Close

    • JB4 tuned B9 Audi RS5 2.9 EA839 V6 runs 11.2@122 1/4 mile

      About time we see some quick results out of the B9 RS4 and RS5 which to date have underwhelmed. Part of the reason is the locked ECU keeping tuners out but that offers an opportunity to BMS (Burger Tuning) who is taking full advantage.


      How does an 11.242 @ 122.05 miles per hour strike you?


      Full weight with your basic bolt ons including an exhaust and intake.

      Frankly, we were hoping for ~120 traps out of the car stock but the JB4 sure wakes it up.

      Will we see a 10-second bolt on B9 RS4 or RS5? Count on it.

      This article was originally published in forum thread: JB4 tuned B9 Audi RS5 2.9 EA839 V6 runs 11.2@122 1/4 mile started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 9 Comments
      1. nbrigdan's Avatar
        nbrigdan -
        0.1 seconds worse on the ET and 3 MPH slower than a bolt on and JB4 tuned M4. Not bad at all.

        https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....4-tuned-F82-M4
      1. Payam@BMS's Avatar
        Payam@BMS -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nbrigdan Click here to enlarge
        0.1 seconds worse on the ET and 3 MPH slower than a bolt on and JB4 tuned M4. Not bad at all.

        https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....4-tuned-F82-M4
        We're barely just getting started Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nbrigdan Click here to enlarge
        0.1 seconds worse on the ET and 3 MPH slower than a bolt on and JB4 tuned M4. Not bad at all.

        https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....4-tuned-F82-M4
        That was 5 years ago...
      1. nbrigdan's Avatar
        nbrigdan -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        That was 5 years ago...
        I'm comparing at even points in the development. Have to make it fair somehow. Plus, the search engine on here can never find the actual articles I want to link, so I just link some old $#@!.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nbrigdan Click here to enlarge
        I'm comparing at even points in the development. Have to make it fair somehow. Plus, the search engine on here can never find the actual articles I want to link, so I just link some old $#@!.
        The old $#@! applies though. It's accurate.

        That is my point. The M3/M4 were doing this a long time ago and the G80 M3 is on the way.
      1. nbrigdan's Avatar
        nbrigdan -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        That is my point. The M3/M4 were doing this a long time ago and the G80 M3 is on the way.
        Good point actually, I hadn't thought about it that way.
      1. Bowser330's Avatar
        Bowser330 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The old $#@! applies though. It's accurate.

        That is my point. The M3/M4 were doing this a long time ago and the G80 M3 is on the way.
        ...and the g80/g82 wont weigh 4000lbs like the rs5. The m3/m4 is going to own the segment, again.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Bowser330 Click here to enlarge
        ...and the g80/g82 won’t weigh 4000lbs like the rs5. The m3/m4 is going to own the segment, again.
        You are quite correct good sir.

        Although the BMW will now be nose heavy too...
      1. DFWRS5's Avatar
        DFWRS5 -
        LOL, Trying to compare two different cars at two different tracks is about as meaningful as comparing different cars on different dynos. DA and track prep can make a huge difference.