speed!!
- Thread starter ELIASGK74
- Start date
Drill
Registered User
Dude, at THAT speed, you're about to run outta gas /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
170 MPH? I didn't know they had the torque to pull that. What setup are you running.
PS I am right aren't I 272km/h then devide by 1.6 to get 170mph?
PS I am right aren't I 272km/h then devide by 1.6 to get 170mph?
s8n
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Website
- allkris.com
Woodster
Welcome to my world...
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
- Location
- Mighty Mighty Yorkshire
- Website
- woodys-tvr.blogspot.com
Woodster
Welcome to my world...
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
- Location
- Mighty Mighty Yorkshire
- Website
- woodys-tvr.blogspot.com
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,009
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- North East
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
Woody_S3 said:
must be a long steep hill... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
........or good photoshop work /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif lol
Woody_S3 said:
must be a long steep hill... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
........or good photoshop work /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif lol
[ QUOTE ]
excursion said:
170 MPH? I didn't know they had the torque to pull that. What setup are you running.
PS I am right aren't I 272km/h then devide by 1.6 to get 170mph?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well 169 to be correct. But a more accurate readout of that speed would be on the CC, but i found at that ort of speed looking at the CC was probably as stupid as taking a photo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif Think my speedo was between 5 and 10 km/h out at speeds of 255 km/h (So speedo actually read over 260)....which is not too bad.
I would say that that has to be down hill, to get that reading on the speedo, and one hell of a stretch of open road.
excursion said:
170 MPH? I didn't know they had the torque to pull that. What setup are you running.
PS I am right aren't I 272km/h then devide by 1.6 to get 170mph?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well 169 to be correct. But a more accurate readout of that speed would be on the CC, but i found at that ort of speed looking at the CC was probably as stupid as taking a photo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif Think my speedo was between 5 and 10 km/h out at speeds of 255 km/h (So speedo actually read over 260)....which is not too bad.
I would say that that has to be down hill, to get that reading on the speedo, and one hell of a stretch of open road.
Even the CC is only as accurate the accuracy of other cvariables on the car i.e tires .etc.
The law is +10%, -0% for the limits. Most read high.
Most accurate for the average person is to use road angel or something like that!
Rich
The law is +10%, -0% for the limits. Most read high.
Most accurate for the average person is to use road angel or something like that!
Rich
[ QUOTE ]
Imola S3 said:
Regardless of the speedo reading, it's still ****** quick!
[/ QUOTE ]
Quick is never quick enough though /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif
As strange as this may seem but when reading my speedo in km/h it just doesn't seem as fast as if it was in mph...how's that for a psychological block! Even when I'm cruising at 200 km/h I don't think [censored] I'm going far to fast, but if it was 120mph on the speedo I would.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Imola S3 said:
Regardless of the speedo reading, it's still ****** quick!
[/ QUOTE ]
Quick is never quick enough though /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif
As strange as this may seem but when reading my speedo in km/h it just doesn't seem as fast as if it was in mph...how's that for a psychological block! Even when I'm cruising at 200 km/h I don't think [censored] I'm going far to fast, but if it was 120mph on the speedo I would.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I'm the other way around Gambba.. I think its just what your not used to ( If you follow what I mean).
[ QUOTE ]
cybrey said:
I'm the other way around Gambba.. I think its just what your not used to ( If you follow what I mean).
[/ QUOTE ]
That's it, but it's kinda strange as most of the countries I use cars in are in km/h and only in the states and the UK do I use mph.....
cybrey said:
I'm the other way around Gambba.. I think its just what your not used to ( If you follow what I mean).
[/ QUOTE ]
That's it, but it's kinda strange as most of the countries I use cars in are in km/h and only in the states and the UK do I use mph.....
my best is 278km/h because the car dont let you go on.
its not a photoshop job!it is for sure a down hill but the photo was taken from my nokia 6600 with my wife in car ,with klima on and many bags.also i have just results for my car :
its not a photoshop job!it is for sure a down hill but the photo was taken from my nokia 6600 with my wife in car ,with klima on and many bags.also i have just results for my car :
The plots are all fecked up as far as I'm concerned, as it appears that you have no usable torque. Your tourque curve should bear no relation to the hp on a good remap and should definately not spike like that.
460Nm is a disproportionate amount of torque for an S3 with only 280hp......it just isn't right and is proven in the RR plots. Just take a look at some of the plots in the rolling road graphs section to see what I mean.
1.71 bar is very high and the peak torque is way off where it should be in my opinion and peaks and tails off far too quickly to make it usable.
460Nm is a disproportionate amount of torque for an S3 with only 280hp......it just isn't right and is proven in the RR plots. Just take a look at some of the plots in the rolling road graphs section to see what I mean.
1.71 bar is very high and the peak torque is way off where it should be in my opinion and peaks and tails off far too quickly to make it usable.
