# Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

I made 237WHP on stage 1 and no tq reading. 
Added GHL 3"TBE and Stage 2 and got these:
70 Degrees, 50% Humidity, DynoJet, 4th gear, Revo 6 6 9
Run 1: 237.7WHP 294.18WTQ
Run 2: 238.82WHP 289.67WTQ
Run 3: 235.99WHP 291.99WTQ 
Is it just me or is that tq a bit high? I have seen people make ~300wtq but have ~250whp
Will post pictures of the graph soon
I am guessing my 237WHP with just Revo and Intake was some sort of a fluke?:iono:










_Modified by f_399 at 2:19 AM 6-16-2009_


----------



## VW03Getta (Jan 27, 2007)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (f_399)*

yay i drive a mazdaspeed3
haha, i just like ruining all of your posts, here and vda


----------



## GERHARD PETZER (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (VW03Getta)*

lets hope one day you will grow up and buy a real car










_Modified by GERHARD PETZER at 7:11 AM 1-6-2008_


----------



## TheBox (Jul 20, 2003)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (VW03Getta)*

Nice numbers man, I bet it doesn't tapper power like the Mazda 3

_Quote, originally posted by *VW03Getta* »_yay i drive a mazdaspeed3
haha, i just like ruining all of your posts, here and vda

Nore does it have a 3rd gear synchro issue


----------



## 96786MKV (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (VW03Getta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW03Getta* »_i drive a mazdaspeed3








,







&


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (VW03Getta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW03Getta* »_yay i drive a mazdaspeed3
haha, i just like ruining all of your posts, here and vda

damn you and your + .3liters and k04 lol


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

kick ass numbers! is the TBE/REVO Stg II the only performance mods you are running?


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (the4ringer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the4ringer* »_kick ass numbers! is the TBE/REVO Stg II the only performance mods you are running?

revo
neuspeed intake
ghl tbe
eurojet pcv thing


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

holy hell... thats dope. i have about the same projected mods. Except I think I'll be doing the euroJet TBE


----------



## NEW2B (Dec 1, 2006)

do you have track times before the exhaust.?


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (NEW2B)*

The number are quite low for the HP IMO for a stage 2 + DP.


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_The number are quite low for the HP IMO for a stage 2 + DP.


where should i be at?


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*

Well my stage 1+ give me 250 crank HP.
Add to this number 30 crank HP for your DP.

280HP minus a 10% loss is about 250 WHP. 
You dont have intake?


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*

you dyno?
yeah neuspeed intake


----------



## x9t (Sep 19, 2005)

250whp Is to high.. I dont think i have seen that ever with the bolt ons. I mean i have a catless DP, FMIC, and Intake.. how much HP should i have?
JT


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (x9t)*

Wheel loss is 10%.
(search you will find the info)
Dyno on stock unitronic stage 1 + crank HP = 250
(search and you will fin the info)
Dyno with chip + DP + CAI is 30-35HP
(search and you will find the info)
250+ 30= 280 minus 10% loss= around 250 to the wheel.
Dont know about revo but if they dont manage to get 250 crank HP with stage one, sorry but they are weak. 
With bolt-on you can manage to have 270-280 whp with few mods(dont need a 6000$ K04):
- Stage 2 reflash
-DP+ CAI
-Intercooler with bigger/better hose including TB
- Neuspeed pulley
-Eurojet PCV
With this you will get 280 whp if everything is working properly.
_Modified by jeff2.0t at 11:58 AM 1-6-2008_

_Modified by jeff2.0t at 12:00 PM 1-6-2008_


_Modified by jeff2.0t at 12:42 PM 1-6-2008_


----------



## whizbang18T (Nov 17, 2000)

peak #s don't really tell me much ... i'd like to see the curves plz


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_Well my stage 1+ give me 250 crank HP.
Add to this number 30 crank HP for your DP.

280HP minus a 10% loss is about 250 WHP. 
You dont have intake?

all your numbers are off except your stage 1+ which are just advertised numbers and mean nothing in regards to wheel hp without any dyno information.
1. A downpipe doesn't add anywhere near 30 "peak" hp and even somewhere in the midrange would be a stretch for a cat equipped downpipe.
2. Most people dont except a 10% driveline loss as accurate. the very least I've seen excepted for a FWD car is about 12% with 15-18% more commonly accepted. If you use a more reasonable 15% driveline loss 240whp does equate to 280 crank hp
3. based on the many stage 2 dyno's posted here with simular mods the numbers seem on the damn strong side of normal.


_Modified by 02GTI-VR6-same1 at 1:31 PM 1-6-2008_


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *02GTI-VR6-same1* »_2. Most people dont except a 10% driveline loss as accurate. the very least I've seen excepted for a FWD car is about 12% with 15-18% more commonly accepted. If you use a more reasonable 15% driveline loss 240whp does equate to 280 crank hp


I saw many stock car in the 180 whp range... 180/200 is what?


----------



## T13R (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*

The Stage 1 numbers look way too high, most likely because of the missing torque reading. The Stage 2 numbers look good, torque is massive. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Hopefully I'll also be able to reach around 238-240 whp after I get my downpipe installed with Unitronic software. The only freaky thing is those APR dynos that are in the 250's and 260's in terms of whp with fuel pump... Otherwise, like 02GTI-VR6-same1 said, the numbers do look to be on the strong side of normal for Stage 2.


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
I saw many stock car in the 180 whp range... 180/200 is what? 

A car that actually makes more than 200hp duh! 2.0Ts like all late model VW engines are underrated. there are people who dyno 190 wheel hp stock do you then change your reference driveline loss to 5%? even stock 180hp 1.8t's make 200 crank hp


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*

Anyway I will dyno my car in few month after my mod... we will see but I expect 270 hp... 


_Modified by jeff2.0t at 3:28 PM 1-6-2008_


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

i heard you take the whp and multiply it by 1.5-1.5 for bhp. Cant get a strong definite answer. But then again, dynos are different.


----------



## AlexsVR6 (Jul 24, 2007)

i was thinking that his WHP is kinda low, but his WTQ is amazing def something to brag about... nice job man.... im thinking about getting revo myself when the show season kicks off http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## T13R (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_Anyway I will dyno my car in few month after my mod... we will see but I expect 270 hp...

You should be somewhere *around* 270 hp with downpipe and Stage 2. You can take the numbers in my signature to try and put this all in context. Using a very conservative 10% loss (should be more, but who knows exactly...)
Stock: 191 whp is 212 hp
Stage 1: 224 whp is 249 hp
... and using f399's dyno, Stage 2: 238.82 whp is 265 hp
So he is very close to the 270 hp you speak of. But talking about crank hp is useless here. All dynos are different. On one dyno you might be able to get your 270 hp crank, on another it will be 260, maybe another will equate to 280, and on top of all this we still don't know exactly how much drivetrain loss there really is. This makes any dyno result useless if you want to know how much power your engine is really making.


_Modified by T13R at 12:00 AM 1-7-2008_


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

in reality, you (we) should only be concearned with whp as its all thats REALLY being used/seen by cars. bhp is nice cause of basica bragging rights ["my car puts out 300+(b)hp"]


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (the4ringer)*

When I say my goal is 270 HP I talk about WHP, so 300 crank HP.
My theory:
1) Stage 2 + 3" DP + intake + TB + PCV + DV = 285 HP CRANK
2) 285 HP minus let's say 13 % loss bring me to 247 WHP
3) With intercooler + better/bigger turbo piping I reduce the loss of 15 HP (to the wheel), and this fact is know on the forge IT (make search you will find the dyno).
4) With the NS pulley I reduce the loss to the wheel of 5-7 HP.
5) 247 WHP + 15+ 5= 267 HP... and it is with a 13% loss so I am conservative.



_Modified by jeff2.0t at 5:26 AM 1-7-2008_


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_When I say my goal is 270 HP I talk about WHP, so 300 crank HP.
My theory:
1) Stage 2 + 3" DP + intake + TB + PCV + DV = 285 HP CRANK
2) 285 HP minus let's say 13 % loss bring me to 247 WHP
3) With intercooler + better/bigger turbo piping I reduce the loss of 15 HP (to the wheel), and this fact is know on the forge IT (make search you will find the dyno).
4) With the NS pulley I reduce the loss to the wheel of 5-7 HP.
5) 247 WHP + 15+ 5= 267 HP... and it is with a 13% loss so I am conservative.

_Modified by jeff2.0t at 5:26 AM 1-7-2008_

lol
an intercooler doest exactly give you more power, it lets you keep it more so then give you more
good for you for being optimistic, let us know how it goes


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_
lol
an intercooler doest exactly give you more power, it lets you keep it more so then give you more
good for you for being optimistic, let us know how it goes


at higher than stock hp levels there could be a small gain associated from elimating some of the inherent bottle knecks in the factory intercooler/piping as well. I'm just saying at least in some applications if not this one that is the case


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_
lol
an intercooler doest exactly give you more power, it lets you keep it more so then give you more
good for you for being optimistic, let us know how it goes


well if you read me correctly, sorry my english is not perfect by the way, I reduce my Crank vs Wheel lost with the intercooler and NS pulley, I dont add HP, my 15 HP is a recovery of the 37 WHP I reduced. Dyno proved that the forge IC give 15WHP vs Without IC, so the HP gain is probably a combo of better flow from the piping (real gain) and colder air flow (reduced lost). The gain from the NS pulley is probably 100% from reduced lost. But no matter that the gain come from reduced lost or real gain it is still a gain VS without the part.


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
well if you read me correctly, sorry my english is not perfect by the way, I reduce my Crank vs Wheel lost with the intercooler and NS pulley, I dont add HP, my 15 HP is a recovery of the 37 WHP I reduced. Dyno proved that the forge IC give 15WHP vs Without IC, so the HP gain is probably a combo of better flow from the piping (real gain) and colder air flow (reduced lost). 

The intercooler won't reduce your losses in the drivetrain system, but only increase your power at the crank (even then it primarily only recovers power lost from heat soak(not a drivetrain loss)). Those 37 horses lost are between the crank shaft and the wheels.
If you want to reduce drivetrain losses you must create a more efficient transmission. Maybe adding a transmission cooler could reduce the drivetrain losses, but not an intercooler. 
I've had trouble finding the dyno for the Forge intercooler that gave 15whp.

_Modified by fastconti at 7:18 AM 1-7-2008_


_Modified by fastconti at 7:19 AM 1-7-2008_


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (fastconti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fastconti* »_
The intercooler won't reduce your losses in the drivetrain system, but only increase your power at the crank (even then it primarily only recovers power lost from heat soak(not a drivetrain loss)). Those 37 horses lost are between the crank shaft and the wheels.
If you want to reduce drivetrain losses you must create a more efficient transmission. Maybe adding a transmission cooler could reduce the drivetrain losses, but not an intercooler. 
I've had trouble finding the dyno for the Forge intercooler that gave 15whp.

_Modified by fastconti at 7:18 AM 1-7-2008_

_Modified by fastconti at 7:19 AM 1-7-2008_

Yeah maybe... it make sence but still the 15 HP is real no matter where it come from.
as for the dyno I foud it there:
we talks about 12 WHP not 15 WHP,. 
http://setuning.com/ecom/ecvw/.../2511


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
Yeah maybe... it make sence but still the 15 HP is real no matter where it come from.
as for the dyno I foud it there:
we talks about 12 WHP not 15 WHP,. 
http://setuning.com/ecom/ecvw/.../2511

The dyno shows a gain of 11.4 BHP. In reality you could see 9WHP. (I think I do recall a dyno showing something similar to this)
I'm not trying to discourage you. In fact, I think you'll have a very nice setup. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Just wanna make sure we're giving correct facts.


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (fastconti)*

In fact I bought the VF engineering intercooler. The only dyno I saw regarding IC was the forge one, the VF one could give other result but I expect the VF IC to perform probably better than forge because it replace all the piping including the TB.
I also dont want to argue a lot... Many variables can change the results on both side, the wheel loss could be 12% not 13%, fuel quality, temp, the dyno etc But 270 whp is not impossible.
In few month I will gladly post my result.


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_ But 270 whp is not impossible.


you dont find it odd NO ONE has done it yet including those with upgraded fuel pumps. the turbo is just ineffecient in the peak hp range. Midrange is where the power is (but not where the peak hp will be).


----------



## x9t (Sep 19, 2005)

Im sorry but that whp seems way to high.. I would love to see the stock dyno, then another one once everything is done.. thats the only way i can see 250whp with bolt ons.. most people are hitting 220whp peak.. and thats pretty good.. about 260 wtq.. 
JT


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*

I didn't see dyno with stage 2 + DP + intake + IC (including all the piping, discharge pipe and TB pipe)+ NS pulley. Some reflash are also more conservative than other. 
If someone have this setup with a dyno let us know!


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

i have seen: 
stage 1 215-230 whp
stage 2 230-250 whp
stage 2 with water meth 260-280 WHP


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_i have seen: 

stage 2 230-250 whp


Yeah with only DP + CAI like your case. If 250 WHP is possible with stage 2 alone, I dont see why I cant add the gain of each specific additional bolt-on mod to your 250 HP. Also you wont get the same result between Revo, Giac, APR, Unitronic etc, some reflash are more agressive, some reflash react differently to each bolt on. 




_Modified by jeff2.0t at 9:39 AM 1-7-2008_


----------



## T13R (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (x9t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *x9t* »_Im sorry but that whp seems way to high.. I would love to see the stock dyno, then another one once everything is done.. thats the only way i can see 250whp with bolt ons.. most people are hitting 220whp peak.. and thats pretty good.. about 260 wtq.. 
JT

How do you explain my 224 whp on Stage 1 only software (no bolt-ons whatsoever) which is backed up with my stock baseline? Same dyno and almost exact same conditions. I'll be expecting to be close to 240 whp after I get the APR downpipe installed and Stage 2. I'm trying to document all my changes as much as possible.
Also, The_Box dynoed very close to 270 whp with APR Stage 2+, bolt-ons (TBE, IC, Intake) and *FP*, still on K03. That same day a stock GTi put down mid 180s whp on that same dyno.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3590485


_Modified by T13R at 12:45 PM 1-7-2008_


----------



## prodigymb (Mar 9, 2004)

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (prodigymb)*

One thing for sure, we will see if the FP is really necessary or if the software was deliberatly or poorly made to subsquently anounce the necessity to buy an expensive FP and obtain gain. On paper the stock FP is suppose to supply easily 300 whp. Strangely only APR benefit from the FP and FP reflash...
If my dyno give me 260 HP or more then it will mean the FP is a scam for people without the K04 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Too bad I will only know next spring.


----------



## x9t (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: (T13R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T13R* »_
How do you explain my 224 whp on Stage 1 only software (no bolt-ons whatsoever) which is backed up with my stock baseline? Same dyno and almost exact same conditions. I'll be expecting to be close to 240 whp after I get the APR downpipe installed and Stage 2. I'm trying to document all my changes as much as possible.
Also, The_Box dynoed very close to 270 whp with APR Stage 2+, bolt-ons (TBE, IC, Intake) and *FP*, still on K03. That same day a stock GTi put down mid 180s whp on that same dyno.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3590485

_Modified by T13R at 12:45 PM 1-7-2008_

I guess your right then.. so how much whp do you think im making? 
JT


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_ One thing for sure, we will see if the FP is really necessary or if the software was deliberatly or poorly made to subsquently anounce the necessity to buy an expensive FP and obtain gain. On paper the stock FP is suppose to supply easily 300 whp. Strangely only APR benefit from the FP and FP reflash...


This is definitely not true...at least for GIAC (and APR, Chris may want to chime in for Revo) thus far. If you want to keep the aggressive X+ file from them and want to run a 3" DP (or TBE), you will most definitely experience fuel cuts...at least everyone I have spoken with has...
With that said, the stock pump may very easily flow 300whp, but that's in the upper RPM range at max WHP. The fuel cuts and power losses are in the midrange where the current OEM pump cannot supply enough fuel.


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_ One thing for sure, we will see if the FP is really necessary or if the software was deliberatly or poorly made to subsquently anounce the necessity to buy an expensive FP and obtain gain. On paper the stock FP is suppose to supply easily 300 whp. Strangely only APR benefit from the FP and FP reflash...


we already know for sure the fuel pump is a neccessity to make power at lower rpms. the fuel pump is driven off the camshaft, the faster the engine spins the more if will pump. at high rpms the stock pump IS capable of supplying the juice. low and midrange we already know via requested and actual rail pressure logs and fuel cuts that a higher volume pump is needed to make more power or at least meet the demands of aggressive programming in the low to midrange. we also know the k03 cant hold more than about 14lb of boost at redline so more fuel there where the pump can supply it isn't helping much.


_Modified by 02GTI-VR6-same1 at 12:13 PM 1-7-2008_


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *02GTI-VR6-same1* »_
we already know for sure the fuel pump is a neccessity to make power at lower rpms. the fuel pump is driven off the camshaft, the faster the engine spins the more if will pump. at high rpms the stock pump IS capable of supplying the juice. low and midrange we already know via requested and actual rail pressure logs and fuel cuts that a higher volume pump is needed to make more power or at least meet the demands of aggressive programming in the low to midrange. we also know the k03 cant hold more than about 14lb of boost at redline so more fuel there where the pump can supply it isn't helping much.


exactly what i was attempting to say...good explanation


----------



## T13R (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (x9t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *x9t* »_
I guess your right then.. so how much whp do you think im making? 
JT

From your mods I believe you should be in the 270ish crank hp range. Most chip tuners claim around 250 hp at the crank. So add a downpipe, intake, IC, and that should be good for another 20 hp at the crank, if not a little more. 
It's hard to tell what that value would be in whp. Trying to make fact from my dyno runs is also useless. The dyno could be reading 10 whp higher then another, or 10 whp less... All that really matters is the difference in area between the stock curve and the chipped curve. Peak gains, like someone else mentionned here, are only partially interesting.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_ One thing for sure, we will see if the FP is really necessary or if the software was deliberatly or poorly made to subsquently anounce the necessity to buy an expensive FP and obtain gain. On paper the stock FP is suppose to supply easily 300 whp. Strangely only APR benefit from the FP and FP reflash...
If my dyno give me 260 HP or more then it will mean the FP is a scam for people without the K04 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Too bad I will only know next spring.



wow. I just couldn't let this one go, lol. we would never do that! I guess you'll just have to trust us on that.
However, that being said, I can shed some light on our calibration philosophy and why it requires an upgraded fuel pump to maximize the oem turbocharger.
We calibrate to oem prescribed lambda or afr for several reasons that have been previously discussed on this forum in the past. When doing so, your injector on time will begin to rise and your egt's will increase as you increase boost. Once a certain threshold is reached in regards to injector on time, lambda, boost and timing you will begin to need more fuel than the oem rail pump can deliver to properly calibrate the vehicle and keep all safety specs and parameters in line.
You could lean out the afr and deviate from the oem prescribed afr to avoid the need for the larger fuel pump but doing so will affect other parameters. During our R&D our engineers arrived at the same determination as VAG and Bosch engineers in regards to afr and its affects on the engine and its components.
Therefore, the only solution was to provide more fuel and the fuel delivery problem was determined to be a mechanical limitation at the rail pump. Therefore we decided to develop an upgraded one to allow us to get enough fuel to maintain oem lambda specs and other oem specs.
I hope this helps!


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_When doing so, your injector on time will begin to rise and your egt's will increase as you increase boost. Once a certain threshold is reached in regards to injector on time, lambda, boost and timing you will begin to need more fuel than the oem rail pump can deliver

I can vouch for this. My injector timing right now is almost double the norm throughout the midrange at WOT. My AFR isn't too bad, but definitely a little lean, but my injectors are working overtime due to the lack of fuel from the OEM pump.


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

would it be safe to say that the new FP would decrease overall mileage as its injecting more fuel in the motor?


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (the4ringer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the4ringer* »_would it be safe to say that the new FP would decrease overall mileage as its injecting more fuel in the motor?

No, not necessarily. The only way you'll burn more fuel is if the software requests it. 
The efficiency of the engine does not change since the afr is the same as stock. The injectors allow the same amount of fuel into the cylinder no matter what fuel pump is attached (They base their timing off the pressure in the rail to know how much to inject). However, you could use more fuel if the OEM pump's supply was not meeting your adjsuted software's demands. 
So you have the capacity to use more fuel, but if you drive a stock programmed car with the aftermarket pumps you'd have the same mileage as an OEM pump.


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_

wow. I just couldn't let this one go, lol. we would never do that! I guess you'll just have to trust us on that.
However, that being said, I can shed some light on our calibration philosophy and why it requires an upgraded fuel pump to maximize the oem turbocharger.
We calibrate to oem prescribed lambda or afr for several reasons that have been previously discussed on this forum in the past. When doing so, your injector on time will begin to rise and your egt's will increase as you increase boost. Once a certain threshold is reached in regards to injector on time, lambda, boost and timing you will begin to need more fuel than the oem rail pump can deliver to properly calibrate the vehicle and keep all safety specs and parameters in line.
You could lean out the afr and deviate from the oem prescribed afr to avoid the need for the larger fuel pump but doing so will affect other parameters. During our R&D our engineers arrived at the same determination as VAG and Bosch engineers in regards to afr and its affects on the engine and its components.
Therefore, the only solution was to provide more fuel and the fuel delivery problem was determined to be a mechanical limitation at the rail pump. Therefore we decided to develop an upgraded one to allow us to get enough fuel to maintain oem lambda specs and other oem specs.
I hope this helps!

Well how come unitronic offer a stage 2 compatible with the stock FP?
I still dont know unitronic stage 2 power output but I am sure it make as much as APR, Revo or anything else.
What I know however is that Unitronic dont market any fuel pump










_Modified by jeff2.0t at 5:44 PM 1-7-2008_


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
Well how come unitronic offer a stage 2 compatible with the stock FP?
I still dont know unitronic stage 2 power output but I am sure it make as much as APR, Revo or anything else.
What I know however is that Unitronic dont market any fuel pump









_Modified by jeff2.0t at 5:44 PM 1-7-2008_

lol Unitronic is in the process of developing software for APR's pump now and was one of the first to get their hands on it
You seem abit confused. APR has stage 2 software that works without the pump (its called stage 2 software lol). If you upgrade the pump you then get reflashed to the stage 2 "performance pump" file which gives you even more power than stage 2.
Unitronic will do the same. stage 2 and stage 2 pump specific software.
Revo and GIAC too are working on pump specific software.


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*

Yeah sorry for the confusion!


----------



## whizbang18T (Nov 17, 2000)

no graphs .... boo


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

thanks for clearin that up, fastconti. Didnt think about that. Makes sense.
I assumed that with stage II with FP software it would draw more fuel to balance the AFR


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (the4ringer)*

took awhile but here is the graph


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

nice!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (the4ringer)*

Here's a wheel graph with APR FSI Fuel Pump for comparison.


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

yeah i need a fuel pump, had my first fuel cut last week
not sure if revo has a new file for it though


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (02GTI-VR6-same1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *02GTI-VR6-same1* »_
lol Unitronic is in the process of developing software for APR's pump now and was one of the first to get their hands on it
You seem abit confused. APR has stage 2 software that works without the pump (its called stage 2 software lol). If you upgrade the pump you then get reflashed to the stage 2 "performance pump" file which gives you even more power than stage 2.
Unitronic will do the same. stage 2 and stage 2 pump specific software.
Revo and GIAC too are working on pump specific software.

Yeah I understand your point however it looks like a lot of people have fuel cut with only the stage 2, so the choice of getting the FP + reflash is not really a choice..... it is a pain in the ... to pay so much for a FP + installation only to get 13 WHP and MOSTLY to correct the trouble with fuel cut, a trouble annoying on a brand new car, I mean we dont drive rustyscrap. 
I only wait to get a response from unitronic, as I heard their stage 2 dont have assle with fuel cut, and dont nead a FP... If unitronic power output is comparable to APR then we have a big problem IMO, If Unitronic is much lower on output at stage 2 then it is everyone choice to make ...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Here's a wheel graph with APR FSI Fuel Pump for comparison.









So an extra $2k + labor will net you 4hp and 3 tq?
apr stg1 claims: 252hp/303lb-ft

That's like $500/hp? That doesn't seem right. I'd stick with revo, which is the topic of the thread.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
So an extra $2k + labor will net you 4hp and 3 tq?
apr stg1 claims: 252hp/303lb-ft

That's like $500/hp? That doesn't seem right. I'd stick with revo, which is the topic of the thread.



lol, you should teach kittenzz the difference between whp and bhp and wtrq and btrq.
I can't believe someone who has been on the forums as long as you doesn't know the difference already.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

For the love of God don't start you two.


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
lol, you should teach kittenzz the difference between whp and bhp and wtrq and btrq.
I can't believe someone who has been on the forums as long as you doesn't know the difference already.

If I had a dollar for every-time you misposted WHP/SAE corrected/crank HP. I won't bother posting the off topic links. You may want to update your website to reflect that or start to use a standard. Each time you post, people are guessing what the heck you are talking about. I am glad to see that you're "Excel for dummies book" has worked.
BTW, Your website says '06. and this is an '07. IMO, after seeing Noregrets posted logs, the kittenzz are not far off.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_








Woosah...








With that said, this has to be one of the worst threads I've read in a while. The OP first posted results of his *REVO* numbers and wanted to get feedback on his numbers. From the second post (mazdaspeed3 comment







) to these last few arguing about *APR* numbers, this thread has completely lost track (not saying that I haven't been guilty of this either, just...). I think it would be fair to the OP, for the discussion to regain focus on his original question about his numbers. Just IMO.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: Revo Stage 2 Dyno: 238.82WHP 294.18WTQ (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_I made 237WHP on stage 1 and no tq reading. 
Added GHL 3"TBE and Stage 2 and got these:
70 Degrees, 50% Humidity, DynoJet, 4th gear, Revo 6 6 9
Run 1: 237.7WHP 294.18WTQ
Run 2: 238.82WHP 289.67WTQ
Run 3: 235.99WHP 291.99WTQ 
Is it just me or is that tq a bit high? I have seen people make ~300wtq but have ~250whp
Will post pictures of the graph soon
I am guessing my 237WHP with just Revo and Intake was some sort of a fluke?:iono:

To regain focus...f_399,
I think your numbers look pretty damn good. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I mean I would have no problem putting up 240whp and 295wtq. Especially considering you don't have a fuel pump or corresponding file (which has been shown to increases power). Keep in mind what a few other members said about different dynos, baselines, weather, etc. Not every dyno run will be the same. I think that your stage I numbers may have been a little scewed as well due to no torque readings.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 4, 2007)

This thread is not off topic! f_399 posted his dyno results from his Revo Stage 2 software (238.82WHP 294.18WTQ). Keith posted a dyno graph of an APR Stage 2 (with fuel pump performance) 2007 GTI. The graph very clearly states the values were taken at the wheels. This is all relevant because our graph shows an increase of 17whp and 8wtq over the Revo graph. Nuff said!!!


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

its not completely off topic
i do need a fuel pump due to fuel cuts
i am sure when revo comes out with a new file it should be in the same power range as apr


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_For the love of God don't start you two.


----------



## 02GTI-VR6-same1 (Nov 18, 2004)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
Yeah I understand your point however it looks like a lot of people have fuel cut with only the stage 2, so the choice of getting the FP + reflash is not really a choice..... it is a pain in the ... to pay so much for a FP + installation only to get 13 WHP and MOSTLY to correct the trouble with fuel cut, a trouble annoying on a brand new car, I mean we dont drive rustyscrap. 
I only wait to get a response from unitronic, as I heard their stage 2 dont have assle with fuel cut, and dont nead a FP... If unitronic power output is comparable to APR then we have a big problem IMO, If Unitronic is much lower on output at stage 2 then it is everyone choice to make ...

If you want Unitronic buy unitronic instead of searching for reasons not to get APR. They'll be alright







Your sig says you already have unitronics stage 1+ anyway. I'm pretty sure stage 2 via them wont cost the same as buying new software from a different company. Now back to the point. Fuel cuts have already been addressed with stage2V3 for 06' cars and 07's never had fuel cut issues. stage 2 06' files didn't have fuel cut issues, stage 2+ and stage 2 beta files did. a beta file is just that a beta and stage 2+ was an optional more aggressive file designed to push the limits more. Just a minute ago you were going to rip APR for marketing a fuel pump until you realized Unitronic is using it. Your still stuck on peak numbers as well. the 13hp difference are peak numbers, you have a whole rev range you drive in. Whoever you get you'll be less powerful without a fuel pump.
]


_Modified by 02GTI-VR6-same1 at 11:21 AM 1-8-2008_


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_
Yeah I understand your point however it looks like a lot of people have fuel cut with only the stage 2, so the choice of getting the FP + reflash is not really a choice..... it is a pain in the ... to pay so much for a FP + installation only to get 13 WHP and MOSTLY to correct the trouble with fuel cut, a trouble annoying on a brand new car, I mean we dont drive rustyscrap. 
I only wait to get a response from unitronic, as I heard their stage 2 dont have assle with fuel cut, and dont nead a FP... If unitronic power output is comparable to APR then we have a big problem IMO, If Unitronic is much lower on output at stage 2 then it is everyone choice to make ...

To avoid any arguments between companies I think there needs to be a little clarification here. The fuel cut being experienced by most isn't a software design flaw. It's an OEM capability problem. Just as most cars need new injectors when performing upgrades, a direct injection system will also require pumping upgrades. These parts do not give a power increase from simply installing them, the demand for more fuel must be there in the software. It’s not a flaw with the OEM, as they are selling a car with 200hp, not a 200hp car with 300hp capability. (The fact we can squeeze out 250 bhp for $500 is amazing).
As to the reason why some software may be experiencing fuel cut while others don't, it lies in the afr. As stated previously, APR has decided to stick with stock AFR (not an outrageous idea). Other tuning companies may choose to lean it out a little bit from stock. It's hard for us to say one is better than the other, but leaning it out would require less fuel. Therefore the stock pump may be fine in that situation. However, a leaner mixture in that range will burn hotter, therefore maybe increasing the likelihood of failure in turbo components. 
The upgraded fuel pumps are just larger capacity fuel pumps, so whether or not you see a gain is up to you. With a larger fuel pump you could run a larger turbo with higher boost and see 150hp gain. Then no one would question the price of the fuel pump.
Back on topic, I think the graphs are fine and to have above 200hp for more than half your rev range is awesome.








You just can't efficiently make high peak hp on the K03.


----------



## Kittenzz (Dec 30, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_This is all relevant because our graph shows an increase of 17whp and 8wtq over the Revo graph. Nuff said!!!

$2k+ for 17/8!? Where do I sign???


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_The graph very clearly states the values were taken at the wheels. This is all relevant because our graph shows an increase of 17whp and 8wtq over the Revo graph. Nuff said!!!

Joel, Are you saying all dynos are created equal? Do you know if the Revo dyno one is SAE corrected? That was done with 50% humidity from an independent.
Your's was done on who's car with what mods? I'll offer to pay for Noregrets to get his car dyno'd the was it is now. If he doesn't beat this Revo Dyno, you pay me back. Fair?


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_For the love of God don't start you two.

|o| 
I dont try to bash anyone or any company. My point was stil valid.
Yes the topic is off topic a little, but still it is a quality discussion with quality fact, I dont see the trouble.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*

It wasn't directed at you.


----------



## munky18t (Aug 30, 2004)

*Re: (Kittenzz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kittenzz* »_
$2k+ for 17/8!? Where do I sign??? 


wow.... who A$$ did you pull that dollar figure out of


----------



## NoRegrets78 (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: (Spongebobnopants)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Spongebobnopants* »_
Joel, Are you saying all dynos are created equal? Do you know if the Revo dyno one is SAE corrected? That was done with 50% humidity from an independent.
Your's was done on who's car with what mods? I'll offer to pay for Noregrets to get his car dyno'd the was it is now. If he doesn't beat this Revo Dyno, you pay me back. Fair?

Why you gotta bring me in on this???
That being said, I'd always go for a free dyno


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

i didnt mean this thread to be revo vs ******


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_i didnt mean this thread to be revo vs ******

And there we have it folks, right from the OP's mouth so, the conversation about revo vs whatever ends now.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_i didnt mean this thread to be revo vs ******


That's how it always ends up once it starts...








With that said, I do agree that there are multiple good points on this thread (I wasn't referring to everyone with my last couple of posts). I think that your car is producing really good numbers and I would be very interested to see what your car could produce once you get a fuel pump and software. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Do you plan to add this once Revo finalizes their software for an upgraded pump? I would be very intrigued to see your numbers then. APR, I meant no harm in regards to your post of APR numbers. I just feel that the original thread was created in regards to the OP's Revo numbers and once your numbers are posted...everyone starts comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## NoRegrets78 (Jul 6, 2006)

Does that mean I don't get a free dyno???
Damn.
J/K. I think the numbers put down are incredible and I can only hope to be at that level when I dyno my car. Kudos to the OP! You have one sick ride!


----------



## T13R (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*

I believe I may have contributed to bring this thread off topic a little but I want to add again that I really wouldn't mind having a dyno graph like f_399! Looks really good to me! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (T13R)*

thanks
if revo does come out with the file yes i will for sure do the fuel pump
but i think i am most likely going with the cheaper alternative... is it atp? that has is for less than 400... i think they sell the fuel pump parts and not an actual upgraded fuel pump like apr? iono lol


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_but i think i am most likely going with the cheaper alternative... is it atp? that has is for less than 400... i think they sell the fuel pump parts and not an actual upgraded fuel pump like apr? iono lol

Autotech Fuel Pump...yes. It's around the $350 range for the parts. I believe this is the same pump Revo is adapting their fuel pump specific software for (maybe Chris or another Revo user can comment), thus you should be in great shape if you go that route.


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

yeah revo needs to make a new file soon for the fuel pump
any gains if i just install the fuel pump without new software?


----------



## dr0pthehamm3r (Nov 30, 2007)

this piece?
http://www.autotech.com/prod_engine_fuelinj.htm
this go in the apr pump or oem?


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (the4ringer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the4ringer* »_this piece?
http://www.autotech.com/prod_engine_fuelinj.htm
this go in the apr pump or oem?

The Autotech parts are meant to go in the OEM pump. This upgrade should make your OEM pump size very close to the APR pump. The catch is that you have to change the parts out yourself, unlike APR.


----------



## azvwgli (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: (fastconti)*

If I remember correctly, you can send it to Autotech to get updated...


----------



## whizbang18T (Nov 17, 2000)

you'll find that your dynos will be lower w/ SAE correction factor.








for example:
SAE








STD (same dyno)










_Modified by whizbang18T at 7:44 AM 1/10/2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

Just a FYI...We have a Stag II file for stock FP that was tuned using APR's 3" DP and we are also working on finalizing the STG II file that requires a FP in this case that being APR's FP.


_Modified by [email protected] at 6:20 AM 1-10-2008_


----------



## f_399 (May 8, 2006)

*Re: (whizbang18T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *whizbang18T* »_you'll find that your dynos will be lower w/ SAE correction factor.










tried to research and found by multiplying your std # by .974 should get your SAE, in the dyno your showing... more like .95
so SAE, i would be making around
226 - 232.6 whp
279 - 286 wtq
i'm still happy


----------



## Spongebobnopants (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (f_399)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f_399* »_yeah revo needs to make a new file soon for the fuel pump
any gains if i just install the fuel pump without new software?

OH YEAH! IMO Revo's new file may just tweak some things. Install the FP, Reset adaptation, Up your boost a click or two and enjoy!
If the FP specific file adds a bit more to that, even better!


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re:*

SAE correction is not the same for every dyno. It is dependent on the humidity, pressure, and temperature. Here's a link that provides the formula for calculating your SAE CF.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm 
It is worth mentioning that some people feel SAE correction skews data for turbocharged applications even more and it is better just to go by straight dyno numbers. Nothing solid, but worth a thought.
Hope this helps. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## azvwgli (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: Re: (fastconti)*

I think that one of the most important thigs to remember here is that the Dyno is best used to gauge improvements on the same car, as all cars will read a little bit differently due to break-in, other modifications, brand of fuel, etc. When dynoing the car it is important to remember to eliminate as many variables that can affect the results as possible.
Try to do it on the same dyno, on a day with similar temp, humidity etc. That is the best way to get not only an accurate reading, but an accurate measure of how your modifications work with your setup. I have seen two stock cars dyno very different numbers even with SAE correction in similar conditions. Just my 2 cents on the matter. 


_Modified by azvwgli at 7:50 AM 1-10-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 4, 2007)

SAE corrections can be skewed for turboed applications because at areas of higher elevation and therefore less atmospheric pressure some turbo applications still have enough steam to make up for that loss of pressure. Meaning if the software is set to achieve 1.5 bar of absolute pressure the turbocharger will seek to produce approximately .5 bar at sea level where the atmospheric pressure is approximately 1 bar. However, at a higher elevation where let's say the atmospheric pressure is .9 bar the turbo will then seek to produce .6 bar. As long as this is within the turbo’s capability and the requirements aren't outside of the compressor pressure ratio map defined by the software manufacturer then this will be the case. Therefore, the SAE correction will account for this loss of .1 bar when really there was no loss in absolute pressure.
With all of that said, temperature and humidity still strongly affect a turboed engine so corrections made for those parameters still hold true. Here in Auburn, Alabama the atmospheric pressure is always incredibly close to 1 bar. With the weather lately here being in the 60 degree range most of the corrections I’ve been seeing are less than 2%.
I'm sure most of you already knew everything I just mentioned, but hopefully this will help those of you who didn't understand.


----------

