Author Topic: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!  (Read 9896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chas

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 633
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2005, 03:57:01 PM »
One reason for Randy's car to show higher numbers is that he is starting out from the factory with 170 HP. All the cars you listed JR are the older design engines with a base HP from the factory of 150.

But, Randy's car cranks it out! I only bested him in the total increase over factory HP claims by 2 HP!  :? I think Randy also has a larger exhaust. which goes a long way to making more power with turbo cars.  8)

I now see I have some more work to do. I have put off getting a proper exhaust system for way too long. But now I have an excuse. I have a dent in my downpipe that casue a restriction right at the point where it bends to a fully horizontal angle. And of course I'll have to get a high flow cat to go with it. I'm sure I can sail that one right past my wife. :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :wink:  :(
2003 Audi A6 2.7T
Some Sedans haul families,
this one hauls ASS!

shummer

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 925
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2005, 04:49:15 AM »
I thought exhaust gains were minimal, but hey look at me now. My numbers were spot on what I should be expecting from APR. What opens my eyes the most are the Golf and GLI numbers - their KO3 numbers are approaching/matching KO4 or stage 3 numbers for the longitudinal 1.8Ts.

Rocky Mountain Club B5

DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2005, 04:49:15 AM »

kraut-sled

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,020
    • Autobahn Premier Service
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2005, 03:15:51 PM »
I had my car stripped out of it's interior for about 10 days - I was hauling an exhaust arround for a customer and needed the extra space - and was shocked to hear the flow of my exhaust.  With all the seats out and the music off you can really hear it!

It made me wonder how much power was being robbed due to restricted flow.  Then seeing the Hp number of the cars with a 2.5 inch exhaust made me realize it was a substantial improvement.

I am waiting for GHL to finish their new Passat turbo-back exhaust, then I will be bolting it on.  As soon as I have it on I will head back to MAC for another pull to see what the gain is.  Then we will know forsure.
Autobahn Premier Service
2105 South Kalamath Street
Denver CO 80223
303-935-9065

jayryan

  • Supercar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,211
    • JayFriesen.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2005, 03:21:20 PM »
Quote from: "kraut-sled"
I had my car stripped out of it's interior for about 10 days - I was hauling an exhaust arround for a customer and needed the extra space - and was shocked to hear the flow of my exhaust.  With all the seats out and the music off you can really hear it!

It made me wonder how much power was being robbed due to restricted flow.  Then seeing the Hp number of the cars with a 2.5 inch exhaust made me realize it was a substantial improvement.

I am waiting for GHL to finish their new Passat turbo-back exhaust, then I will be bolting it on.  As soon as I have it on I will head back to MAC for another pull to see what the gain is.  Then we will know forsure.


I'd like to see that before I go and have anything done.
'03 A4 1.8TQM
'68 MG C
'06 4Runner

kraut-sled

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,020
    • Autobahn Premier Service
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2005, 03:57:47 PM »
Pull it out and you can hear what I am talking about.
Autobahn Premier Service
2105 South Kalamath Street
Denver CO 80223
303-935-9065

jfrahm

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2005, 04:06:35 PM »
Quote from: "Cole"


No. The dyno is corrected for altitude. The M5 was only down 10HP over its stock numbers. This could be attributed to mileage, dirty air filter, old clogging exhaust, old spark plugs, etc. It could even be the 104oct he had in it. If the car did not compensate for it you may actually show less HP.



So how do you run a corrected dyno with a turbo car?  Do you use a reducing correction factor, or reprogram the dyno based on the type of turbo system?  If the dyno just reads high to account for the lower air density all the MAP controlled turbo cars will dyno high.  Under boost, the absolute pressure in the intake of a B5.5 is going to be about the same here as it would be at sea level while an NA car will have the local aimbient air pressure as the manifold pressure (20-25% less than sea level.)

-Joel.
2001 Audi A8 Quattro 4.2l

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2005, 04:17:25 PM »
If what you are saying is true, where would you recommend that we can research the exact numbers in relation to manifold pressures and the dyno results?  I also was under the impression that when you are a sea level, even in forced induction cars the manifold pressure will be relationally higher than when you are at a higher altitude, just like a NA engine.  Are you saying that because the ambient air pressure is lower the boost system is somehow able to draw in greater amounts of air to compensate at a higher altitude?
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2005, 04:40:40 PM »
"Air mass per volume (density) is dependent on (absolute) pressure and temperature. If you would run the same ABSOLUTE manifold pressure with the same IAT, you would make the same power regardless of altitude. Typical boost gauges do not display ABSOLUTE pressure though, but relative pressure (gauge pressure), relative to atmospheric. So if you use gauge pressure, you make less power because you put less air MASS in the engine, even though the indicated boost level (relative to atmospheric) is the same.
I said above 'same IAT', because to make the same absolute pressure at altitude as at sea level, the turbo needs to work harder (faster). This raises IAT's. Hotter air has a lower density -> result is less power even for the same absolute pressure. As the outside air is also less dense at altitude, an intercooler works less efficiently as there is less air (mass) flowing around it to cool.
Lower air density at altitude also means less aerodynamic resistance at high speed. For some forms of racing this can offset the power losses a little."

So while a turbo will maintain a constant pressure ratio no matter what altitude you are at it will not maintain a constant density ratio.  This correlates with my understanding of air density and how engines regardless of how air is inducted respond to different atmospheric pressures.  There is no way for a forced induction engine to create additional air mass at higher altitude than it can at a lower altitude.
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

jfrahm

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2005, 04:57:36 PM »
Turbos can be controlled different ways.  The system on the B5.5 as far as I understand it, controlls boost by opening and closing a valve between manifold pressure and the turbo wastegate.  The decision to open that valve seems to be determined by input from the MAP sensor on the intercooler outlet.  The turbo then boosts not up to a relative pressure of, say 8psi over ambient (which let's say is 12psi locally instead of 14.7 at sea level) but to an absolute pressure value which seems to be about 22 psi absolute.

The system is not able to draw in more air but is told to boost higher (relative pressure) by the ECU.  The ECU is trying to make a certain absolute manifold pressure and as long as the turbo can provide that pressure it will do so.  The car will be roughly as powerful here as it sea level, at least once the turbo is spun up.  

What is different?  Well there is less air to work with so the turbo has to spin faster.  I suppose spoolup is slower but with a K03 it's probably insignificant.  Off boost performance will of course be affected but on the dyno I doubt anyone would care.

One big factor:  As I understand it, at very high altitudes the ECU lowers the max boost so as not to overspeed the turbo trying to make 22psi (absolute.)  I'm not sure how high we'd have to go to see that effect.

Now, with a turbo controlled by a simple manual boost controller, the turbo is not managed by a clever computer that can tell what the absolute pressure is, but a simple spring that opens the wastegate at a relative pressure differential.  If you set your MBC at sea level to give you 8psi of boost, I believe you would get 8psi over ambient pressure here or at sea level or in Leadville (assuming the turbo can manage to make 8psi in Leadville.)  The car would be faster at sea level and slower in Leadville 'cause it's boosting 8psi over ambient everywhere, or 22.7psi (absolute) at sea level, 20 psi here, and... maybe 18 psi in Leadville.  

My observations are that my B5.5 shows 10-11psi of boost on a mechanical boost gauge here (which reads relative pressure, or boost over ambient) but I understand boost is supposed to be around 8psi at sea level.  I have also fooled around a bit with the output of the MAP sensor and sure enough I can get more or less boost depending on how that signal is massaged.  That tells me the boost is determined by the MAP and that I am getting my altitude correction already thanks to the ECU.  If I ran on a dyno corrected for an NA car it'd read high.

There are other ways to control boost.  Some systems use knock to reduce boost like my old Saab 900.   The Audi 200 takes temperature into the equation.  Correcting them on a dyno would be a different matter.
Gasoline quality would also be a factor to be taken into account.

-Joel.
2001 Audi A8 Quattro 4.2l

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2005, 05:04:46 PM »
Okay, if the ECU works the way you have described, I agree that the dyno results for those vehicles would not represent true numbers at sea level.   I don't think however that you have taken into account that the faster you move air, and the more compression that occurs, the hotter air gets which greatly affects the air density.  Does the ECU factor that in as well?
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

jfrahm

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2005, 05:12:32 PM »
Quote from: "JDawg"

So while a turbo will maintain a constant pressure ratio no matter what altitude you are at it will not maintain a constant density ratio.  This correlates with my understanding of air density and how engines regardless of how air is inducted respond to different atmospheric pressures.  There is no way for a forced induction engine to create additional air mass at higher altitude than it can at a lower altitude.


Well the turbo is just an air pump and it'll do whatever you tell it to do up to it's mechanical limits.  A turbo _can_ maintain a constant pressure ratio (MBC) or it _can_ maintain a density ratio if you control it cleverly using a MAP input.  This assumes the turbo can spin fast enough.  Yes, you might lose some power due to greater heating of the air, and IC efficiency will probably be down.  On a dyno your IC will not be performing worth a damn unless they have a big fan.

I recall getting the correction factors from Bandimere, I think they use about 1/2 the NA correction for turbo cars but they do not differentiate between a turbo controlled by MAP or by relative pressure either.  I would suppose people who tune their cars are already turing up boost to take the altitude into consideration anyway, so all you are left with are the IC efficiency and the additional heating of the air.  Fuel quality is another issue, as we might lose some timing advance.  Much of the gas here is formulated with the lower cylinder pressures in mind. Not a big deal when it's cool out but a factor on a hot day.

At any rate I do not think much of a correction is needed for a MAP based system like the B5.5, or for a car with an MBC that has been turned up to take altitude into account.  Certainly nothing like the factor used for NA cars.

-Joel.
2001 Audi A8 Quattro 4.2l

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2005, 05:14:38 PM »
Interesting.  I would be curious to see what MAC has to say about this.  Anyone interested in talking wtih them?
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

jfrahm

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2005, 05:25:26 PM »
Quote from: "JDawg"
Okay, if the ECU works the way you have described, I agree that the dyno results for those vehicles would not represent true numbers at sea level.   I don't think however that you have taken into account that the faster you move air, and the more compression that occurs, the hotter air gets which greatly affects the air density.  Does the ECU factor that in as well?


Well the heating of the air depends to a great degree on where you are on the compressor map.  Stock cars or cars with modest increases are probably not hitting the wall of hot air you get when you are way out of the sweet part of the compressor map.  There is really no way to know how big an effect you are getting without logging the intake temp and playing with the boost.  You could run at the same pressure ratio as you would at sea level, measure the air temp after the IC, and figure out how much of your pressure is due to heat rather than the presence of more air molecules.  Take that amount of air, devide by 12 or whatever you use for a WOT A/F ratio, and that will tell you how much more fuel you would be using if your IAT were cooler, and thus the amount of HP you aren't producing.  If you are not too far out of the efficient range of the turbo it won't be a huge number.

-Joel.
2001 Audi A8 Quattro 4.2l

Rusty

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 354
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2005, 06:37:10 PM »
(Rusty answers JR's Bat-signal...)

Hey, where did this guy jfrahm come from?  He's freakin' smart!  Smarter than me (although I'm not sure that says much...) Welcome to RMCB5! Hope I get to meet you at the Memorial Weekend GTG...

Anyway, what j says is spot-on.  The SAE correction factors are truly not appropriate for a forced-induction engine.  To simplify things, let's ignore the MAP-sensor system, and concentrate on the simpler MBC system.  Like j said, x lbs boost at sea level is x lbs boost at 5,280 feet.  All other things being equal, it's the same air mass.  Humidity and temperature corrections still apply, but if you apply SAE altitude correction to the "boosted" portion of the mass air flow (clumsy words but I'm trying to get across a concept here), you'll be over-correcting because it's the same amount of air mass as sea level.  To do SAE altitude correction properly for forced-induction, you have to have two components - one using the full SAE correction for the percent air mass due to ambient pressure, and another using only Temp and Humidity for the percent air mass that's boosted.

So unlike the standard SAE correction, which is the same percent regardless where you are on the dyno curve, the "Turbo-correct" SAE correction will be different on different parts of the curve, depending on the amount of boost.  The error will be greater for greater amounts of boost. As you can see, this is a computational nightmare for the average dyno operator - an accurate boost curve would have to be determined and the data fed in.  Greatly complicates the dyno process.

That's my two cents, anyway.  I would be intrigued with a further discussion of the MAP-sensored cars - it seems like you would still have the SAE temp and humidity correction, but would you eliminate the altitude and the barometric pressure correction entirely?!?!:?: Hmmm....

(more wheels turning for Rusty's E-mail Dyno Room...)


Cool stuff.  Two Thumbs - Up.
i]AEB Engines have better-flowing heads and a real throttle cable...[/i]

Cole

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,035
    • http://rockcrawler.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2005, 06:50:37 PM »
Interesting read.  How far could it really be off if it is?


The S4 and W8 weigh about the same. One is twin turbo the other N/A.  The w8 a 6 speed and the S4 a tip.  If the results are truely off for the turbo car then The W8 should be closer to the S4 in the real world.  We went head to head after the dyno. (which only shows 54HP/143TQ difference at the wheels) Our basic results show that the performance difference is AT LEAST this much. (seat of the pants judgement). Just some more fuel to think about.



1. Cole 2000 S4 2.7TT (280HP/395TQ) [350HP/493.75TQ]
3.Jason W8 (226HP/252TQ) [273HP/304.92]

Cole Ford
Financial Advisor

jayryan

  • Supercar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,211
    • JayFriesen.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2005, 06:57:49 PM »
Quote from: "Rusty"
Hey, where did this guy jfrahm come from?


Boulder.

 :P Sorry. I'm incredibly bored with absolute nothing to add to this thread which hasn't already been said.
'03 A4 1.8TQM
'68 MG C
'06 4Runner

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2005, 06:58:10 PM »
I aggree with Cole, there are real-world differences that make me think the results are accurate.
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

Rusty

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 354
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2005, 08:29:48 PM »
Quote from: "Cole"
Interesting read.  How far could it really be off if it is?

Quote from: "JDawg"
I aggree with Cole, there are real-world differences that make me think the results are accurate.

Well, basically I agree, too, which is why I never worried about it for my dynoplots.  I figured if there was that big of a difference, with as long as turbos have been around and as long as altitude has been around, someone would have done something by now.  I'll go check my equations and see if I can come up with how much it might be... but not today.
i]AEB Engines have better-flowing heads and a real throttle cable...[/i]

Rusty

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 354
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2005, 08:50:29 PM »
OK, then, today.  But my brain hurts, someone else figure this out:

Here's the equation:

1.18*(29.235/(L6*(1-L10/(280.3*L4+1.001*L10+128938))^5.255-L8*(0.001804*10^((4.167*L4-133.3)/(0.5556*L4+219.5)))))*SQRT((L4+460)/537)-0.18

L10 = altitude (ft)
L8 = humidity (%)
L6 = baro pressure (in Hg)
L4 = temp (F)
i]AEB Engines have better-flowing heads and a real throttle cable...[/i]

s4josh

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 619
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2005, 09:20:37 PM »
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "s4josh"
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "Cole"
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D


Very true.  Basically, Cole wasted me completely without even blinking or having to try hard.  Bastard.  But wait until I get the cams in the M3, you will be crying.


I hope you are talking about a road course and not the dyno.  Cams are not going to give you that much increase in power.  Your going to have to buy a SC or turbo kit to do that.  You have to make 100+ hp and 250+ TQ to match Cole.  The cams will help you on the track at least :P

S4 > M3!


Actually, my car (the M3) is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than Cole's S4.  My driveline loss is about 10% less, and cams make a 50+ horsepower difference in a stock M3.  So, with cams I am pushing 300 horsepower and would be very competitive with Cole because of the weight / horsepower/torque ratio.  The M3 is at least 800 lbs lighter than the S4, automatic.


2000 Audi S4 = 3593 lbs
1995 BMW M3 = 3175 lbs
3593 - 3175 = 418 lbs difference

All that really matters is power to wieght ratio and power band.

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

Cole's S4 = 3593 lbs / 280 whp = 12.8 lbs per hp
Jason M3 = 3175 lbs / 203 whp = 15.6 lbs per hp
Jason M3 + 50 hp = 3175 lbs / 246 whp =  12.9 lbs per hp

Cole's S4 = 3593 lbs / 395 w ft-lbs = 9.1 lbs per ft-lb
Jason M3 = 3175 lbs / 198 w ft-lbs = 16.0 lbs per ft-lb
Jason M3 + 30 ft-lbs (guessing) = 3175 lbs / 219.0 w ft-lbs =   14.5 lbs per  ft-lb

You will be very close to Cole's hp to weight ratio with 50 hp increase, but you won't be close on torque or power band.

Cole generates far more torque and has a much broader power band.  With a higher duration/lift/lobe seperation cams you are going to increase hp, but at the expense of narrowing your power band.

I have a friend with an turbo'd Acura Integra GS-R that makes about 230 whp and I still beat him with my much heavier stock AWD S4 with 189 whp, because his power band looks like a needle starting at about 5500 rpm going to 8000 rpm and the rice fed rats legs are to short to make any torque :P.
Josh Ver 2.0

2011 VW Jetta 2.5 SE DSG
2009 VW Jetta TDI 6sp man
2006 VW MkV GTI DSG w/LC
2005 VW Passat Wagon TDI-PD
2003 VW Jetta TDI-PD
2001 Audi B5.5 S4 6sp man

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2005, 04:45:51 PM »
I don't think an automatic S4 weighs 3593 lbs.  I came up with 3704 for a automatic.  Why would a turbo have a broder power band than a NA engine?  I guess cole and I will just have to go find out... :)  You should probably compare dyno plots on the M3 and S4 before you start guessing about torque curves.

There are some issues with your math.  I was going to go into detail about the cams for a M3, but it is appearant you have no knowledge about what modifications are available for the M3, what the S50 motor is comprised of, and how to add 198 plus 30.  That equals 228.

The 3593 weight is for a six-speed tranny, 3704 is the only number I could find for an automatic and that still seems low.  

The euro schrick camshaft setup is exactly the same as the euro spec S50 engine cams.  With that upgrade, along with the euro headers and euro MAF, push this engine to the 290hp range, at the crank.  This is with an aditional 40 ft/lbs of torque and it smooths out the torque curve and provides even broader power thanks to the VANOS system BMW is known for.  

According to my math

2000 Auto S4 13.2 lbs/hp
2000 Auto S4 9.4 lbs/torque ft/lbs

1995 M3 12.9 lbs/hp
1995 M3 13.3 lbs/torque ft/lbs
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

Cole

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,035
    • http://rockcrawler.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2005, 06:35:41 PM »
Boy this is fun! :lol:  As long as we are comparing parts we don't have yet. I can throw in my plans for the K04/16 hybrid install with RS4 fueling and intercoolers and other associated parts. Ball park guestimates should be 550 crank HP.

That puts the auto S4 at 6.7lbs/HP :D  8O  :D  8O  :D  8O (and I can get the traction to put it to the ground :wink: )

Cole Ford
Financial Advisor

s4josh

  • Modded
  • ***
  • Posts: 619
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2005, 08:44:22 PM »
JDawg let me answer these one at a time...

1. Why would a turbo have a broder power band than a NA engine?
  Answer.  NA engines cannot add more air than is pulled in via the piston.  If you had two of the same engines (same displacement), both running 12:1 air to fuel ratio.  The one turbo charged one running 2 bar would put twice the amount of air and fuel into the engine volume than the NA one.  Which directly relates to joules of energy with translates to whp eventually.  Audi also has Variable valve lift and timing on the V6 5V like the 2.7TT (same as VANOS, V-TEC, and every other manufacture on earth now).  This gives you the ability to make a broader power band than you could on non-VLVT NA engine.  Now throw turbos on top of that with full boost control, ignition timing, etc... and you can make the power band just about as wide as you want.  Theres a reason you get 308 hp and 375 ft-lbs of torque when you chip an 2.7TT engine - being Audi likes that flat torque curve which limits the engines hp (hp = torque x rpm / 5252).  The S4 stock makes 258 ft-lbs or torque from 2200-5800 rpm for driveability, marketing, and reliablity reasons, but not because its limited to it; like the M3's NA engine.

2. You should probably compare dyno plots on the M3 and S4 before you start guessing about torque curves.
  Answer.  I wasn't guessing.  BMW I6 even with VANOS always make less torque than hp because they are NA and geared for higher rpm use than most production cars.  Even though its an I6 and a square bore/stroke (very very close) engine they are always are designed for the higher rpms.  They are very smooth engines and run nicely, but they do not come close to the power band of the 2.7TT engine.  You guys have the dyno plots throw them up here :D

3. There are some issues with your math.  ...how to add 198 plus 30.  That equals 228.
  Answer.  The reason you didn't get the same results is you did the math incorrectly.  You just added a 30 ft-lbs or torque to your wheel ft-lbs when its a increase at the crank, same with the 50 hp.  I added the 50 hp/30 ft-lbs to your crank figures then x them by 0.85 which is the 15% loss for RWD manuals that was post with the dyno results.

