mattcony Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 On Saturday afternoon I went to Awesome GTI in Manchester for a Uk-Mkiv’s Rolling road day, I had originally forgotten about this even but then I spotted it on the forum at lunch time so jumped in the car and headed down to see what was happening. Plenty of cars had turned up, GolfGirls car was there as well and had been on the rollers earlier, I got chatting to one of the guys operating the road and asked if they had any slots left to which he replied “a couple” so I whipped out the plastic and joined the Q, they have just installed a new DynoJet 4x4 rollers so the figures should be pretty good. Most of my mods are handling really, power wise I just have the 6463 remap and a Milltek straight through system and she managed 208bhp @ the wheels From whats on the Awesome site GolfGirl is Running AMD stage 2, Milltek straight through system & a K & N short ram air intake All the other peoples figures / Pictures and soon to be videos are posted on Awesoms site http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/rr.ukmkiv_14.01.06.html Cheers Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Nice pair of .:R32s there with the tell-tale Nurburgring stickers on the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32North Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 I thought that stock, ie no exhaust or #6463, they were meant to be about 185hp at the wheels, so 208hp is pretty good going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 I'm suprised to see both cars hitting the limiter at the same 6800rpm. Great figures for 6463 + exhaust though, as said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calm Chris Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 So what does the RR figures equate to, at the engine, is there a simple formula to convert back / on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattcony Posted January 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 The guys there said that every stock 225 Audi TT they have run has made 175 bhp give or take a couple of bhp, so they say an extra 50bhp between fly and wheel bhp. cheers matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pomme Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Some good results there, and does sort of give me a good guess on what mine is running at. Although i hope to have it tested up at AMD soon, thats when i get it back tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I'm suprised to see both cars hitting the limiter at the same 6800rpm. [/ QUOTE ] Am I alone in being confused here? I thought AMD remap upped the rev-limiter to 7400rpm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Once a car has run past it's peak power and torque, there's no point in keeping increasing the revs, so you're probably seeing the result of the driver taking his/her foot off the throttle when the car gets to 6800 rpm, rather than the rev limiter kicking in. IIRC, the max rpm my car did both times it's been on the AmD dyno is 6800 or 6900 rpm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Once a car has run past it's peak power and torque, there's no point in keeping increasing the revs, so you're probably seeing the result of the driver taking his/her foot off the throttle when the car gets to 6800 rpm, rather than the rev limiter kicking in. IIRC, the max rpm my car did both times it's been on the AmD dyno is 6800 or 6900 rpm. [/ QUOTE ] Fair point. When I was at Awesome between Christmas and New Year for the open RR sessions, Jim didn't seem to back off in any of the cars - except for the RS6 auto which refused to hold a gear to the limiter. So from that I assumed that they ran everything to the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattcony Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Video Clips are up now and working http://www.goapr.co.uk/movies/rr.ukmkiv_14.01.06/constante.wmv http://www.goapr.co.uk/movies/rr.ukmkiv_14.01.06/bowden.wmv Cheers matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGK512 Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I see GolfGirls 32 is in golf+ this month .... question is was the esp on or of on the run round the ring ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encee Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Once a car has run past it's peak power and torque, there's no point in keeping increasing the revs, so you're probably seeing the result of the driver taking his/her foot off the throttle when the car gets to 6800 rpm, rather than the rev limiter kicking in. IIRC, the max rpm my car did both times it's been on the AmD dyno is 6800 or 6900 rpm. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly right Mook. I`ve been to Awesome today to have my GTI mapped, and I watched Jim do this on the RR. He then explained to me that he just powers-off once the engine has hit peak power, as it`s pointless going any further, which, as you say, explains the sharp drop-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattcony Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 was OFF for me, its almost impossible to drive it hard round the track with it on as there is too much sliding and wheel spin for it to cope with, seriously eats into your time cheers matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Nice to see some actual at the wheels results. I get tired of seeing random guesses at the crank horsepower and no mention of wheel horsepower at all. Now check this out. Bunch of R32's in all states of tune running on the exact same model dyno (rolling road). http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2394800 Have dyno results for: Stock, Chipped, flapper mod, exhaust, cams (and various combinations of these) plus HPA FT360 turbo, HPA FT400, HPA TT Stage 2, EIP Stage I low and high boost, EIP Stage IV, VF-eng Stage I, VF-eng Stage II. 17-18 cars all told. All numbers results are *at the wheels*. VW told HPA that the drivetrain loss during all wheel drive operation is about 23%. So take any of these at the wheels numbers and divide by 0.77 to get a rough estimate of crank hp. E.g. Stock.. 