# TFSI Head Build and Rods



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well after experiencing a catastrophic head failure AT IDLE and having had all 16 valves bent (is that even possible) i decided to go ahead and build the head plus install rods, even if i am still on a K04.
I was thinking about doing rods in the past but with all the reassurances from all the companies i kept postpoing it, until this happened.

Still unsure what was the reason for the failure (has to be determined if having installed the S3 cams for more than a year now had anything to do with it.) but the head will be of to the machine shop for a full rebuilt ( meaning all 16 valves, springs, retainers, possibly ALL lifters (remember there is a TSB out there), and if necessary guides and seals).There will also be port and polishing of the head (have to hear what the machine shop says about that), and i'll see what can be done about changing the exhaust cam for more lift.

Build consists of full Ferrea valvetrain kit with STOCK size valves,spring, retainers, ARP head studs, calico coated bearing and, **** rods  

Here's a "little" teaser for those that like to look at stuff...:laugh:














Finally, i'd like to thank Issam from INA for making all this happen, and i hope he forgives me for being too pushy. :laugh:

Great service man.Thanks again. :beer::thumbup:


----------



## rippie74 (Sep 26, 2007)

How'd that happen @ idle?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rippie74 said:


> How'd that happen @ idle?


 Yep...Couldn't believe it either.

It felt just like when a car dies at traffic light and won't start up.

No judder like when you turn it off, nothing..Pure silence.I was going to park at a super market and
i noticed the engine was suddenly VERY quiet.Well needless to say i understood something was horribly wrong
when saw 0 vacuum during cranking attempts..:sly:

Really curious to see what the "necropsy" finds out though...Could it be some lurking issue we are unaware of ?

Of maybe a bad previous camshaft install ?

As i said i have been experiencing misfires at idle long before the cams were installed so it could be a failing timing chain tensioner or even worse....a dead oil pump ?? 

We'll see...Luckily enough i wasn't on the highway going 100mph cause i have no clue what could have happened....Oh btw...when your engine turns itself off for any reason at whatever speed, YOU HAVE NO BRAKES AND NO STEERING ASSIST....Think about that for a sec...


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

you still have brakes, just not ABS or anything. 

i put my car in neutral and push it all over the yard when im tinkering or cleaning it so that I cut down on cold start ups and trust me, the brakes do indeed work, as does the steering, you just need to have the key in the acc. position for the steering to not lock. 

idk how the hell you bent all the valves and didnt have some crazy noise. lmao 

i was thinking maybe a belt issue, but im betting you'd be smart enough to check that first, so idk other than that off the top of my head. 

btw, about exhaust cams, i was reading that most engines do not like larger exhaust cams in most cases. Increase the intake cam a good bit and you can make tons of power, but when they did the exhaust cam as well, the power band shifted wayyyyy to the right. 

think it was in the VR6 forums, and someone posted the link not too long ago. :beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Krieger said:


> you still have brakes, just not ABS or anything.


 Well your brake pedal stiffens up so you actually can't depress it, so i don't know how the braking procedure is supposed to happen..I tried braking and i i ended up using the handbrake instead when maneuvering the car to be taken off. 



> i put my car in neutral and push it all over the yard when im tinkering or cleaning it so that I cut down on cold start ups and trust me, the brakes do indeed work, as does the steering, you just need to have the key in the acc. position for the steering to not lock.


Steering wheel stiffens up also, so i don't really know you can control the car efficiently if let's say going 100mph and your engine stalls.Hope it doesn't happen to me though, ignition key or no ignition key.



> idk how the hell you bent all the valves and didnt have some crazy noise. lmao


That was my first thought also, but people don't realise unless you are actually pushing the engine, the speeds and forces at which this happens are less.It was enough to make the slightest contact at 760 rpm for the engine to lose compression and die.Thank God it was at idle, and the pistons barely felt anything.
That would be another blow.


> i was thinking maybe a belt issue, but im betting you'd be smart enough to check that first, so idk other than that off the top of my head.


Yeah...The first thing i looked were the timing spots on the belt cover and crank pulley cover, and...oh yes, they lined up perfectly.One think that "might" have cause the whole deal those was that the tech that removed the head said one of the belt roller bolts was almost loose, but since the roller itself wasn't missing, and the belt hadn't "jumped", i have no clue if that cause it or not.We'll see i hope.


> btw, about exhaust cams, i was reading that most engines do not like larger exhaust cams in most cases. Increase the intake cam a good bit and you can make tons of power, but when they did the exhaust cam as well, the power band shifted wayyyyy to the right.


Well there was another discussion like that in the Cupra build thread, and i'm gonna say again, it all depends on what the rest of your setup is.Generally it is best to install a set of cams instead of one, but experimentation can have mixed results.An intake cam will increase low and mid power and torque but will have little effect in (as you said) "shifting" the power to the right.An exhaust cam on the other hand will do just that.It might lose you torque and power in the low/mid revs BUT it will boost power on top.Now..lets think K04..The turbo has a HUUUGE low/mid torque range, but runs out of breath at above 5000-5500 rpm.
So now we see that actually fortifying the engine and increasing timing/boost we can regain some of the lost low end power and still get the benefits of the exhaust cam up top.Combine that with the port and polishing+higher revving capabilities of the build hea, and you might actually get away with more power than before in between 5000-7500+ rpm with minimal loss to the low end.
But then again this is all in theory, and i am already using "short of" wilder S3 cams, so we'll see how it goes.
That is the fun in tuning.To do something others yet haven't..You win some, you lose some. 

Edit:Having said that, we have no clue as to the differences of the Schrick to the S3 cams, EXCEPT lift, so i might actually be going to a milder cam... :laugh:


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

good luck :beer:


----------



## DJNastie (Mar 19, 2009)

subscribed! 

what car do you have now? is it a ed30? or is it a us spec mkv?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

DJNastie said:


> subscribed!
> 
> what car do you have now? is it a ed30? or is it a us spec mkv?


 Right now i have my wife's car... :laugh:

But if you are referring to what car this is about, its a 2006 AXX Golf MKV Gti. :thumbup:


----------



## rippie74 (Sep 26, 2007)

Holy ISHTopcorn:


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Well after experiencing a catastrophic head failure AT IDLE and having had all 16 valves bent (is that even possible)


 Sounds like something just failed/jumped like your timing chain tensioner, for all 16 valves to get wiped out IMO, Good luck with the build . Bob.G


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> Sounds like something just failed/jumped like your timing chain tensioner, for all 16 valves to get wiped out IMO, Good luck with the build . Bob.G


 Yeah, that is my thinking also, BUT it brings forth another interesting question...

Since i have been having these misfires at idle, and there are also many others currently with the same issue,could the tensioner for example be a failing part much like the PCV ?

I can't even think what will happen if let's say tesioners start failing after some time.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Yeah, that is my thinking also, BUT it brings forth another interesting question...
> 
> Since i have been having these misfires at idle, and there are also many others currently with the same issue,could the tensioner for example be a failing part much like the PCV ?
> 
> I can't even think what will happen if let's say tesioners start failing after some time.


 Depending WHY it failed I would look very close at that area . 

Did the car sound alittle noisy in that area? like when a HPFP follower is worn?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> Depending WHY it failed I would look very close at that area .
> 
> Did the car sound alittle noisy in that area? like when a HPFP follower is worn?


 Nah..The SECOND thing i checked was the follower/cam, and it was as good as new.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Nah..The SECOND thing i checked was the follower/cam, and it was as good as new.


 I didnt mean that , I was just trying to say was the engine getting noisy?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> I didnt mean that , I was just trying to say was the engine getting noisy?


 If you read above, i already said the engine just died without making any noises.

It just turned itself off in a way.

Simple as that.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

Good luck with the build sorry to hear about the blowing up.. but sounds like a good excuse to get some fun parts 

Want to hear what actually happened once it is torn down. 




GolfRS said:


> We'll see...Luckily enough i wasn't on the highway going 100mph cause i have no clue what could have happened....Oh btw...when your engine turns itself off for any reason at whatever speed, YOU HAVE NO BRAKES AND NO STEERING ASSIST....Think about that for a sec...


 There are two basic types of brake systems

Vacuum assisted and hydraulic assisted.

Vacuum assisted you have usually at least one pump often more once the engine shuts off assuming you have no vacuum leaks in the booster. The 2.0t is no different then most cars on the road in this regard. Point being if you lose engine power no matter what car you are driving get on the brakes ONCE and do not let off until you stop or you will lose assist. Diesels sometimes have a crank driven vacuum pump or electric so the latter may last longer still, always assume you have one chance to stop.

Hydraulic brake assist is done with the power steering pump/fluid usually, common on diesel trucks and some other applications. Like vacuum assisted if the engine dies you have no assist, there is no way to store no longer moving fluid so they have a backup gas cylinder usually nitrogen that if there is no fluid flowing and you press the pedal fires and basically locks the brakes on, you have no choice you have ONE chance to stop. These sometimes won't reset until fluid is flowing again to ensure you don't screw up your one time 

Point being you'd still have had one chance to stop with this car or any other. 



Steering though ours is electric, It will stiffen up if not moving and the engine loses power, stall it on purpose and you'll notice this. However once moving in most cases it will loosen back up since it can provide assist. As someone said this is not much different then pushing a not running car the steering is not tight on our cars once it gets going and assist kicks in, although its usually stiffer a little vs running. This is an advantage to our cars vs others with fluid based systems or combo hydro/electric systems that when no fluid is moving there is no assist. While it may drain the battery a bit you still have assist when the engine stops on these cars because the engine has no direct affect on the system. Even if you lose assist they are still easier to turn then a hydraulic system since there is no fluid to fight.

When these cars first came out someone was in VW training and said they even mentioned and showed them that you can turn the car off and as long as you don't remove the key if it is moving the assist remains, removing the key obviously locks the wheel so not a smart thing to even test in a controlled environment 



Of course still good you weren't doing 100mph, but that would be the case even if every car had a 100% failsafe steering and braking system, since a freaking out human is not failsafe


----------



## racerX2 (Jun 30, 2009)

DJNastie said:


> subscribed!


 When something breaks gives you a reason to make it better. Good luck :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok sorry for not updating so long, head is back from the machine shop.

Getting really excited, this thing is like a JEWEL now...

I'm almost feeling sorry i have to close it up inside the engine..

Anyone for some cylinder head pron ?? 





































Car is going in next week for the build.

Keeping my fingers crossed. :laugh:


----------



## racerX2 (Jun 30, 2009)

looks good :thumbup:


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

looks awesome!


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Yeah...

If only i didn't have to break in the engine all over again 

Too bad it doesn't still have that "new car scent"

Finally we are going to see if P&P is all it's supposed to be, since other than that the rest of the engine stayed the same, and i WILL of course be hitting the dyno..... :laugh:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Yeah...
> 
> If only i didn't have to break in the engine all over again
> 
> ...


 How severe of camshaft failure have you had in the past? Not to scare the FSI owners out there any more than they already are, but I have seen similar cases 3x now working at the dealer. We had one literally make it 150 miles after cam install and then came back with completely siezed engine!!! 

Here's the deal.......when the metal from the worn HPFP cycles through the system, it can get lodged in the oil pump drive chain. It had to be a one-in-a-million shot to get a piece of the button that the HPFP pushes into the follower to stick between chain/sprocket, but I've seen it 2x. In our case, we warranty the entire engine and replace it. 

But in your case, you've gone a much longer time since the cam was done, so I'd see a mechanical failure of a component(pump/balance shafts or chain) as the failed part. I have also seen one break the chain that goes between cam under vacuum housing cover. But since the head is off, it's apparent that you also have this chain off and it's not broken. 

Wierd.........looking forward to see what you find. Especially since I'm at 132K and just waiting for the next weakest link in the FSI. Name it and I've replaced it, so what's next? Gotta hurry up and get the Rabbit, Bug or something else finished so I'll have my backup VW back up and running just in case. 
-J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> How severe of camshaft failure have you had in the past? Not to scare the FSI owners out there any more than they already are, but I have seen similar cases 3x now working at the dealer. We had one literally make it 150 miles after cam install and then came back with completely siezed engine!!!
> 
> Here's the deal.......when the metal from the worn HPFP cycles through the system, it can get lodged in the oil pump drive chain. It had to be a one-in-a-million shot to get a piece of the button that the HPFP pushes into the follower to stick between chain/sprocket, but I've seen it 2x. In our case, we warranty the entire engine and replace it.
> 
> ...


 Funny thing is this WASN'T a camshaft/pump failure...The camshaft was in perfect condition. and the follower looking like new.The previous camshaft install was done for performance reasons (S3 cams) and not because of a failure either.

Head was checked by the machine shop and was in perfect condition too.No signs of wear or any reason for it to have seized, or jumped.Of course as you say the chain is off, so no way of checking if it malfunctioned (to be honest i don't know WHAT justifies getting a new camshaft chain or tensioner or even how to check if they work ok...).

OIL PUMP (not fuel pump) could also be the issue, although i had zero CEL's during or after the failure, so i can't really say.Bearings also came out almost brand new (even with 70k on the engine) so a rotating assembly failure is a no go.

So to sum things up, there is no apparent reason for the failure...YET.
The worse nighmare would be to close up the engine, and have it fail 100 miles down the road because we missed or failed to spot the failing part....:facepalm:

As i said keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> So to sum things up, there is no apparent reason for the failure...YET.
> The worse nighmare would be to close up the engine, and have it fail 100 miles down the road because we missed or failed to spot the failing part....:facepalm:
> 
> As i said keeping fingers crossed.


 I would be worried , something failed for this to happen. I would no even start the motor untill I found the trouble .I wish you luck on the rebuild the head looks nicely done . Bob.G 

PS 

Before you took the head off was the cam timing out? (between the intake/exhaust cam) or (crankshaft degrees?) or was that not checked ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> I would be worried , something failed for this to happen. I would no even start the motor untill I found the trouble .I wish you luck on the rebuild the head looks nicely done . Bob.G
> 
> PS
> 
> Before you took the head off was the cam timing out? (between the intake/exhaust cam) or (crankshaft degrees?) or was that not checked ?


 Oh but i AM worried...

Cam timing was checked in relation to the crankshaft and was spot on.Dunno if the tech checked the timing between the cams though, although since all 16 valves were bent, i would think the timing between the cams was ok ?

I haven't got a clue though on how to check timing chain and tensioner for failure signs...


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Oh but i AM worried...
> 
> Cam timing was checked in relation to the crankshaft and was spot on.Dunno if the tech checked the timing between the cams though, although since all 16 valves were bent, i would think the timing between the cams was ok ?
> 
> I haven't got a clue though on how to check timing chain and tensioner for failure signs...


 Remember the cam chain tensioner is kept in postion with OIL PRESSURE and since you said it failure was at idle( oil pressure is at its lowest ) I would change the oil pump and cam chain tensioner and inspect the pump drive gear and chain very closely.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Chain will break....only failure I've seen. As for tensioner....it's just a spring essentially that has oil on the backside of the piston to assist with holding timing when engine is at increased RPMs. The adjusting takes place through the adjuster bolted to the exhaust cam.....oil is applied through adjuster valve and squirted into tensioner(on end of ex. cam) which changes the chain advancement. But again....only seen failure in cases of contamination or sludge. 

So not sure where your issue lies. You sound like me with my brother-in-laws 5.3L Chevy engine. Consuming coolant, Chevy diagnosed as something that it turns out doesn't even apply to these heads and I already have heads off b/c I was just going with what I was given:banghead:. So have to reassemble and pray that the issue is resolved during the whole process of things....lol 
-J. Hines


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Funny thing is this WASN'T a camshaft/pump failure...The camshaft was in perfect condition. and the follower looking like new.The previous camshaft install was done for performance reasons (S3 cams) and not because of a failure either.
> 
> Head was checked by the machine shop and was in perfect condition too.No signs of wear or any reason for it to have seized, or jumped.Of course as you say the chain is off, so no way of checking if it malfunctioned (to be honest i don't know WHAT justifies getting a new camshaft chain or tensioner or even how to check if they work ok...).
> 
> ...


 You selling the S3 cams? Anything wrong with them?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> Remember the cam chain tensioner is kept in postion with OIL PRESSURE and since you said it failure was at idle( oil pressure is at its lowest ) I would change the oil pump and cam chain tensioner and inspect the pump drive gear and chain very closely.


 Well a change of oil pump isn't a simple thing since it costs over 1000$ to buy new.So it's not something done "as a precaution".No idea how to check the oil pump to see if it's working ok though, especially since it's out of the car, and won't work until it's all closed up.

I also had NO CEL from low oil pressure, and i would think there would be one ?
Can tensioner is an easy swap and not that expensive, so i'll do that anyway.

But how to check that oil pump....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> You selling the S3 cams? Anything wrong with them?


 Nothing wrong with the cams.

But are you interested in getting some S3 cams ?

I might have something soon.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Nothing wrong with the cams.
> 
> But are you interested in getting some S3 cams ?
> 
> I might have something soon.


 I have been contemplating what to do. I wanna dyno with my stock cams, but since I'm K04, I feel I should be able to squeeze a few hp out of changing the duration a little and getting more air in and more air out quicker. So S3 would be my best route since I'm not going bigger turbo anytime soon. 

As for checking the oil pump, as long as it spins freely and all, should be ok. Take the pickup tube off and make sure there is no debri in it or any metal shavings on the backside of the screen(inside actual pump). But as I said, I've seen 2 oil pump drive chains break due to pump seizing due to debri from failed HPFPs. But that was within 500 miles of cam changes. 
-J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> So have to reassemble and pray that the issue is resolved during the whole process of things....lol
> -J. Hines


 Yeah, but imagine the horror if that same thing happens like 10 miles down the road... :facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> I have been contemplating what to do. I wanna dyno with my stock cams, but since I'm K04, I feel I should be able to squeeze a few hp out of changing the duration a little and getting more air in and more air out quicker. So S3 would be my best route since I'm not going bigger turbo anytime soon.
> 
> As for checking the oil pump, as long as it spins freely and all, should be ok. Take the pickup tube off and make sure there is no debri in it or any metal shavings on the backside of the screen(inside actual pump). But as I said, I've seen 2 oil pump drive chains break due to pump seizing due to debri from failed HPFPs. But that was within 500 miles of cam changes.
> -J. Hines


 So if the pump is simply spinning i'm off the hook ?One would think a failure like that would require complete pump seizing, and it would be the simplest thing to check, but this wasn't the case...

As i've previously said, i have been experiencing unresolved idle misfires for almost a year and a half with no indication as to why this was happening.Somehow i have this strange feeling these are all related, but again i have ZERO CEL's all this time so i can't use it for diagnosis...


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> So if the pump is simply spinning i'm off the hook ?One would think a failure like that would require complete pump seizing, and it would be the simplest thing to check, but this wasn't the case...
> 
> As i've previously said, i have been experiencing unresolved idle misfires for almost a year and a half with no indication as to why this was happening.Somehow i have this strange feeling these are all related, but again i have ZERO CEL's all this time so i can't use it for diagnosis...


 The weird things about the FSI oil pumps is that it's the oil pump and balance shafts all in one unit. That's why it's over $1K! As for the idling misfires......can't tell you. I have REVO III software with OEM K04, OEM RS4 injectors and all, I get misfires VERY sporatic at idle if the car site for more than like 10-15 idling. But then again, we all know that the REVO software dumps fuel to K04 files......just drive behind me!! 

Tons of stuff to take into consideration here. Idle misfires....... 
1- PCV system. I know you have aftermarket.....VTA? Recirc.? 
2- Injector spray pattern? Contamination? 
3- Valve lash adjusters on exhaust side(early BPY problem with lack of oil supply through lifters caused the rocker not to fully close valves). But this was a cold-start problem, not really all the time at idle. 
4- MAF signal? ECM software? 

The list could go on forever, but with it being on and off........can't tell really. Sucks trying to diagnose these sporatic issues and when you have the time to figure things out, it won't do what you want it to for diagnosis. 
-J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> The weird things about the FSI oil pumps is that it's the oil pump and balance shafts all in one unit. That's why it's over € 0.70 ($1)K! As for the idling misfires......can't tell you. I have REVO III software with OEM K04, OEM RS4 injectors and all, I get misfires VERY sporatic at idle if the car site for more than like 10-15 idling. But then again, we all know that the REVO software dumps fuel to K04 files......just drive behind me!!
> 
> Tons of stuff to take into consideration here. Idle misfires.......
> 1- PCV system. I know you have aftermarket.....VTA? Recirc.?
> ...


 Well people seem to think that deleting the balance shafts is a good thing, so i wish it was possible for me to get an "unbalanced" unit for WAAAY less...Then again, i can't say if it is the pump failing so i might as well go about changing the whole engine..Damn it this is not the way to repair a failing engine..


As for the misfires, yes i've checked it all and then some.I am now to the point of thinking it might actually be the S3 injectors and the S3 cam supplying way too much fuel at idle causing the misfires.
I also thought about the exhaust lifters, and now was a good time to have them changed , but as you said this was supposed to be a "cold start" issue, and mine misfired ALL the time.

Really don't know how i'm gonna diagnose this...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

OH **** !!!!

I just found THIS.... 

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...-tfsi-bpg-cylinder-head-failure-(56k-warning)

****ting my pants now....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> OH **** !!!!
> 
> I just found THIS....
> 
> ...


 It is light but that car is showing signs of sludge build up.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well at least he "found" something.

I still have no clue what caused my head to fail


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> OH **** !!!!
> 
> I just found THIS....
> 
> ...


 I've seen something similar before.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

GolfRS said:


> OH **** !!!!
> 
> I just found THIS....
> 
> ...


 I have seen this happen before also in our own shop, we had a car come in that need a camshaft we took the cam out and saw this and had to replace the cylinder head. Now the one you posted looks like it could have failed for 2 reasons (1) like chris said above the oil looks like the engine was not well maintained or (2) the cylinder head had green compression sealant on it in the pictures which means it already received a camshaft because the original sealer was a maroon color..someone prob did not torque the cam cap bolts down properly or did not replace them and when they thought they retorqued correctly they did not stretch as designed.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm really curious...

How exactly does an oil pump "fail" (in the TFSI for example)

Isn't it just a set of gears that are rotating driven by a chain ?

Does sludge for example lock up the gears ?Do gear teeth get grinded down progressively to the point
the pump stop spinning ?

Cause from a quick glance what i could see was that my gears were better than new, and there was ZERO sludge in the oil pan.Even my bearings looked like the just came out of the factory...

Can i "repair" a pump if it is not actually worn down ??


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> Isn't it just a set of gears that are rotating driven by a chain ??


For the most part essentially this is what it is.
We have over 50 "used" 1.8T oil pump's pulled from motors with slush issues etc etc and every single one of them just needed either to be cleaned up or simply "degunked".

....just change your oil more regularly.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> For the most part essentially this is what it is.
> We have over 50 "used" 1.8T oil pump's pulled from motors with slush issues etc etc and every single one of them just needed either to be cleaned up or simply "degunked".
> 
> ....just change your oil more regularly.


I highly doubt it's a sludge issue, from what i have seen from all the moving parts in the engine.

I will test the mobility of the pump though, and if it's just a good cleaning it needs, all the better.

What i am most afraid of is that i won't find anything wrong and will have to close the engine...undiagnosed...


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> I highly doubt it's a sludge issue, from what i have seen from all the moving parts in the engine.
> 
> I will test the mobility of the pump though, and if it's just a good cleaning it needs, all the better.
> 
> What i am most afraid of is that i won't find anything wrong and will have to close the engine...undiagnosed...


It isn't a matter of the pump moving or not if the pump stopped moving you'd end up breaking the chain or gears and other parts. The sludge simply stops the flow of oil and needs to be cleaned to allow it to flow.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> It isn't a matter of the pump moving or not if the pump stopped moving you'd end up breaking the chain or gears and other parts. The sludge simply stops the flow of oil and needs to be cleaned to allow it to flow.


Ohhhh..ok now i get it...

But still Chris, should there be a CEL registered for low pressure or at least SOMETHING !!

I mean the car dies and all is well in ECUland...

F**k these cars... :thumbdown:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Here's a small update..

Engine is all bolt up and ready to start up on Monday.

Still NOTHING in the way of what exactly caused the head failure...
How is that even possible....I don't know.Maybe it just committed suicide.. :banghead:

Anyways, one other thing of concern is the fact the tech asked me if i should be using a
strengthened timing belt, since the Ferrea springs were TWICE as thick as the OEM ones, and
seriously this is a never before addressed factor that i don't see any of the Ferrea resellers 
addressing...yet.Is the OEM belt actually strong enough to handle the increased spring forces ??
Is there even an aftermarket timing belt ??


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Here's a small update..
> 
> Engine is all bolt up and ready to start up on Monday.
> 
> ...


The FSI belts are like the P-D Diesel belts.....pretty solid! Kevlar enforced and overall 300% better than the previous gas engine belts!!! I'd say you have nothing to worry about, but then again.....you are driving a modified VW. You have EVERYTHING to worry about!!!
-J. Hines


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

jhines_06gli said:


> I'd say you have nothing to worry about, but then again.....you are driving a modified VW. You have EVERYTHING to worry about!!!
> -J. Hines


Thats signature material :laugh: Thanks


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

OK !!

Here's an update.

The car is really and started up nicely !!

Oil pressure was checked and was spot on, still, no reason for the engine to have failed...:facepalm:

Now in the process of breaking in the new rings/bearings, and not really pushing the car, but it seems much more eager to go, and part throttle response is also that much better.

Hopefully this will be the end of this misfortune, and depending on my new K04 results i can even
consider going to a GT turbo some time.

P.S.Welcome to break-in procedure suggestions. :thumbup:

P.S. 2 UNFORTUNATELY the misfire i had for more than 2 years is STILL THERE..:banghead: , making me think it's rather a side effect of the cams/SMFW/MAF than an actual mechanical misfire...


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> Thats signature material :laugh: Thanks


Glad I could help....lol.

AS for your misfire, just out of curiousity, have you switched your program back to stock? And what K04 file and injectors are you running? Cylinder #2 is THE misfire fault that 95% of the FSI market get. Couldn't tell you how many of the FSIs that roll into the dealer here have cyl. #2!! Usually in our cases, the cars are fairly stock and it's gunk on valves and injector spray patterns being off. But there are also those that have weird PCV issues that pick on just cylinder #2 or #3 usually. I am somewhat familiar with your setup from being involved in some diag. through the past years, just curious again. I have the latest REVO STG III file for the K04 and I still get the cyl. #2 misfire under 60% throttle or higher. I too have done EVERYTHING to try and correct it and cannot. I have ahd it ever since I went STG II+ several years back. But never gets the misfire counter high enough to store a fault, I just catch it in logging. Also, no excess timing pull from #2, it's like the ECM knows it's misfiring and doesn't care...lol. "Way of life for it I guess".
-J. Hines


Keep us updated, curious to see if you ever find anything as I stopped trying and just drive my GLI hoping to get month-to-month with a minimal repair bill........clutch soon I guess(134K on OEM with K04.....still not slipping:thumbup:, but SB STG II+ is sooner than later)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Glad I could help....lol.
> 
> AS for your misfire, just out of curiousity, have you switched your program back to stock? And what K04 file and injectors are you running? Cylinder #2 is THE misfire fault that 95% of the FSI market get. Couldn't tell you how many of the FSIs that roll into the dealer here have cyl. #2!! Usually in our cases, the cars are fairly stock and it's gunk on valves and injector spray patterns being off. But there are also those that have weird PCV issues that pick on just cylinder #2 or #3 usually. I am somewhat familiar with your setup from being involved in some diag. through the past years, just curious again. I have the latest REVO STG III file for the K04 and I still get the cyl. #2 misfire under 60% throttle or higher. I too have done EVERYTHING to try and correct it and cannot. I have ahd it ever since I went STG II+ several years back. But never gets the misfire counter high enough to store a fault, I just catch it in logging. Also, no excess timing pull from #2, it's like the ECM knows it's misfiring and doesn't care...lol. "Way of life for it I guess".
> -J. Hines
> ...


I have ZERO misfires under load.Only at idle, and even though i've done proper leakage tests, my idle keeps dropping at traffic lights when rpms fall from 4000+

It may be the S3 spray pattern on my crown pistons though.Maybe its the reverse and RS4's work better on mine...Dunno man...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

Did you ever install new exhaust lifters as per the tsb? the tsb says it happens on cold start but we have had it fix other cars that have misfired at idle while warm too.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Did you ever install new exhaust lifters as per the tsb? the tsb says it happens on cold start but we have had it fix other cars that have misfired at idle while warm too.


Well i didn't...

I though about it, but since mine were checked by the machine shop (can you even check them ?)
they didn't suggest i change them.

Mine seems to do it cold or warm, and strangely enough, it does it more on an incline surface, and when i turn the steering wheel ?? :banghead: I know...WTF !!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

i don't think they can really check a sticky lifter, all they can see is if it moves when compressed but you can't check how it acts inside the engine.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> i don't think they can really check a sticky lifter, all they can see is if it moves when compressed but you can't check how it acts inside the engine.


Yeah...

Its really sporadic though, and i've also seen it decrease in frequency when using the stock maf intake.

It also goes away when i rev the engine from 760 (stock) to like 800 and keep it there.

Almost like the engine is running too rich at idle...


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> i don't think they can really check a sticky lifter, all they can see is if it moves when compressed but you can't check how it acts inside the engine.


The issues with the lifters are the size of the oil squirters. This was a HUGE issue in the Japanese market with turbo Eclipses....been there MANY times with them. The oil pressure cannot get through the lifter quick enough to keep the valves closing at a quick enough rate. But as for your issue.....doubt if that's it as the lifter recall was just for on cold-starts and was very few and far between with the lifters actually 100% solving the issue. You can change them without removing the exhaust cam/timing belt and all....not too hard. But I'd look more into a fueling issue as you say. I know the S3 injectors mimic the OEM pattern, so seeing as how the OEM pistons are flat, you may be spraying onto the dome and killing the "Swirl" effect of the combustion chamber. Just a theory though. Then again, you have port-work and all done as well.....so a combination of the pistons, injector spray, intake track design and cam duration may be creating some sort of weird issue. 

At any rate, I'd monitor your values off idle and look for anything abnormal once you get the engine broken in. Misfires at idle constantly will definitely break down components over a long period of time, but cannot see them causing the engine to self-destruct. Interesting issue though.....don't see too many that have a consistent misfire at idle, we all have issues with high RPM and W.O.T. as well as decel off a pull, but haven't seen too much with idle. Especially when the PCV system is modified correctly and everything is clean.
-J. Hines


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

how are you changing them with out removing the camshaft?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> The issues with the lifters are the size of the oil squirters. This was a HUGE issue in the Japanese market with turbo Eclipses....been there MANY times with them. The oil pressure cannot get through the lifter quick enough to keep the valves closing at a quick enough rate. But as for your issue.....doubt if that's it as the lifter recall was just for on cold-starts and was very few and far between with the lifters actually 100% solving the issue. You can change them without removing the exhaust cam/timing belt and all....not too hard. But I'd look more into a fueling issue as you say. I know the S3 injectors mimic the OEM pattern, so seeing as how the OEM pistons are flat, you may be spraying onto the dome and killing the "Swirl" effect of the combustion chamber. Just a theory though. Then again, you have port-work and all done as well.....so a combination of the pistons, injector spray, intake track design and cam duration may be creating some sort of weird issue.
> 
> At any rate, I'd monitor your values off idle and look for anything abnormal once you get the engine broken in. Misfires at idle constantly will definitely break down components over a long period of time, but cannot see them causing the engine to self-destruct. Interesting issue though.....don't see too many that have a consistent misfire at idle, we all have issues with high RPM and W.O.T. as well as decel off a pull, but haven't seen too much with idle. Especially when the PCV system is modified correctly and everything is clean.
> -J. Hines


Actually my idle has improved after the head work, just not completely gone.
I started having these issues right after the S3 injector install, and all the way though the S3 cam install/P&P etc etc.Lately though just before the failure the matter was getting REALLY worse...

S3 injector patern is SUPPOSEDLY the same as the normal injector pattern, so to dunno if that is the factor.There was a thread in the Vortex (was it crew) by someone saying how the RS4 pistons are the same crown pistons i have, and there is also APR's little secret about piston differences and spray patterns i am still dying to know...but no one will talk....


----------



## TASOS (Oct 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> .......someone saying how the RS4 pistons are the same crown pistons i have, and there is also APR's little secret about piston differences and spray patterns i am still dying to know...but no one will talk....


Well ... since i also have an AXX ... i want that piece of info too 

But consider the fact that , the APR person swapped his "double crown" AXX like pistons from his setup.

I assume that AXX pistons and RS4 inj. are not the best combo.

Anyway
Drive safe 

I envy your super shiny carbon built free cylinder head :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TASOS said:


> Well ... since i also have an AXX ... i want that piece of info too
> 
> But consider the fact that , the APR person swapped his "double crown" AXX like pistons from his setup.
> 
> ...


Actually that was a "forced" change of pistons since the newer BPY engines used the dome pistons.

But as i said APR isn't sharing.... :thumbdown:

As for the head, you should see how the car drives now....


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

GolfRS said:


> S3 injector patern is SUPPOSEDLY the same as the normal injector pattern, so to dunno if that is the factor.There was a thread in the Vortex (was it crew) by someone saying how the RS4 pistons are the same crown pistons i have, and there is also APR's little secret about piston differences and spray patterns i am still dying to know...but no one will talk....


Yep.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

crew219 said:


> Yep.


I remembered you posting an actual live image but this will do fine.

So it seems the pistons look 95% identical (with minor design differences) BUT...here's is the
puzzle.......

How is it possible the AXX have the "normal" injectors with the same pattern as the S3 injectors, when the RS4's have a different injector pattern ??

And once again, what was APR's experience with the crown pistons and different injectors ?

If my misfires are "spray related", and the RS4 injectors would be more compatible than my current S3's, then WHY did my car come with "A" version injectors like BPY's and BWA's ?

Or are we possibly taking all this "spray pattern" talk too seriously ?


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> how are you changing them with out removing the camshaft?


Little trick I learned. I work on flat rate.....so "Time is money!" Just like my trick to doing the camshaft replacements and TONS of other part replacements on these cars. I have to find ways to make more money to feed my addiction to buying/modding VWs!!!:banghead:
-J. Hines


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

When I popped a rocker out on my I got it back in without taking the cams out.. Not entirely easy but certainly less time than pulling the cams out


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS

What color markings are on your OEM valve springs?

-Arin


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> GolfRS
> 
> What color markings are on your OEM valve springs?
> 
> -Arin


Hmmm dunno, but i can check ??

All i know for now is that they are the first TFSI springs which afaik were longer and
taking more punishment than the newer S3/Cupra springs.

Why do you ask ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Why do you ask ?


I was curious what color was in the AXX because I just don't remember. Also, as you probably know, with some of the uprated k04 motors there was a TSB for incorrect valve springs causing misfires at idle.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I was curious what color was in the AXX because I just don't remember. Also, as you probably know, *with some of the uprated k04 motors there was a TSB for incorrect valve springs causing misfires at idle*.


Isn't that exactly what i just wrote above you ? :laugh: (although misfires at those models where seen at high rpm's not idle)

But no, it was/is not my springs, since now i have a complete Ferrea head and still misfiring... 

Edit:Having reread my post, i didn't quite pinpoint the issue, but yeah that's what i meant.


----------



## TASOS (Oct 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> But as i said APR isn't sharing.... :thumbdown:


Ohh ... i didnt know that !!!

Well , they are a tuning company , they make money from their tunes and findings , i cant blame them for not sharing that info , they worked for it.

But you never know ... since we are amateurs and tuning is a hobby for us , maybe somebody (sometime) will send us a bonus pm.


----------



## viotfsi (Jul 28, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I was curious what color was in the AXX because I just don't remember. Also, as you probably know, with some of the uprated k04 motors there was a TSB for incorrect valve springs causing misfires at idle.


The TSB mentioned missfiring at high rpm's (>6000rpm) with 80% of these at 3rd cylinder

@GolfRS: Good luck with your project. I wish all the best

Are you experiencing the "too rich at idle" fault? What's the o2 sensor responce with those missfires?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

viotfsi said:


> The TSB mentioned missfiring at high rpm's (>6000rpm) with 80% of these at 3rd cylinder
> 
> @GolfRS: Good luck with your project. I wish all the best
> 
> Are you experiencing the "too rich at idle" fault? What's the o2 sensor responce with those missfires?


No faults registered.

The O2 correction varies between +-3% with trims of -0.8 and -3.3%


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

Did you try unplugging the maf?

I was having misfires at idle this past summer. On cold starts it would be fine for like the first minute but as the idle settled it would start to "bloop bloop". I could rev it and you could still hear/feel it. But as I drove the car it would disappear. 

I didn't really pay much attn to it. 

But somewhere between starting to drive the car mafless and changing out my coil packs, it doesn't misfire anymore. (I did change out my lpfp too but I highly doubt that affected idle trims) It could have been the coil packs to but it seems strange I never felt/heard/recorded the car misfiring under load. 

GL


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

loudgli said:


> Did you try unplugging the maf?
> 
> I was having misfires at idle this past summer. On cold starts it would be fine for like the first minute but as the idle settled it would start to "bloop bloop". I could rev it and you could still hear/feel it. But as I drove the car it would disappear.
> 
> ...


I did something even better..I used a new MAF, and nothing changed....

Unplugging the MAF isn't that much of a diagnostic, since the ECU defaults to a rich MAP that might cover the issue, but doesn't mean a new MAF will fix it.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> I did something even better..I used a new MAF, and nothing changed....
> 
> Unplugging the MAF isn't that much of a diagnostic, since the ECU defaults to a rich MAP that might cover the issue, but doesn't mean a new MAF will fix it.



No it doesn't.. Fuel is determined by the 02 sensor and only sort of helped out and corrected by the 02 sensor as well as some load calculations. Fueling one change one bit if you unplug the maf on these cars. 

If the MAf is broken, there is a leak, or the MAF is in an improper housing them it could cause issues with fueling but only because the information it is giving to the ecu conflicts what it wants to see so it assumes there are problems and makes changes.

Disconnecting the MAF is a great diagnostic tool.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> No it doesn't.. Fuel is determined by the 02 sensor and only sort of helped out and corrected by the 02 sensor as well as some load calculations. *Fueling one change one bit if you unplug the maf on these cars. *
> 
> If the MAf is broken, there is a leak, or the MAF is in an improper housing them it could cause issues with fueling but only because the information it is giving to the ecu conflicts what it wants to see so it assumes there are problems and makes changes.
> 
> Disconnecting the MAF is a great diagnostic tool.


Right.

So what you are saying is that my trims won't change if i run with an unplugged MAF ?

Cause if the do, then it does effect fueling.

Unless what you are trying to say is that if i do unplug my MAF and the trims change then my ECU is correcting solely on O2 values, which could prove a faulty MAF.If so, what happens if my O2 sensor is busted and not my MAF, and i run without my MAF ?I will still be getting false trims due to wrong O2 values (btw i've also unplugged my O2 with no change in misfire behavior).


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

The easiest way for me to explain this is you ahve no clue what the MAF does

unplug the damn thing like someone told you to do and see if that changes anything.

The car doesn't default to a rich map you couldn't be more wrong on that if you tried


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> The easiest way for me to explain this is you ahve no clue what the MAF does
> 
> unplug the damn thing like someone told you to do and see if that changes anything.
> 
> The car doesn't default to a rich map you couldn't be more wrong on that if you tried


Chris is it true that the car does run on some reduced timing if the maf isn't hooked up?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The easiest way for me to explain this is you ahve no clue what the MAF does
> 
> unplug the damn thing like someone told you to do and see if that changes anything.
> 
> The car doesn't default to a rich map you couldn't be more wrong on that if you tried


I already did that Chris..., you are not really helping...

It was one of the first things i tried when i suspected my MAF could be faulty, but
as i wrote already, it didn't change a thing....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

loudgli said:


> Chris is it true that the car does run on some reduced timing if the maf isn't hooked up?



Load calculations change so yes timing does change not necessarily reduced in all cases just changes.


Bottom line though fuel does not default to some basic map because fueling is mostly taken care of by the 02 sensor anyway not the MAF.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> I already did that Chris..., you are not really helping...





GolfRS said:


> I did something even better..I used a new MAF, and nothing changed....
> 
> Unplugging the MAF isn't that much of a diagnostic, since the ECU defaults to a rich MAP that might cover the issue, but doesn't mean a new MAF will fix it.



no as usual you refuse to help yourself since you are a self proclaimed expert on all things 2.0t.

Someone said unplug it you said you did the better thing of changing it and not unplugging it since unplugging it goes to your imaginary default map.

You never want anyones advice but you constantly demand it. 

Its like quitting crack, you have to want to help yourself before anyone can help you. Once you get to that point come back and ask for help.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> no as usual you refuse to help yourself since you are a self proclaimed expert on all things 2.0t.
> 
> Someone said unplug it you said you did the better thing of changing it and not unplugging it since unplugging it goes to your imaginary default map.
> 
> ...


FFS dude either take a chill pill or cut down on caffeine.Seriously.. 

I'm sick and tired of you always ending up taunting me (or any other person you talk with for that matter) and instead of actually helping, going into superiority fits that end up in you going crazy and leaving the thread like a hurt puppy that people just don't seem to understand...

So yeah listen up man, this is MY THREAD, and since i know you are not here to help, but simply satisfy your ego one more time, i would kindly ask you to LEAVE this thread and not post in here anymore.I have been battling with an issue for more than 2 years now, an issue that also seems to effect MANY other TFSI cars, with no solution in sight.You and your fits aren't gonna help me or others reading this.

I'm sorry..I like the company you work for, just not you personally.


Thanks for understanding.

P.S.I would also ask you to remove your posts like you did last time you had a fit.I'd like to keep this thread "clean".


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> So yeah listen up man, this is MY THREAD, and since i know you are not here to help, but simply satisfy your ego one more time,



You barely know anything so I highly doubt if you do happen to know one thing it would be what I am here for. 

I posted information that you then attempted to refute it based on some fake expertise you have and YOUR insistence on refusing to listen to anything I post or anyone else for that matter has once again proven you wrong. 

This isn't your thread this is a discussion forum if you want your own thread start your own forum and block me. Until then if you are going to ask for help people will offer it and you need to learn to accept it not continue to tell everyone trying to help you that they are wrong.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You barely know anything so I highly doubt if you do happen to know one thing it would be what I am here for.
> 
> I posted information that you then attempted to refute it based on some fake expertise you have and YOUR insistence on refusing to listen to anything I post or anyone else for that matter has once again proven you wrong.


It would seem your fits are getting worse.

You should consider increasing your medication as it is clearly not working...



> This isn't your thread this is a discussion forum if you want your own thread start your own forum and block me. Until then if you are going to ask for help people will offer it and you need to learn to accept it not continue to tell everyone trying to help you that they are wrong.


I don't want to block you man.Don't be afraid...It's all going to be ok....

Oh btw, did you see me asking for YOUR help anywhere in this thread ?
I don't think so..You just enjoy popping up quoting my posts like an uninvited relative that just WON'T GO AWAY...

So once again, i'm hoping (or praying) you have better things to do...

Move along....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

You posted on a public forum that is open for any of its members to reply to. You don't have to ask me anything nor do you have any right to say i can't reply I am entitled to reply just as much as you are entitled to ask. 

You posted information stating that unplugging the maf sensor causes the car to run on some sort of default rich fuel map as a reason to why you didn't want to try a method of diagnosis posted by someone else. This was incorrect which I clarified and then suggested trying the methods of diagnosis that someone else suggested.

Just like every other thread like this where you are asking people to help you refuse to actually take that help while going on and on about all this info you have as to why their help won't work for you. In this case specifically your logic as to why this wouldn't help was flawed. I simply clarified this and didn't even say do what i think rather i said do what someone else suggested. Instead of just trying it you chose to go on and on about some issue you have with me, further proving that you don't actually want any of the help people give you. 

I'm not the one having a fit, I'm not the one making personal attacks regarding ones personality, caffeine consumption or medications. 

As for the "blocking" I'm sorry but you just told me to leave, delete my posts etc etc. My blocking was a joke based on comments you made and the fact that you have no right to even suggest I leave this or any other thread. 

Thanks also for clearing up that you don't like me and that all your responses are based on some personal issue you have with me and not actually reading what I have posted in order to help you fix your car, takes us right back to the issue with you not actually wanting to help yourself so no one can help you.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You posted on a public forum that is open for any of its members to reply to. You don't have to ask me anything nor do you have any right to say i can't reply I am entitled to reply just as much as you are entitled to ask.


Well since as you say i DIDN'T ask for your help, why the f**k do you pop up to give it to me and then whine why "i don't listen" ?You might be used to people kissing your ass but i'm sorry i'm not one of them, nor do i accept your infinite wisdom as a pure fact.You might be working for Revo support, but you aren't really that "supportive".Maybe they should consider "promoting" you to doorman.That way you can bitch all you want, and you will actually be doing what you are meant for... :thumbup:



> You posted information stating that unplugging the maf sensor causes the car to run on some sort of default rich fuel map as a reason to why you didn't want to try a method of diagnosis posted by someone else. This was incorrect which I clarified and then suggested trying the methods of diagnosis that someone else suggested.


I confess i violated the sacred "Holy Chris" rule of posting. :banghead:
Write me a ticket and go on your way Mr. Forum Officer...




> Just like every other thread like this where you are asking people to help you refuse to actually take that help while going on and on about all this info you have as to why their help won't work for you. In this case specifically your logic as to why this wouldn't help was flawed. I simply clarified this and didn't even say do what i think rather i said do what someone else suggested. Instead of just trying it you chose to go on and on about some issue you have with me, further proving that you don't actually want any of the help people give you.


I guess this must be your "pick a forum fight" night huh...

Where exactly in this thread did you see me ASKING for help from ANYONE ?
As i said maybe you are getting a bit tired at "Support", and think everyone needs your help...
Have it checked out, it could get worse...



> I'm not the one having a fit, I'm not the one making personal attacks regarding ones personality, caffeine consumption or medications.


Personal attacks ?
You are the one with the superiority complex dude not me.
I fail to find any reason for your outbursts, so my medical expertise says something must be wrong here.I'm only trying to help....remember ?



> As for the "blocking" I'm sorry but you just told me to leave, delete my posts etc etc. My blocking was a joke based on comments you made and the fact that you have no right to even suggest I leave this or any other thread.


I didn't "tell you" to leave, i asked you to do so, and in the process, also remove the harassing crap you keep posting in all of my threads.If that isn't working, then maybe i should get you mad so that you can leave by yourself and delete your posts in anger...pretty much what you did last time ??Huh ??What you say ?? 



> Thanks also for clearing up that you don't like me and that all your responses are based on some personal issue you have with me and not actually reading what I have posted in order to help you fix your car, takes us right back to the issue with you not actually wanting to help yourself so no one can help you.


Yeah, i don't think you expected me to like you with your personality now did you ?
I am actually surprised you work for a company with continuous personal contact, since you
have a complete lack of social skills...I guess "Human Resources" totally failed in your case huh ? 

Oh well.....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Where exactly in this thread did you see me ASKING for help from ANYONE ?



Where oh where in this thread could anyone possibly find the answer to yet another one of your questions..

Oh wait here:



GolfRS said:


> Really curious to see what the "necropsy" finds out though...Could it be some lurking issue we are unaware of ?
> 
> Of maybe a bad previous camshaft install ?
> 
> As i said i have been experiencing misfires at idle long before the cams were installed so it could be a failing timing chain tensioner or even worse....a dead oil pump ??


and here:



GolfRS said:


> I'm really curious...
> 
> How exactly does an oil pump "fail" (in the TFSI for example)
> 
> ...


or:



GolfRS said:


> Since i have been having these misfires at idle, and there are also many others currently with the same issue,could the tensioner for example be a failing part much like the PCV ?


or:



GolfRS said:


> I also had NO CEL from low oil pressure, and i would think there would be one ?



or:



GolfRS said:


> Is the OEM belt actually strong enough to handle the increased spring forces ??
> Is there even an aftermarket timing belt ??


or:



GolfRS said:


> I though about it, but since mine were checked by the machine shop (can you even check them ?)
> they didn't suggest i change them.





GolfRS said:


> I remembered you posting an actual live image but this will do fine.
> 
> So it seems the pistons look 95% identical (with minor design differences) BUT...here's is the
> puzzle.......
> ...



Thats an awful lot of thinking outloud since you weren't actually asking anyone anything..


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Where oh where in this thread could anyone possibly find the answer to yet another one of your questions..
> 
> Oh wait here:
> 
> ...


Yeah i do tend to think out loud...Does that go against one of your rules too ?

Now please point me to the post that says: 

"Hey [email protected] !!! Come on in here and help me with you ultimate knowledge !!"

Bet you can't find that can ya ?

Maybe that's cause IT DIDN'T HAPPEN... :what:

I'm pretty sure there are many people dying for your support...Go help them..

Me..., i've had enough of it.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Now please point me to the post that says:
> 
> "Hey [email protected] !!! Come on in here and help me with you ultimate knowledge !!"
> 
> ...



Where did I even remotely claim you said that?

Your exact words were you didn't ask ANYONE even in caps like that.

But you did ask by posting questions on a public forum

I am included in anyone as I am a member of this forum, you don't have to ask me in fact if you started a thread specifically asking me it would be locked as that is against the rules. This is a public discussion forum, therefore anyone on it can read and answer as they wish. These aren't my rules they are the rules of this site that you agreed to when you signed on. This is really not a difficult concept to grasp.

If you stopped for one second trying to make everything personal you'd actually be able to get some help from anyone. Instead you can't, YOU choose to sit here and say who can and cannot reply to your threads, it doesn't work that way. My information was helpful becuase I said it and not someone else for some idiotic reason in your head you have to fight it. Get over it, my only intentions where to help you figure out what was wrong with your car by clarifying something you incorrectly stated.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Where did I even remotely claim you said that?
> 
> Your exact words were you didn't ask ANYONE even in caps like that.
> 
> ...


I didn't ask for anyone's help, and if i did, i meant anyone's BUT yours.

You are of no help to me, and we clarified that already across many forums and across many posts....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> I didn't ask for anyone's help, and if i did, i meant anyone's BUT yours.
> 
> You are of no help to me, and we clarified that already across many forums and across many posts....


Gee that's odd you had no problem with my explanation of your question of what happens when an oil pump stops working, make up your mind you sure aren't consistent about who's help you want or will take. You ask questions on a public forum but don't want anyone to answer them? You don't want my help but you gladly take it when your mood allows for it?

I and others have proven time and time again to be of great help to you, unfortunately you are so stuck on being a pretend expert you won't accept that people are in fact helping you.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Gee that's odd you had no problem with my explanation of your question of what happens when an oil pump stops working, make up your mind you sure aren't consistent about who's help you want or will take. You ask questions on a public forum but don't want anyone to answer them? You don't want my help but you gladly take it when your mood allows for it?
> 
> I and others have proven time and time again to be of great help to you, unfortunately you are so stuck on being a pretend expert you won't accept that people are in fact helping you.


No no don't get confused...I don't want YOU to answer them...

Probably the reason i didn't even notice you answering in any oil pump related discussion...

So don't flatter yourself man.You haven't been any help to me...E V E R...

All you know how to do best is taunt and harass.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> No no don't get confused...I don't want YOU to answer them...
> 
> Probably the reason i didn't even notice you answering in any oil pump related discussion...
> 
> So don't flatter yourself man.You haven't been any help to me...E V E R...


What is this now.. Not only is it you noticing me answering you about something related to the oil pump but OMG you asked ME a question which you have claimed several times in this thread to never have done!


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> What is this now.. Not only is it you noticing me answering you about something related to the oil pump but OMG you asked ME a question which you have claimed several times in this thread to never have done!


Hmmm...are you sure that was you ?

I mean...you are almost trying to help !!!

Ok ok...i take it back.

You made ONE helpful post....

And for all the effort i'm sure it took you to do it, i thank you. :beer:

Are we done now ?


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmm...are you sure that was you ?
> 
> I mean...you are almost trying to help !!!
> 
> ...


really two more questions? I thought you never wanted anything from me.. 

Dude stop asking if you truly mean what you say.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> really two more questions? I thought you never wanted anything from me..
> 
> Dude stop asking if you truly mean what you say.


Ahahahaha...

Yeah....

Emm..Don't quit your day job...(or is that..Do....Hmmm i get confused sometimes...)


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

:facepalm:

hug it put.

how about we agree to disagree. eace:


----------



## mikeg6045 (Apr 14, 2010)

wow


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Krieger said:


> :facepalm:
> 
> hug it put.
> 
> how about we agree to disagree. eace:


opcorn: Just sit back and enjoy it for a few days.......we'll get to a resolution and everyone will be friends again :laugh: Always happens on here!! So it's the Vortexer's way of life. 

But back to the issue at hand. Do we know anything new? Have any logs of various values to look at from idle when the car is acting up? And what EXACT software flash are you running so we can baseline off someone who is basically the same setup as you. Have free-flowing intake? OEM box with changed filter? Little more info on your mods as I haven't seen a list lately and we need someone who has similar setup if possible.....mine may be somewhat close with the exception of cams/engine internals.
-J. Hines


----------



## hockeystar17mnj (May 30, 2007)

Wow 
ok all things aside i really think Chris should chill the f*^K out. DUDE YOU REPRESENT A COMPANY, your [email protected], not [email protected] Your posting on here as a representative of a company. Take your personal arguments onto a separate user name. This **** makes me sick. stick to the forum title "TFSI Head Build & Rods". If he doesnt want to listen to your suggestions then walk away, dont help him and let him do what he wants. your image on here would have looked alot better if you did that:thumbdown:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

hockeystar17mnj said:


> Wow
> ok all things aside i really think Chris should chill the f*^K out. DUDE YOU REPRESENT A COMPANY, your [email protected], not [email protected] Your posting on here as a representative of a company. Take your personal arguments onto a separate user name. This **** makes me sick. stick to the forum title "TFSI Head Build & Rods". If he doesnt want to listen to your suggestions then walk away, dont help him and let him do what he wants. your image on here would have looked alot better if you did that:thumbdown:


So any updates? Have any new insight or tried anything new?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> So any updates? Have any new insight or tried anything new?


My next move will be to remove the aftermarket transmission mount to see if that combined with
my SMFW is making too much interference noise, confusing the ECU and messing up everything.
It's a long shot but i will give it a go, for gearbox chatter reasons also.

Other than that, i get really weird MAF and timing readings on VCDS with cold start values rangine from 1.98 al the way up to 4.5 g/s without rpm increases and TB opening.I also see sudden jumps in actual timing ranging from -+3 all the way up to +18 degrees that correspond to the misfiring that is felt inside the car.I will try unplugging the MAF one more time and get a log from that, although nothing changed in the past.

I will also try and make a video to show what exactly is going on with the car.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Other than that, i get really weird MAF and timing readings on VCDS with cold start values rangine from 1.98 al the way up to 4.5 g/s without rpm increases and TB opening.I also see sudden jumps in actual timing ranging from -+3 all the way up to +18 degrees that correspond to the misfiring that is felt inside the car.I will try unplugging the MAF one more time and get a log from that, although nothing changed in the past..


Could something be messed up with your intake manifold flappers?


Also, have you cross checked all the part numbers to sensors you've changed or replaced to make sure you don't have one in there intended for another vehicle? My rail sensor was replaced with a part from another 2.0T and as such it gave me the largest headache of my life. Nothing seemed correct, nothing ran right, I had the problem till I figured out it was just the sensor reading incorrectly.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Could something be messed up with your intake manifold flappers?
> 
> 
> Also, have you cross checked all the part numbers to sensors you've changed or replaced to make sure you don't have one in there intended for another vehicle? My rail sensor was replaced with a part from another 2.0T and as such it gave me the largest headache of my life. Nothing seemed correct, nothing ran right, I had the problem till I figured out it was just the sensor reading incorrectly.


Hmmm....I think i just had a flashback...

I think its a long shot, but now i remember everything started after i installed my K04 and S3 injectors, BUT.....the tech had accidentally broken off the Camshaft adjustment valve N205 and i had to replace it.... :what:

Are there many part numbers for that ?

Could this be the issue ??

OMFG !! I have to check !!!

EDIT:Ok i had a quick look at ETKA and there is a part "A" sensor that is intended for AXX/BWA/BPY cars and a part "B" sensor that is...not...I run downstairs to the car and checked....And yep i have the proper "A" sensor...You guys didn't really think it would be that easy did you ? :laugh:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

its a VW, it usually isnt easy. :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

hockeystar17mnj said:


> Wow
> ok all things aside i really think Chris should chill the f*^K out. DUDE YOU REPRESENT A COMPANY, your [email protected], not [email protected] Your posting on here as a representative of a company. Take your personal arguments onto a separate user name. This **** makes me sick. stick to the forum title "TFSI Head Build & Rods". If he doesnt want to listen to your suggestions then walk away, dont help him and let him do what he wants. your image on here would have looked alot better if you did that:thumbdown:



You are clueless, I helped this guy for at least the 500th time and he flipped out. 

Grow up.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You are clueless, I helped this guy for at least the 500th time and he flipped out.
> 
> Grow up.


No you didn't Chris...

And i'm not even in the mood to start this over...

It's nice though that at least someone saw the whole thing as it actually is. :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> No you didn't Chris...
> 
> And i'm not even in the mood to start this over...
> 
> It's nice though that at least someone saw the whole thing as it actually is. :thumbup:



Screen shots were proven to show I did help you, now you are denying them again?

I also did help you in clarifying what does and does not do when you disconnect the MAF

You can act like a 3 year old all you want but I posted relevant information that has and will help you.

One day you'll be mature enough to realize this, until then looks like we have to deal with you.

One person misread the whole thing and agreeing with you doesn't mean they saw it for what it was, Everyone like in the last thread saw you for who you are though.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Screen shots were proven to show I did help you, now you are denying them again?
> 
> I also did help you in clarifying what does and does not do when you disconnect the MAF
> 
> ...


Here is your last p.m. to me on the other forum, "trying to help me" on the 16th of Sept 2010, and YOU flipping out, asking me to NEVER ask you anything...Do you deny this ?

"
*Re: MAP sensor* 
[HR][/HR] _My experience with dealing with you on the forums is that you are a total pain in the ass know it all without a clue who demand that everyone such as myself helps and supports you but then takes any chance such as this one to make some idiotic comment.

NEVER ask me a question again._ "


....So at your request i did actually NEVER ask you anything.
And yet you entered a thread i started to offer your help when it was not required and once again bitch and taunt...I only see one 3 year old here and that one is YOU...
You may think you are helping people by taunting them, but you have the exact opposite effect...


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

Thanks for proving once again you are the problem..

But why have you continued to ask me questions?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for proving once again you are the problem..
> 
> But why have you continued to ask me questions?


So the above to you proves that I am the problem....Hmmm..Ok.....

I don't want to ask you anything man.

You have your own issues to solve, and from the looks of it they are more serious than mine...


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> So the above to you proves that I am the problem....Hmmm..Ok.....



Yes it does prove that. It shows that on another forum you asked people a bunch of questions and you flipped out on them there as well for helping you. Again here you ask a bunch of questions and your response instead of telling people like JC or Arin or Jhines thanks for the help is that you apparently knew all this and they were wrong. You treat everyone that tries to help you like crap, yet claim you don't ask for help yet when people don't help you have a fit. Sorry you don't like my help since 99% of the time it proves you know less than you claim, get over it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Yes it does prove that. It shows that on another forum you asked people a bunch of questions and you flipped out on them there as well for helping you. Again here you ask a bunch of questions and your response instead of telling people like JC or Arin or Jhines thanks for the help is that you apparently knew all this and they were wrong. You treat everyone that tries to help you like crap, yet claim you don't ask for help yet when people don't help you have a fit. Sorry you don't like my help since 99% of the time it proves you know less than you claim, get over it.


I'm not working for a tuning company Chris.

YOU ARE.

So i really don't get it why you are trying to compete with me and show people you "know stuff" and i don't.For all i care, you don't know **** yourself.You just don't wanna ruin your image, as clearly you don't give a dime about your company's image...

Oh and btw let me get you back into the real world pal.

I PAID for my software, and since you work for the company i gave money to, it would seem i paid for your bills too.
So i think next time you should be a bit more careful how you treat your customers, whether you like them or not...

How's that now ? Does that get through to you, or is your skull too thick ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmm....I think i just had a flashback...
> 
> I think its a long shot, but now i remember everything started after i installed my K04 and S3 injectors, BUT.....the tech had accidentally broken off the Camshaft adjustment valve N205 and i had to replace it.... :what:
> 
> ...



Just for ****s and giggles, check the rail pressure sensor. 


Also, like I mentioned before, I wonder if you're having any issues with your flapper motors. Maybe log it to see if it's opening and closing at idle when you start to feel the car getting rough???

One more thing, what about the N80? When I was chasing down my misfire issue related to the rail sensor I read about N80's getting stuck open causing issues and not throwing a fault. N80 is the evap purge valve to the right of your TB under the manifold.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

Wow lots of Drama...

Dimitri
http://www.facebook.com/pages/INA-E...ref=ts#!/album.php?aid=327912&id=294598024991


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> Wow lots of Drama...
> 
> Dimitri
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/INA-Engineering-Inc/294598024991?ref=ts#!/album.php?aid=327912&id=294598024991


Yeah man.

Too bad some people aren't as professional as you or other people i know in this business of yours...

Looking good on the CNC head bro :thumbup:

I am breaking in the engine (having a hard time keeping my foot of the gas) and i will have a dyno with results pretty soon i believe.Butt dyno results (even without pushing the engine) are really promising !!! I'll give you more details by email. :laugh:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Just for ****s and giggles, check the rail pressure sensor.


Well i don't know about the rail sensor, i'm gonna have to check that out ? Shouldn't i be getting some sort of errors from the ECU ? What exactly were you experiencing with yours ?




> Also, like I mentioned before, I wonder if you're having any issues with your flapper motors. Maybe log it to see if it's opening and closing at idle when you start to feel the car getting rough???


As for the flapper motor, as i said i've already replaced it once, and it made zero difference.What is really weird though is that car starts to behave worse when it is close to adapting, meaning if i reset the trims the misfires are still there but fewer.I also get different "start ups", like i might turn of the engine and then when i turn it on, the misfires don't seem that bad...for a while...



> One more thing, what about the N80? When I was chasing down my misfire issue related to the rail sensor I read about N80's getting stuck open causing issues and not throwing a fault. N80 is the evap purge valve to the right of your TB under the manifold.


I also thought of that early in my...investigation, which is why i 1)changed the N80 without results 2)did the vacuum test ELSA recommends with normal results 3)blocked off connections to the manifold, and was still misfiring...

I have to say i've changed so many things so far, i now have very few things left to check, like the ECU itself (which as you understand isn't something you change like you would a valve or a sensor), and the software/fueling issue, that might be arising from me having the crown pistons, with the S3 camshaft (you said it has a different fueling lobe) and the single mass flywheel (quite possibly altering perceived idle load values, thus messing up things even more.

The worse thing in this whole deal is that i don't really think my software provider is even willing to help, and from the way the its representatives are behaving, i don't really know i want to ask them too...

So...back to business...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Shouldn't i be getting some sort of errors from the ECU ? What exactly were you experiencing with yours ?


At first, no errors. Then rail pressure was kinda all over the place. Sometimes too high. Sometimes too low. Smokey exhaust with S3 injectors and RS4 injectors. Fuel trims after a long time started to get way out of spec. Lambda would not obey request. Fuel cuts. Suddenly everything would seem fine for a while but then I'd get horrible gas mileage. Misfires. Etc.... 



> As for the flapper motor, as i said i've already replaced it once, and it made zero difference.What is really weird though is that car starts to behave worse when it is close to adapting, meaning if i reset the trims the misfires are still there but fewer.I also get different "start ups", like i might turn of the engine and then when i turn it on, the misfires don't seem that bad...for a while...


Why not try unplugging a few different items to see if anything changes? Heck, I'd even unplug the O2 sensor. I had a bad one a long time ago and that caused horrible bucking and misfires till it was unplugged.



> I have to say i've changed so many things so far, i now have very few things left to check, like the ECU itself (which as you understand isn't something you change like you would a valve or a sensor)


Would suck but I've seen issues cleared up by simple replacing the ECU. Something goes bad and everything starts going crazy. 




> , and the software/fueling issue, that might be arising from me having the crown pistons, with the S3 camshaft (you said it has a different fueling lobe) and the single mass flywheel (quite possibly altering perceived idle load values, thus messing up things even more.


The S3 cam's do have a different fueling cam profiel which should be changed in the software. But I'm not sure it would cause heavy misfires at idle.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> At first, no errors. Then rail pressure was kinda all over the place. Sometimes too high. Sometimes too low. Smokey exhaust with S3 injectors and RS4 injectors. Fuel trims after a long time started to get way out of spec. Lambda would not obey request. Fuel cuts. Suddenly everything would seem fine for a while but then I'd get horrible gas mileage. Misfires. Etc....


My rail pressure is spot on, but my tail pipes as black as hell.Especially during cold starts i'm getting black stuff out of my exhaust....Trims have remained the same in the period of 2 years with LTFT of -0.8 which is puzzling cause the car is running RICH !!!



> Why not try unplugging a few different items to see if anything changes? Heck, I'd even unplug the O2 sensor. I had a bad one a long time ago and that caused horrible bucking and misfires till it was unplugged.


I've already unplugged the O2 sensor without results, as well as the MAF, the N80, the DV....nothing changed...I also thought it might be a bad O2, but trims look normal and unplugging had no effect.




> Would suck but I've seen issues cleared up by simple replacing the ECU. Something goes bad and everything starts going crazy.


This will be the LAST thing i'll do mainly because of the cost.






> The S3 cam's do have a different fueling cam profiel which should be changed in the software. But I'm not sure it would cause heavy misfires at idle.


Well i had these misfire before the S3 cams also, but it seems they now have "pilled up"

I do believe the software needs to be adjusted, but i don't think Revo wanna do something like that.I was also thinking about going custom....Dunno...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well, bringing this thread back to life since i' ve just installed my new turbo.... :laugh:

There is a similar thread i had on golfmkv.com which i will not be continuing,
so if anyone cares, here's where the news will be from now on.
I will not be posting in that forum anymore, so any PM's would also have to be
in the Vortex.

Now as for the new turbo...all i can say is it's amazing.Still have a long way to go
as far as tuning, and am currently running it on S3 injectors and the K04 tune,
but spool is the same as the K04 (if not better ?  ) and shows A LOT of promise
as far as power goes.

Let's see how this works out. :thumbup:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

need moar details than that...turbo infos now. 


and why they ban u over there, whatd u do lol.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Can't give out too much detail about the turbo.
It was custom made by me to my specs and it is a GT2871R hybrid (of sorts)
But most important is the performance and spool characteristics which are
really unique.This turbo is the only one in the world that has these specs.
Max performance is yet to be determined, and of course it is influenced
by the rest of the engine, its knock resistance, compression ratio and
improved head.What i can say is that my worry about the decreased spool is
gone, and i am very excited. :laugh:

They banned me in the other forum cause i dared to question APR why
they went with a GT3071R for the TSI stage 3 while all the time they were
bashing Revo for choosing it saying the GT2871R could do everything...better...
I also asked them why they as still selling the TFSI stage 3 kit with a GT2871
(doesn't seem fair does it ?) and if they are going to swap the older GT2871R's
for GT3071R's for the already TFSI Stage 3 owners (since they (APR) have now "seen the light")

I guess APR didn't approve of that (btw i never actually received an answer to my question),
instead i was labeled a troll (LOL) and was banned for all eternity....Can't say i miss anything though...
If people don't want you, you simply move along and live happily ever after... :laugh:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

who is tuning your project


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> who is tuning your project


I'll let you know once i have the software installed and confirm it works.

For the time being Revo's K04 S3 injector file is doing an excellent job at
K04 boost levels....

That's the beauty of Revo software.


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

GolfRS said:


> I'll let you know once i have the software installed and confirm it works.
> 
> For the time being Revo's K04 S3 injector file is doing an excellent job at
> K04 boost levels....
> ...


 nice :thumbup:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Can't give out too much detail about the turbo.
> It was custom made by me to my specs and it is a GT2871R hybrid (of sorts)
> But most important is the performance and spool characteristics which are
> really unique.This turbo is the only one in the world that has these specs.
> ...


Once everythings dialed in please dont forget to give some details, its peaked my curiosity. Had you wanted a fair turbo to make power and have the "good" spool as you want a new gtx2871 is the shiznit. Im just saying if you didnt wanna go through the hassle of custom.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> Once everythings dialed in please dont forget to give some details, its peaked my curiosity. Had you wanted a fair turbo to make power and have the "good" spool as you want a new gtx2871 is the shiznit. Im just saying if you didnt wanna go through the hassle of custom.


Well the GTX 2867 (there is no 2871 in the new line up just 63 and 67) is indeed a nice turbo
and i might have gone for that if i hadn't started this project more than a year ago.

In any case what i have right now outflows the GTX3071R so..... :laugh:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Well the GTX 2867 (there is no 2871 in the new line up just 63 and 67) is indeed a nice turbo
> and i might have gone for that if i hadn't started this project more than a year ago.
> 
> In any case what i have right now outflows the GTX3071R so..... :laugh:


I actually meant the 2876, figuring ud like the powerrl it makes and the spool.

Did you throw the turbo on a stand to measure flow capacities at max psi? I'm a naysayer until I see it for myself, I just have a hard time believing a 400 HP turbo now flows to over 500 HP levels with spool like or better than a k04.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> I actually meant the 2876, figuring ud like the powerrl it makes and the spool.
> 
> Did you throw the turbo on a stand to measure flow capacities at max psi? I'm a naysayer until I see it for myself, I just have a hard time believing a 400 HP turbo now flows to over 500 HP levels with spool like or better than a k04.


Well there is no GTX287*6 *either, so if you are referring to the normal GT2876 it has
been labeled as one of the worst turbos ever cause of the wheel mismatch...
Too much lag and not that much flow....Practically no one uses it, and even Garrett
themselves label it a "special" turbo.

As for the flow, the normal *56 trim* GT2871 has the EXACT same wheel as the GT3071
so they flow exactly the same.Their difference is the larger turbine on the 30 series
that flows more exhaust, but that can be compensated for with proper engine design
and tuning.So to start with the 56 trim GT28 is not a 400 HP turbo (even Garrett rates it
up to 475 HP), and my turbo should EASILY flow for more than 500 HP.... :thumbup:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Well there is no GTX287*6 *either, so if you are referring to the normal GT2876 it has
> been labeled as one of the worst turbos ever cause of the wheel mismatch...
> Too much lag and not that much flow....Practically no one uses it, and even Garrett
> themselves label it a "special" turbo.
> ...


Yea i misread one article, instead of 67 they put 76. Again, both of those are great because of the boost in power while spool isnt affected. 

im not trying to split hairs here, you said your turbo will flow more than a gtx3071, not a gt3071...its not the same turbo. I can see a low spool times with full boost maybe around 3500 or something but spool like a k04 and flow up top like that...

listen, i wish its true...id just love to see it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> Yea i misread one article, instead of 67 they put 76. Again, both of those are great because of the boost in power while spool isnt affected.
> 
> im not trying to split hairs here, you said your turbo will flow more than a gtx3071, not a gt3071...its not the same turbo. I can see a low spool times with full boost maybe around 3500 or something but spool like a k04 and flow up top like that...
> 
> listen, i wish its true...id just love to see it.


Yes you read correctly, i said GT*X*3071R, and of course it's not the same turbo... LOL.

For a guy that built his own turbo you would imagine i pretty much have
turbo specs under control...no ?? :laugh:

As i said there is not turbo like it anywhere.Preliminary test show great performance up top
and the spool is obvious.Just need to fine tune it and post up some vids...
That should do it.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Yes you read correctly, i said GT*X*3071R, and of course it's not the same turbo... LOL.
> 
> For a guy that built his own turbo you would imagine i pretty much have
> turbo specs under control...no ?? :laugh:
> ...


Hi man,

... I like where this is going! :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok here's a small update.

The S3 injectors just reached their limit at 1.45 bar @ around 6300 rpm
and 140 bar rail pressure... 

I was hoping they could do more, but i guess it's about time for the RS4's to
come into play.

Still they did an excellent job for this level of boost.

Now let's swap injectors and see what happens.... :laugh:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

OK i spent like 4 hours installing the RS4 injectors and things are looking good.

Don't really know what the fuss is all about with smoking since i have ZERO
smoking issues in my car...Idles perfectly, and starts up fine in the morning...
Maybe i got lucky....Who knows....

P.S. Btw things are NOT looking good for us on the valve deposit issue...
This was my FIFTH intake manifold removal, and with just 5.000 km the
valves were like CRAP....The should have made this manifold with clip-ons...
I'm sick and tired of getting gunk all over my fingers....


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> OK i spent like 4 hours installing the RS4 injectors and things are looking good.
> 
> Don't really know what the fuss is all about with smoking since i have ZERO
> smoking issues in my car...Idles perfectly, and starts up fine in the morning...
> ...



Hi man,

Why don't you try using the HEP's intake manifold for your new setup?

Please keep us informed of all the progress and news about your engine build! :thumbup::thumbup::beer:

Have a good one,

Beto


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> Hi man,
> 
> Why don't you try using the HEP's intake manifold for your new setup?
> 
> ...


Thanks Beto. :thumbup:

For starters i don't really see the point on spending so much (REALLY MUCH) cash on a part
that hasn't proven any gains (at least not yet). If i would be using an aftermarket manifold
it would be cause i want to run W/M which i don't, or cause i want to run a bigger
throttle body (which there isn't one). I see no other reason for someone to get an
aftermarket intake manifold especially since the design is the same.

Maybe later on if actual TB are made (or available) i would consider it, but then again i would
probably go with a custom design than getting what everyone else has.


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

Hi Golf RS,

Congrats for the new setup and hope you enjoy it. As you already know the black smoke is an inevitable feature of the RS4 injectors during idle and between shifting gears. I would like to know the special secret of this hybrid turbo and i would die to see the dynosheet of your new setup.

Go enjoy it.:laugh:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Thanks Beto. :thumbup:
> 
> For starters i don't really see the point on spending so much (REALLY MUCH) cash on a part
> that hasn't proven any gains (at least not yet). If i would be using an aftermarket manifold
> ...


:thumbup::thumbup::beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> Hi Golf RS,
> 
> Congrats for the new setup and hope you enjoy it. *As you already know the black smoke is an inevitable feature of the RS4 injectors during idle and between shifting gears.* I would like to know the special secret of this hybrid turbo and i would die to see the dynosheet of your new setup.
> 
> Go enjoy it.:laugh:


Don't believe everything you read Khaled.

This was my fear also when i decided to go BT+RS4, but all i can tell you is IDLE IS PERFECT,
COLD STARTS ARE INSTANT, and THERE IS NO BLACK SMOKE ON WOT....

Kind of like the whole catch can story heh ?? I had a catch can for 10.000 km, and two days ago
i remove the manifold only to see my valves look like i had 20.000km +....

What a joke........

As for the dyno, i think you will be pleasantly surprised....Cannot really predict the
max power numbers (factors like fueling effect the final result) but what i can tell you is that
the powerband is out of this world....

Stay tuned. opcorn:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

needs meth!


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Krieger said:


> needs meth!


For extra power and cleaning purposes?


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

Its all in the tuning with rs4s....what special injector do people think apr uses? My uni tune has an updated injector file which causes less smoke than before, but its still there. 

cold starts sometimes are hard but only because of the mafless file tho.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

donjuan1jr said:


> Its all in the tuning with rs4s....what special injector do people think apr uses? My uni tune has an updated injector file which causes less smoke than before, but its still there.
> 
> cold starts sometimes are hard but only because of the mafless file tho.


They don't use RS4s.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

crew219 said:


> They don't use RS4s.


Everyone claims they use modified S3 injectors and have then laser weld shut. 

The sheer size of APR and the fact that they're in the business of turning out a profit, I'm sure they're not going the extra mile to open, modify, and properly seal injectors when they can just toss a set of RS4s into the kit and ship them out. 

I'm sure bob G might have some insight on what APR really uses versus what the community believes they use or APR claims to use.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Everyone claims they use modified S3 injectors and have then laser weld shut.
> 
> The sheer size of APR and the fact that they're in the business of turning out a profit, I'm sure they're not going the extra mile to open, modify, and properly seal injectors when they can just toss a set of RS4s into the kit and ship them out.
> 
> I'm sure bob G might have some insight on what APR really uses versus what the community believes they use or APR claims to use.


The injectors from APR don't look exactly like RS4 injectors. I sold Bob G a set of RS4 injectors he wanted to use instead of the APR injectors and it did infact make a difference data logging so whatever APR uses is deff not just a regular RS4 injector from Audi.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> I'm sure bob G might have some insight on what APR really uses versus what the community believes they use or APR claims to use.


I wouldn't count on Bob being able to bring truthful insight to anything. :sly:

Nevertheless, he had APR injectors and switched to RS4s which required a special retune from APR. He then proceeded to bash the APR injectors. I would assume that they are not the same. 

I have APR injectors in my stage III kit and do not exhibit any of the issues people with RS4s have mentioned.

Dave


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

edited for false info


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

IMAN973 said:


> Apr uses the modified s3s. They wont sell them due to the fact that they do not out flow the standard rs4s. They modify the s3s to gain flow while maintaining the correct fuel atomization. The rs4s out flow any s3 modified or not but have a ****ty spray and cant be modified.
> 
> spray pattern
> s3=apr s3>rs4
> ...


Which APR injectors are you referring to? The original ones or the newer red-tops? Supposedly the red tops give much more headroom. 

Dave


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So why is it i don't experience any of the mentioned issues with the RS4's ??

Engine runs better than with the S3 injectors (of course those might have been toast)...


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

IMAN973 said:


> Apr uses the modified s3s. They wont sell them due to the fact that they do not out flow the standard rs4s. They modify the s3s to gain flow while maintaining the correct fuel atomization. The rs4s out flow any s3 modified or not but have a ****ty spray and cant be modified.
> 
> spray pattern
> s3=apr s3>rs4
> ...


Pretty good explanation man! :thumbup:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

crew219 said:


> Which APR injectors are you referring to? The original ones or the newer red-tops? Supposedly the red tops give much more headroom.
> 
> Dave


I didn't know they where using new injectors for their APR Stage III, unless you refer to the new ones used for their Stage III+ for the 2.0 TSI engines?


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> So why is it i don't experience any of the mentioned issues with the RS4's ??
> 
> Engine runs better than with the S3 injectors (of course those might have been toast)...


I have pondered the same thing, because mine also runs flawlessly. Hell I 'm even flapperless. No cold start issues and hardly any black smoke, unless I try to load the engine up, like the diesel drivers do. Could it be quality control on these injectors?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

GolfRS said:


> So why is it i don't experience any of the mentioned issues with the RS4's ??
> 
> Engine runs better than with the S3 injectors (of course those might have been toast)...


IIRC you have a different piston design than the BPY's.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

BETOGLI said:


> I didn't know they where using new injectors for their APR Stage III, unless you refer to the new ones used for their Stage III+ for the 2.0 TSI engines?


No, there were two injectors for the FSI stage III. The later versions used injectors that were painted red on the tops. There are also two different stage III files to accommodate the different injectors.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

crew219 said:


> IIRC you have a different piston design than the BPY's.


Yes that is true, we've already discussed this.

But i really feel (it may sound crazy...) the RS4's suit my engine better. :what:

Could this also work..."in reverse" ?


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

crew219 said:


> No, there were two injectors for the FSI stage III. The later versions used injectors that were painted red on the tops. There are also two different stage III files to accommodate the different injectors.


Good to know man! I don't know which ones I have in my car... I'll have to check it out!

Thanks,

Beto


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> So why is it i don't experience any of the mentioned issues with the RS4's ??
> 
> Engine runs better than with the S3 injectors (of course those might have been toast)...


I NEVER had any rs4 related issues on any of my cars or the tens of bts ive built. The worst problem besides a bad injector was the smoking a little while on wot but thats it.

But on the other hand.... ive also rebuilt a bunch of bts for head work etc, and the pistons looked terrible after running the rs4s. The picture that awe posted a long time ago, of the injectors on a test stand, show exactly why this is. The saturation with the rs4s is obvious but since its our only option we have to deal. The extent of the rs4 troubles comes down to the various piston designs, afrs, iats, spark plugs, timing, etc. Everyone of these is different from car to tune to location to hardware. Some people will have/show more of the rs4 troubles then others.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> I NEVER had any rs4 related issues on any of my cars or the tens of bts ive built. The worst problem besides a bad injector was the smoking a little while on wot but thats it.
> 
> But on the other hand.... ive also rebuilt a bunch of bts for head work etc, and *the pistons looked terrible after running the rs4s.* The picture that awe posted a long time ago, of the injectors on a test stand, show exactly why this is. The saturation with the rs4s is obvious but since its our only option we have to deal. The extent of the rs4 troubles comes down to the various piston designs, afrs, iats, spark plugs, timing, etc. Everyone of these is different from car to tune to location to hardware. Some people will have/show more of the rs4 troubles then others.


But as you said that would also be dependent on piston shape, so not all pistons might
look the same (btw could you post that pic ? don't remember seeing it).


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

this is why in my rebuild I opted for the 'crowned' pistons.... to possibly help with atomization and swirl.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Everyone claims they use modified S3 injectors and have then laser weld shut.
> 
> The sheer size of APR and the fact that they're in the business of turning out a profit, I'm sure they're not going the extra mile to open, modify, and properly seal injectors when they can just toss a set of RS4s into the kit and ship them out.
> 
> I'm sure bob G might have some insight on what APR really uses versus what the community believes they use or APR claims to use.


The original Apr injector that was used in stage 3 fsi in my car where stock injectors modified with extrude hone process then sent to Standyne to have seat lapped in and clocked in the correct postion. I had atleast 2 sets in my car and they all worked poorly with major Misfire issues so I got tired of playing games and ordered set of rs4 injectors from jeff @ Douglas. Apr just happened to have a rs4 specfic sw flash lol hmmm wonder why lol . Apr back then went directly to manufacturer of the rs4 and bought them direct. I'm sure its still used and the color differences are updated version of them. Bob. G


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

crew219 said:


> I wouldn't count on Bob being able to bring truthful insight to anything. :sly:
> 
> Nevertheless, he had APR injectors and switched to RS4s which required a special retune from APR. He then proceeded to bash the APR injectors. I would assume that they are not the same.
> 
> ...


The truth is Apr lack of engineering with the fsi engine and more specficly ignoring the very limited fuel system. Bob. G


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> But as you said that would also be dependent on piston shape, so not all pistons might
> look the same (btw could you post that pic ? don't remember seeing it).


No smoke issues with my rs4 injectors with factory dished pistons. Bob. G


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

rracerguy717 said:


> The truth is Apr lack of engineering with the fsi engine and more specficly ignoring the very limited fuel system. Bob. G


Yes, considering APR is the only company to: produce a HPFP that doesn't seize up; provide an upgraded LPFP with stage III; custom injectors with the proper spray pattern . . . I'm sure they have no engineering involved. 

Keep on talking Bob.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ck-!-!-!-!&p=48576449&viewfull=1#post48576449

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ck-!-!-!-!&p=48579872&viewfull=1#post48579872


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rracerguy717 said:


> The truth is Apr lack of engineering with the fsi engine and more specficly ignoring the very limited fuel system. Bob. G


:facepalm:

Bob, your statement is neither correct, nor will it have any negative impact on our business.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> But as you said that would also be dependent on piston shape, so not all pistons might
> look the same (btw could you post that pic ? don't remember seeing it).


Yea that could be while your running better then others. 












I have built and rebuilt wossner equipped engines as well and they were not great either.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Heres the original thread that picture was posted in. Dont pay attention to the flow numbers Todd posted because they were proven to be flawed due to inadequate test pressure.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-or-so-they-say/page3&highlight=kmd+injectors


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Heres the original thread that picture was posted in. Dont pay attention to the flow numbers Todd posted because they were proven to be flawed due to inadequate test pressure.
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-or-so-they-say/page3&highlight=kmd+injectors


Yeah i remember this thread/pic, but i thought you said something about how the
"piston" looked not the injector spray, and was waiting for some "after RS4 piston
disaster pic"....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Sorry I thought you ment that picture. Id have to check my folders but I know I have some pics. Idn if I took pics of the really bad ones but I do have pics of my pistons after 10000 hard miles. Ill post them up later.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> The truth is Apr lack of engineering with the fsi engine and more specficly ignoring the very limited fuel system. Bob. G


 This is very incorrect. They have this fuel system down but to gain their knowledge your needs have to be in their business model. They dont care abt the few guys that want to max out their engines. They sell so many stg3 kits that ar ewell within the engines limits. Why take the chance and ruin their OEM reputation.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

IMAN973 said:


> This is very incorrect. They have this fuel system down but to gain their knowledge your needs have to be in their business model. They dont care abt the few guys that want to max out their engines. They sell so many stg3 kits that ar ewell within the engines limits. Why take the chance and ruin their OEM reputation.


 Bragging rights. Id love to see what a huge tuning house to squeeze out of these motors.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

They already did. Did you guys forget about [email protected], I am pretty sure he still holds the quickest and fastest 1/4 pass in a BPY motor. 

Speaking of which Issac whats up with your car? I have seen no updates.. shoot me a pm and let me know how its going.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

there is a video floating around of a 10.7 pass.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Revo Romania went 10.7 in an s3 at GTI International this past summer. I have heard about this car and rumors have it running an aux rail and custom stg 4 software. No cage just a gutted awd fsi with fuel :laugh: 

Hello Mr Clark, its easier just to post it publically bc i dont have a build thread. Ive been playing with getting the maestro, sic, wot box, and avcr, to all work together which has been no easy task. Cars all tracked prepped: cage(i finally finished lol), traction bars, suspension, cameras but i need to dial it in on the dyno. ive just been a little busy lately. 
Im not a baller like you so i just went with a bw efr 8374. I got a great deal on it so i figure ill go small then work my way to a 6765 or a 72. A 62mm should be good for mid 700s. Unfortunately bw's t4 housings are on back-order until summer time so im stuck with their internally gated t3 housing on my old eurojet 1.25 primary mani until then. I figure ill crack that at around 600hp but as long as i get a few days in ill be happy. After the housing comes in ill prob do a sidewinder then really beat this car up. I have a few cars here that need turbos, so i may just throw the bw on there and buy myself a Precision if bw takes too long. I also got a few things in the works for the 2013 season which is when ill really be coming for the hondas but this season is just a laid back one for me. I dont have the money for a dog box for this season so im gonna try to take it easy on my o2q. If i make 600 with this mani and 725 with my new one it will be a good season. If i run a mid to low [email protected]+ with a 1.7 then ill be happy as well. Id love to see 2 06a mk5s going down the track this season get you **** together lol 

Sorry for the thread jack. Jeff started it lol


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

IMAN973 said:


> This is very incorrect. They have this fuel system down but to gain their knowledge your needs have to be in their business model. They dont care abt the few guys that want to max out their engines.


 I know about Apr OEM hardware solutions vag does the engineering not Apr. The problem I have is if your customers have your so called "engineered kit" and run the kit as designed and dosnt come close to the inflated power figures they list. I'm talking about the regular independent customer not Apr shops that get special sw or hardware make the numbers then Parade around the forums gloating lol. So you either fix the problem (fuel system) or lower your power figures. Bob. G


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rracerguy717 said:


> I know about Apr OEM hardware solutions vag does the engineering not Apr.


 Haha, if it only were that easy. So you're saying VAG created our stage 3 kit? Please tell everyone this! This would be great for marketing! :laugh: 



> The problem I have is if your customers have your so called "engineered kit" and run the kit as designed and dosnt come close to the inflated power figures they list.


 Disproven thousands of times. 



> I'm talking about the regular independent customer not Apr shops that get special sw or hardware make the numbers then Parade around the forums gloating lol.


 Makes sense! Make special software for a few APR shops and then choose not to sell this better software to anyone else. I like this idea because, it makes bob sense, and bob makes the most sense. 

Remember in 2009 when you said all this amazing **** was coming soon to the FSI? Where is it?


----------



## 18bora. (Aug 18, 2007)

Screw APR and their blah blah blah FSI fueling R&D blah blah, I'd rather support smaller companies that operate 3-4 businesses from a home garage and does their R&D like this \/ \/ \/ 





 
Oh yeah, if I keep supporting this /\ guy > (PTP=DFDD=HPFPUpgrade) and bash APR, they (APR) would lose so much business and eventually go under. I hate APR sooooo much, that's why I keep running their stg3 kit. APR sucks.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Haha, if it only were that easy. So you're saying VAG created our stage 3 kit? Please tell everyone this! This would be great for marketing! :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Usp? Lol

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Please don't clutter this thread with more BS.

God knows there has been enough already.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Please don't clutter this thread with more BS.
> 
> God knows there has been enough already.


 Ha. 

Coming from this guy. opcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Ha.
> 
> Coming from this guy. opcorn:


 What is that supposed to mean exactly....?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> What is that supposed to mean exactly....?


 I think he was referring you instigate a lot of the drama. Regardless.... back on topic, I want to see a dyno.


----------



## ghoastoflyle (Jan 21, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> They banned me in the other forum


 :laugh: :x


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

ghoastoflyle said:


> :laugh: :x


 That doesnt mean anything. Golfmk5 sucks as a forum and is even worse when it comes to business. The mods banned me 4+ times and ip banned me twice now. I just gave up helping people over there. If you want help, come here to a real forum.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> That doesnt mean anything. Golfmk5 sucks as a forum and is even worse when it comes to business. The mods banned me 4+ times and ip banned me twice now. I just gave up helping people over there. If you want help, come here to a real forum.


 THIS.... :beer::thumbup:


----------



## ghoastoflyle (Jan 21, 2003)

IMAN973 said:


> That doesnt mean anything. Golfmk5 sucks as a forum and is even worse when it comes to business. The mods banned me 4+ times and ip banned me twice now. I just gave up helping people over there. If you want help, come here to a real forum.


 That's sad if it's true. I admit I haven't posted much over there and perhaps 'cause of my mk3 root's I gravitate to the 'tex. When I need some mk5 411, usually find more there. For years I'd lurk the mk3 2.0 tech forum. 2.0tfsi I could miss a month and not drop a topic. Also figured since you could say **** it would be a little more liberal. 
Don't get me wrong the 'tex is where it's at. Tech info re:mk5 could be better. 
end rant and sorry for jacking opcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok here's another small update.

I was having boost issues that were getting progressively worse and
i was under the impression it was software related so i reflashed the
K04 software (that was for S3 injectors but was now on RS4's) but that
didn't change much.After a leak test i found out my "makeshift" turbo
outlet pipe wasn't up to the task and am now in the process of
fabricating a hard pipe to be able to crank the boost and finally
get on with fine tuning and a DYNO.....

This is going way more slowly that i would have liked.... :banghead:

I am also planning some pulls with cars i had pulled against with the
K04 to see what this turbo is doing (at least up to the point the K04 shines...).
That should be interesting....

P.S. Oh and of course the first thing to come is a video.... :laugh:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Ok here's another small update.
> 
> I was having boost issues that were getting progressively worse and
> i was under the impression it was software related so i reflashed the
> ...


 Waiting for the video! 👍👍


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Ok here's another small update.
> 
> I was having boost issues that were getting progressively worse and
> i was under the impression it was software related so i reflashed the
> ...


 No matter how well planned, theres always something extra to deal with...VWs are like women...pain in the ass.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

BETOGLI said:


> Waiting for the video! 👍👍


 Don't hold your breath.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Don't hold your breath.


 I'll make a 1080P one for you especially....


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

donjuan1jr said:


> No matter how well planned, theres always something extra to deal with...VWs are like women...pain in the ass.


 LOL


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

vid?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> vid?


Finishing up on the pipe hopefully by tomorrow.

Then i have to reflash and log the car, and i'll make a vid with low boost first. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well pipe is all done, car is boosting properly again or at least at requested
pressure which with the Revo K04 file is pretty low... 

Gonna have to reflash to the BT file to see if the ECU is actually "holding back"
cause of the difference in load it sees now.

Frustrating.... :facepalm:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

pics of the setup and turbo?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok i just found out when i reflashed to K04 software to see if that was the issue for
my problems, i was flashed with a "low boost" file that i had in the past, and not the
high boost one i had before the BT install....That explains the boosting issues.

Hopefully the new BT flash will fix things.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

no turbo pics? i'll show you mine if you show me yours


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> no turbo pics? i'll show you mine if you show me yours


Mine is bigger


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Mine is bigger


you mean the turbo!!!!!!!!!!
lol


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

its not the size its how you use it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> its not the size its how you use it.



Depends on who you ask :laugh:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> you mean the turbo!!!!!!!!!!
> lol


Yes that too. :laugh::laugh:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

and how do you know i havent gotten a new turbo 

albeit, i am excited to see what you did.... and you still should post pictures or atleast some specs


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> and how do you know i havent gotten a new turbo
> 
> albeit, i am excited to see what you did.... and you still should post pictures or atleast some specs


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Yes that too. :laugh::laugh:


my bad :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok here's another update.

Flashed to Revo's stage 4 and i can't say i'm thrilled....

Car has lag (no comparison to the K04 high boost file i had after fitment)
and only boosts up to 1.4 bar on Boost 9 setting...Needless to say the
K04 was MUCH more fun than this....

Knowing the Revo file was set on an external WG, i will try to tighten the WG
a little to see if that changes things...Not really hopeful though cause the
ECU is requesting a low N75 duty and that can only be changed through
software.It could be it is seeing much more load than it is expecting and lowers
duty cycle to compensate...Dunno...

If tweaking the WG doesn't help i will have to consider changing
software (i see the Eurodyne suite is gaining ground among BTers ).


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

run an ebc.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> run an ebc.


That's what the dealer said, and that is what i am trying to avoid...

I don't get what paying for software means if you have to "tune" your boost
yourself....

The car isn't boosting properly, and it is neither overboosting nor surging,
so running an EBC would be just a placebo against running properly adjusted
software.

I would rather change tuner (to one that can run the car properly) than to
stay with Revo and tune the car myself....Boost controllers are there to
prevent the car from running too much boost, or help it run more but when
the base software has reached its limits.This is not the case here.

As i said i will tighten the WG and see how the car reacts.If it drops the
N75 duty even further then i'm probably going custom.If i get positive results
then i'll hang on to it a bit longer to see what can be done.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well....i have to say right now i am going to dump Revo as my BT software provider. :thumbdown:

I was wondering why so many BT people go a different route, but after 3 weeks of testing
i could never get the car to boost more than 1.35 bar (19.5 psi) at redline...
Revo's "suggestion" since i had an "unconventional setup" was to use an EBC, but
my theory about tuning "prohibits me" from unplugging the N75 completely, especially
when talking about a dd car.Some might think it is the best solution for power, but
i have come to know that a badly adjusted EBC is by far worse than a well programmed
N75, especially when you are not going to drag race the car....

Have to say at first i thought it was a hardware fault/failure, and i was not to blame the
poor software, but then i saw this post in the MKV forum that made me believe
that the Revo software does suck... (at least on BT applications)....

http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130393

Here are some pics from that thread ( i'm hoping *Tmsracing37* will jump in)










and here is my boost/wg graph using the same software (it could be he is using stage 3 3071 and i am "supposed" to be using stage 4 software) and as you can see IT SUCKS...
Don't really enjoy having 20% wg at peak boost/spool, makes the car laggy as hell, and for sure
19.5 psi is not gonna make any power....












Now keep in mind this was on B9T9F9 settings on the SPS, which pretty much renders the device USELESS, since i could not increase neither boost (stuck at 1.35) nor timing (which was at the
hilarious point of 12 degrees @7000 rpm..). This was on a 1 bar internal WG btw.

As you can imagine the car is SLOOOOW, and even got beat by a friends Revo K04 car that i used to
easily gain on with K04 hardware...His own words were "if this is how Revo's BT cars go, i'd rather stay on the K04..."...and he is RIGHT....

Anyways, this is all behind me now.I am in the process of looking for custom software, and i see
many are going the Eurodyne way, which might also be my choice.
Really disappointed with Revo and their customer service as they "only tune specific hardware", but also seeing others with that hardware had similar results, i think i've made up my mind....

And before someone jumps in to say there must have been some hardware problem with the car,
logs showed ZERO CF all the way to redline, EGT were in the 800C area, and fueling was spot on
at 0.80...Too bad there was no power whatsoever....Oh well....Moving on....

EDIT: Forgot to say i also tried using an MBC connected in series to the N75 (didn't want to lose
part throttle smoothness) and the results were exactly what i had predicted...The more i tightened the
MBC the more the ECU was droping WG duty to...."compensate" and make my car slow again....
I did reach a point of 12% wg duty...You think i could make 0% ?? Now that would be fun....


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

that thread had two porposes;

1. Show the testing data of the Forge Motorsports protoype 40 mm external wastegate(after two season of racing it's still going strong)

2. Show that Revo tuning's Stage 4 file was designed around an external wastegate setup and why an internal wastegate setup will not work. Even after adjusting the spring preload in the actautor, boost response was all out of sorts. Sorry using Revo Stage 4 software with an internal wastegate will not work properly and that is NOT the software's fault. With the Forge external wastegate( 1 bar spring) the Revo software work as it was designed to do. Mrbikle and I were able to produce 363-370 whp 270-280 wtq on the n75 valve and 12-14 degrees of timing. Roughy was B9 T7 F9 (pump and w/m)

Also EBC's are not hard to setup and with Revo GT3071r software can yeild some very good results set at 21 psi without hurting DD

I doubt that there is anything wrong with your hardware, but IWG's and Revo software is like using legos with Mega Blocks.... If your stuck running a Internal gate and don't want to run a EBC/MBC, than yes Eurodyne is an option. It is what I am using now on my new build.


EDIT: Setting an MBC in parallel with a n75 valve will not an increase in boost pressure, it will only smooth out boost spikes or create a slow boost response. Ask the 1.8t guys, they have tons of data on this


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> that thread had two porposes;
> 
> 1. Show the testing data of the Forge Motorsports protoype 40 mm external wastegate(after two season of racing it's still going strong)
> 
> ...


Well i can tell you i tried using my K04 software too and the car was A BULLET !!!
Boost was controlled excellently, timing was full and my only issue was that the S3 injectors
run out of juice at 1.5 [email protected] 6200 rpm, and Revo refused to make me an RS4 file (which i am positive would work 100%).

Anyways, once again i was supposed to be running stage 4 code, and yet i have the exact request/actual/wg as you did (i am guessing on stage 3). Not even gonna guess why that was...

For sure i didn't expect to get the most out of the car with Revo's software.I DID expect to
bump into all sorts of WG issues (like wg opening,high EGT's etc) but none of that happened.
Instead the SPS was rendered useless (could only lower boost to WG spring levels) and i couldn't even
raise timing.As i said even when using the MBC in SERIES to the N75 the ECU kept lowering WG duty, as if it didn't want me running any boost, regardless the fact that nothing was wrong with the car.

Btw there are a few Revo stage 4 cars over here with PROPER hardware, and all they run is 1.7 peak and 1.4 bar to redline.I don't think there is any way of making power with those boost levels, and keep in mind as i said the are running requested hardware.Not my kind of boost levels...

I hope Eurodyne can tune the car, or i might even go fully custom and strap it on the dyno.

The hardware is way too powerful to keep it running at sissy boost and timing values....

Waste of time and money.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> EDIT: Setting an MBC in parallel with a n75 valve will not an increase in boost pressure, it will only smooth out boost spikes or create a slow boost response. Ask the 1.8t guys, they have tons of data on this


Sorry meant to say in series. 

I know what a parallel setup does.

It was my first time on an MBC and i read everything before installing it.


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Eurodyne Will sell you the Maestro tuning suite and a base file to start from, but after that, tuning the file for your setup is up to you and/or the tuner you hire. 
So far I like it, just took a little getting use to the Bosch lingo and some map valves, but after a weekend, I made some good progress on Mrbikle's car, until he decided to snap a keyway and ruin his valves. ( Pin those crank gears !!!)


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Really disappointed with Revo and their customer service as they "only tune specific hardware", but also seeing others with that hardware had similar results, i think i've made up my mind....



Intentionally using hardware that does not match our specs which have been made public for 4+ years now and then demanding it be fixed is not a customer service issue, it is a customer issue. 

Just because I want Dodge to build me a Ram with a Cummins and an Allison but they won't doesn't mean they have bad customer service, it is not a product they offer so it is my problem not theirs. Just like in my case where I have options to get someone to put an Allison in my ram you have options to find someone who will tune the hardware you chose to run. We never have and never will be in the custom tuning business, fixing issues caused by intentionally running incompatible hardware is custom tuning. 



Just to clarify there is no stage3 3071R software, stage 3 is the k04 and stage 4 is the GT3071R. What you are running and what tms/mrbickle are running would be virtually the same tuning so that had nothing to do with anything.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Eurodyne Will sell you the Maestro tuning suite and a base file to start from, but after that, tuning the file for your setup is up to you and/or the tuner you hire.
> So far I like it, just took a little getting use to the Bosch lingo and some map valves, but after a weekend, I made some good progress on Mrbikle's car, until he decided to snap a keyway and ruin his valves. ( Pin those crank gears !!!)


Well my thinking of using Eurodyne was to be able to "order" custom tunes.If as you say the
local dealer will be responsible for the custom tuning, that is not gonna cut it either...
I believe a dyno tune is in order (i might even start on a high boost RS4 K04 file that believe
would work....).

As for the valves, it happened to me too as you can read (for different reason) and it was a
change to also have the head P&Ped . 

We have a saying over here..."Nothing bad comes without something good" (which could be translated as "Every cloud has a silver lining!". Don't despair about something that happened.Seize the change
and make it better. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Just to clarify there is no stage3 3071R software, stage 3 is the k04 and stage 4 is the GT3071R. What you are running and what tms/mrbickle are running would be virtually the same tuning so that had nothing to do with anything.


REALLY ???? 

http://www.revotechnik.com/index.php?mod=volkswagen#stage3










WOW Chris you should stop skipping the briefings man...

I mean... imagine if i were a customer (dah) and i called you to tell me
what Revo stages are.... :sly:

Not much of a..."support" are you ?? 
Good thing i won't be needing your services any more...

EDIT: Oh forgot to add....










I guess "more extensive engine modifications" is not a ported polished head, a race valvetrain, cams, etc etc....Hmmmm....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

Great you found one of the things our old web guy never fixed and is why he was replaced... But thanks for reminding me that I still need to get them to fix it, hopefully he'll do it now and not wait for the new website to be done. 

I didn't miss the briefing I was actually the one responsible for deciding what was stage 3 and 4 as well as the hardware specs you *chose* to ignore.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Great you found one of the things our old web guy never fixed and is why he was replaced... But thanks for reminding me that I still need to get them to fix it, hopefully he'll do it now and not wait for the new website to be done.
> 
> I didn't miss the briefing I was actually the one responsible for deciding what was stage 3 and 4 as well as the hardware specs you *chose* to ignore.


Why don't you also fix *THE SOFTWARE* while you are at it ??

No one cares what a web site writes....Get it ?? (Hint..hint...)

EDIT:So to sum things up....Revo's STAGE 4 (with what that means) makes 1.4 bar of boost at redline
and 12 degrees on timing on 100 octane gas (or W/M as others have said)....And makes what ? 
360 whp ? Awesome.....i'll pass.... :thumbdown:


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Why don't you also fix *THE SOFTWARE* while you are at it ??


Your hardware is not compatible and never will be compatible with the software. We do not have to fix problems caused by you intentionally using software you knew for 4+ years now would not work. The software does what we say it does and works when used with the hardware it is spec'd for. Because you want to do something different or someone wants to push it further does not mean we have to redo it. 

We sell it everyday around the world, the only complaints come from people who couldn't follow directions. 



> No one cares what a web site writes....Get it ?? (Hint..hint...)


You clearly did which is why i just shot an email to the new web guy to hopefully sort it out so you don't have any more fits about it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Your hardware is not compatible and never will be compatible with the software. We do not have to fix problems caused by you intentionally using software you knew for 4+ years now would not work. The software does what we say it does and works when used with the hardware it is spec'd for. Because you want to do something different or someone wants to push it further does not mean we have to redo it.
> 
> We sell it everyday around the world, the only complaints come from people who couldn't follow directions.
> 
> ...



As i said above running 1.4 bar of boost and 12 degrees of timing on STAGE 4 software isn't my
idea of a TUNE...And those were the numbers people WITH PROPER HARDWARE were making also.

So the problem clearly isn't in the hardware Chris....As much as you'd like people to think.

No wonder there are already two (soon to be more) BT users in these forums that have left Revo
in search for a better tune....That should trouble you if anything at least....

Take the hint !!!


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Matt and I loved working with Revo and running their files. Chris and the others supported us the best they could. Hell they built one hell of DSG file for matt and I's cars. We wanted to do a Rod base file with them, but Chris informed me that wasn't the direction the company wanted to take. That why we switched to Eurodyne, not because of so called **** tunes. Revo's stage 4 tune is not ****ty in anyway. It will produce decent powerband within stock internal limits. the same tune that got me to 12.1-12.3's on n75 controlled boost


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> As i said above running 1.4 bar of boost and 12 degrees of timing on STAGE 4 software isn't my
> idea of a TUNE...


Thanks again for just proving you just don't have any idea what you are talking about. 



> So the problem clearly isn't in the hardware Chris....As much as you'd like people to think.


So you are using the hardware we spec'd and tuned for 4+ years go? Oh right you aren't, you have no right to complain until you actually run it as it was intended. 

You KNOWINGLY used the incorrect hardware, that is not a Revo problem. 



> No wonder there are already two (soon to be more) BT users in these forums that have left Revo
> in search for a better tune....That should trouble you if anything at least....
> 
> Take the hint !!!


TMS and bickle? both who went well beyond what we ever claimed we offered for the software. yeah I know they both wish we went further with the tunes but we never claimed that we would. Our stage 3 1.8t software has been out for just under 10 years now and it is also for limited turbos (set by me once i got here since previously it was a free for all) and does exactly what we claim it does. This isn't always what everyone wants but neither is the option from APR, this is why there are options. Just because you CHOSE to do something else doesn't mean we need to modify our business plan to fit what you want.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Matt and I loved working with Revo and running their files. Chris and the others supported us the best they could. Hell they built one hell of DSG file for matt and I's cars. We wanted to do a Rod base file with them, but Chris informed me that wasn't the direction the company wanted to take. That why we switched to Eurodyne, not because of so called **** tunes. Revo's stage 4 tune is not ****ty in anyway. It will produce decent powerband within stock internal limits. the same tune that got me to 12.1-12.3's on n75 controlled boost


Excellent...This is exactly was i was expecting to hear.

So what you are saying is that Revo's Stage 4 (keep in mind there is NO OTHER) software
is NOT for a forged internals car, runs lower boost than possible for that turbo (GT3071R)
and makes almost the same power as a highly tuned (proper) K04.....

This is EXACTLY what i am trying to say above.It's is a poor excuse for a BT software,
albeit working fine within VERY limited parameters (while Chris is trying to convince people
it's my hardware's fault).

So in other words it's weak sauce...but hey it works...

Don't really feel there is any reason for further discussion.

If you have a BT and want power...just don't get Revo software.

Period.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks again for just proving you just don't have any idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you really believe you can make power with 1.4 bar of boost and 12 degrees of timing
you are clearly in the wrong business man....

Don't quit your night job....


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Excellent...This is exactly was i was expecting to hear.
> 
> So what you are saying is that Revo's Stage 4 (keep in mind there is NO OTHER) software
> is NOT for a forged internals car,


Correct where do we ever claim we have anything beyond that?

Although we will recommend to customers looking to run supplemental systems like methanol to run better rods to prevent damage made possible by low end torque spikes. If they chose to run the software strictly as designed you will not have a problem and as far as I am ware of we have never had a person lose a bottom end due to the tuning. 



> runs lower boost than possible for that turbo (GT3071R)


It runs boost appropriate to keep a stock engine safe and make good reliable power. Why are you not on the phone screaming at VW for selling you a car that ran less boost than possible. That is the logic you are applying to this. 

We could push it further but we learned the hardware with the early 1.8t stage 3 tuning that people will push things beyond what you intended it for and blow motors, they then blame you. It is in the best interest of our reputation to keep everyones rods inside their block. If you want to push things beyond this then there are option in the market for it. 

The percentage of the tuning market looking to even do an upgraded turbo is tiny, the percent of that crowd looking to go bigger and bigger is even smaller. That is not necessarily our target audience and we never said it was. 



> and makes almost the same power as a highly tuned (proper) K04.....


You can push a k04 to its limits and make* less *power than a safely tuned GT3071R, yes this is a known fact, what is your point? 



> This is EXACTLY what i am trying to say above.It's is a poor excuse for a BT software,
> albeit working fine within VERY limited parameters (while Chris is trying to convince people
> it's my hardware's fault).


There are two things here..

One you CHOSE to buy and install the hardwer you knew for several years was never intended to work with our software. 

TWO that you bought software that was never intended to do what you want to do with it.

Neither of those are Revo problems, they are problems you created for yourself and now blame on us. 


Even if we chose to make a file that had potential to make more power your incorrect hardware would not be supported. Your Revo dealer should never have even installed this software on your vehicle knowing you were running incorrect software. You know why you never hear about people having issues with mismatched hardware in the US? I don't allow my dealers to install it and it protects the Revo image. 


There is no point you can possibly make, you intentionally chose to use hardware we did not support and in your head had expectations beyond anything we ever claimed for the software. This is not a customer service problem, it is not a Revo problem period. It wouldn't be the problem of any tuner in this situation. 

I know you are pissed off and you don't like me, but this has nothing to do with me or Revo, you can't blame anyone but yourself.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Correct where do we ever claim we have anything beyond that?
> 
> Although we will recommend to customers looking to run supplemental systems like methanol to run better rods to prevent damage made possible by low end torque spikes. If they chose to run the software strictly as designed you will not have a problem and as far as I am ware of we have never had a person lose a bottom end due to the tuning.
> 
> ...


Ever thought of informing your Greek dealer what REVO STAGE 4 is ??

Cause that is not what he led me to believe...

Maybe i should go visit him tomorrow and see if he has now changed his mind....

Oh and btw....given the all new information in this thread, i am pleased to say
my hardware is working PERFECTLY with weak sauce Revo software.

So i won't be needing your "support" services any longer.

I have to go really tune my car....


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

Chris









GolfRS :facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Btw don't take it personally (or do) but i stopped reading your posts after
i knew what stage 4 is....

So don't waste your time writing how i did wrong and what is right.
Couldn't care less....

What i do care is that i now have to find some real software to run my car.

Hey maybe i'll call APR !!!!


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Ever thought of informing your Greek dealer what REVO STAGE 4 is ??


I don't have a dealer in Greece, we've been over this. However the file your dealer would have used said Stage 4 right in it.. Every file in our library for a GT3071R says stage 4, every file for a k04 says stage 3. For all we know he just called it stage 3 since he knew you'd try to argue with him if he called it stage 4. 

Whether you or He want to call it something else on your own time isn't really my problem nor the people here. The bottom line is I was clarifying the difference between the two since you were clearly confused and under the assumption the TMS/Bickle had special files different from yours. As usual anytime you incorrectly post information regarding Revo products i will correct it, it isn't the forum members who need to suffer since you insist on pretending to know more abut my products then I do.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I don't have a dealer in Greece, we've been over this. However the file your dealer would have used said Stage 4 right in it.. Every file in our library for a GT3071R says stage 4, every file for a k04 says stage 3. For all we know he just called it stage 3 since he knew you'd try to argue with him if he called it stage 4.
> 
> Whether you or He want to call it something else on your own time isn't really my problem nor the people here. The bottom line is I was clarifying the difference between the two since you were clearly confused and under the assumption the TMS/Bickle had special files different from yours. As usual anytime you incorrectly post information regarding Revo products i will correct it, it isn't the forum members who need to suffer since you insist on pretending to know more abut my products then I do.


No the problem is Revo wasn't clear with what boost pressures and what power the
stage 4 software is running (do you see it anywhere in this forum?cause as you said it was
WRONG in your site) so a potential stage 4 client is led to believe that he is getting
REAL big turbo software and not some placebo file to make him think he is running
a big turbo setup....THAT IS THE PROBLEM...

As for the dealer over here, i'm gonna have a chat with him tomorrow and see
what he thinks about all of this.Cause if he KNEW there is no high boost file
for the BT setup and yet he let me go out of my way to try and find out why
the damn car is not boosting....well....you can figure the rest....

And once again...now i'm REALLY not surprised there are no serious Revo BT cars...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> As i said above running 1.4 bar of boost and 12 degrees of timing on STAGE 4 software isn't my
> idea of a TUNE...And those were the numbers people WITH PROPER HARDWARE were making also.


Out of pure curiosity, in your professional opinion, on 93 octane (98 ron), what should the boost pressure, timing advance and lambda be at by 7000 RPM's? How many G/S of Mass airflow should you be seeing? Assume the engine has stock compression (BPY/BWA/AXX), stock head, stock cams, no water/meth or extra injectors and stock intake manifold.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> As usual anytime you incorrectly post information regarding Revo products i will correct it, it isn't the forum members who need to suffer since you insist on pretending to know more abut my products then I do.


FFS Chris...Your F***IN site has incorrect information even as we speak !!!!

And you dare tell me i insist on pretending i know more ???

If you post on your site your d*ick is 2 inches long, how long do you think
everyone is gonna think it is ??

Seriously now.....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Out of pure curiosity, in your professional opinion, on 93 octane (98 ron), what should the boost pressure, timing advance and lambda be at by 7000 RPM's? How many G/S of Mass airflow should you be seeing? Assume the engine has stock compression (BPY/BWA/AXX), stock head, stock cams, no water/meth or extra injectors and stock intake manifold.


On what setup ?

K03 ? K04 ? GT3071 ?

Don't really understand what you want me to "guess".


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> On what setup ?
> 
> K03 ? K04 ? GT3071 ?
> 
> Don't really understand what you want me to "guess".


On Stage 3 or 4 (whatever you want to call it) software for a GT2871R or GT3070R. You mentioned some figures above and said they were "your idea of a TUNE". So, I'm wondering what your idea of a tune really is.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> FFS Chris...Your F***IN site has incorrect information even as we speak !!!!
> 
> And you dare tell me i insist on pretending i know more ???
> 
> ...


[email protected] sincerely asks you questions because maybe he can help you. APR has the tools the help the end user.... 
Why you would allow yourself to be belittled by a vendor that can not offer you any solutions is beyond me. I have told you privately in the past to just use the ignore function. That is what we all do.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> On Stage 3 or 4 (whatever you want to call it) software for a GT2871R or GT3070R. You mentioned some figures above and said they were "your idea of a TUNE". So, I'm wondering what your idea of a tune really is.


Well i cannot get into specific numbers, it also depends on how the car reacts.

Truth is i was never completely satisfied with Revo's tune even on the
K04, which completely ignored my hardware state of tune.They even never
took into consideration my S3 cams and the different pump lobe (which to them
was a non issue...) and the car was continuously running rich at idle making me
believe it could have been a hardware issue...

I mean Revo runs the K04 at 99.6% WG above 6200 and with a timing
of about 15 degrees @ 7000 rpm, but i had ZERO CF throughout the
powerband and was able to max out the SPS at B9T9F9 
without any race gas or W/M, and was left wanting more.

What i had imagined from a real tuner was to be able to request tweaks that
the car COULD handle while being fully aware of the increased stresses
to the car.Instead what i got from Revo were "general" files that did work on the
car but still didn't push it anywhere near the (safe) limit....
And ALWAYS their response to my repeated requests was that Revo doesn't do
custom files (maybe the money got to their heads in the end).

So it seems Revo doesn't care about customer loyalty...
Revo doesn't need to show of it's work through hardware developed cars.
All Revo wants is to make money (no harm in that of course, far from it), and
spending time on tuning is not the way to do it ?
Maybe they forgot how they started...Who knows.... 

So anyway Arin, back on topic, i don't know what a good tune would be on my car.
It could be running 2 bar and 20 degrees of timing @ 7000 rpm on 0.83 lambda.
Or maybe not...The fact is i tried what was Revo's attempt on a BT tune, and
was amazed on how laggy and powerless the car felt.For the life of me i could never imagine
ANYONE paying for software like that, let along installing a 3071R on a STOCK engine...
It's just stupid...simple as that....And yet according to Revo's research, those are the people
that will buy their BT software....Figures....

And to answer your question in a more direct way, i will have to get a custom tuner make me
some software while i'm sitting next to him.For me at least from now on this is the ONLY
proper way to do things....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> [email protected] sincerely asks you questions because maybe he can help you. APR has the tools the help the end user....
> Why you would allow yourself to be belittled by a vendor that can not offer you any solutions is beyond me. I have told you privately in the past to just use the ignore function. That is what we all do.


Truth is i have been loyal to Revo the past years and that didn't do me
much good.I have to say the only reason that was is cause of the dealer here
that always went out of his way to help me.I didn't receive the same
treatment from the rest of the Revo family.Their motto was "this is what you
are getting, now pay and shut up..". Still the software was "ok" so i kept with it.

To be honest i don't believe there is any big software company out there that
can help me tune my car (at least the way i see it now). It would be much better for me
to get a custom tuner tune the car on the dyno and request the tweaks "on the fly".
Never really got to see what the limit of my car is and i am left with the impression all
the money spent on hardware were spent in vain.....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Well i cannot get into specific numbers, it also depends on how the car reacts.
> 
> So anyway Arin, back on topic, i don't know what a good tune would be on my car.
> It could be running 2 bar and 20 degrees of timing @ 7000 rpm on 0.83 lambda.
> ...


That's what I was looking for. This is not a dig on you, revo, or any other tuner, but I think you may be expecting a little too much. 

2 bars of Boost with .83 Lambda at 7000 may be more than your fueling system can handel. I'd really have to look at stage 4 logs to see where we maxed out the fueling system on pump fuel to be sure, but I don't believe we were running 2 bars by redline on pump. 

Timing advance of 20 deg, with those specs, is impossible, and was really what I wanted to see. That's where I think the expectation is too out of spec. I know you know that increasing boost pressure means you'll decrease ignition advance (if everything else stayed the same). If I were to guess, at 7000 RPM with 2 bars of boost, .83 lambda, pump fuel, no w/m, you'd have difficulty seeing more than 5 degrees, which is a real bummer.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

GolfRS said:


> I mean Revo runs the K04 at 99.6% WG above 6200 and with a timing
> of about 15 degrees @ 7000 rpm, but i had ZERO CF throughout the
> powerband and was able to max out the SPS at B9T9F9
> without any race gas or W/M, and was left wanting more.


One thing you need to be aware of is that it's not uncommon for tuners to desensitize knock correction. This leads to less reduction of timing per knock value. 

Dave


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> That's what I was looking for. This is not a dig on you, revo, or any other tuner, but I think you may be expecting a little too much.
> 
> 2 bars of Boost with .83 Lambda at 7000 may be more than your fueling system can handel. I'd really have to look at stage 4 logs to see where we maxed out the fueling system on pump fuel to be sure, but I don't believe we were running 2 bars by redline on pump.
> 
> Timing advance of 20 deg, with those specs, is impossible, and was really what I wanted to see. That's where I think the expectation is too out of spec. I know you know that increasing boost pressure means you'll decrease ignition advance (if everything else stayed the same). If I were to guess, at 7000 RPM with 2 bars of boost, .83 lambda, pump fuel, no w/m, you'd have difficulty seeing more than 5 degrees, which is a real bummer.


But you didn't seem to understand what i was trying to say.

I didn't say THIS is how the car SHOULD be programmed.What i said is that software should be tailor made according to what it can handle.Those were extreme values i used just to get the reaction you
gave me.But you see not even you know what "might" be possible (maybe no one can) cause you are not here, we are not on the dyno with a wideband and a laptop...So you see it's more than just making a file and wishing it works....

What is a fact though is that what Revo is posing as BT software is really weak in ANY standards for a
BT setup, well at least for someone that respects his car and is not using the 3071R on a STOCK motor...Once again if that is the clientele REvo is after, i'm not part of it...

P.S. I don't think Revo had too many customers on K04 that were maxing the SPS on pump (Premium European) fuel either.But that is what my car was capable of...What am i supposed to say to that ?That it is not normal and i was expecting too much....but GOT IT ???


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

crew219 said:


> One thing you need to be aware of is that it's not uncommon for tuners to desensitize knock correction. This leads to less reduction of timing per knock value.
> 
> Dave


That is also true but it is the same for all Revo cars.

Not many Revo cars run 9-9-9 even on..."desensitized software"....as you say.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

i'll just say that i guarantee no k04 was making more power then i was on my 'pump gas' revo tune...

except maybe that guy on nitrous. lol


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Did some more logs yesterday using the "in series" connected MBC and i think i'm gonna
have some fueling issues with this turbo.... :laugh:

The turbo maxed out the RS4 injectors @ 5500 rpm with just 1.6 bar of boost...

Target lambda was at 0.80 for some reason but even if i could purposely lean it from the software
i don't really know how much room there is for the RS4 injectors (at the present 130 bar).

If only i had the proper software...I can't even test the limits of the car the way it is now... 

P.S. Don't know if it is the Revo software fault but the ECU is having a hard time actually controlling
requested lambda figures.It could be the fact as i said that the pump lobe is different and that is not
been taken into account...Dunno....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Here's another little update...

I was able to run the car with 22 psi boost pressure at redline today.
HUGE improvement over the past few days.
Unfortunately timing could not be raised further through the SPS so i am stuck
with 12 degrees at redline 

What is very interesting is that car seems to have plenty of fuel up top...
At what point/pressure should i be experiencing fuel cuts ??
I thought about it and am not going to push the car beyond what the
stock fueling system can deliver (except in cases of failure).

Gonna up the boost a bit more now....This is getting exciting !!! :laugh:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

What cr are you running?
Low side pump?
Afs?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> What cr are you running?
> Low side pump?
> Afs?


Stock 10.5 CR.
Pump is stock and @ 4 bar at redline on load.
0.80 lambda at redline.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

You should have more room to go higher.
On mine the max i could run wo meth was 22. I had 9.1.1 and an upgraded low side. On others ive gone 25+ wo issues with your specs.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> You should have more room to go higher.
> On mine the max i could run wo meth was 22. I had 9.1.1 and an upgraded low side. On others ive gone 25+ wo issues with your specs.


So what you are saying is with lower compression you were not able to run more boost ? 

I'm confused....Shouldn't it be the other way around ?

Don't really know what the boost limit is fir this turbo with our gas quality, but i am
planning to run the car more on timing than boost, without caring about maximum power...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Lower compression means you need more boost which means more gas to make the same power.

On my old car, i was hitting fuel issues WAY before others with the only major difference was cr.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Lower compression means you need more boost which means more gas to make the same power.


Exactly.Which is why i'm puzzled by you saying you could only go 22 psi.

Did you mean after that you started running out of fuel ?? 

That's a HUGE difference if that is the case.Cause that would mean lowering compression
in the TFSI is actually "counterproductive..."... Never would have thought....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Yea thats exactly what im saying. I never suggest lowering cr on an fsi, its just plain stupid. Fuel is our biggest issue so why make it work harder??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Yea thats exactly what im saying. I never suggest lowering cr on an fsi, its just plain stupid. Fuel is our biggest issue so why make it work harder??


Sure i agree 100% but that as you know is the "American tuning school" and things are
totally different with the TFSI.

Of course you guys have the fuel quality to work against, but i'd rather make whatever
power i can on stock CR, than actually running "empty boost" and looking for fuel....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

i haven't ran into fueling issues yet... I think a lot has to do with the way the fueling tables are built

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> i haven't ran into fueling issues yet... I think a lot has to do with the way the fueling tables are built
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


So what you are saying is the reason for all the fueling starvation issues is the actual
programing ??

Also, aren't you using the crown pistons ?? That might actually have something to
do with it. I have PLENTY of fuel up top and i am now at 22 psi.And i mean PLENTY.

I do have some issues down low from the turbo spooling too fast, but i think i can
solve them by increasing rail requested a little bit.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> i haven't ran into fueling issues yet... I think a lot has to do with the way the fueling tables are built
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


Im no tuner but if your making power your going to hit a fuel wall PERIOD. I hit it years ago and decided how to get around it. I find it very hard to believe that you have no fuel issues and that the maestro is re-engineering the fsi fueling. I have been running Chris's files for years and the fuel issues have remained constant. 

What are you running for fueling?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

i would say tuning has a lot to do with it. And yes, I have crowned pistons.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

guess we will see where my numbers come out. lol. 

and we reworked a lot of maestro stuff


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

OH SNAP !!!! :laugh:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

cat cams?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> cat cams?


Nope....

Schricks to replace the S3 cams...hopefully.... :thumbup:

Don't hold your breath about the cat cams.....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Have to say this car just LOVES boost.... :heart:

Maybe it's because of the IWG but the more i push it the better it behaves. 

Now at 26 psi. opcorn:

Gonna finalize the settings (for a while at least) and make a video.... 

It's nuts !!!:screwy:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Welcome to the world of real big turbos.... K04 ain't so great now huh? Lol

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> Welcome to the world of real big turbos.... K04 ain't so great now huh? Lol
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


Well the K04 is fine for what it does.Can't say i have the same feeling of
"peacefulness" running @ 26 psi redline than pushing my K04 to the limit.
You of all people have experienced what happens when you push things too far,
and hardware failures become increasingly frequent the more you increase HP.

Having said that this turbo really shines.I planned it so that i don't lose much of the
low down torque, and it worked.So comparing to the K04, yeah i'm happy...
But you can't buy this off the shelf, and i can't imagine a regular GT3071R being this fun.
Plus, on a fully developed engine things are different than just slapping a BT on a
"rods only" engine.But cost is completely different also.So once again the K04 is fine for this
car.I just like to fool around.... :laugh:

And finally, the "good" thing about the K04 is that it maxes before the engine does.
It is REALLY hard to stop once you know which way to turn the MBC knob or which
button to push on the EBC...Risky stuff...NOT for everyone....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Made another log run today trying to finalize the settings.

Car runs with SPS settings B9T9F9 (yep thats with BT software)
and so far no issues.

Think i won't increase boost any more (although the turbo doesn't break a sweat)
and i will run it @ 26 psi on the dyno to see what it makes.

I might drop timing to T8 though cause i did see a few mid CF on repeated pulls,
so i might play it...safer...

P.S. I know it's not really practical but what is the formula for estimating HP out of
MAF readings ?? Just want to compare to what i was seeing with the K04....

P.S. 2 To be fair to Revo the software is doing a good job keeping up with the boost increase.
Now if that is the software or the ECU doing all the work....i can't be certain....


----------



## bacillus (Apr 21, 2011)

MAF g/s divided by 0.8 = hp

Probably be incorrect for you with your present timing.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

bacillus said:


> MAF g/s divided by 0.8 = hp
> 
> Probably be incorrect for you with your present timing.


You mean it could be more ??

I've seen large deviations between cars and their g/s readings even with
the same turbo on.Could be because of the different intakes around.

What i can say is i am seeing +50 g/s from when i had the K04...

How does that sound ????


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

yea, i did see some failure, but I dont mind... tms and I have really kicked it up a few notches in the last few weeks.... not too much info is going to be shared til after the builds are both done, and dynos (like the last ones) are finished on the dyno we normally use....

also might have a few runs, possibly this weekend.

I still am curious to see what you did in terms of a turbo.... Im still thinking a modified gtx2871... lol

:beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone know what is the "boost limit" for a normal GT2871R ??

I think i'm way past that...

How will i know if i've maxed the turbo when i'm on an MBC ??

Just wanna know how much headroom i've got with this... :what:

P.S. I'm kind of undecided now...What would be best at this point... to lower boost until the CF's drop and keep it at that to work with a bit more timing ?

OR

Lower timing to T8 and keep the boost the same ??

I know the HP output is different, but i don't know what would be best...

Any suggestions ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so i am close to finalizing the settings, but i've encountered a puzzle
i don't really know how to react to...

I've tried setting timing to both T8 and T9.
Needless to say the car feels much peppier on T9 than T8 and lag is
almost absent.I was experiencing slightly increased timing pull though
and decided to set and log with T8 and the same boost.

Results were "surprising" cause even though i did pull less timing with
T8 (0 to -1 or -2) i also saw MUCH less timing than what i did with T9
that was pulling -3 or more at times.To make things clearer, I was getting
for example 8 degrees with T8 and -2 timing pull, and getting 11 to 13 degrees
on T9 with -4 to -5 timing pull.... :screwy:

So i really don't know what to make of it.I want to stay with T9 and the car loves it
but timing pull is a concern.On the other hand car feels great and actual timing
shows it can handle it....

I'm not really sure what my choice should be... 

P.S. A tech told me it could be cause i may be hitting some sort of "torque limit" and the car is "artificially" pulling timing.Is that even possible ? Sounds reasonable, but i really don't know...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Video somehow got posted twice and can't be edited.... 

Ah wth...double the pleasure....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

video not found... sounds like you're getting it dialed in though.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

As promised, this is the first video of this setup.

Still a lot of things to take care of (i seem to be having boost drop at high revs and
need to check if i need a harder wg spring or something is going on..), but
it's a start.

Now keep in mind i have wheel spin issues with 3rd and part of 4th and i'm not really
rushing the gear changes (yeah ok...) plus i'm on Revo's "stock motor" software (whatever that
means) but you can get an idea....

Still a lot of changes to come (along with new software if this turns out :thumbdown: ).

Here you go. 


[video]http://s148.photobucket.com/albums/s28/GolfRS/?action=view¤t=first_run.mp4[/video]


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> video not found... sounds like you're getting it dialed in though.


It's really VERY early.

I have yet to find the "limit" for this turbo (haven't gone above 26 psi which this video is with)
and i don't really know if Revo's software is holding me back...

I saw more timing with T9 and -6 CF than with T8 and -3.....

Someone suggested there might be a "torque limit" on the software and i am getting passed
that so software holds me back....Can't really be certain....

I'm also using a 13 psi WG and that might be having issues in the high revs when exhaust gases
might be opening it.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

revo does have some load calculation limits built into the software. that is very possible you are hitting them.

is this turbo a gtx2871? or a modified version?

I am having good success with my new comp turbo build.... dynoed at 30 psi the other day!


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

if you are still using the n75 valve, you may be experiencing the boost being cut back by the software, I doubt its your wastegate spring that that pressure. Is it internal or externally gated?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> revo does have some load calculation limits built into the software. that is very possible you are hitting them.


Hmmm yeah that would probably confirm what i heard...
One more reason to ditch this software... :banghead:



> is this turbo a gtx2871? or a modified version?


There is no gt*X*287*1*...There is only gtx 2863 and gtx2867.
If you wanted to say if this is a regular gt2871R...no it isn't...
It flows MUCH more....



> I am having good success with my new comp turbo build.... dynoed at 30 psi the other day!


Yes that is good.Post a video of a pull when you can.I'm curious to see the differences. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> if you are still using the n75 valve, you may be experiencing the boost being cut back by the software, I doubt its your wastegate spring that that pressure. Is it internal or externally gated?



Well i am running the N75 in series with an MBC and software cuts it off when a certain
boost limit is reached, so the car actually works off the MBC.N75 has no control on WOT.

As for the WG, it is a possibility, cause the turbo is IWGed and pressure might be
pushing it open.

Will have to try the harder spring at some point to see the difference....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

run a full MBC or EBC to get rid of the boost cut up top... revo tune does that when pushing higher timing numbers as well as high boost.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> run a full MBC or EBC to get rid of the boost cut up top... revo tune does that when pushing higher timing numbers as well as high boost.


But how does it do that ?

The N75 is pinned at 0.8%.

Unless it is closing the TB on purpose.... :banghead:

I don't want to use the MBC alone cause of reported on/off boost (don't know if it
also happens on the TFSI and DBW)


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

there are ways to get around the throttle closure... but its kinda rigging the safety systems.... 

you just need a new tune.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

A few more pulls...

[video]http://youtu.be/WQUwAiBo82U?hd=1[/video]


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone know what is the size (diameter) of the Hallman Pro RX MBC inner steel ball ?

I want to try something and need that info.

Anyone ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone have a clue at what horsepower levels do the RS4's max out ?

I seem to be starting to run out of injection time...:what:

WTF.....


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't know if this will help, but with RS4 check valve and 9 gph of w/m I am seening a peak of 7.14 ms, but smooths to 6.8 ms injector duty cycle at 560 whp with a peak of 130 bar request at 5k on my tunes.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> I don't know if this will help, but with RS4 check valve and 9 gph of w/m I am seening a peak of 7.14 ms, but smooths to 6.8 ms injector duty cycle at 560 whp with a peak of 130 bar request at 5k on my tunes.


I'm not using W/M but i just saw 8.41 ms @ 7000 rpm...

Didn't want to go higher on the revs...

What is the injection limit for those injectors above 7000 ?


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> I'm not using W/M but i just saw 8.41 ms @ 7000 rpm...
> 
> Didn't want to go higher on the revs...
> 
> What is the injection limit for those injectors above 7000 ?


I have only seen documentation on the general design of this type of injector (the document didn’t specify what part number). 10 ms was highest allowable timing to maintain the recommended spray pattern. BUT with that said here we are putting them into cylinders that the injectors weren’t design for and running them at higher rail pressures. 
I can say at 6-7 ms through 700-8100 rpms, the injectors are working well for us


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> I have only seen documentation on the general design of this type of injector (the document didn’t specify what part number). 10 ms was highest allowable timing to maintain the recommended spray pattern. BUT with that said here we are putting them into cylinders that the injectors weren’t design for and running them at higher rail pressures.
> I can say at 6-7 ms through 700-8100 rpms, the injectors are working well for us


So what's going on now ??

Have i reached the limit of the injectors ??

I might be experiencing signs of LPFP maxing out, and that is causing the high injector time
(must log rail pressure, didn't do that today since i wasn't expecting to lean out...).

My low pressure was @ 3 bar at 7000 rpm...Some say that is acceptable...Some might not...


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Yes, if the low side is really starving the high presuure system, the ECU could increase the injector timing to try and meet the requested lambda valves. Is your injection Correction erratic? Example: ramps up to +25% then drops -10 or so then back up again to +10 or so. 

I won’t go below 4 bar on my setups

How is low pressure side setup? OEM?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Yes, if the low side is really starving the high presuure system, the ECU could increase the injector timing to try and meet the requested lambda valves. Is your injection Correction erratic? Example: ramps up to +25% then drops -10 or so then back up again to +10 or so.
> 
> I won’t go below 4 bar on my setups
> 
> How is low pressure side setup? OEM?


Correction wasn't erratic as you say up until i upped the pressure today to 27 psi.

Wasn't really expecting to face fueling issues so suddenly so i wasn't logging many fuel data.

I did log the low pressure pump (which is OEM still) and it was at 3 bar on that pull.

Will have to log just fuel data next time just to make sure.

If it is indeed the rear pump i'm just gonna go with the stock updated one that is supposed to hold pressure better.It might also be mine is just..."tired" from all these years.

I believe the "CL" version is the latest one...


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

May I recommend the APR 1.8t drop in or the Genesis 1.8t drop in one over the latest "CL' rev pump. I have the latest CL and a APR drop in, by far the APR drop in is a better performer.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> May I recommend the APR 1.8t drop in or the Genesis 1.8t drop in one over the latest "CL' rev pump. I have the latest CL and a APR drop in, by far the APR drop in is a better performer.


That's not what i've read around the net.

There are people that opted for the APR pump and it failed pretty quick.

These same people say the CL version was just as good as the APR and it also
lasts....


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

i guess like those famous infomericals say "results may vary". 

I have a good 1-1/2 years on my APR pump and Mrbikle has a good year on his and our best results were on the APR drop-in

if you don't want to use the APR or Gensis options, then definitly look into a upgraded lpfp. As we all there so many options out there......


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> i guess like those famous infomericals say "results may vary".
> 
> I have a good 1-1/2 years on my APR pump and Mrbikle has a good year on his and our best results were on the APR drop-in
> 
> if you don't want to use the APR or Gensis soultion, then definitly look into a upgraded lpfp. As we all there so many option out there......


What is the Gensis solution and don't you mean... "there *aren't* so many options out there ?"


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_45&products_id=1615

LPFP comment was meant to be a joke


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_45&products_id=1615
> 
> it was meant to be a joke


Hmmm interesting pump....

I'm guessing it completely replaces the stock pump unlike the APR one that
goes into the stock one....

Still, i need to see proof the CL one is not as good as those....

I prefer to use a pump that was made last year than one that was made 20 years ago (well... give or take a few....)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

"Houston we have a problem..." :banghead:




























I will try upgrading the low side, but seeing the HPFP is keeping up the pressure i don't think that will help much....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

i think you may be suprised.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

mrbikle said:


> i think you may be suprised.


X2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> i think you may be suprised.


What do you mean ?

Are you saying upgrading the low side will help ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

OK....

Things are moving along slowly...

Got a new rear pump that should solve ALL my fueling needs.Still need to finalize the
OEM modification to make it work but i don't think it will be an issue.

Also, getting ready to install the Schrick cams starting next month so thinks are
about to get even more interesting... :laugh:

I need to get the car "stable" and hardware trouble free to be able to assess the
(almost certain) software tuning that will be necessary, and then FINALLY
make it to a dyno.... opcorn:

Thinks are crawling along nicely...:banghead:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

As i said getting ready to do the cams soon.

Meanwhile getting some tools together.

Custom made piston stop anyone ? 










Also, i am in the process of deciding whether i should also redo my timing belt service while i am
at it.This belt has ~35k miles on it but also survived the head failure (yeah ok so i didn't change it then either...It only had like 10k miles on it then).Maybe i should only change the belt and leave the rollers and wp as is ??What are your thoughts on this ??

Really curious to see what the Schricks do as opposed to the S3's.Have been hearing the
S3's are like 90% of what the Schricks give (especially on an OEM turbo), but let's just see....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Why not try the Cat cams? Ive been dealing with the owner recently to get these dialed in and it looks promising. To install them correctly you have to do some testing and clearance checking but its not bad.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Why not try the Cat cams? Ive been dealing with the owner recently to get these dialed in and it looks promising. To install them correctly you have to do some testing and clearance checking but its not bad.


 Well the first reason is that i already have the Schricks waiting to get in. 

The other reason is that my contacts tell me there are some issues not yet ironed
out with the Cat cams, and i honestly don't want to take any more chances.
I've already blown a head once...

The Schricks are known quality and reliable.Even if there would be a 10 bhp difference
between the two, i would still choose the Schricks cause of their name and cause people
have already installed them with no issues.

Besides, according to what Arin has been saying the last few weeks, it doesn't matter
what you install...you won't make any power from the cams...
So let's see if i can prove him wrong.

P.S.Btw, there has also been some reference to the Ferrea kits having issues, and that is ALSO
something that my contacts tell me.I am hoping my machine shop checked mine before installation cause i am not having any issues at all....

P.S 2 So what do u think...Do i need to do the timing belt again :/ ? I would rather spend the cash on something else, like an adjustable timing gear or the kit with the pins for the crankshaft pulley (not convinced that is necessary either though...)


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Cat cams no longer have issues. 

Ferrea does have issues which im working on finding a solution. 

I respect Arin a ton but you cant tell me a larger cam wont make more power if the supporting mods are there. Of course im not in the prime Apr customer base so y needs are differnt then most. Ive scene a 90 hp jump with the Cat stg2s over stockers. 

Id change the belt bc your pulling it off anyway.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Cat cams no longer have issues.
> 
> Ferrea does have issues which im working on finding a solution.
> 
> ...


 That's CRAZY HP from a set of cams... 

What setup was this on, or are you referring to a different motor maybe ??

Don't really know why APR says cams don't give any HP...I mean ok a stage 2 cam is not
necessarily what most people would choose, but damn it 90 hp means even a stage 1 cam might
give at least half that...I would be ecstatic if i can get 30 bhp from the Schricks, which to my estimate if a really conservative number.Talking to Schrick, they advertise a 15 to 20 bhp on a STOCK CAR...
Now i don't necessarily believe that, but 30 bhp from a BT car is a possibility...

Once again, UNFORTUNATELY APR like it is common practice for big selling companies is most probably trying to make it more profitable for them to sell these kits, and "removing" expensive parts like valvetrain kits (they have to purchase) and Schrick cams (they have to purchase) leave large margin for profit from IN HOUSE CNC cylinder head machining (they already paid for the machine).

P.S. I am guessing that if my Ferrea kit had issues i would already be aware of them....am i correct ??


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

IMAN973 said:


> Cat cams no longer have issues.
> 
> Ferrea does have issues which im working on finding a solution.
> 
> I respect Arin a ton but you cant tell me a larger cam wont make more power if the supporting mods are there. Of course im not in the prime Apr customer base so y needs are differnt then most. Ive scene a 90 hp jump with the Cat stg2s over stockers.


. Arin and APR should know better you can't just throw in a set of cams and expect gains. Like any performance parts its a combination of support parts that need to work together to get those gains. If you have airflow restrictions upsteam and or down stream of the cams how can you expect gains ? Bob. G


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> . Arin and APR should know better you can't just throw in a set of cams and expect gains. Like any performance parts its a combination of support parts that need to work together to get those gains. If you have airflow restrictions upsteam and or down stream of the cams how can you expect gains ? Bob. G


 Sure but this is what i find "funny" about this whole thing..

I would expect APR to have already dealt with the "restrictions" or the conditions you mention
BEFORE addressing the cams...It is kind of hard to imagine a company like APR
just throwing in the cams as you say, ESPECIALLY since Arin has already said they worked
together with Schrick and used even custom grinds to no avail...

It is more "practical" for me to imagine APR saw the gains but the cost of the cams didn't justify
their lack of profit and possible "adverse reactions...".


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

IMAN973 said:


> Cat cams no longer have issues.
> 
> *Ferrea does have issues which im working on finding a solution.*
> 
> ...


 Arin said that the retainers are flawed and too long causing collisions into the valve stem when the spring is fully compressed? Yet it does not appear everyone has issues, what causes only some to have this problem if this is indeed the issue? And how can you fix this?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

mark920 said:


> Arin said that the retainers are flawed and too long causing collisions into the valve stem when the spring is fully compressed? Yet it does not appear everyone has issues, what causes only some to have this problem if this is indeed the issue? And how can you fix this?


 You mean valve stem seals. And no thats not the issue im having. When a company has a product that is known to be engineered correctly and working for years, and out of no where theres issues, its usually caused by a manufacturing defect. It seems theres a problem with a batch of retainers they made. My issue still is caused by the retainer but its not hitting the seal. Mine are being stuck open at cylinder tdc. 

What does bother me about the company is that they wont change their design to increase the limits of their kit. They developed thier train what, 5 or so years ago? There was no high lift cams at that time. Now we have more cam options and we need a valvetrain that can handle it.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Sure but this is what i find "funny" about this whole thing..
> 
> It is more "practical" for me to imagine APR saw the gains but the cost of the cams didn't justify
> their lack of profit and possible "adverse reactions...".


 :thumbup:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> That's CRAZY HP from a set of cams...
> 
> What setup was this on, or are you referring to a different motor maybe ??
> 
> P.S. I am guessing that if my Ferrea kit had issues i would already be aware of them....am i correct ??


 Yep and they dont even have a big duration. After i get my vt issues resolved, Id love to see some 280s to be produced soon  

This was on a bpy. It made 49x then swaped them out and made 58x. 

Yea your car wouldnt be running with open valves or you would be burning oil if the seals were contacted.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Yep and they dont even have a big duration. After i get my vt issues resolved, Id love to see some 280s to be produced soon
> 
> This was on a bpy. It made 49x then swaped them out and made 58x.
> 
> Yea your car wouldnt be running with open valves or you would be burning oil if the seals were contacted.


 
Wait....I AM burning oil...But it's like 1 liter ever 2000 km...Is that the amount you are suggesting ? :sly:

Also, the Schricks have a higher lift than the S3's (even if it's like 0.3 mm)..
Am i gonna be having an issue with that ??

What should i look for now i'm doing the swap ?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Wait....I AM burning oil...But it's like 1 liter ever 2000 km...Is that the amount you are suggesting ? :sly:
> 
> Also, the Schricks have a higher lift than the S3's (even if it's like 0.3 mm)..
> Am i gonna be having an issue with that ??
> ...


 I have not scene the problems Arin is describing but if what hes saying is true then check the valve seals for contact. Check for reminiscence of burnt oil on the inside of the valve as well. Did you install the shims that came with the ferrea kit? If so which size: .9 or 1.3mm?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> I have not scene the problems Arin is describing but if what hes saying is true then check the valve seals for contact. Check for reminiscence of burnt oil on the inside of the valve as well. Did you install the shims that came with the ferrea kit? If so which size: .9 or 1.3mm?


 Well i got the kit from Issam so i am guessing he sent me the "regular" .9mm shims...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Well i got the kit from Issam so i am guessing he sent me the "regular" .9mm shims...


 Yes those are the standard ones. Are you sure they were installed?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Yes those are the standard ones. Are you sure they were installed?


 Well...Give me some time and i'll tell you cause i am also doing lifters... 

But why are u asking ?

Shims have nothing to do with what we are talking about...Or do they ? :sly:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

They 100% do. 

Fk it, i said i wouldnt go into specifics but heres the issues im having. When i install a lifter without a shim, the valve stays closed at tdc. When i install a shim the valve stays open at tdc. When i install the 1.3mm shim the valve is opened more then with the .9 shim. I cant check the seal to retainer clearance with the valve open so i cant confirm the Apr findings. This happens with the stock cams as well.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> They 100% do.
> 
> Fk it, i said i wouldnt go into specifics but heres the issues im having. When i install a lifter without a shim, the valve stays closed at tdc. When i install a shim the valve stays open at tdc. When i install the 1.3mm shim the valve is opened more then with the .9 shim. I cant check the seal to retainer clearance with the valve open so i cant confirm the Apr findings. This happens with the stock cams as well.


 Well the 1.3 shims is definitely gonna lift the valve more, and that is what Issam also asked me about when i told him i wanted to change from the 0.9 to the 1.3mm shims.

The valve should be closed though...AFAIK there was an issue with a batch of the Ferrea retainers that
were machined badly.I don't know if my machine show checked and corrected that error before install
so i don't even know if i am effected by this.

Are you saying that without the shims your valves close normally ?AFAIK the bad retainers also cause a clearance issue even with STOCK CAMS... :screwy:

So this is a fine HUGE mess...Let's see how it plays out.... :banghead:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Are you saying that without the shims your valves close normally ?AFAIK the bad retainers also cause a clearance issue even with STOCK CAMS... :screwy:


 Yes thats what im experiencing. The problem is that you need those shims at higher rpms.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Yes thats what im experiencing. The problem is that you need those shims at higher rpms.