4. The 3593 weight is for a six-speed tranny, 3704 is the only number I could find for an automatic and that still seems low.
  111 lbs difference or 529 lbs more than your M3.  The S4 would need to wieght about 1500 pounds more for you to beat it :)

5. The euro schrick camshaft setup...  With that upgrade... headers... MAF, ... 290hp range, at the crank.  ...aditional 40 ft/lbs of torque and it smooths
  Stock cams:  252 deg intake and 244 deg exhaust w/ 10.2 mm lift
  Dr. Schrick cams: 264 deg intake and 256 deg exhaust w/ 11.2 mm lift
  You should read this artical, so you don't get your hopes up about that 50 hp from the cams alone.  They were able to get a total 51.1 hp and 40.7 ft-lbs of torque total after about eight mods.  They only gained 8.1 hp between when they dynoed w/o the cams then w/ the cams.  They also got  thier max hp at 6900 rpm, which is higher than the stock engine speed limiter.  Like I said its going to narrow your power band.
  Europrean Car Mag - Project 1997 BMW M3
Josh Ver 2.0

2011 VW Jetta 2.5 SE DSG
2009 VW Jetta TDI 6sp man
2006 VW MkV GTI DSG w/LC
2005 VW Passat Wagon TDI-PD
2003 VW Jetta TDI-PD
2001 Audi B5.5 S4 6sp man

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2005, 12:21:10 AM »
S4JOSH, thanks for calling me out on several of those items.  First of all, I will still argue that the M3 torque curve is much flatter than the S4, and that it will produce more usable torque earlier in the RPM range.  I did post my M3 dyno on the first page of this thread.  Otherwise, you are correct on the numbers.  I still believe that I will be able to put together a NA M3 that will contend with a chipped S4, and on a track would probably eat one alive, however sometimes ignorance is bliss ;)
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

JDawg

  • Lightly Modded
  • **
  • Posts: 465
    • http://www.VerTechGroup.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2005, 12:24:03 AM »
Oh, and BTW I was looking into using the Schrick 284 intake and 274 degree exhaust cam, which comes from the Euro M3.  It should produce better results than the first cam you mentioned.
esident RMCB5 MFD Expert!
Ask and ye shall receive!
(OEM Navigation system)

1995 BMW M3 - Sold
2003 Passat W8 6 Spd - Sold
2005 Audi S4 6 Spd Alcanterra - Sold
2007 BMW M-Coupe - I'm in love!

kraut-sled

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,020
    • Autobahn Premier Service
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #55 on: April 04, 2005, 02:55:06 PM »
Quote from: "Cole"
Boy this is fun! :lol:  As long as we are comparing parts we don't have yet. I can throw in my plans for the K04/16 hybrid install with RS4 fueling and intercoolers and other associated parts. Ball park guestimates should be 550 crank HP.

That puts the auto S4 at 6.7lbs/HP :D  8O  :D  8O  :D  8O (and I can get the traction to put it to the ground :wink: )


This will tear your transmissions off!!!
Autobahn Premier Service
2105 South Kalamath Street
Denver CO 80223
303-935-9065

Cole

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,035
    • http://rockcrawler.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #56 on: April 04, 2005, 03:22:34 PM »
Quote from: "kraut-sled"


This will tear your transmissions off!!!



How do you figure?

Cole Ford
Financial Advisor

kraut-sled

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,020
    • Autobahn Premier Service
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #57 on: April 04, 2005, 04:00:55 PM »
Your cluth will not be able to transfer the power through the transmission.  it will shread your gears.

If you do it, please put me down for first dibs on your chassie :wink:
Autobahn Premier Service
2105 South Kalamath Street
Denver CO 80223
303-935-9065

Cole

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,035
    • http://rockcrawler.com
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #58 on: April 04, 2005, 05:01:02 PM »
There are S4s all over the place running this kind of power.  So where do you get your information?


I have personally seen an S4 put over 460HP to the WHEELS on the dyno.

Cole Ford
Financial Advisor

kraut-sled

  • Heavily Modded
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,020
    • Autobahn Premier Service
DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
« Reply #59 on: April 04, 2005, 05:09:12 PM »
Quote from: "Cole"
There are S4s all over the place running this kind of power.  So where do you get your information?


I have personally seen an S4 put over 460HP to the WHEELS on the dyno.


True there are S4 running this power.  I have driven one. 8O   However they are not TIP cars, they are 6 speeds.  There is a known problem with the tip transmission holding up under that amount of power.
Autobahn Premier Service
2105 South Kalamath Street
Denver CO 80223
303-935-9065