202awhp / 0.77 = 262bhp. Or. EIP Stage IV.. 580awhp / 0.77 = 750bhp. ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 BTW, it's not pointless at all to run it to redline on the dyno. It's useful to know what your torque curve looks like beyond the power peak. When you're racing you want to bracket your shifts around the peak power, not shift right *at* peak power. While racing you spend 90% of your time between 5000 rpms and redline. Even with a falling torque curve you usually produce more accelleration in a low gear at high rpms (beyond power peak) than you do in a higher gear with lower rpms and higher engine torque. This is because the tranny is a torque multiplier and torque to the ground is roughly engine torque x tranny gear ratio x final drive ratio. ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Welcome back Ian I disagree re the 23% loss (I think it's more), but will need to dig out the dyno tests I had done on the calibrated dyno at AmD in the UK. Interestingly on your race-track comment, in the R32, I stick between 4,000 and 6,000 rpm all the time - the close ratio 'box on the R32 lets you do this consistently. I've tried loads of different styles, all on the same track (Donington) and this is the quickest way for me to get round the track with the setup on my car - not necessarily for anyone else, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattcony Posted January 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Wow what a great post on Vortex to be able to look at the same set of rollers running the same model of car, from what I can see on average you can see what wheel BHP gains variouse bits have on the R, I would say roughly Wheel BHP gains seem to be, 2-3bhp for an induction kit, 10bhp for a remap / chip 22bhp for cams Lots for Turbo's Was EIP's big beast really 582bhp @ the wheels Cheers Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza_g Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Or. EIP Stage IV.. 580awhp / 0.77 = 750bhp. ian [/ QUOTE ] 580 at the wheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N3WOB Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Bet that gets through some rubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Ya, the EIP Stage IV proof of concept car will spin the tires through the first 4 gears or so. Drivetrain loss varies *highly* depending on dyno. The 4 wheel Dynojets (which just have 2 massive rollers of fixed/known size and no additional braking) generally show the lowest loss (as low as the stated 23%) and ones like the MAHA dyno show the highest (sometimes in excess of 35%). AmD's has a MAHA dyno. The MAHA dyno, in my opinion, is inherently flawed because it attempts to measure drivetrain loss during coast-down while Haldex is disengaged which can't possibly be the same as while it's under load (with Haldex engaged). Regardless of whether it's erroring on the high or low side, there's simply no possible way that the drivetrain loss is the same during both engaged and disengaged times (if it was, then the whole concept of Haldex would be pointless). Looking at back to back runs on the same car on a MAHA dyno, you can see the "measured" drivetrain loss vary by up to 10hp, and runs with different R32s or the same on different days, the difference can be even higher, which leads to wildly varying BHP numbers. I think in the end the MAHA ends up with reasonably close BHP numbers by special "calibration", more than solid repeatable measurement. By comparison, there are runs on the Dynojet where there's no more than a 1-2hp variation between 3-4 runs, provided the car is supplied with sufficient cooling. And because the Dynojet requires no additional calibration (the mass of the drums never changes), it's pretty useful for comparing the power of cars in different locations (such as the Dynojet pulls at the top of this thread, compared to those in the Vortex thread). BTW, if you still want to believe that the drivetrain loss is higher than the stated 23% then adjust all crank hp numbers *up* accordingly. E.g. 202whp for stock R32 / 0.70 (assuming 30% drivetrain loss) = 288hp. Hmm. Probably not. ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 And to keep this in a semi separate discussion.. If you're shifting at 6000 rpms, you're throwing away power, in at least the first 3 gears. Yes the torque curve is falling (it's falling all the way from 3500 rpms onward), but multiply the engine torque by the total gear ratio and you're still putting more torque to the ground at 6500 rpms in say.. 3rd gear than you are at say 5700 rpms in 4th gear at the same road speed. Torque to the ground = instantaneous accelleration. Horsepower is just a measure of how high into the rpms you can continue to make useable torque. If you're shifting before the power peak, you're doing *less* total work, thus going slower than you could be. I'll do a shiftpoint analysis using VAG-COM one of these days but I know that what what it'll show is that for 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears you should shift at the rev limiter, and by the time you get to 4th, *maybe* you short shift by a couple hundred rpms, and a bit lower still for 5th. BTW, the reason we *feel* like we should short shift, is because our bodies are more sensitive to changing rates of accelleration not to absolute accelleration itself. So if the positive rate of accelleration is decreasing (follows the shape of the torque curve) we actually feel as though we're slowing down. It's not true. The butt dyno is wrong. ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattcony Posted January 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The butt dyno is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pomme Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 wow two superb replies, i learnt loads from those two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skidmark Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] wow two superb replies, i learnt loads from those two [/ QUOTE ] Ian dosn't post often........... ..............but when he does.............it's "the dog's" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now