Chris NottSky Insurance
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 52 of 52
  1. #41
    Ess_Three's Avatar
    Moderator

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    5,385

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    [ QUOTE ]
    I thought the remap would yeild UP TO 15hp and 15ft/lbs. You say you are getting 270ft/lbs on a remap alone. Is this a mistake?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    There is no way a NA 3.2 V6 makes 270 lb-ft!
    No way...especially the V(R)6.

  2. # ADS
    ADS
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    Many
     
  3. #42
    mikep's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wetheringsett, Suffolk
    Posts
    591

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    236lb ft to 270lb ft and 247bhp to 275bhp with just a remap? On who's rollers?

    Don't think so, not on a normally aspirated car.....

    Must agree with Ess_Three on this one....

    Even with a turbo back exhaust and CAI, you'd be pushing it.

  4. #43
    Cupramax's Avatar
    Uber pimp meister

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    455

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    [ QUOTE ]

    Even with a turbo back exhaust and CAI, you'd be pushing it.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Its a V6 so a turbo back exhaust would be very interesting.... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/****_you.gif[/img]

  5. #44
    mikep's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wetheringsett, Suffolk
    Posts
    591

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    errrrrr........ yes

    oooops!

    To much Christmas spirit meethinks!

    I meant an exhaust with a larger downpipe and race cat to make it breathe more freely.

    Me brain hurts........

  6. #45
    Ess_Three's Avatar
    Moderator

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    5,385

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    [ QUOTE ]

    Power-adders for the VR6... Cams will be good for another 15-20hp,


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah?
    Who's cams?

    I've never ever come accross a VR6 cam set that adds close to that - 12v or 24v.
    Not genuine BHP...perhaps with head work, inlet work and a re-map to suit, you may get 15BHP...but 20? Come on...

    [ QUOTE ]

    but more importantly, will broaden the curves, giving more power up top without losing any down low.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Again, not what i've ever come accross...you normally loose some bottom end to gain top end...with head work / inlet work you can normally recover the bottom end to some degree...and still gain top end...but I'd love to see these cams which give all things to all men...


    [ QUOTE ]

    Add free-flow cats and perhaps headers for that little bit extra (Supersprint is about to release their full system).


    [/ QUOTE ]

    All I can say is that the 24v VR6 must be an entirely different beast in the way it responds to tuning, compared to the 12v.

    I have tried de-cat pipes, high flow cats, cat back exhausts and full systems and NEVER seen a gain from any of them....they may seem to rev a bit faster, but they make no more power...despite being told by the maker that they do!

  7. #46
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chester
    Posts
    247

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]

    Power-adders for the VR6... Cams will be good for another 15-20hp,


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah?
    Who's cams?

    I've never ever come accross a VR6 cam set that adds close to that - 12v or 24v.
    Not genuine BHP...perhaps with head work, inlet work and a re-map to suit, you may get 15BHP...but 20? Come on...

    [ QUOTE ]

    but more importantly, will broaden the curves, giving more power up top without losing any down low.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Again, not what i've ever come accross...you normally loose some bottom end to gain top end...with head work / inlet work you can normally recover the bottom end to some degree...and still gain top end...but I'd love to see these cams which give all things to all men...


    [ QUOTE ]

    Add free-flow cats and perhaps headers for that little bit extra (Supersprint is about to release their full system).


    [/ QUOTE ]

    All I can say is that the 24v VR6 must be an entirely different beast in the way it responds to tuning, compared to the 12v.

    I have tried de-cat pipes, high flow cats, cat back exhausts and full systems and NEVER seen a gain from any of them....they may seem to rev a bit faster, but they make no more power...despite being told by the maker that they do!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    From my experience I'll agree with all of the above, for those gains from any well developed normally aspirated engine approaching the end of it's life from the manufactures view point (it is an OLD engine design) you would need, cams/ vernier wheels to time them properly, big valve gas flowed head, higher compression ratio, a better inlet system to get the air/fuel in, and a better exhaust to get it out again, your going to be looking at a small fortune............

  8. #47
    imported_S_Line
    Guest

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    before i bought the car i looked intot eh tuning side, its a old engine - thats what i was told, but my lord it sounds great on full chat, just pure audi Power [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

    Reving to the red line makes me smile every gearchange, quick and slick.

    Maybe the torque limiter kicked in as the Rolling road was carried out in 5th ?

    Maybe why the torque was down abit ?

  9. #48
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chester
    Posts
    247

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    They do sound gorgeous I must admit, my lad has a video of a VR6 golf going up and down a road at full chat, It sounds awesome!!

    AMD say they do limit the torque at certain points with the DSG box

  10. #49
    Ess_Three's Avatar
    Moderator

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    5,385

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    [ QUOTE ]
    just pure audi Power [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Pure VW power actually...
    (sorry, just being pedantic!)


    [ QUOTE ]

    Maybe the torque limiter kicked in as the Rolling road was carried out in 5th ?

    Maybe why the torque was down abit ?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well, the torque normally comes from the ignition timing...were you using normal unleaded?
    Could you have had a bad batch of fuel?

    Poor quality fuel would account for poor torque if the timing was being retarded to pervent knock...especially if the engine was being run hard in a high gear - as yours was (in 5th)

    Just a thought...

    I wouldn't expect the DSG to limit torque at around the standard output...I've been told that 300 lb-ft is nearer the real world torque limit for the DSG. No proof though...

  11. #50
    JaminBen's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    France (ronRonrRRron)
    Posts
    532

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    Sorry for posting without more information. Here are the facts:

    March 2005 Audi A3 3.2 manual

    Taken to AmD in Bicester on May 13th, with C. 11000km on the odometer. (AmD uses a MAHA brake dyno, iirc)

    hp before remap:
    252
    hp after:
    274

    tq before:
    248 lb/ft
    tq after:
    273 lb/ft


    On my way back to France, and just to check the AmD numbers, the newly remaped, otherwise standard car was taken to an inertia dyno (Dyno Race, with DIN 70020 correction factor), at a shop called RPM-Performance in Valence, near Lyon (great place btw).

    hp:
    275

    tq:
    34.9 M/Kg


    Now, I don't have the Lb/Ft to Meters/Kilograms conversion table with me, but Audi/VW rate the 3.2 at 32 M/Kg. So RPM's reading of 35 M/Kg translates to a 10% increase in torque, which in turn confirms AmD's 10% increase (248 to 273 Lb/Ft).

    Can everybody agree to this, even S3? Thank you.



    November 11th, with 45000 km on the odo, and having had a Milltek resonated cat-back and BMC CDA installed, the car was taken to RPM-Performance's rollers once again:

    hp:
    281

    Tq:
    36.8 M/Kg


    Here's the car on the rollers at RPM-Performance:





    Now, regarding camshafts and the benefits one can expect from them... I feel very confident that a solid 15hp can be gained from a mild set of cams, with mild overlap. Steeper opening/closing of the valves, giving more total open time. The 3.2L, 24v VR6's camshafts have continuously variable timing. As such, verniers are not be be mentioned with this engine. However, managing the programing of the cams' phasing could lead to maintaining low-end torque while reaping high-end benefits. Eip (among others) are reportedly working on such a solution.

    Hope this helps,
    Ben.
    [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif[/img]

  12. #51
    JaminBen's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    France (ronRonrRRron)
    Posts
    532

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    S3, what's your definition of real horsepower?

    I'm not saying there will be a 20hp diff @ 750rpm, but at 6700? The std engine won't even go there, so you could argue there is a 290hp difference AT THAT RPM.

    I am in no doubt a set of cams could free the breathing of this long-stroke, naturally lazy engine, and yield 15 to 20 hp.

    As for "who's cams?", as it stands I'd go with Shrick:


  13. #52
    imported_S_Line
    Guest

    Re: S3 Versus 3.2 V6 Rolling Road Shoot out !!

    Ess Three,

    With regards to fuel, i always run Optimax in the car.

    Clive has some new software specially designed for Quattro and DSG Cars hes adding the software in the new year and is inviting me back to test my car again to see if it is the same.
    At the end of the day, the figures mean nothing, its how quick the car is on the road that counts [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO

Garage Plus, Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO