stage 2 dyno results!!!

[jimrobbington]

Anyone interested in my A4 b7 2.0t manual dyno results? I'll have them up in about two or three hours. I am dynoing at approx. 5500 elevation, 100 octane race fuel, and REVO stage 2 tuned for race fuel. We'll see what happens!

[fazda]

i have no idea what kinda numbers you would make, but im definetly interested! post em up once you've got them

[Larson7.62]

As soon as I saw that 5500 elevation I knew what state you were in.

[Geoffafa]

Quattro or FWD? I'm curious to see your numbers on race gas. We had one of our b7's stage 2 REVO put down 265 whp on c16.

Good Luck!!

[A4 Centaur]

Anyone interested in my A4 b7 2.0t manual dyno results? I'll have them up in about two or three hours. I am dynoing at approx. 5500 elevation, 100 octane race fuel, and REVO stage 2 tuned for race fuel. We'll see what happens!

Of course we are interested![>_<] Especially us at 7400 ft.![o_o]

[Sal_B7]

Yeah definately!! Post it up!! Quattro? fwd?

[Quattro]

it's always great to see dyno numbers, give something for the more informative guys =D

[jimrobbington]

Ok, well here it is, not as good as I would have hoped, but it is what it is. I have quattro, so that loses even more power to the wheels, but here are the numbers: First run was the best because it heat soaked like crazy. 201.7 hp, 256.3 tq. This is corrected at the wheels, and the most accurate, non-inflated results dyno in the area. Doesn't sound like a whole lot to me, but it is 54.5 hp higher than stock at the crank, and 112.5 tq more than stock at the crank. I could feel driving to the dyno that the race fuel tune was not as aggressive as I had hoped, but let me know how you guys feel about these numbers. Boost was maxing out at about 15-16 psi.

[mike-2ptzero]

Ok, well here it is, not as good as I would have hoped, but it is what it is. I have quattro, so that loses even more power to the wheels, but here are the numbers: First run was the best because it heat soaked like crazy. 201.7 hp, 256.3 tq. This is corrected at the wheels, and the most accurate, non-inflated results dyno in the area. Doesn't sound like a whole lot to me, but it is 54.5 hp higher than stock at the crank, and 112.5 tq more than stock at the crank. I could feel driving to the dyno that the race fuel tune was not as aggressive as I had hoped, but let me know how you guys feel about these numbers. Boost was maxing out at about 15-16 psi.

Are you comparing chip vs stock done on the dyno back to back?

Since you said those are corrected numbers, what were your uncorrected numbers?

[jimrobbington]

Sorry, I only tested it with my stage 2 chip. When I say corrected, the dyno results were automatically adjusted the wheel horse power, and I was comparing them to stock specs.

[Auditude2.0T]

My Stage 2 Quattro Tip and sea level on pump 93 put down 220whp and 255wtq

[Draxus]

My Stage 2 Quattro Tip and sea level on pump 93 put down 220whp and 255wtq

Yea, something does not sound right. Your numbers for race gas are low imo.

[mike-2ptzero]

Sorry, I only tested it with my stage 2 chip. When I say corrected, the dyno results were automatically adjusted the wheel horse power, and I was comparing them to stock specs.


Yeah that means the dyno was using SAE corrections to give you a sea level whp reading, that doesn't work for turbo cars since the SAE correction is for NA only. At that elevation the dyno is using around a 1.25 correction which means its adding 25% to what the car actually put down at the wheels. This is why its best to use uncorrected readings of both setups at the same elevation to compare with each other, this is why most people do a base run before making any changes.


Are you running a race tune for 5000 feet? Because at that elevation the tune needs way more adv timing for the much thinner air vs running the same tune/octane at sea level. Have you done any vagcom logs to see how much adv timing the ecu is pulling back or if its pulling any back at all?

[Auditude2.0T]

have you checked for cam lobe wear? that could be a cause of low #s

[Glassnpowder98]

My Stage 2 Quattro Tip and sea level on pump 93 put down 220whp and 255wtq

Sooooo how about those GT2871R numbers and that video? Haven't gotten around to it yet? [rolleyes]

[Subaru71]

that doesn't sound right at all for a car with stg2 and TP..

[wootwoot]

Do you have a picture of your dyno?

[eskimopunk]

Sooooo how about those GT2871R numbers and that video? Haven't gotten around to it yet? [rolleyes]

Still!? Damn, fail again.

[Sanjman]

elevation should make a huge difference... care to share the charts? peak numbers are for marketers and salepeople to sell their cars.

