Archive for AudiSRS.com The place for Performance Audi
 


       AudiSRS.com Forum Index -> Tuning and Modifications
Doug

It must be 640+ with that much meth and rs6 hybrids?
supersi

Doug wrote:
It must be 640+ with that much meth and rs6 hybrids?


Lol Well doug i know you know what car made as you was told at vmax. power is a little disappointing on this but was never going to make that power you quote, but for me this was not as disappointing as your c6 at vmax on your hybrids but that's  tuning for you.

580hp I am not sure on tourque but as you know please do post it.

car is still work in progress so maybe a little more to come
Doug

Why are you disspaointed in our car Simon? We are not dissapointed - 10% more power needed than a saloon that is 770ps so does 197 Vs 196 in 1.6 miles - that is pretty impressive.
Doug

steves sum of his parts should do 600 and with better manifolds, lower compression and intercoolers that grizz why is 630 not a good number to aim for?
supersi

Doug wrote:
Why are you disspaointed in our car Simon? We are not dissapointed - 10% more power needed than a saloon that is 770ps so does 197 Vs 196 in 1.6 miles - that is pretty impressive.
Well its only 1 mph more than nigals avant last year on just a pipe and tune.
Doug

in a headwind? The S4s were slower and RS4 were all slower. You should go to a top speed avent and see how much wind affects it. NIgel has gone up against this car in the same condiions and been easily beaten.
aemkej

We had planned for 550 hp back when we laid out that setup. Now that Steve's even got a few more mods we are not a 100% contented, either. We are sure it's due to the 2.4 heads with RS4 cams, which come in restrictive. OEM RS4 heads would have made more power.

Looking to get that sorted in the near future so do not even get used to the current figures
aemkej

Doug wrote:
in a headwind? The S4s were slower and RS4 were all slower. You should go to a top speed avent and see how much wind affects it. NIgel has gone up against this car in the same condiions and been easily beaten.


Seriously... Who cares about topspeed? Acceleration rocks  
MarkB

aemkej wrote:
Doug wrote:
in a headwind? The S4s were slower and RS4 were all slower. You should go to a top speed avent and see how much wind affects it. NIgel has gone up against this car in the same condiions and been easily beaten.


Seriously... Who cares about topspeed? Acceleration rocks  


Top speed in the defined distance is ALL about acceleration
supersi

Thought it was a side wind.....  But if you happy that's good
Mihnea

aemkej wrote:
Doug wrote:
in a headwind? The S4s were slower and RS4 were all slower. You should go to a top speed avent and see how much wind affects it. NIgel has gone up against this car in the same condiions and been easily beaten.


Seriously... Who cares about topspeed? Acceleration rocks  


I beat Nigel in my C6 by approximately an avenue's length from a rolling start last winter, so yes, acceleration rocks.
Mihnea

supersi wrote:
Thought it was a side wind.....  But if you happy that's good


Nigel ran vmax when it was approximately 5 degrees outside if memory serves, we ran in 17 degrees, by the way, where was your car at vmax?
Mikse

aemkej wrote:
We are sure it's due to the 2.4 heads with RS4 cams, which come in restrictive. OEM RS4 heads would have made more power.

Have I missed something because I thought 2.4 heads flow better than RS4 as shown in this grapf:
http://www.mrctuning.com/images/s...ducts/heads/flow_results_copy.jpg
supersi

By the way mind your own business.
Mihnea

supersi wrote:
By the way mind your own business.


I am Si, that's exactly what I am doing, and I do not appreciate your comments, just because we used our hybrids instead of your ones that were only available 2 weeks after we had finished everything with our stage 3 C6 RS6.
s4_driver

I was thinking the same that the 2,4 are better for maximum performance as the rs4 are better for lower rpms?
supersi

Mihnea wrote:
supersi wrote:
By the way mind your own business.


I am Si, that's exactly what I am doing, and I do not appreciate your comments, just because we used our hybrids instead of your ones that were only available 2 weeks after we had finished everything with our stage 3 C6 RS6.


I think your find ours was finished a long time before yours as you was asking for specs !
Doug

What power did that car do?
supersi

My Feelings are same as yours on comments after all it was you guys that commented first knowing the results, is this all because viper tuned this and my car ? Great job he did to thanks
supersi

Doug wrote:
What power did that car do?



Not sure but Grizz was wanting to fit and try and you was asked to map but mrc didnt want to map that did you.
Doug

supersi wrote:
My Feelings are same as yours on comments after all it was you guys that commented first knowing the results, is this all because viper tuned this and my car ? Great job he did to thanks


It was only becasue when steve asked me to put a spec together for RS6 turbos he said he wanted upto 600.
Doug

supersi wrote:
Doug wrote:
What power did that car do?



Not sure but Grizz was wanting to fit and try and you was asked to map but mrc didnt want to map that did you.


We do not map for any other company unless they are a dealer - that is my business policy - that is what he was told - that is what I tell all the other tuning companies.
MarkB

This thread has been split out of dogmatic's build thread which can be found ... http://audisrs.com/about22881
aemkej

Whoah whoah whoah... Guys, we know why the car did not perform as we had hoped. Just because we denominated these turbos LO600 it does not imply they will make 600 in EVERY car. They are well capable of making 600, but the accompanying mods oughtta be right. Dogmatic will not be disappointed once he's taken his car for a spin. And we know what to do if he does want to breach the 600hp border.
Ghost

MarkB wrote:
This thread has been split out of dogmatic's build thread which can be found ... http://audisrs.com/about22881


Just wondering would there be a thread left if we removed the bitchy comments. Is it that time of the month guys?  
ruxy

pistols at dawn to sort this out me thinks
RS666

we need need to have a tuner vs tuner shoot out event in this country. Like the Tuner GP event at the Hockenheim! separate the men from the boys  
Rasss-4

RS666 wrote:
we need need to have a tuner vs tuner shoot out event in this country. Like the Tuner GP event at the Hockenheim! separate the men from the boys  



Now that would be interesting!
davs4

aemkej wrote:
We had planned for 550 hp back when we laid out that setup. Now that Steve's even got a few more mods we are not a 100% contented, either. We are sure it's due to the 2.4 heads with RS4 cams, which come in restrictive. OEM RS4 heads would have made more power.

Looking to get that sorted in the near future so do not even get used to the current figures


This is interesting, why do you rate the RS4 heads more ? I swapped mine due to better gains were meant to be had  
confusionhunter

Having examines both heads, the NA heads clearly have much bigger ports and Ive also seen results showing NA heads flow more than RS4 heads so when I read that comment I thought:   'Eh?'

I'd appreciate any elaboration too!
supersi

port size is one thing port design is another,  why is unit20 LO600 car making more on std rs4 heads and std manis, but does have loba cams plus steves car is using meth, i was talking with jimbo and he also said when he went from rs4 to 2.4 he made no more power, until ported then could run more boost, also steve only changed to 2.4 because of cracked rs4 heads not more power as such, mattyb also told dogmatic he feels his 2.4 heads was holding his car back until ported.
supersi

EDIT mattyb also told dogmatic he feels his 2.4 heads was holding his car back unless ported, i think info from MRC
sac

so you reckon standard rs4 heads are better for performance than standard 2.4 heads?
makes sence as rs4 head ports are designed a certain way for a reason
supersi

sac wrote:
so you reckon standard rs4 heads are better for performance than standard 2.4 heads?
makes sence as rs4 head ports are designed a certain way for a reason


I think theres a reason why Audi used cosworth to design the rs4 heads and theres reason why the shape size and all aspects was chosen in there design for a forced induction application, but of course you must reach a point in terms of power where there the rs4 oem ports become restrictive.
supersi

UNIT20'S  LO600 TURBOS ,LOBA CAMS, OEM MANIS,WAGNER IC'S, RS4 HEADS, 3' DP'S, LOBA PRESSURE PIPES 27 psi 1.84 bar


DOGMATIC'S LO600 TURBOS, OTC MANIS, LOBA IC'S, 2.4 HEADS, 3"DP'S,LOBA PRESSURE PIPES, W/M, STD CAMS 26psi 1.8bar



LO600 TURBOS , LOBA MANIS, LOBA RS4 ST1 HEADS, LOBA IC'S, LOBA 3"DP'S, LOBA PRESSURE PIPES, 2.8 NA  INTAKE CAMS, ONLY LOW BOOST 21.5 psi 1.48 bar
aemkej

Hi guys. I would like to highlight a few differences between the 2.4 and RS4 heads. Maybe that's interesting to other members, too.

We want to focus on the intake ports in particular.

We took a few pictures to help understand what I mean



It is clear that the RS4 intake port's inlet is significantly larger than the 2.4 intake port - 2mm wider, 2mm taller

So if one fits the RS4 intake manifold to the 2.4 heads without machining the intake ports he will be having the airflow hit a 2mm circular (!!!) edge - this is in fact affecting the entire airflow adversely, as it generates swirls and a certain backpressure








The inner surfaces differ a lot, too. Whereas the 2.4 intake ports' surface is very craggy and shows many casting flaws, the RS4 intake ports' are a lot cleaner with no casting flaws





Please observe the 2.4 valve seat marked in red. You will see that, in contrast to the RS4 valve seat, the changeover from port into valve seat again shows an edge




The RS4 ports are so-called tumble ports. That means they are designed to achieve a more efficient mixing of air and fuel. Thus, a better combustion and throttle response are achieved.
The 2.4 heads feature "power ports" that are designed to force as much air into the combustion chamber as possible


[/b]


The verdict:
If OEM 2.4 is compared to OEM RS4, the smaller intake ports of the 2.4 come in very obstructive. BUT if both heads were to be ported the 2.4 is the better basis, as the ports can generally be bigger.

OEM: RS4
Machined: 2.4



s4_driver

I often see diagramms where 600 or 700 turbos do not reach the power what the turbo says.

What other things need to be done to get 600hp or 700hp with the turbos which are named therefore?
supersi

s4_driver wrote:
I often see diagramms where 600 or 700 turbos do not reach the power what the turbo says.

What other things need to be done to get 600hp or 700hp with the turbos which are named therefore?



its simple really all parts need to be in place, example .. if unit20 was to change the oem manis in favour of LOBA or MRC type and maybe our st1 CNC heads also porting of inlet mani, im confident it would crack 600, all parts need to be in place to make the number denominated on the turbo.



the above pics to me show that the airflow graph posted wasn't tested with RS4 OEM inlet mani in place. there is a mismatch of oem 2.4 N/A inlet port and rs4 inlet mani runner causing said turbulence at port head and back pressure in inlet manifold.
confusionhunter

Thanks for you elaboration  aemkej
, but your pics are inconsistent with my findings. My NA heads are from the BDV engine code and have larger port sizes than the RS4. Also the Exhaust ports on the BDV are significantly larger than RS4, son unless you have STandard manifold the BDV head will be best. It seems cosworth port matched to the standard exhuast manifold which is why the Exhuast port is SMALLER on the RS4 head than even the S4 head. I had the S4, RS4 and the BDV heads flow tested, and the BDV was the clear winner. I too have pictures of the measurements I took so I'll go and dig them out.

Really want to get to the bottom of this as clearly your pics indicate a smaller port.  Maybe Audi had small port NA and Big port NA heads?
confusionhunter

just had a quick look and my BDV port sizes are approx 56mm by 27.5mm from my pictures but I didnt have the micromemter on it. I have my heads off at the moment so can measure them and take pics.
They are essentially the same as the RS4 but there is is 'less' inside the ports too....
Mikse

For comparison hereīs port size of 2.8 head (US)
supersi

supersi wrote:
Mihnea wrote:
supersi wrote:
By the way mind your own business.


I am Si, that's exactly what I am doing, and I do not appreciate your comments, just because we used our hybrids instead of your ones that were only available 2 weeks after we had finished everything with our stage 3 C6 RS6.


I think your find ours was finished a long time before yours as you was asking for specs !


just found this : http://audisrs.com/about15215.html

"The development of upgraded turbochargers for the RS6 5.0 V10 is already completed"
Regards,
Darius

. Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:16 pm
Mihnea

supersi wrote:
supersi wrote:
Mihnea wrote:
supersi wrote:
By the way mind your own business.


I am Si, that's exactly what I am doing, and I do not appreciate your comments, just because we used our hybrids instead of your ones that were only available 2 weeks after we had finished everything with our stage 3 C6 RS6.


