Ebwerks (or does it?)

B6/7 S4/RS4
#1

Got a quarter mile time now for an ebwrks exhaust. So…

catless 2.75" eb vs stock downpipes with cats
2.75" eb catback vs stock 2.36"
$4500 vs free

Difference?

Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Ne riens.

Well almost. He picked up 3/100 of ET although that is because of his launch improving slightly (using JHM launch assist in his tune the last two times he went to the strip). As you can see the sixty foot time was three hundredths better than last time, and that was it for the track. His great exhaust actually COST him the better part of 1 mph in trap speed.

Anyway kudos to Mick for
A) hitting the dragstrip at all
B) posting these results (since they will likely hurt ebwrks)

[quote] All messages | Search Forums | Return to B7 RS 4 (2005 - 2008)
Fun night at the strip…
Posted by: Mickf29 (2524) on 2012-10-07 03:41:42
Reply
Share | Report
Had a great time, was awesome seeing a friend go under 12.0 in his 1992 S4 for the first time! I had a decent night, but no times to brag about. I learned I am having a few issues: MAF is too low up top, I think a direct result of the exhaust being 2.75", just like the JHM unit as well, i am losing MAF up top when I am running no cats. Second this new clutch has a very high engage point and took some getting used to. I botched a couple runs and missed 2nd and once 3rd because I was expecting an earlier engage point, revved the engine too much and didn’t get the the shift in right. Got that smoothed out some. Lastly my shifter is really out of adjustment again. Just for sanity I have 2 other guys there with RS4’s compare, one had the same shifter and the other a Neuspeed, mine was totally notching up and not shifting well. Needs adjusted…again.

All that and I still managed to run the best i have ever run, but barely.Compared to my stock exhaust runs, my top end MPH was down slightly. My 1/8th times and speeds were very good though. So just as I suspected, the 2.75" exhausts with no cats are flowing well and generating awesome torque. but i am losing top end, MAF is too low. Going to try to work on this. Will pop the cats in and do some tests, see if that bumps up the MAF.

Here are the times of the 5 runs that weren’t too terribly mis-shifted.Interesting every run got better, as I got the clutch engagement point a bit better and worked my shifter. Shifter kept getting worse though as the night went:

Run # 2
60’: 1.840
1/8th: 8.234
1/8th MPH: 87.68
1/4: 12.727
1/4 MPH: 110.98
Note: Another sketchy 1st to 2nd shift

Run #4
60’: 1.824
1/8th: 8.182
1/8th MPH: 88.44
1/4: 12.648
1/4 MPH: 110.53
Note: Decent, just slow 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd again

Run #5
60’:1.827
1/8th: 8.135
1/8th MPH: 89.11
1/4: 12.597
1/4 MPH: 110.59
Note:Car was getting really warm (235 oil temp). After this run let it sit for a while before last two runs below.

Run #6
60’: 1.803
1/8th: 8.055
1/8th MPH: 89.22
1/4: 12.493
1/4 MPH: 110.87
Note: Pretty good run, just felt like up top wasn’t fully there.

Run #7
60’: 1.794
1/8th: 8.021
1/8th MPH: 89.56
1/4: 12.404
1/4 MPH: 111.08
Note: Good run, shifts were as good as I could make them, launch was great. Not much more to do on my end, I was just out of breath up top.

interesting thing, when you compare this best run with the best run I had before on the stock exhaust (first numbers are EBWerks, 2nd number is Stock):

60’: 1.794 vs 1.830
1/8th: 8.021 vs 8.050
1/8th MPH: 89.56 vs 89.78
1/4: 12.404 vs 12.434
1/4 MPH: 111.08 vs 111.73

So its pretty clear to me the stock system allows for up top, the EBWerks and JHM and probably gonna make a wager and say any other 2.75" system you gain alot down low, but you sacrifice up top.

BTW temps tonight started at 73, and dropped to about 62 when we left. I started run with 1/3rd tank of gas. 92 octane V Power, same as always. Car and Driver weigh was about 3780lbs, about 20lbs lighter than last set of runs on stock exhaust. So in essence very much the same. Even air temp was about the same. I was encouraged each run was getting faster by about .1 each run. Also was nice to see the best 60’ time, 1/8th time and 1/4 time tonight, even though my speeds were slightly better on the last runs with stock exhaust setup.

Going to be interesting to see how my MAF and my Torque numbers behave when i drop in the cats and do some additional 3k-8k logs. See if they hurt the low end but bring up the top end, and see where the intersect point is for best overall. All said though, i am pretty happy with everything so far. I definitely have gained a ton down low. In fact today I did a 4th gear pull with another local out in the country from 60mph, and left him in the dust. By 7k rpm in 4th gear I was 3 car lengths on him he said. And he has JHM tune and pig pipes/H Pipe. Car is running damn good, and the way the power is delivering now, its going to be very good on lapping where you spend more tie down in the torque band.
[/quote]

#2

That mick post is the single dumbest thing Ive ever read. That is what happens when you have fools make posts in an attempt to pass off utter babel as fact.

That guy is so fucking stupid its painful. And to think that people think he even has a remote clue is beyond laughable. Qfail never fails to dissipoint tho.

Mick said he is having pinging issues. Or so I read a few weeks back. And just now he says he is having low MAF issues. is this fucking moron to stupid to know that MAF values effect over timing in the car. So if you have a low MAF value your car is going to think that the load is lower and by extension give you more ignition. (please keep in mind I don’t claim to be a super ECU guy.) but I am :slight_smile:

further more seems that in the end the EB(isn’t)works. has made a few changes to the JHM exhaust they stole. Maybe they should have kept the knock off and not tried to make different as different clearly has caused issues.

In the end this is a major fail for EB. The JHM exhaust has shown to pick up quite a bit over stock resulting in much higher MPH then what mick is getting.

The big tests have shown the the EB exhaust is no better then stock… The issue is that a larger exhaust is supposed to actually help the car run better up top. Thus cars like the B5 S4s just running on open down pipes and drag cars just running open headers. The more open the exhaust the better the mph is supposed to be.

A quick theory behind the EB/issue. Chances are the exhaust might not be properly engineered. Big pipes are great but you need to know what your doing. I know the JHM exhaust was ACTUALLY tested in an ACTUAL test situation. Ive seen the exhausts results first hand. One of the large things in the JHM exhaust was bends and placements of parts. EB made it a point to say that they were changing things to “make them better” turns out you can’t make better then the best… Good sell for JHM with this no better then stock results for EB

#3

Every run had an excuse, I wasn’t surprised, but how does a guy who loves to lap race miss 1-2 shift? I mean it’s a 1-2 shift…fuck

I’m glad he got out there and ran though and didn’t just sit back and speculate what he “could” run like most guys.

…and he never caught the MAF issue when he did all of his street pulls that he posted?

#4

Definitely props to mick for actually testing the exhaust and posting the results but…WTF is he talking about? Now an exhaust that flows too well will hurt you up top?

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/beating-head-against-the-wall.gif

Here’s the results from Justincredible testing the Milltek 2.25" vs JHM 2.5" on the S4 at the track:

BEST TIMES

JHM 2.5 X + JHM NOS = 12.2 @ 113.8
Milltek 2.25 + JHM NOS = 12.8 @ 110
JHM 2.5 X + ALL MOTOR = 12.8 @ 110
Milltek 2.25 + ALL MOTOR = 13.2 @ 106

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/456768-JHM-Nitrous-Track-results-with-testing

It looks to me like a more free flowing exhaust helped trap speed and 1/4 mile times quite well on that 4.2l engine. But maybe the RS4 4.2l likes a more restrictive exhaust to help it develop more hp and tq … ::slight_smile:

#5

I love reading excuses like problems with the shifter or clutch engagement.

…so these issues just magically popped up right when you arrived at the strip? So in the prior weeks driving the car you still haven’t learned where the engagement point is? Or did he just forget the night he got there?

#6

And…Micks credibility has completely run dry. Thats what you get buying an exhaust from a 19 yr old kid who has zero car or business experience.

Cant wait to see the official excuse from enrique and ben. It should be good, get the popcorn out!

#7

I guess he should have stuck with that crappy JHM LWFW and clutch…

#8

Mick got close to the 12.0 he was looking for…

The best part is all this weight savings on the BenriqueWerks exhaust…again no cats or resonators with i am sure lighter mufflers vs oem.

great weight savings…

now he is going to add some cats back to the mix.

considering the tune/2.75" exhaust/weight savings…shit he is not getting good results for the money put in his car.

#9

Well that just sums up how big of a fail that venture was.

bigger exhaust can actually hurt power if its not chambered properly. A free flowing exhaust will allow for better flow unrestrained up top BUT it has to be free flowing. Free flowing is open headers or open DownPipes.

Chances are one of those sharp bends in the EB exhaust is causing massive redirection turbulence and causing the exhaust to actually slow down, change direction and hit into one of the walls. Thus causing a massing spiral effect that traps the exhaust in a spiral pattern. You have to know what your doing when you build an exhaust. Maybe they should have stolen some exhaust knowledge when they knocked it off.

Do we have pictures Vs the JHM. I remember reading that EB made changes to be different and not continue to be called the JHM knock off.

#10

Not to pour salt into the fresh wound. Didn’t Ebwerks have mick post up how there was this huge up increase from there dyno test?

It was on Qfail (I laugh ever time I see someone write that) if Im not mistaken. There was this huge post on how the Ebwerks exhaust made some large hp over stock or something. If I’m not mistaken isn’t this proof that this didn’t happen? Or that this isn’t legit.

#11

was this sarcasm?

#12

^^^ definitely

#13

these great HP gains were on the BenriqueWerks prototype with the Sebring mufflers.

oh and i forgot Mick does have a lwfw I believe too…exhaust/tune/lwfw/weight savings and still can not do much better than a stock run.

lots of money spent w/o much gain.

check this out if i were at the track…and I had someone with me that could 1/4 mile the car better than I…I would let him drive my car. I think Mick needs to bring this type of person to the track.

this is a lot of money spent for what gains? wait wait…he has a PnP intake too…and I bet you some mod on his intake…lots of money for what he has gained.

#14

here is the so-called mod list…i changed the font to blue for the performance related mods…oh wait I did not see the JHM tune on his mod list. He does not want to give any credit to JHM bc he is still drinking too much hateraid.

Lots of money spent but not a good return on the investment.

Engine Mods:
| Aux Radiator Delete | Secondary Air Injection Delete | Ram Air | Port & Polish IM, De-flapped, de-vaned | NGK Platinum Plugs | K&N Air Filter | Setrab Oil Cooler | Setrab PS Cooler |

Drivetrain Mods:
| 034 Tranny Mount Street Density | Apikol Rear Diff Mount | Stern Motor Mounts | Clutchmasters FX400 Clutch and LW Flywheel | Metal Slave Cylinder | Castrol XRF |

Braking:
| Alcon Front Brakes | Carbotech Bobcat Street Pads | Carbotech XP-20 Track Pads | Stoptech Rear Pads | Stoptech SS Lines |

Suspension:
| Stasis MS 6/8/12 settings | 850/1300 Spring rates | Hotchkis F, R sway kit | EBWerks Rear Sway Links | Stern Adjustable Control Arms |

Exhaust Mods:
| EBWerks Full 2.75" exhaust, DP’s, Hot Swap Cats & Test Pipes |

Weight Saving Measures:
| Status Carbon Seats | Remove Rear Seats | Headlight Washer Removal | EBWerks LW Battery Kit | Odyssey 925T Battery | DRC Reservoir, Line removal | Sunroof Delete | Bose Sub, Amp, Sirius delete | LW Crank Pulley | Current Weight: 3594lbs (-363lbs) in lightweight config |

#15

Fuck I didn’t realise the extent of the weight saving measures. Why didn’t he just buy an Exige or something and be done with it. The point of the RS4 is have all the creature comforts and some decent performance.

It’s almost as ridiculous as how far back saki has to put his seat.

:smiley:

#16

He should just remove the front seat and drive from the back. It would save some weight too.

#17

Like Hightower in police academy

#18

Maybe micks dumbest comment yet was that his ebwrks is outperforming his JHM setup.

He said this is six tenths faster than his JHM setup best time. Really Mick?

  1. His car is down considerably on weight since then. Must be well over over 150 pounds…and didn’t he run with full tanks of gas all the time in order to have close to’accurate information as possible’ on Saturday he went with 1/4 tank which is 75 lbs lighter than full fyi. Not to mention race seats and who the fuck knows what else. Did he pull his back seat too?
  2. Updated tune now
  3. MOST IMPORTANT: He now has launch assist and cut a 1.79 sixty foot time vs the 2.1-2.2 sixty foot times when he ran last year. There’s the delta almost entirely accounted for lol.

This guy is willing to do anything to slag JHM. It’s incredible.

Maybe equally as incredible is when he says he is doing well because he matched Dan@JHM’s old 12.40 time

Hey Mick…news flash…YOUR CAR WEIGHS 300 LBS LESS THAN DAN 'S CAR DID!!!

The fail is so strong with this guy. I love reading it. He loves to blame us on this site for seeing through the bullshit.

His comments a couple of weeks ago about pinging in his car (to blame his JHM tune of course) were interesting. “mine pings like crazy now”.

Really? Your car is pinging like crazy, so you hit the dragstrip and make ten or so passes? And do WOT logs every other day? Sure thing superstar. We all believe you.:-\

#19

If Mick had any intention of actually comparing the JHM prototype to the EBworks exhaust he wouldn’t have sold the JHM unit. Let’s do a test and change 4 variables and credit 1 variable for the change in outcome. That shit wouldn’t fly in a jr high school science class and it shouldn’t on any car forum. Dang Mick is frustrating.

#20

Reading threads like these are always interesting.

From the past, and this thread, it is clear that you all believe the EBWerks exhaust is a copy of the JHM. The same JHM exhaust that many believe is the best for power on the “market” to date.

Regardless of whether it is a direct copy, I don’t think anyone is doubting it is 2.75". Which is also hailed as the best size for making power.

The JHM tune also seems to be considered the best bet for power.

How can no one be mentioning the fact that regardless of how much you like or don’t like Mick, that you would expect a car with the mods he’s made, to trap a higher speed?

I’m not expecting you to not point your finger at Mick, because it is clear that you will regardless, but what about the comment from duud: [quote]Have the ecu tuner increase overlap and get your maf up to 170-ish. Also go rich afr wise
[/quote]
If, as duud suggests, the tuner had dealt with those issues, wouldn’t it be fair that the results “should” be better? Seems like, based on that statement, from someone that knows what he’s talking about (at least that is my perception) that there is more opportunity with the car to be improved…but that isn’t anything Mick can do. JHM would have to evaluate the situation and see if they agree. Not saying it is an excuse, but just like you are concerned about consistency with weight, etc, it does seem possible that the tune isn’t maximizing the rest of the mods. Or maybe not. I sure as hell don’t know.

Really not trying to get in the middle of some sort of flame war. Just honest questions.