Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 05.08.10 21:47
|
|
|
2.7 biturbo vs 4.2 v8
B5 2.7t vs. B6 4.2 Performance
May 20, 2004
B5 2.7t vs. B6 4.2 Performance
Text and Pictures by on Pavlik
Turbocharged B5 S4 or V8 powered B6 S4?
The world got its first look at Audi's 2.7t bi-turbo engine when Audi launched the B5 S4. The engine was an immediate hit among enthusiasts with its
deceptively powerful, long, flat torque curve and an advertised 250 HP (265 HP in Europe). With a simple chip/exhaust upgrade the engine was easily
tuned into the 350 HP neighborhood and over 430 HP with upgraded turbochargers. Unfortunately, the 2.7t could, at times, also be prone to intake
plumbing problems and turbocharger failures.
Jumping ahead to the next generation, Audi introduced the B6 S4 with a shortened version of the 4.2 liter V8 producing 340 HP right from the factory.
The lightweight aluminum V8 actually comes in right around the same weight as cast iron block 2.7t, a significant improvement in the power-to-weight
ratio. Advantages of the normally aspirated 4.2L: immediate throttle response as a result of eliminating turbo lag, V8 grunt, much easier throttle
modulation and, hopefully, improved reliability.
Beyond the quick paper comparison we wondered how the V8 stacks up against the hard working bi-turbo V6 in daily driving? Three cars in various
configurations were rounded up for testing purposes and put through their paces on a head-to-head basis (note in one case a B5 S4 was run in two
different configurations). At the time of testing there were no performance upgrades for the B6 S4 V8 engine. All cars used 93 octane fuel running
fuel specific programs where available.
# Stock B5 S4 6-speed manual
# Chipped B5 S4 6-speed manual
# Stage II+ B5 S4 6-speed manual (chip, downpipes, full exhaust)
# Stock B6 S4 6-speed manual
The following data was collected assuming generally "normal" driving techniques. You won't find any clutch frying 5,000 RPM launches or power
shifting in this shootout. Standing starts were done at 2200 RPM with drivetrain friendly launches. The goal here was to replicate the performance a
driver wouldbe likely to achieve in daily driving.
As such, the numbers here are sure to cause some grumbling among enthusiasts who will rise up in protest claiming that their car performs way better.
Yes, all of these vehicles will achieve better times if driven to wring out absolute performance. Angry mobs, put down your brooms and
pitchforks--believe it or not these are real world numbers that "Joe Average" driver is likely to achieve. No, really.
Test conditions were in the 70's, low humidity, 87 feet above sea level. Acceleration runs were measured with a Race Logic AP-22. Engine data logging
performed with VAG-COM by Ross-Tech.
0-100 MPH
A quick look at the acceleration curves reveals that a chipped B5 has a leg up on a stock B6 up to a point. By 50 MPH the chipped B5 was 13 feet ahead
of the B6 but started giving up distance to theB6 after 90 MPH. In contrast, the stock B5 was just left wheezing and at the back of the pack. The
Stage II+ S4 was king in this crowd, having put a whopping 314 feet of distance on a stock B5 by 100 MPH! I fully expected the Stage II+ S4 to be a
smidge behind from a standing start thanks to greater turbo lag, but the results clearly proved me wrong..
0-100 MPH Standing Start
MPH Time (sec) Distance
(feet) Time
(sec) Distance
(feet) Time (sec) Distance
(feet) Time (sec) Distance
(feet)
B5
Stock
B5 Chipped B5 Stage 2+ B6 Stock
0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
10 0.87 6 0.73 5 0.61 3 0.74 4
20 1.80 26 1.41 20 1.31 18 1.41 19
30 2.67 58 2.16 48 2.00 44 2.24 50
40 4.39 146 3.71 128 3.32 113 3.67 125
50 5.65 229 4.76 197 4.43 186 4.97 210
60 7.14 350 6.05 302 5.67 287 6.31 319
70 9.56 579 8.08 496 7.52 495 8.40 518
80 11.80 826 10.04 712 9.35 667 10.28 725
90 14.47 1160 12.42 1010 11.47 931 12.99 1066
100 18.23 1682 15.78 1479 14.58 1368 15.66 1439
30-50 MPH 3rd Gear
For 30-50, I steadied the car at 29 MPH and went full throttle. Here, lack of turbo lag for the B6 was an initial advantage against everything but the
B5 Stage II+ where its huge swell of torque put it up on top again.
The results get interesting when you factor in throttle lag. Using VAG-COM for data logging and watching throttle activity, I tracked the time between
when throttle was called for and added that delay into the acceleration times. Stock programming [roppus] the B5 at a big disadvantage, giving
up a second to throttle delay thanks to boost that comes up smoothly. The two chipped B5s, with their aggressive throttle behavior, lost little time
getting on-boost and ended up paying little or no penalty. The B6, like the stock B5, was hindered by the smooth power delivery behavior of the
throttle.
30-50 3rd Gear
MPH Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
B5 Stock
B5 Chipped B5 Stage 2+ B6 Stock
30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
40 1.72 1.55 1.32 1.43
50 2.98 2.60 2.43 2.73
30-50 3rd Gear with Throttle Lag Included
30-50
3.99
2.88
2.74
3.34
40-70 MPH Top Gear
For 40-70 MPH in top gear, the advantage of turbocharged torque was clear. Again, the Stage II+ B5 ripped through the run over 3 seconds faster than
the slowest car. The two chipped B5's all fared well as the boost came up and provided maximum torque to pull the car to 70 MPH. The stock B5 felt a
bit anemic by comparison but managed to beat out the B6 all the same. The B6, out of it's power band, felt like it was struggling to reach 70 MPH.
40-70 Top Gear
MPH Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
B5 Stock
B5 Chipped B5 Stage 2+ B6 Stock
40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50 3.52 3.71 3.42 3.98
60 6.92 6.57 5.83 7.86
70 10.51 9.35 8.26 11.58
40-70 MPH 3rd Gear
Here, the group was much tighter. All the cars were in the right gear to take advantage of engine power. Again, and by this point unsurprisingly,
Stage II+ B5 ruled. The stock B5 and B6 traded places while the chipped B5 edged out the stock B5 and B6 thanks to big midrange torque.
40-70 3rd Gear
MPH Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
B5 Stock
B5 Chipped B5 Stage 2+ B6 Stock
40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50 1.80 1.52 1.20 1.66
60 3.63 3.14 2.56 3.42
70 5.54 4.90 4.33 5.31
Conclusion
In this shootout the the Stage II+ B5 S4 was the clear performance king. Ripping through all the runs, turbo whistling happily under the hood, it
presses the driver's back into the seat and definitely comes across as aggressive. At the other end was the stock B5, mild mannered with silky smooth
power delivery compared to the other cars. While the stock B5 put down respectable times in general, it was hampered by 50 less horsepower and some
100 lb-ft less torque than the chipped B5. However we would reiterate that given the stock B5's power deficit compared to the rest of the field it
did surprisingly well.
The B6 S4 came out fighting with 86 more horsepower than the stock B5 and it showed. It was able to best the performance of the stock B5 and almost
matched that of the torque rich chipped B5. The chipped B5, at an advantage with a lower curb weight than the B6 and a big fat turbo induced torque
curve, still kept the B6 at bay for the most part.
Straight from the factory the B6 is an excellent performer delivering genuine sports car performance with no fuss. Stock vs. stock the 4.2 is a
substantial improvement over the 2.7t model. The chipped and Stage II+ cars are indeed faster, but if you are one who is not inclined to modify your
vehicle (whether fearing warranty problems, premature failure or the cost) then suddenly the B6 performance is ano-brainer.
From a daily driving perspective it would be an understatment to say that these cars all differ significantly. The stock B5 was the mild mannered of
the group with smooth power delivery, while at the other end of the scale sat the whistling, surging, brutal and abrupt power of the Stage II+ B5. You
can drive the Stage II+ B5 calmly but it's an exercise requiring constant attention. Squeeze on just a smidge too much throttle and there's the
boost--whoosh--off you go at a blistering pace. The chipped B5 is also a twitchy one to drive. The B6, by comparison, was smooth and deceptive. A more
than capable performer, but without the turbo surge of the B5, the B6 S4 is very easy to drive quickly without even noticing.
Thanks to Audiworld member 8ung for providing his Stage II+ S4 for thiscomparison.
8ung.jpg (120598 bytes)
Test Vehicle Configurations:
Stock B5 S4: S4, no modifications
Chipped B5 S4: S4, APR v5.0, 93 octane program
Stage II+ B5 S4: APR v5.0, AWE downpipes, AWE twin exhaust, 93 octane program
Stock B6 S4: S4, no modifications
Data logging software provided by:
Ross-Tech, LLC
888 Sumneytown Pike
Lansdale, PA 19446
USA
http://ross-tech.com
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 09:04
|
|
|
2.7 biturbo vs 4.2 v8
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: Maku
B5 2.7t vs. B6 4.2 Performance
The lightweight aluminum V8 actually comes in right around the same weight as cast iron block 2.7t, a significant improvement in the power-to-weight
ratio. Advantages of the normally aspirated 4.2L: immediate throttle response as a result of eliminating turbo lag, V8 grunt, much easier throttle
modulation and, hopefully, improved reliability.
All cars used 93 octane fuel running fuel specific programs where available.
# Stock B5 S4 6-speed manual
# Chipped B5 S4 6-speed manual
# Stage II+ B5 S4 6-speed manual (chip, downpipes, full exhaust)
# Stock B6 S4 6-speed manual
The following data was collected assuming generally "normal" driving techniques. You won't find any clutch frying 5,000 RPM launches or power
shifting in this shootout. Standing starts were done at 2200 RPM with drivetrain friendly launches. The goal here was to replicate the performance a
driver wouldbe likely to achieve in daily driving.
0-100 MPH
A quick look at the acceleration curves reveals that a chipped B5 has a leg up on a stock B6 up to a point. By 50 MPH the chipped B5 was 13 feet ahead
of the B6 but started giving up distance to theB6 after 90 MPH. In contrast, the stock B5 was just left wheezing and at the back of the pack. The
Stage II+ S4 was king in this crowd, having put a whopping 314 feet of distance on a stock B5 by 100 MPH! I fully expected the Stage II+
S4 to be a smidge behind from a standing start thanks to greater turbo lag, but the results clearly proved me wrong..
30-50 MPH 3rd Gear
For 30-50, I steadied the car at 29 MPH and went full throttle. Here, lack of turbo lag for the B6 was an initial advantage against everything but
the B5 Stage II+ where its huge swell of torque put it up on top again.
40-70 MPH Top Gear
For 40-70 MPH in top gear, the advantage of turbocharged torque was clear. Again, the Stage II+ B5 ripped through the run
over 3 seconds faster than the slowest car. The two chipped B5's all fared well as the boost came up and provided maximum torque to pull the car to
70 MPH. The stock B5 felt a bit anemic by comparison but managed to beat out the B6 all the same. The B6, out of it's power band, felt like it was
struggling to reach 70 MPH.
40-70 MPH 3rd Gear
Here, the group was much tighter. All the cars were in the right gear to take advantage of engine power. Again, and by this point unsurprisingly,
Stage II+ B5 ruled. The stock B5 and B6 traded places while the chipped B5 edged out the stock B5 and B6 thanks to big
midrange torque.
Conclusion
In this shootout the the Stage II+ B5 S4 was the clear performance king. Ripping through all the runs, turbo whistling
happily under the hood, it presses the driver's back into the seat and definitely comes across as aggressive. At the other end was the stock B5, mild
mannered with silky smooth power delivery compared to the other cars. While the stock B5 put down respectable times in general, it was hampered by 50
less horsepower and some 100 lb-ft less torque than the chipped B5. However we would reiterate that given the stock B5's power deficit compared to
the rest of the field it did surprisingly well.
The B6 S4 came out fighting with 86 more horsepower than the stock B5 and it showed. It was able to best the performance of the stock B5 and almost
matched that of the torque rich chipped B5. The chipped B5, at an advantage with a lower curb weight than the B6 and a big fat turbo
induced torque curve, still kept the B6 at bay for the most part.
|
Kas keegi näeb antud kontekstis V8-l mingitki eelist nö stage II 2.7 biturbo ees?
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
MaQQu
klubiliige
Registreerunud 15.12.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 09:30
|
|
|
2.7 biturbo vs 4.2 v8
Jep - tunduvalt murevabam mootor.
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 09:56
|
|
|
2.7 biturbo vs 4.2 v8
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: MaQQu
Jep - tunduvalt murevabam mootor. |
Margus, sa tead Petsi numbrit, võid temalt küsida, kui palju tal viimase kolme aasta jooksul
RS4-ga muret on olnud.
@ nüüd tuleb "blä blä" see ju ainult üks näide jne.. 
Aa, Margus, kas Sinu 4.2 on murevaba? St kõik toimib ja pole lastevigu?
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
MaQQu
klubiliige
Registreerunud 15.12.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 10:13
|
|
|
2.7 biturbo vs 4.2 v8
Ma arvan küll.. Ma küll tean kuhu sa tüürid, aga see ei ole piisav : )
Sa võiks muidugi ära tuua ka, mis see stage II+ endast kujutab? Kui paljud igapäevakasutajad selle ümberehitusega hakkama saavad? Hardcore tuning ei
puutu asjasse, sama hästi võib ju öelda, et miks 2.7bit etem on, kui 1.8t.. vaata Ässa autot.. ehhh..
Aga milleks võrrelda kaht nii erinevat autot / mootorit?
C4 peal oleme selle siin foorumis ju läbi jahunud (turbo vs V8).
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
MaQQu
klubiliige
Registreerunud 15.12.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 11:01
|
|
|
| Tsitaat: | | Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: Maku
Aga milleks võrrelda kaht nii erinevat autot / mootorit?
|
Milleks üldse midagi teha? Mitte midagi teha on ka ju mõnus.
|
Just! - sellepärast sõidangi hetkel V8-ga : )
|
|
|
|
Robinson
klubiliige
Registreerunud 05.09.03
Asukoht: Viljandi
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 11:11
|
|
|
| Tsitaat: | | Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: MaQQu
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: Maku
Aga milleks võrrelda kaht nii erinevat autot / mootorit?
|
Milleks üldse midagi teha? Mitte midagi teha on ka ju mõnus.
|
Just! - sellepärast sõidangi hetkel V8-ga : ) |
See viimane lause meeldib mulle!.Eriti siis kui vaba aega vähe.
|
|
|
|
kps
moderaator
Registreerunud 27.05.03
Asukoht: Tartu
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: 5x4x4
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 11:50
|
|
|
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: Robinson
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: MaQQu
Just! - sellepärast sõidangi hetkel V8-ga : ) |
See viimane lause meeldib mulle!.Eriti siis kui vaba aega vähe. |
Tegelt tahab selle mehe V8 ka tegemist aga ta lihtsalt ei viitsi.
Aga kpsi jutt, et aegu näinud auto hooldus jne, siis egas tegelt ka lihtsalt softitud ja väljalase vahetatud essiga mingit kap. remmi pole tarvis
teha.
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
jõuvanker
klubiliige
Registreerunud 21.03.03
Asukoht: Harjumaa
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: ´11a. A4 avant q. s-tronic 3.0TDI 176KW
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 13:11
|
|
|
Võiks öelda, kes "matsu jagab", või kellel pappi jalaga segada, sõidab 2.7 biturboga.
Vastupidised ehk sõidavad 4.2-ga, ehk.
Ka nii päris öelda ei saa.
B5-le ei pakutud 4.2-te, küllaga C5-le on 2.7-t saada, kuid deforseeritud kujul.
Mootorid on ehk võrreldavad, kuid kered, kuhu neid paigutati, on erinevast puust.
Üks on hästi alluv tuunimisel, teine eriti mitte, tehtav, kuid keeruline.
Oleneb täpselt, kes ja mida ootab auto dünaamikast jms, vastavalt sellele ka valida mootor/kere.
Tuunimiseks 2.7 V6 biturbo, kulgemiseks 4.2 V8.
Korras.
|
lapsepõlvest alates meeldinud 20VT R5
|
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 14:04
|
|
|
Eks ta ole kahe otsaga asi. Samas minu üllatuseks näidati selle testiga ära, et ega see v8 madal vääne pole s4 2.7 biturbo omast midagi peajagu üle.
Pigem jääb jalgu isegi.
Teine asi on kütusekulu, mis keskmise sõidu juures teeb ilmselt oma poolteist tuhat krooni ühes kuus biturbo kasuks. Tavahoolduste kohapealt ei oska
s4 kohta öelda aga enda v8 disla pealt tean öelda, et sinna läheb kaheksa-üheksa liitrit õli.
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
Joel
meeskond
Registreerunud 01.10.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: Audi CQ Typ85, Porsche 911 Turbo, MB G63 AMG, MB ML 320, Volvo 940 SE, ZAZ 965 Cabrio
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 14:20
|
|
|
Minu arvates ei saa ka neid autosid niimoodi võrrelda, et jätad ütlemata mis otstabeks Sul seda autot üldse tarvis oleks.
Kui võtta tavapärase universaalse pühapäeva- või ka igapäevaauto kontekstis, siis on vahe ju ilmselge - üks neist on siiski B5 ja teine on B6. B6 on
B5'st minu isiklikul seisukohal igat pidi üle (va tühimass). B6 S4 mootor on terav, särtsakas ja teeb imelist häält. Samuti on ju nende autode hinnad
väga erinevad. B6 S4 on hinnalt võrreldav B5 RS4'ga, mis aga on oma kiirusomadustelt juba järgmine klass.
Sa oled selle teksti highlightinud väga üheseltmõistetavalt turbohuvilise pilguga. Minule seevastu jäi sellest tekstist meelde põhimõtteliselt ainult
see osa:
| Tsitaat: |
The B6, by comparison, was smooth and deceptive. A more than capable performer, but without the turbo surge of the B5, the B6 S4 is very easy to drive
quickly without even noticing.
|
Kui ma enda jaoks siia juurde mõtlen B6 S4 kena väljanägemise, mugavuse ja paljudes olulistes sõlmedes (sh ka turvalisus) põlvkonna jagu uuema
tehnoloogia ja siis ma ei näe ühtegi põhjust osta B5 ja seda kalli raha eest tuunima kukkuda. Müües ei maksta sulle tuuningu eest nagunii midagi. Kui
aga otsid autot võidu sõitmiseks, siis on see juba teine jutt, aga teades Sinu allergiat alajuhitavuse vastu, ei hindaks ma ka selles suunitluses B5
Audi kandidatuuri eriti kõrgelt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 14:35
|
|
|
Nu eks ma lugesin neid poolt ja vastuargumente, kuid paraku jäid b6 plussid varju võrreledes b5-ga, mis oli pmst igas võtmes parem.
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
Joel
meeskond
Registreerunud 01.10.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: Audi CQ Typ85, Porsche 911 Turbo, MB G63 AMG, MB ML 320, Volvo 940 SE, ZAZ 965 Cabrio
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 18:04
|
|
|
Aga siis on asi ju üsna selge - kui kiirusomadused on otsustamisel Sinu jaoks tähtsaim kriteerium, siis võta aga B5 ligi. B6 hinnavahe mootorisse
kulutades saad omale muhedalt nobeda liikuri.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MartinCS
huviline
Registreerunud 28.03.06
Asukoht: Jõgeva/Härjanurme/Tartu
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: S4 BiT 232kW Oettinger + esivanema A6 C6 3,0TDI Q 171kW '07
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 18:14
|
|
|
Ma ei usu et B5 on rohkem (olulisel määral) alajuhitavam kui b6. Vähemalt sõites b5'ga on alajuhitavus muidugi olemas aga see ei ole probleem. Väga
libedas olus on see häiriv või liiga hea pidamisega. Aga mootor jõuab päris hästi olukordades autot ülejuhitavaks mängida.
|
|
|
|
Joel
meeskond
Registreerunud 01.10.02
Asukoht: Tallinn
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: Audi CQ Typ85, Porsche 911 Turbo, MB G63 AMG, MB ML 320, Volvo 940 SE, ZAZ 965 Cabrio
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 19:24
|
|
|
Ei ma ei mõtlegi et B5 on rohkem alajuhitav kui B6 - puudub kogemus, et seda kommenteerida. Minu mõte oli selles, et kui teemaalgataja otsiks autot
konkreetselt võidusõidu eesmärgil ja ei salli seejuures alajuhitavat käitumist, siis ei ole 50:50 Torseniga Audi (nii B5 kui B6) ilmselt üleüldiselt
parimate valikute seas. Tänavasuunitlusega auto puhul on see alajuhitavuse teema vähem oluline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 06.08.10 21:47
|
|
|
Joel, sina suunasid selle küsimuse minu "isiklikuks küsimuseks". Tegelt see seda polnud. Rohkem selline üldine arutelu, millesse tahtsin ka teisi
kaasata.
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
Amadeuz
huviline
Registreerunud 09.03.05
Asukoht: Tarbatu
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: C5 avant TQAT 110 kW õlipress '99 (Nora), MB W639 kombi AT CRD 80kW (Jasmin)
|
|
postitati 07.08.10 14:50
|
|
|
Siin räägitud "pappi jalaga segada" mehest veel rohkem pappi omav isik väänab sellele V8 külge kaks kõrvitsat (või vähemalt kompressori) ja siis ei
kao tema suult päris pikka aega irwe.
|
_________________
www.andmebaas.ee
|
|
|
|
|
veekaheksa
klubiliige
Registreerunud 07.09.03
Asukoht: P-Jgp
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: S6 PLUS 4.2, A4 TDI quattro
|
|
Maku
klubiliige
Registreerunud 28.01.03
Asukoht: Eesti Vabariik
Kasutaja on eemal
|
|
postitati 08.08.10 12:20
|
|
|
Nu s4-st selle nö stage II tekitamine on ka väga lihtne. Kõigest väljalase ja soft.
|
torque addict / in the real world four wheel drive means safety and traction
|
|
|
|
|
veekaheksa
klubiliige
Registreerunud 07.09.03
Asukoht: P-Jgp
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: S6 PLUS 4.2, A4 TDI quattro
|
|
postitati 08.08.10 23:40
|
|
|
| Tsitaat: | Algselt postitas: Maku
Nu s4-st selle nö stage II tekitamine on ka väga lihtne. Kõigest väljalase ja soft. |
Just täna vahtisin üht RS4 B5. Ma arvan, et pidureid võiks kah natuke sellele Stage II juurde installida, muidu on ainult siuke sirge tee liikur. See
on siis selle stage II odavuse kohta...
PLUS  TDI  Die Menschen sollten nicht
schlafen, während sie unterwegs sind, aber sie tun es trotzdem. |
|
|
|
|
S4BiT
huviline
Registreerunud 20.08.07
Asukoht: Kuressaare
Kasutaja on eemal
Auto: ‘07 BMW 335xi E91
|
|
postitati 16.08.10 12:01
|
|
|
Ma võin ka midagi lisada siia. Oman juba teist B5 S4, kuna aga uue auto valik käsil (mis nüüd on juba tehtud), siis mõni aeg tagasi vaatasin B6 poole,
käisin ka proovisõitu tegemas. Arvasin täpselt samamoodi, et kui on vabalthingav suur katel, peaks seda nö. "toorest jõudu" küllaga olema minu
turbopüssi kõrval. Aga oh üllatust, ma ei saanud mitte ühestki nurgast natukenegi tunda, et see auto oleks võrreldav biturboga. Madalalt väänas hoopis
vähem, pöördepeal tahtis liikuma hakata küll lõpuks, aga selleks ajaks liigub minu biturbo juba väga palju paremini. Ühesõnaga kui proovisõit oli
tehtud ja oma autosse tagasi istusin, siis tundsin, et see on ikka hoopis midagi muud . Ja mul on ju kõigest S, mitte RS. Kuigi seda vaid mõni päev veel 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ja juttu
jätkub kauemaks 