I think your find ours was finished a long time before yours as you was asking for specs !


just found this : http://audisrs.com/about15215.html

"The development of upgraded turbochargers for the RS6 5.0 V10 is already completed"
Regards,
Darius

. Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:16 pm


Si, I don't want a war with you guys on this one. You think whatever you want, but I for one have never seen a single dyno plot of a C6 RS6 running Loba turbochargers, and emailing OUR customers behind our back to offer them a "great deal" if they run your turbos as part of our MRC800 package isn't really on either. We could do the same but we don't and won't.
supersi

im free to offer a deal to anyone,  i hear we make our turbos in "Poland" from YOUR customers, the reason there cheaper, thats not really on is it .

hence the made and designed in germany on all listings

And to confirm to you they are made and designed and even built in germany.
Mihnea

You like having the last word on everything so I'll leave you to have the last word Si.
supersi

ok
aemkej

Mikse wrote:
For comparison hereīs port size of 2.8 head (US)


Those heads look ported - are they?
But the difference is just very, very little to the 2.4s don't you agree?
Mikse

Agree they do look they have been ported. Found that picture from this forum (or AZ?) so Itīs not mine and donīt know how much its been ported. Just wanted to post it for a comparison.

As for been almost equal to 2.4 heads, yes and no. Hereīs my 2.4 ARJ heads and they had not so little difference between ports. Smallest was 2.8 size and the largest was RS4 size.?? We ported my heads and RS4 intake manifold so they match perfectly.

Maybe the difference between ports have something to do with N/A intake manifold design so each head flow same amout of air, smallest been next to TB and the largest been furthest..??


Smallest 2.4
supersi

after investigation by dogmatic...


heres a picture of a one of his 2.4 intake ports and a oem rs4 intake mani gasket

quite a mismatch of port sizes

shows his 2.4 intakes ports are smaller then rs4 oem, at intake flange


confusionhunter

My head:



My NA heads have ports LARGER than RS4 ( albeit not by much).
Again the exhuast ports are much bigger than RS4 too. Sorry looks like you might not have the right heads for the biggest ports.
This is a scrap head incase you are wondering why its so manky!
The white lines at the top is the knackered metal gasket not the head the only exposed parts of the head you can see are the two 'humps' at the bottom.

Like I mentioned before it looks like there may be 2 types of 2.4 heads.
supersi

confusionhunter wrote:
My head:

Like I mentioned before it looks like there may be 2 types of 2.4 heads.


yes and looks as if dogmatic has the small port type 2.4 fitted ,interesting info here in link below



http://audisrs.com/about7296.html...p;highlight=2+4+heads&start=0




and a quote from the thead above .......JP (JNL racing)



First of the small port S4 heads are pretty much the same on the intake side as the 1.8t small port flow figures are close although not identical. The exhaust is extremely restrictive and representative of flow figures made on later 1.8t small port heads which utilize the EGR setup. A set of these well ported on paper will support 600hp. The mitigating issue being the intake manifold where 1 bank of runners flows 10% less than the other bank. Without digging up my records I cant tell you which one but I remember the lower flowing bank coinciding with the side where the cam wears out.




Next the large port 2.4 heads, these are the same port entry size as a large port 1.8t head but a different port work up to them in respect to angles into the back of the valve and the port divisions. this actually means in standard form unported they flow the same as the average ported large port 1.8t head or at least the widely circulated figures shown in the image posted earlier by INA.
The fun bit is these figures have been achieved from factory by significantly increasing port velocity in the design. Great for naturally aspirated use crap for HIGH boost turbo use, until you port them that is. Clean up the ports and you compound the problem not really improving flow much more than a couple of % but making airspeed much worse. Properly ported and a complete redesign of the transitions however will achieve identical flow as you started with + a couple of percent again but at a much more stable airspeed for high boost application.
The exhaust on these are slightly less restrictive than that of the S4 heads but not much in it in the grant scheme of things especially once you start removing material through porting. Where flow figures on the exhaust side can be made identical between the S4 and 2.4 heads with the same amount of work thrown at them.
confusionhunter

Hmm not sure on all that but in simple terms I had the S4, RS4 and my NA heads flow tested and the NA heads clearly flowed the most, thats what I fitted, worked well for me.
Mikse

confusionhunter wrote:
Hmm not sure on all that but in simple terms I had the S4, RS4 and my NA heads flow tested and the NA heads clearly flowed the most, thats what I fitted, worked well for me.

It would be great if you had the flow results posted up!
confusionhunter

Im afraid I dont think I can as thats the intelllectual property of someone else! Plus it was a good few years ago now not sure I even still have the paperwork.
       AudiSRS.com Forum Index -> Tuning and Modifications
Page 1 of 1