Not a S3 I know, but had my new motor on the rollers yesterday..

[Vtec Abuser]

As title says and leading on from my other thread http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=84562.0 Seeing as it's a S3 in drag, thought you chaps maybe interested to know that I decided to gatecrash SCN's RR day at Awesome yesterday, just mainly to spectate (as I know a lot of them from the LCR days), but if a slot came available I could run mine..
Well it did and with the mods going on yesterday I thought it was an ideal time to see what the mods had done..
1st run... 340.22bhp, 312 @ wheels, 362lb/ft :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: (I was told to expect this as the car was nice and cool, so they don't really take that one into account apparently

)
2nd run.. 320.69bhp, 301.67 @ wheels, 362.41lb/ft
3rd run.. 317.39bhp, 300.10 @ wheels, 359.72lb/ft
4th run.. 308.08bhp, 292.97 @ wheels, 362.76lb/ft (not sure what happened on this run, but it dips on the graph at about 3500rpm for some reason, may of not boosted properly etc)

Anyway, this is all with just 1000 miles on the clock, so will have to see what she runs at the next one when some miles have gone on. But I am fairly impressed so far to say the least and Revo seems to of done the trick again. Lovely power curve that pulls right to limiter/gearchange..
Have to say, was quite suprised with the torque fig, especially with it being DSG, as thought Revo pull the torque back a bit? What a cracking engine though.. There was a chap there with a Mk2 Cupra with similar mods, but a lot more miles and bigger downpipe. That did 324bhp with a WHOPPING 394lbft!!! :shocked:
Good day though and what a great bunch of chaps at Awesome, big thanks..

 

[Deleted member 22276]

Very nice mate :icon_thumright:

 

[jonnyc]

Im running GIAC 'Hammer" software with Milltek 3inch downpipe and a custom cat back exhaust, Evolution motorsports intake kit and it flys!!

This engine is pretty awesome in terms of how little money you can spend and the % increase in power and torque..

I have to say though, after having a GTI a while ago with 280hp and 330ft/lbs im pretty happy about having the traction of the s3 so I can actually use all of the power in the bottom 3 gears!

Still, good results!! Think is going to make people think twice about going with the big turbo upgrade kits, seems an expensive way to gain another 50 ish bhp..

Chip, exhaust and intake costs around £1700 and produces 340bhp - 350ft/lbs

APR big turbo kit costs around £7000 to £8000 based on the conversations I have had and produces 380bhp and similiar levels of torque..

I know which one ill be sticking with!

Jonny

 

[mcc49]

Just making sure we are talking about ft-lbs and not Nm as 362 ft-lbs is hell of alot of torque!

 

[jonnyc]

Yeah its ft/lbs.. The standard S3 has 258ft/lbs or 350Nm..

 

[Vtec Abuser]

Yeah, lb/ft mate.. There was a Mk2 Leon Cupra there that got 394lb/ft, with similar mods to mine but in manual with a few other little bits..

 

[jonnyc]

Yeah, lb/ft mate.. There was a Mk2 Leon Cupra there that got 394lb/ft, with similar mods to mine but in manual with a few other little bits..

What is your spec?

Also do you remember what spec the Leon was?

Thanks

Jonny

 

[Vtec Abuser]

What car or mods mate?
Spec in signature and mods are just Revo Stage 1 with Turbo back Mlltek 2.75" DP.. Still got standard airbox/intake..
LCR was just Revo stage 1 (about 265bhp 290-300 LB/ft

 

[jonnyc]

What car or mods mate?
Spec in signature and mods are just Revo Stage 1 with Turbo back Mlltek 2.75" DP.. Still got standard airbox/intake..
LCR was just Revo stage 1 (about 265bhp 290-300 LB/ft

Ah sorry I meant did you remember the specific mods on the Leon Cupra Mk2 which almost got 400ft/lbs on the same day as your Ed30??

Jonny

 

[Ess_Three]

Anybody else think Awesome's figures are a joke?

The torque seems stupidly high, as is the case with so many cars on Awesomes rollers...and 16-28 BHP losses through the transmission?
No chance...

Every FWD VAG car (and non VAG) I've ever tested sees 40-50 BHP in losses....the rule of thumb being 20-25%.

If you are only loosing 16BHP, I want to buy your gearbox.
I loose around 45 through mine.

Do Awesome use a Dyno Dynamics dyno?
If they do...that would explain a lot.

 

[julians]

Ess three, i agree, but they have a vested interest in making people feel happy.

