Agin we're back to the "whole package" statement, the bigger turbo required to make 400bhp has it's dis-advantages when it comes to getting it off the line and up to 60mph, I'll wager my 10yr old WRX PPP would be neck and neck with the Cosworth to 60mph but get obliterated there after and in any other situation too on the road or track, but I'd still clam bragging rights down the pub.

Not the same car but a close comparison, I had a go down the local street race drag strip against a new Golf GTI in the Wagon recently and totally murdered it off the line, I was maybe 4 car lengths in front, then he started to wind me in at around the half way mark reducing it to about a car length by the finish line.

I'd imagine it would be a close call to 60mph with the Golf R too (manual) if I got the perfect launch, as I only need one gear change and it needs 2 to hit 60mph and yet again retain bragging rights.

I think the A45 is the real "Game changer" here though, it just looks so capable going through the bends, the stability during direction changes seems to defy physics, I'd be interested to see how it does compared to the R26 track version of the Megan in the handling stakes, slopes off to look at youtube.

 

the BHP figures do fluctuate, and as Shaun said it can be down to the Dyno

MSL reported a stock BHP of 394BHP

I spoke to Luke at RENNtech at length around this, and he also confirmed that hes yet to see a 355BHP A45 on RENNtechs Dyno they are always 369 upwards on his, not that im grumbling.

I know you Shaun are a king of Dynos so it would be good to know what stock BHP yours has, long as you take the guys advice and use a Linked Dyno not simulated then your Haldex will survive

 

On another note that new EVO looks nice, this is where SUBARU need to be

The aggressive massive BHP that I used to look at in awe when they brought their first green thing out. they have slipped now into insignificance to me, now if they produced a 470BHP STI I can guarantee most of us would stand up and look. I liked my Scoob there RAW, even running wires behind the dash was ****, because its rawly built if you get my angle, everything's just easy, running wires in this A45 its so tight is the dash that I cant be arsed ...

 

Yep me too, just had a quick scout about and my 10yr old Wagon PPP is claimed at 4.8.

Modern cars, who needs em.

 

Imprezas have always had incredible 0-60 times. They usually lose out a bit to 100 though as drivetrain losses kick in.
I remember driving an FQ360 and being utterly gobsmacked that it's 0-60 matched a Carrera GT (3.9s)!!
What's the fastest accelerating stock Impreza? The WR1 seems to be very quick.

 

WR1 was a con, I think it's my Type R or one of the RA versions and it 's into the mid 3's, but don't quote me, been a while since I looked.

One thing for sure, PPP or lightly modded it just goes to show how good Impreza's were over 15yrs ago, other manufactures are still struggling to out run them by any significant margin, ok they're a tad thirstier than the new breed but £30k buys an awful lot of fuel.

 

Was the type R a UK car?
How about the RB320? That's pretty nippy.
I remember ogling a WR1 before I could afford anything half decent.

Oh that Golf R test is the old mk6!

 

Type R was an import, you really need to brush up on your Subaru knowledge now your an owner.

With the UK cars then it's probably the 22B or P1 at a guess, both derrived from the Type R.

Not sure about the RB320 but it's probably near the top of the UK cars, but maybe let down in the 0-60 stakes due to bigger turbo and 6 speed, I'd say we're probably back somewhere close to my mighty WRX PPP at 4.8 sec as far as the UK Newage cars are concerned, small turbo and makes it to 60 in 2nd gear.

 

Yep I was talking UK cars, not JDM imports.
Somehow I think my non turbo 2.5 estate may not require me to learn all about top end Imprezas I've always been interested in them though ever since my 17 year old girlfriend (we've been married 15 years, together for 18!) took me for a blast in a brand new (N reg!) Turbo wagon. I was smitten!

 

Ditch,
So where did it all go wrong on your master plan then?

I'm 43, so that would make you...... ancient!?

I remember the days when power steering was seen as the work of the Devil, making a car less like a "drivers car". How times move on hey.

Carnut,
Stop reading and start basing your comments on real world experience. What should, doesn't always relate to what does.

However, if you are going to compare times, be sure you're comparing apples with apples. 0-60 times instead of one at 0-60mph and the other at 0-100km.

