Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I took a friend who owns an A4 1.8T for a spin in my car, and he was blown away (like, "holy shit!" type stuff :wave:) My R33 only had around 185rwkw at the time. He also took me for a spin in his A4 and it didn't seem all that quick so I could understand why he was so impressed. But then, I've never gone for a ride in a stock Skyline before so who knows :)

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dissagree, stock for stock a skyline feels way beefier than a 1.8T A4.

Im just getting happier with the level of power I have now, which includes a chip to up the boost, exhaust, electric fan kit and air filter. It *probably* makes around 155kw at the fly.

So a stock skyline should still beat it, in the dry.

But there are some quick ones around.

I just looked up the A3 and A4 turbo specs and I can't figure out why anyone can think they are fast cars. They put out either 110 (A3) or 120 (A4) kw, that's at the flywheel. The only thing going for the A3 is its weight which is 1175kg which I guess isn't too bad for 110kw, but the A4 is a slug at 1415kg.

The 3.0 engine versions are a lot more respectable at 162kw, which is starting to get into the realms of "quick". But I would think that unmodified, any GTS-t would smoke any turbo A4, and probably an A3. Maybe the A4's that win aren't as unmodified as people think? Or maybe they had the 3.0 engine in them.

The A31.8T is NOT a quick car, well it is compared to an excel.

Lets get this straight.

The 1.8T engine is the only one worth much consideration.

The A3 and A4 use basically the same engine with the same output 110kw. These use a ko3 turbo.

In 1999 the A4 had upped boost and with variable timing i think, had 132kw.

With a chip all of these 1.8t's wheather they are an a3 or a4 will have ~150kw and 300nm of torque, from about 2500rpm.

The S3 has the same basic 1.8t engine (with a few stronger bits) but with a k04 turbo, the old S3's made 154kw, the new ones 165kw/280nm. With a chip these will make about 195kw/360mm.

The S4 is a 2.7litre v6 twin turbo using 2 k03 turbos combined (not sequential) factory these have 195kw/400nm torque 1850-3600 rpm.

With a chip these will make 250kw.

Then there is the rs4 which makes 280kw i think, its a 2.7litre but with k04 turbos instead of the k03's. Chipped these make 330kw.

A common mod in the A4 is if the turbo goes, replace it with a k04.

But what you skyline guys have to watch out for the A4's with garrett GT25's. These make around 250kw i think depending on the trim.

There is one A4 going around, no need to tell you specs just look at this timeslip:

Fast A4

Any more questions?

  Quote
Originally posted by Pekatu

Man i owned an Audi A4 Quattro turbo before my skyline, if you dont get an S4 you will be very dissapointed in the performance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do a little bit of work to them and they arn't that slow. But are not as easy to mod as skylines. But then again what is!

The 4WD in the A4 is awesome.

They are a damn sight rarer than the 1,000,001 skylines on the road. That why I chose the A4 after having my heart set on a Skyline.

They are also comfy.

But no electric folding mirrors :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...