Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
    Results 106 to 140 of 349

    Thread: Official 337/20AE/GLI Dyno Sheet Thread

    1. 10-07-2005 03:27 PM #106
      Here is my contribution: relatively warm day, no fans blowing on my car. dynojet dyno. NO CHIP. yet...
      MODS:
      ABD CAI
      3" GHL TB
      Samco TIP
      GHL upper and lower IC pipes
      N75H
      Forge 007DV

      178.9whp & 197lbtq
      GIAC X+ is on the way

    2. Moderator Flyin18T's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 10th, 2001
      Location
      Long Island
      Posts
      2,774
      10-08-2005 10:54 AM #107
      Quote, originally posted by SuperSrbin »

      Only mods are GIAC X+, GHL 3" DP, GHL CAI

      I've never seen torque jump so much between runs. Did you pull from same gear each run? Explain. Thanks.

      2012 MKVI Jetta GLI / 2008 Civic Si Sedan / 2007 Mazdaspeed 6 / 2004 MKIV Jetta GLI (1.8T) / 1996 MKIII Jetta GLX VR6

      https://twitter.com/Flyin18T

    3. 10-11-2005 08:57 PM #108

      APR K04, 3" GHL TB, Forge 007, P-flo. i had the boostvalve in and had the N75 looped off. I had it screwed all the way in. and it was only giving me about 18 psi. i wanted to turn it up more but i couldn't. and this was on the 100 oct program.

      and each run was with a little more boost. i wanted to go up to about 22 or 23.


      Modified by IFiONLY at 1:58 AM 10-12-2005


    4. Member 20thgti2461's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 10th, 2005
      Location
      Moore, OK
      Posts
      841
      Vehicles
      2010 VW CC Sport 2.0t Candy White Black Letherette
      10-20-2005 08:28 PM #109
      Well I just got my car off the Dynojet at Alternative Motorsports in OKC and here are my numbers, 176.9HP and 226.3 ft-lbs! It was around 75-80 degrees outside, the first run was the best, you could see that my turbo got heatsoaked the more we ran it. I have Revo stage 1, Forge 007, and Neuspeed P-Flo and running on the cheapest in town 91 octane gas. I don't know how I can post it unless I just take a picture because I don't have a scanner, SORRY.
      2010 VW CC Candy White 2.0T DSG Sport with Black Leatherette
      2005 VW Touareg V8 Auto with Camel Leather
      1991 VW Golf GL 8V 5 Speed
      1991 VW Passat GL 16v (Donor)
      1987 VW Jetta Coupe (Project)

    5. Member carrolltoncorrado's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2002
      Location
      Richardson, TX
      Posts
      5,632
      Vehicles
      1984 Rabbit / 2009 Jetta TDI
      10-23-2005 01:58 PM #110


      AWP motor,
      APR 93 program,
      Front mount installed day of the dyno, with no adapt,
      baileys DV

      hot as hell seummer in texas with no fan in front of the car..


    6. 10-24-2005 09:11 AM #111
      Quote, originally posted by Flyin18T »

      I've never seen torque jump so much between runs. Did you pull from same gear each run? Explain. Thanks.

      Yes, each pull was done in the same gear, I am still on the stock sidemount so I beleive thats why the numbers jumped with each pull, it was kinda warm the day I dynoed.


    7. 10-26-2005 07:12 PM #112
      Finally getting around to posting these:


      First graph is bone stock.

      Second is GIAC v12 vs. X+; otherwise the car is all stock. Loving the torque.

      Runs were done on a Mustang dyno.


    8. Banned Hetzen's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 9th, 2003
      Posts
      10,808
      10-27-2005 05:30 PM #113
      What's base on the second graph?

    9. 10-28-2005 12:52 PM #114
      Base is GIAC v12. The version before X+.

    10. Member SuperStar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 12th, 2001
      Location
      Seattle
      Posts
      3,257
      Vehicles
      12 Lexus CT 200h, 07 Chevy Avalanche LTZ
      10-29-2005 06:44 PM #115
      heres my 20th..
      dynorun.004: K04-001, GIAC, 2.5" TB, fmic 211.7 whp/ 289.7 wtq
      dynorun.001: K03s, GIAC, 2.5" TB, fmic with install/instruction paper in the piping 172.0 whp/ 240.5 wtq



      Modified by SuperStar at 4:04 PM 10-29-2005


      Modified by SuperStar at 2:39 PM 11-5-2005


    11. Member TheMarkP's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 24th, 2002
      Location
      Long beach CA
      Posts
      4,539
      Vehicles
      bagged turboed R32
      12-14-2005 03:28 AM #116
      here are my numbers

      225.9 whp
      265 torque

      mods are 3 in TB no cat no res, apr 93, DV-R, carbonio, j valve, "wastegate tuning"



    12. Member carrolltoncorrado's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2002
      Location
      Richardson, TX
      Posts
      5,632
      Vehicles
      1984 Rabbit / 2009 Jetta TDI
      12-14-2005 10:27 AM #117
      those are some awesome number man! share the secret!

    13. 12-14-2005 08:39 PM #118
      anyone with a dyno of just 2,5 GHL tb and a CAI???

    14. Member carrolltoncorrado's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2002
      Location
      Richardson, TX
      Posts
      5,632
      Vehicles
      1984 Rabbit / 2009 Jetta TDI
      12-15-2005 12:09 AM #119
      so what did you do for your "wastegate tuning"

    15. Member TheMarkP's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 24th, 2002
      Location
      Long beach CA
      Posts
      4,539
      Vehicles
      bagged turboed R32
      12-15-2005 12:58 PM #120

      Quote, originally posted by Swampyankee »
      "unbelievable" numbers.

      just tighten ur wastegate....and stop hateing, did u ever think also that our 65 degree weather and 5 ft elevation above sealevel might have something to do with it?

      look for real SFGTG is comin up....and then we can do tests of our own u know take it to the street(that was a joke)....but for real then u will see were not on "happy" dynoes



    16. 12-20-2005 07:16 PM #121
      30+ whp than everyone else on this post with similar mods just because of temp, altitude, and wastegate tunning is actually ridiculous. Not hating on you FL people and we don't need another 20+ worthless thread but until I see some quarter mile #'s to back up this claim I will have to keep doubting on your #'s

      Quote, originally posted by KraCKeD-GTI »


      just tighten ur wastegate....and stop hateing, did u ever think also that our 65 degree weather and 5 ft elevation above sealevel might have something to do with it?

      look for real SFGTG is comin up....and then we can do tests of our own u know take it to the street(that was a joke)....but for real then u will see were not on "happy" dynoes



    17. 12-20-2005 08:27 PM #122
      Looking further your dyno was using a SAE correction stated on the bottom of your sheet there, which actually does not factor in the current temp or altitude at the location you are, if an uncorrected dyno was done it would have measured these variables for that day. This is a very simple answer and I feel that this long read below would benefit this thread, being a dyno thread and someone who actually is interested in these correction methods used. and please refer to highlighted areas.

      What is Corrected Horsepower?

      We have all seen and made claims of an engine¡¯s horsepower. However, this stated horsepower is almost never what the engine actually made for power. How can that be? Most of the stated horsepower numbers are ¡°Corrected¡± values. The correction standards were developed to discount the observed horsepower readings taken at different locations and weather conditions. It is obvious that an engine builder in Colorado could not produce as much horsepower as a shop at sea level. There is just less oxygen for the engine to burn at the higher altitude. What are less obvious are the other weather condition effects on the engine. So in order to compensate for this all advertised horsepower is ¡°corrected¡± to several different industry standards.

      Most of you know about Atmospheric Correction Factors that are used to compare an engines power output for one day or location to another. However, these factors can be rather confusing and even deceptive. Everybody seems to declare there engine¡¯s horsepower as ¡°etched in stone¡± number, however we also know that the engine will make very different power on different days. Excluding other factors like engine temperature and quality of fuel used, the engine output is very dependant on the amount of oxygen in the air. So the only way to compare an engine¡¯s horsepower is to correct the output on a given day to some standard.

      The most common are the SAE standards. The older J607 standard considers that the engine was run on a 60¡ãF day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg or the newer SAE J1349 standard of 77¡ãF (25¡ãC) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa). Also the ECE standard is the same as the SAE J1349, but does not use mechanical efficiency in the calculations. The DIN standard which corrects to 68¡ãF (20¡ã C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg (101.3 KPa) and the JIS standard corrects 77¡ãF (25¡ã C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa), but uses different correction curves than the others (as a substitution for using mechanical efficiency factors). Further, we have the J1995 corrects 77¡ãF (25¡ã C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.53 in-Hg (100 KPa).

      Since very few engines are actually run in these conditions we apply these correction factors so that it is possible to compare the results taken on different days. First lets just look at the weather correction, we will see the second section dealing with mechanical efficiency later. Consider if you take a baseline run of a normally aspirated four stroke V-8 engine on a sultry day in late August, say 85¡ãF and 85% humidity and 28.85 in-Hg and the engine produced 400 Hp. Then after you finished making all your modifications you retest the engine in late September when it is 55¡ãF and 35% humidity and 30.10 in-Hg, the engine now makes 442 Hp. That¡¯s almost an 11 percent increase in Hp, however the engine is actually producing the exact same amount of horsepower according to the J607 correction values of 400 Hp * 1.1005 ¡Ö 440 Hp and 442 * 0.994 ¡Ö 440 Hp. If you had retested the engine in the same weather conditions it would have made 400 Hp again.

      There are many different correction ¡°Standards¡± out there, but here is the SAE J1349 formula:

      cf is the final correction factor multiplier
      Pd is the pressure of dry air in hPa
      (990 hPA = 99 kPa)
      Tc is the air's temperature in degrees Celsius

      One more source of confusion about the SAE J1349 is all the different values quoted for the Barometric Pressure in inches of Mercury. If you search around you will find the base values are different. Some will quote 29.234 in-Hg and others 29.318 and others 29.380. How can they all be correct? Well the calculations are done in KPa or millibars. These units are all true pressures, however inches of mercury, although considered a pressure unit, changes with temperature. This is because mercury expands as it gets warmer. Therefore 99 KPa at 32¡ãF is 29.234 in-Hg and 99 KPa at 60¡ãF is 29.318 in-Hg.

      Now this may sound confusing, but these formulas were developed to attempt to allow standardize advertised hp ratings and comparisons. The formulas are based on the amount of oxygen that is found in the air that the engine is breathing. The greater oxygen the more fuel can be burned and thus more horsepower. However, these formulas are not perfect. They were developed empirically and are a good approximation for the variables of humidity, temperature, and absolute pressure. However, internal combustion engines develop power on many other variables and although it is possible to have the same correction factor at high temperature and pressure as low temperature and pressure, the engine will make different power. The wetting effect and temperature differences are not perfectly compensated for. This gives rise to the ¡°purist¡± touting that all engines must be tested at the same atmospheric conditions or else the results are useless. In a prefect world this would be true, but this would be ludicrous. The cost of building an environmentally standardized test cell is well beyond the capabilities and cost of even large OEM companies and would give rise to even more deception in horsepower advertising.

      Now lets consider the next effect on the SAE standard that some other industrial standards do not include, the ¡°Mechanical Efficiency¡± of the engine. Which is basically the amount of energy the engine got from the fuel versus how much energy actually was produced at the flywheel. This is a measure that includes the frictional torque, viscous effect, etc. required to rotate the engine. If we take the SAE standard that a four stroke normally aspirated engine consumes 15% of its¡¯ developed horsepower to rotate the engine. This is another huge point of debate, but it does make sense. If we want to correct the observed horsepower to a standard condition, it make sense that the friction required to rotate the engine does not change with added oxygen in the air. So in the last example the engine produce 400 Hp on that hot August day. This time consider the SAE J1349 correction standard which has a correction factor of 1.0634. According to the SAE 15% standard it took 70.58 Hp (400 / 0.85 ¨C 400 = 70.58) to overcome the friction from ring drag, bearings, valve train, etc. Since this is a constant value no matter where the dyno test was taken, we know that the energy produced by the engine was actually 400 + 70.58 = 470.58 Hp. Now if we want to compensate for the atmospheric condition then we should use the amount of energy that the engine got from the fuel supply. So we take the 470.58 Hp * 1.0634 = 500.42 and then subtract out the constant Hp reading of 70.58. 500.42 ¨C 70.58 ¡Ö 430 Hp.

      Now it does make sense that the frictional torque is almost constant no matter how much oxygen was in the air, but the SAE flat rate 15% does not accurately cover all internal combustion engines. It is a compromise. In the example above we used a normally aspirated 4 stroke V-8 engine, but what if it were a two stroke V-8 outboard engine. It is quite obvious that the two stroke has much less frictional drag. It has no camshaft, timing chain, valves and springs, oil in the crankcase, etc. Comparing these two engines with the same 15% friction losses does not work. That is why some higher end dynoing software calculate the friction losses on many different variables, like the displacement, stroke for piston speed, type of aspiration, number of strokes, type of fuel, and RPM. Using this information will yield much greater accuracy in calculating a mechanical efficiency and therefore a much greater accuracy for in house comparisons between pulls. However, in order to advertise the value as SAE J1349 compliant you must usually use the SAE mechanical efficiency number.

      Another way to get accurate mechanical efficiency is to use a dyno that can ¡°motor¡± the engine, like an AC dyno. Just measure the amount of power it takes to drive the engine and then use those values for your own custom mechanical efficiency. Once again though, you will need a high-end software package that will easily allow you to use the new efficiency or else you will be doing a lot of tedious and time-consuming hand calculations. But once again, this solution is not perfect either. Many will argue correctly that motoring the engine is not the same because there was no heat, bearing loads, metal deformation, etc.

      Some companies who are working on a particular engine family will actually test the same engine under many different conditions and develop their own correction table. To these companies it is vital to know how their engines will perform under specific varying conditions. Consider snowmobiles that will operate at many different altitudes and temperatures, but they can pretty much discount the effects of humidity because the engine will almost always operate at temperatures below freezing. However, it is critical that their engines perform well at extremely different barometric pressures. An exhaust designed to run at sea level will not perform well at all in the mountains. Further, the opposite is true for marine engines. These engines are run most often at sea level, warm temperatures, and high humidity. Or a waste gated turbo engine that is pretty much impervious to even large barometric pressure changes. Thus the one size fits all SAE approach does not work well.

      The debate over the validity of correction factors still lingers on, but they are the only way to make realistic comparison of your engines on different days. There are, and always will be, unscrupulous competitors who advertise inflated horsepower gains by manipulating the correction factors, however they are eventually exposed at the races where it counts to the customer. In order to perform accurate and credible results you must use some factors and try to conduct your tests under ¡°similar¡± test conditions. In fact, SAE requires that the corrections be less than ¡À 7%. So in the example above we would not be allowed to use the STD or standard J607 SAE factor of 1.1005 because it is correcting by more than 10%, however the SAE J1349 factor of 1.0634 could just barely be used.
      Now that the importance of these correction factors is known they must be entered accurately for your test be to considered valid. Although the formulas look complicated you don¡¯t really have to know them, because any dynoing software worth using will do it for you based on the three environmental variables of temperature, humidity, and absolute barometric pressure. Note that you must enter the absolute barometric pressure NOT the relative pressure based on altitude, this can also be a source of confusion. Unless you are at sea level the barometric pressure that the weatherman states has been altitude corrected and you must use the actual pressure. Once again, most dynoing software will be able to do the conversion for you. Also be sure to enter these values at the beginning of the test after the dyno cell has come up to a stable temperature. Failure to do this will show lower horsepower than your engine actually made. Once again you should consider finding a dyno that will automatically enter these values for you, because many times you will forget to write them down and that will invalidate the dyno pull that you just made and could even lead you to discounting a modification that did actually increase the power of you engine. Also, for advanced software that use more realistic mechanical efficiency you must enter the required information about the engine, such as bore, stroke, number of piston, type of engine, etc.

      It is also important that you use the same correction method for all testing and that your customer is shown the correction method used to calculate the horsepower. The customer may not understand all that went into the horsepower reading, but at least you will know that service was provided correctly and honestly. When considering a dyno you should research how the companies allow you to do your corrections. It may not be important now to be able to enter custom correct factor or even enter any at all, but it most likely will be later on down the road.


      Quote, originally posted by KraCKeD-GTI »

      sux for u




      Modified by Volks4eVR at 5:31 PM 12-20-2005

    18. 12-20-2005 10:57 PM #123
      I will try and dumb this down a little for you, SAE is a correction method used so that you can dyno your car today at a certain temperature, humidity and pressure and get an HP and T reading and come back the next day with different temperature, humidity and pressure readings but still have a comparable reading because the dyno corrected these variables to a standard temperature, humidity and pressure used for the SAE correction. So when you get a reading on a dyno from FL using SAE and another in NY using SAE it does not take the temperature, humidity and pressure of that location. If these variables are put into the dyno incorrectly these can yield a higher HP or T reading than you actually are putting out or vice versa. If you need more info just do a search on google for dyno SAE and you will learn of how easy it is to get inaccurate readings.

      Here is another great piece of info i found on the net and thought i would share with all, and yes I copy and pasted what is below:

      Other things to watch are correction factors applied for altitude, barometric pressure and temperature. These factors are NOT the same for atmo and turbo engines. Using atmo factors inflates the true, corrected HP figures on a turbo engine. In fact, look at the correction factor applied on your dyno sheets and see if they make sense. Many shady dyno operators simply enter a phantom correction factor to make the customer happy. This is a case where the dyno sheet DOES lie. Chassis dynos are essentially for tuning purposes, they are not well suited to giving an accurate hp figure.

      Be aware that SAE correction factors do not apply to turbocharged engines! If your dyno sheet lists SAE corrected HP, ignore it as it is incorrect. You are better off getting an idea of where you stand by looking at observed hp with a turbo engine.


    19. 12-26-2005 01:33 AM #124
      please excuse my ignorance but how does a Garrett GT30R turbo work with software that is tuned for a samller turbo?

    20. Banned Hetzen's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 9th, 2003
      Posts
      10,808
      12-28-2005 01:19 AM #125
      Quote, originally posted by one sweet dub »
      please excuse my ignorance but how does a Garrett GT30R turbo work with software that is tuned for a samller turbo?

      Depends how much smaller. K03...****. Something bigger.....not too bad. Problem is, GT30r can max out 440cc injectors, so you won't be even close to pushing it on anything written for a smaller turbo. A/F will prob be off too as well as the timing. And to justify getting a GT30r, you more then likely will need internal work, which means you got $ to spend. So fork some more over and get a good tune


    21. 12-28-2005 06:47 PM #126
      thanks for clarifying.

    22. 01-08-2006 06:18 PM #127
      2003 VW GTI 20th, 1.8T, all stock except below, 60's F weather

      mustang dyno

      mods:

      APR 93
      3" GHL full turboback
      Forge 007

      ...HP is great, but torque sucks, which i noticed it was gone after TB. oh well...




      Modified by 02icarus at 6:26 PM 1-8-2006


    23. Member ludicris337's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 25th, 2005
      Location
      Windsor, Ontario, CAN
      Posts
      237
      Vehicles
      1980 Rabbit Diesel, 1980 Rabbit GTI, 2006 Jetta 2.5
      01-22-2006 11:26 AM #128
      i did 168hp and 193 tq with my mods below. i don't have a scanner or digi cam to post a pic. at first the guy did a 4th gear pull but then discovered i was a 6 speed. so he did the two more pulls in fifth and came up with these #'s. my fourth gear pull was 184hp but he said it wasn't a 1:1 ratio.

    24. Member xgtiride's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2003
      Posts
      992
      Vehicles
      2012/VW/GOLF_TDI
      01-23-2006 03:58 PM #129
      Finally had my car re-flashed to the revo 4bar program now that I have my dp and exhaust set up.
      First some notes.

      Stock Dyno Mods: Autotech CAI

      Revo 3bar Dyno Mods: Autotech CAI

      Revo 4bar Dyno Mods: Autotech CAI, Baileys DV(not really a power mod), Autotech 2.5 in DP welded to factory cat --> Magnaflow 2.5 in cat-back welded to cat (Note there is no choke down in the exhaust, all welds to the factory cat were made so that the diameter remained constant), and of course the 4bar FPR.

      Dyno Results:

      Stock HP: 164.81 Stock TQ: 178.03

      3Bar HP: 188.37 3Bar TQ: 225.26

      4Bar HP: 195.49 4Bar TQ: 247.63

      You figure out Deltas

      Although I wanted to hit that 200hp mark... with some good ole 93 east coast octane I think it could have been done. I would like to note that in daily driving my Gas Mileage has increased about 2-3 miles per gallon with the 4bar program and that the 4bar program is noticeably smoother than the 3bar program in everyday driving.


