Are the Ulf test times realistic?

Okay, a quick question for everyone here...

'Here, people are posting times of under 5 seconds for cars with around 120 horsepower, which would mean a 0 to 100 km/h time of around 7 seconds... I can't and don't want to believe it.'

'I can get my 130cc bike to 6.5 seconds (at 2000-4000 RPM)...'

I probably have around 100 horsepower. It takes me about 11 seconds to go from 0 to 100 km/h, and I complete the Ulf test in just under 7 seconds.

Do you also use the third one? How's it going?

Hello.

If it might help:

I've timed all my runs.
Passat with a turbocharger, allegedly producing 135 horsepower and 280 Nm of torque.
Weight: 1430 kg. Accelerating in 3rd gear, 2000-4000 RPM.

Ulf-Test = 5.8 seconds.
0-100 = 9.8 seconds.
60-100 (4th gear), 7.8 seconds.
80-100 (5th gear), 9.35 S.

Did you use the correct gear ratios on sheet 2?
And what about the correct weight?

Best, Alex.

Nicolaus--130PD wrote:

Just a quick question for all of you here... "Here, people are posting times of under 5 seconds for cars with around 120 horsepower, which would mean a 0 to 100 km/h time of around 7 seconds... I can't and don't want to believe it." "I can get my 130cc bike to 6.5 seconds (at 2000-4000 RPM)..."

Hi,

The 6.5s might still be okay. What kind of vehicle do you have, and more importantly, how heavy is it?
Don't forget, during the Ulf test, to start accelerating with full throttle from approximately 35-40 km/h in 3rd gear, and start the stopwatch when you reach 50 km/h. The turbocharger needs some time to build up full boost. When you accelerate to 50 km/h and press the accelerator fully, there is no full boost pressure, and therefore no full power, for the first 1-2 seconds.

Best regards, Rainer.

Hi!

I just had my wife's A4 chipped at ********. Now I have a good analogy:

My A3 with 110/140 horsepower and 290 Nm of torque accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 4.6 seconds, while the A4 with 115/150 horsepower and 370 Nm of torque takes 5.6 seconds. In the A4, there's a squealing noise at the front when accelerating in second gear, while in the A3, the wheels don't even spin, even in wet conditions. The torque figures are understandable, although the A3 likely has slightly more torque than indicated, which ******** also confirms ("the 110 models have a wide torque curve").
I think the specified weights are also not entirely accurate. Of course, errors can accumulate in the process.
The pure acceleration time (I've measured it about 40 times in the meantime because I couldn't believe it myself) is certainly not relevant, as a multitude of vehicle-specific factors are involved. Only the result in the Excel table puts these factors into perspective. If you want to compare vehicles, you need to complete the Ulf test.

Best regards,
Uwe

I tested it again today using a stopwatch...

Okay, so my car... a Golf with a 130 horsepower TDI engine and almost full equipment... the actual vehicle weight with 2 people is approximately 1450 kg.

'And at an incline of approximately 2%, it took about 6 seconds... For me, 2000 RPM in third gear corresponds to roughly 54-55 km/h (according to...)' Climatronic).

In fifth gear, accelerating from 60 to 100 km/h takes approximately 7 seconds.

Hi Nicolaus!

Please don't compare apples and oranges. Your Golf is certainly heavier than mine - and even with a 6-speed transmission, it's geared longer in 5th. That makes a big difference. Check Ulf's table; it provides realistic values for power output. My A3 has 149 horsepower and 320 Nm of torque according to Excel, which, according to ********, is about right (chip tuning typically results in 140 horsepower and 290 Nm). That doesn't mean you have worse performance; with a longer gear ratio, you can accelerate over a wider speed range. I can measure up to approximately 100 km/h, while you can measure up to 110 km/h!!!
Calculate it!

Best regards,
Uwe

Hi, I think I found a bug in the DRZ.
Okay, so at 20°C, it takes 6.11 seconds for the power to reach 2000-4000, which, according to DRZ, corresponds to 136 horsepower.
At 5°C (I timed it this morning), the power output is 5.66, which, according to DRZ, corresponds to 147 horsepower.

Somewhere, there's a 'bug' in it .
Is there a simple explanation for that?

Best regards.

Marfan wrote:

Hi, I think I found a bug in the DRZ. Okay, so at 20°C, it takes 6.11 seconds for the power to reach 2000-4000, which, according to DRZ, corresponds to 136 horsepower. At 5°C (I timed it this morning), the power output is 5.66, which, according to DRZ, corresponds to 147 horsepower.

Generally, you should enter the corresponding outside temperature in the designated field.

While the DZR (a type of electrical equipment) calculates a higher power output for "cold input," you are not allowed to add as much of a percentage increase in the "multi-power" field as you would with heat.

If the calculated time matches the stopped time, the resulting performance is usually very similar - except, for example, with the summer performance drop often seen in VP motors.

Regarding your car's performance: The difference of 6.11 to 5.66 seconds is quite significant (measurement error??), which naturally leads to different power calculations.

Note: The DZR does not calculate "normalized power" (@ 981 mbar / 20°C), but rather the "actual power" during the test.

In general, you should enter the corresponding outdoor temperature in the appropriate field.
I have entered everything correctly, as it should be.

Regarding your car: The difference of 6.11 to 5.66 seconds is already a significant difference (measurement error??), which naturally leads to different power calculations.
Measurement errors --> ONLY occur when VAG-Com reports the error. (10 attempts in both directions).

The DZR (Deutscher Zentraler Prüfungsverband) calculates a higher power output for 'cold input,' but then, for example, you are not allowed to add as much of a percentage increase in the 'multi-power' field as you would with heat.
To be honest, I don't understand. I will increase the percentage until the time displayed at the bottom is correct.
Best regards.

@ulf

I simply cannot tolerate this summer laziness. The PD (ATJ) model is more comfortable for me to wear in the summer than the VP (1Z) model.

Best regards, WarLord.

WarLord wrote:

Summer sluggishness: I simply cannot tolerate that. The PD (ATJ) is more comfortable for me to wear in the summer than the VP (1Z).

It's funny, my experience is the opposite:

AFN (ventricular fibrillation) -> significantly more aggressive in winter than in the hot summer.

ASZ (PD) -> No clear difference has been observed so far; DZR (fuel consumption) is even better in summer/autumn, but this could also be related to the break-in period (currently slightly over 7,000 km), and/or modifications such as the intercooler and intake manifold.

What else I've noticed is:
At temperatures above 20°C, the LDT is 20-30° higher (i.e., ...). LDT = 40° - 50°)
At 5°C, they were only 10-15°C higher.
Strange, isn't it?

@ulf

I can even tell you, based on the draft, whether it's humid today or not.

Best regards, WarLord.

Hello,

Do you use VAG-Com to log data, or do you rely on the speedometer readings when taking measurements? Besides the speedometer, the tachometer also provides inaccurate readings to a significant extent.
I'm just wondering why I can keep up with the PDs so well in my modified AFN G3, probably because of its low weight of 1120 kg. However, the feeling of power in the PDs is still worlds away from mine. More torque at the same power output would mean reaching higher RPMs faster. But people always talk about power-to-weight ratio, never about power itself. Why is that? If I were to put a 150 horsepower motorcycle engine with 90 Nm of torque into my car, I probably wouldn't be able to get it moving much, even with the extra power, right?

Quote:

So, my car...a Golf 130HP TDI with almost full equipment...the actual vehicle weight with 2 people is approximately 1450 kg.

Really???

"My G3 variant is already so difficult!!!" Without many features (so, no air conditioning).

The weight is measured according to TÜV standards.

With 10 cents, I can turn the wheels in second gear... Despite only 7.8 seconds in the DZR

m;