GMG WC RS4 Supercharger System

B6/7 S4/RS4
#21

Saki,
Boost is dependent on temperature and ambient conditions (da). There is no feed back boost control on a standard positive displacement SC setup. The M3 V8 kit uses an electronic by pass controller, and if boost is used as one of the inputs you can control manifold pressure directly.

So boost is the result of the airflow the engine is trying to take in, vs the blower is pushing out.
We put the pulley size right on front, and not playing any “games”. Its open for anyone to do the math. I’m surprised the discussion has not gone that direction. No one else is discussing boost curve, or how fast the charger is working. HP is operating no where near the TVS redline. when its colder, its working better. ( like any compressor )

The P3 gauge does not measure the same as the calibrated sensors on the national instruments boards in the Mustang dyno. I have no problem with Per being open and sharing everything. The more open the development is, the better for all in the RS4 community.

The AMD shop RS4 there. He is working on putting together something unique. This is something for AMD to discuss.

#22

They are. I think the issue is AMD or now that AMD failed to sell anything GMG or whoever it is next week that takes this on. This is an example of trying to figgure it out as they go. They don’t really know and they have to change things as they go.

They tell GMG 13 but then post this…

http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo193/sakimano/15PSI_zps3d52a3d0.jpg

#23

Chris, and Saki.
You are more than free to Call and speak to Tony and Danny at FI.

I will not elaborate further here.
What burning coals said was inappropriate, because the way he said it.
I am fortunate enough to work with great people, I am proud to be part of some great teams and products.

#24

Testing. Having tested MANY MANY pulleys chris. Its in the title.

#25

We have already talked to the people who called DANNY and when asked if you did anything for the kit your posting pictures of. AND I QUOTE DANNY LAUGHED AND SAID… HA HA HAHAHAH NO JONATHAN DID NOTHING ON THE KIT I HAVE NO IDEA WHY HE WOULD EVEN TRY TO PUT HIS NAME TO THE KIT OR ON IT. JONATHAN HANGS AROUND HERE AND CAN BE A NICE GUY BUT WE DON’T NEED OR DO ANYTHING WITH JONATHAN.

You standing next to people dosent make you part of the team.

Jonathan… Im done busting your balls. Your a semi bullshitter and take credit for stuff you probably shouldn’t but its not my place. This supercharger kit has been a disaster and shows you have never brought a product to market…The best move you made to date is asking GMG to carry this kit. They should help you actually make sales and have a shop that isn’t tied to haveing one of the worst reputations in the audi community

#26

My recollection is

  1. killer00S4 posted this:

  1. I posted about the great Fsat Intentions launch thread, and mentioned how you told me you were closely involved with FI and the development of the kit. I posted the the launch thread because it was frankly the best product launch I’ve ever seen.

  2. You PM’d me asking me to delete all references to Fast Intentions

  3. Killer00S4 deleted his post (guess he got the same PM)

  4. I PM’d you explaining that I can’t delete posts/threads as I am not a moderator. I can only move stuff to the war room or add 1/4 mile times…I also explained that killer00S4 is an idiot who is killing ANY chance you have of earning credibility on here because he’s floating information you ask him to delete and misinformation and acting like an asshole

  5. killer00S4 posted my PM as a thread called ‘sakimano…serious?’

So…if you want to clafify YOUR role with Fast Intentions on the 370Z turbo kit, I would appreciate it. You can’t walk around as a one man show and tell everyone how great you are without clarifying when asked for details.

#27

as funny as the rest of this stuff…

Stock as reported by Audi 420 317 FT-LBS
LP UM:AMD 92 Octane (R+M)/2 595 hp
HP UM:AMD 92 Octane (R+M)/2 660 hp

I guess they are just randomly guessing on drivetrain loss lol. Oh and they didn’t bother posting tq numbers. I guess inventing hp numbers is enough.

Nothing like a 595 hp car that can only trap 118 (the LP kit). Pretty comical. 595 hp with AWD and the RS4 gearing would mean 125 MPH.

#28

I don’t know what to say.

From your supercharger thread: and I quote you from the APR section:
"ACTUAL GAINS: exactly what was claimed
1/4 MILE RESULTS: Keith @ APR ran 11.8 @ 116 in a customer’s car, and the Michigan customer who JHM originally helped with the tune ran 11.8 @ 119 "

That kit claimed 590 hp.

http://www.goapr.co.uk/includes/img/products/dyno/42l_fsi_v8_b7_rs4/b7_rs4_42l_fsi_s0_vs_s3_93_cc.gif

When comparing the LP and the Stage III kit together on an independent dyno, the results where also inline with what was claimed.

590 hp in the rs4 went 11.8 @ 116

The 592 AMD claims went 11.8 118.72. without carbon brakes.

http://avivainstruments.com/images/AvivaImages/portfolio/portfolio-rs4sc/articleonly/AvivaAddictLP.gif

in one case you call it “exactly what was claimed”
in the other case you call it "Pretty comical. 595 hp with AWD and the RS4 gearing would mean 125 MPH. "

We are using the same calculations to calculate Crank HP as APR. Wheel numbers are all over the place and are dependent on the dyno.

I’m sure ill get more negative karma for just having a conversation here.

#29

You will get negative karma for acting shady and spinning words to suit your own conclusion. Did you do that? Let’s see…

If you’re going to quote me, actually quote me instead of posting something I wrote, and then posting a graph APR posted completely seperately.

Here’s what I ACTUALLY wrote

[quote]APR - they used the TVS1320, a rather small but VERY effective twin vortices series Eaton supercharger. Audi uses this on just about every platform above the A4 as an engine option on a 3.0 V6. This indicates a more suitable size matchup for the blower, but it still workd well on the RS4 even if it leaves a bunch of upside on the table. When it was first launched, the kit suffered…APR didn’t go to the dragstrip (or again, they didn’t tell us the results if they did) and all around it was looking like VF/PES part 3, even though the blower looked like it should work well to add 100 or so hp to the car. Turned out it was the APR tune…they had trouble taking a 4.2 FSI and tuning for supercharging. A few customers hit the strip and ran mid-high 12s…not good when the RS4 runs 12.8-12.9 STOCK. JHM’s tuner wrote a file for a friend with the APR kit that transformed the car. It went from 12.6 @ 108 to 12.0 @ 116 with just the tune change. APR asked to see the file, and started using it, in exchange for just mentioning that JHM’s tune was used on the kit. APR complied (great deal lol) but somehow managed to fuck that up with ARin and Stephen from APR denying any outside involvement. They later relented when it was clear half the forums knew the real story, and APR was losing face.

TUNE: JHM file adopted by APR
COST: $19,000, then later dropped to $15,000, then to $13,000
CLAIMED GAINS: 120 whp
ACTUAL GAINS: exactly what was claimed
[/quote]
So…now you look silly don’t you. I never once said that APR makes 590 hp and delivered exactly as claimed I quoted the WHP gains they posted, (430 WHP vs. 310 WHP stock) and that the gains were exactly what was claimed based on performance results we have seen. 120 whp is bang on. I have addressed this practice of using the crank hp estimates based on drivetrain loss. Those estimates are foolish to use because they assume

a) the stock car made 420 hp to begin with on the fuel you’re using…some feel that’s not possible with carbon etc. interfering
b) the car hadn’t lost any power or had any problems
c) drivetrain loss is the same on the modified car as it was on the stock car

If the stock car is making less than 420, and you ASSUME that the 420 vs. the WHP = drivetrain loss…then translate to the modified car…it’s going to make your data shitty.

So I talk WHP and don’t play crank gains.

Want more proof? Here’s something I wrote on RS246 a year ago to address those APR numbers you’re complaining about…I was addressing the difference between North America where we look at WHP whereas the Euro guys use PS or Pferdestarke or hp.

[quote]Apr uses a hub dyno and you all (in Europe) use dynos that express power in crank hp or ps

So what should Apr do? They advertised hp at the hubs on their dyno (something like 430 whp)

People (in Europe) said 'what is that at the crank (or ps)?

So Apr said’ well we don’t know drive train loss, but we can estimate it. The car we used for testing dynod 310 whp on the hub dyno when it was stock. Audi say the rs4 makes 420 ps. Therefore the car has about 26% drive train loss on that dyno. ’

Apply that to the 430whp for their tvsr1320 kit, and whammo… 590 ps.

. [b][size=12pt]Reality? Much better to let a hub dyno read hub numbers and that’s that. If someone wants to know ps, let them either dyno on a rundown dyno, or let then do an engine dyno test. However applying a drive train loss to the before numbers to get back to audi claimed power in stock form creates all sorts of problems.

I. E. What if the car before / stock had a vacuum leak? Or carbon buildup? Now you’re artificially overstating drive train loss…as the lower reading from the maintenance issue looks like extra drive train loss. And that will exacerbate the error when converting the supercharged whp to ps (on a car that is running well with no leaks, and has been carbon cleaned) .[/b][/size]
[/quote]

#30

So…now you look silly don’t you. I never once said that APR makes 590 hp and delivered exactly as claimed I quoted the WHP gains they posted, (430 WHP vs. 310 WHP stock) and that the gains were exactly what was claimed based on performance results we have seen. 120 whp is bang on.
[/quote]
Per posted his dynojet numbers along with Arin From APR. Are they not right in line with the claims, and what you validated?
I’m not the one spinning words, and making narratives.

#31

LOL misquote ftl.

#32

Well at least they offer a choice

http://imageshack.com/a/img849/4316/z6ww.png

#33

I understand…you gambled, and lost. Tough break. Just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

I said the gains are bang on based on the WHP GAINS SHARED. APR went 11.8 @ 116-117. Another APR car went 11.8 @ 119. Stock they went 13.1 @ 108. Stock record is a full second slower 12.75 @ 108. Gaining 10 tenths and 10 MPH at these levels is right in line with 120 WHP gains.

Why are you referencing RS4per? Who the fuck cares about RS4per?

Let me put this simply for you: YOU CAN NOT CALCULATE DRIVETRAIN LOSS VS ORIGINAL 420 HP FROM A STOCK, WHO KNOWS HOW OLD CAR WITH WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PROBLEMS…MUCH LESS APPLY THAT PERCENTAGE TO A MODIFIED CAR

#34

Not here to argue with you.

the point you make about Drivetrain loss is right, and frustrating.
Its only an estimate.

Changes in WHP on the same dyno and time / acceleration tests are closer, but still have some flaws.

#35

and since you missed what I said a year ago about APR advertising crank/PS/HP numbers extracted from their stock/modded hub dyno results:

So tell me again why you mis-quoted me above? I reckon you’re getting ready to apologize for that aren’t you…

#36

Apologies to you for the short quote, the intention was not a misquoting.
what i though was counter intuitive, was from my perspective, not yours.

I have the same opinions on dyno estimates, we try to present the information on the same level field. While our Dyno is different than Hub dynos ( AWD Mustang ) , applying the same methodology yields similar results. So when customers are comparing a dyno graph they get somewhere close.

Acceleration tests, 1/4 mile, and independent dynos are also in the picture.

What was published is in line with the others, and has been confirmed through other tests. It is a sincere presentation of findings.

#37

Before this goes way off topic. Can you disclose why the change to GMG name instead of AMD? We can all speculate the reasons why but would rather give you the opportunity.

#38

Can someone give a TL;DR on who GMG are? What are their big achievements, flops etc. etc

#39

Frankly, I’ve never seen them develop anything for an Audi that put them on any lists. If you go to our 1/4 mile list and search for GMG, here’s what you find…one R8 with a GMG exhaust. THat’s it.

For the RS4, GMG developed a great sounding catback with ugly tips and 2.5" piping (think Milltek in America)

I’m sure they’re very successful and from the pics, it appears they have shiny floors so they must know what they’re doing. I just haven’t come across it. I don’t spend much time on forums though, so maybe I just missed it :slight_smile:

Otherwise…pretty quiet.

#40

Still waiting for an answer to this.

When a shop or business comes onto this website boasting about and taking credit for another company’s accomplishments, and someone asks them to clarify their exact contribution, I really think they should step up rather than revert to distraction and then radio silence.

If what Chris posted is accurate (that a representative at Fast Intentions suggested Jonathan Cohen did virtually nothing on the kit) that’s pretty damning. I could say I’m a genius and that I helped develop the new KERS system that McLaren is using in their road cars, but it doesn’t mean anyone should trust my opinion or buy my stuff since I may have made it up to sound better.

So…what is the truth? We have so far heard

  1. ‘Jonathan Cohen worked closely with Fast Intentions for months in developing the Fast Intentions 370Z turbo kit’

  2. 'Jonathan Cohen designed and developed the exhaust manifold and downpipes for the Fast Intentions 370Z turbo kit

  3. ‘Jonathan Cohen had some software that was used in the modelling of one part of the Fast Intentions 370Z turbo kit’

  4. ‘Jonathan Cohen hung around the Fast Intentions shop a lot while we developed the 370Z turbo kit but was not a contributor’

Those are all pretty disparate…! Would be nice to know what Jonathan himself is claiming…as he seems to be deliberately vague on the matter, but loves to drop the name around.