 

[Vtec Abuser]

Not really guys.. There was a RR day there for the Golfs last week and a APR stage 1 with Milltek and carbonio only fetched 304 and he's not happy, so is changing his map..
You don't get 20-25 % losses through FWD mate.. More like 10-15%. I agree there is little loss, but 25% is 4WD trans loos, not FWD..

 

[Staz]

Not really guys.. There was a RR day there for the Golfs last week and a APR stage 1 with Milltek and carbonio only fetched 304 and he's not happy, so is changing his map..
You don't get 20-25 % losses through FWD mate.. More like 10-15%. I agree there is little loss, but 25% is 4WD trans loos, not FWD..

It's been argued to me before about the apparent extra losses on a 4wd and when I queried them noone was able to back up the claim.

Lets take 2 cars of the same performance. 2 A3 2.0TFSIs one being a quattro. The quattro has faster 0-62 and they have the same top end. IF there were an extra 10% (TEN PERCENT! he says with disbelief) losses from the quattro system how could it be the same performance? You're talking 20BHP in that example.

The only losses you'll get from a quattro are through the drivetrain and I simply do not believe you can lose 20BHP. Or even 10BHP.

 

[Ess_Three]

Not really guys.. There was a RR day there for the Golfs last week and a APR stage 1 with Milltek and carbonio only fetched 304 and he's not happy, so is changing his map..

It's not the power I'm questioning...it's the power at the wheels and the torque.

You don't get 20-25 % losses through FWD mate.. More like 10-15%. I agree there is little loss, but 25% is 4WD trans loos, not FWD..

On whay Dyno, a single roller Dynojet, in America?
In 20 years of using dynos to build and tune engines, (MAHA, Sun, Dastek and some lottery results with Dyno Dynamics and their hopeless spreadsheet values for losses) I've never come accross a powerful FWD car that only looses 10%...usually more...all mine have losses roughly 20-25%.

On every engine I've ever dynod at around 200 BHP...you loose approx 40-50 BHP.
Haldex 4WD it's 60-70, Torsen 4WD it's 80-100 (on S4s, RS4s etc, WRX/STIs)

Sure the losses aren't a straight 40-50 BHP for FWD...they are a percentage of engine output...but on a 200 BHP Golf, I'd expect 40-45 BHP, on a 300 BHP Golf, I'd expect 50-55 BHP...on a 350 BHP 4WD S4 or STI I'd expect 80+.

You only loosing 16BHP...on a tight engine and gearbox?
Dream on...
Even with your estimation of 10-15% for FWD...that's between 32.5 BHP and 48.75 BHP taking the average of your power runs...not far from the 45-50 BHP I suggested, unless my maths are poor this evening.

But yours looses 16BHP...

Even by your rule of thumb (10-15% wasn't it?) your losses are pie in the sky...especially on a tight engine/box.

Ah well...that's my thoughts...I'm in no doubt it's a completely different machine to drive and the gains are very impressive for such simple tuning, but the figures some tuners churn out aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[Staz]

Hmm Ess_Three may have answered my question there, but I still don't understand why the performance figures are the same, well better for the quattro!

 

[Ess_Three]

It's been argued to me before about the apparent extra losses on a 4wd and when I queried them noone was able to back up the claim.

Lets take 2 cars of the same performance. 2 A3 2.0TFSIs one being a quattro. The quattro has faster 0-62 and they have the same top end. IF there were an extra 10% (TEN PERCENT! he says with disbelief) losses from the quattro system how could it be the same performance? You're talking 20BHP in that example.

The only losses you'll get from a quattro are through the drivetrain and I simply do not believe you can lose 20BHP. Or even 10BHP.

The thing to remember is that for FWD you have losses through the gearbox, the wheel bearings and the friction of the tyres on the road.
These all sap power.

On 4WD (Haldex) you have losses through the gearbox, the wheel bearings and the friction of the tyres on the road at the front, the transfer box bearings, the Haldex Diff friction losses, the rear wheel bearings and the rear tyre friction on the road.
These all sap power....more power than FWD.

On full Torsen type 4WD you have losses through the gearbox, the wheel bearings and the friction of the tyres on the road at the front, the transfer box bearings, the centre diff bearings and losses, the rear diff bearings and losses, the rear wheel bearings and the rear tyre friction on the road.
These all sap power....more power than Haldex because turning Torsen diffs create more friction, drag in the diff oil and hence sap power.

Now...when you measure losses on FWD...you only measure the engine power with the front wheels spinning. So you only get FWD drivetrain losses.
But on the road...you have to still turn the rear wheels...so you still have the friction of the tyres on the road and the rear wheel bearings causing drag...but you don't measure it.

