Login


10102013, 09:08 AM  #243 
Major General
601
Rep 5,300
Posts
Drives: 2016 BMW i8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monarch Beach
iTrader: (1)
Garage List 2013 e92 M3 [4.64]
2011 997.2 Turbo S [4.78] 2015 991 Turbo S [5.00] 2015 Jeep Wrangler ... [0.00] 2013 BMW X5 [0.00] 
^ ^ ^ that HP/TQ curve looks awesome for an AWD Audi ! That thing must launch off the line like a rocket. And is just a beast at all points in the RPM range...don't even need to downshift to get going.
__________________
Daily #1: 2016 i8 Chrystal White w/BMW iBlue / Terra World
Daily #2: 2015 991 Turbo S Track/Airstrip: 2011 997.2 Turbo S Beaterz: 2013 X5 3.5 Sport, 2015 Wrangler Unlimited IG: longboarder949; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT1...eoFBszPIK0gf9w 
Appreciate
0

10102013, 10:16 AM  #244  
Captain
12
Rep 642
Posts 
Quote:
Cant debate points without more information, but what i will say, is look at the giant dip in TQ past 5k rpm. Earlier TQ would be nice, but thats a huge loss.That a PD s/c cant flow well up top for the rpm the cars have 

Appreciate
0

10112013, 01:30 AM  #245  
Second Lieutenant
43
Rep 249
Posts 
Quote:
120ft/lbs over stock at redline is not a "loss". That is patently a "gain". The TVS1740 kit employs the same SC as the Harrop E92 M3 kit, and same integrated intercooler design.
__________________
2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport For sale: 1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes 

Appreciate
0

10112013, 10:32 AM  #246  
Captain
12
Rep 642
Posts 
Quote:
Does it say how much boost the STG3 is using? If its over 9 psi, its also not a good argument considering OEM strength of the S65. As I said before, i prefer not to talk about a completely different motor arguing for the actual supercharger because it doesnt translate well for the S65. Thats unfair to those of you still expecting big things from it. 

Appreciate
0

10112013, 11:08 AM  #247  
Second Lieutenant
43
Rep 249
Posts 
Quote:
Here's another audi 4.2 positive displacement kit with no loss of torque compared to stock: I also read that the audi 4.2 is: 1. over square bore and stroke: 84.5 by 92.8 millimetres 2. compression ratio: 12.5 I understand that this impacts the mechanical efficiency of the engine and indeed creates different torque characteristics to the over square and lower compression s65.
__________________
2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport For sale: 1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes 

Appreciate
0

10112013, 12:06 PM  #248 
Captain
12
Rep 642
Posts 
Im not arguing a loss of Tq compared to stock, that would be ridiculous. Im talking about over the benefits of mating the centri s/c to a high revving motor.
Now bringing in a completely different built motor into the equation couldn't be further from an articulate debate 
Appreciate
0

10122013, 01:07 AM  #252  
Second Lieutenant
43
Rep 249
Posts 
Quote:
The substantial torque degradation you speak off is a characteristic of the audi 4.2 not positive displacement superchargers.
__________________
2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport For sale: 1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes 

Appreciate
0

10122013, 01:20 AM  #253 
Second Lieutenant
43
Rep 249
Posts 
That's awesome.
500hp at the wheels and 400 ft lbs peak torque at 4000rpm. Can't wait.
__________________
2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport For sale: 1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes 
Appreciate
0

10122013, 10:46 PM  #254  
Private First Class
2
Rep 161
Posts 
Quote:
15% drivetrain correction would be about 425rwhp and 340 rwtq at 4K RPM. Nick
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.
Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint 

Appreciate
0

10132013, 12:49 PM  #255  
Lieutenant Colonel
165
Rep 1,948
Posts 
Quote:
I've got a lot of experience with Dynapack and know them and Dynojets extremely well. I've even run 56 same cars on Dynapacks and Dynojets just to see how the dyno's compared. For the most part, Dynapack and Dynojet give nearly identical results. In my tests, we had the results within 25 whp of each other. For crankshaft correction, I typically use 12% drivetrain loss for Dynapack. So just going by the numbers posted above, the translation from whp to chp would be: 500whp = 568chp, and 400wtq = 455ctq. 

Appreciate
0

10132013, 01:22 PM  #256  
Colonel
141
Rep 2,746
Posts 
Quote:


Appreciate
0

10132013, 05:18 PM  #258 
Private First Class
2
Rep 161
Posts 
Ok. I did a bit of researching between Kilowatt, Newton Meter and the numbers Harrop posted in the Stage 1 ad.
Seems Harrop did post the numbers in RWHP instead of crank as I was suspecting. Here's how I determined this:  3000 RPM delivers 460nm which equals 339rwtq. Harrop states 330nm stock, which is 243 rwtq. Most M3 put down round 250rwtq so this adds up  5000 RPM delivers 540nm which equals 398rwtq. Harrop states 340nm stock, which is 250 rwtq. Once again, the stock nm stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwtq.  7000 RPM delivers 373kw which equals 500rwhp. Harrop states 255nm stock, which is 341 rwhp. The stock kw stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwhp. Convert those numbers to crank hp and you'll have: 3000 RPM 400 Crank TQ 5000 RPM 440 Crank TQ 7000 RPM 614 Crank HP What I don't understand. Is why they stated in the ad that the powertrain correction hadn't been corrected. I guess what they meant by saying that is that they haven't included the CHP numbers. Either way like another guy said, a dynograph would have cleared up the confusion. After finally confirming the numbers. This kit looks pretty damn good. If they come out with a Stage 2 kit by the end of this year or early next year, that will be the kit I jump on. Nick
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.
Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint 
Appreciate
0

10132013, 08:56 PM  #259  
Lieutenant Colonel
165
Rep 1,948
Posts 
Quote:
So let's see if I can reverse all of this and get closer to the real numbers. 3000 RPM: 460nm = 339wtq, 194whp = 145kW 5000 RPM: 540nm = 398wtq, 379whp = 283kW 7000 RPM: 509nm = 375wtq, 500whp = 373kW Next let's convert STD correction to SAE correction with a 3% scalar: 3000 RPM: 447nm = 329wtq, 188whp = 141kW 5000 RPM: 524nm = 386wtq, 368whp = 275kW 7000 RPM: 494nm = 364wtq, 485whp = 362kW Last let's convert STD correction to Crank TQ and HP using 12% correction factor: 3000 RPM: 523nm = 386ctq, 220chp = 164kW 5000 RPM: 614nm = 453ctq, 431chp = 321kW 7000 RPM: 578nm = 426ctq, 568chp = 424kW I hope this helps. 

Appreciate
0

10132013, 09:53 PM  #260  
Private First Class
2
Rep 161
Posts 
Quote:
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.
Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint 

Appreciate
0

10132013, 10:46 PM  #261  
Captain
12
Rep 642
Posts 
Quote:


Appreciate
0

10142013, 12:21 AM  #262  
Lieutenant Colonel
165
Rep 1,948
Posts 
Quote:
Converting to CHP doesn't require any atmospheric data because you're only factoring drivetrain loss. 

Appreciate
0

10142013, 09:17 AM  #263  
Captain
12
Rep 642
Posts 
Quote:
Maybe we should just pester them to get the graph up. I have a suspicion they didn't do that, because of higher RPM power, as 8000 rpm figures are not listed as well.. 

Appreciate
0

10142013, 10:58 PM  #264 
Lieutenant Colonel
165
Rep 1,948
Posts 
Yes, I realize nobody asked for STD to SAE correction. But even my approximation will be within ~24 whp of accuracy. I'm sure to many that will be very helpful since SAE correction is the industry standard.

Appreciate
0

Post Reply 
Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 

