Dyno numbers for APR stage 1 2017 RS7 Performance on 100 octane (no 104 oct avail.)

[limeypride]

The opportunity presented itself today to dyno my RS7 with APR stage 1 so I figured I'd take it. My expectations going in were pretty high given my seat-of-the-pants dyno over the past 5-months or so tells me that this car is torque'y' to say the least. The results exceeded all of my expectations... and by a large margin.

Based on my research over the years with my M-cars, there seems to be consensus that DCTs with RWD account for a roughly 15% drive-train loss whereas ZF 8-speeds with AWD account for a roughly 20% drive-train loss--I've used the latter here to compute the crank numbers against what the dyno repeatedly measured.

NOTE: I got so giddy with the 100-octane AWHP and torque numbers that I didn't get pump-gas numbers for comparison... sigh. Anyhoo, here's what she put down:



... so computed crank numbers are:

• Computed crank HP = 738
• Computed crank torque = 877

HOLY $HIT!

[Chris Morales]

I think 20% drivetrain loss may be a bit high given the efficiency in everything else Audi is doing, but clearly it's making massive power. That torque! At what rpm did the run start? I'm guessing around 4300.

Did you get any numbers for other cars on that dyno for frame of reference?

[Ze_Nardo6]

Do you have a baseline? I hate to be that guy but they are sort of meaningless without a baseline nor track figures. You could take your car to another dyno 10 minutes away and it would put down completely different numbers. Just food for thought.

Remember that Ghost fellow? HUGE dyno numbers, no track numbers. Once called out, he lived up to his name. Haven't heard from him since

[limeypride]

I think 20% drivetrain loss may be a bit high given the efficiency in everything else Audi is doing, but clearly it's making massive power. That torque! At what rpm did the run start? I'm guessing around 4300.

Did you get any numbers for other cars on that dyno for frame of reference?

20% seems to be the norm here but, as you say, great numbers either way... and there's one more step-up to go with 104.

The run started just shy of 4,000 RPM--3,800ish I'd guess.

A 2016 Cadillac CTS-V wagon put down 450 RWHP which seems about right given its manufacturer-claimed crank numbers.

[limeypride]

Do you have a baseline? I hate to be that guy but they are sort of meaningless without a baseline nor track figures. You could take your car to another dyno 10 minutes away and it would put down completely different numbers. Just food for thought.

Remember that Ghost fellow? HUGE dyno numbers, no track numbers. Once called out, he lived up to his name. Haven't heard from him since

My baseline *is this* dyno--it's given both stock and tuned numbers on 2 of my M5s, both of my M6s and the X5M and all were where they should be stock with appreciable and expected gains when tuned.

The CTS-V's number I just mentioned seem about right, too, but to me, that's less convincing than my 5 beemers.

Tracking this car *here* is harder than you might think. I'd do it in a heartbeat given somewhere with not-so-ridiculous rules and that wasn't so far away. I hope to get to it and would love to hear from local folks if they've got guidance but, for now, this is what I've got.

PS: I hear you... but don't compare me to that guy; c'mon--that ain't nice!

[A3 Turbo]

Ha, 20% drivetrain loss. Maybe if we were talking a 1960's muscle car with a loose converter.

Modern automatics especially the high tech ZF 8-speed is extremely efficient. The loss is actually closer to 10-12%.

[limeypride]

Ha, 20% drivetrain loss. Maybe if we were talking a 1960's muscle car with a loose converter.

Modern automatics especially the high tech ZF 8-speed is extremely efficient. The loss is actually closer to 10-12%.

I'm happy to go with that, too--the numbers are great without crank-computation.

I thought posting this would be fun--not so much... where's that delete button.

[A3 Turbo]

Another member here put down 660whp also on a Dynojet. APR Stage 1 RS7 Performance just like you except he was only on 93 octane. So he's making 70whp more on 93 octane than you make on 100 octane.

I'd definitely check your car for boost leaks, misfires etc. If nothing is found, you might want to talk to APR because you're seriously down on power.

https://youtu.be/7PSV5vrxrXs

[limeypride]

Another member here put down 660whp also on a Dynojet. APR Stage 1 RS7 Performance just like you except he was only on 93 octane. So he's making 70whp more on 93 octane than you make on 100 octane.

I'd definitely check your car for boost leaks, misfires etc. If nothing is found, you might want to talk to APR because you're seriously down on power.

https://youtu.be/7PSV5vrxrXs

Jeez... you have some serious downer-skills.

I think that video would be the aforementioned run by Mickey.

5 x BMWs over 3-years and a Cadillac today seem pretty convincing to me and made me smile... job done and lesson-learned.

[A3 Turbo]

That's not the way Dynojets were designed to work. It's an inertia based dyno. Assuming the same correction is used, you're supposed to be able to accurately compare numbers from one Dynojet to another. So you could dyno let's say a Stage 1 RS7 on a Dynojet in 90 degree temps in southern Florida and another one in Washington state in 50 degree temps and the comparison should truly be whatever the difference is between the two cars assuming the same correction is used. The correction factor is supposed to take all of the weather related variables out of the equation.

From all my experiences, this has more or less proven to be true.

Do you have a baseline? I hate to be that guy but they are sort of meaningless without a baseline nor track figures. You could take your car to another dyno 10 minutes away and it would put down completely different numbers. Just food for thought.

Remember that Ghost fellow? HUGE dyno numbers, no track numbers. Once called out, he lived up to his name. Haven't heard from him since

[limeypride]

Jeez... you have some serious downer-skills.

I think that video would be the aforementioned run by Mickey.

5 x BMWs over 3-years and a Cadillac today seem pretty convincing to me and made me smile... job done and lesson-learned.

PS: with repeatable launch numbers like these, I really should get it checked out--just abysmal:

[A3 Turbo]

I don't how else to put it. There's no real positive way to spin a 70whp loss on 100 octane vs 93 octane? I was just trying to help you since there's something obviously wrong with your car or tune and nobody else pointed it out. Sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

Jeez... you have some serious downer-skills.

I think that video would be the aforementioned run by Mickey.

5 x BMWs over 3-years and a Cadillac today seem pretty convincing to me and made me smile... job done and lesson-learned.

[A3 Turbo]

Gtech? Are you serious? You spend all that money on an RS7 Performance and buy a crappy inaccurate Gtech. Come on man. At least get yourself a Vbox. Jeeez!

FWIW, Ghost was running 2.1-2.2 on a Vbox on 93 oct.

PS: with repeatable launch numbers like these, I really should get it checked out--just abysmal:

- - - Updated - - -

I have a hunch he's in the hoosegow...

Remember that Ghost fellow? HUGE dyno numbers, no track numbers. Once called out, he lived up to his name. Haven't heard from him since

[limeypride]

I don't how else to put it. There's no real positive way to spin a 70whp loss on 100 octane vs 93 octane? I was just trying to help you since there's something obviously wrong with your car or tune and nobody else pointed it out. Sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

Riiiiiiiiiiight... one YouTube video is credible and that's your basis for "fact"... jeez . Empirical doesn't mean precisely "1" observation.

I wasn't trying to make specific claims based on these numbers, I merely posted something that made me happy... until you that is.

The other RS7s here attest to the car's performance... and my own performance numbers fall inline (albeit with more limited data to back them up). Let's just agree to differ...

[limeypride]

Gtech? Are you serious? You spend all that money on an RS7 Performance and buy a crappy inaccurate Gtech. Come on man. At least get yourself a Vbox. Jeeez!

FFS--so my car is broken, the dyno doesn't work for any of my 6 M-cars (and the CTS-V wagon today) even though they all align nicely with manufacturer-claimed numbers and to top it all, I chose the world's worst GPS performance data tracker--surely, even you can see the pattern here? (Not rhetorical, seriously can you?)

[A3 Turbo]

Can you explain how a live video of an RS7 putting down 660whp on a Dynojet could NOT be credible? I can't think of a way to fake something like that. Dynojets are inertia based and can't be manipulated outside of which correction factor you use. Other dynos like Mustang Dynos, Dyno Dynamics etc absolutely can be manipulated to essentially read however you want but unless something has changed recently, there's no real way to fake a Dynojet.

If you look at APR's own dyno data, you can see your still way down on power. And I've never seen a tuned RS7 drop off power like yours with RPM. They usually hold peak HP all the way to redline.

Riiiiiiiiiiight... one YouTube video is credible and that's your basis for "fact"... jeez . Empirical doesn't mean precisely "1" observation.

I wasn't trying to make specific claims based on these numbers, I merely posted something that made me happy... until you that is.

The other RS7s here attest to the car's performance... and my own performance numbers fall inline (albeit with more limited data) and back them up. Let's just agree to differ...

[DGVR6]

Guess he's not playing nice now that he's back

Lol.. vol, you and I .. well.. all of US know ghost had skewed numbers.

Carry on OP

[A3 Turbo]

I don't think he did. The RS7 Performance has different turbocharger part numbers according to ETKA. I think his numbers were normal and this guy's car is either broken, in limp mode and/or just a ton of timing and boost were being pulled on the dyno due to soaring IAT and coolant temps.

Guess he's not playing nice now that he's back

Lol.. vol, you and I .. well.. all of US know ghost had skewed numbers.

Carry on OP

[limeypride]

Can you explain how a live video of an RS7 putting down 660whp on a Dynojet could NOT be credible? I can't think of a way to fake something like that. Dynojets are inertia based and can't be manipulated outside of which correction factor you use. Other dynos like Mustang Dynos, Dyno Dynamics etc absolutely can be manipulated to essentially read however you want but unless something has changed recently, there's no real way to fake a Dynojet.

If you look at APR's own dyno data, you can see your still way down on power. And I've never seen a tuned RS7 drop off power like yours with RPM. They usually hold peak HP all the way to redline.

GoAPR.com: APR Stage I on 100 = 697 HP 765 FT-LBS +157 HP @ 4,550 RPM +221 FT-LBS @ 3,450 RPM <-- are these the CRANK numbers you're referencing or did you perhaps think they were wheel numbers (this one is rhetorical... just so you know. Shhhh now).

[A3 Turbo]

Uh, 624whp on APR's site on a lower reading dyno versus your 590whp.

I don't know why you keep arguing with me. I'm trying to help you not rag on you. Your car is down on power bigly.

GoAPR.com: APR Stage I on 100 = 697 HP 765 FT-LBS +157 HP @ 4,550 RPM +221 FT-LBS @ 3,450 RPM <-- are these the CRANK numbers you're referencing or did you perhaps think they were wheel numbers (this one is rhetorical... just so you know. Shhhh now).

[gta7]

Jeez... you have some serious downer-skills.

I think that video would be the aforementioned run by Mickey.

5 x BMWs over 3-years and a Cadillac today seem pretty convincing to me and made me smile... job done and lesson-learned.

Made me laugh!

Congrats buddy.

[DGVR6]

That's cool, thanks for the info.

So let me see.. you come in here.. point fingers and say " Hey you, your car is broken " all while trying to belittle him with his decision to use a gtech instead of a vbox.

Smooth buddy. You're gonna go far in here. Take a chill pill.. other ways to discredit information without trying to belittle someone's knowledge. You want to help, help. Don't be a dick about it.
You have a lot of useful information, humble yourself and share it or stfu.

[A3 Turbo]

How else do you want me to say his car is broken? Is there a way to sugar coat it? I'm not insulting or discrediting him. I'm using real world examples to show him his car is down on power. If he wants to take the stance that I'm trying to rag on him, so be it. Nobody else pointed out his car is way down on power and I'm simply trying to help him understand there's an issue with his car. It is what it is.

