Close

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 88
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Vasily1 Click here to enlarge
    Dear Renntech team, i am waiting for your German Rep. office to give me their sign-off (calling Lukas every week) that i can bring my E63 AMG S 4matik to Germany for installation of your 833-850hp package since i want to destroy Brabus E63 - 850 and MKB SL65BS - 1000 at the spring Moscow Unlim500+.
    Well I'm sure they will get back to you on that as I certainly would... @m54b25

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    380
    Rep Points
    672.5
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Vasily1 Click here to enlarge
    Dear Renntech team, i am waiting for your German Rep. office to give me their sign-off (calling Lukas every week) that i can bring my E63 AMG S 4matik to Germany for installation of your 833-850hp package since i want to destroy Brabus E63 - 850 and MKB SL65BS - 1000 at the spring Moscow Unlim500+.
    Will PM for follow up.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,121
    Rep Points
    965.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by m54b25 Click here to enlarge
    Here's what getting developed by new partner RENNtech Germany Gmbh for the 1st time in AMG45 small motors with a tuning box (I still prefer the 5.5tt > 4.0tt > 3.0tt > 2.0t)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z4Hai333lI
    Nice !!! Renntech is kicking ass with these turbo motors great job guys ! I'm not sure what ewg means but this is 414 hp at the crank correct? I have some questions about renntech 82mm tb for m156 will send you a PM

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ezec63 Click here to enlarge
    Nice !!! Renntech is kicking ass with these turbo motors great job guys ! I'm not sure what ewg means but this is 414 hp at the crank correct? I have some questions about renntech 82mm tb for m156 will send you a PM
    Check the BenzBoost front page article on this. Yes, crank.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by m54b25 Click here to enlarge
    I still prefer the 5.5tt > 4.0tt > 3.0tt > 2.0t
    Agreed. Click here to enlarge
    So does every EDUCATED car guy out there.Click here to enlarge

    Some people either don't understand the fundamentals of combustion engines, or are simple trolls.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Agreed. Click here to enlarge
    So does every EDUCATED car guy out there.Click here to enlarge

    Some people either don't understand the fundamentals of combustion engines, or are simple trolls.
    Bigger isn't always better. You don't even have the specs of the M177 yet.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Bigger isn't always better. You don't even have the specs of the M177 yet.
    No.
    You're absolutely incorrect.
    All things being equally tuned, bigger is ALWAYS better when it comes to displacement.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    No.
    You're absolutely incorrect.
    All things being equally tuned, bigger is ALWAYS better when it comes to displacement.
    Not always. You generally want more displacement but I'd rather have a high revving 4.0 liter that breathes better up top than a low revving 5.5 liter stump puller.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    That makes no sense.
    You can make a 5.5 liter that screams in the high RPMs as well.
    Especially with multi valves, variable valve timing, and forced induction.

    Sure, forced induction is a displacement multiplier and FI motors are less dependent upon displacement than NA motors.
    But, even with forced induction, displacement has multiple benefits, ESPECIALLY on the street. (octane limits, torque, linear power deliver, etc)
    Anyone who builds cars, or has owned fast cars, knows this.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    That makes no sense.
    You can make a 5.5 liter that screams in the high RPMs as well.
    Especially with multi valves, variable valve timing, and forced induction.
    Sure. You can. But in this instance chances are the 4.0 liter will be higher revving and with top mounted may actually be the better tuning option. Why don't you wait and see?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Sure, forced induction is displacement multiplier and FI motors are less dependent upon displacement than NA motors.
    But, even with forced induction, displacement has multiple benefits.
    Anyone who builds cars, or has owned fast cars, knows this.
    Yep, forced induction helps and combine that with a good breathing top end and I don't fear your 5.5 liter. As a matter of fact, I fear no M157 with my lowly 4.0 liter. How about that?

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Sure. You can. But in this instance chances are the 4.0 liter will be higher revving and with top mounted may actually be the better tuning option. Why don't you wait and see?



    Yep, forced induction helps and combine that with a good breathing top end and I don't fear your 5.5 liter. As a matter of fact, I fear no M157 with my lowly 4.0 liter. How about that?
    I appreciate the info on this site, because I intend to buy the new C63 or E63.
    But, sorry, pal. Regardless of whether you own this URL or not, posts like these illustrate how little you know about forced induction and engines.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I appreciate the info on this site, because I intend to buy the new C63 or E63.
    But, sorry, pal. Regardless of whether you own this URL or not, posts like these illustrate how little you know about forced induction and engines.
    Oh, please, do tell why exactly I know so little?

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I don't know why you keep bringing up the M157 when it's not happening. The M177 is shaping up very well thus far.

    4.0 liter twin turbo V8 is tiny now? Heh. Tell the Audi S8.
    YOU may be impressed with the S8, I am NOT.

    That 4.0L TT will get SMOKED by a M157 Eclass, especially when both are modded. That's the benefit of larger displacement.
    But, that concept is apparently over your head.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    YOU may be impressed with the S8, I am NOT.
    Why not? It's a 10 second car tune only. WTF is there not to like?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    That 4.0L TT will get SMOKED by a M157 Eclass, especially when both are modded. That's the benefit of larger displacement.
    How? They are putting up similar numbers and the S8 is actually getting better results this early on despite being heavier. So... how is it getting smoked?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    But, that concept is apparently over your head.
    Why doesn't reality agree with you?

    Yes, displacement rules blah blah blah. But the S8 is running 10's and 130 traps with just a tune. So what is it giving up exactly? It's heavier yet doing similar tune only figures. Apparently that went over your head.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Let's see these 130mph trap speeds from a S8 with "just a tune".

    Not that it matters, because no matter what you do to that 4.0L, you can do the same to the 5.5L and the 5.5L will ALWAYS make more power when equally tuned.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Let's see these 130mph trap speeds from a S8 with "just a tune".
    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    So tune only they did 10's and then I guess with their downpipes they did over 130 and mid 10's: http://www.audiboost.com/content.php?3974-Audi-S8-already-in-the-10-s-tune-only-1-4-mile-comparison-video-between-stock-APR-Stage-I-93-octane-tune-and-APR-100-octane-race-gas-tune

    So, what exactly is this motor giving up?

    Oh, and they are stating the RS7 is making more power than the S8. So the RS7 should be even stronger.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Not that it matters, because no matter what you do to that 4.0L, you can do the same to the 5.5L and the 5.5L will ALWAYS make more power when equally tuned.
    APR made 610 to the wheels tune only lol. What does an M157 make tune only again?

    Seems to me you're freaking out over 1.5 liters pointlessly.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    So, I was right.
    There is no S8 with "just a tune" running 130mph.
    You make me laugh quoting 100 octane numbers for a LUXURY car. Even with rocket fuel, a S8 isn't running 130mph.

    I guess it's lost on you that you can make more power with less octane with larger cubes.
    Why do you think we stroke and bore boosted engines?

    I also find it interesting that those quoted ET's are pretty low for the MPH and no where near what I've seen other cars with APR tunes run at the track.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    So, I was right.
    There is no S8 with "just a tune" running 130mph.
    Look I'm just going by what APR posted. I don't know if it was downpipes or not but the car isn't giving up anything.

    The S8 is heavier so take the lighter RS7 to compare to the E-Class.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    You make me laugh quoting 100 octane numbers for a LUXURY car. Even with rocket fuel, a S8 isn't running 130mph.
    So APR is a bunch of liars?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I guess it's lost on you that you can make more power with less octane with larger cubes.
    Why do you think we stroke and bore boosted engines?
    It isn't lost on me. When I'm racing I run race gas though. Unless guys with M157's just run pump gas at the track?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I also find it interesting that those quoted ET's are pretty low for the MPH and no where near what I've seen other cars with APR tunes run at the track.
    What other APR cars with this motor?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Here you go, into the 10's at over 130. So why exactly are you creating such a fuss? The M177 might even be better than the Audi motor in a lighter car with a dual clutch. What trouble is it going to have with the M157 really? Those cubes are needed more for moving the porky cars it is in.

    Click here to enlarge

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    So, again, I'm right. No S8 is remotely near 130mph on "just a tune" as you incorrectly posted.
    And, don't try to troll me with making it look like I'm starting beef with APR.
    My issue was that YOU are obviously posting incorrect information.

    The runs I have seen from mutliple S6 and S7's with APR tunes are in the mid 11's/teens with the same engine in a LIGHTER car.