    25. 01-25-2006 12:49 PM #130
      I have an 04.5 GLI 1.8T. I put down 199WHP and 230WTQ on a DynoJet dyno. I feel like I should have done a little better, but who knows. I also had a little fun on the way to the dyno and only had about 10 mins cool down time. I had a total of 7 runs and only lost about 4whp and 2 wtq overall. It was about mid 70s outside.

    26. 01-25-2006 12:50 PM #131
      I'll make a sig w/all of my mods and I'll also try to get the charts up on here later today.

    27. Member drppedfikse's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 6th, 2004
      Location
      Nevaduh
      Posts
      2,190
      Vehicles
      09' VW GTI 4dr UG :: 02' Chevy Avalanche 2500 8.1L KB 2.8L
      02-05-2006 03:47 PM #132
      Yeah well I will let the dyno speak for itself.



      Yes numbers are not good. I need to do some work before I can actually figure this out. The car pulls so much hard with my setup just not getting the numbers to prove it. It is okay I know the thing pulls.

      Previously --- 05jettagli /// 09' TSI UG 4Dr : OEM+ : REVO : EUROJET : Wilwood : BFI : Forge : H&R : GOAPR SOON??? : FIKSE

      flickr
      Zenfolio

    28. Banned Hetzen's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 9th, 2003
      Posts
      10,808
      02-08-2006 06:46 PM #133
      Why is that one A/F so wack? 10:1?

    29. Member drppedfikse's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 6th, 2004
      Location
      Nevaduh
      Posts
      2,190
      Vehicles
      09' VW GTI 4dr UG :: 02' Chevy Avalanche 2500 8.1L KB 2.8L
      02-08-2006 07:26 PM #134
      The software was running funny. I am talking with APR to figure it out. It runs lean then real rich. I am trying to figure out some other things I am having trouble with.
      Previously --- 05jettagli /// 09' TSI UG 4Dr : OEM+ : REVO : EUROJET : Wilwood : BFI : Forge : H&R : GOAPR SOON??? : FIKSE

      flickr
      Zenfolio

    30. Member scharged's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 8th, 2004
      Location
      Houston Tejas
      Posts
      8,401
      Vehicles
      old S wagon an M3
      02-12-2006 06:00 PM #135
      Whats the deal with everyone claiming "no fan blowing"? You seriously let someone dyno your car with NO fan, wtf? That makes no sense

    31. Member drppedfikse's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 6th, 2004
      Location
      Nevaduh
      Posts
      2,190
      Vehicles
      09' VW GTI 4dr UG :: 02' Chevy Avalanche 2500 8.1L KB 2.8L
      02-12-2006 07:33 PM #136
      That is kind of funny. Because on the road you have a "fan" blowing at your car the whole time. Oh well I guess they want to prove it is better to have no fan.
      Previously --- 05jettagli /// 09' TSI UG 4Dr : OEM+ : REVO : EUROJET : Wilwood : BFI : Forge : H&R : GOAPR SOON??? : FIKSE

      flickr
      Zenfolio

    32. 02-13-2006 09:01 PM #137

    33. 02-15-2006 09:33 PM #138
      does anyone have a dyno run or numbers for APR 93 with a CAI and APR TIP? thanks guys

    34. Junior Member Atl337's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 24th, 2002
      Location
      Marietta, GA
      Posts
      93
      Vehicles
      2010 Audi A4 Avant S-Line
      02-16-2006 11:36 AM #139

      174hp/184tq: 2.5" custom TB exh, AEM CAI, N75J, 4bar FPR Hyperboost DV
      194hp/224tq: 2.5" custom TB exh, AEM CAI, N75J, 4bar FPR Hyperboost DV, APR 93 octane

      Since then I have added K04, APR K04 programs, NGK Iridium, and Neuspeed TIP. Will dyno in the next few weeks, hopefully.

      2010 Audi A4 Avant S-Line
      Quartz Metallic Gray

    35. Junior Member Atl337's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 24th, 2002
      Location
      Marietta, GA
      Posts
      93
      Vehicles
      2010 Audi A4 Avant S-Line
      02-16-2006 11:53 AM #140
      2010 Audi A4 Avant S-Line
      Quartz Metallic Gray

    Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •