# most powerful n/a 2.5L??



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

who has the most powerful car right now? ill be working on some stuff very soon and would like to know what some of the higher n/a motors are running for power.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i think that the NLS is the public dyno'ed car with the highest numbers... 

but Gabe's rabbit was a little bit more powerful on NA mode... he had everything the NLS car had, with e85. His dyno isnt public yet


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

thygreyt said:


> i think that the NLS is the public dyno'ed car with the highest numbers...
> 
> but Gabe's rabbit was a little bit more powerful on NA mode... he had everything the NLS car had, with e85. His dyno isnt public yet


any number ranges?


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

202? 204? for the nls.. and unknown for the bw car


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2011)

This may not be the 'highest' number, but, it is the highest with an actual chart to back it up.
~198whp

Dyno Chart

Stock headers
Stock cat
Stock exhaust
Stock muffler
Stock wheels
Stock transmission
Stock tires
Stock paint
Stock interioir
Stock headlights


UM SRI was the only hardware modification.

Look at the chart. If someone had said "you need to make ~205WHP to be the MOST" we could have just put a few more revs. on.


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## zukiphile (Oct 28, 2000)

[email protected]itedMotorsport said:


> UM SRI was the only hardware modification.


Not a challenge, but a question. How much of that increase is attributable to a software modification?


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

zukiphile said:


> Not a challenge, but a question. How much of that increase is attributable to a software modification?


its the combination. one cant do without the other


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

we have a chart here at the shop somewhere. i posted it before. we are 204.3 at 7220rpm. i'll look for the file asap. we did it at AWE tuning on thier mustang dyno. they emailed me a mess of them haha.
we got just a hair more then UM's at APtuning with a dynojet dyno. 
not sure what gabe got either


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

oh and we are working and something new in 2012 for the NA market.....hoping to increase that number by quit a bit


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

i cant wait to see what my numbers are going to be after the weekend


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

KyleCrish said:


> i cant wait to see what my numbers are going to be after the weekend


what all is done to yours?


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> what all is done to yours?


nothing yet, some minor doins over the weekend, what are you coming out with that will add more power on top of the sri and tune?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

not doing SRI


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

itb?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

thygreyt said:


> itb?


:wave:


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

gonna be the loudest car on the road.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

depends on if we use a air box or not...have to see how it works out


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2011)

zukiphile said:


> How much of that increase is attributable to a software modification?


Here is a comparison of a software only difference:

Comparison Dyno Chart

Proper software will sort the mid-range dip in torque you see from ~3k-5k rpm, when installing hardware only.


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> oh and we are working and something new in 2012 for the NA market.....hoping to increase that number by quit a bit


 I hope it doesnt involve the intake, cuz I already have a carbonio. But as long as it keeps it N/A and can increase power by a bunch for a decent price, I am definitely going to be interested!


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

So here's my interpretation of what the 2 dyno's mean. Please correct me if I am wrong.

stock: [email protected], [email protected] very smooth line
SRI w/o software: [email protected], [email protected] dead spot between 3500 and 4500rpm. Lost power AND have a dead spot.
SRI w/ software: [email protected], 169lb throughout the rpm range. smooth line


however, and here's the kicker:
SRI w/ software made [email protected], which is barely higher than stock.
In other words, the SRI and tuning allows the engine to breath as the rpm continues to rise, but it doesn't actually make much power below 5250rpm.
If you drive your car and rev it to 7000 (or 7400, whatever you are comfortable with)rpm, then yes, you see a huge increase. If you don't wind the crap out of these engines, you are essentially paying $1400 for 7hp(which can very well be the result of a different dyno/car).

Does that pretty much sum it up??


Peter


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

so daily driving there wont be any difference. I guess if you were to race lol. Some guy with an sri on his rabbit outruns his bro's stock gti which is very believable. The gti would still feel quicker because of the torque though.


----------



## spdfrek (Feb 28, 2002)

thygreyt said:


> itb?


in for videos with good sound for this :thumbup:


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

jaja123 said:


> so daily driving there wont be any difference. I guess if you were to race lol. Some guy with an sri on his rabbit outruns his bro's stock gti which is very believable. The gti would still feel quicker because of the torque though.


Even if your just DDin your car, it will still be significantly quicker, not as much down low but the midrange does get an improvement. I drive my car hard and try to get the most performance out of it as possible, wherever it might be. Thats why I decided to get one of the SRIs and software because of how large the gains are and still being NA. If you dont plan on driving your car hard alot or racing at all then yeah this would probably be a waste of money for some people. It really depends on your driving style and what you wanna get out of your car. I can say hands down, this was THE best mod Ive done so far for the money. And yes, my car is faster then my bros STOCK Mk5 Gti.


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

too bad there is nothing for the mk6 though. Right now im thinking usp testpipe and unitronic tune to go along with my intake, magnaflow.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Just gotta be patient and wait, Id say in another year at least you guys will start getting more parts available. I have a feeling that 2012 is gonna be one of the best years for 2.5 development. Lets all hope Im right.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

[email protected] posted a dyno of their SRI vs stock. under 5000 rpm, the line is 90% the same...
it is a smoother curve with SRI and software, but the difference is within 10 hp at the widest, and the stock line crosses the SRI line multiple times, so it's not like the SRI line is consistently higher.

I am not bashing any company specifically, but I am starting to wonder where the SRI provides me with gains if I don't rev my engine beyond 5000 rpms.


Peter


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2011)

re: gains under ~4500rpm.

I think there is a misunderstanding ~somewhere.....

Any single length runner intake manifold cannot improve the torque curve 'everywhere', its a physical impossiblilty.
Like a performance cam: typically you sacrifice some low rpm torque to gain upper rpm torque.

If you want 'best' torque between 2500-5000, you cannot beat the OEM manifold.
Proper software yields ~190 + wftlbs with the OEM intake manifold.

Stock Intake Manifold Dyno Chart

The goal of the SRI was to free-up the upper rpm flow, and minimize low end loss while doing it.


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

I wonder if I should get stage 2 unitronic with usp test pipe or just wait for other tunes. Right now both the test pipe and the software is on sale until January.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

You with jeff??? Looking forward for the results

sent from tapatalk


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

thygreyt said:


> You with jeff??? Looking forward for the results
> 
> sent from tapatalk


Yes, he's currently shifting at 8k rpm while I'm in the backseat enjoying the ride.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

what did he do on the car?


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

thygreyt said:


> what did he do on the car?


full n/a 09+ sri tune. it is absolutely amazing!  videos and pictures will be up very soon. driving up and down some of the CT and MA highways and tunnels were very fun last night.


----------



## dhenry (Feb 10, 2009)

KyleCrish said:


> full n/a 09+ sri tune. it is absolutely amazing!  videos and pictures will be up very soon. driving up and down some of the CT and MA highways and tunnels were very fun last night.


:thumbup: in for this
pics and vids or it didnt happen! lol:laugh:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

This makes me want a mani so bad... Its hard to restraint oneself from buying now....

Im jelly... Lol.... Enjoy it!!!

sent from tapatalk


----------



## infiniteecho (Apr 7, 2009)

nickbeezy said:


> :thumbup: in for this
> pics and vids or it didnt happen! lol:laugh:


----------



## dhenry (Feb 10, 2009)

infiniteecho said:


>


such a tease haha


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nickbeezy said:


> such a tease haha


dont worry bud, more information and media will be available very soon.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

waiting on it.


----------



## rod_bender (Apr 14, 2007)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> we have a chart here at the shop somewhere. i posted it before. we are 204.3 at 7220rpm. i'll look for the file asap. we did it at AWE tuning on thier mustang dyno. they emailed me a mess of them haha.
> we got just a hair more then UM's at APtuning with a dynojet dyno.
> not sure what gabe got either



That number made using a UM SRI


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

and evo headers.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

point being? the um manifold alone didn't make that power. combined with everything else and a custom C2 tune is what made it that power.
all parts and info was posted on the build thread. everythig we used and did.


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> point being? the um manifold alone didn't make that power. combined with everything else and a custom C2 tune is what made it that power.
> all parts and info was posted on the build thread. everythig we used and did.


was it jeff's tune from c2 or someone else? not trying to sound like a dick, just a question. :beer:


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

C2motorsports


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> C2motorsports


i understand that, but is it the tune that Jeff Atwood made for c2 while he was working there?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

it's 100% C2motorsports by thier new turner ryan potter.


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> it's 100% C2motorsports by thier new turner ryan potter.


 :thumbup: for Potter


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> it's 100% C2motorsports by thier new turner ryan potter.


thats all i was asking, i just like to know who its from. have you found the dyno yet?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

hrs thread "Nls road racer" has build pictures, video, numbers, specs, charts, 22 dynos, full season of races etc. it's all there. Been there for months


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> hrs thread "Nls road racer" has build pictures, video, numbers, specs, charts, 22 dynos, full season of races etc. it's all there. Been there for months


didnt know how to find the thread.. all you said was that you were going to find the dynos. no need to give attitude.


----------



## dhenry (Feb 10, 2009)

here is the link to the NLS build thread, however i did not see any dyno's posted. it only mentioned the dyno was on their facebook.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...d-course-racer&highlight=NLS+build+2.5+rabbit


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

Repost the dyno

sent from tapatalk


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

you guys act like the 2.5L forum is all the companies serve out there...relax a bit and know that companies have MANY projects on their plates, many customers calling, emailing, stopping in, cars to work on, develope, ship, daily repair etc. just be chill and wait, things are being worked on for the 25L as well at the 2.0t, aba, R32T, etc etc etc. if we all worked ont he 2.5L only...we'd all be broke. 2.5L aftermarket is the lowest amount of sale out there. YET theres a few companies that work hard on them still for YOU all, yet you still yell and scream about it. just please relax and be happy there is anything out for the 2.5L people.

end of my early morning rant, i'll finish my coffee and be happier ina few minutes....carry on.

heres the dyno of the SRI road racer. evo header, custom c2 tune NOW the normal sri tune youcan buy from us and C2, um sri, test pipe, 2.5'' exhaust, under drive pulley, custom cai.
AND its on a mustang dyno which is lower then the dyno jet normally. sorry for the iphone picture...


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

Thanks for posting that, the torque curve is really nice. Must be a great DD.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

he drives it on the street and hill climbs and track days.
it was the best all around driving 2.5L NA i've built or been in. good low end and great upper end. we were very pleased with it.


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> he drives it on the street and hill climbs and track days.
> it was the best all around driving 2.5L NA i've built or been in. good low end and great upper end. we were very pleased with it.


thank you for posting that. but very unprofessional rant inside the post. no need to tell us to chill when you're the one getting all upset. none of us were unruly, or forceful. its been 13 days since you said you were going to find the file.. plenty of time to spend 5-10 minutes on a computer. especially after seeing all the other posting you do. so chill out, relax, and understand we are all here for the best available information. we are not here to nag you and piss you off.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

sorry for the rant, yet it's needed, take it from me personal and not business wise if you wish. either way it up there. if you were in companies shoes you would understand. many uneducated posts are posted and no facts yet people listen to them even if pros and people with 1st hand experience post. internet heros will always rule here. 

i posted the dyno when i found it. i had it in a pile of papers and had time today to snap a pic and post it, sorry for the super long delay.


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> sorry for the rant, yet it's needed, take it from me personal and not business wise if you wish. either way it up there. if you were in companies shoes you would understand.


I understand how you feel, but don't understand your logic. I've been in sales since I was 16 (26 now). And if you don't know it by now, let me tell you again. the customer is always right. no matter how much you might hate it, and no matter how much they annoy you (this doesn't seem like an annoying situation to me). There is never a time that you should publicly speak out against them. period. :thumbdown:


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

nothing i said was torwards you. it was in general.
also, i said things how they are, i don't cover things up, i build a car, show what we did, i test and car and i post up what happens, good or bad. i'm a straight forward guy. most know that. most understand where i'm coming from.

So, to you. i'm sorry for the reaction you have from this. plan and simple, we work hard for the 2.5L people yet people complain...anyone would be frustated by this. we also work on many other cars and test many others and need time for them all.

again, sorry for the rant and reaction.:beer:


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> nothing i said was torwards you. it was in general.
> also, i said things how they are, i don't cover things up, i build a car, show what we did, i test and car and i post up what happens, good or bad. i'm a straight forward guy. most know that. most understand where i'm coming from.
> 
> So, to you. i'm sorry for the reaction you have from this. plan and simple, we work hard for the 2.5L people yet people complain...anyone would be frustated by this. we also work on many other cars and test many others and need time for them all.
> ...


Don't apologize for my reaction. I need no apology, it's not personal for me. It's a general rule of thumb, and it makes you look bad. The things you say don't affect me at all.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

:beer:


----------



## vdubchop2k4 (Jun 30, 2004)

I'm curious as to if any head work has been done to this motor


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

vdubchop2k4 said:


> I'm curious as to if any head work has been done to this motor


nope. stock.

Josh,

Thanks for sharing the dyno... if it was posted before i never saw it... and btw... it shows ~208hp!!  i was always told 204... now its even better...


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

thygreyt said:


> nope. stock.


correct, the motor was 100% stock. for his class of racing he can not change any internals.


----------



## fmxr47 (Sep 23, 2010)

i love arguing on the internet.... but great numbers :!!:thumbup::laugh:


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

No need to apologize. We the 2.5 community just feel left behind 
Its nothing against you however!

One thing we all should be used to by now is that we have a very small market when it comes to our perfect little motor.

However when we want something, we are like little 3 year old toddlers and want it NOW!


----------



## magics5rip (Mar 17, 2004)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> nothing i said was torwards you. it was in general.


Sorry for the thread jack, but this is a big point right here. Nothing what NLS is saying is slighting the customer or unprofessional, it simply is the truth of the situation. In my experience, it is better to tell the customers the reality of situations over the smoke and mirrors game. 

The customer isn't always right. This is a distortion of reality. The phrase "the customer is always right" is just an approach strategy to customer service. The truth is that there are things that can be done and things that can't within given time frames. Sometimes, there are just not enough hours in the day.


----------



## rod_bender (Apr 14, 2007)

How can the UM short runner, and the C2 short runner be interchangeable for results?

Last I looked, and I'm not blind, they appear to be quite different designs.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

they are not the same, correct. no one, not even me compared the two as the same. will they act the same? pull the same numbers? same curves? not sure. guessing mostly the same end resolts BUT a differnt chart curve because the UM is a much larger plentium design.

thread was "highest 2.5L NA" i posted the highest 2.5L NA car. we just finished a C2 sri, C2 flash and header setup and will dyno that as soon as me and the customer can get together to do so. the C2 SRI felt more torque down low. a hair less up top BUT i also think think had to do A LOT with the header that was on this car. EJ vs evo. IMO evo is a much better idea and design.

now, the "road racer" highest na hp car had a bit of other stuff done to it(nothing internal) so this new car with the C2 SRI/header/exhaust may not get to over 200 mark. but guessing for my butt dyno that its close.


----------



## rod_bender (Apr 14, 2007)

So then how can you pass those dyno numbers as 'C2' numbers if it wasn't with your C2 manifold? 

Like you said, you're guessing. I can guess all day long at what will happen with the weather, lottery, doesn't matter until it actually happens.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

i did NOT ever say it was a C2 everything build. read more....it says C2 file and um SRI, every post. stop trying to cause issues when there isn't any reason to. we NO did a C2 SRI and C2 file. we will dyno that one soon. 

guessing is right since we didn't dyno it yet. when we dyno it, we will know fact. we won't throw random numbers up till its fact. 
starting trouble on the internet is s cool.:beer:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> starting trouble on the internet is s cool.:beer:


agreed! lol.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> i did NOT ever say it was a C2 everything build. read more....it says C2 file and um SRI, every post. stop trying to cause issues when there isn't any reason to. we NO did a C2 SRI and C2 file. we will dyno that one soon.
> 
> guessing is right since we didn't dyno it yet. when we dyno it, we will know fact. we won't throw random numbers up till its fact.
> starting trouble on the internet is s cool.:beer:


Every time i read your posts i like you more.

Keep up the great work Josh, can't wait to see those dynos.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

:laugh::wave::heart:


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

Why is the torque so low on those numbers? That is basically stock torque isnt it?

I know with an SRI you sacrifice torque for HP or vice versa, is that why? Can somebody elaborate a little for me? Will I end up being disappointed with the torque if I were to go this route? Im more of a push you in the back of your seat kind of guy...


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

thats about 40-45tq OVER stock. 
thats pretty good gain.


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> thats about 40-45tq OVER stock.
> thats pretty good gain.


Oh shoot. Didnt realize this was on a MK5. Hrrmmmm. Very very tempting. I doubt the 09+ would receive this kind of gains though, just because we have essentially the same hardware as the MK5.


----------



## zukiphile (Oct 28, 2000)

bward584 said:


> Im more of a push you in the back of your seat kind of guy...


I predict this assertion will be misconstrued.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

bward584 said:


> Oh shoot. Didnt realize this was on a MK5. Hrrmmmm. Very very tempting. I doubt the 09+ would receive this kind of gains though, just because we have essentially the same hardware as the MK5.


don't see why it won't act the same.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Josh, any idea why theres that little dead spot in the tq and hp curve on the dyno towards the middle? Im guessing its not because of the software but prolly the header he had installed? Just wondering cause I do plan on doing a header on my engine eventually but if its gonna make the curve less smooth then I might have to rethink that. Even tho I dont really wanna spend the money, I think Ill be going with the Evo header just cause it seems better for what Im after.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

cam change over. all 2.5L dyno's i've had have it, sucks but its just the way we have seen it go. +note+ no one can't say its a software C2 only thing only either...cause jeff saw it when we were doing my car years back. we came up with it being the cam timing change.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

taylor, just buy the evo header...you'll be happy


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Alright that makes sense, I was just wondering cause the curve on my dyno was smooth all the way up. Guess they smoothed mine out alot when it got printed. Thanks for the info, now I gotta decide between a new set of lightweight wheels this tax season or an Evo header haha. Already been wanting the wheels for awhile tho so the header will have to wait most likely. Im sure I would enjoy it tho :thumbup:.


----------



## MKVJET08 (Feb 12, 2008)

bward584 said:


> I know with an SRI you sacrifice torque for HP or vice versa, is that why? Can somebody elaborate a little for me? Will I end up being disappointed with the torque if I were to go this route?


I don't know where you heard that from, but take a look at the dyno for UM's SRI. VERY large increase in both HP and TQ. 



bward584 said:


> Im more of a push you in the back of your seat kind of guy...


Maybe an entry level economy car wasn't the best choice for you?


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

MKVJET08 said:


> I don't know where you heard that from, but take a look at the dyno for UM's SRI. VERY large increase in both HP and TQ.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an entry level economy car wasn't the best choice for you?


 
I was using the MK6 as a basis, which stock is 170hp/177tq. Of course his measurements were close, but on an MK5 this is good gains.

I wasn't saying I am unhappy with the performance of the Golf, I just didn't want to sacrifice torque in order to see gains in HP. Since I don't have to do either, my wishes have been granted. :thumbup:


----------



## MKVJET08 (Feb 12, 2008)

bward584 said:


> I was using the MK6 as a basis, which stock is 170hp/177tq. Of course his measurements were close, but on an MK5 this is good gains.
> 
> I wasn't saying I am unhappy with the performance of the Golf, I just didn't want to sacrifice torque in order to see gains in HP. Since I don't have to do either, my wishes have been granted. :thumbup:


The MK6 2.5 is exactly the same motor and power output as the MK5. And, I hate to break it to you, but you don't actually have 170hp or 177tq. It's more like ~150HP and TQ


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

MKVJET08 said:


> The MK6 2.5 is exactly the same motor and power output as the MK5. And, I hate to break it to you, but you don't actually have 170hp or 177tq. It's more like ~150HP and TQ


The MK5 has 150hp stock while the MK6 has 170hp stock. I know that isn't at the wheels but I am not familiar with how torque is measured in those numbers. I know the hardware is the same which is why I said I didn't think the MK6's would see as high of gains. I could be wrong though...


----------



## Atömic1 (Jul 30, 2010)

MKVJET08 said:


> The MK6 2.5 is exactly the same motor and power output as the MK5. And, I hate to break it to you, but you don't actually have 170hp or 177tq. It's more like ~150HP and TQ





bward584 said:


> The MK5 has 150hp stock while the MK6 has 170hp stock. I know that isn't at the wheels but I am not familiar with how torque is measured in those numbers. I know the hardware is the same which is why I said I didn't think the MK6's would see as high of gains. I could be wrong though...


Before you post, do your homework. This is only slightly correct... the older generation had the lower amount of power pre 2008 models, but the power was upgraded from 150 to 170hp from 2008 model years and beyond. It is NOT the same for the "whole" MK5 generation.

- Pete


----------



## MKVJET08 (Feb 12, 2008)

Atömic said:


> Before you post, do your homework. This is only slightly correct... the older generation had the lower amount of power pre 2008 models, but the power was upgraded from 150 to 170hp from 2008 model years and beyond. It is NOT the same for the "whole" MK5 generation.
> 
> - Pete


The homework was done before my post. I highly suggest you take your own advise. Here you go.




darkk said:


> _Quote, originally posted by *StevenHenriksen* »_I hear some of the 2.5's having 150, and some having 170? Is this correct, and which models/years had which? Thanks.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Summary: There is NOT a 20 hp difference. Maybe a couple ponies at best. Power delivery in the 170HP rated motors are "smoother" than the 150HP rated motors. That is the ONLY difference worth mentioning.


----------



## Atömic1 (Jul 30, 2010)

MKVJET08 said:


> The homework was done before my post. I highly suggest you take your own advise. Here you go.
> 
> Summary: There is NOT a 20 hp difference. Maybe a couple ponies at best. Power delivery in the 170HP rated motors are "smoother" than the 150HP rated motors. That is the ONLY difference worth mentioning.


I have read this, and thanks for the refresher... I am not meaning to turn this into a slug fest. Point taken in your post, but though I do respect him and his arguement, the factory does claim this difference between the model years. The C2 software mentioned in his post modifies to similar settings. As much I have personally seen and experience from others, I HIGHLY disagree that they give the same power in the "stock" untouched format.

- Pete


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

ugh, more incorrect facts are being posted!!!

factory numbers are crank (150 or 170 motor). NO mk5 OR mk6 has 170 at the wheels factory, sorry to bash your high hopes. dyno numbers posted are at the wheels and are in the 135-140 range for a factory untouched car. numbers posted for aftermarket upgrades are numbers at the wheels NOT crank. if they were at the crank you could add 20-25+ hp more.

1st released 2.5L were the "150 motor", then late 07 was the 170 motor, changed the cam timing and software, nothing more really. 09 went to mafless, NO real other changes to the motor. its all the same motor specs and the outcome on the dyno for tq and horsepower AT THE WHEELS will be nearly then same for nearly any 2.5L. software changes for maf to mafless MAY change some tweaks but over all...no 20hp gain differnce. mk5 or mk6...SAME.


----------



## bward584 (Sep 15, 2011)

I never claimed to know much about the subject, which is why I was asking questions in the first place. I was always talking about stock hp and I knew there was no hardware difference between the 2 gens. The only thing I was wrong about was MK6 wasn't when the change occurred, it was indeed '08. 

But that you all for clearing things up and now that I know I can have such an increase in tq AND hp, I will definitely be looking to go this route in the next year or so. :thumbup:


----------



## 2pt5_20v_pwr (Jul 19, 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> ugh, more incorrect facts are being posted!!!
> 
> factory numbers are crank (150 or 170 motor). NO mk5 OR mk6 has 170 at the wheels factory, sorry to bash your high hopes. dyno numbers posted are at the wheels and are in the 135-140 range for a factory untouched car. numbers posted for aftermarket upgrades are numbers at the wheels NOT crank. if they were at the crank you could add 20-25+ hp more.
> 
> 1st released 2.5L were the "150 motor", then late 07 was the 170 motor, changed the cam timing and software, nothing more really. 09 went to mafless, NO real other changes to the motor. its all the same motor specs and the outcome on the dyno for tq and horsepower AT THE WHEELS will be nearly then same for nearly any 2.5L. software changes for maf to mafless MAY change some tweaks but over all...no 20hp gain differnce. mk5 or mk6...SAME.


just to put it out there, my stock 09 motor put out 153 (weather corrected, more hp before the correction) at the wheels on a mustang dyno with catback only for "performance mods". 178 weather corrected as well, 183 without wc) with tune and nothing but exhaust. i dont think a catback exhaust will add 10-15hp. is my car a bit higher than most stock? or maybe just different dyno results?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

exhaust will add 5-8 MYBE 10whp. tune will gain 8-14? weather changes things and mustang dynos are differtn as well. many things in the mix can change it.
but a 100% stock 2.5L is 135-140ish on the dynojet at the wheels


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

There are hardware changes. there are plenty of forums explaining the difference. It is mostly refinement upgrades. Intake mani is slightly geared towards higher rpm on 08 and up and redline is increased to 6200 vs 5800. Max torque is a little higher up the band because of this. My car ran 163whp and 156wtq on a dyno dynamics with intake, exhaust which are very good numbers. dyno dynamics are similar to mustang in output. 135-140whp is for an auto the manuals usually do around 140-150 stock depending on the dyno, weather etc
I found one of the forums

http://volkswagenownersclub.com/vw/...ecs-for-2008-vs-earlier-models-(german-specs)

nitroscope works for vw if you did not know.


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> exhaust will add 5-8 MYBE 10whp. tune will gain 8-14? weather changes things and mustang dynos are differtn as well. many things in the mix can change it.
> but a 100% stock 2.5L is 135-140ish on the dynojet at the wheels


My car had a 25hp increase with the tune only. That was before Sri and Sri tune.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

same dyno? no other mods changed?:sly:


----------



## Vash350z (Jun 25, 2007)

From reading this thread I get the feeling that this is many members first "modded" car. Listen to the experts guys, comparing numbers from dyno A to dyno B is totally pointless, the whole point of dynoing a car is to measure changes.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

only way to prove any gain is same dyno.


----------



## 2pt5_20v_pwr (Jul 19, 2011)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> only way to prove any gain is same dyno.


AND with a controlled atmosphere . The slightest change in humidity can affect numbers, let alone ambient air temp


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

Same dyno within 10 minutes of each other. It was flashed while on the dyno. The flash that um is advertising is my cars numbers. I know how synod work and this is not my first modded car.we have the proof and it's been posted.

Edit: also, there were no other mods done. Stock intake with magnaflow custom catback exhaust.


----------



## magics5rip (Mar 17, 2004)

KyleCrish said:


> My car had a 25hp increase with the tune only. That was before Sri and Sri tune.


+25hp where in the curve? The stock limiter is 6200rpm. When the limiter is removed and the car revs to 7200 rpm, your gain is a result of reving higher. What is the HP/TQ gain at 6200 RPM with a catback and tune?


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

magics5rip said:


> +25hp where in the curve? The stock limiter is 6200rpm. When the limiter is removed and the car revs to 7200 rpm, your gain is a result of reving higher. What is the HP/TQ gain at 6200 RPM with a catback and tune?


Without an SRI these engines fall flat on their faces at 5500.


----------



## KyleCrish (Mar 22, 2006)

magics5rip said:


> +25hp where in the curve? The stock limiter is 6200rpm. When the limiter is removed and the car revs to 7200 rpm, your gain is a result of reving higher. What is the HP/TQ gain at 6200 RPM with a catback and tune?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWX8nkSTnWU&feature=player_embedded#!

5700 was where i got the stock 153 whp

5200 after the tune was 178 whp

im not going to have dyno results for the sri till i can afford to take a weekend off and head to the nearest dyno day.


----------



## 2pt5_20v_pwr (Jul 19, 2011)

^that is nuts but I believe it. My car felt noticeably faster after I had a tune done. A lot more so than when I put an intake and testpipe on which should have added more hp than a tune. 

Either way, I just cant wait to get an SRI and turbo... or a B7 S4


----------



## magics5rip (Mar 17, 2004)

Impressive numbers. Can't wait to see the dyno :thumbup:


----------