    I'm not knocking APR, I'm just pointing out what I've seen and how this compares.
    Frankly, unless the C63 weighs SIGNIFICANTLY less than the S6, I will be probably pick up a S6 an run a APS tune for a daily beater.
    Obviously not 100 octane.
    If you not making the power you want on 93 octane, you need more displacement..
    Race gas is for race cars. Not LUXURY sedans.
    Last edited by TT C6; 12-11-2013 at 10:00 PM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    So, again, I'm right. No S8 is remotely near 130mph on "just a tune" as you incorrectly posted.
    It's not remotely near running what ~126-127? WTF? Not remotely near?

    We don't even know if that was tune only or not. APR didn't specify. What we do know is the car is running 130 and mid 10's.

    Seriously, give credit already. It isn't giving up anything. The RS7 will be even faster as its lighter. What will you say then?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    The runs I have seen from mutliple S6 and S7's with APS tunes are in the mid 11's/teens with the same engine in a LIGHTER car.
    It isn't the same engine. The turbos are different and the S8 makes much more power. Just as the RS7 engine isn't the same as the S7 engine. Yes, same block, but everything else is changed.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Race gas is for race cars. Not LUXURY sedans.
    Race gas is for racing. When I race a forced induction car, I run race gas. All these motors are pulling timing on pump so its not even wise IMO to push hard on pump gas.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    I like the S6 for a daily driver and would run a APR tune, but it's limited by the tiney displacement.
    The S7 and S8 are overweight.
    The S8 and RS7 gives up the DCT for a slushbox= No thank you.

    I told ya before, I don't blindly believe Audi when they claim they manufacture two totally different versions of those engines, no matter what they say. Maybe different turbos, but no way to be sure until you tear down an engine.

    Race gas in a luxury sedan is stupid to me.
    If you can afford a $100k+ sedan, you should be able to afford a dedicated race car that weighs 1000+lbs less.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,298
    Rep Points
    32,731.6
    Mentioned
    2132 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I like the S6 for a daily driver and would run a APR tune, but it's limited by the tiney displacement.
    The S7 and S8 are overweight.
    Why is the S6 not overweight but the S7 is? The S6 and S7 are the same basic thing. The S8 is larger and heavier than both.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    The S8 and RS7 gives up the DCT for a slushbox= No thank you.
    But... the M157's you all love are mated to slushboxes. The M177 will be mated to a DCT.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I told ya before, I don't blindly believe Audi when they claim they manufacture two totally different versions of those engines, no matter what they say. Maybe different turbos, but no way to be sure until you tear down an engine.
    The turbos and manifolds are different as evidenced by the tuning figures. The internals may or may not be shared. It would require a teardown as audi has not stated.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Race gas in a luxury sedan is stupid to me.
    If you can afford a $100k+ sedan, you should be able to afford a dedicated race car that weighs 1000+lbs less.
    Or maybe because you have a turbo motor you might want to crank the boost?

    Look, the point ultimately is the 4.0 liter motor can perform and perform well.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,121
    Rep Points
    965.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    MCT is not a slush box ! Click here to enlarge It is very direct as its using the clutch to put power down and not a torque converter i understand the trans behind it is planetary like a slushbox but the way it responds to pedal input and shifts at WOT is like a very fast single clutch without the harshness. It basically in between a SMG and DCT in character

    Also im not sure whats so hard to understand about what your saying. The 4.0 in the audi is putting up very similar numbers power wise and it should be more impressive since its doing it to all 4 wheels with the added parasitic loss. Well see what the m157 does when they totally figure out tuning the AWD system

    The only advantage i see the m157 have is midrange torque and even that is not by alot I mean if you already have 630 wtq(audi) theres nothing to be jealous about 680 wtq(Merc) especially when you are making similar top end power which is most important. I understand what hes saying about all being equal displacement will make more power but lets be real it wont be equal. They are moving towards efficiency more and more but at the same time want more power so they will work on everything else to make it better heads,cams,manifolds,turbo designs, etc etc I mean theres a reason the M177 is going into the new AMG flagship model the new AMG GT. If they wanted the M157 in it they wouldve done it

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,121
    Rep Points
    965.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •