5th gear. He was doing 60-167mph and it’s a huge amount faster than a standard car.
It is and remains the fastest NA RS4 I’ve seen at high speed. As German owners and American/Canadian owners have totally different ways of measuring their car’s performance it’s presently difficult to compare.
Why in the world would you show your acceleration in 5th from 60-167?
I guess I don’t get it man, good luck with everything. Nothing about that video is impressive and 60-167mph is about as useful to me as a submarine.
Well then I guess scales differ too. A UK sedan with a full tank was weighed at 2135 kilograms.
Not to Russia. Firstly their website doesn’t allow it, secondly even if I contacted them and found a way to pay them that they trust they won’t get ripped off I’ll be in for 2 months of paperwork at this end.
When I’m in Europe in summer I might consider it, but I might as well get it done in Germany if the price is right. Dollar/Euro rates not very favorable right now.
I looked at the 1/4 mile list you compiled, and it’s a great collection of data. Which also shows that you can’t take anything for granted when it comes to comparing states of tune. There’s an RS4 there on a stock ECU trapping 113.7 on nothing but exhaust mods (okay, and intake spacers) while a different car with a JHM tune and full JHM exhaust traps 111.1 mph. Imagine if those were the only data points you had (like the one car from the UK) you could draw all kinds of weird conclusions. There’s another JHM tuned car there with more mods than the other one which was still over 1 mph slower in the traps than Mistro’s car on the stock ECU.
So, the ECU code isn’t everything. Seems like it’s half the story at most.
I also found out that a realistic trap speed for a well supercharged car is more like 125 mph. With quite a few lightweight bits on them. If we assume 600 horsepower traps about 125 mph, and 400 traps about 110 we’re looking at 200 horsepower for 15 mph. Not that far removed from the RS6 numbers we were talking about earlier, a bigger, heavier more powerful car which will always use a bit more extra power to get the same increase.
Why in the world would you show your acceleration in 5th from 60-167?
[/quote]
Because they actually drive those speeds, regularly? In Germany, it’s a normal enough thing to do. There’s a big world out there you know, some bits of it are going to be quite different from what you consider normal.
[quote]Nothing about that video is impressive
[/quote]
Because you don’t understand what’s actually quick for an RS4 in that speed range or…?
If it’s fast at high speed it’s going to be fast at low speed as well, obviously…not too big a leap of logic I hope. Except it’s easier to judge at high speed because it takes longer. I honestly can’t tell much from a 0-60 video as the difference between a fast RS4 and a slow one is maybe half a second. I can’t perceive that very well personally.
I wouldn’t do anything ecu wise to your car. Leave it alone for now at least as you had a ton of issues that you might not yet have seen. It’s best to get the car up and running well for a few hundred miles before you add anything else to the mix.
It’s a shame you might not be able to get the jhm tune because it is by far the best tune there is for the rs4 and that’s by a long shot. Im talking im both performance and protection. I know in Russia and most of Europe it’s hard to get proof of anything so that makes all the claims that much easier to bloat.
it’s a pretty useless test. What if I do the same test on a downhill stretch of highway?
Anyway, testing to 270 kmh in the wrong gear is nobody’s way of testing. I think that’s just a way for you to say JHM isn’t the fastest because it’s a test that nobody on earth every does. 60 to 167 mph? Yeah, that’s a real performance standard lol. The high speed test the dyno queens love to do is the 60-130. or 62-124 (100-200km/h). But 60-270 in 5th gear is frankly a load of horseshit.
You can do the same test in 3rd gear and not endanger too much of the public. Doing it in 5th gear makes absolutely 0 sense.
I will bet anything that Mistro’s car would whip the shit out of that car head to head. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of us here would.
The car that ran the great time with no tune was also running in subzero density altitude of -2200 feet. Remember you said it gets cold where you are? It gets cold here too (Canada). That same car went 12.21 @ 113.5 in +750 feet of DA with tune/exhaust. That delta is about 2750 feet…and that’s about 8-9% HP difference due to density. So that tune/exhaust made up for about 40hp change in power by Density Altitude (made the same trap) and it also shaved almost 3 tenths off the elapsed time. The same car dyno’d in those two configurations and went from 330 whp to 365 whp…aka +35 whp or about +40 hp. Making sense now?
