Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 88
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ezec63 Click here to enlarge
    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
    This is exactly what I'm saying. So a 4.0 isn't the end of the world like he is making it seem. With a higher redline, top mount turbos, and DCT, it may even turn out better.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25
    Rep Points
    239.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Yes Reputation No
    So the E63 picked up about 7 mph in the quarter from just the tune ?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Roll racer Click here to enlarge
    So the E63 picked up about 7 mph in the quarter from just the tune ?
    The M157 gets quite a bit from a tune.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25
    Rep Points
    239.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Yes Reputation No
    No doubt it does. Some incredible gains. But I also do believe the awd saps the car of some power,,,

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Roll racer Click here to enlarge
    No doubt it does. Some incredible gains. But I also do believe the awd saps the car of some power,,,
    It definitely does. Also adds weight.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    10.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No

    race gas was used

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by onisyndicate Click here to enlarge
    was race gas used in the original video?
    yes race gas was used 50/50 100 oct and 93 oct mix.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    10.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    the second video by talon97, that by the way makes the best videos and props to him....
    i ran lite weight rims that help me trap faster speed.i did not use launch control since 60' is slower than just brake boost.but car has a lot of torque management that slows car every shift.
    i ran my 2012 s63 11.6 with renntech tune only.car weight with driver 4650 lb.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    10.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No

    D.O.R EVENTS

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    Benz was crazy fast! He wanted 10s in it, but wanted 9s I in his turbo s more so he focused on that.
    CANT WAIT FOR NEXT SEASON OF D.O.R GETTING READY.HOPE FOR 1/2 MILE SHOOT OUT.Click here to enlarge

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 2012 s63tt Click here to enlarge
    CANT WAIT FOR NEXT SEASON OF D.O.R GETTING READY.HOPE FOR 1/2 MILE SHOOT OUT.Click here to enlarge
    Yeah. Less than half mile for roll racing is kind of meh.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 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.
    Here's some education for you. That 4.0 is pretty weak eh? http://www.audiboost.com/content.php...eels-tune-only

  11. #61
    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
    Here's some education for you. That 4.0 is pretty weak eh? http://www.audiboost.com/content.php...eels-tune-only

    Yes. Any educated car guy knows that when all things are equal, a larger displacement engine will ALWAYS make more power, with more torque, and be able to do it with less octane.
    All these posts of yours attempting to refute my point are futile and really make you look uneducated.
    But, it's your site. So, have at it.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Yes. Any educated car guy knows that when all things are equal, a larger displacement engine will ALWAYS make more power, with more torque, and be able to do it with less octane.
    All these posts of yours attempting to refute my point are futile and really make you look uneducated.
    But, it's your site. So, have at it.
    Is there a post of mine that says more displacement won't make more power?

    What my posts highlight is your hissy fit for months over a 4.0 liter motor from Mercedes was unwarranted as tuning of new 4.0 liter motors shows. The Audi TFSI is ahead of your precious M157 tune only. How do you explain that? You're apparently the self-proclaimed educated car guy... what's going on?

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Hissy Fit?
    My precious M157?
    Ok, buddy.

    If you're going to quote me, get it right.
    I said if the C63 doesn't share the E63 engine, as it has done historically, the 2015 C63 better get a SIGNIFICANT weight loss for me to buy one.
    If not, I would just buy the Audi S6 and do a APR tune. The Audi S6 has a 4.0L. So, trying to quote me saying a 4.0L is unwarranted for tuning in inaccurate, and stupid. In fact, I have been in contact with "Jay Slay" about his APR tuned 4.0L S6 for over a year because I've been interested in buying one.
    So, I obviously respect the 4.0L and you are misquoting me.

    Frankly, if the initial reports are correct, I don't know if a 200lb weight loss for the C63 qualifies as SIGNIFICANT.
    So, in fact, I may be buying a S6 for a daily driver after all.

    Why don't you give this a rest now that you have posted that you agree with the fact that I've been posting?
    More displacement is better.

    For the record, there is NO way the 4.0L is making more power than the 5.5L with equal CFM from the turbos and the same octane. NO WAY.
    Last edited by TT C6; 12-17-2013 at 01:22 PM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Hissy Fit?
    My precious M157?
    Ok, buddy.
    Yep.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    If you're going to quote me, get it right.
    I said if the C63 doesn't share the E63 engine, as it has done historically, the 2015 C63 better get a SIGNIFICANT weight loss for me to buy one.
    If not, I would just buy the Audi S6 and do a APR tune. The Audi S6 has a 4.0L. So, trying to quote me saying a 4.0L is unwarranted for tuning in inaccurate, and stupid. In fact, I have been in contact with "Jay Slay" about his APR tuned 4.0L S6 for over a year because I've been interested in buying one.
    So, I obviously respect the 4.0L and you are misquoting me.
    I think we have all seen your tone and posts regarding the 4.0 liter motor and the C63 getting it. Do I really need to go look them all up and quote you? My time is a bit more valuable than that.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Why don't you give this a rest now that you have posted that you agree with the fact that I've been posting?
    More displacement is better.
    Because I'm having way too much fun.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    For the record, there is NO way the 4.0L is making more power than the 5.5L with equal CFM from the turbos and the same octane. NO WAY.
    Unless, it has higher VE to begin with, a higher compression ratio, redline, better heads, etc. There's a bunch of ways.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Yep.
    Unless, it has higher VE to begin with, a higher compression ratio, redline, better heads, etc. There's a bunch of ways.
    No $hit, Sherlock.
    There is no way Audi's 4.0L is overcoming a 1.5L defecit with those factors.

    Simple question to end your floundering:
    Would you prefer to have the 4.0LTT from Audi or the M157 from AMG in your car?

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Would you prefer to have the 4.0LTT from Audi or the M157 from AMG in your car?
    I'd rather have the motor I already have in my car.

    But, tune only? Looks like the Audi 4.0 TFSI as its putting out more power to all four wheels tune only than the M157 is tune only to the rear wheels. And it has top mounted turbos...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    No $hit, Sherlock.
    There is no way Audi's 4.0L is overcoming a 1.5L defecit with those factors.
    I wonder why you didn't mention these factors then. I mean you're the educated car guy.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    The name of this site is BOOST.
    I didn't think I had to spell out every factor because I thought most people here have experience owning and building forced induction cars.
    I guess I was wrong.

    Since, you are giving a dissertation on limitations of forced induction motors; you left out one of the glaringly obvious factors: FUEL SYSTEM
    After building cars for the last 20 years, a overbuilt fuel system has always saved my ass from the blow head gaskets and ring lands that others had to deal with at the same power levels I was at.
    But, I have no idea what I'm talking about, right chief???


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'd rather have the motor I already have in my car.

    I wouldn't want your car or your motor. Both are WEAK in my opinion.



    Let start looking for common ground and things that we actually agree on.

    I'll go first.
    For a cheap daily driver, I think the new C400 is going to be a hell of a buy, especially with a custom tune and exhaust.
    Last edited by TT C6; 12-17-2013 at 03:07 PM.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    I just realized the obvious about your that was in front of me the entire time if I cared to look.
    You are so butt hurt about me pointing out that a 4.0L is tiny motor and inferior to the 5.5L M157 because you own that little M3 with that weak little motor that even your centri supercharger can't fix.
    It's OK, buddy.

    Just step up and buy a real car with real engine and then maybe you'll be able to accept the facts that the rest of us already know.
    May I suggest a C6 or C7 with a centri from ECS or a E63 with a just a good tune or turbo upgrade?

    K, thanks.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    The name of this site is BOOST.
    Yes it's about performance modification not just forced induction. I know considering I created the concept and all.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I didn't think I had to spell out every factor because I thought most people here have experience owning and building forced induction cars.
    I guess I was wrong.
    I like your backtracking to cover your omission.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Since, you are giving a dissertation on limitations of forced induction motors; you left out one of the glaringly obvious factors: FUEL SYSTEM
    Last I checked all of these motors are direct injected.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    After building cars for the last 20 years, a overbuilt fuel system has always saved my ass from the blow head gaskets and ring lands that others had to deal with at the same power levels I was at.
    But, I have no idea what I'm talking about, right chief???
    I didn't say you have no idea what you're talking about. What I'm saying is your points about the 4.0 V8 and what a downgrade it is versus the M157 were clearly overblown when the Audi 4.0 TFSI just proved that. Are you still having trouble believing it outpowered the M157? Looks like that 1.5 liters isn't that big of a deal.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I wouldn't want your car or your motor. Both are WEAK in my opinion.
    Stronger than any M157 I've ever seen. How is that possible? Yeah it's super duper weak.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    I'll go first.
    For a cheap daily driver, I think the new C400 is going to be a hell of a buy, especially with a custom tune and exhaust.
    That is why I called it potentially the best Mercedes tuning value months before anyone else even paid attention to it. But I'm not an educated enthusiast so what do I know?

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    398
    Rep Points
    0.9
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    DI motors still have fuel systems.
    You're not going to discredit my 20 years of building cars, so stop trying.

    Kudos to you for being aware of future products.
    That's why I came to this site.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    DI motors still have fuel systems.
    You're not going to discredit my 20 years of building cars, so stop trying.
    I thought the fuel just magically found its way into the motor, my bad. My point was these motors will all share the limitations of direct injection fuel systems.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Kudos to you for being aware of future products.
    That's why I came to this site.
    Glad to hear I'm doing my job, thanks.

  22. #72
    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 thought the fuel just magically found its way into the motor, my bad. My point was these motors will all share the limitations of direct injection fuel systems.
    Dude, stop. You were trying to discredit my 20 years of building cars with posts like these:
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge

    Unless, it has higher VE to begin with, a higher compression ratio, redline, better heads, etc. There's a bunch of ways.
    I like your backtracking to cover your omission.
    No worries.
    Like I said, you do a good job of compiling future MB product info and we both agree the C400 is going to be a good daily driver for the money.
    Let's stick to what we agree on.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    Dude, stop. You were trying to discredit my 20 years of building cars with posts like these:
    I don't remember sitting here thinking to myself how do I discredit this guys 20 years of whatever. The thought never crossed my mind. What crossed my mind was pointing out to you a plethora of ways that smaller displacement motors can show strengths over larger displacement motors. You may have noticed it isn't always the largest motor that wins.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    No worries.
    Like I said, you do a good job of compiling future MB product info and we both agree the C400 is going to be a good daily driver for the money.
    Let's stick to what we agree on.
    That's perfectly fine with me.

  24. #74
    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
    What crossed my mind was pointing out to you a plethora of ways that smaller displacement motors can show strengths over larger displacement motors. You may have noticed it isn't always the largest motor that wins.
    .
    And, that is the crux of this entire thing.
    When all factors are equal, the larger displacement motor will ALWAYS make more power.
    With modern tuning, all factors can be addressed, so larger displacement always win.

    Back to square one......

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,709.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
    When all factors are equal, the larger displacement motor will ALWAYS make more power.
    With modern tuning, all factors can be addressed, so larger displacement always win.
    No because you aren't going to change the M157 into a top mount and how exactly are you going to get it to rev to 8k+? There are design limitations. All factors are not equal in modern cars. Your example is on paper and yes theoretically larger displacement will always win if all the factors I mentioned are equal. They aren't though.

Page 3 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
  •