Ted,
If the A45 engine produces 394bhp STOCK.... I'll run down the high street with my clothes off. I'll make sure I book a spray tan just in case. lol

Hopefully we'll get some meaningful (imo) data soonish.

Matt,
I would suggest it maybe one of the early (same model as I had) SPEC C's, in relation to the fastest 0-60 time.

 

Nope sorry I'm not that ancient only 5yrs older than you, for some reason I thought you were mid 30's.

The master plan is still in place somewhere I enjoyed the high life that much I decided I needed to retire very early and get on the case of being able to sit on my **** whilst scratching it and drinking beer next to my pool by the time I'm 55 ish and have an old Porker in the garage which I very much doubt will happen, and it will more than likely end up being the Typ R in the garage, but I am planning on keeping a couple of pigs, so not too far off.

You probably just caught the back end of the real drivers cars, I cut my teeth in Cortinas, Capri's and Escorts as a young un, first couple of cars I learned to drive in at the ripe old age of 16 was an Austin Maxi that four of us bought for 50 quid and one of my sisters boyfriends let me have a go in his Triumph Tolledo, proper mens cars.

 

here save you searching if anyones interested

Our GLA 45 AMG 2014 '64' Surprisingly made very good power stock, compared to other 45's we have had on our Dyno, Our car Made 334.31 WHP and 320.91 WTQ, We use a 18% loss on our dyno which equates to 395.48 BHP!! and 378.67 ft-lb Torque. and we do use 4th gear for dyno pulls.




Compared to Other cars which on average make around the 300 WHP mark Stock.




With no tune and Just the Weistec Downpipe our car has Made 341.15WHP and 330.12 WTQ which equates to 402.56BHP and 389.54 ft-lb Torque




If we had another Stock car running stock power of circa 300WHP im sure the downpipe would have made a bigger difference.




So now for the good bit, with our MSL Tune Box and Weistec Downpipe 365.63 WHP and 406.69 WTQ. which equates to 431.44 BHP and 479.89 ft-lb Torque




Here is a copy of the Dyno Graph, The overall figure is good, however if you study the graph and look at around 65 MPH there is a Gain of nearly 90 WHP!!

Links

http://www.aclassclub.co.uk/forum/a4...929_page1.html

http://www.aclassclub.co.uk/forum/ms...720_page2.html

 

For starters I can highlight one immediate issue with those figures..... and that's the Flywheel calculation. If the measured (and importantly, corrected) wheel figure is 334.31bhp with a 18% drag loss, that means you divide the 334.31 by 82 (100-18) * 100. This gives you an estimated flywheel figure of 408bhp. You don't treat the ATW figure as 100% as drag is a proportion of the whole and the whole is 100%.

So an engine that is reported as producing 355bhp from the manufacturer is actually putting out 408bhp...... highly unlikely and that's being kind.

 

I always chuckle when you reveal the fickleness of dyno figures.

 

I think this is a bit unfair Shaun, lets not forget it was you that started posting bhp and 0-60 comparisons to which I then responded including things like this in my posts.


If you were not trying to make your car look better by giving bad info on a CS400 I wouldn't have posted bhp stats etc.

There are many variables and subjective elements to cars but the cars themselves can be quantified so not always a bad starting point.

 

People seem to use the same %age loss on a car with 500bhp as they do with a car at lets say 200bhp.


For round figures lets say a STI has 300bhp (fly wheel) and it was to loose 10% at the wheels that would be a lose of 30bhp.
So the gearbox etc takes 30bhp away from the flywheel, does that gearbox etc not just sap that same 30 bhp at what ever power you run?


So if you then tuned said STI and made it 500bhp and still chose to reduce by 10% to the wheels the same gearbox would now be saping 50 bhp


What im saying is in my head, if Im right, we should just say for example, the drive train in a STI or A45 AMG etc takes 30bhp, 50bhp or whatever from the flywheel.


Am I way off here


Surely if a Veyron was to loose about 20% that would be around 200bhp just to overcome the gearbox to start moving, the bigger the bhp the smaller the % of lose.

 

Carnut,
I'll take you first response initially (I'm gagging for something to eat)..... I have another comment to make on the dyno figures claimed, in respect of the transmission losses being used in those examples. I think you may find my comments interesting, in relation to your second response.

Anyway......

My initial sentence was alluding to is that published figures don't always relate to the real world. If you take the A45..... published figures from the manufacturer are based on 0-62mph times. However, there is so much information in the wild about what 0-60mph times that have been achieved consistently, independently, and used hardware like Racelogics VBOX.... that gives you real world context. Don't worry, I'll be putting mine through it's paces with my own VBOX soon enough.

On the flip side to this, feel free to find any substantiated information relating to the CS400 acceleration times. If it's there I couldn't find anything, other than the Spanish tested performance figures, which relate to the 4.whatever I stated. Couple this with zero performance information being made available from an organised event (Subaru/IM and was it autoexpress - or whoever it was), no performance data was provided..... come on, you gotta sense something fishy there.

It's all about context.

I know from personal experience how hard it is to get consistent times out of a Subaru, with a larger turbo and a 6sp box. But if we're unable to achieve the claimed times, I feel it's not that relevant to us in many ways.

Again....It's all about context.

I wasn't trying to make my car look better, I was drawing a comparison that to some was inevitable. All it was, was a comparison. I'm hardly going to slag the engine off.... I had the same engine in my SPEC C, albeit tuned to over 600bhp.

 

I find it weird that MSL who have been going for a very long time and a very well known AMG tuner would run a Dyno that's wrong...


Do you not think ? or am I looking at this wrongly. get your Dynod Shaun see what she runs..

 

Dyno overestimates are part of the industry, my car supposedly dynos at 63BHP over claim. I don't believe it. It is more interesting and relevant that it does 0-60 in 3.5 and 0-100 in 8.4.

 

Ted,
A lot of dynos are geared towards WHP which is measured, and that is what the software reports on as default within the graphs. The graphs appear to be WHP derived, so I suspect the fly wheel figure has been calculated manually, and nothing to do with the dyno itself.

 

Its the old mk6 R with 270bhp in that video, the new mk7 R has 300bhp. that 30bhp extra makes all the difference!!

 

I think that vid shows why you've made the right decision about DSG John, you must be pìssing your pants.

 

Its to much effort to move my left arm, and push my left leg down on the clutch to change gear!!!

Lazy driving is the future!!!

 

Went to collect my dads new B Class tonight and whilst I was there I sat in a lot of cars..

The GL63 is MASSIVE want one but its 80k
E63 very nice
CLA45 kinda ok but not to taken with the shape
GLA45 liked this photos don't domit justice looked nice.

What you all think

 

I'm not into mini SUV's tbh. It's like a ******* child between the A45 and CLA.

 

Kinda a wife car

 

Does that engine work in a CLA45 AMG?
More of a hot hatch engine I would of thought.

 

Agreed Ted.

Carnut,
Why would it not "work"... It's the same engine in the Saloon as well.

 

Out of the CS400, [edit] Evo Magazine managed 0-60 in 4.6s and 0-100 in 10.7 these are the only figures I can find . But they weren't exactly glowing in praise of the car, Car magazine "estimated" the 0-60 time to be "around five seconds" and Autocar / Autoexpress gave it 4/5 and said it was a good car, no figures.

Everyone criticises the narrow powerband from the engine, it's spooling from 3500rpm and you're usually wanting to change up before 6500rpm.

From my own experience, it's awesome in 4th, 5th and 6th but second and third are very quickly consumed. If the power could be used for another 500+ rpm it'd be epic.

Like the FQ400 was in many ways an inferior car to a tuner's 400bhp Evo I know for a fact that the car would be transformed by someone like AF.

Relating this to the Merc (0-60 4.3 0-100 10.6) with a newer engine tech, fancy gearbox... very different car and out of the box it's likely going to have the edge on paper and I suspect it'd just about nudge in front on track despite having at least 50bhp less. But that's what four years of progress in the sector, with one of the world's leading car brands throwing its might behind it, can achieve.

 

I thought the CLA45 AMG was a Saloon with the same engine as the A45 AMG, might have got my cars wrong.
What I meant was because its a bigger car, a bigger car sometimes suits a bigger engine.


I don't know though, that's why I asked