Here are the final numbers for our 30V supercharger kit...<br>MAX POWER = 280HP<br>MAX TORQUE = 262 FT/LBS<p>I would like to thank Mike Berger for making his front wheel drive 30V available for our dyno test.

You had an extra dot in the URL.

the stock hp/torque when you only dyno'd the supercharged version. From what I understand, dyno's can vary from one machine to another, also one A4 to another, other conditions too.<p>Of course, not that I'm doubting the additional power. I'm sure the graph is a good estimate.<p>Drew

The stock torque and horsepower graph was also from my A4 on the same model Dynojet back when I did the Wetterauer testing. <p>The Dynojet software corrects for atmospheric conditions. Here is a quote from their web site:<p>"Dynojet's software corrects for altitude and atmospheric conditions. The PEP (Performance Evaluation Software) automatically adjusts power curves for different weather conditions producing consistent power graphs. This unique feature is just another example of our common sense approach to precision vehicle service and diagnostics. "<p>As far as accuracy (also from Dynojet site):<p>Timing Accuracy +/- 1 microsecond <br>Drum Speed Accuracy +/- 1/100th Mph <br>Rpm Accuracy +/- 1/10th Rpm <p>Sounds like the graph should be considered more than just an estimate!<p>Mike<ul><li><a href="http://www.dynojet.com">Dynojet</a></li></ul>

Why would you say engine hp means nothing? We used the wheel hp to get those numbers! It's really no secret, here are the numbers AT THE WHEEL...<p>STOCK<br>170.1 HP<br>168.8 TQ<p>SUPERCHARGED<br>243.6 HP<br>228.1 TQ <p>Thanks,<br>Mike

Lordy! Touchy aren't we? :) HP at the rear wheels is what makes the car go, not hp at the crank. It seems to me that people always use conversions to crank hp to pump up their numbers to make them look better. Sure, the engine probably produces around 280hp, but what does that matter? Losses will vary with different drivetrains (like quattro), so the same engine will put out different hp at the rear wheels. The real "go power" is measured at the wheels. The 15% rule is just a rough estimate. I was going to use the Cartest car acceleration simulator to do some acceleration runs for your car, and the program is quite accurate if you can feed it an actual rear wheel horsepower curve, so I was hoping to have an actual dyno graph. Then I could give you a pretty close estimate right away of your 1/4 mile times. Let me know if you can send me a rwhp dyno graph or a chart of the rwhp numbers for every 500 or so rpm. Then I'll let you know what I come up with.<p>Later,<p>Brad

Tony, where might one find more information about this? I couldn't find anything on the web. Thanks.

Anyone else having trouble trying to get the graph?

Yes, I am a bit touchy aren't I. Sorry, I guess I am so excited having experienced the supercharger that I wanted to see more excitement from this crowd versus so much doubt. I mean, the 2.8 crowd has been waiting (and whining) about the lack of mods available for their cars, so I figured there would be more enthusiasm.<p>I'll see if I can get you the rwh numbers in 500 rpm increments. It would be interesting to see what the program came up with.<p>Mike

Check the "Product Guide" right here on A4.org. I know that PES is planning on doing a site, but they have been so busy trying to deliver the kit on time that a web site hasn't been set up yet.<p>There is a good pic of the kit installed on the product guide page.

.<br>

Ok from the peak hp and torque numbers I got, I ran them through the Cartest program to get some ESTIMATES on the acceleration of the supercharged A4 2.8, using some old accel runs I had of an M3 as a benchmark. Keep in mind that the power curves are estimated by the program from the peak hp and torque figures, and they won't be completely accurate unless I can put in the actual hp plot at every 500 rpm or so from 2K rpm up. Here goes:<p>The numbers for the Stock 2.8<br>hp at the wheels - 170 @ 6000 rpm<br>tq at the wheels - 169 @ 3200 rpm<p>FWD weight - 3320 lbs (200 lb driver included)<br>Quattro weight - 3520 lbs (200 lb driver included)<p>The numbers for the Supercharged 2.8<br>hp at the wheels - 244 @ 6500 rpm (the rpm is just a guess by me)<br>tq at the wheels - 228 @ 3200 rpm (again, rpm is a guess)<p>FWD weight - 3350 (200 lb driver and +30 lbs of mods)<br>Quattro weight - 3550 (200 lb driver and +30 lbs of mods)<p>I've also included a stock M3 run, and a Jim Conforti Chipped M3 (like mine) for benchmarks. The results are pretty amazing. Your supercharged FWD 2.8 should blow a stock M3 away. Just about neck in neck with my chipped M3, the A4 would pull ahead early, and the M3 would probably catch up around 105 mph or so (the A4 beats the chipped M3 in the 1/4 mile, but the M3 has a higher trap speed, which means he's gaining). Now don't go and kill yourself in your new toy, Mike ;)<p>Brad Franklin<p>

Interesting. Although, the Quattro would likely have better times, especially the 0-100 ft, due to its superior ability to put all that power to the pavement.<p>Mike<p>

I kinda doubt that using the peak numbers for supercharged engines works well unless it your software has a fudge factor to show that it is not naturally aspirated.<p>The boost from the supercharger will change with RPM, meaning the power increase will vary...better to use the numbers at every 500RPM...more accurate for your program, I would bet...<p>steve

The curves of the supercharged 2.8 versus the normally-aspirated 2.8 look VERY similar in their shape. Higher torque numbers seem to be available throughout more of the rev range, and the hp curve looks a bit steeper. Other than that, they are very similar.<p>From what you mention, I'd expect there to be a more dramatic difference in the shape of the curves. However, that is not the case.<br>

The difference in the torque curves gets bigger (area betweeen gets fatter) as RPM's climb. His program is assuming some kind of standard curve...<p>Well, let's not go into a huge debate if you can get the data that will settle the thing, eh?<p>steve

1. oops...forgot to mention...all runs were calculated as a 5 mph rolling start, not a standing start, so the quattro will be slower because it will not be able to use its great traction advantage. The reason for doing this is because the biggest weakness of this program is the traction and launch calculations. It does a great job with them, but caluclating traction and launch in a simulations is by far the most complicated part (tire temperature, surface temperature, tire pressure, tread compound, tread width, tire profile, etc etc all play a part in traction). So for a fairer comparison, a more accurate comparison, and a more realistic comparison (unless you take off from stoplight confrontations with a 5000 rpm clutch drop!), every car was done with a 5 mph rolling start<p>2. I say again, that I'm hoping to do some more runs with a real dyno curve. Right now the curves are estimates. The program does have a supercharged engine option, but it really doesn't change the curve at all from the normally aspirated setting. Overall the error isn't probably going to be THAT bad, so you can count on those posted numbers as a decent reference. When I get the full curves, I'll post again...<p>P.S. -- The M3's are already full curves from some testing I did a while ago.<p>Brad Franklin

Yup. I tell ya what, the original program won't have all the A4 & M3 & other stuff I've put in there (including chipped and non-chipped 1.8T's straight from the dyno curves). So when I get the 2.8 supercharged curves (and maybe the stock 2.8 curves), I'll zip it up and put it out where you guys can grab it. Gimme a few days.<p>Brad