Jeff's S4

jdp1962 · Jul 1, 2017

Yesterday, as a second birthday present, I treated the S4 to a timed run, using an iPhone app called Dynolicious. I'm sure it's riddled with innacuracies but it's still a bit of fun. This was done using S mode and without engaging launch control. Here are the results:

2015 Audi S4

30 Jun 2017, 16:43
Acceleration
0-10 MPH: 0.86 sec
0-20 MPH:1.56 sec
0-30 MPH:2.21 sec
0-40 MPH:3.12 sec
0-50 MPH:4.03 sec
0-60 MPH:5.19 sec
0-70 MPH:6.54 sec
0-80 MPH:7.98 sec

Elapsed Time
60':2.43 sec @ 31.2 MPH
330': 5.98 sec @ 63.8 MPH
1/8 mi: 8.90 sec @ 86.0 MPH

Miscellaneous
Max Speed: 88.2 MPH
Max Acceleration: 0.72 G's

scotty76 · Jul 1, 2017

jdp1962 said:
@scotty76 (and no doubt loads of other forum members) Photobucket now charges $399 for third party image hosting. I've restored my signature pic by moving to Imgur.

Eee gads! Ambitiously priced.

Will you be doing a 2 year review? Can't believe that's 2 years already. Seems like yesterday we were on the B7 forum.

jdp1962 · Jul 1, 2017

scotty76 said:
Eee gads! Ambitiously priced.

Will you be doing a 2 year review? Can't believe that's 2 years already. Seems like yesterday we were on the B7 forum.

@scotty76, see previous post for 2-year review

jdp1962 · Jul 1, 2017

Here's the "peformance curve" from my timed run:

jdp1962 · Jul 11, 2017

Glorious news. Those who followed my remap story last month will recall that the best dyno figure recorded was 354BHP instead of the target 395BHP. As that was less than the anticipated 20% increase I'd told the insurance company, I emailed a copy of the dyno print-out and half-jokingly asked if I'd get a refund of my premium increase.

God bless 'em, they've only gone and done it!

Bristle Hound · Jul 11, 2017

jdp1962 said:
Yesterday, as a second birthday present, I treated the S4 to a timed run, using an iPhone app called Dynolicious. I'm sure it's riddled with innacuracies but it's still a bit of fun. This was done using S mode and without engaging launch control. Here are the results:

2015 Audi S4

30 Jun 2017, 16:43
Acceleration
0-10 MPH: 0.86 sec
0-20 MPH:1.56 sec
0-30 MPH:2.21 sec
0-40 MPH:3.12 sec
0-50 MPH:4.03 sec
0-60 MPH:5.19 sec
0-70 MPH:6.54 sec
0-80 MPH:7.98 sec

Elapsed Time
60':2.43 sec @ 31.2 MPH
330': 5.98 sec @ 63.8 MPH
1/8 mi: 8.90 sec @ 86.0 MPH

Miscellaneous
Max Speed: 88.2 MPH
Max Acceleration: 0.72 G's

@jdp1962 - Interesting results Jeff
Don't know whether you remember but I did a similar exercise on my S4 in May last year with different results to you (with a different app.) on a 'standard' S4
I got 4.85 secs 0-60 & 0.95g max but the main difference being I used Launch Control
http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/thread...oon-black-edition.240456/page-13#post-2742301

I have a feeling your times would have been somewhat better if you had used LC Jeff
But I do agree these apps will have some inaccuracies in 'em
Go on, you know you want too lol

jdp1962 · Jul 11, 2017

Bristle Hound said:
@jdp1962 - Interesting results Jeff
Don't know whether you remember but I did a similar exercise on my S4 in May last year with different results to you (with a different app.) on a 'standard' S4
I got 4.85 secs 0-60 & 0.95g max but the main difference being I used Launch Control
http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/thread...oon-black-edition.240456/page-13#post-2742301

I have a feeling your times would have been somewhat better if you had used LC Jeff
But I do agree these apps will have some inaccuracies in 'em
Go on, you know you want too lol

Yup; remember that, Col.

Sadly, I only got the chance for one run, so no opportunity to improve on the times.

jdp1962 · Sep 9, 2017

Freshly washed, and rained on before the sun then burst through.

Bristle Hound · Sep 9, 2017

jdp1962 said:
Freshly washed, and rained on before the sun then burst through.

@jdp1962 - S4 looks fab Jeff :thumbs up:

jdp1962 · Sep 10, 2017

Bristle Hound said:
@jdp1962 - S4 looks fab Jeff

@Bristle Hound, cheers, Col. The pic doesn't quite go justice to how good it looked when the sun came out immediately after the shower had passed.

I'm starting to think in terms of a renewal of the ceramic protection coat that was put on when it was new (just over two years ago now); plus maybe a little bit of paint correction as one or two blemishes are starting to appear.

Dippy · Sep 10, 2017

How many miles has your car done? My GTechniq coating was done nearly 2.5 years ago and it still seems fine, but my car has only just crossed the 10K mark. I assume that the longevity of a coating must be proportional to mileage as well as how dirty it gets, so have been assuming that mine should last more than average.

My wife has a new car coming and so we'll get a coating done on that, and my detailer is recommending Williams ceramic. I was planning on comparing the two cars at wash time to judge of my coating is wearing thin.

jdp1962 · Sep 10, 2017

I'm just short of 19,000 miles. The other thing is that I had to give the car a clay treatment a while back. We had a new patio laid in the back garden, and on one of the days they were cutting up stones on the driveway, near where the car was parked. The dust managed to bond itself to the paintwork.,

scotty76 · Sep 10, 2017

@jdp1962 I had a new ceramic coating put on a bit after 2 years. It wasn't that the old coating had worn out, it was more the wear and tear the car had endured. I had plenty of minor niggles that needed polishing out. The work's car park and the motorway are unforgiving. It's one of the reasons I'm not bothered for a coating that has a 5 year life. My OCD will see the car back at the detailers before then.

Between my car and the wife's we've had the following all of which I'm happy to recommend:

Cquartz Finest
Kamikaze ISM Coat
Gyeon MOHS+

Dippy · Sep 11, 2017

Wow, based on your descriptions, compared to your cars mine has a pampered life

jdp1962 · Sep 23, 2017

OK, so had another opportunity to run some standing start acceleration times using Dynolicious. Same road as before: first one with the box in S, but not launch control. Here are the figures.

Acceleration

0-10 MPH: 0.82 sec

0-20 MPH:1.47 sec

0-30 MPH:2.09 sec

0-40 MPH:2.99 sec

0-50 MPH:3.87 sec

0-60 MPH:5.03 sec

0-70 MPH:6.34 sec

0-80 MPH:7.71 sec

0-90 MPH:9.29 sec

Elapsed Time

60':2.44 sec @ 31.8 MPH

330':5.96 sec @ 64.7 MPH

1/8 mi:8.85 sec @ 85.8 MPH

1000': 11.38 sec @ 87.6 MPH

Miscellaneous
Max Speed: 95.1 MPH

Max Acceleration: 0.73 G's

This time, I was able to do a second run, so I activated launch control and set off, only to realise I'd forgotton to activate Dynolicious. D'oh!

Tried for a third run, again using launch control. Here are the figures:

Acceleration

0-10 MPH: 0.80 sec

0-20 MPH: 1.48 sec

0-30 MPH: 2.10 sec

0-40 MPH: 2.98 sec

0-50 MPH: 3.86 sec

0-60 MPH: 5.00 sec

0-70 MPH: 6.29 sec

0-80 MPH: 7.64 sec

0-90 MPH: 9.19 sec

Elapsed Time

60': 2.43 sec @ 31.8 MPH

330': 5.94 sec @ 65.7 MPH

1/8 mi: 8.82 sec @ 85.8 MPH

1000': 11.31 sec @ 93.4 MPH

Miscellaneous
Max Speed: 96.0 MPH

Max Acceleration: 0.73 G's

And here's the graph for the launch control version:

jdp1962 · Oct 1, 2017

On holiday in the Peak District

xpoweruk · Oct 2, 2017

jdp1962 said:
Here's a more readable view of the results. I've just emailed this to my insurance guy, saying as it's less than expected, can I have my extra premium back.