 So you are saying you are losing compression ?? 

I don't believe it is "normal" to have the valve open even with shims.

I will have to check mine and post.


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

IMAN973 said:


> Yes thats what im experiencing. The problem is that you need those shims at higher rpms.


 Up to what rpm can you rev to safely without the shims?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> So you are saying you are losing compression ??
> 
> I don't believe it is "normal" to have the valve open even with shims.
> 
> I will have to check mine and post.


 I dont have the head on the car but id have no compression if i did. The 1.3mm shim opens it up a lot. If you want ill post pics but its kind of obvious the valves are open.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

mark920 said:


> Up to what rpm can you rev to safely without the shims?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 Contact Ferrea direct and ask. There was a guy who didnt use them and bent the valves BAD. Granted he was reving to the moon but the failure still happened. Normal rev limit is ok, its when you keep going higher is when your asking for trouble.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I wouldn't use the Ferrea springs without shims...It's not only the rpm potential
only but also the fact the harder springs make the valve slap harder against the
seat, and the shims help the cushioning by compressing the hydro lifters more than stock.

As for the valves staying open, did you measure everything and compared it to
OEM dimensions ??That would be the first step.

Pics are always welcome


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I wouldn't use the Ferrea springs without shims...It's not only the rpm potential
> only but also the fact the harder springs make the valve slap harder against the
> seat, and the shims help the cushioning by compressing the hydro lifters more than stock.
> 
> ...


 Yea everythings the same besides the retainers.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Yea everythings the same besides the retainers.


 So you measured the retainers and they were "off" ?

As i said i know of a batch (let's hope) of badly machined retainers that caused
retainer to valve seal and valve to piston clearance issues.

It could be the retainer is not positioning where it should thus causing the valve
to protrude when it shouldn't.Check the retainers and if possible
have them re machined (dunno if it's possible), or get new ones....

Haven't the slightest clue how my kit is.... :what:

P.S. What i also find strange is that ONE of the valves is open and the other one closed...
Could it be only "some" of the retainers are flawed ?It would be reasonable if they were from a different machined batch...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

I dont know what they are suppose to measure so i cant check. They are different then stock but i dont have a correct one to verify it. 

Sorry the pics were for testing purposes. One valve had no shim, one had .9 shim, and the other was 1.3. Look at the varying size of the valve openings.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> I dont know what they are suppose to measure so i cant check. They are different then stock but i dont have a correct one to verify it.
> 
> Sorry the pics were for testing purposes. One valve had no shim, one had .9 shim, and the other was 1.3. Look at the varying size of the valve openings.


 Well my guess is the retainers are not machined right.

Please check your retainer to stem seal clearance.

If it measures 10.66mm....well i'm a tuning GOD... :laugh:


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

IMan If the valves stay closed on the valve seat when there NO CAMS in place you prob need to clearance the Tip end of valve stem some manufacturers make them long because of many different configuration and they leave it to machinist to cut as needed. I would put dial indicator from the combustion chamber side on the valve head with the cams removed and zero the indicator then bolt the cams back in and this amount measured is what's needed to be remove from the stem. This really should be done for each and every valve to be 100% accurate. Make sure you have the correct lifter in place for your setup depending on cam lift and rpm. I would double check that there enough room for the lifter tip so it won't hit inside of the retainer as it pivots for the given amount that's needed to be removed off each stem tip. Honestly the spring height should be technically checked for the spring manufacturers seat pressure. I could go on and on this is why a good machinest is pricey to assemble a cylinder head properly especially when your going outside the original rpm it was designed to function. Good luck sorting things out and getting things back on track. Bob. G. :thumbup:


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

yeah the Mexican dude, I know what you are talking about... have there been any other reported cases of the problem you are having? Why do you think you are having this issue?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

Have any of you guys seen the south African mk5 build where the guy went all out in the ferrea valve train and ceramic coated the valves ?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mark920 said:


> Have any of you guys seen the south African mk5 build where the guy went all out in the ferrea valve train and ceramic coated the valves ?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 LOL...WHY ????? 

I'm gonna ceramic coat my flaps.

I've heard it helps....A LOT....

EDIT: I found it...This is hilarious...It's almost like this guy bought tons of the stuff in a sale and didn't
know what to do with what was still left....


JE 83mm ceramic coated (Top and sides)
Ceramic coated the Ferrea valves
Ceramic coated the head combustion chamber
Ceramic coated the head ports
Ceramic coated the ATP exhaust manifold
Ceramic coated the turbine exhaust housing
Ceramic coated the full length of ATP DP

P.S.On second thought i think i'll ceramic coat my penis...Maybe it will slide better and not overheat from too much sex.


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> LOL...WHY ?????
> 
> I'm gonna ceramic coat my flaps.
> 
> ...


 Yeah I thought it was odd, but maybe ceramic coating does make some of a difference? Nonetheless, the reason I brought it up is because it does not appear that build had any issues with the valves but at the time when I first read about it I wasnt looking for specifics of how the head was built, I just remembered dude went overboard by ceramic coating everything... anyone know if he used shims?


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

Here it is I found it again, http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108706 
He never explicitly says he uses the shims but he shows a picture of them and he has absolutely no gap between the valves and his head... but this was from 2009 so who knows how the production processes have changed for Ferrea since then and if the retainers are even made in the same way...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> IMan If the valves stay closed on the valve seat when there NO CAMS in place you prob need to clearance the Tip end of valve stem some manufacturers make them long because of many different configuration and they leave it to machinist to cut as needed. I would put dial indicator from the combustion chamber side on the valve head with the cams removed and zero the indicator then bolt the cams back in and this amount measured is what's needed to be remove from the stem. This really should be done for each and every valve to be 100% accurate. Make sure you have the correct lifter in place for your setup depending on cam lift and rpm. I would double check that there enough room for the lifter tip so it won't hit inside of the retainer as it pivots for the given amount that's needed to be removed off each stem tip. Honestly the spring height should be technically checked for the spring manufacturers seat pressure. I could go on and on this is why a good machinest is pricey to assemble a cylinder head properly especially when your going outside the original rpm it was designed to function. Good luck sorting things out and getting things back on track. Bob. G. :thumbup:


 Bob, 
Thanks for the help. I have never heard of that before even from other platforms. 

Ive sold dozens of these via INA and ive never had a problem until now. Ferrea would not redesign their kits without telling their distributors of the extra install labor. Hell Ferrea wouldnt even redesign their kits to allow more cushion with the bigger cams never mind redesign the valves for no reason. 

Also I removed a valve and checked it against a stock valve and its exactly the same size excluding the oversized bottom. 

Its the retainers im fairly sure of it. Just waiting to hear back.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mark920 said:


> Here it is I found it again, http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108706
> He never explicitly says he uses the shims but he shows a picture of them and he has absolutely no gap between the valves and his head... but this was from 2009 so who knows how the production processes have changed for Ferrea since then and if the retainers are even made in the same way...


 Don't go too far man.I have the exact same kit and i have no issues.

Unless of course my machine shop did something without telling me....

Yes IMAN973...i believe it's the retainers also.Thing is did any other of the people
you've sold this too also have similar issues ??


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Ive been out of the loop for a few months due to personal issues but before then not a single one. Actually these valves were installed in the head over a year ago so its really weird i havent heard anyone besides Apr having issues. Were not talking a few months of inventory here, were in years.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Ive been out of the loop for a few months due to personal issues but before then not a single one. Actually these valves were installed in the head over a year ago so its really weird i havent heard anyone besides Apr having issues. Were not talking a few months of inventory here, were in years.


 Well it's more than a year i did mine so that's what i can tell you.

But i've heard someone else also having retainer issues...

Dunno if it was a specific batch.

What is Ferrea saying about this whole thing ???


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

So this is what i was sent from Ferrea. Apparently we are all idiots and they feel we cant install cams/lifters without a "quilified a machine shop." I guess an engineering degree isnt sufficient either.... Its just good to know that Ferrea feels we "are not qualified to perform such as installation." Im just so glad Scott took the time to contact me directly and verify that im not mentally compitant to realize my valves are cracked open. Needless to say I will no longer be a customer of them. I dont mind the issues as this is racing but the fact they out right insult: me a customer, Issam an engineer(who i might add assembled my head) as well as distributer for Ferrea, and the others commenting in this thread is completely uncalled for. 

 

What Ferrea is saying is completely negligent. Just because they seal doesnt mean it will work optimally. What is the preload on the lifters? What does the "sunk seats" correlate to in shim thickness? At what rpm will the oil not adequately cushion the valve? All these rates change with the "sunk seats." By saying just dont run shims sounds like the easy way out. Not to be cocky but my setup isnt exacty cheap or leaving power untapped. If Sergio blew his motor without shims, 9k rpms, and 6xx hp, Im sure to grenade mine with my levels. But then again im not qualified to work on a bpy :screwy: 

Sorry to jack your thread but this is some interesting info no?


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

IMAN this echos what Arin from Apr said about ferrea not taking feedback well, this discussion originally started for me on the bt FAQ on mkv forums where bob g corroborated that he had heard of the issues Arin was describing. Ultimately I am not a machine shop worker and do not know the technical reasons of the problems I am being told about, however with the info Arin from Apr mentioned, the problem you are having, and their response, I am sufficiently turned off and have decided to not purchase their product.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I have to say this really sounds pretty amateurish answer from Ferrea....



> For any valve that is not closing completely after collapsing the lifters completely, the shims should then be removed.


 What does that mean exactly ??Isn't their kit designed to work with their valves ?
I was under the impression the shims were an integral part of the kit.What do the
shims have to do with having the valve stay open or not ?Isn't the kit manufactured
to work with shims+on the base cycle+with fully compressed lifters and a closed valve??
Does that mean some people's valves close and some don't, and those that don't should
not install the shims ??What kind of an advice is that ??

I honestly don't get this, and if this is the answer of a company that makes these "precision"
parts, then i have to say i'm scared.... :what:

Oh btw...compressing the lifters might help with the installation, but once the lifter is filled with oil on start up, the valve will STILL STAY OPEN on the base cycle, if the other components are not
manufactured correctly...SO WTF IS THIS FERREA ??


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

This is why I love my bone stock head.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

IMAN973 said:


> Heres the pics.


 Now those are some pretty cams.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I have to say this really sounds pretty amateurish answer from Ferrea....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I agree with everything you said. Whats even crazier is that the seats cant be "sunk" in. The head is cnc ported and the seats were cut via the cnc in the exact oem placement. I would say that a cnc is pretty dead on and repeatable so yea Ferrea is killing me. 

The lifters are all free of oil so again its not that. 

I hate posting when i have a problem because its never a cut and dry case.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> This is why I love my bone stock head.


 Lazy 
Go make some more hp why dont you. opcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> I agree with everything you said. Whats even crazier is that the seats cant be "sunk" in. The head is cnc ported and the seats were cut via the cnc in the exact oem placement. I would say that a cnc is pretty dead on and repeatable so yea Ferrea is killing me.
> 
> The lifters are all free of oil so again its not that.
> 
> I hate posting when i have a problem because its never a cut and dry case.


 Seriously though...This Scot guy must have no clue wtf he is selling !!!

What does the lifter have to do with the valve being open...Of course you set the
system at the lowest possible point (which as you said if the lifters are NEW there is nothing to be compressed...) to install.But it is the WORKING condition of the parts (with the lifters filled) that
has to be checked.Didn't Ferrea make any measurements with filled lifters to see if the shims (for example) are too much and cannot be installed ???

Man this is getting depressing...My machine shop was probably laughing their asses off when they did the install...I am REALLY curious now if my shims were installed...And if not...Do i go ahead and get some to put in there ?? Or not ???

Oh and another thing...Who tells me that the "accident" with the guy from Mexico was because his shop didn't install the shims FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON ??Sounds kind of "plain" but what good are springs and valves if the shims are doing all the..."work" ??And it turns out you can't install them ??

BAD...VERY BAD.... :facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Any update on the above ??

On a side note, anyone know any good ways to convert our lifters to solid
for measuring purposes ??

I've heard of welding, but that won't be available as the swap is gonna take place
"on the fly"....


----------



## mark920 (Feb 13, 2012)

check with IE they talk about converting to solid lifter buckets in their description for the supertech springs/retainers

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mark920 said:


> check with IE they talk about converting to solid lifter buckets in their description for the supertech springs/retainers
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 Issam already told me the solid lifters will be made for the cat cams only.

Either way, don't even know if they put them to production yet...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

Sounds like some people are confused on how and why the parts differ from the stock components. Prob a reason they are different than oem, most likely to correct high rpm issues that oem stuff will have. While I see how people want a drop in style part but the FSI and 2.5L style heads do not offer much room to work with. If you have an issue and need help I would pick the phone up and call.. right now is just wasting time before you figure out a solution.

As for the response from Ferrea to a distributor, That prob wasn't smart to post on a public forum if you plan on doing any business in the future.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Sounds like some people are confused on how and why the parts differ from the stock components. Prob a reason they are different than oem, most likely to correct high rpm issues that oem stuff will have. While I see how people want a drop in style part but the FSI and 2.5L style heads do not offer much room to work with. If you have an issue and need help I would pick the phone up and call.. right now is just wasting time before you figure out a solution.
> 
> As for the response from Ferrea to a distributor, That prob wasn't smart to post on a public forum if you plan on doing any business in the future.


Wait...so what are you saying ?

Why not make it more clear ?

Are you saying the Ferrea parts are made like this ON PURPOSE ?

Are you saying than IMAN doesn't know how to assemble them properly ?

You are not really clear with your post, and i think some clarification is needed (at least for the concerning parties).

Plus there are those of us that had the parts installed (not by ourselves) and would like to know
where the problem lies.I think that's fair, don't you ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

GolfRS said:


> Wait...so what are you saying ?
> 
> Why not make it more clear ?
> 
> ...


All I am saying is they designed the kit a certain way for a reason (idk why I don't work for them)

I am not saying you do or do not know how to install them, that is none of my business.

I am just saying it could be handled in a better way and get faster results. An emplyee of a company that is a distributor of a product should not post emails from the company in question that were sent to the distributor you work for. Stuff like that is why people don't want to help.

I have nothing to do with the problem, answer or solution. I am just giving my 2 cents on how to handle it and get faster help.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> All I am saying is they designed the kit a certain way for a reason (idk why I don't work for them)
> 
> I am not saying you do or do not know how to install them, that is none of my business.
> 
> ...


JC there is no doubt in my mind if the response IMAN had gotten from Ferrea was any different he wouldn't have gone "public" with it.If you read their response though it was far from being "professional" and SERIOUSLY far from being an answer to one of their distributors.I highly doubt THEY would want anymore business after that, not just Ferrea.

Truth is I KNOW of another case with "faulty" parts that never came to light, so i wasn't really surprised by all of this....What i am now curious to see is if my parts were also faulty,if my installer made something up to make this work, and if i have the shims installed.... :banghead:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

The most I can help in the situation is this. We use a VERY good machine shop, we have easily installed 30+ kits on FSI and TSI and have no come backs or failures. We don't install the parts first hand, we send it to our machine shop for assembly. Our machine shop is extremely advanced and has even done twin external cam gears on an FSI like we do with the 1.8T's also.

I wish you guys the best of luck and please don't take any of my posts the wrong way.


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

Jeff could you please pm me the machine shop you use and what pricing you guys give for a built head.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The most I can help in the situation is this. We use a VERY good machine shop, we have easily installed 30+ kits on FSI and TSI and have no come backs or failures. We don't install the parts first hand, we send it to our machine shop for assembly. Our machine shop is extremely advanced and has even done twin external cam gears on an FSI like we do with the 1.8T's also.
> 
> I wish you guys the best of luck and please don't take any of my posts the wrong way.


If it is an assembly error i would understand all of the above.

If on the other hand it is a MANUFACTURING error, WHY should you need a "good" machine shop to installed SPECED parts ???

I mean ok i wouldn't do it MYSELF, but should my machine shop do Ferrea's work and "remanufacture" the parts to FIT ???I still don't get it....

Plus, i've never heard of a manufacturing company letting speced parts in the hands of a machine shop....Honestly...i've said it before...IT SCARES ME ....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> All I am saying is they designed the kit a certain way for a reason (idk why I don't work for them)
> 
> I am not saying you do or do not know how to install them, that is none of my business.
> 
> ...


Im not the distributor Ina is. I know i play both customer and distributer sometimes but in this case ive never delt with Ferrea as a distributor. Issam forwarded all of the emails to them and i felt this was very unprofessional.

I know you had a hand in the early design work of these kits as did Ina. We havent had an issue until now with these kits. There have been bent valves etc but never anything directly related to a Ferrea failure. 

I just find it funny that it happened on my personal head. A head that had the seats cut via a cnc which will set them dead on every time. Im no engineer but i know a few people that are scratching their heads. It seems simple but its not. Running no shims directly prohibits your ability to run higher rpms. A 8900 hydro will be taking a beating as is never mind with the full movement.

I hate bringing the bs of the industry side to the consumer but i would think they would have responded without insults considering the head was done in house and NOT my me personally. I have rebuilt plenty of fsi heads before but since this one was recut i didnt have to.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The most I can help in the situation is this. We use a VERY good machine shop, we have easily installed 30+ kits on FSI and TSI and have no come backs or failures. We don't install the parts first hand, we send it to our machine shop for assembly. Our machine shop is extremely advanced and has even done twin external cam gears on an FSI like we do with the 1.8T's also.
> 
> I wish you guys the best of luck and please don't take any of my posts the wrong way.


:thumbup:

Thanks for the input. Im most likely going to convert over to solid after these issues. Im going to check all the valve clearances with these cams and time it just for the hell of it but just to see if i would have had any more issues. Maybe ill get to it tomorrow, and ill report back.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Here's another small update while still waiting to get all the stuff together to do the
Schrick cam install....

During a flash of..."genius" and after reading of people having issues with the coolant temp (engine) sensor, and after finding a new one for dirty cheap, i went ahead and replaced mine.
I wasn't experiencing ANY codes whatsoever, but my trims were off for a long time and i was having
random (meaning some days yes some no) misfires at idle.I wasn't really expecting to see anything, BUT I DID.
First off, with the engine turned off and after putting in the NEW sensor, i start up the car only to be
surprised my fans went on 100% and the car probably thought i'm on the surface of the sun...:what:

I took out the VCDS and sure enough there was a G62 signal too high code thrown.Now bear in mind the car was COLD from sitting all night, so there was NO REASON for the sensor or the ECU to think the engine was overheating....So my thoughts now are that the old coolant sensor was BAD or going bad anyways, and when the new sensor was put in, the adaptation saw it as "off range" and fired up the fans to drop the temp....Really weird stuff, but it was confirmed the following days after driving, the car now feels peppier, torque has increased down low, the "weird" days seem to have gone, and over all the engine "feels" healthier....

So here's the thing.My advice to all of you experiencing similar issues, or even those that have a lot of mileage on your car, change that sensor, even as a "preventative measure". The part is fairly cheap, and the replacement procedure is LITERALLY DONE IN SECONDS (especially if you already have an intake and the cover is long gone). You might be missing out on some better engine performance and smoothness....My 2 cents anyway... :thumbup:

P.S. Don't really know if it is related but i'll mention it anyway.After the swap my idle trim has gone "down" meaning from -5% to 3.9% which could be the result of better engine temp control...I still believe my S3 cam lobe is to blame for the extra fuel still left, but that is going to change soon....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

on the thought of compressing the lifter in a vice for installation... anyone know if the lifter seal is teflon or metal.... i heard of the teflon ones getting damaged when compressing to 'bleed' them. 

i guess....is it safe to compress the lifters via vice?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> on the thought of compressing the lifter in a vice for installation... anyone know if the lifter seal is teflon or metal.... i heard of the teflon ones getting damaged when compressing to 'bleed' them.
> 
> i guess....is it safe to compress the lifters via vice?


 I think if you do it slowly there shouldn't be an issue.

IMO a seal could get damaged when exposed to increased pressures from rapid compression.

Otherwise you should be fine.

Ever thought of going with new lifters ? There IS a TSB about bad lifters as you may know.

Why not kill two birds with one stone ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Money

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> Money
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 Well you've spend so much already what's a few more bucks.

Btw so that you know Schrick only gives guarantee for the cams
ONLY if new lifters are installed.

That means something IMHO.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well preparing for the cams install i did a few more logs to verify what i already
pretty much know by now, and that is that the Revo software works like crap...:thumbdown:

For some reason the ECU is requesting CRAZY lambda targets throughout the
powerband and THAT is what is stressing the adaptation/injectors/rear pump to its
limits, and not really making that much horsepower in the process... 

Here's a log of my lambda during a simple 4th gear pull on JUST 23 psi....










Why the F*ck is the ECU requesting 0.72 lambda almost all the way to redline ??
How can the engine even make power like that ? :banghead:

Even with an aftermarket intank pump, the problem will not be solved...it will just be patched...

I think it's time to change to new software.

I'm gonna check the timing on the Schricks to avoid possible similar issues, and then i'll probably dyno tune it...I've had it with this BS....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Can you just fiddle with the knob on your box?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Can you just fiddle with the knob on your box?


 You mean the SPS ?

It is already set @ F9 which is the leanest...

Right now i am between 3 possible causes for this.

1)The car is "off timing" OR the S3 cam lobe isn't taken into account in the software and it is throwing off everything (not the most possible cause)
2)The SPS settings are screwed (it is known to happen...) and eventhough it is set at F9 it sets the adaptation at F5 for example actually requesting way to rich mixture(quite a possible cause)
3)Revo has a "built in" protection mechanism that intervenes if you exceed the 400 bhp target set for their "stage 4 closed engine" software, protecting the stock engine from people wanting to use their software with a boost controller in an OEM rod engine, thus avoiding damages that might be attributed to software and causing liability issues for Revo (most probably cause IMO).Fuel enrichment (along with the low timing i am getting on T9) is one of the factory protection mechanisms, which is used by Revo this way.

In any case, one of the reasons for doing cams for the THIRD time is to time the engine with professional timing tools to exclude and hardware/software "mismatch". IMO though as i said
i'm pretty sure its a protection routine set by Revo to avoid their software being used "the wrong way". But i've had enough of it. I'm gonna move on...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> You mean the SPS ?
> 
> It is already set @ F9 which is the leanest...
> 
> ...


 Some of that seems pretty unlikely and you could disprove the BHP stuff by clear codes and immediately run the log again. Just make the run the first time you go into boost. If there really is a "400 BHP protection" you couldn't see it till closer to redline.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Some of that seems pretty unlikely and you could disprove the BHP stuff by clear codes and immediately run the log again. Just make the run the first time you go into boost. If there really is a "400 BHP protection" you couldn't see it till closer to redline.


 What will that do ?

It's driving me nuts that my trims are at -6% and yet the ECU keeps a rich lambda
that cannot be maintained by the fueling system and the flow of this turbo.

How can the trim be negative and and the lambda regulator maxing at +25% ?

I've already tried resetting the trims/adaptation and there is no difference.The car simply moves back to the -6% trim and adaptation is maxed, while lambda target is set at 0.72-0.74 and the rear pump is
maxed to 2.6 bar at redline. :banghead:

At first i thought it was the rear pump failing so i changed it, but even with a new rear pump if the ECU is requesting 0.72 lambda it is never gonna make power, just stress the hell out of everything and make the car run like crap.Lets not even talk about consumption....

Why do you find the above unlikely Arin ? What in your view is the cause of this ?


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

GolfRS said:


> IMO though as i said i'm pretty sure its a protection routine set by Revo to avoid their software being used "the wrong way".


 That makes it sound like their software works really well then. 
:beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

MFZERO said:


> That makes it sound like their software works really well then.
> :beer:


 Well....depends on how you see it.

There are Revo cars with "retail" stage 4 software making upwards of 500 bhp.

Doesn't that limit effect them too ?

Here's an example...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> What will that do ?


 If you honestly believe the software can somehow detect +400 BHP, and throw you into limp mode, then it could only do this based on running conditions. It can't detect +400 BHP based on what it thinks you may or may not have in your engine bay. 

Clearing codes would clear any "learned" HP ratings. 

The first pull would then operate correctly, and only throw you into the protection mode once you're in the upper RPM's where 400 BHP could be achieved. 

Like I said, it sounds pretty unlikely, but if you did my test, you'd get your answer.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> If you honestly believe the software can somehow detect +400 BHP, and throw you into limp mode, then it could only do this based on running conditions. It can't detect +400 BHP based on what it thinks you may or may not have in your engine bay.
> 
> Clearing codes would clear any "learned" HP ratings.
> 
> ...


 I've already tried this but funny enough the car feels stronger after it has adapted.

And besides, the ECU holds back on power (either timing or fuel or even boost when on N75)
when the trims are reset.It is part of the adaptation procedure and i've seen it on stock software too.

That is also the main reason you feel the car going stronger while adapting, cause the ECU is checking the "limits" of the engine and "allows" more power and boost as it sees fit.

I am now at a point i am getting TB closure above 6000 even with the target lambda reached.

And all that with the engine working inside normal parameters like EGT, fueling, CF, intake temp etc.

Seriously i don't see how Revo would leave the software "unprotected" for any boy racer that buys an EBC and thinks his factory rods are made from adamantium....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Trying to find out where to connect the EBC for power....

Anyone got any suggestions ?


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> If you honestly believe the software can somehow detect +400 BHP, and throw you into limp mode, then it could only do this based on running conditions. It can't detect +400 BHP based on what it thinks you may or may not have in your engine bay.


 
The Software is torque limited to do as mentioned, prevent people from pushing the software beyond our tested limits and then blaming us for problems. After a certain point it will go rich forcing the car to pull back boost, open the dv or limit the throttle opening to maintain a safe requested AF ratio. The car will actually do these things for many reasons from the factory to keep itself safe, we have just made it work for us in applications with upgraded turbos. 

Yes people have figured ways to get around it, most of them are pretty vocal on various forums around the world and are the type of people who actually hold themselves accountable for their actions, so those that can work with it good for them.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The Software is torque limited to do as mentioned, prevent people from pushing the software beyond our tested limits and then blaming us for problems. After a certain point it will go rich forcing the car to pull back boost, open the dv or limit the throttle opening to maintain a safe requested AF ratio. The car will actually do these things for many reasons from the factory to keep itself safe, we have just made it work for us in applications with upgraded turbos.
> 
> Yes people have figured ways to get around it, most of them are pretty vocal on various forums around the world and are the type of people who actually hold themselves accountable for their actions, so those that can work with it good for them.


 I am glad you are actually confirming my findings, and at least now you understand i am not a fluke
Chris....

And no i didn't get all of the above from the Revo dealer but i figured it out by myself....

Thing is now what do i do about it...


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Trying to find out where to connect the EBC for power....
> 
> Anyone got any suggestions ?


 What do you mean, setting wise or how to physically hook it up? Which one do you have?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> What do you mean, setting wise or how to physically hook it up? Which one do you have?


 I mean which point do i use to get power to the unit.

It has to be turned on and off by ignition i believe.

My boost gauge was connected to the light switch but that is not gonna cut it now.

Can i get some connection to the side fuse box ?The engine bay fuses ?

I'd hate to have to strip my steering wheel cover to do this (or maybe under the wheel ?)

I just got the eboost2 unit. :thumbup:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

Easiest way since ur in cabin is probably off the fusebox with an add a circuit tap. If you're worried about the extra draw on anything then throw in a relay. I'd just tap the cig lighter.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> Easiest way since ur in cabin is probably off the fusebox with an add a circuit tap. If you're worried about the extra draw on anything then throw in a relay. I'd just tap the cig lighter.


 I can connect to the cig lighter in the fuse box, but does it take power with turning
the ignition ?

I need a source that takes power with key turn, and also turns off the same way.

Does the cig lighter work that way? I'm clueless...


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm fairly sure its switched however I'm not positive cuz I haven't even used it in probably a year. If its not I know of another spot to tap but I needa look on my car to remember.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> I'm fairly sure its switched however I'm not positive cuz I haven't even used it in probably a year. If its not I know of another spot to tap but I needa look on my car to remember.


I will test and see if it's switched.

If it is we are in business....


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

The easiest way is to try to test the fuses by an electric screw driver while turning ignition on and off. by this method i was able to source many permanent ignition fuses and off ignition ones as well.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> The easiest way is to try to test the fuses by an electric screw driver while turning ignition on and off. by this method i was able to source many permanent ignition fuses and off ignition ones as well.


Thanks Khaled. I will try that cause the cig lighter was a definite NO...

Btw, after all of the above can you imagine how the car would have gone if Revo wasn't
being an ass and covering their asses ? :laugh::laugh:

Stay tuned for next time...


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

oh word the cig lighter gets power all the time?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> oh word the cig lighter gets power all the time?


Well i had the ignition turned to off and i just pushed in the lighter...

As it turns out it still got hot, so yes i believe it does get power all the time...

Any more suggestions ?


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Thanks Khaled. I will try that cause the cig lighter was a definite NO...
> 
> Btw, after all of the above can you imagine how the car would have gone if Revo wasn't
> being an ass and covering their asses ? :laugh::laugh:
> ...


Thnx for the ride and the coffee man while visiting Athens. your car is a lot of fun to drive and I wish I could reach that stage with my TT.

Hope you the best of luck man.

Funny enough I was able to source unused fuses with both permanent and ignition sources from the cabin fuse box so they will not interfere with functions of the used ones. I just put 10 amp for the permanent one and 5 amp for the ignition key one.:laugh::laugh:

Hope this helps you


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> Thnx for the ride and the coffee man while visiting Athens. your car is a lot of fun to drive and I wish I could reach that stage with my TT.
> 
> Hope you the best of luck man.
> 
> ...


Can you give me the numbers of those fuses ? Unused ones would be awesome. :laugh:

I need those that power up once you put the key in ignition on position...


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Can you give me the numbers of those fuses ? Unused ones would be awesome. :laugh:
> 
> I need those that power up once you put the key in ignition on position...



Give me 45 minutes at most to get my ass on the car and will tell you.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> Give me 45 minutes at most to get my ass on the car and will tell you.


Thanks man. :laugh: :thumbup:


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

The ignition one is number 8 which is supposed to be devoted to 4 wheel drive


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> The ignition one is number 8 which is supposed to be devoted to 4 wheel drive


Haha !!!

Respect man.

I will give that a try.

Thanks !!! :laugh::laugh:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Good thread. Reminds me of the 1.8t forum a few yrs agoopcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Getting ready to wire this puppy up...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Update: The EBC is hooked up and working nicely, albeit just as a boost gauge for the time being since i can't get under the car to connect the solenoid yet  .

Looking good, just kinda weird seeing numbers instead of a needle.I hope i get used to it.
As a boost gauge it has a certain lag which i suppose is to be expected since it can't display
numbers as fast as the pressure is going up....Oh well...

Also, fuse 8 worked a charm (thanks again Khaled), although i didn't have an actual fuse at that
position...I did have one at number 7 which wasn't even mentioned in my manual...So i just took that
off and moved it over to 8 and connected the EBC nicely.I checked with VCDS and i saw no errors, so
i am guessing that was just a spare fuse on number 7...

Now i need to fix the wiring and FINALLY get rid of that POS factory n75, to actually see what this
turbo can do (at least still within Revo's retarded limits)....


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

Great news man. We will be waiting for the real action with logs and videos:laugh::laugh:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> Great news man. We will be waiting for the real action with logs and videos:laugh::laugh:


Yes that is gonna be FUN.

If the car drives like you saw it with the software cutting it, imagine when it is let loose....


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> Getting ready to wire this puppy up...


I love mine. works great.

With the right wastegate spring and correct settings on the ebc, Im seeing 24psi @~3800 rpm with my 3071w/billet wheel. 

just dont let the thing get super hot or it starts acting funny. (this really probably only applies if you use a vent pod)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

loudgli said:


> I love mine. works great.
> 
> With the right wastegate spring and correct settings on the ebc, Im seeing 24psi @~3800 rpm with my 3071w/billet wheel.
> 
> just dont let the thing get super hot or it starts acting funny. (this really probably only applies if you use a vent pod)


Hmmm well i have it in a vent, but i don't really use heating that much.
It's not really necessary where i am.

I am just starting to learn all the functions and menus.As far as i can make out the trick is to get the proper combination between WG spring, sensitivity and gate pressure to help with spool but also keep
boost up top.Unfortunately with Revo's software i am like a kid in a candy store and all out of pocket money...I can ramp up the boost and throw away money on gas while Revo makes sure my fueling system is getting raped... How nice !!!


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmm well i have it in a vent, but i don't really use heating that much.
> It's not really necessary where i am.
> 
> I am just starting to learn all the functions and menus.As far as i can make out the trick is to get the proper combination between WG spring, sensitivity and gate pressure to help with spool but also keep
> boost up top.Unfortunately with Revo's software i am like a kid in a candy store and all out of pocket money...I can ramp up the boost and throw away money on gas while Revo makes sure my fueling system is getting raped... How nice !!!


yep. takes a minute to remember the functions. I just carry the manual around in the car for when I cant remember.

leave the sensitivity around 15-20 (20default)

Then set your gp low and adjust your peak boost. then you can just bump your gp up just slightly under peak boost. Give you a nice spool up with minimal spike.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

loudgli said:


> yep. takes a minute to remember the functions. I just carry the manual around in the car for when I cant remember.
> 
> leave the sensitivity around 15-20 (20default)
> 
> Then set your gp low and adjust your peak boost. then you can just bump your gp up just slightly under peak boost. Give you a nice spool up with minimal spike.


Cool !! :beer::thumbup:


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> LOL...WHY ?????
> 
> I'm gonna ceramic coat my flaps.
> 
> ...


*Insult??*
Just because you don't understand what I'm trying to do, doesn't mean you can go ahead and insult a fellow VDubber!!
This just proves what type of person your are.
Have been following your posts and replies in a couple of forums over a couple of years. You do have some good valid points but then you do have really.... well not going into details and make fun of you as I really don't want to stoop to your level.

You're unhappy with REVO and still on REVO??
I'm on REVO and doing 1.7-1.8Bars at 7400rpm with 15 to 17 degrees of timing (with 0 to -3 pulls on some runs) on South African 95 Ron pump fuel and WMI.



> I found it...This is hilarious...It's almost like this guy bought tons of the stuff in a sale and didn't
> know what to do with what was still left....


I wish I got all the stuff on sale. Ask Cassidy and Peter at IE and few other suppliers if I had any special/sale prices, at that time.



> P.S.On second thought i think i'll ceramic coat my penis...Maybe it will slide better and not overheat from too much sex.


While you at, ceramic coat your brain as it will reflect the heat waves from the satellites and prevent or slow down any brain retardation.
There I just briefly stoop to your level.

To a fellow VDubber I'll say good luck on your project.

@Mark920: Yip, I'm using the Ferrea shims in the lifters and have no problems on any valve gaps.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> *Insult??*
> Just because you don't understand what I'm trying to do, doesn't mean you can go ahead and insult a fellow VDubber!!
> This just proves what type of person your are.
> Have been following your posts and replies in a couple of forums over a couple of years. You do have some good valid points but then you do have really.... well not going into details and make fun of you as I really don't want to stoop to your level.


Well reading my above post i have to apologize for being too harsh.It was uncalled for and i am sorry.Must have been the caffeine overdose, or maybe a bad day...
You have every right to do as you think is right, and i have to say if i were you i would answer in a much angrier manner than you did.



> You're unhappy with REVO and still on REVO??
> I'm on REVO and doing 1.7-1.8Bars at 7400rpm with 15 to 17 degrees of timing (with 0 to -3 pulls on some runs) on South African 95 Ron pump fuel and WMI.


Well i won't be on Revo for too long.I can also get those boost numbers and the W/M get's you up to that timing (i see up to 12 degrees without W/M) but as you can read above the software is torque limited so you are not making much power....


> While you at, ceramic coat your brain as it will reflect the heat waves from the satellites and prevent or slow down any brain retardation.
> There I just briefly stoop to your level.


I can understand your frustration.As i said above i would probably also react this way (or even worse).



> To a fellow VDubber I'll say good luck on your project.


Thanks. I hope i can get where i want to get to sometime soon.


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

> Well reading my above post i have to apologize for being too harsh.It was uncalled for and i am sorry.Must have been the caffeine overdose, or maybe a bad day...
> You have every right to do as you think is right, and i have to say if i were you i would answer in a much angrier manner than you did.


Apology accepted and you have been forgiven.



> I can also get those boost numbers and the W/M get's you up to that timing (i see up to 12 degrees without W/M) but as you can read above the software is torque limited so you are not making much power....


I know that and there is a way around that.
I've also been boosting above the 2 bar mark (boost controller gauge) . That is by changing the MAP sensor to the S3 or the TDI MAP sensor to fool the computer, so I don't have those throttle closures. The MAP tells the ECU that it is boosting at lower levels than actual. Very dangerous (especially on the timing side), use it at your own risk, but it works.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> Apology accepted and you have been forgiven.


Thanks.



> I know that and there is a way around that.
> I've also been boosting above the 2 bar mark (boost controller gauge) . That is by changing the MAP sensor to the S3 or the TDI MAP sensor to fool the computer, so I don't have those throttle closures. The MAP tells the ECU that it is boosting at lower levels than actual. Very dangerous (especially on the timing side), use it at your own risk, but it works.


Well the torque values are not calculated by the MAP sensor but (i'm guessing) rather by the MAF sensor.
Since the ECU does not see above 1.55 it doesn't know what boost you are running.Unless of course Revo has set the limit at 1.55 and anything above that is considered a "cut off". Then i guess the S3 sensor might work (that is if it is also not reading MAF values...).

In any case i don't think i want to "waste" all of my hardware on Revo.There are SOOOOO MANY tweaks that need to be done for software to PROPERLY follow hardware, running on a TDI sensor is like using resistors back in the old days...It simply isn't working right....Better spend a few more cash and get the car dyno tuned. That's were i'm going next. Revo has other things to bother with than its loyal customers that want to stay with the software. Times are CHANGING and if you don't follow you get left behind....


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

> Well the torque values are not calculated by the MAP sensor but (i'm guessing) rather by the MAF sensor.


True, that's why I'm running MAFless. With the MAF on the ECU will go into limp mode as the air flow doesn't correspond to the boost values on the S3 MAP sensor.

The S3 MAP sensor has the 0 to 5V output as well. For example (illustration purpose, don't know the actual values) at 2.5Bar absolute the GTI MAP sensor will have a voltage of 5V and the S3 MAP sensor will have a voltage of, let say, 3.5V. Now the ECU sees the 3.5V as, let say, 1.8Bar absolute instead of 2.5Bar and thinks boost level is okay. The fuel trims will go into the positive (mine ~10%) since there's actually higher boost and the ECU now only rely on the AFR values, since there's no MAF, for proper fueling.



> In any case i don't think i want to "waste" all of my hardware on Revo.There are SOOOOO MANY tweaks that need to be done for software to PROPERLY follow hardware, running on a TDI sensor is like using resistors back in the old days...It simply isn't working right....


True, I feel your pain as I'm in it as well. Have spoken to our REVO dealer here in SA about this and said they will help me out on this. I've just upgraded the GT3071 to a GTX3071 turbo and apparently there is a stage 5 REVO, but first I need to sort my fueling out on the LPFP side.

Have looked into the Maestro Tuning Suite but I want to give REVO another go (they are a great bunch of guys here) and see what happens.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> True, that's why I'm running MAFless. With the MAF on the ECU will go into limp mode as the air flow doesn't correspond to the boost values on the S3 MAP sensor.


See...As i said, the ECU will always try to cut you off unless you completely "blind it".I honestly find that not worth the hassle and more over the risk, just to stay with the..."name" of the software, cause trust me, you aren't running "Revo" anymore, but have instead turned time 20 years back just to make the car run (not better) but without holding you back. For me this is unacceptable....


> The S3 MAP sensor has the 0 to 5V output as well. For example (illustration purpose, don't know the actual values) at 2.5Bar absolute the GTI MAP sensor will have a voltage of 5V and the S3 MAP sensor will have a voltage of, let say, 3.5V. Now the ECU sees the 3.5V as, let say, 1.8Bar absolute instead of 2.5Bar and thinks boost level is okay. The fuel trims will go into the positive (mine ~10%) since there's actually higher boost and the ECU now only rely on the AFR values, since there's no MAF, for proper fueling.


As i said above, in reality what you are doing is confusing the ECU who's only purpose is to help you, simply because Revo is too lazy (or scared) to make proper BT software. The excuse about not being enough "interest" for the software (for them to make MONEY) doesn't cut it with me sorry...You don't want to help me ? Thank you very much, i'll just move along.This is how you should also face the situation instead of putting your property AT RISK.



> True, I feel your pain as I'm in it as well. Have spoken to our REVO dealer here in SA about this and said they will help me out on this. I've just upgraded the GT3071 to a GTX3071 turbo and apparently there is a stage 5 REVO, but first I need to sort my fueling out on the LPFP side.


I've been having the same "hope" for the past 6 months, but i have to tell you...don't hold your breath...
I've never heard of stage 5 Revo, can't even imagine what it means...If it were available and it worked with a TRUE BT setup i would hold back from going custom, but i don't think you will ever get to see anything like it...


> Have looked into the Maestro Tuning Suite but I want to give REVO another go (they are a great bunch of guys here) and see what happens.


Guys over there might be nice, (heck guys over here are nice too) but without proper Revo HQ blessingss (and code) you are not going anywhere anytime soon....

If you value your money spend on your car...move forward...

P.S. I don't really know what your setup is, but my setup is pretty..."individual".I don't think even if there is a "stage 5" it will be able to cover my P&P, my Schrick cams and my turbo...Going custom is a one way street.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Us 1.8t guys learned YEARS ago that revo/Apr are useless for real BT setups. Eurodyne or Unitronic are your only real options. Maestro is amazing, and what id recommend from experience.

Bottom line; quit wasting your time, and get a real tune...


----------



## MKV727 (Jul 21, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> So now we see that actually fortifying the engine and increasing timing/boost we can regain some of the lost low end power and still get the benefits of the exhaust cam up top.Combine that with the port and polishing+higher revving capabilities of the build hea, and you might actually get away with more power than before in between 5000-7500+ rpm with minimal loss to the low end.
> But then again this is all in theory, and i am already using "short of" wilder S3 cams, so we'll see how it goes.
> That is the fun in tuning.To do something others yet haven't..You win some, you lose some.
> 
> Edit:Having said that, we have *no clue* as to the differences of the Schrick to the S3 cams, EXCEPT lift, so i might actually be going to a milder cam... :laugh:


 "Really curious to see what the Schricks do as opposed to the S3's.Have been hearing the 
S3's are like 90% of what the Schricks give (especially on an OEM turbo), but let's just see...." 

"it doesn't matter what you install...you won't make any power from the cams... 
So let's see if i can prove him wrong." 

I feel justified now, you never actually had the specs hence why you didn't want to "share" the data. This car has yet to run correctly or get dialed in. You were arguing and doing all of that talking and had no clue whether or not it made power or makes an appreciable difference over the S3 cam. That is all, I'll leave you be.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

MKV727 said:


> "Really curious to see what the Schricks do as opposed to the S3's.Have been hearing the
> S3's are like 90% of what the Schricks give (especially on an OEM turbo), but let's just see...."
> 
> "it doesn't matter what you install...you won't make any power from the cams...
> ...


 I don't even feel the need to answer you.Why exactly are you so obsessed with finding out about cam specs ? Most probably you want to install them yourself and want others to do the R&D work for you, and since you know APR won't tell you squat, you decided to bust MY balls in case i cave in....

Btw here's the pic i took for you in the other thread...Now tell me, what spec are you interested in exactly ?? I have 5 min of spare time....










P.S. I eat trolls like you for breakfast....Crawl back in your little hole...or buy the f**in cams measure them yourself and then stick them up your ass....How's that ?


----------



## MKV727 (Jul 21, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> I don't even feel the need to answer you.Why exactly are you so obsessed with finding out about cam specs ? Most probably you want to install them yourself and want others to do the R&D work for you, and since you know APR won't tell you squat, you decided to bust MY balls in case i cave in....
> 
> Btw here's the pic i took for you in the other thread...Now tell me, what spec are you interested in exactly ?? I have 5 min of spare time....
> 
> ...


 You said specifically in this thread you didn't know all of the specs... Why would I ask you so you can *lie* to me again? 

You also stated you haven't gotten the car running optimally, therefore you have no idea if it makes power. You said this right in one of the quotes I posted. 

I'll refresh your memory about what you were saying in the MaxR thread. "You don't know what you're talking about, I know these make power" 

"I know the specs of these cams and given the information they have to make power" 

"My car has shown gains, I'm not telling you though and giving up the R&D" 

I continually pushed you for data and you never gave it up. You never gave me data because it was a *lie* and you were talking out of your ass. Given all of this somehow I'm the troll? I don't know what I'm talking about? You went back and forth arguing with me over make belief numbers that you dyno'd at and cam specs you admittedly do not have.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

MKV727 said:


> You said specifically in this thread you didn't know all of the specs... Why would I ask you so you can *lie* to me again?
> 
> You also stated you haven't gotten the car running optimally, therefore you have no idea if it makes power. You said this right in one of the quotes I posted.
> 
> ...


 Dude you are so retarded you can't even figure out the fact these quotes are from old posts, and things might have changed since then?....WTF is your brain defective in some way ?

I haven't gotten the car working optimally because Revo's weak sauce software was not optimized for the cams, but I HAVE DYNOED the car before and after and even with this software i saw the difference (which of course i have no reason to reveal to you).

You also can't get through your thick skull that simply because the Shcricks require PROFESSIONAL TOOLS to install them NOT a simple OEM cam plate, (and i have these tools for installation), the same tools can be used to measure them.So what you are doing is quoting my older posts, trying to prove your STUPID point when you are CLUELESS how to even measure a cam.

Once again you can troll all you like, I AM NOT GIVING YOU ANY DATA  .

Buy the cams (all of them) figure out how to measure them, install them, tune the car for cams, dyno the car, and THEN come and tell me i am a liar...Then maybe you might have a chance.

I have given you proof i HAVE all the cams in my possession...Can you say the same ?

Accusing someone of not having data when he is clearly displaying both the matterials in question AND also the tools to measure them is the DUMBEST TROLLING EVER...:facepalm: . You are not getting anywhere with it....

Oh and here's the funny part...In situations like these, the way to get out of a troll attack like yours is pretty simple and VERY effective...Watch me.....

"Yes i have no data, i don't have any cams ( i photoshoped everything), i never installed cams in my car, nor did i ever dyno it, and finally i am a terrible liar....I GIVE UP...You got me...You win...Please come by the office and receive your trophy"....

How's that for a COP OUT ? :sly:


----------



## MKV727 (Jul 21, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> Dude you are so retarded you can't even figure out the fact these quotes are from old posts, and things might have changed since then?....WTF is your brain defective in some way ?
> 
> I haven't gotten the car working optimally because Revo's weak sauce software was not optimized for the cams, but I HAVE DYNOED the car before and after and even with this software i saw the difference (which of course i have no reason to reveal to you).
> 
> ...


 You've had the cams in possession since the first post... If you could've measured them wouldn't you have done it from the start? Sure you might have picked up equipment along the way but I dont get why you would make a thread like this and not share that data? I suppose everybody who posted and looked at this thread doesn't deserve your R&D? I see you like to assume people's knowledge is inferior based off of nothing. I can talk about you being incompetent all I want because I have proof you can't get your car running correctly but I don't... Calling somebody incompetent isn't right, but I am calling you a *liar*. Talk badly and insult people and it will catch up to you. 

Let me get this straight... You don't have any dynos of the car tuned and running well before and after the installation right? So how did you have this "data" that you were alleging to have when you were hurling insults around in the last thread? You don't... I just wanted to point that out. From what it looks like you have them laying around your house/garage. How does this back up all of the lies you were spewing in the last thread?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

MKV727 said:


> You've had the cams in possession since the first post... If you could've measured them wouldn't you have done it from the start? I see you like to assume people's knowledge is inferior based off of nothing. I can talk about you being incompetent all I want because I have proof you can't get your car running correctly but I don't... Calling somebody incompetent isn't right, but I am calling you a *liar*. Talk badly and insult people and it will catch up to you.


 DUDE !!! Are you standing next to me and i don't know it?? 
You even know WHAT cams i had, WHEN i had them, if i could measure them back then and DIDN'T,
if i SOLD them to get the S3 cams (for a reason), and also that the cam you see in the first post pic is the N/A FSI EXHAUST CAM and there is NO intake one ??? Do you also know what measurements if any i did back then ? Do you actually KNOW EVERYTHING ? And on the other hand if you DON'T ( just a guess...) AM I FORCED BY SOMEONE TO REPORT TO YOU or the readers of this thread ??Are you delusional ? Or maybe on DRUGS ?

WOW !!!! I am simply speechless....You must be either really good or a complete IDIOT (forgive me if i am leaning towards the second choice...Dunno why...).

So here you are calling me a liar, like you are my mechanic and have first knowledge of what i've done, when i've done it, why i did it, what i didn't do, what i could have done but didn't,and finally that i am lying about pretty much everything....FFS dude...you should be the new Messiah !!! Your powers are limitless....But so is your stupidity.... :facepalm: .Stop making an ass of yourself....PLEASE !!!




> Let me get this straight... You don't have any dynos of the car tuned and running well before and after the installation right? So how did you have this "data" that you were alleging to have when you were hurling insults around in the last thread? You don't... I just wanted to point that out. From what it looks like you have them laying around your house/garage. How does this back up all of the lies you were spewing in the last thread?


I'm sorry but it seems you have reached the overdose point and starting to suffer from "Lexical cohesion and formal thought disorder".... For the life of me i can't make out what you are trying to say or simply babbling....I have them in my garage ? No i have them in MY ROOM, is that close enough for you ? Or should i place them in a display case in my driveway so you can come by and...measure them ?
And to "get this straight", i have dynoed the car in MULTIPLE stages of development both on the K04 and the BT setup.So i guess that not only makes me knowledgeable, but damn near AN EXPERT...

Savy ?


----------



## MKV727 (Jul 21, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> DUDE !!! Are you standing next to me and i don't know it??
> You even know WHAT cams i had, WHEN i had them, if i could measure them back then and DIDN'T,
> if i SOLD them to get the S3 cams (for a reason), and also that the cam you see in the first post pic is the N/A FSI EXHAUST CAM and there is NO intake one ??? Do you also know what measurements if any i did back then ? Do you actually KNOW EVERYTHING ? And on the other hand if you DON'T ( just a guess...) AM I FORCED BY SOMEONE TO REPORT TO YOU or the readers of this thread ??Are you delusional ? Or maybe on DRUGS ?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well still on hold to install the Schricks.Getting together all the little stuff for the install.
Thought about replacing ALL the screws this time (normally done every time during cam
install) since i am hoping this will be my final (4th cam job).

In the meantime looking through the net i found this page from Eurospecsport
and it has 3 different types of Schrick camshafts for the FSI.

Now i only knew of two types up to now and googling the third came up emtpy,
so i don't really know what it is....

Anyways for those that care....











Finally, i was also thinking about doing the "FSI 2.0T Timing Belt Gear Dowel Pin Kit" but i have never heard of this think happening except in drag oriented big turbo TFSI builds.

What is the "limit" above which this kit would be "necessary" ?

I mean we can keep adding parts to the car, parts that we never need.Doesn't anyone have this feeling ?

EDIT: Ok so i had a look at the Schrick catalog and the last set is for the N/A engine.So the two sets remain the same....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok here's some more info that might also be helpful to some (even without a BT TFSI).

After thinking about it i am going to do an almost complete service of the cylinder head...

Besides the belt and belt tensioner, i am also doing the lifters, but also decided to change the
water pump for the second time to THIS PUPPY.... :what:










To those that don't already know the 1.8T pump as already mentioned in the past is the same in dimensions and is a direct fit to the 2.0T FSI water pump.With the exception our pump is plastic impeller and the one you see is now BRASSsss....

My previous "metal upgrade" was made of cast iron and somehow i seem to be losing coolant (my guess is the pump) so i thought about going one step further...Looks like MUCH better quality than the one i have now.Hope it delivers....

On another note....I keep hearing "horror stories" about issues with the "Camshaft Adjustment Magnet"...For those that don't know it is the large circle thingy at the end of the exhaust cam,
that the ECU uses to control cam timing.It has been reported "older" engines that have the old version
of the adjuster (used to be more expensive) may run into issues and even damage their cyl. heads.
Audi has upgraded the part to a cheaper and fail proof version part number *06F109088J

*http://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Golf_V--2.0T/Engine/Mechanical/ES281129/

I also read somewhere a faulty part might also be causing idle issues, and since i am doing the cam job, i am going to be changing that part also... 

The cam installation cost keeps rising with all the "extras" but if something is gonna be done once, it better be done well so i don't have any issues down the road...

P.S. I am also considering IE's timing belt gear dowel pin kit, but am not really sold it is all that necessary...I haven't heard of many TFSI's having issues with that so maybe those that did
had a freak failure rather than an under speced part...But feel free to convince me otherwise....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Still trying to get all the stuff together for the cam swap+ timing belt service.

I ordered the cam adjustment magnet and it's on its way.Let's hope it was worth the money spent on it.

I also got a timing belt tensioner, but since i didn't get the full kit i am still missing the two
idler rollers that come with it.Now this kit has ~40K miles on it, and i really don't know if
the rollers are that necessary for me to change at this point, to justify their cost...
What do you you people think ?? I am starting to pay way much than i planned to for this
cam swap, and i am really trying to cut down on cost.

On another note, i also ordered a TDI map sensor to see if it makes any difference even when
running on EBC.I will still keep the MAF plugged, but just want to see if it will throw a CEL, go into
limb mode or give me some more timing to play with.

I am also completing a LPFP kit that should solve ALL my low pressure issues.Then i am hoping my throttle closure issues will be over and i will be able to up the boost to more than 26 psi without pegging adaptation....

Stay tuned.This won't be long now....:wave:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Still trying to get all the stuff together for the cam swap+ timing belt service.
> 
> I ordered the cam adjustment magnet and it's on its way.Let's hope it was worth the money spent on it.
> 
> ...


I would reuse the idlers. Just make sure the bolts are still tight and that the bearings spin freely.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> I would reuse the idlers. Just make sure the bolts are still tight and that the bearings spin freely.


Thanks man. I figured they are just bearings that don't effect the crucial function of the belt, so if they
go bad they'll probable make some noise but won't cause a failure....

Plus as i said VW says do the timing belt at 120k so my 40k they are probably "as good as new".

My last belt change was also at 40k and i'll probably keep changing it at those intervals.

It's just this time the magnet cost made me cut down on the rest of the replacement parts.


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

good luck getting that other one out, those cam adjusters suck to get off... had to drill the bolt head off the last one i had to remove.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> good luck getting that other one out, those cam adjusters suck to get off... had to drill the bolt head off the last one i had to remove.


Well i've had the change from the stock cams to the S3 ones so i am guessing it won't be that
hard this time.

I've already got a full replacement kit including the cover screws, and exhaust cam bolts.

And since i won't be reusing the old magnet i will do the procedure fresh on the Schricks
using the new bolt and magnet.

I will probably sell the s3 cams with the magnet on since it is not malfunctioning, just changing
it as a precautionary measure.....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> good luck getting that other one out, those cam adjusters suck to get off... had to drill the bolt head off the last one i had to remove.


Ive had that happen before... it sucks. Ive went from a standard head bolt polydrive to a stubby polydrive and it makes it alot easier to get out in one piece.


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

IMAN973 said:


> Ive had that happen before... it sucks. Ive went from a standard head bolt polydrive to a stubby polydrive and it makes it alot easier to get out in one piece.


I understand how you all feel.I had to buy cam adjuster/tensioner and remove the old
one and it sucked.As you did I had to drill out the polydrive bolt.
And it wasn't cheap.
Terry


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Decided to give the TDI MAP sensor a go to see if the ECU will up the timing as it will
be "seeing" less boost.

The car is now in a state where i have maxed timing on the SPS and seeing -1.5 CF on all cylinders
on ~25 psi of boost and running 12 degrees of timing.The LPFP can still handle that boost but just barely.Plan is to see if i can run the same boost but more timing from the same T9 setting since i cannot
increase that with the SPS....

On another note, still trying to complete my LPFP solution, parts are coming in but assembly and tests will come after i install the cams and see how the car is reacting to them.

P.S. Are people with the USP Aux kit having any issues ??Just looking for some feedback on how that
setup is effecting the car. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just came back from an hour's logging with the S3/TDI map sensor.....:what:

Really very tired to write the whole story, i will do that tomorrow.

Bottom line seems to be it is NOT a viable "tuning" option at least on Revo
software and without actual reprogramming.

Car was running crazy (almost uncontrollable) amounts of timing, car felt INSANE,
but could not really accept the amount of timing it was also pulling to consider it
an every day use option.... :screwy:

More to come tomorrow.....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Things are getting even more interesting...

Here's what i found in a GTI related english forum.
_
"The AXX software is the 2 point reference rail sensor mapping 0.5v = 0 MPa / 4.5v =14 MPa
The BWA software is a 3 point reference rail sensor mapping 0.5v = 0 MPa / 2.5v = 7 MPa / 4.5v = 14 MPa
The CDL BWJ is also a 3 point reference rail sensor mapping 0.5v = 0 MPa / 2.5v = 10 MPa / 4.5v = 20 MPa

In *theory* we can change the 4.5v point to 20 MPa in the AXX mapping it will work fine as its just linear voltage to work with the CDL sensors. Its not an issues with the BWA software we can just use 0.5v = 0 MPa / 2.5v = 10 MPa / 4.5v = 20 MPa from the CDL mapping."_

I happen to already have a BWJ rail sensor in my parts bin...Maybe i'll pop that in to see what effect
that has to the tune....


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

You will end up with a reading of around 100 BAR , and your actually pressure being 140 BAR

you will need a return valve witch holds more than 137 BAR (if you want to make more rail pressure using this trick)


* if the software ask for 140 BAR (4.5V) it will actually ask for 200 BAR (same 4.5v), 

probabli will give a low fuel rail pressure error


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

I've done the same experiment (not intended, the mechanic put the wrong senzor...) and the car did run much much more agressive.

i was having like 0.6 bar at idle 1 bar normalli -, and 1 bar at 1.4 bar of actually boost

and yes, the car was running timing for 1 bar of boost 




GolfRS said:


> Just came back from an hour's logging with the S3/TDI map sensor.....:what:
> 
> Really very tired to write the whole story, i will do that tomorrow.
> 
> ...


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

ghita.silviu said:


> I've done the same experiment (not intended, the mechanic put the wrong senzor...) and the car did run much much more agressive.
> 
> i was having like 0.6 bar at idle 1 bar normalli -, and 1 bar at 1.4 bar of actually boost
> 
> and yes, the car was running timing for 1 bar of boost


Option for you guys is Maybe use a resistor to dial in the values that work with your sw. Bob. G


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> You will end up with a reading of around 100 BAR , and your actually pressure being 140 BAR
> 
> you will need a return valve witch holds more than 137 BAR (if you want to make more rail pressure using this trick)
> 
> ...


Yes the idea was/is to "trick" the ECU into thinking it needs to raise rail pressure while seeing less
than it actually is.Same principle as the MAP sensor really...What does trouble me though is the fact
Revo software is running 30 bar at idle to keep the RS4's under control.Of course it could happen that
idle rail pressure is the same for both sensors (since as above it is at 0 Volt) so i may not run into
richness issues....

It might be worth a try....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> I've done the same experiment (not intended, the mechanic put the wrong senzor...) and the car did run much much more agressive.
> 
> i was having like 0.6 bar at idle 1 bar normalli -, and 1 bar at 1.4 bar of actually boost
> 
> and yes, the car was running timing for 1 bar of boost


This is now the second day of testing, and car is not really liking the switch.

While it still runs more timing from the get go, it now triggers the knock sensors even with light
pedal pressure and it seems as adaptation moves along, even lowering the timing with the SPS
has little effect on the CF's, resulting in actually LOWER timing with more timing pull than
running the original sensor and T9....Of course it could all be a reaction to a different
factor (like lack of fuel for example) but i am just reading the logs and reporting them as they are...

Since i will finally be doing the cams next week, i will probably put the original sensor in so i can
get the proper response from the ECU to the new cams..."Playing" with the sensors is fun (if you
are careful of course) but you need the best "environment" possible to evaluate a new hardware part...


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

what cams do you want to use next ?

and what do you have now ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> what cams do you want to use next ?
> 
> and what do you have now ?


I have the S3 cams on now and i am installing the Schriks


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

what specs for the schricks ? there are two models


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> what specs for the schricks ? there are two models


The "original" ones.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

the 252 degrees version is not a very big deal 

i have a set of those 

you will loose around 250 - 250 rpm of spool, and will have the ability the advance the timing 3- 5 degrees more 


also, you will lose around 0.2 bars of boost  (if you have boost controller, on the same setting, will make less boost  )


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> the 252 degrees version is not a very big deal
> 
> i have a set of those
> 
> ...


3 to 5 degrees of timing on 2 bar of boost at redline is a HUGE deal.

What difference in flow should i be expecting ?

Also you are comparing to the 200 bhp cams i am suspecting, is that right ?

Cause i've already seen some of the above with the S3 cams.

EDIT: Did you use stock 10.5 compression ? Or lowered it ? Oh and was that on a K04 ? Big difference.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

i am comparing them with the s3 camshaft version 

the tests where made @ 1.6 BAR of boost with a GT2871R on a CUPRA engine 9.8 compresion  stock engine.


EDIT: did you go to dyno with the car in the actual configuration ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> i am comparing them with the s3 camshaft version
> 
> the tests where made @ 1.6 BAR of boost with a GT2871R on a CUPRA engine 9.8 compresion  stock engine.


Yeah that's your problem right there.

The beauty of the cams (in general) is that they let you make better "use" of the
static compression by changing the effective compression to be able to run more timing
without loosing spool.Some loss of boost is "acceptable" cause of the increased overlap,
but is more than compensated for by the gains in flow and timing.

Also, the Gt2871 is a nice turbo but is beginning to tire after 1.6-1.7 bar of boost (at proper
AFR levels).If as you say you got +5 degrees of timing that would make me run 17 degrees at 7000 rpm
which is W/M and/or race fuel levels of timing....

P.S. I don't think the BWJ engine is a good candidate to "test" or even run the Schricks, since they
were not made for that engine/compression.Even Schrick doesn't have that engine in their catalog.
Cams aren't the easiest hardware part to mess with,and they need a certain environment to run properly and make power....The newer TFSI's might be more..."advanced" supposedly but they have missed out on the N/A power making part of the engine to compensate for durability and cost cutting....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Schricks are getting installed tomorrow.... :laugh:

Anyone have any tips ???


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

good luck !


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so here's a puzzle for those that know a thing or two....

You swap cams, all is well, you start the engine, compression is good, and the car purrs like a kitten.

No engine stalling, no weird misfires etc etc, no CEL....

You take the car for a drive and THE ****ING VALVES KISS THE ****ING PISTON
at 2000 RPM.......

What is the moral if the story ????

Someone please answer me....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Moral is you have to check vvt advance or this will happen.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Moral is you have to check vvt advance or this will happen.


What do you mean "check" it.

My guess is it was another tensioner failure...or not ?

Does the VVT work at 2000 rpm ? Cause that is when the (re) failure occurred.

What was is supposed to check and didn't ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Do you have to lock the vvt with the higher lift?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> Do you have to lock the vvt with the higher lift?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


The Schricks have different timing from the OEM cams to compensate for the higher lift.

I haven't heard of anyone "locking the vvt" as you say when installing ANY cams for the TFSI.

What i don't "get" is how the **** the car idled BETTER than the S3 cams and failed @ just 2000
rpm.I revved the engine up to 3000 rpm and i had zero issues....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

It all depends on the cam design. I always check the vvt clearances manually while doing the install. I never had to "lock" vvt just limit it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

The more i think about it the more i see it was my mistake this happened...

The next time i'll be more...."patient" ...That was my undoing.... :banghead:

So while i will be going through another head build i am considering the following options...

1) Get the gead gasket from 34 Motorsport (anyone know the thickness of it ?) and drop the compression to 10:1 to allow a bit more timing and cam lift headroom.Although it is REALLY expensive for a gasket and there are other options on the market (but with lower compression

2)Move to +1mm valves (possibly with a head gasket) since it's the intake valves that bit the bullet...

3)Remove the dividers and hack them up to fill the head (why hasn't anyone thought of that yet ?).

4)Any more suggestions ??


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

Stay with 10.5 CR,

stay with the S3 cams,

If possible use the 1+ mm oversize valves


- Best thing - CNC Head ! or manual porting.

- still surprised about this.... sorry


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> Stay with 10.5 CR,
> 
> stay with the S3 cams,
> 
> ...


I already have a full ported head.I don't think i will stay with the S3 cams.
The 1mm oversized valves will require pistons with deeper pockets or reworking my factory ones (which isn't a good option the way i see it).If i lower compression i will have some headroom for +1mm valves, but the difference in flow is not worth it IMO.

Thanks for the support.I am just hoping there isn't serious piston damage cause then the cost gets really high and don't think i can handle it right now...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I already have a full ported head.I don't think i will stay with the S3 cams.
> The 1mm oversized valves will require pistons with deeper pockets or reworking my factory ones (which isn't a good option the way i see it).If i lower compression i will have some headroom for +1mm valves, but the difference in flow is not worth it IMO.
> 
> Thanks for the support.I am just hoping there isn't serious piston damage cause then the cost gets really high and don't think i can handle it right now...


It all depends on your clearances and how the seats were cut. My pistons are "custom" so i have more clearance then standard versions but i had plenty of clearance even with a vvt +5* buffer. 

Your pistons should be fine but in all honesty oversized valves arnt needed.


----------



## 18bora. (Aug 18, 2007)

Did you bleed the lifters?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

18bora. said:


> Did you bleed the lifters?


The lifters were completely empty cause they were new....

Still trying to figure out WTF happened...

Engine is getting opened Wednesday....

Lets hope it's only the valves and not the pistons too...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Got a question about the tech guys that might sound silly but i have to ask...

I was having oil burning issues after the rebuild (like 1 liter of oil every 3000 km) and
was wondering if i can slightly hone the cylinder walls without changing the piston rings
to try and re-seat them.Is that way off or even harmful ? I really don't want to go
doing a piston-ring job again with just 15k miles on them....

Any views on this ??


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Got a question about the tech guys that might sound silly but i have to ask...
> 
> I was having oil burning issues after the rebuild (like 1 liter of oil every 3000 km) and
> was wondering if i can slightly hone the cylinder walls without changing the piston rings
> ...


Anytime i touch the walls i re-ring. I know certain shops dont but i always do. It takes all of 30 mins to hone and ring a block, no reason not to just do both.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Anytime i touch the walls i re-ring. I know certain shops dont but i always do. It takes all of 30 mins to hone and ring a block, no reason not to just do both.


One huge reason is cost.

So what you are saying is you CAN do it ?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> One huge reason is cost.
> 
> So what you are saying is you CAN do it ?


What im saying is people do it but i would not suggest it.


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

If youre having oil issues I would "try again"


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

donjuan1jr said:


> If youre having oil issues I would "try again"


You obviously mean re ring the car right ??

Rings cost about 300$ plus the extra work to remove the pistons....

Is it really that much to burn a quart of oil every 1900 miles on a 450 bhp engine running
26 psi of boost and 10.5 CR ???


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Thats a question for yourself... :thumbup:


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

I dont remember who posted it, but i remember the brand hastings has oe quality rings for about 100bux for the set. 

Might have to cut them iirc.

However to your question, if you just did the ring job and youre burning that much alrdy my guess is they didnt seat correctly. If you can afford it, re do them as is life sometimes other things take priority.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

I think it was matt who said that.

Usually you have to file the rings. Ive only had 1 motor every that was dead on after a rebuild. Another thing is everyone has different standards when it comes to ring gap. Maybe the first time they used the wrong gap??


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

hastings has a ring set.... 
#2c4639


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

only have 2 days and 200 miles on them though, but they seem to have seated well.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Thing is the AXX motor has a "special" set of rings that i am guessing might be different than the rest of the TFSI's cause it has a different part no. also.

How much oil are you BT guys burning anyways ?

Is a quart per ~2000 miles "that much" ?

What happens if i re ring the car and that goes to 2 quarts per 1000 miles ?? 

P.S. How much is the tightening torque for aftermarket rods (just in case ?)....


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Zero!!


----------



## donjuan1jr (Oct 8, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Zero!!


This guy did my ring job and to my knowledge I haven't used any oil whatsoever..imo its all in the break in and seating. Do it wrong and you're burning oil in no time.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Had a look at the head today and it's a disaster zone........ 

All 16 valves are gone (yes again) and the tech is saying the (new) variator failed...

My view on this is that the variator was screwed when he tried turning the exhaust camshaft
using a vise grip to the variator teeth (is that possible?).My mistake was i didn't try and stop him.....

So now i will be needing a new variator, a full head rebuild and i still haven't checked the
pistons (the tech says they are..."ok" but i don't see HOW...).

This is turning into a REAL MESS....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

pistons are fine.... valves are a lot softer.

if there are any imprints on the tops, just lightly sand off the high spots so they dont turn into glow plugs.

dont remove a lot of material, jsut enough to take off any burrs.


----------



## RobbS (Jul 13, 2011)

GolfRS said:


> You obviously mean re ring the car right ??
> 
> Rings cost about 300$ plus the extra work to remove the pistons....
> 
> ...


VWoA quotes half of a quart every 600 miles as normal consumption, don't they?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Thing is the AXX motor has a "special" set of rings that i am guessing might be different than the rest of the TFSI's cause it has a different part no. also.
> 
> How much oil are you BT guys burning anyways ?
> 
> ...


What pistons are you using?

I NEVER burned oil in any of my fsi's. I know they say xqts/xmiles but thats just bs to me.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> What pistons are you using?
> 
> I NEVER burned oil in any of my fsi's. I know they say xqts/xmiles but thats just bs to me.


I am using the factory AXX crown pistons.

From the factory the car burned 0 oil between oil jobs.

At first i was burning twice what i burn now but after some km it settled to what it is now....

P.S. I might even use the Schrick exhaust cam and the S3 intake cam and call it a day.I can sell the S3 exhaust cam (that has the modifications) to get some cash back for the head job...


----------



## TTAdict (Aug 3, 2010)

I do not know what to say in this situation but I wish you all the best of luck running your car strongly again.:beer:
You know **** happens to all of us every time we add new parts to the engine.
To me I always suffer for 3 months or even more when I even add any simple mod to the engine!!!
and the worst of all if you do not watch the techs while working in your car for a minute or so, then expect every f**n shi**y thing you could ever imagine.
and it is even worse if you challenge him technically and find yourself talking to a totally retarded idiots :banghead::banghead:
It took a tech just two minutes of your absence trying to find a coffee shop to buy something to f**k up your engine and waste your very hard earned cash.

God bless you man


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TTAdict said:


> I do not know what to say in this situation but I wish you all the best of luck running your car strongly again.:beer:
> You know **** happens to all of us every time we add new parts to the engine.
> To me I always suffer for 3 months or even more when I even add any simple mod to the engine!!!
> and the worst of all if you do not watch the techs while working in your car for a minute or so, then expect every f**n shi**y thing you could ever imagine.
> ...


Thanks man.I know you have also your share of PAIN with this engine....

****ty part is when you are trying to do something "better" and end up screwing everything up.

It's not just the cost that gets to you, but you also loose interest in ever again tuning your car.... 

Let's hope i can get through this and never look back.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone know if i can use stock valves with the Ferrea springs/retainers ?

Is there any reason for me to get the Ferrea valves again ?

P.S. Part from the cost, i DID notice increased carbon deposition with the Ferrea intake valves....


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

You can. 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> You can.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


Ok cool cause there is something about single or triple groove talk and i can't really
get which is which...

Btw, what is the reasoning behind using aftermarket valves ??

I didn't really see any difference and as i said i think my intake valves were dirtier.... :what:


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Yes, but make sure whoever is doing your head work, checks the install hieght and properly shims the valve springs if needed. Also If running higher lift cams check for any interferance with valve spring retainers and valve guides.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Yes, but make sure whomever is doing your haed work, checks the install hieght and properly shims the valve springs if needed.


Or else ??

Does that mean they "fit" but you have to make them work ?

If that is the case i should probably go Ferrea again....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

That goes for the Ferrea as well. Nothing is as simple as "drop-in". You have to check everything no matter the setup.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> That goes for the Ferrea as well. Nothing is as simple as "drop-in". You have to check everything no matter the setup.


Yeah ok checking is checking but what i am asking is is it worth it to
get the Ferrea valves again or can i use the OEM ones this time ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Just use oem

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

For those that are following the story here are some pics from the piston tops...

Only one piston is 99% untouched, most have similar damage....

I am now considering what i should do as far as pistons go.....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

All kinds of scenarios are going through my head looking at the piston pics....

The damage on the piston crown could not have been caused by the valves, plus
there is the SAME damage on all the pistons (besides the valve sockets) except one...
Also, the damage is covered by carbon deposits which means it is older than the
camshaft installation.

What keeps going through my mind is that the rods were improperly installed/torqued
and that the pistons were dancing inside the cylinder.This is the reason for the
head failure also (i think) since the travel of the piston was altered and it hit the
valves (not the valves hitting the piston).Now...would that actually show on the wear
of the bearings ?Anyone ever had a similar experience ?

Any thoughts on the above ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Piston No.4 ...

Same damage at the tips of the crown (with carbon fouling over it, the previous one was cleaned by
me...).










Wtf is this all about ??? 

Also, is it my idea or is there just too much space on the left side of the piston (piston/wall) ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Mine look like that...lightly sand the sharp edges off, its fine

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> Mine look like that...lightly sand the sharp edges off, its fine
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


Why did it look like that ?? :sly:

Is that "normal" ?

Or do you mean it was the valve damage ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

When i blew my timing gear apart and smashed all my valves

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> When i blew my timing gear apart and smashed all my valves
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


So it's the valves then ??

And you say you kept it like that huh.

Ok. :thumbup:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Yea, basically sanded down any sharp edges on the piston so they didn't act like glow plugs and cause pre detonation

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)




----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Soooo people....

Car still not fixed but slowly getting it together.

A lot of changes coming up and not really sure how they will effect function/results.

A major change for me is the lowering of compression using Wossner 9.2:1 pistons
to try and retain my OEM combustion chamber characteristics.I almost went with
10.5:1 flat tops but i couldn't justify the risk of getting altered burn characteristics and
experiencing continuous unidentified timing pull and mixture problems.

Anyways, big change for me since i was up to now a supporter of the OEM high compression
"school"....Let's hope it turns out ok.Of course that single fact might also effect the use of
cams, and i might find myself returning to stock Gti cams to try and maintain some cylinder pressure.
Haven't decided yet...Of course this will also necessitate a software switch since Revo is made for
stock CR and can't really tell how the lower CR will work.

Also gonna try and remove the head dividers and see how that works....

Stay tuned.... :what:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

The compression change isn't notice in terms of power

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> The compression change isn't notice in terms of power
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


AFAIK you also opted for the same CR so i am welcoming your experience.

What will be different though is the use (or not) of the cams cause they do drop
dynamic compression and you lose some amount of boost (and low end torque)
so that is a point i have to be really careful with.

I am not racing this car so off boost torque pull is important...
So i might go back to the OEM GTI cams to help that.

One thing is for sure...I'm pretty certain i will NEED new software now...

On the positive side, i will be able to use lower grade fuel in my relaxed
days, so that is a bonus...

P.S. Btw have you done a compression test and how much did you make on that ?
I will bring this up at one point but there has been some questioning as to how much
actually the Wossners lower compression....


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Serious question..

Why are you constantly changing variables in your engine setup, when you haven't nailed it down with any of the combinations yet? Seems like recipe for infinite futility IMO.

Also, I can't see this type of a build EVER running properly, and/or to its full potential without Eurodyne Maestro, OR dropping your car off at a tuner for a month..

I vote maestro; as you seem to have a bad case of automotive add.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> Serious question..
> 
> Why are you constantly changing variables in your engine setup, when you haven't nailed it down with any of the combinations yet? Seems like recipe for infinite futility IMO.
> 
> ...


That is a good question, but you can answer it yourself if you follow the thread from the start.

The car was running a simple K04+Revo software+S3 cams when it suffered a head failure due to a bad tesnioner.The head was then ported, Ferrea valve train was installed and kept the K04 on it.
After some time i decided to go BT (as many of us do) and so the car was running a new turbo with
Revo's Stage 4 software.A couple of months ago while installing Schrick cams my IDIOT mechanic made a mistake which caused a NEW head failure, but this time there was also need for new pistons as well as 16 Ferrea valves.When i looked in the market for new pistons (although mine were Mahle Forged from the factory but NOT HP rated just guessed...as are all factory pistons) i could only find FLAT TOP pistons that retained my 10.5:1 factory CR.My choice was then to either use these flat tops HOPING they would work well (which i highly doubt and it would be an issue no software could change) OR install the Wossner pistons that only come in 9.2:1 CR which would be "out of my plans" but was the only choice to maintain the crown piston design.

Now mind you this design was installed from factory in my car (instead of many others that have "upgraded" to these pistons for better mixture reasons), so i cannot be certain my "early TFSI" software didn't include the burn characteristics in the software as well....


Soooo to answer your question with one sentence...many of the changes were done after previous damage and as an aftermarket "upgrade" of the engine especially in the case of valves/pistons were using the SAME VALUE factory components would seem stupid...at least from a performance stand point....

And another thing....if tuning isn't all about experimenting....then what's it worth ??? eace:

P.S. As for the software....it was long before passed Revo's capabilities....IT WILL go on the dyno for a custom tune...Just have to finalize hardware first...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

I've followed this thread closely from the very beginning. I'd strongly recommend using eurodyne maestro. This is from my own personal experience; as you're never going to get a setup like this totally nailed down on one or two trips to the dyno. I don't care who's tuning the car. Ain't gonna happen; not on a factory ecu anyway.

Kudos to you for hanging in there though; when many others would've given up long ago.

You sir have compunction:beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> I've followed this thread closely from the very beginning. I'd strongly recommend using eurodyne maestro. This is from my own personal experience; as you're never going to get a setup like this totally nailed down on one or two trips to the dyno. I don't care who's tuning the car. Ain't gonna happen; not on a factory ecu anyway.
> 
> Kudos to you for hanging in there though; when many others would've given up long ago.
> 
> You sir have compunction:beer:


I can't even count the times i've said to myself "this is the end"...But then i just pick
up the pieces and my love for tuning keeps me going.I've spent SO MUCH money and
never really enjoyed it (does ANYONE ???) but this is a hobby for me, and let's face it
if it wasn't for all of us wackos spending all this cash, the community would never
benefit from it.

Many are backed by companies, a very few of us just keep on going by ourselves.
My biggest sorrow though is the lack of tuning expertise in Greece.There is a HUGE
lack of engineering knowledge and that leads to failures if not instantly at least in the long run...
I would breath more freely and do even more if i knew there are people here to help me
do them.One of those might have be the overbore option you get with new pistons, but
when someone doesn't even know how to properly check for cam clearance, do you trust him with
boring your block ??And before someone says "just look for another mechanic"....well i can
tell you standards are pretty low over here.Things get done using 20% skill and 80% pure luck...
I was just unfortunate to use more luck than skill and it finally ran out....

Anyways, thanks for the tap in the back, it means a lot.I am hopeful for this build in the end.
I just need to finalize things as i said and then the real fun will begin.Who knows this whole journey
might end up changing some of my views on tuning cars, and it will most probably also
help others in the long run, having the chance to listen to experiences from the owners
point of view instead of the companies....:thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Unitronic Tuning's owner Mike Z lives in Greece, and tunes quite a few aggressively equipped cars there. Might want to give him a shout:beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> Unitronic Tuning's owner Mike Z lives in Greece, and tunes quite a few aggressively equipped cars there. Might want to give him a shout:beer:


He does ?Hmmm didn't know that.

Will surely do a dyno tune though.

Let's just take baby steps first though...i need to get this car running...


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

Rod Ratio said:


> Unitronic Tuning's owner Mike Z lives in Greece


Where did you get this information from? That is entirely incorrect. He lives in Quebec, Canada and works at Unitronic HQ.

You're right that Unitronic software is available in Greece. Mike Z. can work directly with the Dealers in Greece. :thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> He does ?Hmmm didn't know that.
> 
> Will surely do a dyno tune though.
> 
> Let's just take baby steps first though...i need to get this car running...


Good luck getting it running properly without a real tune..
http://www.unitronic-chipped.com/pages/performance_softwares.php

There's (4) Greek dealers.. Look up Cupraman. He's one of them, and builds some serious schit!


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

JohnnyDrama said:


> Where did you get this information from? That is entirely incorrect. He lives in Quebec, Canada and works at Unitronic HQ.
> 
> You're right that Unitronic software is available in Greece. Mike Z. can work directly with the Dealers in Greece. :thumbup:


It's a fact. Mike Z is Greek, and although he might spend a lot of time at the Canadian headquarters; he certainly does support his home country directly.


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

Rod Ratio said:


> It's a fact. Mike Z is Greek, and although he might spend a lot of time at the Canadian headquarters; he certainly does support his home country directly.


Mike Z. is definitely Polish through and through. I work with him almost every day of the week...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

JohnnyDrama said:


> Mike Z. is definitely Polish through and through. I work with him almost every day of the week...


Really?? Where da fuq did I get that idea from? Could've sworn he was Greek


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

Rod Ratio said:


> Really?? Where da fuq did I get that idea from? Could've sworn he was Greek


:laugh::thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

JohnnyDrama said:


> :laugh::thumbup:


Open mouth, insert BOTH feet amirite? :laugh::facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well that was fun....:laugh::laugh::laugh::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Got me going there for a while....


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

http://mailto:[email protected]/


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Things have become pretty quiet in this forum the last couple of months....Wonder why....

Anyways....has anyone CC'd they cylinder head ?

Want to know if there is actually a difference in volume using stock vs Ferrea valves ?

APR maybe ?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Im using stock size on my new head. :grinsanta:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Im using stock size on my new head. :grinsanta:


Cool.

I'm using stock size also.

But have you CCd your cyl head ?

Issam said there is a difference....


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Im not using the cncd head anymore. I ended up fkn mine up and didnt feel like waiting to get another cncd. Plus my needs are different then any other fsi head so i even needed to customize the cncd one anyway. So in the long run it saved me money to not use the cncd one as a starting point and then modifying that when i could just start from scratch and use the messed up cncd one to go off of.

Ill have flow numbers in the next few weeks after i get my lashes done.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

IMAN973 said:


> Im not using the cncd head anymore. I ended up fkn mine up and didnt feel like waiting to get another cncd. Plus my needs are different then any other fsi head so i even needed to customize the cncd one anyway. So in the long run it saved me money to not use the cncd one as a starting point and then modifying that when i could just start from scratch and use the messed up cncd one to go off of.
> 
> Ill have flow numbers in the next few weeks after i get my lashes done.


Actually i meant if you have measured the volume of the combustion chamber.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Sorry i forgot to clarify.

I never measured it but i wouldnt be concerned with the difference. With most running lower cr's, decked heads/blocks and thicker hg's, its not going to be the same for everyone. The way the valve job is also effects the volume. It the valve protrudes more the volume will be lower etc. 

Another issue that "could" pop up with a larger valve is you can see an increase in valve shrouding. The bpys already have the edge of the seats really close to the walls as is. Increasing the valve size not only makes the seat smaller but puts the valve closer to the wall. Most people wont see much difference but if youre throwing 45+psi in there, the issue may arise if its too close.

What i think most people dont get is that the valve job is more important then the valve size itself. For instance a 5 angle vj will perform better then a 3 angle vj. The way the valve itself is angled and the way the air flows on valve cycles are also crucial to high flowing head. Obviously cam lift helps but at the opening and closing of the valve are were the gains are made.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just when you thought Xmas was over....



















I think it's time for some measurements..... 

Still waiting for some DM Forged rods from INA.... 

I heard Issam is coating them with special Martian dust and it is getting here
with the next NASA mission so.....i'm excited !!!!


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

Posted this somewhere else:

PART # : Wossner 9213D100
Cylinder head volume : 46cc’s (FSI timing belt with OEM valves , 45cc's with Ferrea valves)
Cylinder head gasket volume assuming 0.9mm thickness and 83.5mm bore = 4.93cc’s
Your piston has a negative dish of : Xcc’s
Total Vc = X + 4.92 + 46 = 50.92cc + Xcc

With 83.5mm bore x 92.8mm stroke = 508.2 cc’s

E (compression ratio) = (Vh + Vc) / Vc = 508.2 + (50.92 +X) / (50.92 + X) = 9.2 :1
X = 11.05cc

Wossner lists these as :
http://www.wossnerpistons.com/produc...e?cookietest=1

-5.38cc as dome volume removed but they do not list what is the dome volume protruding from the crown of the piston. If they are anything like what we had a few years ago then you are actually looking @ a total volume of +2cc!

-5.38cc in your configuration would yield almost OEM CR.

E (compression ratio) = (Vh + Vc) / Vc = 508.2 + (50.92 - 2) / (50.92 - 2) = 11.34 :1 CR

Which is higher than OEM. 

CC those pistons....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> Posted this somewhere else:
> 
> PART # : Wossner 9213D100
> Cylinder head volume : 46cc’s (FSI timing belt with OEM valves , 45cc's with Ferrea valves)
> ...


Well i did some measurements and i honestly don't know why Wossner says -5.38cc for dome volume removed.What my measurement showed was that the actual volume of the piston removed up to the
piston deck was around -13.2cc.I haven't been able to measure to the actual volume over the piston deck but i will do that soon...

So all of the above isn't that accurate.

Btw, if you look at the pics from my OEM pistons further up the post, you can CLEARLY see the removed volume is MUCH less than the one the Wossners have, and my OEM pistons are certified to be 10.5 CR.
I don't think there is much difference in "over the deck" volume between OEM and Wossners, cause they have to conform to combustion chamber specs....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Oh and another thing....

Since i've been reading a lot about pistons, there is another thing that has to be mentioned
and isn't....

According to all the CR calculation formulas i've seen and the one you posted,
when increasing the bore and the size of the piston, in order to keep the
CR steady (Wossner doesn't alter the CR according to piston bore, all 82.5-83-83.5 pistons
have the same CR) you HAVE to also alter the piston volume since the CR increases.

Well if you look at their site, they quote the same removed volume for all 3 piston bores
which SHOULD NOT be the same.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Another update in the long road to recovery....

Still waiting for parts to arrive, the engine is now completely off the
car as there will be extra work needed to be done to it.

As i will probably be refreshing the main bearings too this time,
i bumped into what has not been common knowledge up to now,
which is the fact there is a crankshaft out there of the older TFSI
engines that has a 95.5mm stroke and that would bring the
displacement up to 2066cc with 83mm pistons.

Don't really know if any extra work is needed to be done though as far
as piston shape, rod length, oil squirters etc etc.Those in the know how
can chime in...

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Billet-Crank...015861786?pt=DE_Autoteile&hash=item416dd9c21a

Kind of an expensive upgrade but if it's plug and play i would consider it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well things have now taken a different turn........

For those that like detective stories and would like to participate in the
lovely conversation we are about to have....here is some material
that is REALLY interesting to "diagnose".....

I am welcome to ideas as to what exactly is going on here.....
before i start giving out my own thoughts about the matter....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok people...at this point i would have to call the attention of those that are
using DM Forged rods, since from my findings there seemed to be ZERO
frictional damage to the rod/pin and the play found in the pin has to be attributed
to poor rod bushing material....

Here's a video of the actual play in the rods....






This is one of those time were a damage actually does more good than
bad cause if the head wasn't destroyed there would be a MAJOR failure
down the road from the rods.

If this was a one off or the actual rods are bad i cannot know.What i would suggest
though is to be prepared for possible failure.

P.S.Any pics that might be needed are at the disposal of those that would like to
see them...You can clearly see in the video the pins are in a very good condition, something that
would not be possible if it was starved for oil.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> If this was a one off or the actual rods are bad i cannot know.What i would suggest
> though is to be prepared for possible failure.
> 
> P.S.Any pics that might be needed are at the disposal of those that would like to
> see them...


Dimitris,
As stated to you in the reply to your email , send the connecting rods back to us and we will have them send to DM for inspection and if it is indeed an issue with the connecting rods then I will happily cover the cost of a replacement set as they were purchased through us , however , you claim you have 30,000+ km's on these connecting rods.
If the connecting rod bushing had failed, it would have failed almost immediately. Engines spin @ 7000+ rpm's. The wear is not in microns so lets figure out what the issue is together before you publically bash a great product that may not be the cause of your issues.
Issam


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> Dimitris,
> As stated to you in the reply to your email , send the connecting rods back to us and we will have them send to DM for inspection and if it is indeed an issue with the connecting rods then I will happily cover the cost of a replacement set as they were purchased through us , however , you claim you have 30,000+ km's on these connecting rods.
> If the connecting rod bushing had failed, it would have failed almost immediately. Engines spin @ 7000+ rpm's. The wear is not in microns so lets figure out what the issue is together before you publically bash a great product that may not be the cause of your issues.
> Issam


What worries me is the fact i "accidentally" found the failure, and if it wasn't for the head failing and the piston swap this would come back to bite me in the long run.As i told you there was no sign of oil starving
as you suggested, i could request the crank bearings and post them up to.The biggest proof against
oil starvation is the condition of the pin which (even with 120K Km on it) is in "pretty good" condition
with signs of "hammering" instead of friction.

I could send the rods to you, but i cannot justify paying the costs only to have you say "yeah it is an
oil issue" and pretty much throw away money for the second time (if one was buying these rods).

Let me know what you want to do though.I am guessing since you are a reseller and not the
manufacturer, it would be in your best interest also to determine the quality/duration of these
parts.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> What worries me is the fact i "accidentally" found the failure, and if it wasn't for the head failing and the piston swap this would come back to bite me in the long run.As i told you there was no sign of oil starving
> as you suggested, i could request the crank bearings and post them up to.The biggest proof against
> oil starvation is the condition of the pin which (even with 120K Km on it) is in "pretty good" condition
> with signs of "hammering" instead of friction.
> ...


I am not worried about the quality or duration. Numerous happy customers are enough proof that the product works TBH but you know you are my favourite Greek so send me an email and we will figure it out.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> I am not worried about the quality or duration. Numerous happy customers are enough proof that the product works TBH but you know you are my favourite Greek so send me an email and we will figure it out.


Yeah...Sent you another email but don't really know what good that is going to do...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So people, the new rods are IN.....


Decided to avoid getting another (possibly same quality) set of DM rods, and
opted to follow a safer route.

So i got the awesome looking Tuscan Rods from IE.I wanted to retain the
I beam design, and it was pretty much a no brainer.

Here are some pics....















































There is a big difference in quality and feel between my previous and these rods.
I should have gone with them the first time, but they were not available in tapered
design.... :/

I would also like to thank Clay from CTS Turbo for being a excellent professional.
He will be receiving more of my business in the future.
And for those in the market for rods, there is a great sale at the moment for these rods
as CTS...Go get them people...

http://www.ctsturbo.com/cart/produc...s_1_8T_FSI_16V_early_8V_Audi_VW-3376-118.html


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I am also now considering a new oil pump solution from EPE.

It is a much higher volume pump and should cost around 800$ afaik.

Here's a link to it for those interested.

http://www.europeanpartsemporium.com/?page_id=92

Things are heating up... :beer:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

This oil pump seems to outflow any other options at the moment.

The gear seems pretty beefed up.

I would be really nice to have the extra flow and keep the engine even
better lubricated.

P.S. On a side note, i thought about sending the DM rods to a friend who specializes in
metal wear and durability (whatever that is called) to determine if it actually was
material flaw or something different.Will report back once i have something.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> I am also now considering a new oil pump solution from EPE.
> 
> It is a much higher volume pump and should cost around 800$ afaik.
> 
> ...


Why would you need a larger volume oil pump?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> Why would you need a larger volume oil pump?


What do you mean ? Isn't larger always better ?

Why would one need a larger IC ?

A larger turbo ?

Don't really understand the question...


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*Respectfully, I would say,...... ask any lady.:heart:*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Respectfully, I would say,...... ask any lady.:heart:


Respectfully I would like you to educate the public the way you tried to educate (cough strong arm cough) people here (including myself) on why a larger oil pump works.

As told you privately and will state publically , by promoting this product , you lack the understanding of how the EA211 internals work especially with respect to oil channels and check valves.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Hello Jack. Are you the one selling this pump ?

What is the difference from the OEM one ?


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*Issam, My good man!*



> _"Twist your arm you say" NOT!_





*You mean how you took a big dump on my chest,..... for simply doing the following.

I asked you to look at my pump/kit, to see if you would like to add, my pump to your kit as an enhancement. 
There seems to be a market for enhancements wink wink.....ask your lady to get verification, or your skin mag, I guess....:heart:
You immediately accused me, of stealing your kit, or idea,.... what ever!!:facepalm:
You never, have looked at my pump, which you stated, "all the 06A pumps were the same."

Well mine isn't an 06A, 1.8T, a TDI pump, or even an S4, etc...... like you speculated.
You speculated my smaller high speed sprocket, was to get just PSI,... it is, and that is just another difference, I felt was a good idea.

As far as an email and me twisting your arm. 
That was just me busting your balls for fun, since you jumped off a bridge emotionally.
So professional, like your day to day and favorite Greek customer service I see here.

See,....are you blind?*


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

[email protected] Parts said:


> TAKE CONTROL OF WHAT YOU OWN!!!!!!


Kind of ironic getting posted by you.... :facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Here's the gear pic i got from European parts in case someone is interested.










Don't know much about oil pumps but that seems to be a huge difference.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

All in good fun right?:heart:



_*Take control of what you own means:*_
Tell VW-Audi to go pound sand, vs tow your car to the dealer for an IMMOBILIZER alignment or 850 USD ignition key which they were sued for.


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

[email protected] Parts said:


> All in good fun right?:heart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand what it means... I was referring to your history.... clearly, you didn't get the joke....nevermind :facepalm:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Come on man, I got it.

I'm a loose canon, you know that.

That is the history.

I had to pay to be here, to give stuff away. 

Such a wonderful day don't ya think?

There is an immense amount of freedom in not caring.


FOD
GIVE BEFORE IT HURTS


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> So professional, like your day to day and favorite Greek customer service I see here.


Thank you!
Tried to find an unprofessional post by myself or anyone @ INA and could not find one and that makes us proud. 


[email protected] Parts said:


> blah blah blah blah...
> 
> The design is more simple and we agree with everyone on this compared to the balance shaft stupidity.


What DESIGN!? All you did was increase the size of the oil pump vanes and further rambling on about a product when you fail to understand the core of what you are selling.

Most if not all of your posts on vwvortex are reminiscent of someone that has spent most of his life working on Chevy Big Block V8's as most of the modifications you "suggest" have no place in the VAG world.

Scenario #1:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5950144-20TH-AE-Crank-no-start&p=80628608

"Yes it does, just not above the deck stroker, which is what I meant and typically look for, being I play compression fire gasoline R&D so much lately, vs this conventional crap."

An above deck stroker? Let me see you try that with an FSI engine :laugh:

Scenario #2:
Larger Vanes in the Oil pump to combat volume. :screwy:

Which show me you lack understanding of the EA211 motor (or any volkswagen motor for that matter)

Again *explain* to the good people of vwvortex how increasing VOLUME in the system , a system that has check valves to *REGULATE* oil pressure offers any beneficial value. 
You are forgetting that the core behind Volkswagen engine designs is to somewhat simulate oil pressure @ idle as you would @ 9000 rpm's. The only way that happens is when oil pressure @ oil pump is much higher than pressure @ oil filter housing because pressure is STEPPED DOWN at the oil filter housing. 
Oil goes from oil pump , through an oil channel running perpendicular to the cylinders, into the oil filter housing and then from there it is distributed to the main bearing/crankshaft cavity and the cylinder head. 

If you increased the volume of oil going into the oil filter all you are doing is just that ....increasing the volume of oil being filtered. Oil is not going to get to the cylinder head any faster when oil pressure is 80+psi. The only way the cylinder head would actually see more volume in oil is if you removed the check valves (huge no no).

Given our track record with respect to dry sump systems , oil cooling systems and in general a good understanding of VAG oil control systems I would wager that you need to start with an EA211 SSP.
:thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

This is epic! opcorn:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _Thank you!
> Tried to find an unprofessional post by myself or anyone @ INA and could not find one and that makes us proud. _




*Impressive! Psssst......I don't care!*





> _What DESIGN!? All you did was increase the size of the oil pump vanes and further rambling on about a product when you fail to understand the core of what you are selling_



*I was complementing on all you guys using the con-fig of the pump type being simple, not saying I designed something. I said by design, not my design. Again,.... still don't care.* 




> _Most if not all of your posts on vwvortex are reminiscent of someone that has spent most of his life working on Chevy Big Block V8's as most of the modifications you "suggest" have no place in the VAG world._




*That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, no matter how inadequate it makes you sexually.
What's so bad about an old Chevy or a traditional swap historic OEM use of parts?

So when you do it, with a VW-Audi, like the kit you produce, slowing down the pump speed and using a smaller pump, then what was used by the OEM. Hmmm..... your right you must be smarter then all the VW Engineers. Hell they wrote the SSP, because you interpreted it different becoming excited or engorged and tingly? Hey hey hey I understand, its okay man, its not your fault. *



> _Scenario #1:
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...art&p=80628608
> 
> "Yes it does, just not above the deck stroker, which is what I meant and typically look for, being I play compression fire gasoline R&D so much lately, vs this conventional crap."
> ...


*Again out of context, but you forget or didn't read. He was only using a AEG block unmodified. Which means its not a stroker for the block. As for putting the head on an AEG, its still a stock block with a stock crank height. However, yes still is a stroker because of the length of the stroke used in that block compared to a 1.8T. 

Again don't care! I can hear you sweating! The bullets must be in your eyes impairing your vision for reading.*



> _Scenario #2:
> Larger Vanes in the Oil pump to combat volume.
> 
> Which show me you lack understanding of the EA211 motor (or any Volkswagen motor for that matter)_
> ...


*So now you admit that a bigger pump can exist. Before you stated this was/is impossible.

Where did I state to you, or anyone here, given my track record, anything about my knowledge of the oil system for my pump?

Before we commence please advise.

You put yourself on some pedestal thinking you can just imagine people don't know what they are talking about, because you said, or think so. 
What? fair and balanced, because you said so.
Are you trying for a job at FOX news?

You are a legend in your own mind man. Good for you.:thumbup:

I'm just a guy who likes fixing VW's and modifying them to my liking.
I think I have had a pretty good track record.

The facts remain,.... you accused me of stealing something from you, you don't even have or had. Something you stated couldn't be done or exist.
So now you are going to try and trash it. Your worried someone might embrace it, other then your idea, being the proud person you are.
SMELLS LIKE FEAR TO ME!*


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Come on man, I got it.
> 
> I'm a loose canon, you know that.
> 
> ...


It'll bite you in the ass one of these days, don't ya think? :wave:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_It'll bite you in the ass one of these days, don't ya think? _

So could a rabid animal.

Let me think,.....NOPE..... DON'T CARE.

I don't do anything to hurt anyone here, and give a ton of my time to the collective.

I am not always nice and have my own unique wise ass ways about me, typically I am not in this quadrant of the Vortex sector.

This guy accused me of theft, when I stole nothing that could be stolen. Simply for offering what I believed could be an enhancement for his idea adding to it.

I don't consider it his sole idea either, many have done the pump swaps long before him on TDI, before the TFSI even was being driven here on this side of the world.

Oh,... I hear those chains still breaking from here.


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

[email protected] Parts said:


> This guy accused me of theft, when I stole nothing that could be stolen.


deja vu


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Maybe I didn't get your joke then, or see the irony in this.

Good luck with your forged instrument, or what ever it is your doing.


Oh......... INA!

Hello Hello Hellllllo echo hello.......... are you there?

I'm awaiting your answer, so we may move forward with data.:heart:

BEWARE OF THE WILD CARD! 
MAY THE PUMPING......... CONTINUE!


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Whatever you're smoking Jack; please pass some over here


----------



## JohnnyDrama (Feb 15, 2012)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Maybe I didn't get your joke then, or see the irony in this.
> 
> Good luck with your forged instrument, or what ever it is your doing.
> 
> ...


What planet do you live on?????


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Please let's keep this thread on track.

Let's hear some facts and numbers and make this interesting. :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Lets start from scratch, right from the horses mouth of the SSP for the TFSI original OEM build.


The balancer shaft gear was taken over from the
common FSI engine. However, it had to be
modified as follows:

● Decoupled drive chain sprocket in balancer
shaft mechanism

● Separation of splines and compensation
weights to increase balancing efficiency

● Oil pump with *greater* gear width


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Very informative Jack.

I might actually consider getting your pump.

What else will i need ? :beer:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Hello GolfRS

Thank you, No problem.
In addition to the pump. You could consider some of these options below.

We isolate the sump from the turbo return line, with a sludge remover filter kit.
No secret, it is a variation of what used to be done, on the old Audi 5000 turbo cars.

This prevents main contaminates in sump area. 
In our opinion, is the main reason for screens getting plugged from turbo coking.

As far as the oil filter housing swap.
We don't actually do this, or think its needed to swap the housings

To simplify, we negate the cost by an opted cheap strainer. It is reusable, custom made of all metal mesh screen. Huge advantage is, it can't break down under added PSI, or Volume, like the OEM filters, causing restriction, or contamination. ( NO PAPER or FIBER )

We offer a flow test service of the control pressure check valve in the 2.0 TFSI housing. 
Additionally, we actually offer calibrations of a custom verified release of PSI through shims.
We can do this up to about just shy of 100 PSI, which is permissible, and not past this point by the repair manual. This way its not about a PSI its pretty close to what we set it at and desire.

( In order to do this, we need your housing or must core one if looking for this calibration, and the spec you want, if a specific request PSI release if desired ) We can match it to your pump as well.

I think this is a more comprehensive approach to the sump system of the TFSI.

We also offer a drop in baffle grid for the lower section of the oil pan, which can be added in addition to the wind tray we use, from the 1.8T next to the pump on top side.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *Again out of context, but you forget or didn't read. He was only using a AEG block unmodified. Which means its not a stroker for the block. As for putting the head on an AEG, its still a stock block with a stock crank height. However, yes still is a stroker because of the length of the stroke used in that block compared to a 1.8T. *


*
:screwy:


[email protected] Parts said:



Yes it does, just not above the deck stroker, which is what I meant and typically look for, being I play compression fire gasoline R&D so much lately, vs this conventional crap.

Click to expand...

Stroker = changing stroke regardless of what you are starting with. You made an uneducated post and you were called out on it. Simple...admit you did not have a clue what you were talking about and move on.


[email protected] Parts said:



So now you admit that a bigger pump can exist. Before you stated this was/is impossible..

Click to expand...


Unnecessary != impossible.
Understand the difference.



[email protected] Parts said:



The facts remain,.... you accused me of stealing something from you, you don't even have or had. Something you stated couldn't be done or exist.
So now you are going to try and trash it. Your worried someone might embrace it, other then your idea, being the proud person you are.
SMELLS LIKE FEAR TO ME!

Click to expand...

Let us start from the top. The 06A oil pump conversion as a "kit" was launched and marketed by INA. You came to me (me personally) and asked if I was interested in your "upgraded oil pump" which aside from a larger vane is a copy of our product. You approach allthough to you may seem innocent to us seemed like a cheap shot. I declined and stated the larger volume oil pump was unnecessary upgrade and wished you good luck. Then like now you took offence to my response and retorted to childish petty insults as displayed in this thread.

What this smells like is someone that was asked TWICE to explain the benefit of his products and instead retorts to this:


[email protected] Parts said:



● Oil pump with greater gear width

Click to expand...

*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Respectfully ,you are a being disingenuous Issam.

I did send you emails with wise ass comments, toward what I considered, an end. This was after still trying to show you, you were incorrect, sending you a picture in this communication below, which you didn't see.
Simply put, you still persisted to accuse me of copying you, sure it insulted me, with an accusation of copying your kit a third time. 
I think anyone would be upset, after what was a genuine attempt to show you something, and share it with you. Clearly it was not a copy. I still have never seen your kit.
I just knew you used the 06A pump from your old forum post.

You seemed pretty hell bent on trying to figure out what the original build could of been, to circumvent me. At least, that's what it felt like to me, and how I still read it.

Along with your threats in an email to crucify me here, so go ahead hang me on the cross like Jesus. 

Again with this stroker thing out of context? I believe I admitted I was incorrect, in an email, here, the original post, but also why, and where my head was at. What you don't make mistakes? I know I do. See I can admit when I'm wrong. I can also apologize when it is needed to be done.
I don't thing you are capable. Not even to bag parts.

Boy you must really be worried.

I said I quoted the SSP.
Again, I am not doing an 06A, or TDI pump conversion, nor would I take credit for what you did, as what I consider a down grade.
I think I was pretty clear about idle and why I felt the Volume increase would be a benefit.

This below is verbatim.
Keep telling your dirty little lies.
You sir please explain yourself or did you mean something else.
Yeah man its FEAR. See I don't have to sell any pumps.


[2/6/2013 4:46:27 PM] Issam Abed: Issam Abed has shared contact details with European Parts Emporium.
[2/6/2013 4:46:39 PM] Issam Abed: ?
[2/6/2013 4:46:42 PM] Issam Abed: Issam Abed has shared contact details with European Parts Emporium.
[2/6/2013 4:46:48 PM] Issam Abed: Issam Abed has shared contact details with European Parts Emporium.
[2/6/2013 4:51:43 PM] European Parts Emporium: Hello Issam
[2/6/2013 4:51:52 PM] Issam Abed: Hello
[2/6/2013 4:52:10 PM] European Parts Emporium: I have seen some of your posts in the past
[2/6/2013 4:52:53 PM] Issam Abed: thank you
[2/6/2013 4:53:13 PM] European Parts Emporium: I like how you added actual ING to your Vortex page
[2/6/2013 4:53:16 PM] European Parts Emporium: 
[2/6/2013 4:56:21 PM] European Parts Emporium: Not many real engine builders anymore.
[2/6/2013 4:56:37 PM] European Parts Emporium: Seems like anyway
[2/6/2013 5:02:37 PM] Issam Abed: have you ever purchased from us befre?
[2/6/2013 5:03:01 PM] European Parts Emporium: dont think so
[2/6/2013 5:03:04 PM] European Parts Emporium: we supply
[2/6/2013 5:03:16 PM] European Parts Emporium: I do mostly EOLE for VWAG
[2/6/2013 5:03:40 PM] Issam Abed: whats that?
[2/6/2013 5:03:53 PM] European Parts Emporium: End of Line
[2/6/2013 5:05:13 PM] European Parts Emporium: Do you still do the TFSI oil pump mod
[2/6/2013 5:05:42 PM] European Parts Emporium: I came up with a different idea
[2/6/2013 5:05:54 PM] European Parts Emporium: did you ever see it?
[2/6/2013 5:17:13 PM] Issam Abed: nope?
[2/6/2013 5:17:43 PM] European Parts Emporium: You guys still use the 1.8T or 2.0 pump right?
[2/6/2013 5:18:04 PM] European Parts Emporium: Take a look
[2/6/2013 5:18:49 PM] European Parts Emporium: http://www.europeanpartsemporium.com/?page_id=92
[2/6/2013 5:19:52 PM] Issam Abed: so essentially a copy of my kit...
[2/6/2013 5:19:58 PM] European Parts Emporium: no sir
[2/6/2013 5:20:01 PM] European Parts Emporium: it is not
[2/6/2013 5:20:21 PM] European Parts Emporium: This is different from yours Im sure
[2/6/2013 5:20:42 PM] Issam Abed: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4067479991.233826.294598024991&type=3&theater
[2/6/2013 5:20:42 PM] European Parts Emporium: Like I said you use a 1.8T pump
[2/6/2013 5:20:59 PM] European Parts Emporium: say blocked
[2/6/2013 5:21:02 PM] European Parts Emporium: says
[2/6/2013 5:21:08 PM] Issam Abed: and you use a TDI pump...
[2/6/2013 5:21:11 PM] Issam Abed: 6 of one
[2/6/2013 5:21:15 PM] Issam Abed: half a dozen of the other
[2/6/2013 5:21:22 PM] European Parts Emporium: No sir I do not use a TDI pump
[2/6/2013 5:21:39 PM] European Parts Emporium: you are mistaken 
[2/6/2013 5:21:50 PM] European Parts Emporium: that is a tdi chain guide
[2/6/2013 5:21:57 PM] European Parts Emporium: and sprocket
[2/6/2013 5:22:03 PM] European Parts Emporium: that increases speed
[2/6/2013 5:22:04 PM] Issam Abed: ok
[2/6/2013 5:22:05 PM] Issam Abed: again
[2/6/2013 5:22:10 PM] Issam Abed: 6 of one
[2/6/2013 5:22:13 PM] Issam Abed: half a dozen of the other
[2/6/2013 5:22:20 PM] European Parts Emporium: no sir
[2/6/2013 5:22:35 PM] European Parts Emporium: I dont use a TDI pump or 1.8T pump
[2/6/2013 5:22:47 PM] European Parts Emporium: Mine is on its own
[2/6/2013 5:23:03 PM] Issam Abed: let me rephrase this
[2/6/2013 5:23:09 PM] Issam Abed: what does your oil pump start out life as?
[2/6/2013 5:23:23 PM] European Parts Emporium: In my kit
[2/6/2013 5:23:30 PM] Issam Abed: ...yes
[2/6/2013 5:23:35 PM] European Parts Emporium: Thats my point
[2/6/2013 5:23:51 PM] European Parts Emporium: was not a copy of your kit
[2/6/2013 5:23:58 PM] Issam Abed: [Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:22 PM] Issam Abed:


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Along with your threats in an email to crucify me here


You were wished best of luck until you resorted to childish antics.You were told that if you went forward with posting that your oil pump kit provides volume as being a beneficial upgrade then you would be embarrassed and I would educate others as to why (which we have done). That was not a threat but simply a fact. You are crucifying yourself with your professional de-core. If we wanted to make a larger vane oil pump we could have done this 5+ years ago but we have not as oil volume / oil pressure have never been issues in volkswagen motors. What has been issues is oil scavenge / keeping oil around the oil pump pick up tube.



[email protected] Parts said:


> I think I was pretty clear about idle and why I felt the Volume increase would be a benefit.


*OIL PRESSURE STEPPED DOWN AT OIL FILTER HOUSING.* You will not find a single person on this forum with a MKV GTI / Golf R or any other variation of the 06F motors stating they have had oil pressure issues. 
So tell me where again does a higher volume oil pump actually benefit anyone? 
In short , your $800 USD product is a waste of money so kindly peddle your wares elsewhere or at the very least bring a more educated discussion to the forum and leave the petty "i dont care" attitude off of vwvortex.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Best of luck after an insult, saying we copied you, and persisting to call it an 06A pump.

Continuing to talk with a characterization that the pump didn't exist.

Its you who should be ashamed of yourself, Issam.

See, I didn't post that pump anywhere for sale in Vortex.

I was simply asked about it, and you attacked it, when I gave a wise ass answer about asking the ladies. 
The reason I did that is because I don't care. 
What I do care about is you ripping people off with your c-rap. Etch this!

Everyone typically wants more everything, from boost to fuel, to food, a bigger car or house.

So,..... because you didn't do it, pointing to link on Boyle's law and you think its not necessary, that makes it Gospel.

Maybe use this link for a better understanding I think vs compressing gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics

Boy talk about trying to put something out due to fear.

I guess all those guys who build all kinds of race engines, wouldn't opt for the higher volume oil pump unless approved by you Issam.

So why has VW had oil PSI lights since the beginning of the water cooled?
The stupid dynamic oil PSI warning system,.... oh was wonderful, right down to the printed circuit behind the speedo head, or the tick ticks in the lifters.

Now it has improved much, however, clearly the sumps are impaired for all the turbo cars.
Well as the water cooled engines increased in size with a similar check valve concept since the 
70's. Why have they continued to increase the size of the pump for volume?
If its so good and capable past its capacity required, why would they need that extra size going forward?
Why would they note this in a SSP taking credit for the German mind set? Why waste materials or money?


On real race, motors maybe you can tell me why the oil ports are hogged out, to lower PSI and allow for more volume? Maybe you never had a real race engine apart.
Maybe you want to hide things from your customers I don't know, I can only speculate.

To me its you who doesn't make sense.
Then again I am the crack pot, have no real life experience with race engines, or repairing cars for that matter, because you said so. All hail Issam!


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> On real race, motors maybe you can tell me why the oil ports are hogged out, to lower PSI and allow for more volume?


This is a VOLKSWAGEN FORUM. We don't need to hog out oil ports here....and neither did Volkswagen on there WRC or other racing motors 



[email protected] Parts said:


> So,..... because you didn't do it, pointing to link on Boyle's law


:banghead:
There is a reason we referenced Boyle's law in this particular situation. You are neglecting oil pressure which in this scenario is a vital point in the argument. No one on this forum can claim a lack of oil pressure or oil flow when the singular flaw of VAG oiling systems (or any for that matter) is the location and function of the oil pump pick up tube. A problem solved with a true trap door design trapping oil around the pick up at excessive g's in real world racing applications.

Again:
*1.*


INA said:


> Respectfully I would like you to educate the public on why a larger oil pump works.


*2.*


INA said:


> Again *explain* to the good people of vwvortex how increasing VOLUME in the system , a system that has check valves to *REGULATE* oil pressure offers any beneficial value.


*3.*


INA said:


> The ball is now in your court to explain to members here why you think your product is needed and kindly do not copy and paste from the SSP as I know it like the back of my hand.


You have been asked in 3 separate posts WHY increasing volume offers any beneficial value to EA211 motor and you have yet to answer to provide an educated answer. 

:thumbup:


[email protected] Parts said:


> have no real life experience with race engines, or repairing cars for that matter, because you said so.


Sorry but your posts in this thread and others show you lack the understanding of the internals of this motor. I can not comment on your past with respect to other brands but your knowledge and posts with respect to Volkswagen Auto Group engines show that you are only hurting your credibility with each immature post you make.

4th time... 

*WHY DOES INCREASING VOLUME WHEN OIL PRESSURE IS REGULATED ADD ANY BENEFIT? AT WHAT POINT IS THIS INCREASE IN VOLUME WORTH THE $800 PRICE TAG ASSOCIATED WITH IT?*

If you can't answer that in an educated formate then one can only assume the reason is you do not know.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Me immature, yup I am,..... its fun vs being a stuffed shirt.
I guess I am an old timer now and don't have to care. 
Huge freedom level in not having to kiss anyones ass.

I have already answered the questions. You just choose to not accept the answers.
It is you who has avoided answering questions.

First, you say you can't add volume, or the pump is an 06A pump, and the size couldn't be increased in this location, or housing type, it can't be done you say, and its not needed. 

I disagreed, showing you it can.

Then you ask what is the benefit of spending the money for the amount extra volume achieved.
My answer:
As for a added cost, or what something is worth, this is up to the customer, there own opinion, or budget, and what markets will pay.

This being a VW forum,.... really. Give me a break.

It just seems like you want to manipulate the discussion, in a manner of disinformation anyway you can. Your worse then a John Kerry flip flop.

People do small upgrades, even pay you/others good money for things that will give, potentially small gains, or feelings of security.
I have seen many things sold, which do nothing, or in fact take away performance.
I refuse to sell them.

That's what the AFT is all about though, unfortunately,,,,,. MONEY!! and no more spirit.
Based on your posts here and the way you answered me, shows what you are all about.
I can tell this guy in this Forum GOLFRS has that spirit. 
I will almost bet you took him for granted or something based on what I read into here. 
I will not disrespect his thread further by cluttering it with your crap. 
See it was clear to me you got the boot in the ass already from your favorite Greek.

Its you who needs the good luck. I used to think you brought something to the table maybe.
I have been doing this game now for over two decades and I don't recall you back then.
Keep doing what ever it is your doing and I suspect you will disappear, like the others have that were similar to you,..... soon.

As for the sump location/trap door and this being a problem I agree with you absolutely.

This isn't about selling a pump, its about you and your way you treat someone for asking you about an idea. Accusations of copying something without knowing all the facts. 
Like I said, I don't care if I sell the pumps. Not a priority.

I have helped a lot of people in this forum for nothing, and had to pay to be here to offer those things for free. Its not just about selling a part or repair for me. I don't always help some I don't consider worthy.

I didn't see you answer my direct questions.
Why has VW repeatedly increased the size of the oil pumps, or for the TFSI design after production of the 06A series pumps, to increase volume/PSI, if there are no issues, and it is all regulated at the check valve since the 1970's? Why would they write this in the SSP?

If bigger isn't better, then why in the TSI did they go to a 5 link wide chain to drive that oil pump which has an even larger gear unit?


*One last and final question for you Issam, I think most will see this as common sense.

If PSI/VOLUME cant be increased due to regulation, and there is no need or advantage. 

Why did VW-Audi on the TDI BRM, or others designed use a smaller speed pulley, to get all that extra oil needed, for that highly mechanical nightmare, called the PD, with 038/06A series gear contained? 

Current events:http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5966715-jetta-tdi-issues.

Another engine which not only required it in my opinion, but special oil specifications, such as the TFSI due to lubricity issues and high friction requirements. Nope they didn't have any problems at all NOT!
Maybe its just to dumbed down for you to understand.*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I have to say there are MANY parts in the TFSI at least that are under speced.

I would imagine the oil pump as being another one.

While people are converting to the 1.8T pump, adding some extra
flow to the pump would surely not hurt (if not help) things.

From what i can see Jack seems to know his stuff, and he has a point
about VW changing stuff in general AFTER issues have popped up.

I think it would be a great addition to an already existing pump kit, and
if Issam doesn't like it. i'm pretty sure there are others that will.

Every little thing helps IMO.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

God bless you guys who upgrade, and build these engines. Makes me glad that I'm an 06A/1.8T guy.

Building these 2.0T engines seems like an excercise in futility.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> God bless you guys who upgrade, and build these engines. Makes me glad that I'm an 06A/1.8T guy.
> 
> Building these 2.0T engines seems like an excercise in futility.


+1

And imagine having to do it TWICE....and pay for the damage too....

Oh and having done that, you can never be certain what will fail down the road...AGAIN...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> +1
> 
> And imagine having to do it TWICE....and pay for the damage too....
> 
> Oh and having done that, you can never be certain what will fail down the road...AGAIN...


I have to admit; I don't believe that these engines were ready for public consumption when they were released. The aftermarket also has no clue what to do with this new technology either.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I agree with that too.

The biggest mistake was and is that everyone is trying to use 1.8T parts and
technology to the 2.0T and that does not seem to go down well....

After ALL THESE YEARS and still there is not fail proof TFSI anywhere in the
world.But there are MANY 1.8T's....I wonder why...


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

It seems the thread is back on track.

Sorry if I became carried away in this thread with INA, for those reading GOLFRS's thread or have been following it for a while. The aplogoy is for the forum, not for INA.

Respectfully the biggest mistake I see in this engine and that goes for all VW-Audi engines, historically speaking. Is management/programming/and hardware inducing issues.
It happens right from the OEM.
The planned obsolescence and deliberate cheapness, which is used for lacking grounds, or making connections with chemical bonds, have no place in the engine bay, or under carpets where heat or water may ingress.
Could just be a business decision though, because clearly things can be built to last. 
The things that do last, typically,..... get axed.

The misfires cause such a harsh condition for the sump, with fuel dilution causing oil break down.
No sump or the internals of the engine can withstand gasoline contaminated oil.

Then there is carbon build up and poor fuel quality regions which make it worse for the TFSI.

Ground enhancements to all electrical consumers, is the best thing you could possibly add, along with adding a voltage stabilizer capacitor, to the engine ecu and coil electronics, to give clarity to function.

I commend VW-Audi for getting the technology on the street though. Like anything, it takes balls to step forward with new innovations. It is never all known what will happen based on how each person drives, or the service habits in so many regions.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> First, you say you can't add volume, or the pump is an 06A pump, and the size couldn't be increased in this location, or housing type, it can't be done you say, and its not needed.
> I disagreed, showing you it can.


You posted our conversation ABOVE before you decided to take it to email where you showed me your "kit"


[email protected] Parts said:


> [2/6/2013 5:27:51 PM] European Parts Emporium: I dont use an 06A pump


When infact you do. Your oil pump starts out life as an 06A pump and all you do is change the oil pump vane to one of a larger diameter.



[email protected] Parts said:


> As for a added cost, or what something is worth, this is up to the customer, there own opinion, or budget, and what markets will pay.


EXACTLY and unfortunately for you , vendors like myself are here to tell customers that your product is not needed. 


[email protected] Parts said:


> If PSI/VOLUME cant be increased due to regulation, and there is no need or advantage.
> 
> Why did VW-Audi on the TDI BRM, or others designed use a smaller speed pulley, to get all that extra oil needed, for that highly mechanical nightmare, called the PD, with 038/06A series gear contained?
> 
> ...



*Chalk vs cheese comparison.* Educate yourself on PD motors and what fails....
hint: it starts @ the pump gear.



[email protected] Parts said:


> Why has VW repeatedly increased the size of the oil pumps, or for the TFSI design after production of the 06A series pumps, to increase volume/PSI, if there are no issues, and it is all regulated at the check valve since the 1970's? Why would they write this in the SSP?
> 
> If bigger isn't better, then why in the TSI did they go to a 5 link wide chain to drive that oil pump which has an even larger gear unit?


Probably your best post yet however a contradiction and one where you should have quit while you were behind. Spending the better part of the night flowing the oil pumps to see what values would be obtained produced some interesting results. The Oil pump sizes vary depending on application of the motor. The 06F motor is a derivative of the 06D and subsequently 06B & 06A motors. The 2.0 TFSI oil pump system has been used in various other applications even infamous 1.8T's (so there goes your theory) but let us get down to the mathematics behind all of this which even using your "upgraded oil pump" the arbitrary value achieved at the end shows your upgrade even though not needed actually does no improvement over the stock FSI oil pump :laugh:

Using the following dimensions for vane diameters.
06A 1.8T = 40mm
06F 2.0 FSI = 30mm
Jack Pump = 44mm (don't have one here so can't measure)
For simplicity sake we will assume these are diameters and will cover a certain circumference.

06A Crankshaft Oil Pump gear cog tooth count = 19T
06A Oil pump gear cog = 31T
Pump to Crank ratio = 0.62 So every 1 rotation of the crankshaft the 1.8T oil pump turns 0.61 revolution.
Assumed Value for 06A = 40xPix0.62 ~= 77

06F Crankshaft Oil Pump gear cog tooth count = 21T
06F Oil pump gear cog = 23T
Pump to Crank ratio = 0.91 
Assumed Value for 06F = 30xPix0.91 ~=85

Jack Pump Crankshaft Oil Pump gear cog tooth count = 19T
Jack Pump Oil pump gear cog = 31T
Pump to Crank ratio = 0.62 
Assumed Value for Jack Pump = 44xPix0.62 ~= 85

We all know the 1.8T oil pump works but your $800 "upgrade" only replaces the OEM 2.0 FSI oil pump. It actually does not offer anything beneficial volume wise to the 2.0 FSI motor and our statement still stands. *Even IF it produced more volume , it will still be stepped down at the oil filter housing. A critical point you are constantly over looking....*



[email protected] Parts said:


> Like I said, I don't care if I sell the pumps. Not a priority.


Great! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I could understand why you are getting pissed off with someone you don't
agree with Issam, but to send ME an email just to tell me to... "go ahead and
buy your 800$ pump" is stepping out of line, and honestly with all the business
you have gotten from me throughout all the years, i would think you would show
a bit more RESPECT.

I don't really care about getting a pump at the moment, but any new idea is
welcome at least in my thread.

What i would be more worried about if i were you though would be all those
owners that have purchased DM rods in the past and are CLUELESS as to the
condition of those rods after X amount of miles.And i would be even more worried
when broken engines start to emerge...But hey there is always oil starvation right ??? (hint, hint).

As i told you in the numerous emails we exchanged i would never again install a DM rod
just cause i cannot be sure it won't fail again.They maybe the best rods in the UNIVERSE
for all i care, they failed in my car and i don't want to use them again.Perhaps your other
customers will have better luck....And as for the tapered vs straight rod argument you
suggested in the emails, all i can say is that you were the one that sold me tapered
DM rods.If you had any doubts of them holding you shouldn't have done that...

So you see, instead of holding you and DM forged responsible for ANY damage to my car
(btw, do you know if a valve can hit a piston once the piston starts rocking in it's pin ?)
i decided to lick my wounds and move on...But instead of thanking me for it, you decide
to mock me saying i can go buy a pump....Well....Thanks for everything man.It was really
nice knowing you......


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*Golf RS I am truly sorry for what you are dealing with from a hostel vendor.
I have to answer this.

Issam why do you persist to deviate from continuity of the paper trail?*



> _You posted our conversation ABOVE before you decided to take it to email where you showed me your "kit"_


*Again a lie and can be verified in the skype message posted before any email via time stamp.*



> _When in-fact you do. Your oil pump starts out life as an 06A pump and all you do is change the oil pump vane to one of a larger diameter._


*An assumption on your part, very very wrong. Only showing your age and inexperience with the internals of VW-Audi engines across the world.*



> _EXACTLY and unfortunately for you , vendors like myself are here to tell customers that your product is not needed. _


*You are entitled to your opinion. Not that it amounts to much with me. Everyone has followers, even Jim Jones did. Do you add sugar to your Kool-Aid?*




> _Chalk vs cheese comparison. Educate yourself on PD motors and what fails....
> hint: it starts @ the pump gear._


*LOL talking about cheese and quality of work.
I guess you don't believe in matched fasteners with flanges/locks or proper grade bolts at the crank, in your kits.
Then again your motors probably don't make enough HP/TQ to twist grade 8 bolts.
Could also be why you feel you don't need extra volume like an oil pump.*

http://dubworld.com/tag/ina-engineering/

IMAGE 5 of 15 for those looking.




> _Probably your best post yet however a contradiction and one where you should have quit while you were behind. Spending the better part of the night flowing the oil pumps to see what values would be obtained produced some interesting results. The Oil pump sizes vary depending on application of the motor. The 06F motor is a derivative of the 06D and subsequently 06B & 06A motors. The 2.0 TFSI oil pump system has been used in various other applications even infamous 1.8T's (so there goes your theory) but let us get down to the mathematics behind all of this which even using your "upgraded oil pump" the arbitrary value achieved at the end shows your upgrade even though not needed actually does no improvement over the stock FSI oil pump
> 
> Using the following dimensions for vane diameters.
> 06A 1.8T = 40mm
> ...



*MY WORD! YOU DID SOME MATH? REALLY!
DO YOU HAVE A CHALK BOARD?*


*Dude derivative!

Are you kidding me? Did you forget the fact that the 1.8T doesn't have a HPP,individual rocker arms, or an oil fed cam adjuster barrel through the cam, not stationary, and are entirely different? I guess thats not a difference or sort of like a PD vs a 1.8T.
COMMON SENSE 

Many designs VW-Audi uses, are similar, as they progress through testing/production and technology changes.*

*There goes my theory?
I guess they just changed production for no apparent reason then, with a flip of coin, or a consultation from you maybe? LOL *

*I must say you have educated me with useless disinformation.*

*You never saw my pump, yet you know/speculate it starts out life as an 06A series pump. Hmmmm!
You also don't know what other mods we recommend in a block, or if we change a metering valve or shim it. You continue to show your sheer ignorance by speculation.*

*You have never looked at the inside of our pump casting, to see the size or increased size chambers. Why would you go out on such a limb Issam? Are you here to make money or police the world? I just don't see you as the good Samaritan type.*



> _Great! Don't let the door hit you on the way out._


*You know?....... I may have to consider some options.
You keep digging deeper and please sir,.... change your loaded diaper or take it out of your mouth*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *You never saw my pump, yet you know/speculate it starts out life as an 06A series pump. Hmmmm!*


*
You sent over a 2.70 MB that cleary shows you grounded off the part # on the housing. Unless you casted your own oil pump housing (doubtful) then my statement holds true. How does that Kool-Aid taste?
The dimensions for your oil pump posted above were taken from the JPEG image you sent over....your dimensions. You can't cheat mathematics no matter how hard you swing it.

That being said , this is pointless as your credibility as a vendor has been shot to ****. Every knowledge post by us was a golden opportunity for you to rebuttle with an explanation as to why your product is beneficial instead you chose to post immature childish responses.This is VWVortex , the benchmark for knowledge and information regarding VAG motors. Your "there is an ass for every seat" stance does not fly here.
This conversation is over , consider yourself ignored.



GolfRS said:



As i told you in the numerous emails we exchanged i would never again install a DM rod
just cause i cannot be sure it won't fail again.They maybe the best rods in the UNIVERSE
for all i care, they failed in my car and i don't want to use them again.

Click to expand...

That is your position for which I can only respect but you had these connecting rods in your motor for 30,000 KM's. 30,000! 
To add insult to injury DM has extended more than I would have done to make sure you are taken care of and instead your remedy is run a competing product without figuring out what went wrong. You have your reasons and I am not going to try and argue against them but you always know you have a friend that will give you an unbiased opinion or help an email / phone call away.
All the best :thumbup:*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _You sent over a 2.70 MB that cleary shows you grounded off the part # on the housing. Unless you casted your own oil pump housing (doubtful) then my statement holds true. How does that Kool-Aid taste?
> The dimensions for your oil pump posted above were taken from the JPEG image you sent over....your dimensions. You can't cheat mathematics no matter how hard you swing it.
> 
> That being said , this is pointless as your credibility as a vendor has been shot to ****. Every knowledge post by us was a golden opportunity for you to rebuttle with an explanation as to why your product is beneficial instead you chose to post immature childish responses.This is VWVortex , the benchmark for knowledge and information regarding VAG motors. Your "there is an ass for every seat" stance does not fly here.
> This conversation is over , consider yourself ignored._




*First off Issam, you're not a good liar, at least with me.

Fact: I drink Snapple Iced Tea ( c ) :laugh: You serve the Kool-Aid, probably Orange.... I imagine.

See....... if its one thing, I don't do in business, is move without properly documenting my path.
All my emails go to a third party verification system. This way they can be authenticated as legal instruments, to protect me if someone like you exists.

You were never sent pictures of the housing, other then what is shown in my kit on my site VIA link, and the same gear picture which was displayed in the Vortex, which is not on my site.

You may see some slight deburring to clean the deck, on the one rough casted side, however, that is it, where the bolts would secure the mount with an even deck.

I have never claimed I do my own sand castings. 
I claimed I had something made to what I wanted, and it was done as favor for me. 
I tried to share! Your just a proud guy.
See thats the thing called HP in the industry, of a different type, you don't clearly have.:heart:

Like I said, it appears it is you sir, who lacks the experience, good business sense/relationships, or the knowledge of the internal engine systems/vendors, VW-Audi uses, on a world level. CLEARLY!

Please advise of wiping the sweat from your eyes sir.

If you were to look at the photo displayed on my site. 
Just looking at the outer cover, you can see the clear casting difference in size.
There is no grinding of any part #s which don't exist.
So much for you paying attention to details.
Sort of like,..... the hardware lacking quality in that past post advertised last install, in your other kit.
Image 5 for those looking.

It appears you need to brush up on your math, my friend.

Just more disinformation.
I know it is just killing you, that you negated to use a bigger pump,....... now isn't it?:heart:

See man I am not afraid of you. 
Many emails in from people, applauding me, saying these things to you. They are afraid of you, and your brutal tactics to speak with a fork tongue. 
You have entered the wild card!
*


*A friend sent me this clip recently, its fitting for you. 
I have no more time for this, and must tend to the opening markets.. Ta Ta. Jacks Back!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k*


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] Parts said:


> You were never sent pictures of the housing, other then what is shown in my kit on my site VIA link, and the same gear picture which was displayed in the Vortex, which is not on my site.


Dude I am no expert but it appears you did send him files..


[email protected] Parts said:


> [2/6/2013 5:50:53 PM] European Parts Emporium: here take a look Issam
> [2/6/2013 5:50:57 PM] *** European Parts Emporium sent OIL_PUMP_COMPARE_mod.JPG ***
> [2/6/2013 5:51:17 PM] European Parts Emporium: you will see the dif
> [2/6/2013 5:55:48 PM] *** European Parts Emporium sent 100_1346.JPG ***
> [2/6/2013 5:57:17 PM] European Parts Emporium: Let me know when your interested


I picked up an 07 GLI recently and based on what I have read in here , I would give INA $1 before I gave it to you. For an advertiser you are just awful...lol


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _TurboJOSH_
> _Dude I am no expert but it appears you did send him files.._



*Correct, It was the picture posted here in the forum of the gears compared.

Two attempts where tried and one was successful of one of the pictures.

The other picture, was the gears again at a different angle, and it wasn't a completed transfer due to his belligerence.

We are now talking about the casting/housing and chambers, not the internal gear comparisons sir.

That is his lie, and he knows he screwed up.

Are you here to try to spin his lie, or are you just making a faulty observation?

Things are clear if read through.

Currently we don't post the casting cases to compare on our website, because we were to lazy to do it. It was never a priority. 

The fact remains, all we tried to do is share an idea, and got bashed for it.
The clear path of Mr. Issam, is to make money here. 
I don't fault this, everyone has to make a living. 
Some do it with honor and some do it another way.

Clearly you can see the path he has taken.
Me personally, I have my word and honor.
I am a wise ass here, however, I take care of my customers. If they are equally respectful to me, and willing to pay me what I feel I am worth, then great. If not theres the door.
Its a two way street, only on my own terms, fair though.

That is why I am self employed and kiss no ones ass.

I have equal respect for all the guys who are out there selling their creative products, such as some, but not all, the advertisers here on Vortex.

It would be nice to give the thread back to GOLF RS for his build please, and refrain from comments unless truly related and relevant to his build or the oil pump interest.

Instead of all the bashing please this poor guys car blew up and that is not cool. I'm off to night nights. Good night.
I have some good news for you D- please get back to me.
Your wish maybe sort of granted.*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> That is your position for which I can only respect but you had these connecting rods in your motor for 30,000 KM's. 30,000!
> To add insult to injury DM has extended more than I would have done to make sure you are taken care of and instead your remedy is run a competing product without figuring out what went wrong. You have your reasons and I am not going to try and argue against them but you always know you have a friend that will give you an unbiased opinion or help an email / phone call away.
> All the best :thumbup:


Bro you keep talking me down and it is something i really hate....

What do you mean i had the rods for 30K...Do they only last 29K and i stepped over the limit ?

Aren't rods supposed to last the lifetime of the car ? (since i've never heard of ANY OEM cars changing rods if all is well).Well these didn't even last 30K..Is that normal to you ?

I honestly don't care about DM Forged as you keep mentioning them.They could have cost me my whole motor, with their sub par materials.I don't take that lightly...It was/is they obligation to replace a bad part, i just can't be sure the replacement would be any different, and it's not a headlight lamp i can't switch or inspect easily.

As for the "competing product" you say, it is a competing product to you and you alone.
To me it's just another market option, one i probably should have gone with from the start.

It's clear i could sell the IE rods and use the replacements saving me money, but as i already told you
i'd like to sleep peacefully at night.You could always sell them and send me the money if you are so concerned about "your favorite Greek"...But hey it's all marketing right....


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

*Software*

So, GolfRS have you put anymore thought into different software/tune this time around? Maybe INU or Eurodyne?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> So, GolfRS have you put anymore thought into different software/tune this time around? Maybe INU or Eurodyne?


Sure...I've expressed that in the past too.Wasn't able to actually "measure" Revo's performance but i'm sure more tweakable sofrware will be needed...


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> ..But hey it's all marketing right....


If it was all marketing then I would come in here and blow smoke up your ass like the clown above and act like your **** does not stink. 
It is frustrating for me to come on here and see you use terms like "sub par" and "poor quality" when you used the product for 30,000+km's. You had a component in your engine that if it was going to fail would have failed almost instantly and it did not.I am not talking down to you , instead I am trying to help you see an alternative to find a solution so please see it as that. 
If you do not want our help then I will remove my subscription from the thread and leave you to it.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _If it was all marketing then I would come in here and blow smoke up your ass like the clown above and act like your **** does not stink. _



*Respectfully, that is exactly what you have basically come across as.
You repeatedly take a dump while turning around and pissing on people, with no basis for doing so. SHAMEFUL!*




> _It is frustrating for me to come on here and see you use terms like "sub par" and "poor quality" when you used the product for 30,000+km's. You had a component in your engine that if it was going to fail would have failed almost instantly and it did not_



*Again, just poor speculation of something without verification. That's your MO though.
Making a diagnosis without having, or knowing all the facts.*





> _I am not talking down to you _



*I disagree........ you in fact are talking down to this person, the same as you have done to me.
Hell right? He's only your customer.*:heart: *SPIN SPIN SPIN!*opcorn:


*Must be pretty good marketing. Many inquiries for a pump you say or think is worthless. Along with clear emails of there own opinion of disagreement with your spin.
At least there are people out there which have reason and understanding still.:laugh:

Yet we have refrained from selling any, because I am prepared to hand the concept off, to a credible vendor who wants to play upgrade sales.*

*It just advice and an olive branch.

A simple I'm sorry, with a statement, "I spoke before I should of listened to all information" with an additional corrective action, would have been paramount. 

Its not to late Issam. Do you want to do the right thing and apologize, or continue now with enemies? Is it really worth it? Balls in your court now. 
If you truly want peace and not a Holy war!

I will be the first to extend mine. 
I am sorry for all my name calling and stupid innuendo comments. 
I am not sorry for trying to share an idea.*


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Things are clear if read through.


...Lol ahahaha
Dude I read your posts and you need to take an english course. His goal is not take people's money. His goal is to defer people from wasting it. I have not seen one reply from you hat would make me want to spent a dollar with you. If you can't explain your product then why should I buy it?


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

If I was a vendor posting in this thread would seem like a terrible idea:

1) OP has his build thread going on for 2+ years now, and cannot seem to get his motor sorted out. He claims some level of expertise and blames all his woes on vendors/products.

2) You get into arguments like this, I will side with INA here and do trust that they know more than the other guy here.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

GTI2Slow said:


> If I was a vendor posting in this thread would seem like a terrible idea:
> 
> 1) OP has his build thread going on for 2+ years now, and cannot seem to get his motor sorted out. He claims some level of expertise and blames all his woes on vendors/products.


Now that is A LIE....Where did you see me blaming another product ??
I blame the SERVICE i have received from techs over here YES...But i never said anything
bad about a product.This time it is fully justified regardless if it bothers some people.
I wish you never have issues like mine.....I'd like to see YOU handling them better than me....



> 2) You get into arguments like this, I will side with INA here and do trust that they know more than the other guy here.


I never said Issam isn't knowledgeable.I simply presented another part that i happened to find
and thought some might show interest and he decided he doesn't like it...
Now if you really think Issam or INA are the forum resident tech responsible for clearing parts...well you are WRONG....But you are free to believe what you want. :screwy:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> If it was all marketing then I would come in here and blow smoke up your ass like the clown above and act like your **** does not stink.


I think i don't need to remind you how long you had me waiting for rods....do i ?

If that isn't smoke up my ass then what IS ??

C'mon man..... 



> It is frustrating for me to come on here and see you use terms like "sub par" and "poor quality" when you used the product for 30,000+km's. You had a component in your engine that if it was going to fail would have failed almost instantly and it did not


How exactly does a bushing fail in a rod Issam ?Would you expect the engine to EXPLODE ?
I find it very reasonable for the bushing to fail after X amount of miles as it is not up to the task.
Btw, as a tech, can you please let me know of the difference between a rod that is made straight
and a rod that is made straight and GROUND DOWN to become tapered ?Just curious....



> I am not talking down to you , instead I am trying to help you see an alternative to find a solution so please see it as that.If you do not want our help then I will remove my subscription from the thread and leave you to it.


I already found an "alternative" solution and it's called IE Tuscan Rods....
As for the subscription no one forced you to subscribe.If you wanna follow the
thread you are more than welcome and if you want to help you are free to do so.
But not by asking me to install rods that have already failed once.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> If that isn't smoke up my ass then what IS ??


The above! Our transaction was not!
We did not have the connecting rod you requested in stock and we had to wait on our supplier for them. You wanted them straight without any QC and that simply was not feasible at the time. Now that they have completed the QC they have asked for your assistance and the opportunity to make it right and instead of giving them this you chose to bash there product and call it sub par. I am sorry your motor did not last but it lasted *30,000 KM's*.....*30,000 KM's*....*30,000 KM's!*


GolfRS said:


> But not by asking me to install rods that have already failed once.


I am not asking you to do anything but use logic. Figure out what caused the failure first! If you do not know what caused the failure but have lost your faith in DM and simply want to run those rods then go right ahead but you will be back in this same position shortly. Wrist pin's don't just get "hammered" to oblivion after 30,000 km's. That is a moving part in an engine rotating 8000+ rpm's. If you have figured it out what caused the failure then my job here is done and I apologize for posting in your thread.

edit: If you need anything more just send me an email. I have had my fair share of forum drama for one week.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> The above! Our transaction was not!
> We did not have the connecting rod you requested in stock and we had to wait on our supplier for them. You wanted them straight without any QC and that simply was not feasible at the time. Now that they have completed the QC they have asked for your assistance and the opportunity to make it right instead and instead of giving them this you chose to bash there product and call it sub par. I am sorry your motor did not last but it lasted *30,000 KM's*.....*30,000 KM's*....*30,000 KM's!*


LOL...You are joking right ?? QC ?? LOL you never said you didn't have stock (quite the opposite
in fact while i kept saying you didn't and what you kept insisting is that the rods need to be..."laser etched")...Laser etching that lasted 6 weeks....(lol you must have been laughing all that time...)
Of course i've never heard of a product getting laser etched before it is sold but hey...there's a first time
for everything no ?

And that is the reason i had to cancel my order with you and get the IE rods.It was AFTER THAT
that i opened up the engine only to find out the condition of the rods...And of course that made me
feel lucky i didn't end up getting the DM's...AGAIN...



> I am not asking you to do anything but use logic. Figure out what caused the failure first! If you do not know what caused the failure but have lost your faith in DM and simply want to run those rods then go right ahead but you will be back in this same position shortly. Wrist pin's don't just get "hammered" to oblivion after 30,000 km's. That is a moving part in an engine rotating 8000+ rpm's. If you have figured it out what caused the failure then my job here is done and I apologize for posting in your thread.


I know what caused the failure.It was the rods.

Btw what are the symptoms of a failing rod Issam ? I need to know what exactly
you were expecting to see...Piston rocking and hitting the valves maybe ?
Scorched cylinder wall perhaps ?? Am i missing something ??? Fill in the gaps.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> Of course i've never heard of a product getting laser etched before it is sold but hey...there's a first time


Ok you are upset and frustrated and I understand that but please do not post in a moronic sarcastic way. You are better than that...
How do you think branding happens? How do you think dimensions are checked? Do you think when you buy a product from anywhere else that is made in the far east that it is ready to go right out the box? :screwy:


GolfRS said:


> I know what caused the failure.It was the rods


So connecting rods after being in your motor for 30,000 km's just decided to say screw it I am drunk ....I am going to fail? Screw Dimitiris , I dont like him so I am going to implode on myself? Listen to your logic please! :laugh:
Check for wrist pin lubrication. Again , you have already made up your mind what you want to do and I am not here to change that. I am simply here to avoid you having to deal with this again.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> Ok you are upset and frustrated and I understand that but please do not post in a moronic sarcastic way. You are better than that...
> How do you think branding happens? How do you think dimensions are checked? Do you think when you buy a product from anywhere else that is made in the far east that it is ready to go right out the box? :screwy:


Do be honest with you i am more upset and frustrated with YOU and less with the rods.
And that is cause all this time i was your customer and instead of being straight forward with me you chose to talk down to me (even in the emails) and let me WAIT for rods you didn't have in stock,while you kept saying "they need to be branded" "i have them right here" and all that lasted 4 weeks, up to the point i had enough and needed to move on with my car...I have to commend you though for giving me
a refund.You could have chosen not to but i'm glad you did.At least i could put that money to good use.
In any case i opted for the IE rods BEFORE i opened up the engine to find the condition of my DM rods..
So the two things are unrelated, but still glad things turned out that way.I consider the rods as another
part that failed to deliver.God knows the aftermarket is full of them...



> So connecting rods after being in your motor for 30,000 km's just decided to say screw it I am drunk ....I am going to fail? Screw Dimitiris , I dont like him so I am going to implode on myself? Listen to your logic please! :laugh:
> Check for wrist pin lubrication. Again , you have already made up your mind what you want to do and I am not here to change that. I am simply here to avoid you having to deal with this again.


Rods don't fail dramatically Issam.They can fail over time too you know.If i had opened my car after just
5K and i had seen the same condition, would you be still singing that tune ?And what about 100K ? (when a rebuild might be required in a car) then what ?Would you write this off as "acceptable engine wear" ? Is that what you are trying to say ?

And what about bad wrist lubrication ? What is the cause of THAT ??? Can you have bad wrist lubrication and no signs of oil starvation in the bearings or the rest of the engine ?
Once again, whatever the reason you are trying to make me believe, i am not the only one that
bought these rods.Let's hope others don't suffer the same fate cause that by itself will be the
proof something is terribly wrong....


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Rods don't fail dramatically Issam.They can fail over time too you know.If i had opened my car after just
> 5K and i had seen the same condition, would you be still singing that tune ?And what about 100K ? (when a rebuild might be required in a car) then what ?Would you write this off as "acceptable engine wear" ? Is that what you are trying to say ?


 Yes rods can, A few reasons
1. Improper oil clearance between wrist pin OD and connecting rod small end bushing ID. If that was reason, than that is assembly/install issue. 
2. Out a round small end bushing. If the rods were properly installed/inspected by a trained/experienced builder, this might have been caught before the install and corrected by the engine builder or rod manufacturer
3. If the small end bushing wasn't using forced oiling, than clogged pistion oil squiter could have failed
4. Improper oil pressure.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _TurboJOSH
> 
> ...Lol ahahaha
> Dude I read your posts and you need to take an english course. His goal is not take people's money. His goal is to defer people from wasting it. I have not seen one reply from you hat would make me want to spent a dollar with you. If you can't explain your product then why should I buy it? _




*Respectfully nobody said I was an English Scholar, however, at least I capitalized the word.
I think its fair to say, most will judge your recant as a poor attempt.
No one here cares, clearly your comment is one sided.
Wasn't trying to sell you anything, I don't care*.:laugh:

*You want simple facts. Read Mr. Issams link at the wikki.

Boyle's law is not fluid mechanics. 
A poor law to quote, when it is the study of compressing gases. 
Last I checked, we weren't doing that here. Sorry!

Hogging out oil ports, and polishing to add volume, is a standard race upgrade, on any engine with a higher volume oil pump, for racing, or standard upgrades.

We are talking about an engine which has nothing but lubrication issues, and high friction requirements.

If ports are increased in size, it will lower the PSI crack point of the regulator valve, in time.

So let me see. How is that any different then any other upgrade which is serious being deemed bad?:heart:*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Yes rods can, A few reasons
> 1. Improper oil clearance between wrist pin OD and connecting rod small end bushing ID. If that was reason, than that is assembly/install issue.
> 2. Out a round small end bushing. If the rods were properly installed/inspected by a trained/experienced builder, this might have been caught before the install and corrected by the engine builder or rod manufacturer
> 3. If the small end bushing wasn't using forced oiling, than clogged pistion oil squiter could have failed
> 4. Improper oil pressure.


Interesting.

1.Isn't the clearance dictated by the actual size of the pin (which is standard) and the
ID of the rod (which necessarily isn't) ? I'm guessing you mean the rods were too "tight" and that
led to poor oil penetration/ spread that led to friction failures.But there were no signs of that.

2.Can a rod that was build straight but ground tapered get an "out of round" shape in the small end
bushing ?I'm not pointing fingers...just speculating.And yes a proper inspection might find that, and yes a proper shop should inspect all things even brand new...but if it didn't ?

3.If that happened, what other signs would be present ?Cause there were none...

4.That would also lead to oil starvation which there was none.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> And that is cause all this time i was your customer and instead of being straight forward with me you chose to talk down to me (even in the emails)



After this post Dimitris I am going to walk away from this thread. I have noticed a trend with you and that is when people agree with you _they are talking with you_ but when people disagree with you it is talking down to you...
I am sorry you thought I was "talking down to you" but you were offered a refund countless times and you chose to wait. I apologize that it turned into 4 weeks but when we did finally have the connecting rods here you chose not to want them and subsequently chose to bash them as a company. DM has offered you a set at there cost to help with any issues you have incurred and you have chosen not to take them up on there offer , anyone else in this industry looking at the facts infront of them (i.e. you using there product for 30K) would have told you to go pound sand. You have chosen the direction you want to go with so let us part ways and end the bashing as this has nothing to do with the topic currently and I am not going to carry this on any further. 
:beer::thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

INA said:


> After this post Dimitris I am going to walk away from this thread. I have noticed a trend with you and that is when people agree with you _they are talking with you_ but when people disagree with you it is talking down to you...
> I am sorry you thought I was "talking down to you" but you were offered a refund countless times and you chose to wait. I apologize that it turned into 4 weeks but when we did finally have the connecting rods here you chose not to want them and subsequently chose to bash them as a company. DM has offered you a set at there cost to help with any issues you have incurred and you have chosen not to take them up on there offer , anyone else in this industry looking at the facts infront of them (i.e. you using there product for 30K) would have told you to go pound sand. You have chosen the direction you want to go with so let us part ways and end the bashing as this has nothing to do with the topic currently and I am not going to carry this on any further.
> :beer::thumbup:


Eeeeemmmm....Ok.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well well...Look what i found....

Some prophetic words there from [email protected]

And just about 2 years ago....Weird ain't it...

*"Lets make blanket unfounded statements why dont we? The grooved small end wrist pin bushing is actually a detriment to a performance rod. It is more suspectible to mushrooming and pin bushing failure in the event of pin deflection up in the rpm band. Its also susceptible of hairline cracking along the step under high load conditions. Every performance rod company has abandoned this type of bushing type as a result. Whether its Pauter, Manley, etc. But i suspect that the rod providers may have thought that they might've been on to something here and is spreading this information. Also, the countersink or chamfer around the oil hole is just deeper in the DM forged rod. This is just a machining difference. I wouldnt want more material taken out of the the back of the friction surface if you ask me. Just a touch and its fine like in the IE's or the Brutes. I dont doubt the DM's are good but stop w/ the misinformation here. Ppl in the know realizes its just pulled out of the you know what. "
*

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...uys-H-Beam&p=73475575&viewfull=1#post73475575

Interesting.... :sly:


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Boyle's law is not fluid mechanics.
> A poor law to quote, when it is the study of compressing gases.
> Last I checked, we weren't doing that here. Sorry!
> 
> Hogging out oil ports, and polishing to add volume, is a standard race upgrade, on any engine with a higher volume oil pump, for racing, or standard upgrades


I am not claiming to be a professor but holay you just dug yourself into a deeper hole. Boyle's Law is fluid mechanics.....did you seriously just type that??
INA allready told you why hogging out the oil ports is useless....you just don't want to admit you are wrong.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _I am not claiming to be a professor but holay you just dug yourself into a deeper hole. Boyle's Law is fluid mechanics.....did you seriously just type that??
> INA allready told you why hogging out the oil ports is useless....you just don't want to admit you are wrong. _




*You are clearly on an influenced substance, or just a poor little sheep.... in the meadow without a clue. Keep dreaming.
I suggest you contact SAE for an answer, you will find I am correct.

However, you can always read the first paragraph in the link that Mr. Issam points to in the Wikki. Maybe pop the Boyle's Law on your neck.

Warning!!!! This advice below could all end badly...... going past turtle head.
Go stand in the corner,........ fart real good, breathe in super......deep, while chewing and eating the air.
Taste your Boyle's Law. Now do you understand it better?

Good luck with your forged instrument, or disingenuous words.

Aerospace and real race machine shops all across the USA, are reading this laughing....... at this poor guy in Canada, who has committed suicide.

:laugh:*

*Fun with Boyle's Law in your guys native tone. A Jack induced education experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyTQ6BsQslc*


*Fun with Fluid Mechanics Laws in your guys native tone. Another Jack induced education experience. FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LEARN FOR REAL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKjwXqOj0Ic*


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

Air is a fluid and Boyle's law goes hand in hand with Bernoulli principle.
Also we had a friend in our local group that commited suicide. Not cool....:thumbdown:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _TurboJOSH
> Also we had a friend in our local group that commited suicide. Not cool.... _


*That's to bad, I am sorry to hear that about your friend.:sly: OK I am done mourning.

I think you have something else in your hand. You will go blind..... be careful.*:heart:



> _Air is a fluid and Boyle's law goes hand in hand with Bernoulli principle._



*Ahhh no it isn't for this system here.

Unless by definition yes. We are speaking of fluids as a STATE being pumped, not compressing air into a fluid. 
Fluids can be compressed to a small degree, not like a gas. 
This is the main difference you guys miss.

Back to basics and thanks to George @ Melling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjEahJ_-Ro

Ahhhh Ahhhh More facts. Thanks to good old George again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjCIuJwnVqU

Thanks George/Melling and Summit racing for making those handy simple videos:thumbup:.*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *You are clearly on an influenced substance, or just a poor little sheep.... in the meadow without a clue. Keep dreaming.
> *


Haahahahahah....

Man i think i peed my pants....Hilarious....


> Go stand in the corner,........ fart real good, breathe in super......deep, while chewing and eating the air.
> Taste your Boyle's Law. Now do you understand it better?


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :thumbup:



TurboJOSH said:


> Air is a fluid............


Wait...WHAT ??? :what:.....:sly:.....:facepalm:.....:screwy:


----------



## mjg4427 (Jan 14, 2005)

*Boyles law huh.....?*

I was directed to this thread by a friend and just wanted to point out a major flaw in this argument. 

Directly from your own link on Wikepedia:

"Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the Boyle–Mariotte law) states that the absolute pressure and volume of a given mass of *confined gas *are inversely proportional, if the temperature remains unchanged within a closed system.[1][2] Thus, it states that the product of pressure and volume is a constant for a given *mass of confined gas *as long as the temperature is constant. The law was named after chemist and physicist Robert Boyle, who published the original law in 1662.[3]"

Note the bold text in the above definition of Boyle's Law from INA's post. This law of physics can only be applied to confined gas. Last I checked, oil is not a gas.

Just wanted to clear that up being an engineer. Now carry on.........:beer:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _mjg4427
> Boyles law huh.....?_




*That's what I said, HUH? What What What!

And,..... lets not forget the constant variable of temperature, which an engine is clearly not.
Keeping in mind the influx depending on the rate of convection of the cooling systems, T-Stats, or a slue variable of other conditions.

Dude, we could always blame Canada for harboring and aiding this guy.:heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

I would just like to say, thank you very much ING., for reaffirming, the world isn't all completely stupid. :thumbup:*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

mjg4427 said:


> Note the bold text in the above definition of Boyle's Law from INA's post.


 A definition was never posted. This is what was posted:


INA said:


> And I think you need to go back and understand Boyle's law. If you have 80 psi of oil pressure what good is increasing VOLUME going to do? Here you go:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle's_law
> I have already defunct your product and explained why it is NOT needed.The ball is now in your court to explain to members here why you think your product is needed and kindly do not copy and paste from the SSP as I know it like the back of my hand.


I never posted a definition of Boyle's , Bernoulli or any law for that matter. I stated to the individual that he needs to brush up on his fluid mechanics considering he never took it as a course.
*edit: If you click on the wiki link you will see the point I was trying to get across that it does not matter how much volume the pump supplies as it is stepped down @ the oil filter housing.*


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

So, The OIL pumps OIL, With a certain FLOW dependent on the engine RPM

BUT it's stepped down to a MAXIMUM pressure in the oil filter housing ?

and VW made a pump that @ Y RPM is making a certain pressure X BARS witch is a linear function of Y RPM,

and the pressure RISE with RPM, until a maximum pressure ? 

example:

700 rpm -- 1 BAR

1400 rpm -- 2 BAR

etc, until a maximum pressure is reach, ?

4000 RPM - 7 BARS
.
.
.
7000 RPM - 7 BARS


Is this correct ?  hope to learn somthing from all this


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*Respectfully Issam,*





> _You have no class....I hope you are reviewed and removed as an advertiser on VWVortex. _



*Like old man Rodney..... awesome, thanks for the compliment. "I get no respect " in his honor.
Excuse me Issam, Social suicide, not you actually killing yourself. 
It is a figure of speech, which you are good at talking out of context. 

Clearly your underlings/blind, leading the blind followers, are trying to manipulate, the mASSes for sympathy.

Be advised: I have no sympathy for you, being this ignorant..... with a FAIL for reasonable debate. 
You have only condemned yourself.

Now the pieces are set on the Chess board at CHECK-MATE!
I highly doubt the Vortex would cancel such an informative thread for merely showing the truth.
Let alone ban me for you attacking me, and me defending myself.

*




> _A definition was never posted. This is what was posted:
> 
> Originally Posted by INA
> And I think you need to go back and understand Boyle's law. If you have 80 psi of oil pressure what good is increasing VOLUME going to do? Here you go:
> ...



*You can't spin this! The continuity line is clear. 
Again...... Respectfully!

Boyle's law isn't relevant to an oil pump, we are not taking about gases, or brushing up on Physics.
However, you stated this in your email, here again, and again, with a link that it is.

I stated in my email "You mean Fluid mechanics right?" So that is not what you mean now.
You clearly answered "NO".
Additionally!
You stated that they are INVERSE, they are NOT, this was also my answer!

SPIN SPIN SPIN. a bearing!

I would say you sort of understand what is going on here with your wires crossed.

You are so incorrect about the inside of these, or any other engine, it is laughable!!!
You should watch the videos I posted, so you can maybe understand, which laws to site first....... when it comes to Physics, or better understand how things really work.

You have demonstrated, that not only you fail to understand theories, or the inner workings of an internal combustion engine, you quote the wrong ones. Its time for you to throw away your diploma from the Crackerjack Box ( c ) and start over.

You have entered the WILDCARD, do you dare continue?:heart:

Wanna talk about FORGED RODS...... you sell, the design with poor attempts at..... Trapezoid benefits......... speaking in Physics reality, and the Aerospace/Automotive Engineering NORM?*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _So, The OIL pumps OIL, With a certain FLOW dependent on the engine RPM
> 
> BUT it's stepped down to a MAXIMUM pressure in the oil filter housing ?
> 
> ...



*This is not meant as being mean to be clear.
Read the Factory Book/RTFB and the SSP, watch the videos, they are pretty good, no reason to reinvent the wheel. 
A quick Google/Youtube search maybe?
Not linear due to relief, otherwise it would blow all seals.
The main discussion is about whether you can increase the volume, answer.... you can.
*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> You have demonstrated, that not only you fail to understand theories, or the inner workings of an internal combustion engine













[email protected] Parts said:


> The main discussion is about whether you can increase the volume, answer.... you can.


:facepalm:
the main discussion is NOT about whether you can increase the volume at ALL.You can make the oil pump flow 10293890308923 Gallons/minute. *That is NOT the main discussion.The main discussion is whether increasing the volume of oil exiting the pump adds any benefit to the overall oil system and it does not!You have 0 proof showing otherwise.
*




ghita.silviu said:


> example:
> 
> 700 rpm -- 1 BAR
> 
> ...


No for simplicity sake this is how it works.

*PRE Oil filter housing / Post Oil Pump*
700 RPM - 7 BAR
1000 RPM - 8.5 BAR
2000 RPM - 9 BAR
4000 RPM - 9.5 BAR
.
.
.
7000 RPM - 10 BAR
*
POST Oil filter housing / Cylinder Head / Oil Cavity*
700 RPM - 6 BAR
1000 RPM - 6 BAR
2000 RPM - 6 BAR
4000 RPM - 6 BAR
.
.
.
7000 RPM -6 BAR

These values are not exact but are for illustration purposes.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _the main discussion is NOT about whether you can increase the volume at ALL.You can make the oil pump flow 10293890308923 Gallons/minute. That is NOT the main discussion.The main discussion is whether increasing the volume of oil exiting the pump adds any benefit to the overall oil system and it does not!You have 0 proof showing otherwise._



*I am serious! Did I sound like I was kidding?
There is always an advantage to additional oil flow of volume at idle, in all ranges, or extreme temps. 
Your nuts if you think otherwise, but you are entitled too your crazy opinion.:heart:

At one 1 minute 17 seconds the message is for you Issam: You can claim the whole thing though, you are clearly all 3. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs

So you think its better to put a much smaller pump in? Because thats what you do!:laugh:

I have personally flow tested many and the TFSI engine's stock/race mod port type.
I have verified that within Time, to evacuate the sump based on the same RPM it flows faster. Which it should and even at full pop off of the PSI valve in the oil housing.

Pressure isn't inverse to flow in fluid mechanics, that is what you keep stating. 
You're flat wrong.
Its not Boyle's Law. 
We are not compressing gases. 
Compressing fluids is not the same and temps are not constant for the system we are working with.

You need to go back to school Issam.:facepalm:
The only Joker is you!

What no rods?*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> I have personally flow tested many and the TFSI engine's stock/race mod port type.
> I have verified that within Time, to evacuate the sump based on the same RPM it flows faster. Which it should and even at full pop off of the PSI valve in the oil housing.


Post the pressure reading post oil pump "modification" and stock oil pump for the following:


Pre Oil filter
Post oil filter
Cylinder head


That is 6 very simple numbers for you since you did the testing.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _Post the pressure reading post oil pump "modification" and stock oil pump for the following:
> •Pre Oil filter
> •Post oil filter
> •Cylinder head
> ...




*PSI numbers are not relevant to the flow being increased.

You need to go back to school.

Man you are scared! You should be. 
What no Rods?
Anyone following you, should really consider the consequences of admitting an alliance with you, after reading this thread.

I am not trying to sell the pump.

Answer my questions from the thread first,...... all of them, and I will post your data requested.
I have answered all of your questions and you keep skating around the responses.


"Memo bis punitor della cattum!"


You broke the rules! Clear as Crystal! You lose!

GOOD DAY SIR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaoySOGlZ_U

*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *PSI numbers are not relevant to the flow being increased.*


*
Post the flow numbers along with the following in the same format.



INA said:



Post the pressure reading post oil pump "modification" and stock oil pump for the following:


Pre Oil filter
Post oil filter
Cylinder head


That is 6 very simple numbers for you since you did the testing.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *Ahhh no it isn't.*


*
Ahhh......yes it is. What Engineering did you take? In ME312 Fluid Mechanics I , air is treated as a fluid and how did we even get to discussing this? 


[email protected] Parts said:



You are so incorrect about the inside of these, or any other engine, it is laughable!!!
You should watch the videos I posted, so you can maybe understand, which laws to site first....... when it comes to Physics, or better understand how things really work.

Click to expand...

Not to sound biased ....well maybe a little but you need to watch those videos as either you are on something or you simply love talking crap when you are proven wrong.*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TurboJOSH said:


> Not to sound biased ....well maybe a little but you need to watch those videos as either you are on something or you simply love talking crap when you are proven wrong.



HEY !!!!!!!!!!!

I like those videos !!!!!!!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh: :thumbup: :beer:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _Ahhh......yes it is. What Engineering did you take? In ME312 Fluid Mechanics I , air is treated as a fluid and how did we even get to discussing this? _
> 
> _Not to sound biased ...._



*Oh no, not at all....... completely reasonable!
*

*Ahhh what happened to Boyle's Law Turbo-Josh Lover?:heart: You abandon that one? 

Just making sure we have a continuity path.

The videos are put there for you guys. You need them!


Ohh Issam....... You can no longer make demands until you cough up the fun tickets to ride.
Your telepathic powers have failed to activate. Form of.... a bucket of fluid dirty water.:heart:
At least you have obedient loyal followers.:thumbup:

I suspect you played with this toy as a child in the SANDBOX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1eqfRtpIs

*


*I think you guys need these again and to actually watch them.
Cheers. Thanks for clicking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjEahJ_-Ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjCIuJwnVqU

Thanks to George/ @ Melling and Summit Racing! You rock guys.*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _no for simplicity sake this is how it works.
> 
> Pre oil filter housing / post oil pump
> 700 rpm - 7 bar
> ...




*What no rods! 
In the meantime, lets talk about above INA quote, during intermission.

Not exact! OK ????????
Well they should be pretty close, again a poor illustration based on simple facts. 
Lets start with before the filter housing numbers you post, once shown, its all a house of cards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptQS2h5zwyM

A quick READING OF THE FACTORY BOOK ( RTFB! ), shows regardless..... of which pump was used, between the TFSI, and the 1.8T SMALLER oil pump YOU use.

The crack PSI of the first control PSI check valve at the pump is 12 BAR, for both pumps. Regardless of volume!

So..... if you had the required complete restriction of Resistance. Then to measure crack of the first oil pump control PSI check valve, of the pump, essentially at before the housing as YOU specify, it should be 12 BAR, or real close before the housing in the block.

What your numbers convey....... is you are either failing to understand how to use a precision measuring instrument, or in fact,...... your setups, are proved DEFICIENT......., regardless of RPM's you site.

That means that your pump is a !FAIL!, which can't achieve not even the pop off PSI at a very high RPM! By your own admittance of course, or not so exact stated numbers.

How far is the real DEFICIENT deviation, my good man?
Some real HARD numbers please, not FLACCID.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE! FOR REAL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bobp5OHVsWY

Why you choose to argue in this manner, is really quite entertaining.
Why you use a smaller oil pump and a slower speed sprocket is mind numbing.
Oh please answer the questions with your superior intellect.

Commence please sir Issam, with more INA enlightenment.:heart:
You're on the path to ascension. Don't worry,..... the virgins are coming.

*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I think what Jack is trying to say is that by boring the oil passages you need a higher flowing oil pump to keep up with volume requirements.

That has nothing to do with check valves but everything to do with the capacity of the pump to keep up with "demand"."

Also if what Jack is saying about INA's kit is a fact, then why go smaller on the oil pump when the TFSI
oil pump is larger ? I mean you are arguing about not having to increase the size, but at least
keep it the same no ? Of course more volume is always better.

Oh and what is this 12 bar valve that Jack mentioned ?

And i think the videos about the pumps are very informative. :thumbup::beer:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _GolfRS
> I think what Jack is trying to say is that by boring the oil passages you need a higher flowing oil pump to keep up with volume requirements.
> 
> That has nothing to do with check valves but everything to do with the capacity of the pump to keep up with "demand"."
> ...



* Hello Golf RS.

Its needed for stock, or modified motors in my professional opinion.
Just a plain good old tried and true upgrade, regardless of manufacturer.

The check valve which is 12 BAR, is located in the pump casting, on the 1.8T, and the pump on the TFSI.

The repair manual will clearly display this, for those interested in checking out what I am saying.

See...... this is where I don't suspect that Issam/INA is wrong, I know he is, or has done no test at all.

If you are to restrict the flow of oil, while being pumped to the housing,...... as he mentions, before the filter housing/pre second relief valve of control system PSI, and a proper gage attached within the path.

When the pump is turned at idle. 
It should, if working correct, read 12 BAR/approx. 
The valve should release the extra PSI it cant push past the first check valve in the pump back to the sump.

Now if he states he gets less then 12 BAR at 700 RPM he FAILS. 
My question is, how the hell is he hooking up his apparatus based on the numbers he spits out of his mouth?

If he gets less then 12 BAR at 4000 RPM he FAILS. :facepalm:

Based on his own statistics, and the the fact that the valve is a 12 BAR relief, he fails the specification. 
Really its a matter of him explaining his methods, which should pose interesting.

Hmmmmm do I sound serious enough now?:heart:

What What What NO RODS? Wanna dance?*


*I would also like to display this WARNING!!!!!!

That if anyone is dumb enough to do this test while the engine is running, you will seize your motor for sure!!!!!*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> I think what Jack is trying to say is that by boring the oil passages you need a higher flowing oil pump to keep up with volume requirements.


YOU CANT BORE THE OIL PASSAGES so please do not even explore this.


GolfRS said:


> Also if what Jack is saying about INA's kit is a fact, then why go smaller on the oil pump when the TFSI oil pump is larger ? I mean you are arguing about not having to increase the size, but at least keep it the same no ? Of course more volume is always better.


What Jack is saying is complete bull**** and he is officially on the ignore list. I have never in my entire 10+ years on vwvortex encountered a more ignorant individual. Makes [email protected] look like Einstein! I have asked him 6 times now to provide any data and all he keeps doing is posting pointless youtube videos. What? I don't know how to use google? 

*DATA SHOW ME DATA IF YOU CANT SHOW DATA THEN **** OFF....*

*The stock 2.0 FSI oil pump is SMALLER than the 1.8T oil pump but spins FASTER almost equaling out the effect*. Again just to state what has been stated before the 06D oil pump (06F with respect to the 2.0 FSI) is found in various 1.8T's even in beetle motors and european Passat/A4 motors. My whole point from the start of all of this is that it does NOT MATTER what pressure the pump spits out at so long as it is HIGHER than that of the oil filter housing check valve.

If Oil filter housing check valve is X then pump pressure/volume/ whatever terms he feels like using can NOT be lower than X. A point both of you seem to be ignoring and passing off.

I have said my peace here.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well after listening to Issam's point of view i "challenged" Jack to show me
what exactly is the difference between the 1.8T pump and his
upgraded one.

Issam claims it is a bored out 1.8T as far as i could understand but from the pics
i got from Jack it is plain to see these are two completely different pumps.

Perhaps Issam has not seen the following pics hence his doubtfulness.

I haven't actually gotten permission from Jack to post these, but
if he says i can't post them i'll remove them.Just found them really interesting to
clear things up....


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> *Issam claims it is a bored out 1.8T* as far as i could understand but from the pics
> i got from Jack it is plain to see these are two completely different pumps.


No
I said it was an 0A6 pump or a variation of it. Of course the vanes are larger which I have said about (10+ times) but it does not change the fact that it is not needed.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _YOU CANT BORE THE OIL PASSAGES so please do not even explore this._



*YES YOU CAN! :heart:*

*



What Jack is saying is complete bull**** and he is officially on the ignore list. I have never in my entire 10+ years on vwvortex encountered a more ignorant individual. Makes [email protected] look like Einstein! I have asked him 6 times now to provide any data and all he keeps doing is posting pointless youtube videos. What? I don't know how to use google? 

Click to expand...

For me I take that as a direct compliment, even Chris would believe that.
At least I have some respect for Chris, unlike you....... you're NUTS!
He's just a little hot under the collar sometimes.
No it isn't. You don't know what you are doing! Liar liar pants on fire.
A corny link for you Issam my good man:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMXGSP_nPyY:heart:
Apparently you don't know how to use Google. 
A quick search Dr. Theoplis, would of told you Boyle's Law is the study of compressing gASSes.*

_



The stock 2.0 FSI oil pump is SMALLER than the 1.8T oil pump but spins FASTER almost equaling out the effect. Again just to state what has been stated before the 06D oil pump (06F with respect to the 2.0 FSI) is found in various 1.8T's even in beetle motors and european Passat/A4 motors. My whole point from the start of all of this is that it does NOT MATTER what pressure the pump spits out at so long as it is HIGHER than that of the oil filter housing check valve.

If Oil filter housing check valve is X then pump pressure/volume/ whatever terms he feels like using can NOT be lower than X. A point both of you seem to be ignoring and passing off.

I have said my peace here.

Click to expand...

_

*
No No No!!!! We are in Issam Boyle's Thermal Nuclear WAR now!

Launch codes are all had and keys are turned.
Time for you to play with yourself,..... in a game of Tic Tac Toe.
Oh another Youtube video. My word 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

No No No the TFSI pump is larger then the 1.8T pump again your wires crossed.
That's OK man we understand you're confused.:facepalm:

Again...... Respectfully Issam, sweetheart, we are not talking about PSI.

We are discussing VOLUME.

You need to produce your fun tickets to commence.
Could you pretty please with a cheery on top, answer all the previous questions in the thread and I would be happy to post the PSI or volume time numbers you want.*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



No
I said it was an 0A6 pump or a variation of it. Of course the vanes are larger which I have said about (10+ times) but it does not change the fact that it is not needed.

Click to expand...

_
*No Issam..... honey, you didn't say that word variation. You hurt my feelings.
Not just the vanes, look at the casting chambers and the depth of the pump can be seen visually.
Thats like not saying a ladies hair looks good after a trip to the salon.
It is not a variation of the pump either, because its not an 06A series pump.

Case closed.

Please explain the answers to all my questions. You keep skating around them.
You know what I requested for commencement.
Otherwise, go take your Jesus Christ action figure, and play in your own sandbox at home.

Participation is key if you want to play.
Wanna play RODS NEXT?

Bang Bang!*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



GolfRS 
Well after listening to Issam's point of view i "challenged" Jack to show me
what exactly is the difference between the 1.8T pump and his
upgraded one.

Issam claims it is a bored out 1.8T as far as i could understand but from the pics
i got from Jack it is plain to see these are two completely different pumps.

Perhaps Issam has not seen the following pics hence his doubtfulness.

I haven't actually gotten permission from Jack to post these, but
if he says i can't post them i'll remove them.Just found them really interesting to
clear things up....

Click to expand...

_
*Well they are already up.
Might as well point out something that isn't stressed so much anymore.

Its ahhhhhh

MADE IN GERMANY!

Now that is something to be proud of!*


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

INA said:


> No
> I said it was an 0A6 pump or a variation of it.


*03G 115 105 G*
Oil Pump from a 2.0 16V TDI pump duse engine which uses an 06B block which is a variation of the 06A block using a 58mm wide oil pump vane.
Merry Christmas to all.....How does that foot taste Jack?
Case closed


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

For the record; [email protected] IS a huge douchebag, who doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground..

That's my little contribution to this urination competition. opcorn:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _
> 03G 115 105 G
> Oil Pump from a 2.0 16V TDI pump duse engine which uses an 06B block which is a variation of the 06A block using a 58mm wide oil pump vane.
> Merry Christmas to all.....How does that foot taste Jack?
> Case closed _




* Ahhhh Nope its not an 03G series pump Dr. Speculate.

Just shows you're out of the know.
Man I own a CBEA car to and I was like huh...... I know that part#.03G115105G
That pump is for a car with balance shafts in Etka Audi A3 2009> 115-56 for those who care to look. It is not........ ohhhh there is that word again VARIATION of the 06A pump. :heart:

Boy are you a piece of work.
Wanna play RODS!

Keep guessing!*:heart:


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> EPEP Solution:
> Immobilizer Solutions :
> 44mm x 25mm x 18mm volume point rotor
> BARREL 50mm internal across w/ 58mm outer diameter x 25mm





[email protected] Parts said:


> Just shows you're out of the know.
> 
> Keep guessing![/B]:heart:


2.0 TDI Oil Pump:
58mm x 25mm thick Outer Vane
43.8mm x 25mm inner Vane

















Feel free to continue but everyone reading this thread can see right through you.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*So again Issam,

We have established some key things here.

So much for the ignore list. 
"Sir he's in sector 2" we must continue with operation deification station.*


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)




----------



## Rolando_TX (Oct 14, 2008)

WOW just WOW:screwy:


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> What about your crummy RODS? Wanna Dance?


From the top , the rods are not ours , we are a reseller for them . OP has decided to not take us up on the offer making the case closed so your drama input asking about them 5 times is childish , not needed and not appreciated. If you think they bare any weight to your argument , it only shows members here that you are a troll.
Posts like above are the reason big distributors in California and Florida don't want to sell to you , subsequently cancelling your accounts and the major reason they have asked me not to engage in a debate with you. A lesson I am now learning the hard way as to why....



[email protected] Parts said:


> Explain why you would use a smaller pump since 2007, in your kit, if this pump is available in an OEM motor? Do tell your customers.


The 1.8T Oil pump is not that much smaller and has been proven to be successful for the *last few years*. Your product (can't even call it your product) is untested and has:
- 0 data
- 0 customer
- 0 grounds to hold an argument.

You tried to "sell" *our* $379 USD 06A oil pump conversion kit for $799 to others when they can go to a dealership and pick up a 2.0 TDI oil pump for $139 USD and change. 
In closing , your knowledge of these motors is embarrassing. You use terms like "06A" and "03G" like you actually know what they mean. It is almost like debating with a parrot.
Have a great life Jack. Please do not email or message me anymore. :beer:


----------



## Brian.G (May 8, 2010)

Just to add, and clear up all the law 'chat' should anyone want to build a system, as I too got a tip off on this thread,

Pressure = Flow x resistance
You will also need Pascal's law for certain parts. 

An oil pump is ALWAYS pumping too much oil up the rev range. Hence the need for the relief valve. 

A worn engine will ALWAYS show its first worn signs at hot idle.

At hot Idle, worn parts/tolerances have opened up - therefore the resistance drops to a point where the pressure cannot be compensated by extra volume.(see formula above)

At this point, with the relief valve now sealed, the gerotor displacement can not overcome the extra oil escape @ Journals and therefore the system pressure falls - sounding your buzzer. Since the gerotor is positive displacement, and 'pumps' less at Idle speed this leads to insufficient flow at idle. 

The ONLY time you need volume is at hot idle. Im not that familiar with this engines characteristics but the only time you will have any cause for fitting a higher displacement pump is if your oil light is blinking at hot idle. 

The higher displacement pump will do nothing but hurt performance once you leave idle speed. Both by robbing crank power, and by over working the oil due to constantly pumping it out the relief valve. This can at times then lead to cavitation or aeration at the inlet if not spec'd accordingly.

A lot of new engines have a variable displacement pump. The best design resides in the M5 engine. The pump can vari the pumped displacement depending on engine speed and temperature. At HOT IDLE displacement is highest. At high rpm the displacement is altered to the lowest. This saves crank power, and is easier on oil. 

The only time you would 'bore out' oilways is if the ways could no longer support the flow required for changes made. Im going to ignore this unless you have added 8 more valves, or 4 more squirters. 
The oil ways can be extrudehoned at anytime to remove sharp corners, or any roughness which can, and does create turbulence within the flow. This turbulence requires power to be created so its no harm to do something about it. But, totally pointless on any of these engines. Not pointless if you own an F1 car and are a 1/10 of a second slow. 
Studying injection moulding for 15yrs will educate you on flow, and turbulence within drillings quite a bit. 
Studying every oil pump and engine block for 15yrs you can get your hands on to cut up, measure, and study will also educate you with regards oil pumps, oil ways and galleries. 
Studying every fluid mechanics book available to you also further backs up 'opinions' 


If anyone is going to build a racecar tomorrow morning, and is worrying about sizing the oil pump for max performance, fit an adjustable relief valve, start engine, run till hot, adjust out the relief valve till oil light blinks at tickover(say 900rpm) lock relief valve. Set Idle speed to 1100rpm, dont worry about pump again. 
If its a decent racer it wont idle at 1500rpm never mind 900rpm so work accordingly. 

The older 16v kr, and 8vs had two different height gear pumps you may remember. This was nothing to do with the power, or the higher rev band, but simply to do with the extra flow required by the 4 other buckets at HOT IDLE. Im ignoring squirters as I cant remember which ones had them(Im getting old, and have looked in lots)

A good power mod for a 16v could possibly be to fit the less high gear pump off the 8v. Id doubt the oil light would blink at idle, but it might. Look at all the extra oil you wouldnt be pumping at 7krpm...



Have fun, and be safe,


Brian,


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _From the top , the rods are not ours , we are a reseller for them . OP has decided to not take us up on the offer making the case closed so your drama input asking about them 5 times is childish , not needed and not appreciated. If you think they bare any weight to your argument , it only shows members here that you are a troll._




*Yeah sure blame the distributor. I am the troll then for showing your true skin colors.
Takes time to etch right? More of that R&D? What grind perfectly good RODS and induce cracking or fatigue from trying to simulate a casting of a trapezoid?
The reality is you guys like to hide behind this blind statement.
"Well your oil PSI was low, you had clearly had a lubrication problem and that's why your engine blew to kingdom come."

Give me a break!


*


_



The 1.8T Oil pump is not that much smaller and has been proven to be successful for the last few years. Your product (can't even call it your product) is untested and has:
- 0 data
- 0 customer
- 0 grounds to hold an argument.

You tried to "sell" our $379 USD 06A oil pump conversion kit for $799 to others when they can go to a dealership and pick up a 2.0 TDI oil pump for $139 USD and change. 
In closing , your knowledge of these motors is embarrassing. You use terms like "06A" and "03G" like you actually know what they mean. It is almost like debating with a parrot.
Have a great life Jack. Please do not email or message me anymore. 


Posts like above are the reason big distributors in California and Florida don't want to sell to you , subsequently canceling your accounts and the major reason they have asked me not to engage in a debate with you. A lesson I am now learning the hard way as to why....[/

Click to expand...

_FACT: NEVER EVER TRIED TO SELL YOUR KIT OR ANYTHING YOU SELL!

*So now its smaller, or not much smaller. Before you said earlier today its larger and the TFSI was smaller. 

I have been successful with using this pump in the 1.8T/2.0 NA for over a decade, so don't know where your coming from. 
I just thought it would be a good idea to use in the later cars since you guys do the conversion with a smaller pump.

You stated I stole your idea, when in fact it is different, for just presenting it to you. 
See,..... this makes you, a LIAR.
Just a bad all around person.
I have stated above correctly, what the part number you provided is really for. 
I have no problem using the Etka, nor will anyone else, verifying the part number you posted as,..... wrong.

As far as accounts in California, or Florida.
I have no accounts ever in Florida for one, and two none ever! in cancellation, or poor standing in California, or for that matter anywhere in the Industry!
To make such a bold statement is liable, especially when it is not true. BE CAREFUL.
I'd call my lawyer, however, he would just advise, more then likely,.. you're a Gypsy who moves around with nothing to take.
I didn't try to sell anyone anything here, nor advertise the kit in the forum, so again, a LIE.

The lesson you're learning is don't mess with a WILD-CARD.
I don't care about making money. 
Maybe you will think before you shoot your mouth off.

You never answered any of the questions fairly here. Anyone that reads the posts in this thread will know you're a fraud.

You started with terms in your skype message as 06A etc so you wanted to use the slang.
I was just talking your street jive jungle language. 

I can go round and round with you all day, burn you down with simple facts. So easy its funny!

Polly the Parrot says : Do you know what VOLUME VS PSI is NOW?????:heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL1foQKD3OI

Hopefully a Jack induced education experience helped you.
Your welcome.



*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Just to add, and clear up all the law 'chat' should anyone want to build a system, as I too got a tip off on this thread,

Pressure = Flow x resistance
You will also need Pascal's law for certain parts. 

An oil pump is ALWAYS pumping too much oil up the rev range. Hence the need for the relief valve. 

A worn engine will ALWAYS show its first worn signs at hot idle.

At hot Idle, worn parts/tolerances have opened up - therefore the resistance drops to a point where the pressure cannot be compensated by extra volume.(see formula above)

At this point, with the relief valve now sealed, the gerotor displacement can not overcome the extra oil escape @ Journals and therefore the system pressure falls - sounding your buzzer. Since the gerotor is positive displacement, and 'pumps' less at Idle speed this leads to insufficient flow at idle. 

The ONLY time you need volume is at hot idle. Im not that familiar with this engines characteristics but the only time you will have any cause for fitting a higher displacement pump is if your oil light is blinking at hot idle. 

The higher displacement pump will do nothing but hurt performance once you leave idle speed. Both by robbing crank power, and by over working the oil due to constantly pumping it out the relief valve. This can at times then lead to cavitation or aeration at the inlet if not spec'd accordingly.

A lot of new engines have a variable displacement pump. The best design resides in the M5 engine. The pump can vari the pumped displacement depending on engine speed and temperature. At HOT IDLE displacement is highest. At high rpm the displacement is altered to the lowest. This saves crank power, and is easier on oil. 

The only time you would 'bore out' oilways is if the ways could no longer support the flow required for changes made. Im going to ignore this unless you have added 8 more valves, or 4 more squirters. 
The oil ways can be extrudehoned at anytime to remove sharp corners, or any roughness which can, and does create turbulence within the flow. This turbulence requires power to be created so its no harm to do something about it. But, totally pointless on any of these engines. Not pointless if you own an F1 car and are a 1/10 of a second slow. 
Studying injection moulding for 15yrs will educate you on flow, and turbulence within drillings quite a bit. 
Studying every oil pump and engine block for 15yrs you can get your hands on to cut up, measure, and study will also educate you with regards oil pumps, oil ways and galleries. 
Studying every fluid mechanics book available to you also further backs up 'opinions' 


If anyone is going to build a racecar tomorrow morning, and is worrying about sizing the oil pump for max performance, fit an adjustable relief valve, start engine, run till hot, adjust out the relief valve till oil light blinks at tickover(say 900rpm) lock relief valve. Set Idle speed to 1100rpm, dont worry about pump again. 
If its a decent racer it wont idle at 1500rpm never mind 900rpm so work accordingly. 

The older 16v kr, and 8vs had two different height gear pumps you may remember. This was nothing to do with the power, or the higher rev band, but simply to do with the extra flow required by the 4 other buckets at HOT IDLE. Im ignoring squirters as I cant remember which ones had them(Im getting old, and have looked in lots)

A good power mod for a 16v could possibly be to fit the less high gear pump off the 8v. Id doubt the oil light would blink at idle, but it might. Look at all the extra oil you wouldnt be pumping at 7krpm...



Have fun, and be safe,


Brian,

Click to expand...

_
*Brian,


Thank you oh thank you!
You are by far the best post I have seen, since I was asked a question here from page 16.
I thank you right from the beginning for entering!
I agree it will rob power, and also agree with you on the adjustable relief valve.

The one thing going on here is this guy INA?Issam takes a smaller pump, slows it down in the engine, then the engine was originally designed. 
The pump is much smaller, not a tad smaller.

Me personally, I like safety for the customers, leaning them toward a larger oil pump.

Real race engines go dry sump and we both know that. It also comes at a big dollar $.

I have seen huge benefits on multiple manufactures where things as simple as a head gasket on an old quad 4 would blow. 
Solution: We would drill the head oil port to relieve PSI and it was good to go.

Now on VW-Audi we have variable oil cam adjusters since approx 2000, depending on engine.
I have found that just to stop leaks at the tensioner for failure is to drill the holes at adjuster ports.
I also remove the fine screen gasket, which raises PSI and causes gasket leaks.
If it leaks it robs the cam bearing, the cams one will break in half. Oh and with no oil light.
Lovely right?

As for the Squirter's I have found a huge advantage to deleting them in high rev engines for the same reason you site. 
It causes aeration of the oil and I have seen significant benefits to VR6 engines for this dropping oil temps with an OEM oil cooler by almost 45C

I agree with you and personally think each engine should be dialed in.

As for this application it has a lot more going on in the head then a 1.8T.

We have roller rockers hydraulic lifters + a cam chain tensioner which is sent oil and a cam barrel adjuster. + a high friction High PSI Pump which is at the end of the line of lubrication.
It is a known issue for the chain to snap and I believe this is for lack of oil volume for such a small chain length.
Also not without issue on the OEM stock level, slow poke driving. 

Again, thank you for your post!:thumbup:
*


----------



## Brian.G (May 8, 2010)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *Brian,
> 
> Now on VW-Audi we have variable oil cam adjusters since approx 2000, depending on engine.
> I have found that just to stop leaks at the tensioner for failure is to drill the holes at adjuster ports.
> ...


This is my thread also, I discuss filter you speak of - 3yrs ago, 

http://forums.subdriven.com/showthread.php?4229801-cam-tensioner-analysis&p=54974462&viewfull=1

Brian,


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

*Yup, but I didn't see the little oval micron filter we take out and chuck in the garbage.

In that oil port. If you notice, the head can be drilled larger, and I do it.

VW-Audi yelled at me for doing this, and said "Mr. Shapiro this isn't an approved repair."

My answer was, well it works, and I have continued to do it to this day with 100% success since 1996. 
I was also the one getting yelled at for not dropping an engine if a TOW-RIG, or the Passat W8 came in to do the adjusters, and toss the little gasket in the garbage.

They looked at time tickets, and said this is impossible. He isn't doing the job, or this fast.
They sent a rep to watch me perform repair and I was looked at by other techs in a negative manner. 
"Man,..... your taking away our gravy Flat rate "

Oh well thats not what I get paid for as an independent.

All because I know how to use the scanner and Etka. 
"That's the thing Issam claims I can't use,.....you know good people?" 
I was called into VW, to fix these cars, because they couldnt fix them, I might add. 
All due to,..... they had DTC's. They installed the adjusters on the wrong banks. At the dealer!
All determined by knowing odd or even part numbers as left or right side.

Labor operation:
Easy,..... lower motor in frame, sneak adjuster out, or gaskets by leaving adjuster in car.
Use dental pick to extract stupid screen and dump in garbage.
Get paid full flat rate.:heart:

That's a short story on part numbers for Issam.



Nice thread by the way.:laugh:*


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Thank you oh thank you!
> You are by far the best post I have seen, since I was asked a question here from page 16.
> I thank you right from the beginning for entering!
> I agree it will rob power, and also agree with you on the adjustable relief valve.


Why are you saying Thank You? His post contradictes everything you posted....
Feel free to stop rambling an anytime.....lol


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

TurboJOSH said:


> Why are you saying Thank You? His post contradictes everything you posted....
> Feel free to stop rambling an anytime.....lol


He's being sarcastic you a$$clown


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

Did we read the same page?


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

TurboJOSH said:


> Did we read the same page?


Umadbro ?


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

No Smosh Josh Turbo Lover, he does not.

Need a make over?:heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndsgVryV4lQ

This thread does one thing now from page 16 on.
It shows real data into how oil PSI works vs Volume.
It exposes to everyone that Issam is a DISINGENUOUS LIAR! 
It will make his followers consider the alliance they share with him, as a really bad choice, or change hopefully,..... to a more respectable company.
It could and does all go badly from here,...... much worse, if he is dumb enough to commence.:facepalm:

I do look forward to the entertainment, if he does though.

:heart:Hard to SPIN the truth and really hard to undo stupidity.:heart:

Signed,
The Parrot!


----------



## TurboJOSH (Mar 30, 2009)

:laugh:..are you delusional ??
What real data did you post other than a paint image with some measurements of oem pumps , which you subseqnently tried to sell as your own upgrade solutio
The only thing us followers can see from page 16 on is you are a fraud.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

TurboJOSH said:


> :laugh:..are you delusional ??
> What real data did you post other than a paint image with some measurements of oem pumps , which you subseqnently tried to sell as your own upgrade solutio
> The only thing us followers can see from page 16 on is you are a fraud.


I don't think it's fraud, when someone is just offering a new solution and
is willing to back it up.You can argue with it, not like it, but i don't see Jack trying to sell
anything at this point.So where is the fraud ??

On the other hand selling crappy rods and claiming it is the buyers fault IS FRAUD.
So maybe you have things mixed up a bit....

Sure the discussion has moved to another topic, the subject is still my attempt
to revive my car and have it perform as it deserves. 

AND...even though i was at first hoping to just get 82.5mm pistons, the machine shop discovered
WALL DAMAGE because of the failed rods and piston slapping, so i am now forced to go with
oversized 83mm pistons and overbore.....

I really feel sorry for all those that have gotten the DM rods and have a closed engine.
Better get ready for a rebuild....or at least check every X miles for piston rocking. :banghead:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _TurboJOSH
> ..are you delusional ??
> What real data did you post other than a paint image with some measurements of oem pumps , which you subseqnently tried to sell as your own upgrade solutio
> The only thing us followers can see from page 16 on is you are a fraud_


. 

*
Delusional you say? Turbo Josh Lover.

Again making accusations when you may only speculate.
Key difference.
My pump has a set key for a variable PSI setting and the OEM one doesn't.
So....... you FAIL!
Mine isn't from a TDI and I can say that honestly.
It doesn't start out life as a TDI pump either.

Although a good try at photos.

We have established more facts.

Very bad,....... and not so true about price of that pump you/Issam site, or the fact that Issam quoted the wrong part number on purpose, to try and continue your both DISINGENUOUS behavior.

"Meanwhile commencing in a Chinese fire drill pacing around his hoopty,..... Issam scours salvage yards across the world,....... in attempts to regain his Jive street credit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UibMqHajQU



Why you say good people?

Because as I said before, he doesn't know what exists in the OEM factory VW-Audi market and 
has sold you all a big steaming pile of crap,..... since what was it? "2007"

That's called in the know!:thumbup:
I have been using my custom pump made by a genuine OEM supplier for over a decade, in the old 1.8T.

MADE IN GERMANY!

In the end Issam has admitted defeat by doing what he is doing, .... it is well documented for the RECORD!

Thank you!
More magic carpets to yank coming soon, from under Issam's feet,.... stay tuned.

See I don't need to sell pumps.
Issam needs to do a recall for all his customers, when he gets his head out of his ass, and pays for all the engines he caused to fail.

I smell class action!:heart:
Sell your stock now, even the bond holders, which there aren't any,  won't get their money.

LOL :laugh:*


----------



## g60vw (Oct 3, 2002)

This thread boggles my mind.

I can't for the life of me believe that rods with that much wrist pin wear couldn't be heard on every shift. As for why they got that way, we will never know, but there's just no way that it would not have been heard.

I have concluded that GolfRS will buy anything that someone says is good, and then when things happen and go south, public bashing will ensue.

Best of luck on engine #3.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

> _g60vw
> This thread boggles my mind.
> 
> I can't for the life of me believe that rods with that much wrist pin wear couldn't be heard on every shift. As for why they got that way, we will never know, but there's just no way that it would not have been heard.
> ...




*Well it should, at the same time be pretty straight forward.


Seems unfair of you to say this about the poor guys thread, him or engine.

If anyone is bashing, it would be me, just making sure the facts are straight.

Those RODS...... its pretty clear to me why they failed.

Seems due to being ground down by some idiot on the sides,..... of the tops of the piston pin bushing area, to simulate a Trapezoid casted ROD.

Brilliance!:laugh:

Guess what? 
That's called induced stress, temper change, and cracking, by the removal of proper surface area material needed, of the ROD and the Bushing. 
Its so stupid it is amazing!

Now this company isn't the only one to engage in such a stupid decision, however, that is another subject.

Actually if you read the thread, you would see he didn't bash anyone.

He was just looking for good old tech support. 
What he received, was a big line of BS.
For what asking reasonable questions?
Wanting his car back together?*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

g60vw said:


> This thread boggles my mind.
> 
> I can't for the life of me believe that rods with that much wrist pin wear couldn't be heard on every shift. As for why they got that way, we will never know, but there's just no way that it would not have been heard.
> 
> ...


Well if you actually watched the video you would see only one of the rods has major
play and the rest are just beginning.Combine that with the fact the AXX engine
cause of its factory forged pistons already had piston play, the sound of the engine
was loud but could not really make out A failing rod...Unless of course you are a
master trained technician like you in which case....you can...:screwy:

As for buying every product...i guess you are right.Maybe that was the mistake all along.
The fact i trusted someone i had previously trusted in the past, and chose to buy rods that
were new to the market but came with good recommendations.My wish to you is that you never
find yourself in my situation, cause you will be disappointed and above that you
will lose A LOT of money in the process.I take it then no one has fooled you in the past right ???

