Audi A4 1.8 "300hp man!"

[mycologist]

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 lb·ft (294 N·m) at 4000 rpm

230 hp (172 kW) at 5600 rpm with 235 lb·ft (319 N·m) 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"

It makes sense in the context of the two specific motors discussed, and in terms of general theory. Ultimately though it comes down to how much flow you can achieve and the efficiency of the motor. The EVO is the winner for USDM production forced induction in terms of specific power and torque. It comes down to better internals/deck and therefore more potential induction.

"Most specific torque (torque per unit displacement)
The mean effective pressure (MEP) is a useful comparison tool, giving the average cylinder pressure exerted on the piston.

Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - MEP 14.3 bar, 114 N•m (84 ft•lbf)/litre (370 N•m (273 ft•lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 CSL
Petrol (forced-induction) - MEP 34 bar, 271 N•m (200 ft•lbf)/litre (542 N•m (400 ft•lbf)) - 2009 Mitsubishi Evo X MR FQ-400"

List of automotive superlatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CGimpreza]

Dude says:

Intake: 20hp
Intercooler: 20hp
GIAC chip: 40-50hp

the list goes on and on.

Thinks he can whoop me, because mine is "not an STi".



Anyone ever get beat by a modded A4 though, just curious?

After he finished talking I would have said "Cool story bro." And went about my buisness

[Wrinklechops]

After he finished talking I would have said "Cool story bro." And went about my buisness

Nice to get back to the original topic at hand

[voiceofonelk3]

[QUOTE=Militant-Grunt;2477708]

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.

Maybe I am missing something here but I was pretty satisfied with my results. As far as money dropped, the turbocharged was the "cheap" part of the project. The top end and bottom end of the motor were both rebuilt and some minor head work was done. The fuel system was upgraded with larger injectors and high flow fuel pump. Complete exhaust was also done when the turbo was installed. The most expensive part of the project was the transmission. I tried to simply run an upgraded clutch and I trashed first gear about 3 weeks into driving the car. I have somewhere around 8grand in receipts laying around for the car and that doesn’t count tuning the car. I may still have a copy of my last dyno run that I will post if I can find it.

Have you ever driven a FWD car with anywhere near 260whp? It is a blast to be able to roast your tires at will. Now more power is always better as long as it's useable but I dont think I would really gain anything on the street with that much more power. My goal was to make the car a fast daily driver that would outrun alot of cars on the road.

[Militant-Grunt]

[QUOTE=voiceofonelk3;2477956]

Maybe I am missing something here but I was pretty satisfied with my results. As far as money dropped, the turbocharged was the "cheap" part of the project. The top end and bottom end of the motor were both rebuilt and some minor head work was done. The fuel system was upgraded with larger injectors and high flow fuel pump. Complete exhaust was also done when the turbo was installed. The most expensive part of the project was the transmission. I tried to simply run an upgraded clutch and I trashed first gear about 3 weeks into driving the car. I have somewhere around 8grand in receipts laying around for the car and that doesn’t count tuning the car. I may still have a copy of my last dyno run that I will post if I can find it.

Have you ever driven a FWD car with anywhere near 260whp? It is a blast to be able to roast your tires at will. Now more power is always better as long as it's useable but I dont think I would really gain anything on the street with that much more power. My goal was to make the car a fast daily driver that would outrun alot of cars on the road.

Yes I have, I work for an Audi/ VW tuner. Driven everything from twin GT28 700whp S4 2.7t's to eliminator GTi's.

Just a bull**** flag comes up for me, especially now that you're saying you did bottom end work and head work and only made 260 wheel on a 2860.

260whp is really not a lot considering how many in house high performance cars there are straight out of the factory that would easily stomp on that power figure.


YouTube - Volkswagen GTI with GT28RS Turbo PES Tuning (15% fwd drivetrain loss on his 380chp is 323whp..)

This guy has a 28RS (Aka 2860) and somehow he made more power than your car on a 'built motor'.. Doesn't make any sense to me. For the claimed 8 grand you have a setup like mine. Which is a fully built bottom end with forged rods, decked and rehoned surfaces. Forged pistons. Built head, valves, retainers and springs all done, entire head refreshed. That and a massive HTA 3076r .70 A/R. Not to mentioned a much much larger parts list for fueling and fabrication.

lol more conveniently a 28rs racing a bolt on WRX!

YouTube - Turbo VR6 GTI chase car - Bolt on WRX vs GT28RS 1.8T

I dont mean to bust your balls just facts arent adding up over here. A decent 28RS setup wont run more than 4500-5k.

[liljon350]

one of my close friends has a 2008 A4 with a TBE and tune...My 06 wrx has a catback and it is pretty even with me having a slight edge...we race alot and bu1lsh1t about our cars a lot because they are pretty even...our other close friend has a 2004 b6 s4 and from a dig it is pretty even with us too until about 85-90mph, then he walks away

[Wrinklechops]

I love how this thread has kept going

My friend with the B5 2000 S4 came off a Jetta VR6 that he wanted to turbo but ended up saying screw it and got the S4 instead. Probably better in the long run as far as power goes...

But I know the VR6 can be wicked fast. Not a fair race against a WRX I don't think. 6cyl vs 4cyl, both turbo...hmm.... wonder who's gonna win that one...

But anyways, I guess I'll let you two continue to battle this one out. Militant Grunt, what do you have again, a built A4?

[liljon350]

haha i just realized that i said the same thing in the second post on this thread...hhahhaahha

[Sinister]

It makes sense in the context of the two specific motors discussed, and in terms of general theory. Ultimately though it comes down to how much flow you can achieve and the efficiency of the motor. The EVO is the winner for USDM production forced induction in terms of specific power and torque. It comes down to better internals/deck and therefore more potential induction.

"Most specific torque (torque per unit displacement)
The mean effective pressure (MEP) is a useful comparison tool, giving the average cylinder pressure exerted on the piston.

Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - MEP 14.3 bar, 114 N•m (84 ft•lbf)/litre (370 N•m (273 ft•lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 CSL
Petrol (forced-induction) - MEP 34 bar, 271 N•m (200 ft•lbf)/litre (542 N•m (400 ft•lbf)) - 2009 Mitsubishi Evo X MR FQ-400"

List of automotive superlatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I fully agree. There are way too many variations and technologies involved in different engines, and they're constantly improving efficiencies. As far as basic theory goes though, Torque is built with displacement.

As we see all of these new technologies such as direct injection, variable valve control systems, variable geometry forced induction, sequential forced induction, etc... There are going to be engines with different efficiency levels, but no matter what... with the same specific technology between two engines, torque will be built with stroke volume and compression.

[wrx0131]

[QUOTE=Militant-Grunt;2478001]

260whp is really not a lot considering how many in house high performance cars there are straight out of the factory that would easily stomp on that power figure.

Someone correct me if Im wrong but...

An Evo comes with around 230-240whp straight from the factory; an STi with around 250whp; a mustang GT with around 240whp i believe...

How many cars for that price range are just as fast as those cars for the same year...

A g37 puts down about 280whp and weighs like 3500-3700 lbs

A g37 will not "stomp" on either an EVO or an STi.....and not a mustang gt either

If you are talking about porsches and ferraris; then not even a 330whp audi will take a 350hp porsche 997S

[Sinister]

Someone correct me if Im wrong but...

An Evo comes with around 230-240whp straight from the factory; an STi with around 250whp; a mustang GT with around 240whp i believe...

How many cars for that price range are just as fast as those cars for the same year...

A g37 puts down about 280whp and weighs like 3500-3700 lbs

A g37 will not "stomp" on either an EVO or an STi.....and not a mustang gt either

If you are talking about porsches and ferraris; then not even a 330whp audi will take a 350hp porsche 997S

Horsepower/torque are very relative things. Because curves, gear ratios, tires, weight, rotational inertia, aerodynamics, and more all influence speed/acceleration... the horsepower of an engine really truly means nothing unless it's being compared to another vehicle that is very similar.

[voiceofonelk3]

[QUOTE=Militant-Grunt;2478001]

Yes I have, I work for an Audi/ VW tuner. Driven everything from twin GT28 700whp S4 2.7t's to eliminator GTi's.

Just a bull**** flag comes up for me, especially now that you're saying you did bottom end work and head work and only made 260 wheel on a 2860.

260whp is really not a lot considering how many in house high performance cars there are straight out of the factory that would easily stomp on that power figure.


YouTube - Volkswagen GTI with GT28RS Turbo PES Tuning (15% fwd drivetrain loss on his 380chp is 323whp..)

This guy has a 28RS (Aka 2860) and somehow he made more power than your car on a 'built motor'.. Doesn't make any sense to me. For the claimed 8 grand you have a setup like mine. Which is a fully built bottom end with forged rods, decked and rehoned surfaces. Forged pistons. Built head, valves, retainers and springs all done, entire head refreshed. That and a massive HTA 3076r .70 A/R. Not to mentioned a much much larger parts list for fueling and fabrication.

lol more conveniently a 28rs racing a bolt on WRX!

YouTube - Turbo VR6 GTI chase car - Bolt on WRX vs GT28RS 1.8T

I dont mean to bust your balls just facts arent adding up over here. A decent 28RS setup wont run more than 4500-5k.

So basically what you just posted proves absolutely nothing. So what if you found a GTI that made 323whp, that has nothing to do with the fact that I only made 260whp on a conservative tune that was purposely created to be a daily driver. You say you are an Audi tuner and you think that I should have just run stock internals Not a chance, I built the car right when it came to the motor the first time. Ontop of things the 8 grand spend wasn't just on the motor alone as I stated before. The rest of the driveline had to be built to handle the extra power because lets face it, when you double the horsepower of a car you are going to break parts.

Ok, what performance car "out of the box" comes with the 260whp? I cannot think of one in the same category as the gti. The Dodge str4 would be about the closest right?

[Wrinklechops]

Horsepower/torque are very relative things. Because curves, gear ratios, tires, weight, rotational inertia, aerodynamics, and more all influence speed/acceleration... the horsepower of an engine really truly means nothing unless it's being compared to another vehicle that is very similar.

You mean like, an Evo and an STi? Lol they're about as similar as it gets

[Wrinklechops]

[QUOTE=voiceofonelk3;2478356]

So basically what you just posted proves absolutely nothing. So what if you found a GTI that made 323whp, that has nothing to do with the fact that I only made 260whp on a conservative tune that was purposely created to be a daily driver. You say you are an Audi tuner and you think that I should have just run stock internals Not a chance, I built the car right when it came to the motor the first time. Ontop of things the 8 grand spend wasn't just on the motor alone as I stated before. The rest of the driveline had to be built to handle the extra power because lets face it, when you double the horsepower of a car you are going to break parts.

Ok, what performance car "out of the box" comes with the 260whp? I cannot think of one in the same category as the gti. The Dodge str4 would be about the closest right?

+1 and someone jump in here and stop me but... the A4's tranny and drivetrain would start to crumble once you started pushing past 260whp, no?

Hell, I know our WRX's can't take much more than close to 300whp or just over before they start to have issues, right?

Kevin, you put down 294whp, didn't you say if you put much more down you'd have to be looking at a 6spd tranny?

[voiceofonelk3]

The car didn't handle the 260hp that it made, let alone any more. After first gear decided to grenade itself I had the transmition rebuilt and had a Neuspeed clutch system installed. I was also warned by the guy that did my tranny that I would brake other driveline parts if i wasn't careful and that I shouldn't over abuse the transmition even after it was rebuilt.