[volcomic]

Ok, well here it is, not as good as I would have hoped, but it is what it is. I have quattro, so that loses even more power to the wheels, but here are the numbers: First run was the best because it heat soaked like crazy. 201.7 hp, 256.3 tq. This is corrected at the wheels, and the most accurate, non-inflated results dyno in the area. Doesn't sound like a whole lot to me, but it is 54.5 hp higher than stock at the crank, and 112.5 tq more than stock at the crank. I could feel driving to the dyno that the race fuel tune was not as aggressive as I had hoped, but let me know how you guys feel about these numbers. Boost was maxing out at about 15-16 psi.

That sounds about right to me (especially at 5000+ feet). Remember we have ~22% drivetrain loss so that's about 259 hp, 329 tq at the crank. Nice work [up]

[bblume]

Boost was maxing out at about 15-16 psi.

My psi was more like 19-21 on REVO 2 and I too am in Colorado
Seems weird to me...in fact my psi only now went down a bit with the APR HPFP and Stg II+
Could the 100oct file lower your boost or were you always around 15-16???

[mike-2ptzero]

That sounds about right to me (especially at 5000+ feet). Remember we have ~22% drivetrain loss so that's about 259 hp, 329 tq at the crank. Nice work [up]

Too bad his numbers are corrected to sea level which means they are in flated. Now if his numbers were in fact "uncorrected" then sure they would be great for being at 5000 ft, but he already said they are corrected.

[Jer]

For those that think those numbers are low, welcome to Colorado. It SUCKS in a big way and you will swear every vehicle you own is broken.

[aaron1085]

so, at a lower elevation, these numbers would be higher?

[ray-ray]

so, at a lower elevation, these numbers would be higher?

yes

[jimrobbington]

The dyno is STP corrected, whatever that means. here's a picture of the dyno, sorry, don't have a scanner, so I just used my phone.
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo109/jimrobbington/2009-06-13025956.jpg

[jimrobbington]

But I've heard people saying they got 40-50 hp from just a stage 1 chip?! I just would like to know if my car is fine, I should be happy, or if I should investigate and try to find something wrong?

[jimrobbington]

My psi was more like 19-21 on REVO 2 and I too am in Colorado
Seems weird to me...in fact my psi only now went down a bit with the APR HPFP and Stg II+
Could the 100oct file lower your boost or were you always around 15-16???

and to this, I say, I just got my boost gauge only a week ago, so I don't have much to go on, but 2nd and 3rd gear get about 15 psi, and i get up to 18 in higher gears

[extremesport3]

Actually it looks fine to me. The curve looks right on. All dynos are different, i thought we have had this discussion many times before. As long as the car pulls hard and there are no CELS be happy!!! The track record with these cars suck based on all the stupid problems they constantly have. I dynoed my car the other day and was able to squeeze only 243awhp and 280awtq out of it(on a race fuel 100oct file - w/ 93 oct and meth) . Now i have pretty much every mod there is, and i also had another dyno slip prior to installing my meth kit showing 274whp and 318wtq so now i am really confused but the guy at my last shop said he #'s were super conservative and he addeds very little correction. So be happy you dyno'ed, now you know where you stand on that dyno and let the modding continue!!! (Just make sure you solely use that dyno to chart your improvements otherwise you will be disappointed!0

John

[mike-2ptzero]

so, at a lower elevation, these numbers would be higher?

That depends on the correction being used. If they use a SAE correction the numbers spit out by the dyno are going to be higher then what the car would actually make at sea level because the corrections the dyno is using are for a NA car not a turbo car. The correction for a turbo car is much lower and the thinner air effects the power band curve since the turbo will spool up much slower as the adjusted altitude gets higher. So not only does the peak hp numbers change the power band shifts left as you get closer to sea level.




STP is correction for air temp and barometric pressure. Best thing to do is ask the dyno operator what correction factor was used. I found a post on Colorado Muscle.com that states the STP correction used in CO is 1.24 which is basically the same ratio used up in CO for SAE correction. http://www.coloradomuscle.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1398&pid=16468&mode=threaded&start=

[Jer]

But I've heard people saying they got 40-50 hp from just a stage 1 chip?! I just would like to know if my car is fine, I should be happy, or if I should investigate and try to find something wrong?

40-50hp is not only at the crank and at sea-level but also incredibly generous. Stock hp number is set at 200hp but this is at the crank so factor about 25% parasitic loss for the drive train and another 25% for the elevation difference which puts that A4 in stock for at a whopping ~110hp to the pavement. That means that had you dyno'd your stock car with the same parameters you probably would have seen around 110hp peak as sad as that sounds. So, based on that rough estimate you've effectively doubled your peak awhp and I'm sure the power band is much more fat down low and in the mid range as well so I wouldn't say anything is wrong at all. You should be making about 310-320hp at the crank now to compare to the stock 200hp rating. You should be noticing quite a difference from a stock Quattro A4 and that's all that matters.

[jimrobbington]

I appreciate all the positive info that has been provided, and I have used the only dyno in the area that does not "inflate" their readings, so it's good to know this is realistic.

[volcomic]

You should be making about 310-320hp at the crank now to compare to the stock 200hp rating.

Wow! No way is anyone at 310+hp with chip, TP, exhaust [>_<]. I agree though that the difference you feel from stock is all that matters, and I think the numbers you put down are damn good for the mods you have [up]

[jimrobbington]

Its probably just slow cause I haven't gotten a spoiler yet, huh?

[mike-2ptzero]

40-50hp is not only at the crank and at sea-level but also incredibly generous. Stock hp number is set at 200hp but this is at the crank so factor about 25% parasitic loss for the drive train and another 25% for the elevation difference which puts that A4 in stock for at a whopping ~110hp to the pavement. That means that had you dyno'd your stock car with the same parameters you probably would have seen around 110hp peak as sad as that sounds. So, based on that rough estimate you've effectively doubled your peak awhp and I'm sure the power band is much more fat down low and in the mid range as well so I wouldn't say anything is wrong at all. You should be making about 310-320hp at the crank now to compare to the stock 200hp rating. You should be noticing quite a difference from a stock Quattro A4 and that's all that matters.

quattro manual is 22%, about another 3-5% for Tip.

[bblume]

and to this, I say, I just got my boost gauge only a week ago, so I don't have much to go on, but 2nd and 3rd gear get about 15 psi, and i get up to 18 in higher gears

So when on the dyno what gears/speeds were they hitting....I suppose just enough to measure peak HP???

also...I don't recall ever meeting you at the Gtgs
Are you going on the 27th on the westside of town?

[volcomic]

Its probably just slow cause I haven't gotten a spoiler yet, huh?

Exactly. Put stickers all over it too, they're good for 3-5 hp each [>_<]

[jimrobbington]

So when on the dyno what gears/speeds were they hitting....I suppose just enough to measure peak HP???

also...I don't recall ever meeting you at the Gtgs
Are you going on the 27th on the westside of town?

They used 3rd gear up top 6100 rpm, and I guess I will have to look that gtg up on the rocky mtn posts. I've been to one, but showed a little late and didn't talk to hardly anyone.

[Sanjman]

STP stands for Standard Temperature and Pressure... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure.

Chart looks good it's a shame you didn't do a baseline first. Don't think you have anything to worry about though

[jimrobbington]

I was just thinking too, that my best run was actually just after the first run which actually failed, and because of heat, each subsequent run lost about 10 hp each. So if it were run cold on my first test, I probably would have been around 210-215 hp. Damn you stock side-mounts! FMIC, here we come!

[Jer]

quattro manual is 22%, about another 3-5% for Tip.

So 25% like I said, right?

[Jer]

I was just thinking too, that my best run was actually just after the first run which actually failed, and because of heat, each subsequent run lost about 10 hp each. So if it were run cold on my first test, I probably would have been around 210-215 hp. Damn you stock side-mounts! FMIC, here we come!

A FMIC isn't going to help a lot when it comes to heat soak in a dyno situation. If you want insane cooling if you're in motion or not check into methanol injection.

[gpultro]

Sooooo how about those GT2871R numbers and that video? Haven't gotten around to it yet? [rolleyes]

THIS IS WAY TO FUNNY lmfao

[jimrobbington]

Well my shop worked up all the numbers of REVO's stated gains, and I am about 10% above the stated gains at the crank, which I guess makes me pretty happy. Looking to get a meth kit next! I guess after all, 261 hp, and 315 tq at the crank are not that bad.

[mike-2ptzero]

So 25% like I said, right?

Yes if you were talking Tip transmission, I was just stating how much driveline loss the 2 would have.

[Alkemix]

Hey Jimrobbins, did you properly run the car till empty, fill with race gas, run till that was empty and then refill with race gas and then dyno?

When did you put in race gas, what was the mixture?