So is AWE Stg3 kit putting out ~422tq or am I reading the dyno charts wrong...
06-15-2003, 05:41 PM
#51
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here (edited)
when you go this far
(even after editing your post)
people write you off
because once you get personal, that says you've run out of facts<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283247.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283247.phtml</a></li></ul>
(even after editing your post)
people write you off
because once you get personal, that says you've run out of facts<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283247.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283247.phtml</a></li></ul>
06-15-2003, 05:49 PM
#53
Or this one?
He is always insulting me, and everything that I do. He has no reason to act that way.<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283187.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1283187.phtml</a</li></ul>
06-15-2003, 06:00 PM
#54
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not using ET, using trap speed (traction has little effect on trap speed)...
I agree aerodynamics will cause a small variance. But look at the other newer cars out there in the 250hp range that weigh 3600lbs - or even less - they all trap well below 98mph. Heck for example the 260hp Mustang GT weighs hundreds of lbs less than the S4, is rated 10hp more, and yet it traps about the same as a stock S4. Oh by the way it also dynos 220-230hp at the wheels, so it's even making a bit more than 260hp at the crank.... so what is the S4 making I wonder? I don't know but I bet it's something more than 250hp...
06-15-2003, 06:43 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, your MPH will be slower if you get out of the hole quicker.
case in point. FWD Eclipse, 13.0 @ 116mph, AWD to go 13.0 is going to trap at 104-106 of similar weight.
This of course assumes two similar times, but the MPH/HP will be higher on the 2wd car.
This of course assumes two similar times, but the MPH/HP will be higher on the 2wd car.
06-15-2003, 07:44 PM
#59
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 17,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying the MaHa is a POS. For all I know (or care) it is the be all and end all. All I am
saying is that coast down measurements ignore non fixed d/l losses because there is no power input. Some of the driveline losses are 'based' on a percent of input power, i.e., transmission losses, a minor amount of bearing load losses, inertial losses from the driveline mass being spun up more quickly by a higher power input, etc.
The MaHa may well be the single most accurate and repeatable machine out there for measuring actual whp. That doesn't mean extrapilating that back to dead on crank hp, via coast down measurements, is accurate.
The fact that Porsche, MB, VAG and BMW, all German companies, swear by a German manufactured instrument doesn't sway me much at all. German engineers tend to have a very high regard for one another. Besides, that is the fallacy of appeal to power.
The MaHa may well be the single most accurate and repeatable machine out there for measuring actual whp. That doesn't mean extrapilating that back to dead on crank hp, via coast down measurements, is accurate.
The fact that Porsche, MB, VAG and BMW, all German companies, swear by a German manufactured instrument doesn't sway me much at all. German engineers tend to have a very high regard for one another. Besides, that is the fallacy of appeal to power.
06-15-2003, 07:48 PM
#60
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not true, that many geeks, are swayed by the origin of the dyno?
the question I'm asking is simple
did the SAE discount backwards calculations
to crank HP because of a 1-2% absolute variance or something more significant?
did the SAE discount backwards calculations
to crank HP because of a 1-2% absolute variance or something more significant?