Then you said a 600 hp car traps 125. Where did you get that 600 hp number? Those 125 mph RS4s are all on pump gas (there’s an octane column). The 125 mph trapping cars all dyno’d about 450-475 to the wheels (aka about 550-575 hp max). In that example about 150 hp = 15 mph trap speed. Sound familiar? Someone told you that earlier today if you’ll recall. The JHM car went 130 mph on race fuel, and would probably make about 600 hp. In that case 200 hp = 20 mph. Sound familiar?
Anyway, I’m not here to argue about what cars are fastest because that has already been shown in independantly certified performance testing, and that is not about to be undone by a single shaky speedo video on god knows what grade. If you want to convince yourself JHM is not fastest and that makes buying a tune from a guy who has never tuned an RS4 easier, have at it and let us know how it goes.
Looking forward to receiving that PBOX data.
same guy did some more realistic accelration video…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RYb-Dd5lI
I will compare to that and see what my car looks like. From first glance, in 3rd gear he’s going through RPMs at about 500-700 RPM per second. Pretty standard stuff for a modified NA RS4. My car picked up about 550-575 RPM per second when stock. Now from 3k-8k it averages about 625-650 in great DA.
Hell you yourself said your car does 3k-8k in 7.9 or 8.0 seconds…bone stock. Yes? That’s not far off this guy in teh video. Your ‘fastest NA RS4’ isn’t so fast.
just found this.
so jcviggen’s candidate for fastest NA RS4 in the world ran through the gears and went from 50-160 kmh in 7.8 seconds according to my stopwatch. Check yourself to see if I’m pretty accurate.
A video of my own car doing the deed in 3rd gear alone (in other words way out of the powerband, and stuck in teh 52% throttle zone until 5500 RPM) has my car running the same speed range in…8.0-8.2 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1iRQD2bV3Y
In fact that starts me off at 2550 RPM…and we all know these cars don’t wake up till 3000 and then 5500. My car has only catted downpipes and a JHM exhaust.
So as suspected, JHM’s trophy cabinet is safe lol.
p.s. want to see what happens when my car races a legitimately fast all motor RS4?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p4SGcn2MRMw#t=22
Oh dear, 5 replies in a row 
I’ll need to break out the quote machine.
I actually agree. But it’s the only example of a freakishly quick RS4 at high speed, which is what the German’s ludicrously expensive ‘ram airbox’ is for. By their own admission it doesn’t do much below 110mph. The RS4 in the video went 160-250 km/h considerably faster than a C6 RS6. Even a C7 would not have been in front…
He might’ve gone downhill or downwind in a storm, I don’t know. But generally the Germans from RS246.de aren’t particularly deceptive with their videos. I can show you a video of a car with this airbox doing to a “stage 2 RS4” what Mistro’s car did to yours, in terms of pulling away. His low speed video wasn’t particularly well executed, but still pretty fast. Do you have any more HQ speedo vids I could use?
[quote]I think that’s just a way for you to say JHM isn’t the fastest
[/quote]
Without pretending to be a psychiatrist, you guys sure are sensitive about this JHM stuff. I’m not into religion, least of all when it involves tuners. Tuning cars is not rocket science. It takes a lot of work and trial & error. Once upon a time I mapped my own cars. But there is no shortcut to make up for tens or hundreds of hours of work on behalf of the most reputable tuners.
If we look at this scientifically, you’ve not yet shown me anything that would make strong positive proof of JHM certainly being the fastest. The 1/4 mile list certainly isn’t very scientific. No representative sample size in terms of tunes and a bunch of outside influences which aren’t mentioned and can’t be normalized. Different drivers, different atmospheric conditions, different surfaces, different wheels and lightweight parts…
It very well might, but proposing a bet which cannot possibly be settled is a bit disingenuous.
[quote]Anyway, I’m not here to argue about what cars are fastest because that has already been shown in independantly certified performance testing
[/quote]
You have to be kidding. Or I must’ve missed this certified testing somewhere.
You’d have to run the same car on the same day on the same gas with the same driver to have a hope of reaching a well supported conclusion.
I’ve seen your vids and you guys shift FAST, faster than I’d be willing to inflict on my gearbox with worn synchros. Faster than I see anyone else shift in their videos because they aren’t trying to set a new quarter mile record. Put a regular bloke in your car who shifts his car in a usual fashion and it’ll probably lose 2 MPH in the traps just from shifting. No change of tune required for that. You can’t look at ONE car from Europe who went to the strip ONCE and conclude from his one time that JHM cars are inherently quicker. That’s just bad science. Your list has some statistical relevance to stock tune vs JHM tune but there’s some difficulty in compensating for the fact that the tuned cars tend to have several other modifications whereas the stock ones are more often…stock.
I’d much rather go by 3-8k runs but it’s necessary to average them out in opposite directions on a level piece of road, so a GPS log would be handy there as well. Does Mistro have a recorded 3-8K run on the stock wheels?
[quote]Then you said a 600 hp car traps 125. Where did you get that 600 hp number?
[/quote]
Well the MRC one had 600 on a dyno and trapped 125. Which was very similar to most of the supercharged cars on top of the list. I’ve not seen anything more factually supported than that one. All the guesstimation in the world won’t make it accurate otherwise.
I would have no trouble believing that JHM is faster than anyone else if relevant proof would exist to prove it. I’m not married to any tuner and I don’t do fanboyism.
That said, if I had to guess and use some my own opinion I think at the very least the JHM tune is equally good to the top tunes at this end. That’s as much as we can rationally deduce with some degree of certainty.
But what I will say, in conclusion, is that high speed performance (particularly sustained) is something very relevant to me and my car in particular as it will move to Europe and the Nordschleife in 1-2 years. It WILL run the Autobahn and get up to 160-170mph on the Döttinger hohe straight on trackdays. The complete absence of data of JHM tunes in these conditions is of concern to me. Irrelevant though it may be at your end.
Have to say this is my new favorite thread on AR. Subscribed.
Aim to entertain ;D
By the way, sakimano, I genuinely enjoy analyzing these things in detail so please don’t take it as pedantry
I looked at your mighty fast 3-8k video of 7.7 seconds, downloaded it, and checked the exact timing by counting the frames. I think you might’ve been a few hundredths quicker than 7.7. It’s a 7 point 67-something. Well done.
But what is slightly freaky is the difference in behavior of your car versus mine, where you (and your exhaust line) gain time over my just-under-8 second run. I had expected you to pull faster at high revs where the precats are hurting me the most. But you actually beat me on torque. My car feels pretty sluggish with the throttle body at 52% until it finally takes off close to 6000rpm.
From 6000-8000 your time was 3.46 seconds where mine did 3.48 - identical for all intents and purposes, the margin of error is a bit more than the difference. Of course my car was ingesting colder air gaining an advantage (though there is some offset from the increase of aero drag at higher DA)
But, from 3000 to 5000 your car only took 2.79 seconds to my 3.075. That’s nearly 3 tenths right there in those initial 2000 rpms right at the beginning. I guess you must’ve been just above the temp where the throttle is restricted that much.
Will be repeating this exercise (at somewhat higher temp) when I get the car back with my torque limiter gone, should be interesting.
Just because you keep calling it “freakishly quick” doesn’t mean it is quicker than anything. It’s actually weird that you are setting your standard of quick/fast with a speedometer video.
I think you’re just too smart for AR, maybe RS246 will teach you how to troubleshoot and modify your car. We all know somehow you were driving around at 900-1200 RPMs, which really blows my mind and you think acceleration videos in the wrong gear are scientific benchmarks.
According to your thinking there is absolutely no possible way to prove who is fastest. It just helps you and others with this style of thinking justify an obselete tune or shitty parts (like undersized exhaust)…it’s quite odd.
Again, what’s with the sensitivity around here? Oh no! Someone doesn’t share my opinion! Grab a pitchfork!
[quote]We all know somehow you were driving around at 900-1200 RPMs, which really blows my mind
[/quote]
It’s a normal thing to do in first or second gear in a traffic jam. I’m not going to go WOT from 1000, obviously. And it was only an overly sensitive “test” to induce hesitation, but let’s ignore the context.
[quote]and you think acceleration videos in the wrong gear are scientific benchmarks.
According to your thinking there is absolutely no possible way to prove who is fastest.
[/quote]
If you’re going to tell me what I’m thinking you should try to get it right. Neither of those two things are correct if you would actually read (and comprehend) my posting.
Making me feel like I stumbled into the forums of the creation museum here. Thanks.
I don’t believe it was warm enough to not have the throttle limit. It was 13 degrees out.
You ran yours at what… - 10?
In all likelihood that is a difference of DA of anywhere from 1500 to 2500 feet. Or 5-7 percent hp disadvantage to me. That would be most prevalent at high-speed so if I’m matching you at high speeds that’s good delta. This assumes you aren’t at high elevation. I was at about 600 feet of actual elevation and about 1200-1500 feet of DA.
I also think you should redo your test while using the on board computer as your timer. You’re bringing any problems in your phone or the software into it the way you’re doing it. The lap timer takes that out of it.
I’m about 500ft asl here, weather was -8.5C with very crappy snowy weather so barometric pressure was probably below average.
If you compare the vids you gain a lot all the way to 5500 and then my car kicks into gear and matches yours. The difference is extremely audible in my video, as well as the needly visibly picking up speed. Yours by comparison seemed pretty smooth and constant.
I suppose my exhaust being stock makes the change in intake sound a lot more noticeable than it would be in your car however.
Still, your exhaust should more than make up for the temperature difference in terms of top end performance I would have thought? You gained ~2mph in trap speed from the JHM 2.75" IIRC?
Funny stuff
1.a Certified dragstrips all over the world. Simple.
People who want to ignore the data love to say this. Funny a week ago I said to a friend 'I am guessing jcviggen is an engineer and I bet he will try the hard way to do absolutely everything, ignoring everything presented to him. I made that prediction when you refused to use the on board lap timer to time your 3k-8k run. Rather than do what 50 other people have done, you wanted to do it ‘better’… And just introduced another variable. Convenient when you are unable to be compared using the same ruler. You want to use your own ruler. What kind of engineering field are you in?
Great excuse built in for you to attribute our performance to our driving. Problem is we are also comparing our own cars to each other stock, to lightly modded, to full bolt on, and showing considerable delta . So that excuse goes out the window. Further if you don’t shift fast why didn’t you buy a car with an automatic transmission? Or a prius ? Buying a $75,000 performance car and then driving like a granny to save $200 a year (amortized trans rebuild over 6-7 years) is the most ridiculous excuse for shit acceleration performance that I’ve ever seen. Congratulations.
Also if you’ll recall my car didn’t shift from 50-160 kmh in that vid and almost matched the ‘superfreak’.
Also the ‘one’ European rs4 that is on our list did not go once. He went a few times. He does not drive like a granny. If you search you might be surprised to find out that he is a member here, and I helped him considerably with everything I could to help him achieve his best times (launch techniques, shifting rpms etc). He reached out via pm a couple of years ago. He ran in excellent DA, at a well prepped track (santa pod) and drove it well. He has video online if you’re inclined to prove yourself wrong by searching YouTube.
Earlier you said you’d much rather go by 167 mph runs. Now it’s 101 mph runs? Let me know when you make a final decision. I already told you to grab a pbox and see what you can do. I have pbox data from every level of modification possible on the rs4, from stock right up to data I gathered from jhm’s stage 2 supercharger when I was in California .
MRC used their in house mrc controlled and calibrated dyno to sell superchargers. In no way is that impartial or to be trusted. Further it uses a bullshit user input drive train loss calculator to come up with crank hp. When asked for wheel hp they refused lol. Interestingly that same kit on an S5 4.2 made about 465 Whp on a third party dyno, and made 605 hp (crank) at mrc. That’s a pretty ambitious level of drive train loss to get to 600. Why not 28 percent and make it 650? Or 17 percent for 550?
When we look at that 465 whp number that makes sense and that’s what the cars here who trap 125 make. Thereabouts anyway as dynos are all over the place and are a truly silly tool for this. Trap speed works well
See that’s the thing… You will not. You will do anything possible to discount what is presented to you. Because you’re an engineer. We have a few dozen rs4 quarter mile times on a list and you immediately discounted that. Nothing will ever satisfy you which is great because it allows you to live with your beliefs. That’s fine but you’re not changing anyone’s opinion by plugging your ears and closing your eyes. If we raced head to head and you lost you would come up with a dozen excuses. Of course reality is you wouldn’t show up for the race. Too absolute.
If a car’s modifications make it fast in 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4th… you think 5th and 6th are going to be different? LOL. Other than a laughable ram air setup it’s the same.
Also anyone who says they are modifying their car for the nurburgiring is clearly lost. Its a 14 mile racetrack in a part of Germany nobody visits otherwise. While there are high speed sections it also has a billion turns. Focus on your handling and tires if that’s truly your goal.
[quote] It’s not freakishly quick and C5 RS6 are traditionally slow
[/quote]
What C5? I didn’t mention one. Though mine is certainly quicker once it’s rolling than any NA RS4.
I said C6 and C7. I don’t think it’s in any way normal for a B7 to be faster than a C7 RS6 from 100 to 160 mph. I can’t imagine you do, either. They trap over 120 stock.
[quote]Certified dragstrips all over the world. Simple.
[/quote]
It’s not the strips that are the problem, it’s the bazillion other variables which aren’t shown. I mean, if we went by the certified© times in your list we see that one car with a JHM tune trapped slower with the tune than on the stock ECU. That’s the only certified part. At face value, the JHM tune did barely anything on Mistro’s car at the track. You need the piece of information about atmospheric conditions and so on but these variables are MIA, others are even more difficult to quantify. Even playing with tire pressures can influence terminal speeds quite a bit.
Also MIA are result for the vast majority of Audi tuners who are not JHM. That’s not your fault obviously, but your sample size is woefully small for anyone but JHM and Audi OEM. All you’ve established is that JHM makes good tunes. I’m sure they do. They might be the best. But you’ve not established by any stretch of the imagination that every other tuner is worse by default. (not those tuners’ fault that they’re in places that don’t do quarter mile racing at all either)
[quote]Further if you don’t shift fast why didn’t you buy a car with an automatic transmission?
[/quote]
What? Shift times are the deciding factor for buying a car now? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. Besides, I can shift plenty fast but my gearbox needs a rebuild first. I’m not going to grind it to bits to save two tenths on a glory run. Only point was driver makes a difference and it’s not small.
[quote] I’ve looked at a bunch of cars from Europe who went to the dragstrip . Most of the strips don’t qualify so they can’t go on the board but the data is good to at least look at.
[/quote]
Well I can only go by what’s in the list can’t I? Googling really does not turn up much for European results. But then your bone stock car would probably be well faster than a stock RS4 on a european strip. You did have the world record for a stock car didn’t you? And mistro’s was faster on stock software than any euro car mapped or otherwise? Maybe cars on stock software get faster just by being closer to JHM. (Yes I’m joking)
[quote] Earlier you said you’d much rather go by 167 mph runs. Now it’s 101 mph runs? Let me know when you make a final decision. I already told you to grab a pbox and see what you can do
[/quote]
No, I did not say that. I said higher speed runs are easier to judge and compare simply by being longer. I can’t suggest to compare such speeds because it’s not possible to do those speeds. The 3rd gear test seems to be achievable at least by everyone no matter where they live. I’ll try to find a pbox.
[quote]MRC used their in house mrc controlled and calibrated dyno to sell superchargers. In no way is that impartial or to be trusted. Further it uses a bullshit user input drive train loss calculator to come up with crank hp.
[/quote]
The first part is special pleading, the second is outright false. MRC use a CARTEC dyno which uses measured coastdown losses. My C5 was on one identical to the UK one in Paris when it got mapped and you get all the data you want. The owner should have the print out with all data.
Most definitely no fixed loss percentage is used. Loss is far from a fixed ratio anyway, my car for example had a much lower loss percentage (if you calculate it) once mapped than on the stock baseline run. Which is precisely what you’d expect from a higher number at lower rpm. Losses don’t scale well with power.
[quote]You will do anything possible to discount what is presented to you. Because you’re an engineer. We have a few dozen rs4 quarter mile times on a list and you immediately discounted that.
[/quote]
I’m not discounting anything, I am saying it is incomplete. Yes you have 7 or 8 cars with JHM software. How many data points do you have for MRC, MTM, tunetec, sportmile, … ?
You have no basis to dismiss other tuners (yet) that’s the reality of it. And, again, ECU tuning isn’t magic. It’s hard work. Those companies who specialize in a few of these RS models all know what’s going on. If any of them would stumble onto a vastly superior approach they’d all know about it soon enough. I could order several tunes and post up the precise changes they all make to the mapping, if I wanted to waste a few grand on an internet debate.
[quote]Also anyone who says they are modifying their car for the nurburgiring is clearly lost. Its a 14 mile racetrack in a part of Germany nobody visits otherwise. While there are high speed sections it also has a billion turns.
[/quote]
It’s a power track. And the car will get plenty of handling mods including a full welded cage in time. I don’t care about 10 horsepower more or less, my point was that I have little or no examples of JHM tuned cars doing such sustained high speeds and loads. Plenty of vids of MRC cars performing normally and staying in one piece on the 'ring. Not so much with JHM for obvious geographic reasons. It’s a matter of quantifying reliability and there is not enough data to work with.
Oh and in other news, I just picked up the car again
Will have to ask Dmitry what he did to it exactly, it ran well and smooth from cold with no hesitations. Only changes I can see he made is go back to the other spark plugs (NGK) and the SW0090 update plus a few of his own tweaks to that.