Golfer Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I wonder how much BHP can be freed by superchiping the 3.0TDI engine?, If as quoted the 3.0TDI covers 0-60 in 5.9 then with 50+BHP should be down to 5.0Secs, as quick as the S5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlot Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Your bound to be right. How long before Bluefin do it on the 240PS engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beedzy Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 audi offer a remap of the engine itself puttin out an extra 50 or so bhp, its the best engine to do it with...they say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfer Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] audi offer a remap of the engine itself puttin out an extra 50 or so bhp, its the best engine to do it with...they say [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get this INFO from?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irnbrukid Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] I wonder how much BHP can be freed by superchiping the 3.0TDI engine?, If as quoted the 3.0TDI covers 0-60 in 5.9 then with 50+BHP should be down to 5.0Secs, as quick as the S5 [/ QUOTE ] Think the engine will just be tweaked from the one currently in use 233ps which maps to about 285ps, so would expect figures around that. Closer to 5.5 i would think and maybe 2 - 3 secs of the 0 - 100 time, but with figures audi have been quoting car must be light maybe around 1500/50 Kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlot Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Or Audi are less conservative in their stats these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I wonder how much BHP can be freed by superchiping the 3.0TDI engine?, If as quoted the 3.0TDI covers 0-60 in 5.9 then with 50+BHP should be down to 5.0Secs, as quick as the S5 [/ QUOTE ] Think the engine will just be tweaked from the one currently in use 233ps which maps to about 285ps, so would expect figures around that. Closer to 5.5 i would think and maybe 2 - 3 secs of the 0 - 100 time, but with figures audi have been quoting car must be light maybe around 1500/50 Kg. [/ QUOTE ] Looking aorund the internet I've found these stats on carfolio.com (not the most accurate site in the world I know but...) A5 3.2 FSI FWD 1495KG A5 3.2 FSI 4WD 1535KG A5 2.7TDI FWD 1575 KG S5 1630KG These weights seem on the high side given the cliamed performance/economy figures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfer Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I wonder how much BHP can be freed by superchiping the 3.0TDI engine?, If as quoted the 3.0TDI covers 0-60 in 5.9 then with 50+BHP should be down to 5.0Secs, as quick as the S5 [/ QUOTE ] Think the engine will just be tweaked from the one currently in use 233ps which maps to about 285ps, so would expect figures around that. Closer to 5.5 i would think and maybe 2 - 3 secs of the 0 - 100 time, but with figures audi have been quoting car must be light maybe around 1500/50 Kg. [/ QUOTE ] Looking aorund the internet I've found these stats on carfolio.com (not the most accurate site in the world I know but...) A5 3.2 FSI FWD 1495KG A5 3.2 FSI 4WD 1535KG A5 2.7TDI FWD 1575 KG S5 1630KG These weights seem on the high side given the cliamed performance/economy figures... [/ QUOTE ] New S4 weight MAX 1660Kg!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same engine, 30Kg MAX diference, something wrong with the 0-60 times?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Or Audi are less conservative in their stats these days. [/ QUOTE ] Or maybe they're fed up of BMW overstating their power outputs and 0-60 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vier_ringe Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 once is for sure, they won't lie...remember, it's got a completly new construction, new gearbox etc...just look at the power/torque graph, 3.0 diesel's max power is available between 4000-4400rpm, and revs up to 5000rpm.. the torque of 500nm between 1500-3000rpm... about the weight..1610 kg for 3.0TDI, and 1630kg for S5..those figures are from the german audi configurator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Or Audi are less conservative in their stats these days. [/ QUOTE ] Or maybe they're fed up of BMW overstating their power outputs and 0-60 times [/ QUOTE ] I know BMW are buggers for this, the new 335i coupe is rated at 306bhp and 5.5 seconds to 60mph, but every car that goes on the rolling road is actually reading 330bhp+ and doing the sprint to 60mph in around 5 seconds. BMW never get their figures right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Or Audi are less conservative in their stats these days. [/ QUOTE ] Or maybe they're fed up of BMW overstating their power outputs and 0-60 times [/ QUOTE ] I know BMW are buggers for this, the new 335i coupe is rated at 306bhp and 5.5 seconds to 60mph, but every car that goes on the rolling road is actually reading 330bhp+ and doing the sprint to 60mph in around 5 seconds. BMW never get their figures right! [/ QUOTE ] I agree this is the case for turbo cars. It's the same for Audi too. Turbo cars are very susceptible to air temp etc... But BMW's N/A cars are usually overstated. Ask anyone who's been on a rolling road day with a BMW owner 231BHP = 220BHP, 256BHP = 240BHP etc... BTW I'm not anti BMW I think they're great motors and I've