The shape of the graph looks similar to other CREC maps at least.

jdp1962 · Jan 9, 2018

Time for an update on the re-map I had done last summer. To recap, it was a generic stage one only, with no hardware changes. The rolling road results were rather disappointing; the figures for the best run were 306BHP (instead of 328BHP) before and 353BHP instead of a circa 390BHP target after. This was put down to the very high temperature on the day, around 28C; here's the printout again:

The car went back today, with the outside temperature at 6 or 7C. No further map or hardware changes, but they did put in a new Revo air filter. Best figure on the old air filter was 380BHP, and with the Revo installed, it went to 386BHP. Here's the printout:

The torque curve looks a lot more satisfying too, particularly low down so I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to stretch its legs (tomorrow probably). After all, it's the butt dyno results that matter most.

So I just want to re-iterate my thanks to @Dippy, @xpoweruk and @Tashfeen for the advice and guidance they gave me back in the summer.

V6_Man · Jan 9, 2018

jdp1962 said:
Time for an update on the re-map I had done last summer. To recap, it was a generic stage one only, with no hardware changes. The rolling road results were rather disappointing; the figures for the best run were 306BHP (instead of 328BHP) before and 353BHP instead of a circa 390BHP target after. This was put down to the very high temperature on the day, around 28C; here's the printout again:

The car went back today, with the outside temperature at 6 or 7C. No further map or hardware changes, but they did put in a new Revo air filter. Best figure on the old air filter was 380BHP, and with the Revo installed, it went to 386BHP. Here's the printout:

The torque curve looks a lot more satisfying too, particularly low down so I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to stretch its legs (tomorrow probably). After all, it's the butt dyno results that matter most.

So I just want to re-iterate my thanks to @Dippy, @xpoweruk and @Tashfeen for the advice and guidance they gave me back in the summer.

These are some serious gains @jdp1962 and awesome number. More like what you’d expect from a stage 1. Maybe if we try a different dyno I am sure you’ll be even closer to 400. Time for me to seriously think about chargercooler before summer now.

Definitely time to test her to it’s limits. Looking forward to the results

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cerbera9 · Jan 9, 2018

I don’t think there are any gains there unfortunately and the two graphs can’t be compared are they have been dyno’d with different Correction Factors applied which massively effects the results. The first graph has been done in CF Shoot 6F for a six cylinder forced induction car and the second dyno in CF Shoot 44 for 4cylinder 4wd. Check out the boxes on each dyno.

jdp1962 · Jan 9, 2018

@Cerbera9, oh dear, I see what you mean. I must confess, I had no idea what any of those codes meant. I'll have to query that with the garage.

Oh, well, that's my bubble well and truly burst.

Cerbera9 · Jan 9, 2018

Tbh when most dyno graphs are compared if you look closely the Shoot4 or Shoot44 mode is preferred even when comparing 4, 5, 6 or 8 cylinder cars.
One slight anomaly with the two graphs is the the ambient temp (AT) and Inlet temp (iT). In the first graph the IT is slightly higher than the AT which is to be expected but in the second graph it is lower. How can air entering a hot engine, being compressed and no intercooler be colder than the air outside?? I think this can only usually be achieved by using Meth Injection or Nitrous to help cool the air.

jdp1962 · Jan 9, 2018

Cerbera9 said:
Tbh when most dyno graphs are compared if you look closely the Shoot4 or Shoot44 mode is preferred even when comparing 4, 5, 6 or 8 cylinder cars.
One slight anomaly with the two graphs is the the ambient temp (AT) and Inlet temp (iT). In the first graph the IT is slightly higher than the AT which is to be expected but in the second graph it is lower. How can air entering a hot engine, being compressed and no intercooler be colder than the air outside?? I think this can only usually be achieved by using Meth Injection or Nitrous to help cool the air.

I've been googling shootout modes, and an opinon I've found is that 6F is most suited to 6-cyl forced induction with rear wheel drive, and will under-report if used for 4-wheel drive. It then goes on to say that 44F is better suited to 4-wheel drive cars, regardless of the cylinder numbers. If that's true, it suggests that the figures from the original run last summer might have been artificially low and today's are closer to reality. So yes, I haven't made gains as such between the two runs, but maybe what I've now got is a fuller explanation for why last year's figures were low (before and after the re-map) and today's figures are possibly more accurate.

Bristle Hound · Jan 9, 2018

jdp1962 said:
Time for an update on the re-map I had done last summer. To recap, it was a generic stage one only, with no hardware changes. The rolling road results were rather disappointing; the figures for the best run were 306BHP (instead of 328BHP) before and 353BHP instead of a circa 390BHP target after. This was put down to the very high temperature on the day, around 28C; here's the printout again:

The car went back today, with the outside temperature at 6 or 7C. No further map or hardware changes, but they did put in a new Revo air filter. Best figure on the old air filter was 380BHP, and with the Revo installed, it went to 386BHP. Here's the printout:

The torque curve looks a lot more satisfying too, particularly low down so I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to stretch its legs (tomorrow probably). After all, it's the butt dyno results that matter most.

So I just want to re-iterate my thanks to @Dippy, @xpoweruk and @Tashfeen for the advice and guidance they gave me back in the summer.

@jdp1962 - Great 'new' figures on the S4 Jeff
The 'ole superchargers do like sucking cold air

Looking foreword to your 'amended/revised' 0-60 / 0-100 times mate
But got to agree with you, its the butt dyno that matters most

jdp1962 · Jan 10, 2018

Bristle Hound said:
@jdp1962 - Great 'new' figures on the S4 Jeff
The 'ole superchargers do like sucking cold air

All the more reason to move to Scotland when I retire.

xpoweruk · Jan 10, 2018

That looks much better Jeff,the smooth torque you should see with the charger is now obvious.
I would agree that they must of made a mistake in set up last time

xpoweruk · Jan 10, 2018

A quick read up on the shoot numbers & it basically says shoot 44 is the only mode that should be used for permanent 4WD.The others will indeed show less power as they alter the ramp rate on the rollers

Cerbera9 · Jan 10, 2018

xpoweruk said:
A quick read up on the shoot numbers & it basically says shoot 44 is the only mode that should be used for permanent 4WD.The others will indeed show less power as they alter the ramp rate on the rollers

Yep looks like a simple dyno operator error caused the initial low before & after remp readings when all along the car was producing the goods and the second dyno graph looks compariable to many other stage 1 cars.

Its always worth checking the correction details etc in the boxes when comparing dyno graphs rather than just looking at the headling figures eps if comparing graphs on different dynos and on different dates etc.

Dippy · Jan 10, 2018

I don't know much about dynos but I do take an interest in torque curves. I only have a small selection of dyno graphs to compare, but there seems to be a pattern of differences between ones for the CREC engines and those from previous engines. It seems to me that the CREC torque curves are noticeably flatter, often not reaching the same peak as the previous engines, however the torque then tends to start falling off a bit later, from about 5k rpm. Jeff's first curve starts falling off before 5k but the second hangs on to well above 5k.

Jeff, the fact that a difference was seen with the uprated air filter suggests that you might get a bit more with further intake changes. However I doubt you'd really notice it in driving - just if you still want to chase numbers

jdp1962 · Jan 10, 2018

Dippy said:
I don't know much about dynos but I do take an interest in torque curves. I only have a small selection of dyno graphs to compare, but there seems to be a pattern of differences between ones for the CREC engines and those from previous engines. It seems to me that the CREC torque curves are noticeably flatter, often not reaching the same peak as the previous engines, however the torque then tends to start falling off a bit later, from about 5k rpm. Jeff's first curve starts falling off before 5k but the second hangs on to well above 5k.