On a 4WD car you DO measure it...

So although a FWD car WILL show less losses compared to 4WD...
Say a 200BHP FWD puts down 155 BHP to the road...
The same 200BHP 4WD version maybe puts down 140 BHP to the road.
But the FWD still has the added friction of turning the rear wheels.

so the losses ARE more on a 4WD car because you are loosing power driving the 4 wheels...so the actual power put down to the road may be significantly less...in reality it's much less as the FWD car still has to turn the rear wheels...it's just not using engine power to do it.

FWD versions on the same car ARE slightly quicker midrange than the 4WD version, I have no doubt of that...off the line it swings to the 4WD for the advantage.
But the actuall difference in 'friction' means that in my mind, the 4WD version only uses an additional 10 BHP or so actually driving the rear driveshafts in a Haldex 4WD car.

 

[Ess_Three]

Hmm Ess_Three may have answered my question there, but I still don't understand why the performance figures are the same, well better for the quattro!

Slightly off topic...
But my understanding is that 4WD has the advantage over FWD off the line - despite the additional weight of 40-50 Kgs - because of the way it can put the torque down...unless the FWD car has a very good TC system.

Midrange, the two cars should behave in a similar manner...with the FWD car having a slight edge due to fractionally less losses and less weight.
Same for the top speed...IF the 4 wheels are being driven.

The beauty of Haldex is that once you are rolling, and in a straight line, you don't drive the rear driveshafts/wheels...so you remove those losses...and have pretty much the same as the FWD (with the addition of the transfer box and propshaft spinning)...so performance it normally so close you can't split them...except for the additional weight of the 4wd car.

 

[Staz]

You haven't answered the question specifically but I'm guessing the A3 example was a bad one as the 4WD system is part time so it's losing power only part time right?

EDIT: Now you have! :icon_thumright:

 

[Ess_Three]

Anyway, sorry for straying off topic Vtec Abuser...
People are free to believe what they like with regard to power outputs and losses...
I've just seen some bizarre readings from Awesome's dyno...I know of a Mk3 16v (standard...150BHP from the factory) that makes 179 BHP and 164 BHP at the wheels...

Mine only makes 150 @ wheels on a good day (196 @ crank), and it's taken me 6 years of tuning and re-working to get there...want to guess which is the quicker in reality?

 

[phantom]

Anybody else think Awesome's figures are a joke?

Do Awesome use a Dyno Dynamics dyno?
If they do...that would explain a lot.

Awesomes rollers are 4 wheel DynoJet.

I thought Dyno Dynamics were a accurate roller?

p

 

[Vtec Abuser]

Hmm Ess_Three may have answered my question there, but I still don't understand why the performance figures are the same, well better for the quattro!

The quattro has a better 0-60 time due to having better traction off the line...
They may have the same top speeds, but that doesn't mean they have the same performance. It's down to acceleration. They may both reach the same top speed, but i'd bet the FWD will get there first, as less transmission losses..
I don't really care to much about the RR figures, just that Awesome seemed to be getting about bang on figures for the standard Mk2 Cupras for exmple (260bhp), the same as all the other tuners..
I just know that on the road, the thing is a friggin animal and a good 60bhp quicker than my old Revo stage 1 LCR..

 

[Ess_Three]

The Haldex is a double edged sword...
Not as predictable or adjustable as Torsen/VC/plate diffs etc...
But doesn't rob anything near the power either.

So you have ultimate grip and control with Torsen/VC/plate diffs etc...but loose lots through additional friction and heat etc...or you have 80% of the best bits of Torsen/VC/plate diffs etc but much lower losses...and almost FWD like economy (as you aren't always driving wheels you aren't using to do any real work) when driving normally.

It's a good system...not perfect...but none of them are.
Swings and roundabouts again.

 

[Ess_Three]

Awesomes rollers are 4 wheel DynoJet.

I thought Dyno Dynamics were a accurate roller?

p

Dynojet...hmm...well known over 'the pond' for odd readings compared to what we in the UK are used to.
No matter...

DD can be brilliant...but with most Dynos, it comes down to the operator.
DDs don't measure coastdown (they can...but generally don't) and their 'Dyno Shootout' mode can give wildly different values on the same day - despite everything being the same (fuel, tyre pressures, engine tune, wheel/tyre width, ambient air temperature, barometric pressure etc)

I have on in the town I live in...and it can vary by 30 BHP and 50 lb-ft on a NA 200 BHP FWD car. That's just not right...
MAHA makes the same numbers year in, year out.

