If the S4 was

B5 S4/ RS4
#1

Naturally aspirated how much whp would it make?

Basically if you took your S4 with bolt-ons how much whp do you think it would make, remember the car came with 280chp running 10-12lbs of boost. We have a very good idea already seeings the 2.8, 3.0 & 3.2ltr are all N/A & all run much higher compression then the 2.7ltr?

Bone stock car minus the power added by the 10-12lbs would make roughly 180chp which would be like 135-140whp.

Fully built car with everything you could bolt on might make 175-200whp N/A @ the most.

Theres a point to this madness so please play along & some of us may learn something once this thread gets going!

#2

Well when you look at it the 3.0 makes about 165whp and that has better heads then the 2.7T and much better compression.

I don’t think the 2.7T would be able to muster up 200whp even if you spiffed it out. The single biggest thing you would need to do is to make sure the exhuast is right. The 3.0 seems to have woken up with better exhaust.

If it could make say 200whp it would be dog piss lame on TQ.

STill for the sake of conversation 200 would be max.

#3

yea, to get it to 200 whp all motor the car would be quite high strung. the heads flow like complete dog shit just like all non fsi/tsi heads vw/audi ever made. you would have to heavily modify the heads, bump the compression up, bore it out and get a set of custom cams to make any significant power gains and then it would most likely drive like crap.

#4

Well look at the 2.8 V6. Pretty much the 2.7’s N/A brother

#5

Yes, also we would be much more concerned with the cams and compression. I would want to switch over to solid lifters and .600+ lift on intake and .550 exhaust. Hold up, lemme find some cam specs AMD mic’d for the community a whole back.

#6

weird thread is weird. Looking forward to the resolution. Either way, I think tweets4estate is going to get offended though lol.

#7

Tweet gets offended by everything, what can we do? Lol

#8

what? haha how was I responding in a way that would suggest I was offended? I was looking for this
Check it out! http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/400049-S4-vs-RS4-vs-2-8-vs-2-4-Heads-and-cams

#9

Is the aim to explore why 2.7T owners just concentrate on making mad boost and rods/pistons rather than some supporting mods to help airflow? Like overly restrictive exhaust manifolds? I’m always amazed at the performance squeezed out of the 4.2 all motor bolt ons, like headers, intake mani’s etc, LW rotating parts etc…

#10

I did a review on 2.8 cams v.s 2.7 cams. It’s hard to come by boltons that have made a difference. Boosted cars and N/A cars are different animals in many ways. And $/hp is always a concern for Any group of enthusiasts. The option is there, look at all of the RS4 stuff available. No one does it because it doesn’t give the gains $/hp that turbos or N20 does. Also we/like the B6 world is now seeing have reached our engines stock internals limits. I love this thread! Let’s play the game shall we!

#11

I think that’s why its scary to dabble in cheap cars that make cheap gains…because corners are often cut by p.o. who modded them. More efficiency is shorter term more expensive than more boost…but long term a car that is pushed hard inefficiently can cost you much more.

#12

It can be a problem. If the car/turbo is built for hi boost it can be a good thing. Lets talk about what you guys would do, if you were a B5 owner. take my GT kit (mine has all V-band flanges.) http://www.ardesign.org/category.sc?categoryId=2. what seems in-efficent here? what about a 2.8L head? get some flow-bench data!

#13

Countvohn already got the data. Don’t forget where he works and who started the gt kit revolution.

#14

Now that we all agree that this motor would be very hard pressed to make 200whp even @ 3ltr we can finally get started. So let’s agree to the extreme & say fully built S4 will average 175whp even though this number is on the high side.

#15

I agree with that.

#16

I’m just asking for a debate and for someone to bring in data. How is what I said in any way disrespectful to countvohn? I don’t get you sakimano, you’re like a sour patch kid without the sweet. All sour.

#17

interested and subscribed!

#18

Actually I think I know what sakimano is saying. The first VAST GT kit made much better use of the ram style header design that has been used for years. Putting GT turbos on a stock manifold clearly would have been a disaster.

In just concept alone a better style manifold is going to equal a better result for a turbo.

Tweets I agree we all need to come to a comon ground. First we need to prove that the stock manifolds are restrictive before we can say that you need new manifolds correct.

To help seriously move the debate forward let me ask two questions.

1 would we agree that a better flowing motor through all the rev rage is going to equal a better spooling turbo as there is more air from the motor to do more work?

Before you answer I want everyone to know that while #1 is true we still need to prove that the stock manifolds are a restriction. From there we would need to find the point of where they are actually a restriction.

#19

They start restricting @ 14lbs @ 14lbs each runner was already seeing a tremendous amount of back pressure already. On some merge collector manifolds out didn’t see any restriction @ 100 psi.

#20

I was interested in this build, but it kind of died and I have no idea what has happened to the car, but its exhaust manifolds are interesting and a comment by Guru even more so

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/miker76/IMG_3698.jpg

[QUOTE=GURUMAN;6967349]Dunno if I can post this, but rumor says that he hits the 600 wheel only at 20 psi on pump, but it’s only a GURU, rumor…
[/quote]
I am not sure if it is true but it definitely is interesting, Marku who did the turbos is building Guru’s new engine so it might hold some truth. If it is what will the turbo’s produce at 30psi

Here is the link to the build for anyone interested.
Clicky Click