Jeff, the fact that a difference was seen with the uprated air filter suggests that you might get a bit more with further intake changes. However I doubt you'd really notice it in driving - just if you still want to chase numbers

Cheers, @Dippy. I won't be chasing any more numbers for the time being. You'll probably remember I was always happy with how the car drove after the re-map; it was just a niggle as to why the reported figures were so low. It bugged me, but now it won't, because the anomaly has been removed.

jdp1962 · Jan 10, 2018

Here's the proper jpg file of the result; previous was a photo of the paper printout. This is easier to read.

scotty76 · Jan 10, 2018

I wish you'd stop. Wicked ideas are forming in my little brain.

jdp1962 · Jan 10, 2018

scotty76 said:
I wish you'd stop. Wicked ideas are forming in my little brain.

MRC are just up the road from you: give them a ring and ask if they have a Miss Daisy map.

V6_Man · Jan 10, 2018

jdp1962 said:
MRC are just up the road from you: give them a ring and ask if they have a Miss Daisy map.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dippy · Jan 11, 2018

I've got to stop looking at MRC's facebook page. They keep showing S3s and Golf Rs with more power than we have, let alone the RS3s and TTRSs.

Cerbera9 · Jan 11, 2018

Yes but most of those care have substancially more mods, usually turbo swaps, bigger intercoolers, full exhaust systems, intake and fuelling upgrades etc

V6_Man · Jan 11, 2018

Cerbera9 said:
I don’t think there are any gains there unfortunately and the two graphs can’t be compared are they have been dyno’d with different Correction Factors applied which massively effects the results. The first graph has been done in CF Shoot 6F for a six cylinder forced induction car and the second dyno in CF Shoot 44 for 4cylinder 4wd. Check out the boxes on each dyno.

This is some attention to details @Cerbera9

I simply looked at the graphs and the differences in before and after and got excited. But then like @Dippy I too am not an expert on the dyno graphs etc.

Having said that, I do feel sorry for Mrs. Cerbera9, it must be a pain living with you (pun intended!)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

V6_Man · Jan 11, 2018

Cerbera9 said:
Yes but most of those care have substancially more mods, usually turbo swaps, bigger intercoolers, full exhaust systems, intake and fuelling upgrades etc

Spot on @Cerbera9. For under £2k, it is a lot of power the S4 delivers. And this is not to underestimate S3 or Golf R’s tuning potential.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jdp1962 · Jan 11, 2018

Dippy said:
I've got to stop looking at MRC's facebook page. They keep showing S3s and Golf Rs with more power than we have, let alone the RS3s and TTRSs.

But fewer cylinders.

Cerbera9 · Jan 11, 2018

Tashfeen said:
This is some attention to details @Cerbera9 I simply looked at the graphs and the differences in before and after and got excited. But then like @Dippy I too am not an expert on the dyno graphs etc.

Having said that, I do feel sorry for Mrs. Cerbera9, it must be a pain living with you (pun intended!)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been around modified cars for many years now on various platforms and have learned not to get too caught up on dyno and power figures but rather to look at the shape and smoothness of the curve as an indication to the driveability of the car. As for my own car its MRC stage 2 and I'm also very skeptical about the dyno figures given.
I would love to see several cars with different tunes, single & dual pulley etc from the big names in the business, MRC, APR, REVO, SHARK etc etc all put on to the same dyno on the same day as a level playing field to show a true comparison between the cars.

As for Mrs Cerbers9 ............she's long past given up (as long as I wash her car weekly

) and used to my obsession with playing with cars, I would much rather drive round the Swiss Alps and visit the Nurburgring than sit on a beach all day!

Jeff's S4

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Attachments

Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

TTTS 8J Smile Machine

Grumpy Old Man

Moderator

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

TTTS 8J Smile Machine

TTTS 8J Smile Machine

Registered User

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Grumpy Old Man

Moderator

Registered User

Registered User

Moderator

Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

Registered User

Similar threads