[Chris]

Yeah fair play to Vito, Barksey, and Klauster for making the trip over.

[Vito]

It has been great to meet you all guys and all the RS's and the Golf R. Thanks to Chris to organizing it all and also thanks to John from BFT for opening the shop up on his day off.

Got back home safe and sound and got the jet wash out straight away only to be told (after I finished washing it) that I have to drive to Liverpool in a few hours time...  FFS!!

Hopefully I see you all again at the next meeting.Ciao.

[Klauster]

Couldn't agree more nice to meet you all

Barksy and I had a good blast trying to get round the traffic stuck in the a19

[Barksy]

Was great to meet everyone and see some more RS3's and Chris's mates in the Golf R. Need to give mine a good clean tomorrow especially after driving behind Klauster on those open roads. Look forward to seeing all you guys and more at a meet, hopefully somewhere soon, and hopefully a few 100 mile further south. :-)

[Klauster]

I need a remap so I can stay in front of you barksy

[Barksy]

I could of driven those roads all day. Get it mapped.;-)

Edited by Barksy, 17 November 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[P_G]

A pity you couldn't have made it MacD as another '3 that had been on Awesome's dyno would have been intriguing, hope your little 'un is feeling better.

[Cooper]

Good to meet you all today, I'm the one with the Golf R, was a good morning, had a laugh with you lads, and the results were interesting to say the least, especially considering a stock car ran pretty much exactly what it should have as well as mine making very close to APR's quoted figures.

Look forward to possibly meeting you guys again in the future

[Chris]

Welcome along buddy

[Vito]

Welcome to the club Cooper mate, all you need now is a RS3, not that the R looked bad, but as a matter of fact quite the opposite...

 

Good to meet you all today, I'm the one with the Golf R, was a good morning, had a laugh with you lads, and the results were interesting to say the least, especially considering a stock car ran pretty much exactly what it should have as well as mine making very close to APR's quoted figures.

Look forward to possibly meeting you guys again in the future

Edited by Vito, 18 November 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[Vito]

Well done Barksy for getting the best figures on the RR ,   , but don't think its going to be that easy next time, I can see few intercoolers on the way..!!

 

Was great to meet everyone and see some more RS3's and Chris's mates in the Golf R. Need to give mine a good clean tomorrow especially after driving behind Klauster on those open roads. Look forward to seeing all you guys and more at a meet, hopefully somewhere soon, and hopefully a few 100 mile further south. :-)

[MacD]

A pity you couldn't have made it MacD as another '3 that had been on Awesome's dyno would have been intriguing, hope your little 'un is feeling better.

 

Cheers,

 

he's fine now, Its me and the mrs that spent yesterday feeling ill....    

 

Does anyone have a list of cars and BHP then?

[Glenn]

Sorry i couldnt make it down guys as it sounded like you had a great time..!

 

Not had a day off since 27th October and the threat of a divorce or living in a tent for a month was too great also..

 

Great figures by all of these RS3 but one thing that I'm noticing is massive torque but little or no gain in bhp..?

 

I would rather see 395/395 than a headline figure of high torque on std internals and turbo....

:-/

My experience with turbo charged cars is equall bhp to torque, what bar of pressure are the APR maps running..?

 

Glenn

[Chris]

My car ran 386bhp and 462ftlb's. That's at stage 2

And as mentioned the lack of BHP is a concern but also the way the torque just falls away after the initial thump. I would much prefer slightly less torque but a much flatter curve.

Edited by Chris, 18 November 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Barksy]

I'm running v2.1 with Forge IC, Pipercross Induction and Scorpion Bypass and ran 396bhp and 447ftlb

[Chris]

^^ that run perfectly demonstrates the intercooler working as it should, the 2 other Stage 1 cars that ran were within 5bhp of one another in the 360's so the gains are there with the cooler.

[Uncle Fester]

Right lets start a list then, everybody else can copy n paste and add their result, these were my figures:

Vito: 7000 mls - v2.1 - cat bypass - panel filter - 365bhp - 428ftlb

It seems strange that Klausters standard car's bhp was above what Audi quote yet yours is only 25 bhp more which is a long way from what APR are quoting and showed you last week on their own dyno,the figures just  don't add up.

[MacD]

Not just blowing smoke up Awesomes aRS3 but over the years I've found their RR to be on the money every time.

R32's all made oem power figures within 1-2bhp
RS4 made there abouts bhp. (We all know about those figures)
RS3 made 360 stock which again appears to be there abouts what these make stock.

Mapped I initially made 407-8bhp on V1 then three RS3's on V2.1 make within 2-3bhp of each other on separate days at 397.

Anyone considered that the RR used on Sunday isn't as accurate?

The figures appear to be all over the place which brings up the age old RR debate regarding who's is best, conditions, temp, fuel etc.

APR's V2.1 bhp figures released are it appears over estimated by around 10bhp but torque figures are there abouts.

The 0-60 times speak for themselves so I'm not sure that some of the cars can be just 10-15bhp more with the map.
I'll stick to the RR I know in the future and judge each modification on the same RR to give me my figures.

[P_G]

It seems strange that Klausters standard car's bhp was above what Audi quote yet yours is only 25 bhp more which is a long way from what APR are quoting and showed you last week on their own dyno,the figures just  don't add up.

 

If anything from experience Klauster's car should have made more than it did as bypass pipes should marginally add bhp and torque (less restriction) and most stock RS3's I have read of make more than 340 and 330 ft. lbs. standard The worry for me through all of these comments added from people who weren't there is that because we have a set of results from BFT's dyno that it is absolutely spot on power readings wise when. For those that argue Awesome's or anyone elses dyno is exaggerating whose to say there's isn't the one that is spot on and BFT's is conservative? Not criticising BFT at all when I say that.

 

A little story for you; on my B7 RS4 I started doing work on it including how much difference a carbon clean would make in increased power. Car started at 396bhp in a r/r independent to who did the carbon clean work. Went back to the same dyno and car did 410bhp. Port and polish took it up to around 420bhp again on the same dyno. I then had it remapped by the same company that did the carbon clean and again dyno'ed as more power. I sold the car a couple of months later to a person who took it to a reputable tuner who has seemingly had dozens of RS4's on their dyno so it is obviously accurate and whose dyno showed the car was 'only' making 380 bhp. So they decided to take the GruppeM off and put on their own map and guess what, the car now made 440+bhp. So by using another road and map the car had gained 80bhp, let alone the fact it had lost 40bhp in a few weeks.

 

So who was lying? The first tuner and the work / map they did. The independent rolling road I used who had no vested interest but to give me the numbers it got or the third 'reputable' tuner. 

 

It is never as black and white as you would like to make it out to be and if you are not happy with the physical results in the car by a tuner because it doesn't produce identical numbers to what they quote on a number of rolling roads ask them to take the map off and have your money back. That's consumer choice.  

 

Just to add the 396 bhp I quoted for my RS4 before doing remap & carbon work was one figure, at three other roads in the exact same state of tune I had 355bhp, 378 bhp and 392 bhp. I hope that demonstrates the consistently inconsistent nature of rolling roads and the futility of comparing one against another.

Edited by P_G, 18 November 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[MacD]

Indeed!

If your car drives better and you feel it's quicker which mine 100% is then that's what matters.

Why don't a few of you try timing 0-60 times 1/4 mile etc... Those figures don't change depending on location