Re-imports | Posts 16+

Hi Ulf,

Mine is from the Netherlands, and it's also a Signo.

1240: The weight, including the driver and some fuel, is listed as 1100 kg in the Dutch listings, which likely use a different calculation method. In our listings, it's shown as 1200 kg, while the base model is listed as 1100 kg.

As I recall, the time I measured back then, with the car in perfect condition, was around 6.5 seconds. However, that was with a weight of approximately 1290 kilograms (I'm lighter than the standard 75 kg driver, but there was more fuel in the tank, and my girlfriend adds another 50 kilograms to the total).

Best regards,

Jan.

Hi!

The Audi has a sticker with vehicle data such as the actual individual fuel consumption, the exact unladen weight, and various identification codes. This is located behind a flap in the trunk. My A3 has an unladen weight of 1235 kilograms, 110 horsepower, and with a chip tuning, it has 140 horsepower. It completes the test in 4.7 seconds. If I add 100 kg (driver + fuel), I get 75% more power and 400 Nm of torque. I'm sure I'm not achieving these values. Can anyone help me find my mistake in my calculations? Your values are likely realistic. With such a low weight, a time of 4.4 seconds is definitely achievable.

Best regards,
Uwe

Hi Georg, which cable did you connect your Speedbuster to on the mass airflow sensor? I have a 5-pin connector, but one of the pins is not connected. It's for a Golf IV with 110 horsepower.
Sure, I'd be happy to. Please provide the text you would like me to translate from German to English.
Regards,
ERwin.

Uwe wrote:

My A3 has a dry weight of 1235 kilograms, 110 horsepower, and with a chip, 140 horsepower, and it completes the test in 4.7 seconds. If I add 100 KG (driver + fuel), I get 75% more power and 400 Nm. I certainly won't achieve these values. Who can help me find my mistake in thinking? Your values are certainly realistic. With such a low weight, 4.4 seconds is definitely achievable.

Hi Uwe,

The unladen weight is usually specified including the driver (75 kg) and fuel (almost full). Therefore, you don't need to add the extra 100 kg if you are traveling alone. Unless you weigh approximately 175 kg...
Otherwise, please take a look at the thread about accumulated uncertainties in the calculation.

Hi Uwe,

Are you sure that 1235 is the actual *kerb weight*? What does the paperwork say? For all newer cars, the kerb weight listed in the paperwork includes the mentioned 100 kg... so, 1235 would only be correct if something like 1335 was listed in the registration, which, in my opinion, is a bit too much for an A3. Perhaps that's the mistake in the calculation.

Best regards,

Jan.

Hi!

My documents state a weight of 1255 kg, while the vehicle's unladen weight (excluding equipment) is 1229 kg. When I enter this weight into the Excel spreadsheet, it still calculates a power output increase of over 60%. I performed the measurements at various locations, sometimes in both directions. The differences I observed were minimal, around 0.2 seconds. So, is there still a flaw in the reasoning...?

Best regards,
Uwe

Uwe wrote:

My documents state 1255 kg, while the vehicle's unladen weight, adjusted for equipment, is 1229 kg. When I enter this weight into the Excel spreadsheet, it indicates a power increase of over 60%. I performed the measurements at various locations, sometimes in both directions. The differences were minimal, around 0.2 seconds. So, is there still a flaw in the reasoning...?

More likely, it's a typo. With a weight of 1230 kg and a speed of 49 km/h at 2000 rpm, the 110 needs to be boosted by 30% to achieve a 0-100 km/h time of 4.7 seconds.
That would result in 143 horsepower and 305 Nm of torque, with a smooth and consistent increase in power within the 2000-4000 RPM range.

Hi,

Here are all the important data points again for calculation.

-1Z, 1285 kg (according to the manifest), driver 80 kg, 35 kg of diesel on board.
-3rd gear, i=1.308, which is a gear ratio compatible with ASD transmissions (compared to 1.360 for CTN transmissions).
- Achsübersetzung for ASD (and CTN 3.6) 3.6
-205/50R15
-171 km/h (indicated speed) (approximately 191 km/h after tuning).


ggg* shoe size 42, pants size 50, jacket size 52, and underwear size 6-7gg**.

Hi!

For me, it's 54 km/h at 2,000 RPM. Engine AHF, Esso fuel in the tank, air pressure 998 hPa, 7 degrees Celsius, and a Casio stopwatch!

Best regards,
Uwe

Uwe wrote:

Hi! For me, it's 54 km/h at 2,000 RPM. Engine AHF, Esso fuel in the tank, air pressure 998 hPa, 7 degrees Celsius, and a Casio stopwatch! Best regards, Uwe

Hi Uwe, with my A3 AHF, I reach 53-54 km/h at 2000 rpm, while the climate control system displays 48 km/h. A speedometer check performed by ADAC Nuremberg some time ago showed that at 50 km/h on the speedometer, the actual speed is 46 km/h. In my vehicle registration document, it states that the weight of the vehicle is 1255 kg.
So, the speed value you entered, 54 km/h, is a bit too high. Since the speed plays a significant role in the calculation, the result is heavily distorted.
"Still, your 4.4 seconds are impressive; I'm averaging 5.35 seconds (though with my 60kg girlfriend in the passenger seat)."
All measurements were performed using 195/65R15 winter tires.

Best regards, Rainer.

PS: Do you have the exact transmission data for the A3 with the AHF? Where can one get something like that?

Hi Tim,

Based on the "slowest" standard configuration according to your data, with a 3. With a gear ratio of 1.308 and a vehicle mass of 1,400 kg, the typical acceleration time should be approximately 7.53 seconds (from 45.6 to 91.2 km/h).
At the 3rd... With a gear ratio of 1.36, it should accelerate from 2000 to 4000 RPM (which is 43.8 to 87.6 km/h) in approximately 6.9 seconds without any modifications.

To improve the "worse" factory-standard time of 7.45 seconds to 6.7 seconds, you only need an increase of approximately 11%, resulting in about 224 Nm of torque / 100 horsepower.

So, either your tuner delivered a "sleeping pill" (meaning it didn't provide any performance boost), or there's something wrong with your engine, or something in the data or the measurement is incorrect...

Hi!

Okay, that clears up my "misunderstanding" (it's 4.7 seconds, 4.4 was Georg's time with his lighter Ibiza). It's essentially the translation, or my speedometer error, combined with the already posted power variation, that explains the discrepancy. Then the numbers actually make sense. I also have 195/65x15 tires on the original alloy wheels and an empty passenger seat.
I don't have the transmission data, but I believe the translation is the same for transmissions with the same identification letter. I think I have an EHF transmission. I'll check on that again (the spare tire compartment).

Best regards,
Uwe

How can I currently access the archive with the old entries regarding the intake manifold issue? Or could you briefly summarize what you did back then? I'm considering giving my 1.4L AMF engine a minor overhaul. Less soot is always good, especially when I don't have to sacrifice performance to achieve it (which I've already done, anyway).

Thank you.

Olaf.

Hi Ulf,
If I'm to believe what I'm hearing, I have 'approximately 100 horsepower and 224 Nm' of torque, but I can't believe it! Let's say my engine isn't working properly. What about my brother's A4, which did a test run in about 8 seconds and had, according to ADAC, approximately 115 horsepower and around 240 Nm of torque? What does that mean?
Could it be that the test track has some uphill sections?

Best, Tim?

Hi.

approximately 100 horsepower / 224 Nm should be achievable with this.

/viewtopic.php?t=62

have completed