owned them in the past and probably will again . It's just that they had a reputation for being a bit generous with power outputs. Whereas Audi were the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashleyadam Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I dont think that's the case with the new BMW turbo engines cant find a bad report about them and I am someone who has never really liked BMW but those engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] I dont think that's the case with the new BMW turbo engines cant find a bad report about them and I am someone who has never really liked BMW but those engines. [/ QUOTE ] I agree a 335ci is on my shortlist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] once is for sure, they won't lie...remember, it's got a completly new construction, new gearbox etc...just look at the power/torque graph, 3.0 diesel's max power is available between 4000-4400rpm, and revs up to 5000rpm.. the torque of 500nm between 1500-3000rpm... about the weight..1610 kg for 3.0TDI, and 1630kg for S5..those figures are from the german audi configurator... [/ QUOTE ] As vier_ringe says, the A5/S5 is available on the Audi.de configurator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1MAC Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] I agree this is the case for turbo cars. It's the same for Audi too. Turbo cars are very susceptible to air temp etc... But BMW's N/A cars are usually overstated. Ask anyone who's been on a rolling road day with a BMW owner 231BHP = 220BHP, 256BHP = 240BHP etc... BTW I'm not anti BMW I think they're great motors and I've owned them in the past and probably will again . It's just that they had a reputation for being a bit generous with power outputs. Whereas Audi were the other way round. [/ QUOTE ] I would suggest that Audis (and others as well) are just as susceptible to under performance when it comes to N/A engines. However, the turbo engines are much closer to the money. They may well free up a bit over time but there are some fair shortfalls there in some instances RRI tests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenbend Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I agree this is the case for turbo cars. It's the same for Audi too. Turbo cars are very susceptible to air temp etc... But BMW's N/A cars are usually overstated. Ask anyone who's been on a rolling road day with a BMW owner 231BHP = 220BHP, 256BHP = 240BHP etc... BTW I'm not anti BMW I think they're great motors and I've owned them in the past and probably will again . It's just that they had a reputation for being a bit generous with power outputs. Whereas Audi were the other way round. [/ QUOTE ] I would suggest that Audis (and others as well) are just as susceptible to under performance when it comes to N/A engines. However, the turbo engines are much closer to the money. They may well free up a bit over time but there are some fair shortfalls there in some instances RRI tests [/ QUOTE ] They're all down on power there aren't they? All I know is that my N/A S4 is bang on the money (339HP) at 30k miles that's good enough for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Comparing rolling roads is virtually impossible. AMD's had a reputation for being high. Perhaps RRI's is low Perhaps the corrections used for weather humidity/etc is flawed. You really can't take anything on these as fact....unfortunately. I believe manufacturers figures are allowed quick a big tolerance due to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yep. You can only really rely on rolling road results as a relative measure against other cars tested on the same RR. Going back a bit, I always remember Prodrive saying there was a huge variance in output from standard UK Impreza Turbos that they saw through their shop. They'd always test before and after any upgrade work they did. Standard outputs used to vary from around 200bhp to 235+bhp - Subaru's official figure at the time was 208bhp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1MAC Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Comparing rolling roads is virtually impossible. AMD's had a reputation for being high. Perhaps RRI's is low Perhaps the corrections used for weather humidity/etc is flawed. You really can't take anything on these as fact....unfortunately. I believe manufacturers figures are allowed quick a big tolerance due to this. [/ QUOTE ] I would broadly agree, there does seem to be a fair variation between one and another. As a vaguely related example, some Focus ST owners did a RR recently and the std cars were allegedly coming up with 250-260 bhp (which sounds around 15-25 bhp too high to me). At the same RR, the tuned cars were well down on expected outputs - go figure However, at the same time, looking at the RRI website it does seem to be rather more than 2 men and an industrial unit (at least on the face of it) and the RR is a different design to usual - looks more technical at least. Some of the figures look fairly close but, to pick on a couple of examples, the latest S6 is way beyond manufacturer tolerance and the 3.2 V6 from various iterations always seems to be a fair bit down (and matches evo test on MkV R32). Still, at the end of the day it's not the end of the world and not absolutely central to what people are looking for, just interesting in some respects when looking at claims versus actual real world. 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