I'm not a fan of using spreadsheet values for correction...for example: A Golf GTI has 'X' as measured by DD, so they measure the powwer at the wheels and add 'X'. But a Golf GTI on a lower FD, with a LSD, wider wheels, wider sticky tyres, running lots of negative camber and toe out, will loose much more than a standard Golf GTI.
DD doesn't recognise that...
I choose grip, over economy...so on a DD my values are way out, if the DD value for losses is added.
Hell, fitting bigger, heavier wheels increases your losses!

I guess it's all about how you operate them...and how good you want the numbers to be, in order to sell more stuff.

 

[Ess_Three]

The quattro has a better 0-60 time due to having better traction off the line...
They may have the same top speeds, but that doesn't mean they have the same performance. It's down to acceleration. They may both reach the same top speed, but i'd bet the FWD will get there first, as less transmission losses..

Spot on, I'd say...
But comparing related models (Mk5 GTI to A3q) both with the same power output...the A3 may well be faster off the line...but which would you rather take down a back road?

I don't really care to much about the RR figures, just that Awesome seemed to be getting about bang on figures for the standard Mk2 Cupras for exmple (260bhp), the same as all the other tuners..
I just know that on the road, the thing is a friggin animal and a good 60bhp quicker than my old Revo stage 1 LCR..

That's the best way...unless you are spending your sad life chasing every last BHP by re-working the world in your shed (yes, like me) then as long as you are happy with the performance, you'd be as well wiping your **** with the dyno sheet...



I just get annoyed when some dynos vary so wildly from others...if tuners are going to offer the service, at least try to get it as accurate as possible...ind if the values don't flatter...so be it.

I'd rather have a 200 BHP quick car...than a slow one with a dyno sheet showing 250!

 

[Vtec Abuser]

I'd rather have a 200 BHP quick car...than a slow one with a dyno sheet showing 250!

I agree with you there mate, have to say..
I think the power at the fly is about right, but the wheels fig maybe a bit high like you say, who knows.
Are there any RR figs (Fly and wheels) from S3's mapped/standard etc that aren't from Awesome?

 

[Spin140]

It's pains me to say as I used to be a real fan of Awesome but IMO their rollers and RR days are total tosh with totally unrealistic and inconsistent figures.

This thread has confirmed many things I said and thought following the Audi Sport day there earlier in the year. The dyno days used to be informative and fairly accurate, now they are a blatant money spinning excercise to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

I raised my concerns via e-mail to Awesome following the days results, they never bothered to respond, enough said.

My conclusion would be go with how the car feels and use the dyno prints for either diagnostics or purely to view your power curve, forget the figures.

Spin

 

[phantom]

I agree with you there mate, have to say..
I think the power at the fly is about right, but the wheels fig maybe a bit high like you say, who knows.
Are there any RR figs (Fly and wheels) from S3's mapped/standard etc that aren't from Awesome?

The S3 seems to be putting out 280bhp-ish std from RR's all over europe and peoples own Vag-Com plots.

Just a remap your looking at 305-15bhp from what we've seen so far.

p

 

[Vtec Abuser]

So is it the @ the wheels figures that Awesome seem to be out on, or just in general?

 

[phantom]

It's pains me to say as I used to be a real fan of Awesome but IMO their rollers and RR days are total tosh with totally unrealistic and inconsistent figures.

This thread has confirmed many things I said and thought following the Audi Sport day there earlier in the year. The dyno days used to be informative and fairly accurate, now they are a blatant money spinning excercise to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

I raised my concerns via e-mail to Awesome following the days results, they never bothered to respond, enough said.

My conclusion would be go with how the car feels and use the dyno prints for either diagnostics or purely to view your power curve, forget the figures.

Spin

I'm not sure your right there Martain , and i'm not just saying it because my car made good figures.

The Cupra RR day there, STD mk 2 Cupras were making 260-ish bhp that ties in with what iv'e said all along Cupras making 20bhp over book figures all over europe as well as the ED 30 and S3.

The tuners are the ones having a laugh , yes there giving you 310bhp , but there only giving you 20-30bhp on a S3 not the 50bhp they claim.

p

 

[Vtec Abuser]

I agree with Phantom..
I was a little suprised wih my @ the wheels figures, I admit. But I don't think 320bhp @ Flywheel is unrealistic or inconsistant for a Ed30/Cupra/S3 with Full Turbo back Milltek, sports cat etc and Revo stage 1.. Correct me if i'm wrong!

 

[jonnyc]

I think that the BHP figures are completely realistic and in line with figures that other cars have been achieving around the world with similar mods..

The Wheel HP figures are completely off, working from the wheel HP figures your BHP figures should be another 15% up.. which is then unrealistic

Either way, if your happy with your car and it performs well, no silly flat spots etc then the figures mean nothing..

Think my question got a bit lost in the previous posts but was just wandering if you remembered the exact mods that the Mk2 Leon Cupra had which achieved the high torque figures?

Thanks

Jonny

 

[Vtec Abuser]

Sorry mate, didn't see it..
Going off his sig on SCN...
Leon Cupra Zenith grey, S/n, b/t, Pk sensors, Forge q/shifters & DV, Revo'd, Dbilas CAI, 08 Grille, LCR splitter, TSW Catalunyas, Eibach pro springs, Edrivestore rear spoiler,Milltek/ Supersprint twin zorst, Hella ice rear lights

He did tell me that he had Revo Stage 2 (which I didn't think you could get without the Fuel pump upgrade ). But did say that he does get the odd fueling problem though occasionally.

 

[jonnyc]

Cool thanks for that mate.. Think I may give the Forge DV a go on my S3 and see what the results are like..

Jonny

 

[phantom]

Igor in it?

I think the Dbilas made the main difference, but thats one for after warrenty for me as you have to take off the engaine cover to fit it!

Supersprint exhaust's are also am step up from Miltek , but you pay ££££ for them!

p

 

[Vtec Abuser]

Yeah that's the chap..
He said he's spent a fortune on it. Think the Dbilas is about £260 and he said it's a lot better than the likes of the Carbonio..
As for the Supersprint cat back. They are big bucks like you say and he got it imported from Germany IIRC. It's a twin pipe set up too...




Are the Forge DV's meant to be the way forward then Jonny?

 

[jonnyc]

Yeah that's the chap..
He said he's spent a fortune on it. Think the Dbilas is about £260 and he said it's a lot better than the likes of the Carbonio..
As for the Supersprint cat back. They are big bucks like you say and he got it imported from Germany IIRC. It's a twin pipe set up too...




Are the Forge DV's meant to be the way forward then Jonny?

yeah for sure he will have spent a bit of money on it, the supersprint exhausts are some of the most overpriced things out there lol..

Yeah well I had the Forge DV on my GTI and it was really great, ran better than ever with it fitted, but that was with the K03 turbo where the DV is located on the turbo housing, now obviously its remotely located to get around the problems of the DV diaphram tearing with heat and increased boost pressures..

I think its worth a go, shame we cant get some feedback from the guy with the Cupra about what he thought about it before and after..

Jonny

 

[Vtec Abuser]

yeah for sure he will have spent a bit of money on it, the supersprint exhausts are some of the most overpriced things out there lol..

Yeah well I had the Forge DV on my GTI and it was really great, ran better than ever with it fitted, but that was with the K03 turbo where the DV is located on the turbo housing, now obviously its remotely located to get around the problems of the DV diaphram tearing with heat and increased boost pressures..

I think its worth a go, shame we cant get some feedback from the guy with the Cupra about what he thought about it before and after..

Jonny

Probably can mate.. I'll send him a PM and see what he says and let you know..

 

[phantom]

I think theres a couple of lads on here with the Forge DV , Warren cox , and Johhny B the lad with the GIAC Hammer, theres a thread somewhere , he said the Corbinio doesn't make a difference , but the DV does , the turbo spools faster and a bit more noise!

p

 

[Spin140]

I'm not sure your right there Martain , and i'm not just saying it because my car made good figures.

The Cupra RR day there, STD mk 2 Cupras were making 260-ish bhp that ties in with what iv'e said all along Cupras making 20bhp over book figures all over europe as well as the ED 30 and S3.

The tuners are the ones having a laugh , yes there giving you 310bhp , but there only giving you 20-30bhp on a S3 not the 50bhp they claim.

p

I'm not disputing any of the S3 engine stable could easily be achieving 270/280 from the gates or 310/320 with a map my issue is with inaccurate wheel/flywheel figures and lack of consistency with actuating losses that Awesome offer up with no explanation on the day.

I'm really not bothered about what my car produced on the day thats old news, I just like to get value for money and for me Awesome do not offer that, ".. £45, thanks here's your print out.." that was my lasting impression of the day.

S3/ED30/Cupra R = Fast capable cars as standard - Mapped = ****** fast capable cars

 

[Spin140]

What I should add is if you feel you got value for money and enjoyed the day, fair enough its just my opinion and that dosn't count for much - just ask the wife !!!