Audi A4 1.8 "300hp man!" - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 136

This is a discussion on Audi A4 1.8 "300hp man!" within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by Wrinklechops I agree. Apples and oranges, kinda. A JDM 2.0 for us might be a different story. ...

  1. #61
    Registered User wrx0131's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Yonkers, NY
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    I agree. Apples and oranges, kinda. A JDM 2.0 for us might be a different story. But when it comes to built motors, I can never find a strong 2.0 block...they're all 2.5... which leads me to believe a built 2.5 block would be stronger than the Evo's 2.0 block. I've seen many many Evo guys at the track destroy their stock internals pretty quick once they get up there on the power chart....
    yea, but the evos have forged pistons....dont they?
    Bugeye Mafia #213
    Kevin
    2002 Midnight Black Pearl WRX (Traded In!)

    2012 Ice Silver Metallic STi Sedan

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #62
    Wrinklechops
    Quote Originally Posted by wrx0131 View Post
    yea, but the evos have forged pistons....dont they?
    Do they? We need an Evo buff to step in here.... but like I said, I actually just met yet another guy the other day who told me how he blew his stock internals on his 2003 Evo quick once he was pushing 400hp... even had some internals that were cracked and destroyed sitting on the parts counter for show and tell

  4. #63
    Wrinklechops
    Quote Originally Posted by wrx0131 View Post
    yea, but the evos have forged pistons....dont they?
    Evo's have different compression ratios than we do, that's where you'll see bigger differences.

    Also, the 2.5 will put out mad torque over the Evo's 2.0 any day of the week. That's a double edged sword though, because our 2.5 will in turn tear our transmissions up much quicker than even a WRX's 2.0, much less an Evo's 2.0.

    So I stand corrected maybe...displacement = torque. At the end of the day, which do you want, more torque or more horsepower?

  5. #64
    UnBanned Sinister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Denver Metro Area
    Posts
    17,641
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    At the end of the day, which do you want, more torque or more horsepower?
    More B!tches
    Kevin
    Moderator
    Sinister's Blowoff Valve FAQ
    WRX Gas Mileage FAQ
    Sinister's Progress Thread - 430whp 429wtq - Sold
    Firearms Enthusiasts Thread

    The Sheriff's Star at the bottom left corner rates a user's reputation.
    If you found a user's post to be helpful or quite the opposite, please make it known to them by clicking the Star!

  6. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    I wouldn't say displacement has NOTHING to do with it. Seriously, nothing? A 2.5 won't walk all over a 2.0, 1.8, never? A twin turbo 2.7 won't run circles around a 2.5 or 2.0 ever? Hmm.

    Evo's use different compression than we do, besides being non-boxer configurations. An equally modded Evo and STi are about even, I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There's a reason many 2.0 Evo's get 2.3 AMS blocks....stroker kits, bored out, etc etc
    Yes naturally, but not as much as you're making it out to be.

  7. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    18
    [QUOTE=voiceofonelk3;2477541]
    Quote Originally Posted by Militant-Grunt View Post
    You used a GT28 eliminator which is a joke. Not even a true Garrett but a hybrid designed to fit in a KKK exhaust housing. Not to mention that a FWD platform to begin with is horrible.

    Had you used a true GT2871r the results would've been much closer to 350whp, unfortunately for that kind of output you need forged rods.

    Umm, what "money" did you put to achieve a measly 260whp? Thats a bolt on turbo needing nothing more than bigger injectors, maf and tune. (And judging from your results you used one ****ty tune, as there are people who made 260whp on a STOCK TURBO on a FWD 06B transverse 1.8t platform!) (Yes, theres a big difference between transverse and longitudinal 1.8t's.)

    Yeah whatever, I used a true garret GT2860rs. And what makes you think I would use the stock exhaust manifold? I will admit that I could have perfected my tune for peek performance but the car was my daily driver at the time. I ran the setup on premium pump gas. I do not see why everyone thinks 260whp is "measly"? Do you guys know what these dyno at stock? This is nearly a 100% increase in horsepower over stock.
    Certainly doesn't sound like it, unless you ran super low boost everyone would say there's something wrong with your car. 260whp is puny. Thats not even enjoyable. (lol an E46 M3 can take you out with that kind of power) Thats about 60whp shy of what that turbo is supposed to put out. (On pump.)

    You're just saying that you dropped big money when it doesn't seem like you did at all. 260whp just sounds like a half assed setup to me.

