Mitchy260

John, im sure you've seen the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXuxigqjC30

450hp RS vs 550hp+ M5

Anyway, the owner of the green RS is on the TT forum and the TT speedo is very accurate as seen here

http://www.tt-forum.co.uk/forum/view...?f=19&t=186967

181mph speedo = 179mph true vmax.4th post down. However his highest vmax on the 2m straight was 181mph (184 speedo)

You will also note that this car achieved a 3.55 at GTI International behind Jonny Cockers amazing 3.15sec 60 RS.

Video..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMT8kwhrvyU

So in the 0-310km/h video, you can clearly see that the driver does not launch the vehicle, 60 comes up in around 4.5 and 100 in 10 on this video hence my claim, that had he launched the thing better, then this engine is capable of sub 40 sec 300 runs with minor fettling.

Lots of evidence out there on how good this engine is John and this is only with minor fettling. Jonny Cocker is hoping to get his RS into the 10's next year on standard turbo (he has decided to keep his RS) I wouldn't bet against him, if anyone can extract the best out of a car, he can.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Most VAG speedos overread by about 5% : as shown by VAG-COM, which quite handily does automated 0-60 and quarter mile calculations based on actual wheel speed sensors (assuming the tyre size is programmed in correctly).

Mitchy260

I've never heard of engine/transmission destruction issues with simple stage 1 or 2 software tunes no. Engine failures will come about with heavily modified cars, bolting on larger turbos, mapping to high boost levels and pistons and rods failing. (I'm sure there are many on here who have had experiences with this due to the very nature of the car forum site we are all posting on )

Keeping the standard bits and bobs in place and uploading new software is about as basic and minor as it gets in my opinion, so I see no harm of mentioning remaps.

I'd probably not buy a remapped car, thoughts would ring through that its had a hard life, you're right, I'd rather buy a standard car and then opt for a remap. On selling on the vehicle there is no need to tell the next owner that the car is not standard, it's just a quick 1

As to Evo's, I'll stop there, they used to rule the roost 5-10yrs ago, not now I'm afraid. The new breed of hot hatches are all over them as will this RS3.

As to remapping, we are on scoobynet. How many imprezas out there remain in standard form

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

So what would be the cost to get RS3 from standard power to say 500bhp?

Mitchy260

Perhaps but this was a vmax day at Brunters and I'm only going off the results posted. 184 speedo was recorded as a 181 vmax, that's only 1.2% out. 181 can be checked and verified on v-max website.

Mitchy260

It costs less than £2k to get it from its standard 340 to 450.

500 would be by modifying the standard turbo and making it into a hybrid or a larger turbo and obviously this gets a lot more expensive. Most people are going to stop at this 450ish mark for this reason. You could spend £2k trying to modify say the V8 of an M3 and get around 25hp so I think it's definitely relevant to bring remapping of turbo cars into the equation.

Even standard, the RS3 posts a 0-60 of 4.3, come on guys that is not to be sniffed at from something costing less than £40k.

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

0-60 does not mean anything in the real world, would prefer to know the 60-100 time as that is a better indication of power.

Banny

stilover

So you'd be quite happy selling on a car without telling the buyer the truth about any none standard items or remaps?

So if anything happened and the new owner needed to claim, and the insurance company inspected the car, found it had been remapped, and then refused to pay out. You'd be happy with that?

I do agree there. The Focus RS started the death of the STI / Evo's. The RS3 makes them look cheap & nasty in comparison.

I did mine, but it was with Prodive, so warranty safe.

Mitchy260

To be fair, with me personally, the way I buy my cars the manufacturer will always buy it back from me. Audi will then put the car through a series of around 50 or so checks to grant it ''Audi approved''

1 of these checks is to clear the ECU of any fault codes and set back to factory settings so in essence any remap would be over written by the standard map. It is happening to a lot of guys with remaps just now, they put their car in for a service, only to find that when picking the cars up, they are standard again. It's a PITA but it seems to be the way Audi do things nowadays.

I had some warranty work done on my last TT, replace rear bumper so nothing to do with engine management, but they still wiped the ECU of any remap and I had a trip back to the tuner at no cost fortunately to load the map back in. This is likely to happen from what I am reading anytime the car goes in for any kind of work.

If I was selling privately and it was outwith its warranty, then no real harm. I suppose insurance could be an issue but the new owner would simply plead he didn't know the software was updated. Saying that, I did manage to sell my tuned Leon Cupra with no problems, I advertised it as tuned and it was sold as tuned, but I do see the points raised about buying modified cars.

john banks

It is a decent engine, but 0-300km/h in 40s off the speedo as a performance claim is surely a joke.

Here are the Vmax results. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...%20(in%20order

A stage 1 TTRS is doing 173mph or 1mph faster than an E39 M5 which costs about 1/4 of the price of a TTRS.

It is an interesting car, but to go properly fast you'd be better spending a little more to get something that is fast to start with, and then if you want to, modify that.

Let's not pretend with a stage 1 map that it is going to worry any serious machinery.

0-300 in 40 is a pipe dream with "minor fettling". I'll eat my words if you show me this on timing gear.

Mitchy260

I was merely pointing out that it appears to be ITRO of around 40secs off that particular video, there are no 'official' 0-300km/h runs available for the TTRS yet, so I can only go off what appears to be around 40secs in the linked youtube video. Even if it is innacurate and a few seconds off, it's in the right ballpark and cannot be sniffed at especially considering you see a stock R35 GTR doing the same 0-300 in 53secs. (According to the fastestlaps link anyway)

To go proper fast, you need a supercar, a good 1 at that, or you need to heavily modify a normal road car. Just look at the M5 vs TTRS link. The TTRS with over 100hp less shouldnt have been able to do that, but it did. The M5 is supposed to be 1 of the quickest road cars available but it was struggling to catch the green RS and only started inching back ground at 150mph+. I wont post the same M5 vs GTR link but the videos prove something, and thats that this engine is an absolute gem.

Will be the same in this RS3

A GTR is £60k and is a very expensive car to run, sure it's very quick out of the box and sure it's insanely quick when tuned but it's not everyones cup of tea and not really a practical day to day car in my opinion. I wouldn't fancy doing the average 15k miles pa in it, I dont expect many will do.This RS3 however is a practical day to day car, it costs 33% less than your GTR at £40k, it will be much cheaper to run, service, tax and insure and with a little fettling (£2k max) it has the potential to upset/stick to some exotic machinery costing 2 or 3 times it's pricetag.For that reason, It's a performance bargain in my opinion.

Did I not read that you were after an RS3 as your day to day or have I mistaken you for someone else?

Standard vs standard, yes, you are correct, it's not going to upset serious machinery, it is afterall just a 340hp A3 hatch.

Mitchy260

John, do you not fancy a vmax day?

Thinking about going down myself for the next 1 if I can get booked on it, I know you're up my neck of the woods, could do a wee convoy down together.

Jimpreza

Take the Golf John and give him a chance.

john banks

The rs went before the m5 but was still fast. That the rs doesn't go faster than stock gtr which is 53s to 300 is exactly my point why 40 is hugely optimistic especially when it is power rather than power to weight that makes you fast to 300.

I tuned with GTC purple zilla in its 192 and 196 spec. Mine is similar to it's 192mph spec so little point in me running my own.

Mitchy260

What power is yours at John? What kind of figures are we looking at for simple stage 1 tune hp wise? I seen you quote 6.9 to the ton which is ludicrously quick in an earlier post? Have any UK cars broken through the 200mph or 10sec 1/4 barriers yet?

Anyway, it's all fun. I'll probably give vmax a go next year, would love to see a genuine 180 from my little golf.

john banks

Fastest UK is 9.8 quarter that we tuned, but no one yet in the UK has run proper upgraded turbos, just wheel upgrades, so far.

A tune on a completely standard car can do about 570 BHP depending on dyno, best UK time is 11.0 quarter at 128mph. Adding an exhaust the best UK time is IIRC 10.7 at 133mph. Both of these are full weight, stock tyres.

In the US, the best quarter is 9.1 at 163mph. A few have done 200+mph in a standing mile.

The best on stock turbos is:
60' 1.483
330 4.181
1/8 6.430
mph 106.52
1000 8.364
1/4 10.011
MPH 136.90

That is with: intakes, exhaust, injectors, pumps, E85, drag radials on the back, passenger seat removed, tune. Similar spec has done 0-300km/h in 25.3s.

Dingdongler

Not sure why the anti remap guys are out. I agree it's stupid when people say my car x would be faster than car y if I added new turbos, maniflod, uprated engine internals, injectors, intercoolers, new brakes, suspension etc. Why not just buy car y which was a car designed to go that fast in the first place????

However a simple remap is neither here or there, as long as it's kept at a reasonable level. I will very likely take my new 535d MS for a remap as soon as it arrives. Why? Well why not?? If I can get another 50 BHP for £500 then it's a no brainer really. Am I taking a risk with the warranty? Yes but it's a calculated one. I'm not doing it because I want to be as fast as some other car, it's just because it can be done, and from what I can gather can be done safely.

A colleague at work bought a brand new 997 turbo cabriolet a few years ago and went straight to DMS to have it mapped. When I jokingly asked him if it wasn't fast enough in the first place he said that after spending £100k it would have been rude not to spend an extra £1000 for 50+ BHP. I know exactly what he meant

alanbell

iTrader: (6)

Remap last car A6 tdi remapped, before that bmw 535 tdi remapped, before that jdm STI over 500 of each remapped, before that uk turbo remapped, and the list go,s on car Ive got now it,s ok for now

scooby-tc

iTrader: (2)

My RS was already mapped when i bought it and i don't plan on touching it mod wise its bonkers fast as it is.So am i immune from the remap bashing

LG John

I have no beef with remapping cars at all.

As I see it the factory settings are to cover all eventualities and that includes muppet owners that show their car zero respect, do not follow servicing, maintenance and general checking rituals, and also, owners that live in more hostile climates.

We live in the UK and I personally look after my cars carefully and ensure the oil is checked regularly, they are serviced on time and that any potential problems are 'nipped in the bud'.

I don't see why the power and abilities of my vehicle should be capped to cater for the average non-enthusiast owner and, as such, I'd happily get any of my cars remapped if it was worth doing so (obviously ST220 isn't worth it for minimal gain).

IMHO, any fastidious turbo car owner should have their car remapped as par for the course.

If I buy any turbo car again it's pretty much the first thing that is happening.

zip106

I'm not anti-remap per se, DD - it's just the usual 'if you get your car remapped it's quicker than xyz at only half the price...' bollix that just wears very thin after a while.

It seems some people feel the need to justify a remap as the car they've bought is somehow inadequate straight out the box for the money they've spent.

I may, in a years time feel the need to map mine as I'm used to the power it has now - but would I notice another 50hp (for about £1500) in something that already has around 470?

I don't think that a. i'd notice and b. i'd be able to use anywhere near all of that extra power on our roads.

Oh, if your mate went to DMS he wouldn't have got an extra 50 bhp...

scooby-tc

iTrader: (2)

Im sure P1 owners would disagree

Mitchy260

I wouldn't call a car that can do 0-60 in 4.3 and onto 174mph as it leaves the factory inadequate. I am just in agreement with a few of the posters above. Saxoboy makes a good point about OEM safe guarding due to fuc*wit owners. Ding also makes a good point, why not? In the 2.5T case its an extra 75bhp over standard for a mere £500 or so. Had Audi made this extra 75bhp as an option, I suspect it would be ticked on every order It's not and hence why most petrol heads will drive their car straight to a tuner for a remap.

Had it been a V8 M3, well that's another matter, just no point in tuning N/A unless you're going full hog, turbo beasts are another kettle of fish though. I dont have problems with lightly tuned cars and I'm probably not hardcore enough to heavily modify a car. Anyway, its all fun, there will always be faster cars out there, so as long as you're happy then who really cares?

1 series M coupe also looks nice, wonder what that will map too

Matteeboy

I would be very surprised if the RS3 does 0-60 in 4.3s (TG says 4.6s) from a car with 340bhp that weighs 1.575 tonnes.

Audi are getting a bit of a rep for over claiming both bhp and performance figures. The A4 3.0TDI Avant is a case in point - 6.1s to 60 is simply complete bo77ocks.
And then there's the 40ish bhp overclaim for the B7 RS4...

Any of you looked at many remap dyno curves? Factory curves are nice and smooth/flat. Remapped are more often than not spiky as hell.

Nope - remaps are not the panacea to all performance needs everyone thinks they are. I suspect many get them because they want to impress their mates at the pub.

A recent newish 335d owner I know of had his Bluefinned - it's killed the engine completely.

zip106

I wasn't particularly aiming my last post at you - just these types of threads in general.
But again - 0-60 and top speed means absolutely **** all.
Rather a car that only does 0-60 in 8 secs but handles and drives better.

stilover

Then why didn't you buy a GT3?





Thought I'd get in first before Fishface.












I'd have a 996TT over a 996GT3 too.

Mitchy260

Matt, 0-62mph as quoted by Audi is 4.6secs. 60 is going to come up in around 4.3/4.4. S-Tronic too with launch control so an average driver will be able to do this with minimal effort time and time again. An Evo FQ400 may well do 0-60 in 3.8 but just try and do it time and time again.

Audi RS4 had a bad rep as they were found to be underpowered by around 30hp in most cases but I think with the turbo VAG cars they are conservative rather than optimistic figures.

Bluefin do offer a warranty, it is unusual for just a remap to destroy an engine.

zip106

Matteeboy

Bluefin are trying to sort it but it's a total nightmare for the owner.

I will wait to see the "official" performance figures for the RS3.

How is it quicker than the TTRS with a lot less weight but the same power? Hmmm...

Mitchy260

Both TTRS and RS3 post official 0-62 times of 4.6 so 4.3 to 60. Reason for them being equal with the RS3 being heavier is due to manual vs auto box. The TTRS has just been released with the autobox and its 0-62 time falls down to 4.3 so a 4 sec flat to 60. Not too shabby for £45k to be fair

Always wondered about the bluefin warranty, I hope they keep to their guarantee and pay out for him.