# S3 Performance?



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

1st time posting on vortex in a long time! :wave:

Let me preclude the following with: I don't race, either on the street or at the track. If I need to fill that itch I'll take the D675 to Summit Point. I've been following the A3/S3 coverage pretty closely and it got me thinking about what it compares to.

What are peoples expectations of the S3's performance? How conservative do you think the quoted 5.0sec 60 is? I remembered reading a R&T article of a 2009 TTS vs a 135i so I went back to check it out. The TTS's curb weight was listed as 3235lbs, with 265hp and 258lbs of tq. I explicitly remembered being shocked they tested the quarter mile at [email protected] (0-60 in 4.6, DSG ofc) I wasn't too shocked with the 60 due to awd, but i was fairly impressed by the trap speed.

I thought maybe it was an exception. But I found another test for a 2010 model with 4.8sec 0-60, 1/4 mile 13.5 @ 104mph. Still pretty impressive!

The S3 sportback allegedly weighs in at 3,185lb. Not a huge number but hey it's 50lbs! Then it's also at 300hp/280tq. Just seems like 0-60 might be very conservative! I'm going out on a limb and assuming it should perform a bit better than the TTS? Exciting!

Do you think the sedan will weigh more or less than the sportback? 

If I end up in an A3/S3, I'd never end up going to the track or racing on the street. And minor differences in performance wouldn't prevent me from going that direction. Just excited to see what the sedan looks like at this point... I'm hoping they release the S3 at the same time in the US.. as I'm not interested in a FWD A3 and it looks like the non S models will be FWD only?


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

I have been thinking about this too. If you consider that it will weigh about 700lbs less than an S4, but is only giving up 33 hp and 45 ft-lb of torque (and it delivers that 280 ft-lbs of torque over a very broad 1,800-5,500 rpm power range), I have a feeling that it will be as fast (and perhaps faster). For comparison, the 3.0T motor delivers its 325 ft-lbs of torque between 2900 rpm and 5300 rpm.

Audi officially puts the 0-62 mph time at 4.9 seconds, which is likely conservative.

I believe that broad torque delivery will be the key to its performance and I expect it to feel much less peaky than the motor in my Golf R.


----------



## greg964 (May 4, 2007)

VeeDubDriver said:


> I have been thinking about this too. If you consider that it will weigh about 700lbs less than an S4, but is only giving up 33 hp and 45 ft-lb of torque (and it delivers that 280 ft-lbs of torque over a very broad 1,800-5,500 rpm power range), I have a feeling that it will be as fast (and perhaps faster). For comparison, the 3.0T motor delivers its 325 ft-lbs of torque between 2900 rpm and 5300 rpm.
> 
> Audi officially puts the 0-62 mph time at 4.9 seconds, which is likely conservative.
> 
> I believe that broad torque delivery will be the key to its performance and I expect it to feel much less peaky than the motor in my Golf R.


Most sources believe the S4 factory hp rating is not accurate. There are threads on the forums debating this, but the general consensus is that for a 3800 lb+ AWD car to achieve 108 mph trap speed it would need closer to 370 hp.

Having said that I think the 300 hp in a 3200 lb S3 will be plenty. Hoping they bring it to the US in sportback form!!


----------



## cyberpmg (Nov 27, 2001)

I would imagine the sedan would weigh less than the sportback. Less material used (sheet metal, glass, etc.).

Hope we get the details soon.


----------



## ChrisFu (Jun 9, 2012)

As a fellow D675 rider I wholeheartedly agree. My WRX has turned into a total DD, and the replacement S3/A3 will be the same. The bike is for the track.

With the same EA888 engine in both the A3 and S3, I am also wondering the extent of the drop in gas mileage we should expect with the increase in HP.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

ChrisFu said:


> As a fellow D675 rider I wholeheartedly agree. My WRX has turned into a total DD, and the replacement S3/A3 will be the same. The bike is for the track.
> 
> With the same EA888 engine in both the A3 and S3, I am also wondering the extent of the drop in gas mileage we should expect with the increase in HP.


:thumbup::wave: I have a blue 08 D675. Going to sell her in the spring.. She'll be missed. 

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/02/13/300-hp-2013-audi-s3-sportback-unwrapped/

That link cites 34mpg...


----------



## Gryphon001 (Apr 25, 2008)

greg964 said:


> Most sources believe the S4 factory hp rating is not accurate. There are threads on the forums debating this, but the general consensus is that for a 3800 lb+ AWD car to achieve 108 mph trap speed it would need closer to 370 hp.
> 
> Having said that I think the 300 hp in a 3200 lb S3 will be plenty. Hoping they bring it to the US in sportback form!!


When the first S4s made it to Canada I had spoken to one of the dealers and he said that just for s#its and giggles they put one on a dyno and the 333 Bhp was a little bit off from the 330-ish WHP they got out of it.

I had also spoken with an Audi Canada PR rep and apparently the S3 is slated for NA in Sedan form only at initial release (probably summer 2014) but it's unclear whether the SB will ever make it here in the future.

As for regular SB coming here even he didn't know for sure. Audi sure are playing their cards close to their chests with this one. Even the release is damn close to the actual sales date I think ( for the sedan at least)


----------



## Rudy_H (Jul 6, 2012)

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_30tfsi_b8s4.html

APR 327/327 AWHP!! So rule of thumb is 20% drive train loss...do the math and yes 333hp is not exactly right...


IMO, when the S3 hits North America, it will be understated just as APR found in their Golf R as well, I bet they will bring 280 hp here and it will dyno at 280 AWHP.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

Rudy_H said:


> http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_30tfsi_b8s4.html
> 
> APR 327/327 AWHP!! So rule of thumb is 20% drive train loss...do the math and yes 333hp is not exactly right...
> 
> ...


Was the Golf R under rated? I was thinking maybe the Audi TTS was very under rated.. The Golf R from what I've seen is right around 14sec in the 1/4 @ 99mph. It's about 130lbs heavier than the Audi TTS but the there is a 5-6mph gap in trap speeds despite similar hp? I can't imagine the trap speed difference is that big even with the TTS having DSG?


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

The DarkSide said:


> Was the Golf R under rated? I was thinking maybe the Audi TTS was very under rated.. The Golf R from what I've seen is right around 14sec in the 1/4 @ 99mph. It's about 130lbs heavier than the Audi TTS but the there is a 5-6mph gap in trap speeds despite similar hp? I can't imagine the trap speed difference is that big even with the TTS having DSG?


The Golf R is rated at 256 hp, but APR found it was making the same hp as the TTS's 265, and APR dynoed them @ 273 hp at the front wheels (the rear was disconnected for the dyno test).


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

VeeDubDriver said:


> The Golf R is rated at 256 hp, but APR found it was making the same hp as the TTS's 265, and APR dynoed them @ 273 hp at the front wheels (the rear was disconnected for the dyno test).


That's really surprising. I didn't dig deep, but the top 2 articles I found on the Golf R had it trapping at 99mph. Given the same power levels and only 130lbs more.. the biggest difference is.. the transmission? I wouldn't have thought the trans and 130lbs would be able to increase the trap speed by 4-6mph. Hrm.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

The DarkSide said:


> That's really surprising. I didn't dig deep, but the top 2 articles I found on the Golf R had it trapping at 99mph. Given the same power levels and only 130lbs more.. the biggest difference is.. the transmission? I wouldn't have thought the trans and 130lbs would be able to increase the trap speed by 4-6mph. Hrm.


Gearing perhaps???


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

For what it is worth, I have a Golf R and I can tell you that it is a fun car, and the numbers are about right from the road tests.... but the car is gutless below about 3200 RPM because of the turbo. If the S3 is really going to be working with a 2.0T and that big K04 turbo...... you can expect some lag  big change from my old 04 S4


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

phospher5 said:


> For what it is worth, I have a Golf R and I can tell you that it is a fun car, and the numbers are about right from the road tests.... but the car is gutless below about 3200 RPM because of the turbo. If the S3 is really going to be working with a 2.0T and that big K04 turbo...... you can expect some lag  big change from my old 04 S4


The motor in the new S3 is *NOT* the same as in the R, with more boost. The Audi AG media site lists the power of the 2.0T in the new S3 at 221 kW (300 hp) available at 5,500 rpm; maximum torque of 380 Nm (280.27 lb-ft) is constantly available from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm.

So not only does the S3 motor appear to have a much broader and usable torque curve, but I suspect that it is making more than the 300 hp they are advertising, since that hp rating is at 5,500 rpm and I suspect it would make power past 6000 rpms.


----------



## LazyLightning (Aug 11, 2012)

phospher5 said:


> For what it is worth, I have a Golf R and I can tell you that it is a fun car, and the numbers are about right from the road tests.... but the car is gutless below about 3200 RPM because of the turbo. If the S3 is really going to be working with a 2.0T and that big K04 turbo...... you can expect some lag  big change from my old 04 S4


Bingo. I love my R, but the one thing that bugs me is the turbo lag. When you stomp on it from a standstill the first ~1.5 seconds are... underwhelming. I strangely enough find myself missing the K03 from my A3 and GTI - spooled up so damn quickly!


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

LazyLightning said:


> Bingo. I love my R, but the one thing that bugs me is the turbo lag. When you stomp on it from a standstill the first ~1.5 seconds are... underwhelming. I strangely enough find myself missing the K03 from my A3 and GTI - spooled up so damn quickly!


I agree about the initial lag. It was somewhat improved by the Stage 1 tune, and many have stated that doing intake, dp and HPFP also help mitigate the lag.

Interestingly enough, the CLA45 2.0T makes its 355 hp @ 6,000 rpm and the torque is rated at 332 lb.-ft. from 2,250-5,000 rpm. It may make more power, but it also may feel a little more laggy.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

why isn't Audi doing fancy turbo setup like twin scroll? Even cheap ass hyundais are doing twin scroll turbos on their junks. Are they going ultra cheap on manufacturing the parts of the car and try to make it up in their engineering?


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

LWNY said:


> why isn't Audi doing fancy turbo setup like twin scroll? Even cheap ass hyundais are doing twin scroll turbos on their junks. Are they going ultra cheap on manufacturing the parts of the car and try to make it up in their engineering?


Is twin scroll really that fancy? I want to say my 93 MR2 turbo had it. 

The newer audi motors have the exhaust manifold integrated into the head, which seems pretty fancy to me!


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

The DarkSide said:


> Is twin scroll really that fancy? I want to say my 93 MR2 turbo had it.
> 
> The newer audi motors have the exhaust manifold integrated into the head, which seems pretty fancy to me!


That's what I am saying....it is not so high tech anymore when cars like hyundai has it.

i would say part of the integrated manifold is that it is cheaper to cast the block & manifold once they figured out how to do it.


----------



## QwaktastiK (Jul 9, 2006)

My understanding of twinscroll is the major benefit is the lack of turbo lag. Contrary to what others have said, the K04 really isn't THAT big of a turbo, and with the torque numbers and RPMs shown in the press release and articles, I don't see any need for a twinscroll setup.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

Either way, I am HOPEFUL that the S3 has more noticeable torque at low RPMs than my R, but I am hesitant because .... every time Audi/VW revamps a model or drags a new one out, they don't up the anti too quick. 

point and case the R32 VS. the new R..... barely any more HP, barely quicker in the 1/4 mile........ the current S4 vs my '04 S4..... same power, barely quicker, but more efficient- yes.

Hence why if a Golf R does the 1/4 in 14.2 but feels laggy, the S4 does the 1/4 mile in 13.2 and feels peppy, I have to wonder how realistic it will be for them to produce a car that costs noticeably less than the S4, that feels noticeable quicker than the R with a 2.0 that they will actually send to North America.... I am not saying they can't.... I am saying that I notice they tend to hold back with what they send us.

any referrence-able material about the new S3 would be excellent to see.


----------



## VeeDubDriver (Oct 1, 2001)

phospher5 said:


> Either way, I am HOPEFUL that the S3 has more noticeable torque at low RPMs than my R, but I am hesitant because .... every time Audi/VW revamps a model or drags a new one out, they don't up the anti too quick.
> 
> point and case the R32 VS. the new R..... barely any more HP, barely quicker in the 1/4 mile........ the current S4 vs my '04 S4..... same power, barely quicker, but more efficient- yes.
> 
> ...


If you consider that the S3 will weigh less than the R, have more hp and more torque (over a much broader rpm range), I am very confident that the S3 will be quite satisfying to drop the hammer on.

Frankly, my Stage 1 R feels pretty damn good right now and the S3 will be more powerful still, along with the weight and torque benefits. Audi AG is putting the 0-62 performance of the S3 at 4.9 seconds, and that is probably conservative.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Audi AG is putting the 0-62 performance of the S3 at 4.9 seconds, and that is probably conservative.


That's pretty good, extremely close to the S4... here's to hoping the final release is as suggested cause I've wanted an S3 for years...


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

The DarkSide said:


> Is twin scroll really that fancy? I want to say my 93 MR2 turbo had it.
> 
> The newer audi motors have the exhaust manifold integrated into the head, which seems pretty fancy to me!


The S6 and S7 have the 4.0TFsi, which is 2 of the 2.0 engine glued to a V (its actually more high tech), it only produces 420hp but it has twin turbo and each turbo are twin scroll turbos. Seems like the lower end cars just get a bolt-on job instead of some serious redesign.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> The motor in the new S3 is *NOT* the same as in the R, with more boost. The Audi AG media site lists the power of the 2.0T in the new S3 at 221 kW (300 hp) available at 5,500 rpm; maximum torque of 380 Nm (280.27 lb-ft) is constantly available from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm.
> 
> So not only does the S3 motor appear to have a much broader and usable torque curve, but I suspect that it is making more than the 300 hp they are advertising, since that hp rating is at 5,500 rpm and I suspect it would make power past 6000 rpms.


I believe the broad, flat and fat tq curve in S3 is mostly due to the audi valvelift, which the Golf R20 does not have.


----------



## Travis Grundke (May 26, 1999)

Waterfan said:


> I believe the broad, flat and fat tq curve in S3 is mostly due to the audi valvelift, which the Golf R20 does not have.


Correct. Valvelift, combined with the new indirect injection system on Audi's version of the 2.0TFSI gives a much broader, and higher, torque curve.

Volkswagen (at this point in time, at least) is not employing the MPI or valvelift technologies.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

Travis Grundke said:


> Correct. Valvelift, combined with the new indirect injection system on Audi's version of the 2.0TFSI gives a much broader, and higher, torque curve.
> 
> Volkswagen (at this point in time, at least) is not employing the MPI or valvelift technologies.


So part of it is due to a different cam ?


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> Gearing perhaps???


FWIW Golf R gears are really short and there is an awkward choice for the 1/4mi where you can either ride out 5th and be out of the power or shift to 6th and lose a bit of time getting back on the power.

Adding power (like stage 2+) only exacerbates the 'issue'.

(I'm not an expert or Golf R owner, this is just from what I've read from vortex Golf R forum. A very high-quality forum in general IMO.)


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

VeeDubDriver said:


> I suspect that it is making more than the 300 hp they are advertising, since that hp rating is at 5,500 rpm and I suspect it would make power past 6000 rpms.


Peak hp is peak hp. If 300 @ 5500 is peak, then that's as high as it gets. If it made more hp above 5500 then that's what would have been quoted.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

LWNY said:


> why isn't Audi doing fancy turbo setup like twin scroll? Even cheap ass hyundais are doing twin scroll turbos on their junks. Are they going ultra cheap on manufacturing the parts of the car and try to make it up in their engineering?


Why 'go fancy' when it isn't necessary?

If you're already hitting peak tq as low as 1850 rpm due to valvelift and multiport injection, what more do you think can be added by twinscroll? (besides more complexity)


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

LWNY said:


> i would say part of the integrated manifold is that it is cheaper to cast the block & manifold once they figured out how to do it.


The manifold is not integrated because 'it's cheaper'.

It is integrated to allow for watercooling of the manifold which thereby allows for tighter and better thermal control, for increased power and fuel economy.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/muupublic/share/18TFSI.pdf

pg. 5 (36)

"This water-cooled exhaust manifold
means that the need for full load enrichment
is eliminated almost entirely. As
a result, consumption can be greatly
reduced both in normal customer driving
and, especially, when employing a more
sporty driving style. Moreover, the integrated
exhaust manifold aids rapid heatup
of the coolant and so is a key component
of the thermomanagement
system.
Another advantage lies in the convergence
of the gas ducts while still in the
cylinder head, which results in a comparatively
compact and light turbocharger
module. Consequently, the overall cylinder
head/turbocharger balance resulted in
a 1.5 kg weight reduction."


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Waterfan said:


> Why 'go fancy' when it isn't necessary?
> 
> If you're already hitting peak tq as low as 1850 rpm due to valvelift and multiport injection, what more do you think can be added by twinscroll? (besides more complexity)


its the torque delivery over time, which above poster said was not instantaneous.



Waterfan said:


> The manifold is not integrated because 'it's cheaper'.
> 
> It is integrated to allow for watercooling of the manifold which thereby allows for tighter and better thermal control, for increased power and fuel economy.
> 
> https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/muupublic/share/18TFSI.pdf


But making 1 part instead of 2 would also make it cheaper, unless it was vastly more complex to cast. I doubt it though, since this will be on mass produced engine.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

LWNY said:


> its the torque delivery over time, which above poster said was not instantaneous.


The above poster was referring to the Golf R 2.0T EA113. The Audi S3 3rd gen EA888 2.0TFSI is not the same engine at all. FYI, peak torque at 1850 rpms is about as instantaneous as it gets. (unless you want a 6.0L fire-breathing V8)



LWNY said:


> But making 1 part instead of 2 would also make it cheaper, unless it was vastly more complex to cast. I doubt it though, since this will be on mass produced engine.


1 part instead of 2 may or may not be marginally cheaper since you need to amortize the R&D and retooling into your production costs. Translation: They are not integrating the manifold because it is cheaper, they are doing it because it is better.


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

VeeDubDriver said:


> The motor in the new S3 is *NOT* the same as in the R, with more boost. The Audi AG media site lists the power of the 2.0T in the new S3 at 221 kW (300 hp) available at 5,500 rpm; maximum torque of 380 Nm (280.27 lb-ft) is constantly available from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm.
> 
> So not only does the S3 motor appear to have a much broader and usable torque curve, but I suspect that it is making more than the 300 hp they are advertising, since that hp rating is at 5,500 rpm and I suspect it would make power past 6000 rpms.


HP peaks at 5500 rpm, then plateaus to around 6200 rpm. Since this is a turbo car, they could just play around with boost to modify its hp/torque over its RPM range. Just like their flat torque curve (and much of what engine tune shops do is keep it at max boost).


----------



## steaguejr (Aug 3, 2006)

S3 performance will be along the same lines as the MK7 Golf R, for the most part.


----------



## Greddy87 (Oct 21, 2010)

Can't really expect the lower models to be faster than Audi's higher up models.. I mean look at the TTRS is fast off the line than the R8, but the R8 doesn't give up it beats the TTRS.. Just like what BMW did, I know totally diff manufacturer but I think all car dealers have this idea in mind. The 1M is fast but not faster than the M3..


----------



## LWNY (Jul 30, 2008)

Greddy87 said:


> Can't really expect the lower models to be faster than Audi's higher up models.. I mean look at the TTRS is fast off the line than the R8, but the R8 doesn't give up it beats the TTRS.. Just like what BMW did, I know totally diff manufacturer but I think all car dealers have this idea in mind. The 1M is fast but not faster than the M3..


 it depends on what you mean by faster. 0-60? quarter mile? top speed? pure feel of acceleration? Some of the models that they sell, which only comes with a manual, could be almost 1/2 sec slower to 60mph than a dual clutch gearbox. Some of the more expensive luxo-sport models might not have a launch control, thus also disadvantaging it.


----------



## Greddy87 (Oct 21, 2010)

LWNY said:


> it depends on what you mean by faster. 0-60? quarter mile? top speed? pure feel of acceleration? Some of the models that they sell, which only comes with a manual, could be almost 1/2 sec slower to 60mph than a dual clutch gearbox. Some of the more expensive luxo-sport models might not have a launch control, thus also disadvantaging it.


 It's pretty straight forward, you see like for example you won't see an A3/S3 beat an R8. Running stock. Sure there's advantages & disadvantages, DSG, Quattro non-quattro cars, but that's up to Audi to do that in order to keep there line up respectable. Who wants to pay for a $120G car & end up getting smoked by a 70G car from a lower line up & both respectfully in the same class, Stock of course..


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

Greddy87 said:


> It's pretty straight forward, you see like for example you won't see an A3/S3 beat an R8. Running stock. Sure there's advantages & disadvantages, DSG, Quattro non-quattro cars, but that's up to Audi to do that in order to keep there line up respectable. Who wants to pay for a $120G car & end up getting smoked by a 70G car from a lower line up & both respectfully in the same class, Stock of course..


R8 buyers don't buy R8 over S3 because of performance, they buy the R8 because of style and exclusivity. The fact that an R8 is a 'supercar' is just a nice side bonus.

R8 buyers don't cross-shop any other Audi, they cross shop 911s, Ferraris and Lambos


----------



## caliatenza (Dec 10, 2006)

Is the adaptive suspension worth getting? Is there going to be that much of a difference between it and the regular suspension? I have never driven a car with adaptive suspension so i dont have any basis of comparison. I would love to go hoon with this car on a curvy road or during Auto X; my concern is that the adaptive suspension would only make a difference in those kind of situations and i wouldnt get the effect during regular driving.


----------



## Waterfan (Aug 9, 2012)

caliatenza said:


> Is the adaptive suspension worth getting? Is there going to be that much of a difference between it and the regular suspension? I have never driven a car with adaptive suspension so i dont have any basis of comparison. I would love to go hoon with this car on a curvy road or during Auto X; my concern is that the adaptive suspension would only make a difference in those kind of situations and i wouldnt get the effect during regular driving.


By all accounts, the adaptive system is supposed to be the best of all worlds.

It can be made more compliant for regular cruising, and/or rough roads, or stiffened up for sporty/tracking conditions.

Getting 2 completely different suspension setups that you can change on the fly sounds pretty cool to me. Would I pay for it? Probably. Set it to Comfort when the wife is in the car, and then back to Sport if I'm by myself.


----------



## The DarkSide (Aug 4, 2000)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-audi-s3-quattro-first-drive-review

Don't know if that's been posted or not. But their estimate of 13.9-14.3 seems grossly underestimated. If the TTS rolls through the 1/4 in low 13's @103-105mph, I'd imagine the S3 with (on paper) better metrics would match or exceed it.


----------



## phospher5 (Jun 21, 2012)

The DarkSide said:


> http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-audi-s3-quattro-first-drive-review
> 
> Don't know if that's been posted or not. But their estimate of 13.9-14.3 seems grossly underestimated. If the TTS rolls through the 1/4 in low 13's @103-105mph, I'd imagine the S3 with (on paper) better metrics would match or exceed it.


not to mention my current golf R 6 speed takes a whopping 14.2 seconds to do the 1/4 mile.

if 0-60 in my car is 5.7 and the new s3 is 4.9, 50hp more powerful and 300 lbs or more lighter...... and DSG ..... 13s is kinda necessary low-mid 13s at that.


----------



## Pathfinder2041 (Sep 20, 2003)

Can't wait to see all of the 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers and trap speed after APR messes with a stage ! for the new engine.


----------

