RS2 GT3071R dyno results

**fasterthenrs2** · 27 December 2007, 18:11

I think it is 82 ar, 7A cams made big difrence

**A80Avant** · 27 December 2007, 18:25

spot on!

**S4turbo** · 27 December 2007, 23:47

PapVas, i have collected a number of different dyno graphs, and your graph is very good down low, with a quick spoolup, until approx 5500 rpm. Here your numbers drop below typical other engines with similar setup, and you loose quite a bit of torque and HP up on top. I do not have much other data on with rs2 cams. Did you port the head?

Regards, Johan

**S4turbo** · 27 December 2007, 23:54

On the surging issue, I recall a similar problem with a 2871 was cured by retiming one of the cams, can't recall the details now. A quick search on 2871 and Kalsket might reveal something.

J

**A80Avant** · 28 December 2007, 06:48

head was not ported and cams are original ADU.Im looking for ways to cure that without resulting into high EGT's and all.The only car i know that produced a nice figure with lots of boost and low EGTs is Ross's car(coupe).
Im concidering as an improvement to get at some point the .82AR hotside along with the wagner RS2 manifold.
Also im thinking of also getting the 7A exhaust cam,but im not sure yet.
As for the surging it is not that obvius,and it is being dealt with by the tuner now.
Hoepfully i can get as much out of this turbo as i like,and then sometime next year i may give it a little tweek

Hey,changing the hotside of the turbo along with the manifold doesnt necesseraly mean that it needs remapping again,does it?

**A80Avant** · 28 December 2007, 07:09

also is the use of the 7A cam just a drop in?is there anything else to do with the timing and the marks or anything?
is there any risk of the valves reaching the pistons?
cheers

(just realised that Ross was using the 7Aexhaust cam to produce these figures.I dont how much difference it makes,but it does make sense to boost all the way with this cam)

**Faheemo** · 28 December 2007, 12:34

Originally posted by PapVas

also is the use of the 7A cam just a drop in?is there anything else to do with the timing and the marks or anything?
is there any risk of the valves reaching the pistons?
cheers

(just realised that Ross was using the 7Aexhaust cam to produce these figures.I dont how much difference it makes,but it does make sense to boost all the way with this cam)

7a is a drop in cam - no need to do any hardware mods.
just keep in mind u would probably need a remap for the 7a cam.

If you change the AR you will need a remap aswell.

Are you sure you dont have any boost leaks or other mech problems ?

**A80Avant** · 28 December 2007, 13:02

nope.
leak test was made prior to remap and dyno,no issues there.Besides the boost levels requested from the N75 valve are reached so no problems there.

Im pretty sure that with the ADU cams,thats the curve you get.Maybe a bit longer on power if i keep the boost and advance a bit longer,but that is it.I will try something with the boost figures,and not tamper with the engine yet.Got to correct the surge and have the boost last at least until 6000rpm with safe EGTs.If i can manage that,i will leave it at that.

**A80Avant** · 29 December 2007, 07:14

if you drop in the 7A exhaust cam,what will happen if you dont remap?Will there be any problems with the ignition timing?

Or do you need the remap just to take advantage of the use of a cam like that?

**A80Avant** · 7 March 2008, 16:24

Just to share,i just had an interesting debate with a person on a greek audi forum,which i think has something to do with the maha dyno i recently went on.
As you know the dyno produced 358hp crank and 560Nm of torgue on 5th gear pull.

Of course i was amazed with the results and having a previous 334whp on a rototest with 1.5bar of pressure and now working on 1.7bar with a new remap from Erdal,i thought that the dyno was completely wrong.

He had a completelly different idea and i would like to hear your thoughts about this.
He said that even if i had a GT3076R and working on 2.5bar on it,i would stil get 358hp crank.The problem of my engine apparently is the fact that i havent done any cyl.head treatment,i dont have a tubular manifold,i dont carry better cams,and so my air flow is so bad that the car cannot produce more hp!

can this be true?

**EspenW** · 7 March 2008, 18:21

Originally posted by PapVas

Just to share,i just had an interesting debate with a person on a greek audi forum,which i think has something to do with the maha dyno i recently went on.
As you know the dyno produced 358hp crank and 560Nm of torgue on 5th gear pull.

Of course i was amazed with the results and having a previous 334whp on a rototest with 1.5bar of pressure and now working on 1.7bar with a new remap from Erdal,i thought that the dyno was completely wrong.

He had a completelly different idea and i would like to hear your thoughts about this.
He said that even if i had a GT3076R and working on 2.5bar on it,i would stil get 358hp crank.The problem of my engine apparently is the fact that i havent done any cyl.head treatment,i dont have a tubular manifold,i dont carry better cams,and so my air flow is so bad that the car cannot produce more hp!

can this be true?

Positively untrue. The flow capability of an unported 20v head is way above 358 crank.
The MAHA is way off. Your Rototest results with 334hp at the hubs put the engine on par with the one in the B7 RS4. You have got at least 400hp at the crank, my friend

**A80Avant** · 7 March 2008, 18:45

on the same dyno they have measured a Stock B7 RS4 for 350hp crank as well!!!

how convenient?

**EspenW** · 7 March 2008, 19:18

Originally posted by PapVas

on the same dyno they have measured a Stock B7 RS4 for 350hp crank as well!!!

how convenient?

That means you are likely to have at least 415hp at the crank.
The MAHA was the only chassis dyno that I would put some faith in, but not anymore.
The atw numbers produced on that thing are ridiculous too.
NAF (the RAC/AAA of Norway) sued Nissan of Norway, accusing them of overrating the 140hp claimed output of the 2L X-Trail. This 4wd, automatic car was tested on a MAHA chassis dyno. They did not take into account that automatics sap more power than manual transmissions, and they based their case on estimated flywheel numbers from a rolling road. Needless to say, they lost the case.
Rolling roads are good for tuning, and comparing power at the wheels on that same dyno (as long as corrections are made for weather), but nothing else.

**MarkPS** · 11 May 2008, 10:36

Hi PapVas

Just been reading your thread and I tried to look at your car clips on photobucket, but wouldn't let me in

, are they posted anywhere else I can view them?

Private Group Photo & Video Sharing

http://s117.photobucket.com/albums/o...arpullhalf.flv