I've begun to evaluate whether or not the RS2 stuff was worth it and am coming to strange conclusions. We had our Audi group Sunday drive today, got some good WOT 5th gear runs, but still nothing above 26PSI (which I guess in the sense of grenading my engine is fine now that I realize that.) The car is fast, but it honestly doesn't feel that much faster than it did before the RS2 stuff. I seriously believe I'm the first to think my RS2 stuff was a waste of money. I had my friend who owns an E36 drive with me yesterday. He said, "Yeah, this thing would definately eat my car up." Then I rode in his and realized that mine was a tad faster. Still, I'm stuck thinking my car should be faster. Damn addictive horsepower. I hate cars.

i held off an SVT stang today (the 390hp one) on the freeway. i wasn't faster, but he wasn't fast enough to pass me either.

I wonder what hypocritical ******* said that below and is now going to eat his words??

I wasn't racing anyone you dolt. I was talking about flat out acceleration.<ul><li><a href="http://forums.audiworld.com/s4s6/msgs/56936.phtml">http://forums.audiworld.com/s4s6/msgs/56936.phtml</a</li></ul>

would find that overall, you are faster and pull harder than an MTM+1 (3bar, stock turbo) equivalent BUT you now have a bit more "lag"/higher boost threshold. This may mean you have to drop a gear to keep the RPM's up before you go to WOT. But when you do, it all happens very, but deceptively, quickly. You will find the need for good brakes very quickly (if you haven't already) with the RS2 set-up.

And yes, horsepower is a) addictive but b) relative and very easy to get used to.

Dave F.

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/56100/pict0003.1.jpg"></center><p>
My brakes rock. Although I'm not happy with the Hawk pads and the squeal every now and then.

You're right, but the real proof when be in the dyno results. If I dyno at 220 then maybe my suspicions are correct. 300? Then that's another story.

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/56100/pict0012.jpg"></center><p>

The point is the same though. What do my driving skills have to do with mashing the gas in third gear and determining that the acceleration is barely different than what I remember with the K24? It's the same thing and he of all people should know that. I'll be sure though to enlist his help when I need my battery serviced though.

<ul><li><a href="http://ctny.audiworld.com/events/040925xx_dynoday2/040925xx_dynoday2.html">Linky</a></li></ul>

maybe you should find someone with a stage 1+ only and do some runs and see how much faster yours is..

but you also suck at sarcasm.

take it easy man.

He was running MTM Stromung, I was running RS2 Mihnea Stromung with stock and FMIC.

After I dyno'ed, I brought the S car home (no headlight or bumper) and returned with the Coupe. Funny I never saw this pic of the Coupe before. One of the best shots I've seen.

<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/events/040925xx_dynoday2/dsc00960.jpg">

just razzing you. I can understand how it could get under your skin though. I am sure you are pretty frustrated as the RS2 setup has given you a lot of trouble and so far isn't cracking up to be what you thought it would be.

a bigger turbo won't get you higher boost necessarily, however it will be able to sustain that boost higher into the RPM range and won't heat the intake charge quite so much at higher pressures. so the butt dyno won't report much of a change, but the car will pull harder longer. also, the bigger turbo's slower spool will reduce the going-to-warp effect, so the butt dyno will think the car is slower.

also, you're in the land of diminishing returns now. each additional horsepower is going to cost you more and more money.

Noob.

Please don't send an email complaint.

You don't play well at your own game.

It must be nice to buy a car like Crapple did with everything already done to it. That leaves him to focus heavily on the driving skill he has. Saves face on having to go through all the frustrations I did, so instead he can hand out ridiculous comments like that, yet still run and cry to moderators when someone razzes him and calls him a noob because he doesn't know **** about the car he drives. If he's going to dish it, he should be able to take it.

it was done as a ,,l,, to neil, not to xel.

I'm not sure if you are kidding or not :-/

On my results, there isn't much difference (in my mind) but my car was also doing some weird stuff. Overall, I was not happy with my results and I don't think they prove much.

If you recall, both Marc S and I ran with and without FMIC. We did three runs back to back, allowing very little time between pulls to measure heat soak hp loss. I blew a hose off on the third FMIC run, which is not posted. My first run felt like something was not quite right, and bystanders noted excessive wobble in my run (like one of the hub mount was off center).

Marc's data is better, and easier to understand. If you look at his runs, each run results in less horsepower and torque regardless of which IC he is running. However, not only did he post higher numbers with the FMIC, but the loss of power to heat soak over each set of three runs is minimal on the FMIC but severe on the stock IC.

The sad truth: the slippery slope is not linear.

I chip is a huge bang for the buck, RS2 or equivilent is Ok, beyond that it's big and bigger money for incremental gains.

BTW - I know your post wasn't serious and was just a dig at Crapple.