RI A6

It's just hp and torque to the wheels, not at the crank. As long as you're okay with that, there is no issue.

As for my response on the intake flap, it is based on the chassis torque numbers I've seen when the flap is open vs. closed, based on my assumption that the flap is causing this. If my assumption is wrong, then my conclusion is also wrong. But based on what I know about the physics, I think it's a pretty good bet, and is also consistent with what tuners in Europe were saying about the RS4 last year, based on their prior experience with other cars and Audi's. They were also seeing the engine as being 20 to 30 WHP down from what they had expected to see, based on experience.

RI A6

There's nothing new here. But if you understand what I mean by relative measurements, you'll understand that they can be used to make very accurate comparisons of vehicles and modifications, just like Dr Mike did in his post above.

daveak05

on same car at a different point in time. the point here is that what gets spit out on the printout when the dyno run is finished is not an accurate measure when compared with the accpeted mfgr and SAE numbers.

so, again, you have sellers advertising these specific gains that can be had for a considerbale sum of money. THEIR dyno may show you that bogus gain, or more commonly, they will show you sample dyno results on other cars using the same product(whether it be engine mgmt, intake, injectors, exhaust, what have you).

when it makes it onto a forum such as this, it should be recognized for what it is, period. people tend to get ripped off otherwise. and as for those that constantly support and try and vaildate this stuff, they are either ignorant or have been sold a bill of goods. thus they become big supporters of dyno testing for the purpose of power specifics or in suppoirt of their latest and gretest mod. and they seem to have no problem putting erroneous info out here...and then insisting that it's fact.

daveak05

are you vouching for the accuracy? is that what you're saying? go ahead, tell us that the HP and torque numbers in that example are exactly what it claims to be, an accurate measure of power.

come on, i want to see you concretely state that those numbers are dead on accurate, and that others should rely on them.

daveak05

they can be used as a basis in so far as they can isolate the changes created by engine mods. as for accuracy, or accurately using a baseline for subsequent analysis of results, sorry, i can't agree with you there. if the info is flawed or compromised(in any way), then you basis for assumptions is doomed. any specifics you put out there as a result will be skewed in a number of ways.

bhvrdr

the results I showed to you are "loaded". You tell me how I screwed them up and how they are "completely" inaccurate or just STFU and stop saying BS. YOu can come back with as many questions as you want Dave but back up or shut up. No one here is stating ANYTHING is 100% accurate Dave. Are you that dense? OEM engine dyno tuning is not 100% accurate. Dont come here saying that was your point. Tell me how my testing was loaded or shut your trap about it.

RI A6

"if the info is flawed or compromised(in any way), then you basis for assumptions is doomed. any specifics you put out there as a result will be skewed in a number of ways."

so far you haven't said anything specific.

daveak05

or not. the graphs in your example, that you put forth here(not me), do you stand by them or not?

better yet, are you willing to say that this method of dyno testing is fine and dandy?

it's your post. all i said is that results are "loaded" in the sense that they are tailored in order to validate an argument, or in this case, a testing method.

you have to realize, Mike, that their are thousands of examples like this out there. none of them prove anything. but, you used this example here to say that "whenever testing mods you do something like this..." that's a pretty absolute stmt on your part, not opinion, it seems.

so, again, back up your post and comments and quit trying to turn this around on me. i questioned the info in that link, now you're questioning my questioning of that info. but it's YOUR info, Mike. your example, not mine...which leads me to believe that you agree with what it says...whether it be valid or not.

daveak05

i can't offer specifics on your results or methods, because i haven't seen them, nor was i there. the issue here is not the 'specifics' of any given dyno test, but that dyno tests are inconclusive in accurately determing engine power. you know this to be the case, you're not stupid. you know the many variables, almost none controllable. you know the differences in dynos and all that goes with it.

if you're trying to determine the cause of the flap not opening, fine...but good luck. if you're throwing out numbers, such as a 25 torque loss due to flap not opening, not good. how did you come up with that number? and why did you present it here as some kind of fact?

this is where things get squirrelly, Scott. it's nothing personal, it's the erroneous info, that's all. why can't people refrain from putting bogus stuff like that out there?

bhvrdr

so you tell me how it was loaded? To question the info I presented would be you asking me questions about it such as to ask me questions about if we controlled for ambients, tire pressures, motor oil weight used, suspension settings, tie down locations, fan type, fan location? If you want to question I never have a problem with that? What is your question? I never saw one. I just saw your claim that the results are loaded and your statement that dynos are "completely unverifiable". Again, i'm not claiming they are 100%. Nothing is Dave. I'm stating they are aboslutely repeatable within an acceptable margin of error/accuracy. Meaning i'm not seeing 5hp gains from that chip on that car one day and 50hp gains another day Dave. So again, you tell me what was loaded about those results or feel free to ask any questions you want.