(Jake@JHM’s) - 2008 B7 A4 2.0T Product Development/Build Thread

[chucklando]

At what point do you think your car is going to need the 01X-02X 6-speed Transmission Rebuild Kit? And would you say this kit is an "upgrade" or just to restore you're transmission to like new? (I'm guessing the second based on all the parts saying OEM).

[mec]

At what point do you think your car is going to need the 01X-02X 6-speed Transmission Rebuild Kit? And would you say this kit is an "upgrade" or just to restore you're transmission to like new? (I'm guessing the second based on all the parts saying OEM).

This question depends on your driving characteristics. You will tell when your tranny is having shifting issues, the gear teeth round off, or you blow a synchro and grind gears.

Even oem parts are sometimes updates because they update the materials they use.

Jhm sells carbon synchros which are absolutely an upgrade, but they only have them for the 01e, the 02x doesn't have them yet so we have to stick with oem for now

[Jake@JHM]

I will need the rebuild kit once it starts crunching when shifting into gear :) #2 would be correct .

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

[b0i]

Subscribed! I have a strong feeling my B7 will be running a lot of what JHM has to offer over the next year!

[Jake@JHM]

Subscribed! I have a strong feeling my B7 will be running a lot of what JHM has to offer over the next year!

That is a good feeling! If you follow our recipe you are destined to have a fast B7!

[drumnjuny]

haha jake you know you're eventually going to have to dyno right

[Jake@JHM]

haha jake you know you're eventually going to have to dyno right

Haha I will think about it. I would rather show impressive acceleration data from the 1/4 Mile than a piece of paper

[drumnjuny]

Feel is everything; don't get me wrong i am 100% with you numbers and lines on a piece of paper don't mean shit.


BUT you have to understand, from a consumer's standpoint who cannot feel the difference in setups without buying first (obviously not feasible), those numbers are all they have (or if they're smarter, the lines so they don't just get peak gain at one rpm but the overall effect over the powerband)



that's the only reason we dyno haha. well, i dyno to compare my progress

[Jake@JHM]

Feel is everything; don't get me wrong i am 100% with you numbers and lines on a piece of paper don't mean shit.


BUT you have to understand, from a consumer's standpoint who cannot feel the difference in setups without buying first (obviously not feasible), those numbers are all they have (or if they're smarter, the lines so they don't just get peak gain at one rpm but the overall effect over the powerband)



that's the only reason we dyno haha. well, i dyno to compare my progress

While true they are nice to look at and can give you a rough idea of where your car is at. There are tons of variables involved with dynos . Like was your car heat soaked the first time you dynod and then is it cooled the second time? That would show a much larger delta than is really there. Also, if the two dyno runs are done on different days the data is technically useless. You will get a different result every day. You will even notice a different result if you air up your tires!

[drumnjuny]

I agree there are tons of variables that mess with dyno results... that dynos have settings (well, mustang dyno's do) and that conditions and heat soak and even tires, wheel size and weight, how tight the car is strapped down, these all play tiny factors and can and DO skew dyno results and numbers. That's just physics. But to say that is to discredit all oem BHP numbers as well, or you can use it for what it is which is an inaccurate but fairly accurate comparison


But you must agree there is no better way to judge performance IF you can't ride in the car before and after the modifications.

[RoguesGambit]

Yeah, I'm dying to see Dyno #'s as well. Curious what your car with all those mods are making.

You basically say your supercharger for the S4 has a hard time making under 400hp, let's see what your A4 can do

[mec]

I like the way Jake was talking about measuring power though. A simple acceleration measure, that is as real world as it gets, a dyno doesn't even generate similar load to being on the street which is why you usually see slower spool. All you would need to do is compare s4supercharged acceleration to whatever Jake has done with his 2.0t

[Jake@JHM]

Haha the better way is the 1/4 Mile! I could make a 400WHP dyno sheet for my K03, but does it mean that it really will perform like a 400WHP car?

Give this a read, as it will explain a few things: http://www.enginelogics.com/dyno-tested/

We choose to use the 1/4 Mile as a demonstration of our product performance because it is actually a real world test of the performance that the car is actually capable of.

Hehe =]

[Jake@JHM]

Yeah, I'm dying to see Dyno #'s as well. Curious what your car with all those mods are making.

You basically say your supercharger for the S4 has a hard time making under 400hp, let's see what your A4 can do

Yeah I may do the Dyno for giggles. Our customers usually dyno in the mid 400s with our S4. However, we had to severely nuder that kit because the stock motor can't handle the power. The blower we use is rated for 800HP lol.

I like the way Jake was talking about measuring power though. A simple acceleration measure, that is as real world as it gets, a dyno doesn't even generate similar load to being on the street which is why you usually see slower spool. All you would need to do is compare s4supercharged acceleration to whatever Jake has done with his 2.0t

Very true, there is not way to actually simulate actual load unless you are on the pavement!

You can see my 1/4 mile times and how it stacks against all other Audis: http://audirevolution.net/quartermile/

[drumnjuny]

i actually disagree. i think there is more degree of variability in a 1/4m time than a dyno chart. in a 1/4m time, you could just not start aggressively and get 5 seconds slower. that's about a 50% difference. On a dyno you might get 10% variability max. therefore, higher degree of variability and less consistent, even though dynos are not consistent at all 1/4m is even more inconsistent.

[Jake@JHM]

i actually disagree. i think there is more degree of variability in a 1/4m time than a dyno chart. in a 1/4m time, you could just not start aggressively and get 5 seconds slower. that's about a 50% difference. On a dyno you might get 10% variability max. therefore, higher degree of variability and less consistent, even though dynos are not consistent at all 1/4m is even more inconsistent.

The only thing inconsistent would be the driver, and since we aren't selling drivers (is that even legal? lol) it is besides the point. What is being shown is the VEHICLES capabilities with the aftermarket components being used, which is the common misconception of the 1/4 miles results. It doesn't matter how many passes you have to make down the strip to get it right. It gets to a point where the car is just not going to do any better, but at that point you know the true real life performance of your vehicle. The time slip received after making a pass down the strip shows all of the data needed to understand the cars performance, even if the driver messed up somewhere and like a dyno, you make multiple passes to compare to each other..

Like I always say, a person can learn to drive, but a car cannot learn to perform.

[drumnjuny]

right but the only reason numbers are useful is to get the net difference before and after the mod.

in that same right, as you are saying dynos can be skewed and different, so can 1/4m times.

By your logic, we should just dyno on 10 different dynos on 10 different days and take the best numbers (same as hitting 1/4m track in 10 different sets of conditions and taking the best).




you cannot take the person out of the equation with the 1/4m time. you will always be shifting different in terms of times and launch. so on a dyno you have the difference of conditions etc, and on a 1/4m you have the SAME difference of conditions while also adding the variability of the driver. hell, add tire tread, 1/4m blacktop conditions, etc etc it adds way more variability there's not really any logical base from which to deny that. you still have heat soak as a variable, still have air conditions and then you add a lot more variables

[drumnjuny]

what i'm saying is if you guys have an in house dyno, and you take dyno results before & after on the same dyno you can control a lot of the variables and keep them constant, that will be way more accurate than if you went to a blacktop two different days, granted neither are very accurate at all.

[ericpaulyoung]

Jake is scared to dyno! Neener neener big fat wiener.

[drumnjuny]

i mean nobody ever hits the dyno and is pleasantly surprised... everyone is hoping for more than they get that's the nature of dyno's lol

[drumnjuny]

Jake is scared to dyno! Neener neener big fat wiener.

says the man who's had a "finished" K04 setup and a "finished" GTX2863 setup and has 0 dynos to show for it! lulz

[mec]

It makes a lot of sense to do 1/4mi. One thing that helps too is launch control. When you have launch control for your car you ensure perfect launches so then all that can cause error is the driver misshifting. In that case do another pass.
Vs a dyno that can literally give you any result you want, you can calibrate two identical dynos totally differently and then you have inconsistent numbers. I'm with Jake on this one.

[drumnjuny]

but the point is, you can dyno on the same dyno and reduce those variables to constants.


you cannot launch the same every single time; how warm your clutch is, how quickly you get off the clutch pedal, those will affect your launch and be a variable every single time.


i already agreed 1/4m is a much better measure of performance. What I am arguing is that it is a worse measure of performance gain, due to the amount of added variables you throw on top of a dyno when comparing two 1/4m times.



We are assuming neither the people doing 1/4m times nor the people running dynos are purposefully tampering with their results - in that case, the 1/4m times contain all the same variables and then some of the driver. GG.

[Jake@JHM]

right but the only reason numbers are useful is to get the net difference before and after the mod.

in that same right, as you are saying dynos can be skewed and different, so can 1/4m times.

By your logic, we should just dyno on 10 different dynos on 10 different days and take the best numbers (same as hitting 1/4m track in 10 different sets of conditions and taking the best).




you cannot take the person out of the equation with the 1/4m time. you will always be shifting different in terms of times and launch. so on a dyno you have the difference of conditions etc, and on a 1/4m you have the SAME difference of conditions while also adding the variability of the driver. hell, add tire tread, 1/4m blacktop conditions, etc etc it adds way more variability there's not really any logical base from which to deny that. you still have heat soak as a variable, still have air conditions and then you add a lot more variables

The flaw with your argument is you keep referring to driver error. 1/4 Mile results are show casing what the car was able to do. Even if the driver is good, the car wouldn't have been able to do it if the performance wasn't there. You can have the best driver in the world, but if the car he is driving is doesn't perform, it won't perform.

But agree to disagree =]

Jake is scared to dyno! Neener neener big fat wiener.

NOOO!!

i mean nobody ever hits the dyno and is pleasantly surprised... everyone is hoping for more than they get that's the nature of dyno's lol

That is very true!

It makes a lot of sense to do 1/4mi. One thing that helps too is launch control. When you have launch control for your car you ensure perfect launches so then all that can cause error is the driver misshifting. In that case do another pass.
Vs a dyno that can literally give you any result you want, you can calibrate two identical dynos totally differently and then you have inconsistent numbers. I'm with Jake on this one.

Yeah!

A dyno is great if you show up to a show, let the car cool down, make a pull or two, let it cool down, install a test pip and do another couple of pulls. Same day, same dyno, same dyno calibrations. Then you can get a nice idea of the performance delta on the addition of that particular test pipe on your car.

[Jake@JHM]

but the point is, you can dyno on the same dyno and reduce those variables to constants.


you cannot launch the same every single time; how warm your clutch is, how quickly you get off the clutch pedal, those will affect your launch and be a variable every single time.


i already agreed 1/4m is a much better measure of performance. What I am arguing is that it is a worse measure of performance gain, due to the amount of added variables you throw on top of a dyno when comparing two 1/4m times.



We are assuming neither the people doing 1/4m times nor the people running dynos are purposefully tampering with their results - in that case, the 1/4m times contain all the same variables and then some of the driver. GG.

Our tuning comes with launch assist and on a k03 we get a consistent high 1.8 to low 1.9 60ft, but regardless your point would be correct on that. However, the only thing that matters is your best run is still your best run and that is what your car achieved.

If all environments where 100% controlled, the dyno would an awesome tool.


There are variables to each method, and they affect both nearly the same.

Cold day = better dyno number and potential faster track time. etc..

[RoguesGambit]

Yeah I may do the Dyno for giggles. Our customers usually dyno in the mid 400s with our S4. However, we had to severely nuder that kit because the stock motor can't handle the power. The blower we use is rated for 800HP lol.



Very true, there is not way to actually simulate actual load unless you are on the pavement!

You can see my 1/4 mile times and how it stacks against all other Audis: http://audirevolution.net/quartermile/

#'s are definitely for shits and giggles, I'm getting your stuff for the most part, just curious

[Jake@JHM]

#'s are definitely for shits and giggles, I'm getting your stuff for the most part, just curious

Haha yea I may do a whole bunch of measurements including 0-60 and stuff. Haven't decided yet.

[jsandor91]

what about doing something like fats times that the b5 guys use? pick a rpm range say 4000 - 6500 in third and log how long it takes. if its gets smaller your moving faster lol
obviously there are still alot of variables in play tires road temp etc. but its much easier then taking your car to the track or the dyno plus who doesn't love a 3rd gear pull here and there ?

[Jake@JHM]

what about doing something like fats times that the b5 guys use? pick a rpm range say 4000 - 6500 in third and log how long it takes. if its gets smaller your moving faster lol
obviously there are still alot of variables in play tires road temp etc. but its much easier then taking your car to the track or the dyno plus who doesn't love a 3rd gear pull here and there ?

FATS where originally created to show deltas on a specific vehicle, and not meant to be compared to other vehicles as the data is useless when comparing different cars. For instance, everyone has different elevations, and not every ones road that the test on is identical so comparing FATS with each other means nothing.

If you are slowly tuning or adding parts to your car, you will want to find a road that is completely level (No incline or decline because even 1% either way will alter data) and then make sure you are doing it in the same conditions (or as close as possible) so you can try and get a ball park on your RPMs per second. The lower the FATS times the faster you are accelerating. It is pretty much doing a 60-90MPH (4200-6500 RPM) pull and made to sounds scientific. If you a have 3.2 FATS time, it is pretty much 3.2 seconds from 60-90MPH.

EDIT- Here is a good post regarding FATS

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...=1#post1634979

[jsandor91]

FATS where originally created to show deltas on a specific vehicle, and not meant to be compared to other vehicles as the data is useless when comparing different cars. For instance, everyone has different elevations, and not every ones road that the test on is identical so comparing FATS with each other means nothing.

If you are slowly tuning or adding parts to your car, you will want to find a road that is completely level (No incline or decline because even 1% either way will alter data) and then make sure you are doing it in the same conditions (or as close as possible) so you can try and get a ball park on your RPMs per second. The lower the FATS times the faster you are accelerating. It is pretty much doing a 60-90MPH (4200-6500 RPM) pull and made to sounds scientific. If you a have 3.2 FATS time, it is pretty much 3.2 seconds from 60-90MPH.

EDIT- Here is a good post regarding FATS

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...=1#post1634979

awesome info. i was saying for a individual to continually compare their performance as they add parts like lets say i have a FATS time of 3.2 right now then i finish my meth kit and hit a FATS of 3.0 so my 60-90 time improved by .2 seconds. i think it would be cool to see a car that is stock to bolts ons to big turbo and the respective FATS times to go with it.

[jsandor91]

unrelated note why don't you guys make intake spacers for the 2.0 fsi? lots of other platforms have them including the 2.7t and 4.2 so!?

[Jake@JHM]

awesome info. i was saying for a individual to continually compare their performance as they add parts like lets say i have a FATS time of 3.2 right now then i finish my meth kit and hit a FATS of 3.0 so my 60-90 time improved by .2 seconds. i think it would be cool to see a car that is stock to bolts ons to big turbo and the respective FATS times to go with it.

Yea I can look into doing that! I just have to find time hahaha. Definitely a nice test for personal use though.

unrelated note why don't you guys make intake spacers for the 2.0 fsi? lots of other platforms have them including the 2.7t and 4.2 so!?

I've thought about it, but the plastic intake manifold seems to not transfer as much heat as those cars with metal manifolds. We may do something in the future though just for that extra but of heat soak prevention.

Jake

[jsandor91]

Yea I can look into doing that! I just have to find time hahaha. Definitely a nice test for personal use though.



I've thought about it, but the plastic intake manifold seems to not transfer as much heat as those cars with metal manifolds. We may do something in the future though just for that extra but of heat soak prevention.

Jake

do a 3rd gear pull on the same road on your way home from work

maybe with companies such as ie making new intake manifolds that aren't plastic might be worth making in the future

[Hopperstien]

K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune.

[vortexjunkie]

K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune. K03 Tune.

I like your enthusiasm....

[blingaling]

Yea I can look into doing that! I just have to find time hahaha. Definitely a nice test for personal use though.



I've thought about it, but the plastic intake manifold seems to not transfer as much heat as those cars with metal manifolds. We may do something in the future though just for that extra but of heat soak prevention.

Jake

What if you did an aluminum intake manifold but where it meets the head its like a plastic spacer to cut down on heat transfer? I believe the B8 oem manifolds are like that.

[blingaling]

do a 3rd gear pull on the same road on your way home from work

maybe with companies such as ie making new intake manifolds that aren't plastic might be worth making in the future

Id be interested in an aftermarket manifold! The option of direct port injection for water meth would be awesome too! Lol

[Jake@JHM]

What if you did an aluminum intake manifold but where it meets the head its like a plastic spacer to cut down on heat transfer? I believe the B8 oem manifolds are like that.

At that point it would just be easier to offer a phenolic spacer. It would keep manufacturing costs down and would make the end product cheaper for the consumer.

[Jake@JHM]

A fun, short video from yesterday testing some new products in the shop B5.

[drumnjuny]

WOW lol i would be way too sketched out to do that 1/16th of a mile run in the rain headed at my own shop