  8. #67
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    47,051
    I Support ClubWRX
    260whp in my WRX would seem like a lot to me.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  9. #68
    Registered User wrx0131's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Yonkers, NY
    Posts
    1,385
    [QUOTE=Militant-Grunt;2477708]
    Quote Originally Posted by voiceofonelk3 View Post

    Certainly doesn't sound like it, unless you ran super low boost everyone would say there's something wrong with your car. 260whp is puny. Thats not even enjoyable. (lol an E46 M3 can take you out with that kind of power) Thats about 60whp shy of what that turbo is supposed to put out. (On pump.)

    You're just saying that you dropped big money when it doesn't seem like you did at all. 260whp just sounds like a half assed setup to me.
    260whp on an A4 is alot of whp

    That is faster than like 85-90% of cars on the street.
    Bugeye Mafia #213
    Kevin
    2002 Midnight Black Pearl WRX (Traded In!)

    2012 Ice Silver Metallic STi Sedan

  10. #69
    Wrinklechops
    [QUOTE=wrx0131;2477770]
    Quote Originally Posted by Militant-Grunt View Post

    260whp on an A4 is alot of whp

    That is faster than like 85-90% of cars on the street.
    Si, but Kevin/Sinister where you at? You put down what, 294whp on pump gas? Hmm..... and if I had a VF39 setup on my 2.0 (he has the 2.5), with a Protune I could probably put down similar numbers, or at LEAST 260whp. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  11. #70
    Registered User wrx0131's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Yonkers, NY
    Posts
    1,385
    [QUOTE=Wrinklechops;2477779]
    Quote Originally Posted by wrx0131 View Post

    Si, but Kevin/Sinister where you at? You put down what, 294whp on pump gas? Hmm..... and if I had a VF39 setup on my 2.0 (he has the 2.5), with a Protune I could probably put down similar numbers, or at LEAST 260whp. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    anywhere from 250whp to maybe 300whp
    Bugeye Mafia #213
    Kevin
    2002 Midnight Black Pearl WRX (Traded In!)

    2012 Ice Silver Metallic STi Sedan

  12. #71
    Wrinklechops
    [QUOTE=wrx0131;2477797]
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post

    anywhere from 250whp to maybe 300whp

    On E85, a local EJ20 guy here I know put down 330whp and 380wtq on a Evo3 16G like yours

  13. #72
    Wrinklechops
    Dear gosh, anyone else noticing the mad quote mess-ups?

  14. #73
    UnBanned Sinister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Denver Metro Area
    Posts
    17,641
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    Si, but Kevin/Sinister where you at? You put down what, 294whp on pump gas? Hmm..... and if I had a VF39 setup on my 2.0 (he has the 2.5), with a Protune I could probably put down similar numbers, or at LEAST 260whp. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    I'm here...

    I know you know this... but you'll put down similar, if not almost identical numbers. Power wise the 2.0 is very similar to the 2.5, but there's a large torque difference between the EJ205, and EJ255/EJ257.


    It's simple... Horsepower is generated through torque at RPMs... torque is generated by a larger stroke volume.

    Since the 2.0L with the same amount of boost will always have a lower stroke volume.. then they'll never be able to produce a larger amount of torque with the same modifications.

    A GREAT example of this is the 8.3L v10 viper engine, vs the 5.0L v10 M5 engine. Both produce 500 horsepower, but the torque on the viper's engine is approximately 600tq and the M5's engine is approximately 385tq.

    I understand that they are very different engine technologies, but with identical engine technologies, a large volume engine will always produce more torque.

    Now to go back to my original statement that power is produced by torque at RPM... well since the M5 has very little torque... it must get it's horsepower at a high rpm, correct?? Correct. 7750rpm is where the peak horsepower on an M5 is achieved. The viper's peak is right above 5000rpm because it produces larger amounts of torque.

    Now the exact equation of horsepower is: (Torque x Engine Speed) / 5252 = Horsepower

    If you want to know where 5252 comes from I can explain it.. but it is slightly complex, and easily found with google.

    The point of me posting the equation is to show you that Torque x Engine speed is where we get the power... the more engine speed at a set torque, then the more power you can achieve.

    Now obviously torque isn't a set number.. where does that come into play?

    Torque = Force X Radius.

    The crankshafts are the same radius on the 2.0L and 2.5L engines.. correct? correct... so that means that to establish more torque, you need more stroke volume because it'll create a higher force. In addition, compression creates more force.. but the 2.0L and 2.5L are the same compression. So where does the equivalent power come from on the 2.0L and the 2.5L engines?

    The 2.0L engine is at the top... with the 2.5L engine directly below:

    227 hp (169 kW) at 6000 rpm with 217 lbft (294 Nm) at 4000 rpm

    230 hp (172 kW) at 5600 rpm with 235 lbft (319 Nm) at 3600 rpm

    Obviously power is achieved lower, and torque is achieved lower because a larger volume in the cylinder, but the horsepower is still achieved on the 2.0L because it's found 400rpm later. Again back to horsepower = torque x engine speed / 5252. So even with the slightly lower torque, the engine speed makes up the horsepower with a higher powerband.


    Does this make sense? Or am I talking in "Jibba Jabba"
    Kevin
    Moderator
    Sinister's Blowoff Valve FAQ
    WRX Gas Mileage FAQ
    Sinister's Progress Thread - 430whp 429wtq - Sold
    Firearms Enthusiasts Thread

    The Sheriff's Star at the bottom left corner rates a user's reputation.
    If you found a user's post to be helpful or quite the opposite, please make it known to them by clicking the Star!

  15. #74
    Wrinklechops
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister View Post
    I'm here...

    I know you know this... but you'll put down similar, if not almost identical numbers. Power wise the 2.0 is very similar to the 2.5, but there's a large torque difference between the EJ205, and EJ255/EJ257.


    It's simple... Horsepower is generated through torque at RPMs... torque is generated by a larger stroke volume.

    Since the 2.0L with the same amount of boost will always have a lower stroke volume.. then they'll never be able to produce a larger amount of torque with the same modifications.

    A GREAT example of this is the 8.3L v10 viper engine, vs the 5.0L v10 M5 engine. Both produce 500 horsepower, but the torque on the viper's engine is approximately 600tq and the M5's engine is approximately 385tq.

    I understand that they are very different engine technologies, but with identical engine technologies, a large volume engine will always produce more torque.

    Now to go back to my original statement that power is produced by torque at RPM... well since the M5 has very little torque... it must get it's horsepower at a high rpm, correct?? Correct. 7750rpm is where the peak horsepower on an M5 is achieved. The viper's peak is right above 5000rpm because it produces larger amounts of torque.

    Now the exact equation of horsepower is: (Torque x Engine Speed) / 5252 = Horsepower

    If you want to know where 5252 comes from I can explain it.. but it is slightly complex, and easily found with google.

    The point of me posting the equation is to show you that Torque x Engine speed is where we get the power... the more engine speed at a set torque, then the more power you can achieve.

    Now obviously torque isn't a set number.. where does that come into play?

    Torque = Force X Radius.

    The crankshafts are the same radius on the 2.0L and 2.5L engines.. correct? correct... so that means that to establish more torque, you need more stroke volume because it'll create a higher force. In addition, compression creates more force.. but the 2.0L and 2.5L are the same compression. So where does the equivalent power come from on the 2.0L and the 2.5L engines?

    The 2.0L engine is at the top... with the 2.5L engine directly below:

    227 hp (169 kW) at 6000 rpm with 217 lbft (294 Nm) at 4000 rpm

    230 hp (172 kW) at 5600 rpm with 235 lbft (319 Nm) at 3600 rpm

    Obviously power is achieved lower, and torque is achieved lower because a larger volume in the cylinder, but the horsepower is still achieved on the 2.0L because it's found 400rpm later. Again back to horsepower = torque x engine speed / 5252. So even with the slightly lower torque, the engine speed makes up the horsepower with a higher powerband.


    Does this make sense? Or am I talking in "Jibba Jabba"
    Did you type that all on your iPhone? Your fingers must be tired.

  16. #75
    UnBanned Sinister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Denver Metro Area
    Posts
    17,641
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    Did you type that all on your iPhone? Your fingers must be tired.
    yup
    Kevin
    Moderator
    Sinister's Blowoff Valve FAQ
    WRX Gas Mileage FAQ
    Sinister's Progress Thread - 430whp 429wtq - Sold
    Firearms Enthusiasts Thread

    The Sheriff's Star at the bottom left corner rates a user's reputation.
    If you found a user's post to be helpful or quite the opposite, please make it known to them by clicking the Star!

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •