions are incredibly consistent.

I think somewhere I read (Arin you groundhog find it for me LOL) the M3 pulled away because the S4 had the S-tronic and the top end the S4 gears are conservative while the M3 with more hp has more aggressive gearing. That is probably the best explanation. Otherwise like you say doesn't make sense. I'll let you know if it is true once I get the car and I am not in Ontario.

[riegeraudi]

Funny, this is the thread I referenced above regarding other data showing a car with a strong pull. Apparently you chose to not look at it. dgibbs owns this car, it's not the car that APR Dyno'd. He owns the car and as I stated, he pulled this data using Vag-Com, compiled it and used ECUxplot to extrapolate the estimated numbers at the crank based on the car's weight, etc.

So if this car showed 14psi of boost, that means that at least the ECU was reporting via the Vag-Com cable that it was pushing this much boost.

So if he was using vag-com does that mean he was driving his car while this was being done? If it does you see where I am going with this sakamano? LOL this thread will never die. LOL Not that I am saying every car is 14psi before you go off here but proper ventilation as I was saying could be why APR was dynoing so high and maybe other so low. But to really know the question will be who lives near APR? Get some cars on to their dyno. But I have a feeling it can be reproduced as Arin is saying.
Most dyno places have this shitty big fan on the floor blowing air but is it enough compared to when your car is going 100mph? 99% of the time I will bet you no especially if this car runs hot as Arin has indicated. Also like others have said mustang dyno is usually lower than the rest.

[NWS4Guy]

Yes, he had a laptop being held and worked by a passenger while he drove the car on a real world street. Read the link and you can see everything (and the copious replies) for yourself.

Thread start -
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3456.phtml

intersting info in the thread -
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3766.phtml

the raw data from the ECU put to a chart taking into account the gearing on the car, weight, etc -

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4b8/msgs/3457.phtml


I will also add that this Eaton TVS SC is capable of 2.4 pressure ratio, so 14psi (if the coding in the ECU allows the internal bypass valve to close enough to pass this boost to the engine) is easily possible.

[L0U]

2.4 ratio is equivalent to 20.3 psi. I'd like a tune that allows 18.4 psi instead of the stockers 11.4 psi (7psi more is about 55 wheel hp) that would be 340 at the wheel for sure.

I'll get my baseline numbers on Saturday.

[NWS4Guy]

Sweet, let us know Lou!

[Arin@APR]

I'll get my baseline numbers on Saturday.

Do you have a Vag-Com? If so, lets get some logs while its on the dyno:

RPM, Boost, AFR, timing and a bunch of temperature readings. :)

[riegeraudi]

2.4 ratio is equivalent to 20.3 psi. I'd like a tune that allows 18.4 psi instead of the stockers 11.4 psi (7psi more is about 55 wheel hp) that would be 340 at the wheel for sure.

I'll get my baseline numbers on Saturday.

Lou if you have vag-com do as Arin says and lock the vag-com numbers while on the dyno then do it again when you are on the road. This will allow us to see if there are any differences especially due to ventilation. I assume they won't have APR's ventilation so let's see if it will get dialed back and at the same time if the road ventilation will allow for more boost or hp.

[L0U]

i am a complete rookie with vagcom. Maybe one of the guys will have one at the dyno day. There should be a v8 s4, 3t S4, v10 s6, rs4, 2.0t a4. so lots of cool comparisons.

[NoTec]

2.4 ratio is equivalent to 20.3 psi. I'd like a tune that allows 18.4 psi instead of the stockers 11.4 psi (7psi more is about 55 wheel hp) that would be 340 at the wheel for sure.

I'll get my baseline numbers on Saturday.

While a tune with a substantial increase in boost sounds great, it does not always guarantee a predictable hp increase. In fact, it could very well do more harm than good. Some cars respond better to higher boost with a minimal timing increase while other cars respond better to a modest boost increase with a more aggressive timing adjustment. This can be true for the exact same type of vehicle. This is also the reason I've preferred tuners who offer a custom tune on the dyno or road versus an off the shelf generic cookie cutter tune.

Tuners jobs are difficult because safety and reliability with the added performance is the ultimate goal. Personally, if I could get a safe tune with an increase of 55 whp from a 3 psi increase with optimized fueling, ignition/cam timing, and smoother more usable power-band, I'd be happy. The 3.0T seems to be wicked efficient so who knows, a 7psi increase may not be necessary. Only time will tell..

Good luck on the dyno Lou. Also, hopefully you can get the dyno graphs of the other cars for comparison.

[sakimano]

So if he was using vag-com does that mean he was driving his car while this was being done? If it does you see where I am going with this sakamano? LOL this thread will never die. LOL Not that I am saying every car is 14psi before you go off here but proper ventilation as I was saying could be why APR was dynoing so high and maybe other so low. But to really know the question will be who lives near APR? Get some cars on to their dyno. But I have a feeling it can be reproduced as Arin is saying.
Most dyno places have this shitty big fan on the floor blowing air but is it enough compared to when your car is going 100mph? 99% of the time I will bet you no especially if this car runs hot as Arin has indicated. Also like others have said mustang dyno is usually lower than the rest.

are you going to Magnus? Post in that thread that you need VAGCOM logging for a B8 S4...someone will step up.

[Infra]

good answer!

while you may not think it's your responsibility, as a corporation, you're held to a higher standard than some random user like me who is here on a forum posting for fun. If something comes from APR...the experts...it might be nice to back it up a bit and avoid endless speculation.

No.

APR's responsibility is to it's customers - the one's who buy their products - not to faceless forum posters.

You can argue all you want as to the meaning of the data APR posted, but with all that mud slinging you are doing with their name, you should be careful because it appears you're dripping some on your face.

Go ahead and say you haven't accused them of anything, though - that you're just asking questions. That'd be like Glenn Beck rhetoric.

[sakimano]

No.

APR's responsibility is to it's customers - the one's who buy their products - not to faceless forum posters.

You can argue all you want as to the meaning of the data APR posted, but with all that mud slinging you are doing with their name, you should be careful because it appears you're dripping some on your face.

Go ahead and say you haven't accused them of anything, though - that you're just asking questions. That'd be like Glenn Beck rhetoric.

You're a bit late to the accusation party. You're no less unwelcome by me. PM me if you'd like to let me know what negative things I said about APR or accused them of...and then you can maybe explain what the 'dripping on your face' reference is. Just sounds weird.

Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.

p.s. I am one of the one's(sic) you were referring to, who buy APR's products...and I organized a group buy for their 2.0T program earlier this year

[Infra]

You're a bit late to the accusation party. You're no less unwelcome by me. PM me if you'd like to let me know what negative things I said about APR or accused them of...and then you can maybe explain what the 'dripping on your face' reference is. Just sounds weird.

Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.

p.s. I am one of the one's(sic) you were referring to, who buy APR's products...and I organized a group buy for their 2.0T program earlier this year

Late to the party? I already demonstrated why your logic was fallacious back on page 1. I have had other things to do that have precluded me from staying active here.

As for the things you said about APR, let me just post them here.




I just meant that there is some confusion around since APR has found that Audi is seriously under-rating the A4 2.0T
I respect your level of skepticism but please do not put words into my mouth.


you don't count...he meant a person, not a company selling stuff.



Really does it matter what the stock HP is?Yeah, it sure does. The whole APR dyno firestorm earned them tons of press in the automotive world.


Sure you can say "only the delta matters" but if you dyno a car then post on every audi forum on earth that the car is underrated by about 100hp you'd better explain it. For some reason they didn't want to even though people asked them about 20 times....but they sure enjoyed the attention.


APR needs to give us a simple answer on their opinion of why the run was sooooo high. I've asked them about 5 times. No answer. Arin's 29,000 word Dinan essay may hold a clue, but I just want APR's opinion. Not sure why they're so hesitant to answer that question.


I NEVER INSINUATED APR DID ANYTHING UNTOWARD OR UNDERHANDED!


Exactly - and if APR, day one, had come out and said "here are the reasons we think this particular car dyno'd so well", this would never have happened.

I hope you can comprehend your own posts better than you have mine.

[034Motorsport]

It seems like the only people upset by the dyno results are those who own V8 S4s/RS4s and can't accept that their cars don't make as much power as the new S4...

Not that I have anything against Audi V8s, but the newer cars were overrated in terms of crank horsepower. FWIW, the highest horsepower NA Audi V8 dyno we've seen here was actually from an ABZ V8, which made more power than even the strongest B7 RS4 we've had on our dyno.

We haven't seen a B7 RS4 even close to 300WHP.

I don't see where all of the animosity towards APR is coming from. The went out and slapped a car on their dyno, and published numbers. You should appreciate that a company is willing to spend their time and money to provide data to consumers.

I'm sure a large number of people who bought B7 RS4s would have thought twice had they seen the abysmal WHP numbers that we have.

Maybe APRs car was running stronger than some of the other B8 S4s that have been on dynos, but for now there are such a small number of charts floating around... It's ridiculous to jump down someone's throat over sharing their data selflessly.

Let the bashing carry on...

[ray-ray]

I don't see where all of the animosity towards APR is coming from. The went out and slapped a car on their dyno, and published numbers. You should appreciate that a company is willing to spend their time and money to provide data to consumers.



[up] well said. good job to APR for putting in the time to publish this info. its not even their product so why would they fluff numbers?

[Arin@APR]

its not even their product so why would they fluff numbers?

We had the same question as everyone else: "So, what will it do on the dyno?"

In this situation everyone should just think of us as the Rich Kid with a dyno. [:D][:D][;)][;)]

We Dynoed.
We Shared.

[up][up][up][up]

[NWS4Guy]

We had the same question as everyone else: "So, what will it do on the dyno?"

In this situation everyone should just think of us as the Rich Kid with a dyno. [:D][:D][;)][;)]

We Dynoed.
We Shared.

[up][up][up][up]

Maybe that is the real issue Arin - Everyone hates on the rich kids with all the toys [;)]

[JRMSLINEA4]

We Dynoed.
We Shared.

Amen, can we move on now. [:/]

[sakimano]

It seems like the only people upset by the dyno results are those who own V8 S4s/RS4s and can't accept that their cars don't make as much power as the new S4...

Not that I have anything against Audi V8s, but the newer cars were overrated in terms of crank horsepower. FWIW, the highest horsepower NA Audi V8 dyno we've seen here was actually from an ABZ V8, which made more power than even the strongest B7 RS4 we've had on our dyno.

We haven't seen a B7 RS4 even close to 300WHP.

I don't see where all of the animosity towards APR is coming from. The went out and slapped a car on their dyno, and published numbers. You should appreciate that a company is willing to spend their time and money to provide data to consumers.

I'm sure a large number of people who bought B7 RS4s would have thought twice had they seen the abysmal WHP numbers that we have.

Maybe APRs car was running stronger than some of the other B8 S4s that have been on dynos, but for now there are such a small number of charts floating around... It's ridiculous to jump down someone's throat over sharing their data selflessly.

Let the bashing carry on...

Says the guy who just bashed V8 owners here, and in the V8 forum a week ago[rolleyes]. Classy. Your record is less than spotless on the 'I'm not a troll' side of things.

Again...Arin and I were having a good exchange on the thread and in PMs...why you want to create a fight is beyond me. If anything I worded was out of line in this thread, I happily apologize to Arin et al at APR. My discontent with them was for not backing up the data or joining the discussion on their opinion for the surprising numbers. Arin explained what he had to on the previous page, and made clear his thoughts that it wasn't his place to have to share anyway. That's his prerogative, and I applauded him for speaking up.

If I'm guilty of one thing throughout this thread it is perhaps being too fervid in looking for answers on the APR car dyno being unanimously stronger than any other dyno for the car out there. Nowhere did I paint APR as fudging numbers or having ulterior motives in this process...I just questioned how accurate the numbers were from the point of view that a couple of variables (the car; the dyno machine) could be the reason and were not examined. I repeatedly asked APR and other members what they think caused it...and some members as recently as ray-ray above (and now other advertisers) repeatedly thought I was calling APR liars. Comical.

Laszlo if you are guilty of one thing, it is of having a perfervid appetite for insulting customers in bad taste. That's reflected in how you have inserted yourself here as an instigator, and reacting exactly as you did in your thread in the V8 forum when you were hawking coilovers...with a petty disregard for the fact that your customers are the people you're insulting. (http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4511163#post4511163)

APR [up] for joining the discussion and helping us end users, skeptics and believers alike, understand the numbers

034 [down] for adding nothing to the discussion other than fuel to ignite a flame war that was not even burning

[i_eat_staples]

I'll just chime in as a guy who's owned a v8 audi for almost 6 years now, and say its exciting to see the b8 putting down some good power (albeit exactly how much is under debate lol). And since its an FI v6, it looks like the aftermarket will be supporting the new b8 a heck of a lot more than the b6/b7. Hopefully it retains the reliability of the 4.2!

[evil_O]

Well played Saki. Either way, you sparked some good points and questions. In the end it got a lot of attention. Something I appreciate on here. I don't like sifting through all the hate, but your question was well placed. Thanks.

Most people place their own emotion into what they are reading/has been posted. For me... I just read what you wrote. Not what you 'might' be trying to say. It all seemed to come from a good place for me.

[riegeraudi]

Sakamano please read your posts again, it might have not been your intention to question APR's intention but when it was posted it reads different than maybe what your intentions were. That is one of the problems with emails, threads etc. That is the reason I said you were insinuating APR was fudging the numbers. As you can see I am not the only one to read it that way.
Anyways now can you give me back my rep as now I have a negative rep because of you, or someone give me a rep so I don't have to look at that stupid red dot on my profile.

[sakimano]

Sakamano please read your posts again, it might have not been your intention to question APR's intention but when it was posted it reads different than maybe what your intentions were. That is one of the problems with emails, threads etc. That is the reason I said you were insinuating APR was fudging the numbers. As you can see I am not the only one to read it that way.
Anyways now can you give me back my rep as now I have a negative rep because of you, or someone give me a rep so I don't have to look at that stupid red dot on my profile.

I just re-read the whole thread...and started another one in the V8 forum asking if I was out of line. I don't want to be perceived as an apple cart tosser. I'll kill a troll, or someone who talks shit about me (like you did) but I don't want to be seen as overtly negative towards APR...I was just trying to get to the bottom of the numbers. As a buyer.

Funny...you said email/text is hard to understand if someone's saying what they're writing, or want you to read between the lines...yet all over this thread, you created bullshit about what I was saying, as did Infra and a few others. That's why I neg-repped you. Funny...Infra neg repped me. So did you. Who gives a fuck about rep...I care more about people talking shit about me in the thread.

All along, I wanted answers...and Arin finally gave those answers. A few other folks stepped up rationally and helped the discussion...while a few others did their best to derail it.

When you go back...and answer all the questions I asked...I'll restore your rep.[up] PM me.

[L0U]

is negative reputation the blue squares? i have a few, but one blue square had a positive comment beside it....might have been a mistake.

[riegeraudi]

I just re-read the whole thread...and started another one in the V8 forum asking if I was out of line. I don't want to be perceived as an apple cart tosser. I'll kill a troll, or someone who talks shit about me (like you did) but I don't want to be seen as overtly negative towards APR...I was just trying to get to the bottom of the numbers. As a buyer.

Funny...you said email/text is hard to understand if someone's saying what they're writing, or want you to read between the lines...yet all over this thread, you created bullshit about what I was saying, as did Infra and a few others. That's why I neg-repped you. Funny...Infra neg repped me. So did you. Who gives a fuck about rep...I care more about people talking shit about me in the thread.

All along, I wanted answers...and Arin finally gave those answers. A few other folks stepped up rationally and helped the discussion...while a few others did their best to derail it.

When you go back...and answer all the questions I asked...I'll restore your rep.[up] PM me.

Then why don't you explain to us what you meant by the qoutes that we have indicated that you posted then. You ask for APR's explanation of the dyno and they obliged so why don't you explain what you meant by those quotes indicated by me and infra so we don't have to read between the lines like you say we are then.
Explain thread 99 and 106

[dekkard]

It seems like the only people upset by the dyno results are those who own V8 S4s/RS4s and can't accept that their cars don't make as much power as the new S4...

...I don't see where all of the animosity towards APR is coming from. The went out and slapped a car on their dyno, and published numbers. You should appreciate that a company is willing to spend their time and money to provide data to consumers. ... ...It's ridiculous to jump down someone's throat over sharing their data selflessly.

Good comedy, sir.. lol.

Firstly, the B8 S4 could put out twice as much power as the RS4 and I'd still happily/joyfully/elatiously take the RS4 over it.

Secondly, yes, I'm sure APR "spent time and money" to "selflessly" share their data with us. Such altruists (like 034, no doubt). [:D]

Thirdly, tuners/dealers/vendors/sponsors (and reps of such) really need to watch what they say on public forums. It may cost you in the long run.

[Anthony]

is negative reputation the blue squares? i have a few, but one blue square had a positive comment beside it....might have been a mistake.

No, that is Rep from members who are either new or don't have enough "Rep Power" to effect yours either way.

[riegeraudi]

Good comedy, sir.. lol.

Firstly, the B8 S4 could put out twice as much power as the RS4 and I'd still happily/joyfully/elatiously take the RS4 over it.

Secondly, yes, I'm sure APR "spent time and money" to "selflessly" share their data with us. Such altruists (like 034, no doubt). [:D]

Thirdly, tuners/dealers/vendors/sponsors (and reps of such) really need to watch what they say on public forums. It may cost you in the long run.

As true as the last part is, I personally appreciate the input positive or negative because they do add to the enthusiast community. No matter what they say their will always be two sides to an argument and statements will always be debated.

[sakimano]

Then why don't you explain to us what you meant by the qoutes that we have indicated that you posted then. You ask for APR's explanation of the dyno and they obliged so why don't you explain what you meant by those quotes indicated by me and infra so we don't have to read between the lines like you say we are then.
Explain thread 99 and 106

sure

post 99


Isn't that what we did? [:D]


you don't count...he meant a person, not a company selling stuff.

Just a member...ANY member!

Someone said 'why doesn't someone just dyno and that wil solve this'. I'm paraphrasing. The guy meant a member who owns a B8...as in a completely unbiased third party dyno result with no potential for anyone to question it. That's why I said 'you don't count' as a joke...and 'just a member...ANY member!'. We wanted someone like Lou to go to an independent dyno, test the car and report results. All dynos we've seen so far (and had at that point) were from tuners. Interestingly Lou is dynoing this Saturday so we'll finally get that elusive independent dyno run.
___________________________________

post 106


Proper Ventilation?

Really does it matter what the stock HP is? I was just thinking about this and if you go with GIAC, APR, MTM REVO,ABT, etc. They all are going to be putting out roughly the same HP (430-450) at the end of the day if you chip. It will be a matter of pricing and warranty from where I stand.


Yeah, it sure does. The whole APR dyno firestorm earned them tons of press in the automotive world. It also put lots of eyes on Audi and the S4 as people wondered what the heck was going on.

Don't forget that some 95% of the S4s that get sold around the world won't have an ECU mod done to them, so in fact the stock hp/torque info does matter...overwhelmingly. APR's dyno suggests that the car comes stock with 410 hp. That's just not the case if we have a look at these two other dynos, and Audi's factory claims.

You were focusing entirely on the tuner angle. APR didn't post a before after run to show how great their chip/flash is as a tuner. They posted a stock B8 S4 dyno run. This was held up as an indication of the true power the B8 is putting down. Time will still tell whether or not it was accurate, but as we're seeing of late...it's not lookig to be the case for all B8 S4s. I referenced 95% of the S4s out there because they won't ever get tuned/flashed/modded...just as mine probably wouldn't if I bought one...and I want to know the TRUE picture that is the B8 S4...not a dyno that paints far too rosy a picture. My friend has an M3 and he asked me the other day "hey are you going to buy the new 400hp S4?". I thought he was referring to the B7 RS4, but he wasn't. There was a thread on one of his bimmer forums about the '400hp B8 S4' because of all the press the car got on blogs/forums around the world. Funny...you watch. People years from now from other brands will refer to this dyno as B8 S4 'gospel'! There are no threads on bimmerforum or e90post about the Stratmosphere 285whp dyno...or whatever Lou dynos Saturday...but the APR 330 whp/410 crank hp dyno will live on in infamy!

[riegeraudi]

ya great help thanks.
explain what you meant by that.

[riegeraudi]

sure

post 99



Someone said 'why doesn't someone just dyno and that wil solve this'. I'm paraphrasing. The guy meant a member who owns a B8...as in a completely unbiased third party dyno result with no potential for anyone to question it. That's why I said 'you don't count' as a joke...and 'just a member...ANY member!'. We wanted someone like Lou to go to an independent dyno, test the car and report results. All dynos we've seen so far (and had at that point) were from tuners. Interestingly Lou is dynoing this Saturday so we'll finally get that elusive independent dyno run.
___________________________________

post 106



You were focusing entirely on the tuner angle. APR didn't post a before after run to show how great their chip/flash is as a tuner. They posted a stock B8 S4 dyno run. This was held up as an indication of the true power the B8 is putting down. Time will still tell whether or not it was accurate, but as we're seeing of late...it's not lookig to be the case for all B8 S4s. I referenced 95% of the S4s out there because they won't ever get tuned/flashed/modded...just as mine probably wouldn't if I bought one...and I want to know the TRUE picture that is the B8 S4...not a dyno that paints far too rosy a picture. My friend has an M3 and he asked me the other day "hey are you going to buy the new 400hp S4?". I thought he was referring to the B7 RS4, but he wasn't. There was a thread on one of his bimmer forums about the '400hp B8 S4' because of all the press the car got. Funny...you watch. People years from now from other brands will refer to this dyno as B8 S4 'gospel'! There are no threads on bimmerforum or e90post about the Stratmosphere 285whp dyno...or whatever Lou dynos Saturday...but the APR 330 whp/410 crank hp dyno will live on in infamy!


Well looking at post 99 you now say it is a "joke" but when you posted it their was no LOL, j/k, smiley icon,etc. and while during a heated debate. You don't think others will look at the remark as a trolly or insinuating remark that APR had something to gain from the high dyno. Look at the whole thread everyone was debating the numbers until you through in a few of the quotes and that is when people and I included jumped on you for getting on APR's a$$. Anyways you can think whatever you want I am done with this part of the debate.
Anyways for us to find out the truth about proper ventilation, I think if we get people who already have dynoed the cars at a facility or dynometer to also log vag-com runs will be really useful in accessing the proper ventilation affect. Ask the B6/B7 guys also to log some vag-com numbers and to compare it to the dyno numbers and this way we will see if proper ventilation affects the hp and boost.

[sakimano]

Well looking at post 99 you now say it is a "joke" but when you posted it their was no LOL, j/k, smiley icon,etc. and while during a heated debate. You don't think others will look at the remark as a trolly or insinuating remark that APR had something to gain from the high dyno. .

If you're butthurt that I didn't put a smiley, you may need to get out of grade 9. We're all adults here. I also don't think anyone but you missed the fact that the guy who said 'why doesn't someone just dyno their car' was referring to members, not tuners. Further, he was saying this would help to quell the controversy so we could compare someone's private numbers to the APR dyno...so APR saying 'we did dyno a B8' made no sense.


More people need to dyno there S4's to see if they all make 330whp or so or if APR got a "ringer".

[riegeraudi]

Seriously what is wrong with you? I was just making light why people and I included could have taken your statement as a trolly post, and you come with this classless butthurt grade nine crap. Seriously something is wrong with you.

[Nickyracer]

Fellows, please!
Useless and pointless this discussion has turned out to be.
There's surely something wrong with B8S4's 330 WheelHP, IMHO. What - I can't imagine. Maybe fuel, maybe bleed off valve jammed, maybe "140 mph" velocity fan, maybe programmic error with dyno software.
Maybe it's all right and I'm simply wrong - who knows.
Let's simply wait for other independent dynos, before and after installation of the chips, and better look at quarter-mile times - this is far better estimation of the car's performance than controversial dyno runs.

[frrg]

FWIW, the highest horsepower NA Audi V8 dyno we've seen here was actually from an ABZ V8, which made more power than even the strongest B7 RS4 we've had on our dyno.

We haven't seen a B7 RS4 even close to 300WHP.



A bit off topic, but how many RS4's have 034 dyno'd since September this year?



I'm sure a large number of people who bought B7 RS4s would have thought twice had they seen the abysmal WHP numbers that we have.

So are you saying that your dyno readings are the benchmark for the Audi V8? Also, what makes your numbers more accurate than others? Equipment? Tuner?




No disrespect to the OP intended

[sakimano]

Fellows, please!
Useless and pointless this discussion has turned out to be.
There's surely something wrong with B8S4's 330 WheelHP, IMHO. What - I can't imagine. Maybe fuel, maybe bleed off valve jammed, maybe "140 mph" velocity fan, maybe programmic error with dyno software.
Maybe it's all right and I'm simply wrong - who knows.
Let's simply wait for other independent dynos, before and after installation of the chips, and better look at quarter-mile times - this is far better estimation of the car's performance than controversial dyno runs.

well said

[PearDog]

Fellows, please!
Useless and pointless this discussion has turned out to be.
There's surely something wrong with B8S4's 330 WheelHP, IMHO. What - I can't imagine. Maybe fuel, maybe bleed off valve jammed, maybe "140 mph" velocity fan, maybe programmic error with dyno software.
Maybe it's all right and I'm simply wrong - who knows.
Let's simply wait for other independent dynos, before and after installation of the chips, and better look at quarter-mile times - this is far better estimation of the car's performance than controversial dyno runs.


This is classic Yoda-speak. Makes your input sound even more level-headed and rational than it already is. [up]

[sworksone]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest particularly as I'm finally picking up my S4 a week from today. I'm a little nervous posting given the wrath that has fallen upon others in this thread for questioning the APR numbers (with a "[:)][up]" just to let you know I'm somewhat joking), but there is something that's been puzzling me.

As much as I would hope that the APR numbers are correct and the engine is seriously under-rated, and can agree that the stock numbers do seem low given the extra weight the S4 is hauling around compared to the 335i with similar performance, this is leading me to question the APR numbers:

MTM has two upgrades available - one which provides a gain from the stock 333hp (obviously straight from Audi and not from a dyno) to 380hp, and one to 430hp. The way the numbers are listed on the website in comparison to each other, it leads one to believe the numbers are all at the crank. I can't find anything that says otherwise. If this is the case, either the stock S4 doesn't produce anywhere near the 331 whp that APR measured, or APR had a ringer, or MTM is charging a hell of a lot (1991 Eur) for an upgrade to a stated 380hp that essentially gains nothing from stock.

Is there something I'm missing?

PS - I'm not criticizing APR. I think it's great what they have been doing.

[L0U]

the 380 kit makes no sense from what mtm has provided for details. I assume it is meant to be 380-333 or a 47hp kit. But if the stocker is stronger than 333, then the kit might be more like 20hp. 14 or 15 psi kit vs the big brothers 18 or 20 psi.

we will have an s4 with the 430kit soon on the board.

[dekkard]

As true as the last part is, I personally appreciate the input positive or negative because they do add to the enthusiast community. No matter what they say their will always be two sides to an argument and statements will always be debated.

I absolutely agree. But isn't there a small part of you that questions APR's dyno results, esp. in light of the other 2 dyno results presented in this thread? 330whp translates to well over 400chp, right (~420chp+ using a flat/constant 28% DTL)?

That said, I'm not discounting it yet at all because that Russian youtube video clearly shows how strong the B8 is against the RS4 and C63 AMG... it's quite puzzling. Maybe the B8 power output is way underrated (??). Time will tell once more owners dyno their cars.

Edit: Could that B8 in the Russian youtube video be chipped? Pretty sure the video said stock but.. (Youtube is blocked at the facility I'm staying in for the holiday). Happy holiday to all, btw.

[riegeraudi]

Well I was really arguing that APR released the numbers and Sakamano said no way but really had no proof. Then he came out with the other dyno and I was questioning it but than I looked at other cars were doing and then I thought possibly 400hp as other were around 350hp and the s4 had more weight and yet still came out even. I also looked at Edmunds inline and they have a video with the RS4 which has 420hp and does the quarter in 13.2 there and the B8 S4 also did it at 13.2 according to there numbers. This is actually on youtube video. The Rs4 actually had a 0-60 of 4.7 and the S4 is 5.1 and then it actually pics up on the RS4. to tie it in the 1/4 and the S4 weighs about 100lbs more. When I think about all this I say well APR could have dynoed 400hp why not? Does it mean every single S4 has the same hp probably not. Well APR explanation of the possibility of the difference is feasible don't you think? Sakamano gave us the 2 other dyno's but dgibbs vag-com also gave his car around 400hp also and his was putting 14psi of boost from what I recall. I don't think any of us was saying all cars had 400hp but obviously it is possible that some do. So we have 2 cars that dynoed around 400hp and 2 that don't. Really do really know I think the only way to tell the real truth to this is people go out in the cars and us the Vag-com to log some numbers I guess. Or more people go to APR to dyno the cars and see what happens. They even went to another place to dyno the car and they said their car did the same there.
The question is who's dyno number to believe after reading the GIAC article. From reading the article it is obvious that not many dyno places have the proper ventilation to get accurately get the proper hp numbers. Maybe get a few guys to GIAC and get a dyno from them and see what happens as this would in no doubt have the proper ventilation also. Can anyone say that the no S4 has 400hp IMO no, can anyone say that all S4 has 400hp IMO no, can we say some have 400hp IMO yes if we look at all the evidence so far. Which is:
1. 2 dyno's
2. the video (can speculate that the RS4 had carbon issues but can't guarantee it) all we see is that the S4 won.
3. edmunds inline have the S4 and RS4 1/4 mile at both 13.2 and the S4 is heavier by about 100lbs. Question is the RS4 being a special Quattro GMBH car would the drivetrain have less or the same amount of drivetrain loss?
If edmunds is not enough than look on Dragtimes.com and you will also see the RS4 that are american also have times from 13.0-13.5 for the 1/4mile.
4. I also posted numerous places where 335i owners have dynod their cars and they are coming up with around 350bhp avgm and one which did 375bhp
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1029049_bmw-335i-dynod-again-with-better-results
So if the S4 weighs 300-400lbs more that say an average 350bhp 335i the question is how many hp do you think the S4 would have to have to beat it with the extra hp. Please don't tell me that the 335i isn't overrated because it is a fact that it is. If people think this is incorrect please go to e90post and ask yourself.

These are the evidence that I have so far that some S4 might actually have 400bhp if the drivetrain loss is 25%.

I am not sure if Sakamano is saying no S4 have 400bhp or is he saying that only some might have. But if he is saying no S4 can possibly have 400bhp because the numbers are high of incorrect than I think that is wrong because first off why the other 2 dyno is correct and APR definitely wrong?
Secondly besides the 2 dyno's what other evidence did he really put out?
He said the RS4 would ass whip the S4 but what evidence did he provide?
I have provided the video, and the dragtimes and the edmunds inline numbers.
Let me repeat this I don't think every S4 has 400bhp just like not every 335i has 375bhp.
I was debating why Sakamano was so adamant that the APR numbers were incorrect.
I think we can safely say that the car is definitely underrated but the question is by how much?

[Nickyracer]

sakimano
PearDog
Thank you. [:)]

That said, I'm not discounting it yet at all because that Russian youtube video clearly shows how strong the B8 is against the RS4 and C63 AMG... it's quite puzzling. Maybe the B8 power output is way underrated (??). Time will tell once more owners dyno their cars.
Edit: Could that B8 in the Russian youtube video be chipped? Pretty sure the video said stock but.. (Youtube is blocked at the facility I'm staying in for the holiday). Happy holiday to all, btw.
As far as I know, there's very few S4B8's in Russia to this day and none of them is chipped: warranty is a virtue.
Only one fellow in Russia has already decided to chip his new S4, but his ABT's piggy-back block delivered broken, now waiting for replacement. Will keep you informed about his impressions after installation.

[lnferno]

I'm asking an honest question here. Why don't more b8 S4 owners dyno their car? IMO it doesn't cost that much to do so. I just think that it's kind of silly reading through this thread. It would be super easy to put all of these questions to bed if more people would just go dyno their car. I don't get it. [confused]

I get it that different dynos will yield different results. I think that works to everyone's benefit anyways by having a better sampling.

[sakimano]

rieger...your evidence is flawed. Chew on these thoughts.

1. edmonds is the only autojournal that found the B8 S4 and the RS4 have the same quarter mile time. Everyone else has the RS4 faster by anywhere from 0.4 to 0.6 seconds. That edmonds info is not evidence...that's a one off...and further, it wasn't that the S4 was as fast as the normal RS4 times (12.8-13.0)...it was a slow RS4 time to the quarter mile that allowed them to be the same. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS THE CONVERTIBLE! So throw that 'evidence' in the trash can. Edmonds insideline re-tested the RS4 sedan vs. the IS-f...and it posted 0-60mph 4.3 seconds and 1/4 mile in 12.8 seconds. What do you say about that? (http://www.insideline.com/audi/rs4/2007/comparison-test-2007-audi-rs4-vs-2008-lexus-is-f.html)

2. dragtimes.com? You can't use times posted by random joes like you and I for a number of reasons
a) random joes aren't professional drivers, like journals use
b) random joes drive used cars...not brand new factory fresh ones like journals use
c) dragtimes.com has no validation process to verify times, so it's useless

3. you're assuming the 335i that all these S4s were tested against have 350hp??? Underrated the 335 surely is (yodasauce) but under by 50? That's aggressive. Maybe more like 15-30hp, as testing on the track seems to bear out.

4. you're assuming that 280 whp to 2 wheels (335i) delivers identical performance as 280 to all wheels (B8 S4). IT DOES NOT...1 AWHP> 1RWHP ...especially from a dig as is the case in all of these 0-60 or 1/4 mile tests.

5. VAGCOM is not a dyno...you can't point to VAGcom logs as dyno 'evidence'. May as well point to dynolicious while you're at it (which ironically said the B8 S4 is 330 CRANK hp).

6. So far three tuners have dyno'd the S4...only one shows 320-330 WHP...APR. That's not evidence. That's a one off, like your Edmonds RS4 test results. The other two aren't 'evidence' either...but those tuners didn't publish the info on all the Audi websites to spark this discussion. They posted them to followup to this discussion!

7. just because one dyno shows XXX WHP doesn't mean that car 'has' XXX WHP. You can adjust what a dyno reads dramatically, as Arin's referenced DINAN article shows. The variability that one dyno machine can show for the same car is vast...so which reading is right?

8. quoting you "(APR) even went to another place to dyno the car and they said their car did the same there."
??? I never saw that posted. Where did you?







tl;dq

[riegeraudi]

You say the numbers are incorrect and you can't use the numbers by various magazines I showed you yet you just give me some of your numbers and don't provide any evidence.
What are you like in gradeschool where you can give some numbers and not back it up with any evidence?
If you are going to give numbers than give me evidence. I even gave you fellow audizine RS4 owner dyno's which vary but most are in the 13.0-13.5 range. One or two in the 12.8 but a few also in the 14's but the average was 13.0-13.5. What now you say can't use RS4 owners numbers can't use Edmunds insideline numbers can't use Car and Driver numbers only can use your numbers. YOU ARE BEING VERY UNREASONABLE AND BIASED.
Look I have agreed not every single S4 is producing these numbers I have provided evidence and you just your own numbers that have given no evidence of and if you do only one piece while I have given you multiple pieces of evidence.

1. From Edmunds
"Try this with your friend's RS4. At full stop, engage 1st gear, keep the clutch depressed and push the accelerator pedal until the tachometer registers 5,500 rpm. Then remove your foot from the clutch. All four wheels spin for a moment and then the RS4 digs its claws into the pavement and catapults forward to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and on through the quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 108.5 mph. The all-wheel-drive Lamborghini Gallardo posts better numbers, but not by much."
the 12.8 they didn't measure this the same way they measured the original 13.2 and the S4 at 13.2 from a dead stop. This 12.8 was launched if you can read. The other two was measured in identical ways.
2. Okay can't use avg joe number but asked to use journalists numbers yet you want to pick and choose the journalists numbers that I can use.
5. Can't use Vag-com numbers even though those are coming from the cars computer and this method will guarantee proper ventilation and you want to use some iphone app instead. Sure thing! Do you know how idiotic this sounds
6. I assume the numbers coming from the car itself is correct so dgibbs Vag-com numbers count in my book so it makes it 2-2.
7. Exactly which reading is right? I don't know but you are just saying that APR is wrong and everyone else is right? We at this moment can't know because not enough cars to give evidence to sway 100% either way but you insist APR is incorrect. I have offered you evidence that it is possible they are not incorrect and that maybe some S4 are putting out 400bhp. You just want to be selective in what evidence you can use even though you really haven't given any evidence at all.

[frrg]

8. quoting you "(APR) even went to another place to dyno the car and they said their car did the same there."
??? I never saw that posted. Where did you?

I can't find this......Can someone help me out here?

[L0U]

I am all set. 2000km on the rig should be loose enough to show a fairly accurate dyno run. 1080p camcorder locked and loaded for the evidence. Rabbits foot, horseshoe, 4 leaf clover, and AC/DC cd. all rdy for the dyno day.

Maybe I could mechanically block the recirc valve closed with a coat hanger! Is there still time to use a quart of slick 50?

T minus 24 hours....and the dyno numbers for yet another S4 will be addded to the conspiracy. 335 at the wheels would be a real ringer eh. The excitement mounts.

[SebringSilver]

I am all set. 2000km on the rig should be loose enough to show a fairly accurate dyno run. 1080p camcorder locked and loaded for the evidence. Rabbits foot, horseshoe, 4 leaf clover, and AC/DC cd. all rdy for the dyno day.

Maybe I could mechanically block the recirc valve closed with a coat hanger! Is there still time to use a quart of slick 50?

T minus 24 hours....and the dyno numbers for yet another S4 will be addded to the conspiracy. 335 at the wheels would be a real ringer eh. The excitement mounts.

What kind of dyno are you putting it on tomorrow?

[sakimano]

clearly you fail at internet skills. All the numbers I have referenced are HTML linked in the text...like the MotorTrend numbers...the Road and Track numbers...and most recently the Edmonds numbers. Just click the underlined link.

Now you want to use VAGCOM logs as DYNO results? Nobody on earth does this. Nobody. My reference to dynolicious was sarcasm. I swear you don't read.

Listen...I'm all for a debate, but you're all over the map and are talking nonsense. I can't understand half of your posts...they're giant run on sentence filled paragraphs full of repetitve jibberish.

Everyone in this thread, whether they agree with me or not, at least hear what I'm saying. You for some reason can't grasp any of it. My logic is all out there in this thread. Some agree with my comments about the APR dyno numbers being a bit off considering REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE...some don't. Time will tell as more cars dyno, but more importantly, more cars race or take it to the track. Only then will we know what's what.

I'm done with you though...life's too short. Good luck!


You say the numbers are incorrect and you can't use the numbers by various magazines I showed you yet you just give me some of your numbers and don't provide any evidence.
What are you like in gradeschool where you can give some numbers and not back it up with any evidence?
If you are going to give numbers than give me evidence. I even gave you fellow audizine RS4 owner dyno's which vary but most are in the 13.0-13.5 range. One or two in the 12.8 but a few also in the 14's but the average was 13.0-13.5. What now you say can't use RS4 owners numbers can't use Edmunds insideline numbers can't use Car and Driver numbers only can use your numbers. YOU ARE BEING VERY UNREASONABLE AND BIASED.
Look I have agreed not every single S4 is producing these numbers I have provided evidence and you just your own numbers that have given no evidence of and if you do only one piece while I have given you multiple pieces of evidence.

1. From Edmunds
"Try this with your friend's RS4. At full stop, engage 1st gear, keep the clutch depressed and push the accelerator pedal until the tachometer registers 5,500 rpm. Then remove your foot from the clutch. All four wheels spin for a moment and then the RS4 digs its claws into the pavement and catapults forward to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and on through the quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 108.5 mph. The all-wheel-drive Lamborghini Gallardo posts better numbers, but not by much."
the 12.8 they didn't measure this the same way they measured the original 13.2 and the S4 at 13.2 from a dead stop. This 12.8 was launched if you can read. The other two was measured in identical ways.
2. Okay can't use avg joe number but asked to use journalists numbers yet you want to pick and choose the journalists numbers that I can use.
5. Can't use Vag-com numbers even though those are coming from the cars computer and this method will guarantee proper ventilation and you want to use some iphone app instead. Sure thing! Do you know how idiotic this sounds
6. I assume the numbers coming from the car itself is correct so dgibbs Vag-com numbers count in my book so it makes it 2-2.
7. Exactly which reading is right? I don't know but you are just saying that APR is wrong and everyone else is right? We at this moment can't know because not enough cars to give evidence to sway 100% either way but you insist APR is incorrect. I have offered you evidence that it is possible they are not incorrect and that maybe some S4 are putting out 400bhp. You just want to be selective in what evidence you can use even though you really haven't given any evidence at all.

[sakimano]

I am all set. 2000km on the rig should be loose enough to show a fairly accurate dyno run. 1080p camcorder locked and loaded for the evidence. Rabbits foot, horseshoe, 4 leaf clover, and AC/DC cd. all rdy for the dyno day.

Maybe I could mechanically block the recirc valve closed with a coat hanger! Is there still time to use a quart of slick 50?

T minus 24 hours....and the dyno numbers for yet another S4 will be addded to the conspiracy. 335 at the wheels would be a real ringer eh. The excitement mounts.

Lou..-Can't wait!

p.s. If you dyno the same as APR, I'll detail your car for you (wash, claybar, wax...clean and seal wheels) [:D]

[riegeraudi]

clearly you fail at internet skills. All the numbers I have referenced are HTML linked in the text...like the MotorTrend numbers...the Road and Track numbers...and most recently the Edmonds numbers. Just click the underlined link.

Now you want to use VAGCOM logs as DYNO results? Nobody on earth does this. Nobody. My reference to dynolicious was sarcasm. I swear you don't read.

Listen...I'm all for a debate, but you're all over the map and are talking nonsense. I can't understand half of your posts...they're giant run on sentence filled paragraphs full of repetitve jibberish.

Everyone in this thread, whether they agree with me or not, at least hear what I'm saying. You for some reason can't grasp any of it. My logic is all out there in this thread. Some agree with my comments about the APR dyno numbers being a bit off considering REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE...some don't. Time will tell as more cars dyno, but more importantly, more cars race or take it to the track. Only then will we know what's what.

I'm done with you though...life's too short. Good luck!

Seriously I think you have either horrible reading skills or logic.
"time will tell as more cars dyno, but more importantly, more cars race or take it to the track. Only then will we know what's what."

Yet you won't take dragtimes.com numbers from RS4 owners because they are average joes.
And again you can't read because I already answered your Edmunds insideline 12.8 time and it was because they launched the car different that the regular dead stop launch that they use.
Please provide links to your phantom Road and Track and your Motor Trend links.
Seriously dumbfounded how you want everyone to believe in your phantom evidence that you still haven't provided yet don't want to believe at any of the evidence that I have provided from valid sources.
Jibberish is anything without valid links and evidence and that is what you have provided.

[riegeraudi]

I can't find this......Can someone help me out here?

not to avoid you here but I will have to look for that information unless arin the groundhog can find it for me somewhere. I read it either on another forum somewhere and I think it was keith that said it. But I will have to scrounge around for it might take me a couple of days since it is the weekend.

[sakimano]

Seriously I think you have either horrible reading skills or logic.
"time will tell as more cars dyno, but more importantly, more cars race or take it to the track. Only then will we know what's what."

Yet you won't take dragtimes.com numbers from RS4 owners because they are average joes.
And again you can't read because I already answered your Edmunds insideline 12.8 time and it was because they launched the car different that the regular dead stop launch that they use.
Please provide links to your phantom Road and Track and your Motor Trend links.
Seriously dumbfounded how you want everyone to believe in your phantom evidence that you still haven't provided yet don't want to believe at any of the evidence that I have provided from valid sources.
Jibberish is anything without valid links and evidence and that is what you have provided.

reading owns you

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4555500&postcount=129

[Nvius]

lock this thread please -_-

[sakimano]

lock this thread please -_-

x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[L0U]

What kind of dyno are you putting it on tomorrow?

2 x 1500 hp 224 Dynojets than can be coupled or run seperately in 2WD mode or AWD mode.

they are gonna need all 3000hp, to hold down the beast. Secret weapon OZ wheels.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=324784

[riegeraudi]

reading owns you

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4555500&postcount=129

Ok looking at the road and track one the RS4 is 4.5 and 13.0 for the 1/4
and the motortrend one only see 4.5 but no 1/4 mile time so if comparing it to the S4 which is at 13.2 and the 4.9 at 0-60 then wouldn't this indicate to you that if the RS4 has 420bhp and according to you the S4 is say at 360bhp and the S4 is about 100lbs more or even how does that workout to only .2 second difference?
the key is the 1/4 mile time here. the 0-60 time the RS4 kills it probably because it has 9000rpm and the S4 only 7000rpm, maybe an extra shift but the thing is the 0-60 is more of a torque indication while the 1/4 is more of an hp indication is it not?

[sakimano]

Ok looking at the road and track one the RS4 is 4.5 and 13.0 for the 1/4
and the motortrend one only see 4.5 but no 1/4 mile time so if comparing it to the S4 which is at 13.2 and the 4.9 at 0-60 then wouldn't this indicate to you that if the RS4 has 420bhp and according to you the S4 is say at 360bhp and the S4 is about 100lbs more or even how does that workout to only .2 second difference?
the key is the 1/4 mile time here. the 0-60 time the RS4 kills it probably because it has 9000rpm and the S4 only 7000rpm, maybe an extra shift but the thing is the 0-60 is more of a torque indication while the 1/4 is more of an hp indication is it not?
blah blah blah

so...you're going to use the fastest ever S4 1/4 mile time...vs. the slowest ever RS4 1/4 mile time...from different journals years apart on different sides of the country...and make deductions? HAHAHAHAHA! Sure. Keep digging that hole you're in. It's getting deeper.Keep digging. Here's another one for you from MT showing 1/4 mile info (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0608_2006_audi_rs4_vs_2006_cadillac_cts_v/specifications.html)

p.s. Lou will be dynoing his B8 on a dyno-jet, which I believe is what APR uses. Test results will be on the zine Saturday night

[riegeraudi]

Are you on crack the motortrend one is 2006 the ones I posted for you are 2007 +.
Forget you are clearly just not all there and the Motor Trend one also shows 13.0.
How am I comparing the slowest Rs4 to the fastest S4?
You have one RS4 that was launched and the links that I provided you showed 13.0-13.2 the links you provided from Road and Track and MotorTrend showed 13.0. The S4 links I provided showed 13.2 and the avg driver one that you say can't be used showed 13.4.

[NoTec]

Now that I've recovered from all that glorious food and am no longer burdened by liquor in my system, how about we try to get this thread back on track... I predict Lou will dyno 290-315 whp today. Those numbers may be affected by dyno smoothing, correction factors, and wether or not a 120 mph fan was used....[>_<]