As for the Gtech, that's just silly. I used to have one in the 90's. Not belittling him but even the newest Gtech has been tested and is nowhere near as accurate as some iPhone apps, let alone a Vbox.

That's cool, thanks for the info.

So let me see.. you come in here.. point fingers and say " Hey you, your car is broken " all while trying to belittle him with his decision to use a gtech instead of a vbox.

Smooth buddy. You're gonna go far in here. Take a chill pill.. other ways to discredit information without trying to belittle someone's knowledge. You want to help, help. Don't be a dick about it.
You have a lot of useful information, humble yourself and share it or stfu.

[A3 Turbo]

This went over my head. What exactly are you trying to say with this comment?

5 x BMWs over 3-years and a Cadillac today seem pretty convincing to me and made me smile... job done and lesson-learned.

[Chris Morales]

What's the problem with getting track numbers? I don't think I've seen any real world RS7 P timeslips. But it should probably run 10.50s at least on 100 octane. Shouldn't get worked up too much about dyno numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[A3 Turbo]

You know, a dyno should just be used as a tool (like me), either for doing back to back testing, tuning or in the OP's case, to reveal an issue with his car causing him to be down on power.

What's the problem with getting track numbers? I don't think I've seen any real world RS7 P timeslips. But it should probably run 10.50s at least on 100 octane. Shouldn't get worked up too much about dyno numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[Ze_Nardo6]

Limey, my apologies. My intent wasn't to bring morale down in your thread (can pretty much leave that to Vol in about every thread in this forum - it's not always what you say but how you say it). I completely understand that your track availability is slim. At the end of the day, your car is ridiculous and you should be happy no matter what the numbers. I was simply attempting to state my preference for track numbers over dyno numbers but perhaps missed the mark!


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[Chris Morales]

One of those three is not like the others because it doesn't relate to deltas. I'm not sold that he is down on power. Dynojet numbers seem to vary a lot, too. Before and after with the same car is their only use to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[Ze_Nardo6]

numbers seem to vary a lot, too. Before and after with the same car is their only use to

This



Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[limeypride]

This went over my head.

Yup.

[limeypride]

Limey, my apologies. My intent wasn't to bring morale down in your thread (can pretty much leave that to Vol in about every thread in this forum - it's not always what you say but how you say it). I completely understand that your track availability is slim. At the end of the day, your car is ridiculous and you should be happy no matter what the numbers. I was simply attempting to state my preference for track numbers over dyno numbers but perhaps missed the mark!


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

Thanks, Mickey.

I appreciate that.. but, from you, no apology needed. My response was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek than literal... likely my bad.

[limeypride]

What's the problem with getting track numbers? I don't think I've seen any real world RS7 P timeslips. But it should probably run 10.50s at least on 100 octane. Shouldn't get worked up too much about dyno numbers.

Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

Pacific Raceways is, as far as I've determined, my only real option and even that is over 70 miles from me--I'd love to be "A3Turbo"... I mean "wrong" on that one if any locals have other recommendations? The distance and even the time required to get there which is way more than the mileage would lead you to believe aside, their rules seem extreme to me, for example:

-Roll Bar: Mandatory in cars running 11.00 to 11.49 (including T-Tops), in convertibles running 11.00 to 13.49, and all dune-buggy type vehicles running 12.00 and slower. See NHRA Rulebook Sec. 4A.
-After market harmonic balancer mandatory on all cars running 10.99 or quicker (SFI spec. 18.1) // I don't actually know what this is
-Driveshaft loop: A driveshaft loop is required on all vehicles running 13.99 or quicker and utilizing slicks; except vehicles running 11.49 or slower equipped with street tires. // nor this
-Wheels: “Spinner” style wheels or any wheel design that incorporate moveable pieces while vehicle is in motion or stationary are prohibited. // what am I to do now?
... OK, that last one was an attempt at humor.

[DGVR6]

How else do you want me to say his car is broken? Is there a way to sugar coat it? I'm not insulting or discrediting him. I'm using real world examples to show him his car is down on power. If he wants to take the stance that I'm trying to rag on him, so be it. Nobody else pointed out his car is way down on power and I'm simply trying to help him understand there's an issue with his car. It is what it is.

As for the Gtech, that's just silly. I used to have one in the 90's. Not belittling him but even the newest Gtech has been tested and is nowhere near as accurate as some iPhone apps, let alone a Vbox.

There are ways to sugar coat it.. seriously.

[limeypride]

There are ways to sugar coat it.. seriously.

And that assumes he's "correct"... which, at this point, is f#cking laughable.

[limeypride]

You know, a dyno should just be used as a tool (like me)

Ooooh, I missed this one--apologies--we agree here.

[A3 Turbo]

No, you're flat out wrong. It's not always how you say it but who says it. If you read my original response to him, I was actually extremely cordial. I even used phrases like "you might want to contact APR." I was never rude nor I did offend him; quite the contrary. If you read his response to me, however, he was extremely offensive and rude. He took it as an attack when I was just trying to show him his car is down on power.

Limey, my apologies. My intent wasn't to bring morale down in your thread (can pretty much leave that to Vol in about every thread in this forum - it's not always what you say but how you say it). I completely understand that your track availability is slim. At the end of the day, your car is ridiculous and you should be happy no matter what the numbers. I was simply attempting to state my preference for track numbers over dyno numbers but perhaps missed the mark!


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[A3 Turbo]

Those rules are all superseded by a newer rule which states you can go as quick as 10.000 with a 2008 or newer model year car provided it has stock turbos. Just be sure to tell the tech inspector your car is stock.

Pacific Raceways is, as far as I've determined, my only real option and even that is over 70 miles from me--I'd love to be "A3Turbo"... I mean "wrong" on that one if any locals have other recommendations? The distance and even the time required to get there which is way more than the mileage would lead you to believe aside, their rules seem extreme to me, for example:

-Roll Bar: Mandatory in cars running 11.00 to 11.49 (including T-Tops), in convertibles running 11.00 to 13.49, and all dune-buggy type vehicles running 12.00 and slower. See NHRA Rulebook Sec. 4A.
-After market harmonic balancer mandatory on all cars running 10.99 or quicker (SFI spec. 18.1) // I don't actually know what this is
-Driveshaft loop: A driveshaft loop is required on all vehicles running 13.99 or quicker and utilizing slicks; except vehicles running 11.49 or slower equipped with street tires. // nor this
-Wheels: “Spinner” style wheels or any wheel design that incorporate moveable pieces while vehicle is in motion or stationary are prohibited. // what am I to do now?
... OK, that last one was an attempt at humor.

[A3 Turbo]

The only way Dynojet numbers should vary is if different CFs are used. Otherwise they should be very comparable. This has been my experience over the years. Other dynos, you're absolutely right: you can't compare any of them, even if they're identical model dynos. Dynojets are different.

This guy is putting down 70whp less on 100 octane as someone on 93. Something isn't right but as long as the OP is happy that's all that matters.

One of those three is not like the others because it doesn't relate to deltas. I'm not sold that he is down on power. Dynojet numbers seem to vary a lot, too. Before and after with the same car is their only use to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[A3 Turbo]

Yes, completely laughable when your same car with same APR Stage 1 tune on the same model dyno is down 70whp when you're on 100 octane and the other car is on 93 octane.

And that assumes he's "correct"... which, at this point, is f#cking laughable.

[limeypride]

I don't know why you keep arguing with me. I'm trying to help you not rag on you. Your car is down on power bigly.

I'm not arguing with you because that would imply you've a credible position with which I disagree... and yet you've offered nothing beyond uniformed opinions.

Uh, 624whp on APR's site on a lower reading dyno versus your 590whp.

Show me. Here's your chance to make a credible argument... so take it and show me where it says that. Here's what I see:



... given the number quoted by Audi on APR's site is a crank number, call me a rebel but I'll take a leap of faith and assume APR's comparison-numbers are also at the crank.