And as for the bashing...Well i'm only gonna say one thing...Would you still think this is bashing if you
were one of those that had DM Rods installed in your car ???I highly doubt it...
People are quick to judge and comment, but when you are actually part of the situation
all suddenly takes a different view.


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> So people, the new rods are IN.....
> 
> 
> Decided to avoid getting another (possibly same quality) set of DM rods, and
> ...


Thanks for the feedback D :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so the rebuild is happening next week (fingers crossed), but in the meantime i got some more pics from European Parts and their pump.




















Now after reading what Issam had to say i asked for more info concerning the pump, and about the control valve Issam kept referring to...Here's what they told me in their email.

"Our pump bypasses the main valve return at pump to pickup pipe to ensure no aeration.
Our pump is adjustable at pump and entire system PSI is controled at pump.We delete the check valve INA/ISSAM seems to be stuck on due to narrow minded thinking. Removing a second aeration point and resistance point.We lower over all system PSI resistence at pump by lowering sytem PSI at what we need while adding additional volume needed throughout the entire engine.This alone is a net in HP increase due to less resistence at pump to turn in addition to delete of balance shafts"

They also said these are not the finalized product and are without the bypass to pickup tube
and that that is an option.
I think it's pretty interesting, especially for those huge BT builds. opcorn:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Sounds legit opcorn:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Pump is not needed...

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



mrbikle 
Re: TFSI Head Build and Rods

Pump is not needed...

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

_
*I respectfully disagree. 
That's a pretty bold short statement, for what is considered industry wide, a plus.

Have a taco! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RDYen0UP5o&feature=pyv&ad=5465878354&kw=funny
It is needed if looking to make high HP on the cheap, when a dry sump isn't in the budget..

It is always needed to get rid of aeration points.:thumbup:
It is always needed to have more oil flow when working outside the OEM range design.

It is my recommendation you do the following Golf RS,..... always! 
On a high HP cheap build you must reduce aeration and oil temps, its key!

Remove piston skirt squirter's.
Install a restrictor to limit oil Volume/PSI at rods feed to piston pin or delete with early type shell.
( Don't use a crap rod as before with a ground trapezoid shape  )

Add an oil cooler.
Always polish flow ports, and open up outlets to increase volume in critical areas which are known friction problems. ( You port and polish your head don't ya?:heart: )

Route oil pump bypass return check valve to sump pickup directly to stop spray aeration, or mixing in pan.
Remove oil filter from positive flow path, reducing friction, and move to passive side of turbo drain to collect contaminates.
Remove/delete bypass control PSI valve at oil housing, to remove second aeration/point and Resistance increase.

( Simulate this! Issam. Kind of hard to give you numbers when I can make them what ever I want. Thank you for confirming here in this thread, you have no idea what you are doing )

In this oil pumps case/control system PSI at the pump, to what ever you want for target needed, or set to OEM PSI range.
Baffle/shield crank from oil pan, and route drains from head direct to oil pan, with down tubes installed.

Hope that helps someone, it all can be done cheap!
Huge net to this.*


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Have been using the OEM pump with the balance shaft assembly removed in alot of my builds. After plenty testing, OEM pump provides enough oil volume/pressure for my 600+ whp setups that see 8250+ engine speeds on the track. No signs of valve train float or tensioner issues.

Also built several 2.0t engines with rods that have tapered small ends and never had the failure Golfrs had. Yes, could have been faulty bushing material or finishing, but it also could have been install error. Since GolfRs didn't investgate more into the failure, nobody really knows the cause of the bushing failure, So please quit spreading false information, without a shred of evidence to back your claims.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Tmsracing37 
Have been using the OEM pump with the balance shaft assembly removed in alot of my builds. After plenty testing, OEM pump provides enough oil volume/pressure for my 600+ whp setups that see 8250+ engine speeds on the track. No signs of valve train float or tensioner issues.

Also built several 2.0t engines with rods that have tapered small ends and never had the failure Golfrs had. Yes, could have been faulty bushing material or finishing, but it also could have been install error. Since GolfRs didn't investgate more into the failure, nobody really knows the cause of the bushing failure, So please quit spreading false information, without a shred of evidence to back your claims.

Click to expand...

_




*Well that is great, you have no issue...... with the OEM balance shaft deleted.
I think you missed the point, of what was being discussed.

INA/Issam installs a smaller pump then OEM and then slows the speed down with a larger sprocket.
I was saying if your going to do this you should at least match size or go larger.

No rumor there.

As far as the RODS, it is a known metal fatigue induced fact, not false information.
Personal observation, a proper investigation into what happened, based on across bank wear.
Pretty obvious.

No rumor there either.

I can only speculate, maybe your at the track, and don't push your car hard.*:heart:

*As I have said, don't need to sell pumps, its just a point of education.
Just thought I would share something with someone, doing so, was crapped on.*


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Gotta make a Buck!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



mrbikle 
Re: TFSI Head Build and Rods

Gotta make a Buck!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

_
*
Ahhh nope! Plenty of things to do.

You see me taking orders?
I answered to keep things on track about subject.

What's a matter with you, invested in crummy rods too.?:heart:*


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> I can only speculate, maybe your at the track, and don't push your car hard.[/B]:heart:[/B]


Yeah you're right, I don't push my setups hard enough. I guess I don't much for the guy that has built 2-3 out top 5 highest hp/Quickest/fastest FSI powered GTI's in world......

So little old me lacking in knowledge, please futher explain some of your eailer comments, so I may understand:

Comment 1 
*Remove piston skirt squirter's.
Install a restrictor to limit oil Volume/PSI at rods feed to piston pin or delete with early type shell.*

Are you suggesting a forced oiling pin setup? (which is good). 

*BUT *If one goes to a force oiling setup, the oil supply for the wrist pin comes from oil supply that lubricates the connecting rod bearings. So why reduce pressure/volume in the oil circuit that supplies oil to Crank bearings, connecting rod bearings and now the wrist pins? 

Unless you're talking about the rifle drilled port on the rod itself as point of restriction, There's nothing an installer can do about that, because that's sized by the rod vendor.


Comment 2
*Remove oil filter from positive flow path, reducing friction, and move to passive side of turbo drain to collect contaminates.*

So move the oil filtration system on the Turbo drain line? A drain line that only sees’s about 25-30 psi on these newer ball bearing turbos? Won’t the filter start backing up the drain line, causing the pressure to build up in turbo’s CHRA and cause the oil to leak through the compressor and turbine bearings, thus causing the turbo to fail over time? What about all other oil ports that dump into the oil pan, how is oil from those ports going get to get filtered, if the oil filter is routed into the turbo oil drain line?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *
> Ahhh nope! Plenty of things to do.
> 
> You see me taking orders?
> ...


No... My rods are fine. I just don't see any point in a different oiling solution at all.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

mrbikle said:


> No... My rods are fine. *I just don't see any point in a different oiling solution at all, without actual data to prove otherwise.*Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


Fixed.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Yeah you're right, I don't push my setups hard enough. I guess I don't much for the guy that has built 2-3 out top 5 highest hp/Quickest/fastest FSI powered GTI's in world......

So little old me lacking in knowledge, please futher explain some of your eailer comments, so I may understand:

*Comment 1 
Remove piston skirt squirter's.
Install a restrictor to limit oil Volume/PSI at rods feed to piston pin or delete with early type shell.

Are you suggesting a forced oiling pin setup? (which is good). 

BUT If one goes to a force oiling setup, the oil supply for the wrist pin comes from oil supply that lubricates the connecting rod bearings. So why reduce pressure/volume in the oil circuit that supplies oil to Crank bearings, connecting rod bearings and now the wrist pins? 

Unless you're talking about the rifle drilled port on the rod itself as point of restriction, There's nothing an installer can do about that, because that's sized by the rod vendor.*

Click to expand...

_*


I would of expected better from little old you, being such a supposed competent,... engine builder.

Your comment 1. is two separate comments..

Delete the oil sprayers and plug, adds OIL PSI and VOLUME to other parts of system.
Do you know what there primary function is really for sir? Please do tell.:heart:

Now for comment 2.:

I mean by delete with solid bearing shell cap or install a restrictor in ROD bore itself. 
In the feed port directly, inside rod, up to piston pin, since it doesn't need very much lubrication.

This again adds PSI and VOLUME to other critical areas while also reducing aeration.
Anything can be modified, no vendor is needed LOL.*


*And comment 3.:*

_



Comment 2
Remove oil filter from positive flow path, reducing friction, and move to passive side of turbo drain to collect contaminates.

So move the oil filtration system on the Turbo drain line? A drain line that only sees’s about 25-30 psi on these newer ball bearing turbos? Won’t the filter start backing up the drain line, causing the pressure to build up in turbo’s CHRA and cause the oil to leak through the compressor and turbine bearings, thus causing the turbo to fail over time? What about all other oil ports that dump into the oil pan, how is oil from those ports going get to get filtered, if the oil filter is routed into the turbo oil drain line?

Click to expand...

_
*Yup remove it.
We install an all metal strainer. 
This can be cleaned for race cars, or serious street use when changing your oil is an actual priority.
It can be done with a passive filter system as I suggested earlier.
This was done by the OEM on the old Audi 5000 Turbo. Recall that old timer?

It was an excellent idea and works really well.
This type of filter won't back up, or come apart like the one in the housing is known for.
However, even if it did get backed up, it would take a ton of coking first.
I would take a turbo swap any day vs an entire engine!

FACT!

It has been proved by VW-AUDI's lab and personal observation.
I didn't believe it myself many years ago. 
That the systems run so clean, if oil is changed every 5000 miles, with no filter change for 100,000 miles in the early motors there was no issue.
I have personally tested a TDI which is sitting outside up to 250K with complete success, and on conventional oil!
Still the original turbo! Never a head or gasket changed. Its also tuned!
Now I also have 1.8T cars which get there oil changed every 5K with synthetic, with over 230K and no issues either. This car however, has the passive filter for sump.
Just inspected and it was spotless.

Most of the problem with oil sumps in general, is contamination, aeration, capacity, size/speed under Idle/Temp.*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



mrbikle 
Re: TFSI Head Build and Rods

No... My rods are fine. I just don't see any point in a different oiling solution at all.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

_*I respect your opinion no matter how ignorant I feel it is to say,..... AT ALL!*
*Hey at least your in the conversation though.:thumbup::laugh:*


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

I love your professionalism

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



mrbikle 
Re: TFSI Head Build and Rods

I love your professionalism

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

_

Oh thank you very much.:heart:

Here's some helpful tips for ya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LumGv8VIkLo


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> I would of expected better from little old you, being such a supposed competent,... engine builder.
> 
> Your comment 1. is two separate comments..
> 
> ...


 I suppose If it wasn't for lady luck, my incompetence would have bit me in my rear by now. It’s not like I spent years doing this sort of work. I mean, can one guy be so lucky to blindly build and tune several of these engines and do so well with them???? 

Are talking about the oil sprayers? If so, they help cool the piston and lubricate the wrist pins, but what do I know.......

Seriuosly, You say there can be oil volume/pressure issues and possible aeration issues in high HP and high revving TFSI engines, fine, but show me you test results. I mean you must had to do some sort testing with different pumps to produce these issues and then tested your pump to make sure it has solved these issues. Did you test this on 400, 500, and/or 600 hp TFSI engine? 
Post your data, it will help sell your product.... I mean inform the masses.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



I suppose If it wasn't for lady luck, my incompetence would have bit me in my rear by now. It’s not like I spent years doing this sort of work. I mean, can one guy be so lucky to blindly build and tune several of these engines and do so well with them???? 

Are talking about the oil sprayers? If so, they help cool the piston and lubricate the wrist pins, but what do I know.......

Seriuosly, You say there can be oil volume/pressure issues and possible aeration issues in high HP and high revving TFSI engines, fine, but show me you test results. I mean you must had to do some sort testing with different pumps to produce these issues andthen test your pump to make sure it has solved these issues. Post your data, it will help sell your product.... I mean inform the masses.

Click to expand...

_

*You sound like a lucky guy.:laugh:

Well you have it part correct. 

The main reason sprayers are there, is to keep down NOX emissions, not for the aided benefit in performance in a high race RPM.
At lower normal driving RPM, there is an advantage, however, not at race speeds.

I have done testing in many different applications, life experience says..... I believe I am correct.
For instance.
I have seen a significant reduction in oil temp during abusive track conditions.
Do your own test, see for yourself I'm correct, it doesn't take buying anything from me.
I am merely sharing experience, you are welcome to disagree with it. 

Again for clarity, I don't care about promoting a product.

I have used this setup with perfect success, for what I need for over a decade.
It was more about making someone else,......... CAPITULATE. 
That has already been achieved.:laugh:

As far as numbers for the pump I really can't be any more specific then saying this below.

I set the PSI to what I want.
It maintains it due to adequate Volume made from speed of RPM.
If I need more, I crank it up. 
Also, I monitor PSI at the head. If I lose it there, I know sooner before a problem is had. 
I even add a kill, as a safety at the head location, if it falls below a specific threshold, I elect to choose..

Really,.... what is so hard about understanding this, for someone as astute, as you?
*


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't need to do anymore testing on the oil system. I did plenty of it last year when I was working with Comp Turbo to come with a proper oil feed setup for their ball baering CHRA and TFSI engine. the testing I did, showed the OEM pump provides enough oil on my current setups.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> issues.
> 
> Also built several 2.0t engines with rods that have tapered small ends and never had the failure Golfrs had. Yes, could have been faulty bushing material or finishing, but it also could have been install error. Since GolfRs didn't investgate more into the failure, nobody really knows the cause of the bushing failure, So please quit spreading false information, without a shred of evidence to back your claims.



One way of knowing would be for me to send these to an INDEPENDENT
expert to evaluate the rods and produce a verdict.If i was asking for compensation
from DM of Issam i probably would have already...but honestly, saving my engine
is my priority, and no expert can convince me the next set of DM rods won't fail again...

Another thing that needs to be addressed of course is if the failure was caused by the material itself
OR the fact that Issam MODIFIED the rods (that were originally produced as square end) hence altering their characteristics and causing a failure, and by doing so, he took DM Forged down with him...That is not for me to say, but for YOU or the other owners to decide...I decided to rid myself of all the unnecessary stress and not again install a DM Forged set.Mind you, i could have , and spared myself the cost of the Tuscans, but seriously, what is better than enjoying your car without worrying where you mind end up ?? So once again, i wish all DM owners the best of luck...

P.S. You mentioned "installation error"....In all seriousness (and cause i'm not a mechanic) can you please tell me how difficult it is "technically" to slide a pin inside a rod and lock it ??? Or maybe you are referring to some other procedure in which case i'm all ears.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

And for those following the build...Things are gonna heat up.Received the last part i need to
start the rebuild, and this week it's gonna begin.

Something i forgot to mention above is the fact it took me longer than expected in the end
cause (i'm guessing cause of the rod failure) i was forced to return the 82.5mm pistons
and get a set of 83mm ones since there was cylinder DAMAGE and needed to be machined...

At this point i'd like to thank *Omar* from *Top End Performance*
in L.A for being such a professional and keeping up with me during our transaction.I really don't
know if anyone else would be that patient and understanding. :beer::beer:
If anyone is in the market for some Wossners, he is the man to go to. :thumbup::thumbup:

Pics of new stuff soon to follow...At first glance the 83mm pistons seem kinda "different" than
the 82.5 ones...Can't really pin point what it is though...


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

Big thing would wrist pin oiling clearance. *Should always be checked.* With the proper tool, the installer could also check to make sure the bushing wasn’t oblong from factory. 

Oil contamination could have been issue, but you would have seen other abnormal wear in the main/connecting bearings, if that was the case.

Not 100% on how all the rod companies make their tapered small ends, but all the tapered rods I have install, looked to have been machined down. Yes machining process could have damaged the bushing, but this could have been caught during install when clearances where being checked.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> Big thing would wrist pin oiling clearance. *Should always be checked.* With the proper tool, the installer could also check to make sure the bushing wasn’t oblong from factory.
> 
> Oil contamination could have been issue, but you would have seen other abnormal wear in the main/connecting bearings, if that was the case.
> 
> Not 100% on how all the rod companies make their tapered small ends, but all the tapered rods I have install, looked to have been machined down. Yes machining process could have damaged the bushing, but this could have been caught during install when clearances where being checked.


All of the above things you mention (and i don't know why you don't realize it) are parts of
the CHECKING procedure before install to VERIFY THE PARTS ARE OK, which would mean your argument lies in them being BAD, and that the installer failed to verify this....So the question now is, if a part is bad when you purchase it, is it the installer's fault when it fails ???

Sure he "should have" done his job, but then again so should the MANUFACTURER....
And i PAYED to have a perfect product, just for dismissing the need for verification.
Can you imagine how tuning would be if you never had to TRUST the manufacturer and inspect/correct the parts you pay.....for yourself ??? :banghead:

On another note, i don't know how tapered rods are made either.Or if they are machined or not, BUT i can definitely tell you one of the characteristics of the DM Forged rods is a GROOVE inside the small end bushing (i am guessing to "improve" the flow of oil) which means that if you MACHINE that end to a tapered design, what you are actually doing is REDUCING the width of the area above that groove, which is the area that actually contacts the bushing itself.That in fact means that on the top of the rod, the material is so little that of course gets pressured to the sides as a result of the stresses
put on the rod.So you see, it is not just the machined tapering process that caused the failure, but also the FAILURE to recognize that peculiarity in the bushing that made them vulnerable, and ultimately FAIL.....

Having a squared Dm Forged small end might be "enough" to protect YOU....but then again,,,it might not be...


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> All of the above things you mention *(and i don't know why you don't realize it) are parts of
> the CHECKING procedure before install to VERIFY THE PARTS ARE OK, which would mean your argument*


*

I'm not failing to realize anything. You asked:



GolfRS said:



P.S. You mentioned "installation error"....In all seriousness (and cause i'm not a mechanic) can you please tell me how difficult it is "technically" to slide a pin inside a rod and lock it ??? Or maybe you are referring to some other procedure in which case i'm all ears.

Click to expand...

So I gave some processes need to done to insure proper installation of wirst pin that wouldn't cause pre-mature wear.




GolfRS said:



So the question now is, if a part is bad when you purchase it, is it the installer's fault when it fails ???Sure he "should have" done his job, but then again so should the MANUFACTURER

Click to expand...

If the builder installed a faulty part because he/she decided not inspect/check for proper clearances/dimensions, thus not taking the correct actions to remedy the fault during the install, and the part failed because of improper fit/install, Yes Its builders fault for not doing his/her job. Yes, manufacturer could hold blame also. 



GolfRS said:



And i PAYED to have a perfect product, just for dismissing the need for verification.
Can you imagine how tuning would be if you never had to TRUST the manufacturer and inspect/correct the parts you pay.....for yourself ??? 

Click to expand...

Sorry when it comes to engines, I double check alot things (So do alot builders who take pride in thier work) I don't care how much it was or how perfect the manufacturer claims it to be.*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> I'm not failing to realize anything. You asked:


Well the "argument" was if the part was bad, is it "acceptable" just cause the installer
failed to follow "proper" pre-installation CHECKING ?

In that case, the installer might as well argue that it is not his fault cause I was the one
that brought him the faulty part and he is not obligated (well according to him anyway) to
recheck what the manufacturer should have already done during manufacturing of the part.
It's a never ending cycle of blame........



> So I gave some processes need to done to insure proper installation of wirst pin that wouldn't cause pre-mature wear.


These processes once again do not justify a failure prone part.Plus, all these processes might
have been done and passed inspection, only to have the material fail down the road.Measurements
don't give any indication of the endurance of a part.Just the fact it was within spec when it was installed.



> If the builder installed a faulty part because he/she decided not inspect/check for proper clearances/dimensions, thus not taking the correct actions to remedy the fault during the install, and the part failed because of improper fit/install, Yes Its builders fault for not doing his/her job.


Once again, the part MIGHT have been faulty during the install, but it also could have been perfect just failed after X miles of PROPER use.No one other than the manufacturer can testify to the endurance of that part (or in our case if it was improperly modified pre installation....



> Sorry when it comes to engines, I double check alot things (So do alot builders who take pride in thier work) I don't care how much it was or how perfect the manufacturer claims it to be.


Not everyone has the luxury to measure and remeasure everything.Especially when you are on a budget, doing the job at a shop, and every single minute costs MONEY.So yeah DIY is nice and free, but not all of us have the proper tools/time/experience to do that.So we are back to how a part fails, and if the installer should have known that part would fail (provided it passed proper pre installation procedure).


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Originally Posted by Tmsracing

I don't need to do anymore testing on the oil system. I did plenty of it last year when I was working with Comp Turbo to come with a proper oil feed setup for their ball baering CHRA and TFSI engine. the testing I did, showed the OEM pump provides enough oil on my current setups.

Click to expand...

_*Again for clarification old timer! 
Don't worry, I'm catching up.:thumbup:
We were not speaking of the OEM pump.

We where discussing the fact that INA/Issam uses a smaller pump then the OEM and also then turns it slower.

I still think many would agree with me that a larger pump is superior, and in need.
Seems like your on a mission of your own, to spread disinformation, to avoid race competition maybe? Don't want anyone else with an edge?
I myself have nothing to prove, nor care about the podium anymore. 
I have built plenty of my own very fast cars out there.
That said, I have blown a whole bunch of motors up, to see what you can, can't, and shouldn't do.
You're just making a statement it isn't needed, seems interesting.
Then again your playing with 600 HP as apposed to maybe 1000 HP.

Time to get the ratio right and a jug of toluene.:heart:

*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Some purdy pics of the new 83mm pistons.

What i was trying to figure out why they seem "prettier" ended up being the fact they
have more material removed (almost 1cc) which makes them look more dished....

Here you go.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Damn.. Those are pretty! :heart:


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

You really know who you're talking too!
Yep, I never really played with 1000 hp, but did work with plenty 700-900 hp 355-358 CI v8's back when I was racing asphalt based late models and Midgets. 

With that said , this incompetent old timer is out. So, GolfRs good luck with your build. Just take you time on the build and make sure everything is going together right. Yes, its time and money, but I think you will find out, once built and tuned right, 450-600whp TFSI's can be reliable and very streetable.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Aaaand cause oil pump info is groovy but you can't really have enough piston porn.... 





























Enjoy....opcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Tmsracing37 said:


> With that said , this incompetent old timer is out. So, GolfRs good luck with your build. Just take you time on the build and make sure everything is going together right. Yes, its time and money, but I think you will find out, once built and tuned right, 450-600whp TFSI's can be reliable and very streetable.


Yeah let's hope they get it right this time.

I am not really going for that much HP.

I would be very pleased with 500 bhp and a decent spool with the lowered compression.

I'm also curious if the overbore will have any effect on anything....


----------



## 07wolfsburg (Mar 7, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> I'm also curious if the overbore will have any effect on anything....



I daily my car with 83mm bore, there's no negative effect


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



You really know who you're talking too!
Yep, I never really played with 1000 hp, but did work with plenty 700-900 hp 355-358 CI v8's back when I was racing asphalt based late models and Midgets. 

With that said , this incompetent old timer is out. So, GolfRs good luck with your build. Just take you time on the build and make sure everything is going together right. Yes, its time and money, but I think you will find out, once built and tuned right, 450-600whp TFSI's can be reliable and very streetable.

Click to expand...

_*I don't know, please enlighten me.

As for calling, or thinking you're incompetent, I never said this,..... you did.
Respectfully, I was just trying to answer, your better then what others questions were, sticking to the continuity path.
Now,.... I bust balls a little, however, I didn't give you the video links, or hammer you.
I respect my elders and even more when they earn it.
Please don't tell me you wear your heart on your sleeve.

Seriously have you ever played with the toluene at time trials? 
Man its fun, when it pushes back detonation. 
You can run all the timing and boost you can throw at the engine!*


_



Sorry when it comes to engines, I double check alot things (So do alot builders who take pride in thier work) I don't care how much it was or how perfect the manufacturer claims it to be.

Click to expand...

_
*I agree completely with this but wouldn't be so quick to blame a builder either.
The OEM makes mistakes, so do vendors.

However, when new, I would venture that the clearance would of felt tight, or even measured correct.
Wear like this is due to poor machining, forced fatigued of materials, and plain old stupid judgment, by a snake oil salesman.
That design for those RODS in a forged unit, then modded with what ever, or bench grinder is a big NO NO.

Why on Earth would someone do this other then to use cheap parlor tricks, to sell parts for designs they don't even comprehend.

I challenge anyone to show an SAE, or OEM publication which uses this design change for racing, let alone stock, without using a casted ROD and cracked at the bearing for that matter.
Anyone?

I would like to point something out.
Most AFT sellers of these stupid rods, don't give a warning, or the required use of a piston, with a matched inverted taper, to receive the trapezoidal RODS!

This is a key requirement in creating a side force to increase strength of the casted type rods.
From all the stupid engines I keep seeing burned down. 
They have straight cut pistons, like the Worrser's above, with an incorrect placement of a trapezoidal ROD.

You can review the SSP here for your pleasure.:

http://bit.ly/YY2OcG

*


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

What happened?

What, What, WHAT!..... no RODS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> I would like to point something out.
> Most AFT sellers of these stupid rods, don't give a warning, or the required use of a piston, with a matched inverted taper, to receive the trapezoidal RODS!
> 
> This is a key requirement in creating a side force to increase strength of the casted type rods.
> ...


I'm sorry if the person who's building the engine, isn't that keen on the piston and rod design they are using in thier build, then its their fault if there is a failure with the wirst pin and/or small end of connecting Rod, because of the mismatch combo. Not the manufactures fault.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



I'm sorry if the person who's building the engine, isn't that keen on the piston and rod design they are using in thier build, then its their fault if there is a failure with the wirst pin and/or small end of connecting Rod, because of the mismatch combo. Not the manufactures fault.

Click to expand...

_*Hello Old timer. Glad you came back. I actually like you so far.

I would respectfully agree with you on this.
However, there is compiled proof, that many of the supplier/manufacturers, have recommended,.... the wrong type pistons, over the last 5 or better years.

In addition.
I have compiled proof for my customers, that the distributors,... who are looked at as prominent engine builders. 
Have also mislead the public, in regards to, recommending the incorrect pistons.

They know who they are.
They should be worried about the damages, they induced through their own advertisements, written correspondence,...... looking at the all mighty dollar....... will hang them good!
Oh thank goodness for CACHE and date/time stamps!:heart:



Important for Tolerance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU

*


----------



## 07wolfsburg (Mar 7, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *Again for clarification old timer!
> Don't worry, I'm catching up.:thumbup:
> We were not speaking of the OEM pump.
> 
> We where discussing the fact that INA/Issam uses a smaller pump then the OEM and also then turns it slower.*


Correct me if i'm wrong, but INA uses a 1.8 pump, correct?

Well I happen to run a 1.8 pump (not from INA) and it seems do be doing the job just fine on my car, no ill effects, no abnormal wear on a car that is driven every day of the week



[email protected] Parts said:


> *I still think many would agree with me that a larger pump is superior, and in need.*


Seems to me the only people you have convinced in here are Golfrs and yourself


[email protected] Parts said:


> *Seems like your on a mission of your own, to spread disinformation, to avoid race competition maybe? Don't want anyone else with an edge?*


Laughable, If you had a clue about TMS you wouldnt even have wrote this



[email protected] Parts said:


> *I myself have nothing to prove, nor care about the podium anymore. *



Actually, you have everything to prove if you're trying to push a part on us, you just choose not to, and my guess would be because you really have no proof that your part is necessary seeig as how you've been asked for hard proof and you bring nothing to the table besides smartass comments and an all around ****ty attitude.

AND if you really feel you have nothing to prove then why are you still here trying to half assed defend your part?



[email protected] Parts said:


> You're just making a statement it isn't needed, seems interesting.
> Then again your playing with 600 HP as apposed to maybe 1000 HP. [/B]



So, what im getting out of this is that "your" pump isn't needed at 600hp? Good luck finding a 1000hp FSI/TSI! ****, good luck finding a 700hp one for that matter, so I guess your pump really isn't needed here.


----------



## ColoradoMkV (Jan 4, 2012)

Should have filled the flappers too its worth is while the head is off in my opinion. Wish I would have done it when I built my head.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Correct me if i'm wrong, but INA uses a 1.8 pump, correct?

Well I happen to run a 1.8 pump (not from INA) and it seems do be doing the job just fine on my car, no ill effects, no abnormal wear on a car that is driven every day of the week

Click to expand...

_*Correct, that's the point! So you downgraded yours, because you had no problems with the OEM one right? Doing so, put a smaller pump in. LOL.
Its not like the TFSI has any issues huh. Otherwise, why would you dopes be putting the other pump in. 
I thought the idea about AFT racing was to try and get all the advantages you could get.
Maybe things have changed.
Again not about marketing, or selling something, don't care! That's what seems to drive you guys nuts. Why am I here or why is the thread seen so many hits in two weeks as it has?
I do it because its fun.

*

_



Seems to me the only people you have convinced in here are Golfrs and yourself

Click to expand...

_*The emails keep coming, so I'm sure that's your individual opinion, and you are entitled to it.
Like a moth to light. Bzzzzz. ZAP!*



_



Laughable, If you had a clue about TMS you wouldn't even have wrote this

Click to expand...

_

*Yup I'm laughing at guys like you.*






> _Actually, you have everything to prove if you're trying to push a part on us, you just choose not to, and my guess would be because you really have no proof that your part is necessary seeig as how you've been asked for hard proof and you bring nothing to the table besides smartass comments and an all around ****ty attitude.
> 
> AND if you really feel you have nothing to prove then why are you still here trying to half assed defend your part?
> _



*No I don't, because I am not here to solicit sales, nor care.
More about entertainment for me at this point,...... its fun.
I think I was pretty clear what the gains are for readers who want to go back and get it for free.

To further show my intentions, the pump starts life here in the USA as a 2.0 GAS BBW and then we/vendor mod it as required to make it what we want.

Its not an 06A pump!

See you can go to dealer and get it yourself. Want the part #?
We have been giving it to clients as they email us for nothing, who want a bolt up.
The others who want the mod gladly pay for it. We sell more for 1.8T's by the way, since we have been doing this for 10 years.
To bad INA/Issam didn't know what was right under his nose. He has no clue what exists because he is a dunce!....quoting BOYLE'S LAW for GASES SMELLING HIS OWN FARTS!

Then again, he was the one combing the desert and EU salvage yards, lying about apps here in the open forums, displaying incorrect part #s. 
Why good people? 
He sees dollar signs or doesn't want you to have that edge or doesn't know how to use the Etka he states I can't use,....... you choose! 
Maybe ask him why or what his agenda really is? Why LIE? Why are you running to his defense in third party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4OBUupicWg

*


_



So, what I'm getting out of this is that "your" pump isn't needed at 600hp? Good luck finding a 1000hp FSI/TSI! ****, good luck finding a 700hp one for that matter, so I guess your pump really isn't needed here.

Click to expand...

_*I guess your wet behind the ears with Toluene then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiknock_agent

FACT CHECK!
Ahhh!!!!!...... how about 1150 HP at 75 PSI boost from a 1.5 liter?

Wet for sure!

ANYONE WANNA PLAY RODS?
BANG BANG!!*


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Jesus...

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 07wolfsburg (Mar 7, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *Correct, that's the point! So you downgraded yours, because you had no problems with the OEM one right? Doing so, put a smaller pump in. LOL.
> Its not like the TFSI has any issues huh. Otherwise, why would you dopes be putting the other pump in.
> I thought the idea about AFT racing was to try and get all the advantages you could get.
> Maybe things have changed.
> ...



First, I really don't see many issues with the FSI oil pumps, they're only being changes out to eliminate balance shafts.

Second, I'm not defending Issam/INA, I've never had any interaction with him or his company ever

Third, wtf do I care about a 1.5L? You're posting in a 2.0L FSI section so your 1150hp 1.5 is irrelevant here. 

Again, you've yet to provide any hard evidence backing your claims that the 1.8 pump is insufficient and your pump is a critical piece needed for our platform. Until then your word is worthless. 


Best of luck to you,


----------



## [email protected]European Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



A First, I really don't see many issues with the FSI oil pumps, they're only being changes out to eliminate balance shafts.

B Second, I'm not defending a Issam/INA, I've never had any interaction with him or his company ever

C Third, wtf do I care about a 1.5L? You're posting in a 2.0L FSI section so your 1150hp 1.5 is irrelevant here. 

D Best of luck to you,

Click to expand...

_

*A. That's clearly inexperience then!:heart:

B. Ok that sounds positive! it would be best to distance oneself:thumbup:

C. Well it isn't a matter of caring, just showing that smaller engines can make the HP with special fuels. 
You know, those things called mods?
I have seen TSI and TFSI which produce 1400 HP on magic juice Toluene.
You stated no one is making the high HP in a TFSI. I can tell you, you're wrong.

D. Thank you! negative or positive attention is still attention and welcomed.:heart:

I apologize for your inadequacy.:wave: Wave your checkered flag pole in public, maybe this will help.


Man that fart is like cloud circling..... I can smell it from here and see in quotes inside of it BOYLE'S LAW!

*


----------



## 07wolfsburg (Mar 7, 2008)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *A. That's clearly inexperience then!:heart:
> 
> B. Ok that sounds positive! it would be best to distance oneself:thumbup:
> 
> ...


Please, by all means show me a 1400hp 2.0L FSI, please!:bs:

That's not a fart, it's your breath from all that bull**** you keep spewing out


----------



## 07wolfsburg (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm well aware that small displacement engines are capable of making power, thanks for the knowledge bud, but we're talking about a VW 2.0 FSI


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



Please, by all means show me a 1400hp 2.0L FSI, please!

That's not a fart, it's your breath from all that bull**** you keep spewing out

Click to expand...

_

*Yum tastes good, fully embraced!*


_



07wolfsburg 
I'm well aware that small displacement engines are capable of making power, thanks for the knowledge bud, but we're talking about a VW 2.0 FSI

Click to expand...

_

*It can it can't?


Wonderful at least you know when to capitulate.

I think its Beans, Deviled eggs with Curry of course, and don't leave out the carbonated beverage.:heart:
Do you drive with a tuna can under your drivers seat opened festering?
*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ColoradoMkV said:


> Should have filled the flappers too its worth is while the head is off in my opinion. Wish I would have done it when I built my head.


You don't need to actually "fill" the flappers.

Yet i am still not convinced it's worth it.


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> You don't need to actually "fill" the flappers.
> 
> Yet i am still not convinced it's worth it.


I invested several hours in flapper deletion to say there is some gains, But i do agree with you, for your build and what you’re looking to achieve, I really don't see it necessary. That mod is more for someone looking to get every once out of their setup.


----------



## skyrolla89 (Nov 16, 2007)

I want to see this 1400hp fsi. What does it run on? Fairy-dust and unicorn tears?

Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

skyrolla89 said:


> I want to see this 1400hp fsi. What does it run on? Fairy-dust and unicorn tears?
> 
> Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2


Yea really... No way its still direct injection

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well i don't know about the flappers but i'd like at least to know about the
DIVIDERS deletion...


----------



## Tmsracing37 (Aug 25, 2008)

skyrolla89 said:


> I want to see this 1400hp fsi. What does it run on? Fairy-dust and unicorn tears?
> 
> Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2





mrbikle said:


> Yea really... No way its still direct injection
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


only TFSI(s) I could think of getting close to that is the v8 4.2l and V10 5.2l engines, but most of us have been talking about the 2.0l 4 cylinder TFSI, so I won't know why he would refer to those.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



only TFSI(s) I could think of getting close to that is the v8 4.2l and V10 5.2l engines, but most of us have been talking about the 2.0l 4 cylinder TFSI, so I won't know why he would refer to those.

Click to expand...

_*I think you would be surprised what can be done with special fuel blends right through the OEM injectors guys. Don't be too quick to discredit these numbers it is not new information.

However,

It is only a matter of time before you see new CF gasoline engines, with what is considered out of the normal more ridiculous abilities, for MPG and HP/TQ you probably never thought possible.

Sorry if that is off topic, but I find this technology so simple, and extremely fascinating with my own research taking place.

*


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *I think you would be surprised what can be done with special fuel blends right through the OEM injectors guys. Don't be too quick to discredit these numbers it is not new information.
> 
> However,
> 
> ...


 Interesting....

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RaraK69 (Jan 16, 2001)

[email protected] Parts said:


> *I think you would be surprised what can be done with special fuel blends right through the OEM injectors guys. Don't be too quick to discredit these numbers it is not new information.
> 
> However,
> 
> ...


 
What is this blend of gypsy tears you speak of? Interested to read some articles of stuff people are working on.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



What is this blend of gypsy tears you speak of? Interested to read some articles of stuff people are working on.

Click to expand...

_ Its easy. 



*Do a google search on toluene as race fuel and how its blended. 

Tons of articles and publications.*


----------



## RaraK69 (Jan 16, 2001)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Its easy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oh I thought you were referring to some kind of new developments taking place in fueling technologies.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

_



RaraK69 

Oh I thought you were referring to some kind of new developments taking place in fueling technologies.

Click to expand...

_ 





*Well CF is not new, but Gasoline CF vs diesel has been being attempted for many years. 

They all say oh it can't be done or we haven't harnessed the technology to stop the run away issue. I say BS!:bs: 

I have personally experimented with this and can tell you that I have blown some motors to kingdom come. 

It kind of hits home when you do this and see the needed oil volume or rod strength requirements to circumvent heat and friction. 

These engines can spin some serious RPM's if solid lifter, double what we play with here and must be forced to slow down. Otherwise it will come unglued. 

I have also had some success in playing with this stuff. 
That success has just flat out made me question why we are not using variations of it already, considering the political environmentalists, energy cost concerns, and higher gas prices, etc. 

A formula race car killer bee noise engine just has always made me excited, or the sport bikes. 
This noise from a fast RPM spinning CF engine is a whole new HP noise.:thumbup: 

The advantages are. 

FMPG that are nuts 
Power that is made that is nuts 
Emission level content which is just crazy low. 
No cold start issues or gelling like in diesel. 
No glows needed. 
No spark plugs needed. 
No need to have a heavy pump for friction requirements added. 
Can be done completely in a mechanical manner for wartime. 

Etc etc 

I am just more surprised that more are not playing CF to go fast and to save money. 

Most surprising are the patents which come up as blank when doing searches that are dated from 1942 and 1943. Requests for that information also go unanswered. 

HMMMMMM Makes you wonder.:screwy: 

Searches such as Gasoline compression fired engine or diesel running gasoline engine concept. 
Someone should call Jesse Ventura.  

*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Things are moving along...:what:


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Happy for ya D- 

 GOOD LUCK!:heart:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] Parts said:


> Happy for ya D-
> 
> GOOD LUCK!:heart:


 Thank you Jack.


----------



## 805 (May 11, 2004)

Hows everything goin Golf RS?
In for an update!!


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

805 said:


> Hows everything goin Golf RS?
> In for an update!!


Car is up for assembly this week.

More info soon. :thumbup:

On a side note i pulled my old cams from storage and my exhaust cam has a "special" part number....Comparing it to the Schrick i am seeing some very interesting characteristics...
But don't ask what... 

Here's a pic i made comparing my old cam to the S3 one.I will also make one with
the Schrick one just to compare that too.










Anyone care to comment on the characteristics of the cams ? 

On the left is the S3 camshaft.Oh and both cams are timed the same.


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

Running yet?:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

YES !!!

The car fired up but i have yet to see it cause i've been too busy. 

Final touches are needed (adjusting EBC, checking for leaks etc) and
i will have it on the road next week probably.

Curious to see how it performs with the new compression and bore.

In any case i will need to break the engine in, and i have to say
i am leaning towards the loooong trip rather than the "Italian tuning"
way...

We shall see....


----------



## Rolando_TX (Oct 14, 2008)

What would that italian mode be ?

sent from ▪_▪


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rolando_TX said:


> What would that italian mode be ?
> 
> sent from ▪_▪


Well supposedly the rings settle in the first few km (60-100 or so) when they first
come into contact with the wall, so one theory says if you stress the
car instantly those first few km you actually achieve better seal.

Someone of course might say that might actually "burn" the rings
cause of the increased first contact, so to tell you the truth
i don't know who's right and who is wrong....

But i decided to take the long trip way and just take the car for a
trip on the highway using varying rpm no more than 4000 for a period
of ~1500 km....Did that to all my previous cars and had no issues.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Sooo people...the car is back in my hands !!!!

Got to have a few miles on it but obviously not pushing it as it still
needs to be properly broken in.

I opted for the "less than 4000 rpm" with varying loads method and
am hoping to put 1000+ miles on it before i up the pressure/timing.

Gonna do my first oil change in around 300 miles and keep on
pampering the engine till i reach the above mileage.

First impressions are the car is pretty responsive for 9.2 compression
(although cause of the head skimming it should be closer to 9.5 or something)
and the engine is more quiet than before (obviously since my previous rods
were crap).

I did face an issue with the clutch cause it now engages almost right away
once i start lifting the pedal (what could be the reason for that? did a bleed
multiple times and the "feel" did change but the engagement didn't change).
It is really annoying cause the engine bogs down and i really feel the clutch
plate will wear in no time.....

Anyways, that's all i have for now with just 60 miles on it...Keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Clutch pedal releasing very close to the floor is usually a weak pressure plate. But it's hard to test since you can't do a good hard 4th gear pull to see if it slips or chatters at all. Plus with the obvious aftermarket clutch, seems that the holding force would be really good. I would try pressure-bleeding the brake/clutch fluid lines and see if you get a change. Sometimes we see that when just using the manual bleed method or a vacuum bleeder, it doesn't move all the air out. Those slave cylinders can be a b*tch to get all the air out of sometimes.

So what cams did you end up sticking in this engine? Go with the Shrick cams? Still want to pick up the S3 cams if you mend up parting ways with them . 

Definitely look forward to seeing the logs and dyno for this car. Been awaiting your start-up for a while now. Once she's broken in, post some videos of the car :beer:
J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Clutch pedal releasing very close to the floor is usually a weak pressure plate. But it's hard to test since you can't do a good hard 4th gear pull to see if it slips or chatters at all. Plus with the obvious aftermarket clutch, seems that the holding force would be really good. I would try pressure-bleeding the brake/clutch fluid lines and see if you get a change. Sometimes we see that when just using the manual bleed method or a vacuum bleeder, it doesn't move all the air out. Those slave cylinders can be a b*tch to get all the air out of sometimes.
> 
> So what cams did you end up sticking in this engine? Go with the Shrick cams? Still want to pick up the S3 cams if you mend up parting ways with them .
> 
> ...


Well i also thought it was probably a bleed issue but the shop did MANY bleeds and only ended up improving the clutch "feel" meaning the slight gap in the clutch pedal but didn't really do much for the
engagement issue...I'm gonna try and (re) break in the clutch to see if it improves things since the engagement point will probably rise with wear....Or at least that is the idea.It also has slight chatter during 1st engagement but i guess that is only the cherry on top....

I opted to go with my original exhaust cam and the S3 intake cam since i had the A cam from the factory and i couldn't use that :/

If you are interested in the S3 exhaust cam (which is the one Audi actually changed from the previous cams) shoot me a p.m for an offer and you can have it.I was planning to put a classified for it but since you have dibs i might not even bother.Btw the exhaust cam still has the adjuster on it (didn't even bother to remove it...too much of a hassle) so i will probably send you that one too (unless shipping goes over the roof cause of weight/shape in which case i will have to remove it).

I also have a pristine Schrick exhaust cam for sale for anyone else interested.

Now concerning the car....
I decided to go with a 30 psi spring and running the car at 35 on the eboost2 with T5 on the SPS.
I honestly can't believe how much torque the car makes down low (to the point of actually fearing a CR INCREASE instead of a drop... :what: ).I can't even begin to imagine what will happen once i up the boost and timing.....

On a side note, the car seems to be running really rich ONLY AT IDLE, to the point where adaptation is maxed and actual lambda values are at 0.85-0.88..Anyone have a clue what might be causing this ??
The ECU seems "confused" and i am not getting ANY CEL but don't really know how long this can go on....Any suggestions ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Did a few things today, changed plugs to hotter ones, cleaned the maf sensor, unpluged the
maf sensor....but nothing seemed to change my now constant -27% lambda adaptation
AT IDLE....Really puzzled what it may be.

I was thinking of the G62 temp sensor (since the fans seem to start rather frequently)
but i had that swapped almost before the engine failure..Not even 10k on it...
I DID find this one on its connector...










...but i am not getting any connection errors on VCDS so yeah it will be fixed but it can't be causing the rich idle condition(or can it ??) 

Anyone hot any ideas what can cause fuel pull at idle ??

P.S. All plugs that were changed were PERFECT in color, so i'm thinking a leaky injector is not an issue ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so i went and swapped the O2 sensor for an older one i had and lambda values went
back to normal....

The ECU is STILL trying to pull fuel, but now it is in the -10 to -15% range and
it is managing to keep the req 0.98 which means the car is at least idling properly...

I still feel there is something wrong with the car so i am not gonna let this go.

I am STILL dumbfounded by the torque the car has down low....I'm gonna break in
the engine and do a compression test.......................................................


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

A question for the experts....

The car has now almost 600 miles on the engine and needed
to fill in 800cc of oil..... 

IS THAT NORMAL DURING BREAK IN ??

Cause the shop that fixed the engine said it needs time for the
"metals to set in" as they said.

AFAIK the major part of the rings breaking in happens in the first few miles.
Consumption of 800cc in 600 miles seems worse to me than before the rebuild
even with the bad rods.....

Any info ??


----------



## RaraK69 (Jan 16, 2001)

GolfRS said:


> A question for the experts....
> 
> The car has now almost 600 miles on the engine and needed
> to fill in 800cc of oil.....
> ...


 seems excessive 

Which oil did you use for breaking? When i do breaking i use standard oil(non synthetic) and i start motor and let it run to operating temperature, then another 15 min. I then drain oil and put in more standard oil. Run it for a few hundred miles(300-500) and change again to synthetic.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Do you have a catch can, is it full? If not, I'd look where your head/engine is being vented (I presume intake) to see if you have any oil there? Seems like a decent amount of oil consumption (as I am not super familiar with 2.0T's), I mean 600 miles is .85 quarts/800cc. IIRC VW says 1 quart for every 1000 miles.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I do have a catch can but have not checked it.

For me it is a HUGE amount of oil consumption since it is MORE
than what i had before the rebuild with all the rod issues i had.

If consumption doesn't decrease then there is gonna be trouble.......


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Make sure your PCV isn't clogged or not working if you are still running one and check your catch can...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

What piston alloy are you running?

I have this strange suspicion that you may be running 4000 series alloy pistons, with 2000 series bore specs.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> What piston alloy are you running?
> 
> I have this strange suspicion that you may be running 4000 series alloy pistons, with 2000 series bore specs.


 I am using the Wossner pistons made specifically for the AXX engine.

How did you come to the above conclusion (first time i ever heard smth like that btw....).


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> I am using the Wossner pistons made specifically for the AXX engine.
> 
> How did you come to the above conclusion (first time i ever heard smth like that btw....).


 Simple..

4000 series alloy has a similar thermal expansion rate as factory pistons; thus requiring a tighter piston to bore clearance than the more readily available 2000 series alloy that most engine builders are used to setting their clearances for.

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here; as I've seen it happen a couple times..


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I completely understand what you are saying but i already knew and pointed that
fact out to the machine shop.And yes there IS a difference in thermal expansion
between the two pistons BUT that is also covered by the piston specs given by the
manufacturer on the box sticker.

I cannot imagine the machinist is a fool....But then again this thread is
FULL OF FAIL......so.....


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> I completely understand what you are saying but i already knew and pointed that
> fact out to the machine shop.And yes there IS a difference in thermal expansion
> between the two pistons BUT that is also covered by the piston specs given by the
> manufacturer on the box sticker.
> ...


 It's a fairly common mistake. Not saying it happened, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Most machine shops are used to cutting a certain clearance for 2000 series alloy.

For all we know your pistons ARE 2000 series anyway.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So i dismantled my Autotech pump today to transfer it to the new casing.

80K miles on that puppy and it looks like i just put it in. 

That's a big thumbs up for Autotech.... :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Time for another update.....

Once again misfortune hits as one of the HPFP threads is now TOAST...

All these rebuilds have taken a toll on the aluminum cover and
the bottom right hole is stripped....

As many already know this is a pretty common problem for high
mileage cars even without rebuilds cause of the frequency
required to check the follower.

Looking around there are threads for a Helicoil repair, but i've read
stories of those suckers not holding up or even backing out after
repeated use, so my choice is to go with TIME SERTS repair kit.

For those that are not familiar it consists of an actual steel jacket
(instead of a rolled up coil) and you can use red loctite with it to
make it a REALLY permanent fix, even though it already has its own
fixing mechanism....

So peeps stay tuned for repair pics....

Seems this break in is gonna take longer than expected....:banghead:

P.S. Even though this is considered a "repair" i would highly
suggest it to anyone who does frequent check ups and is worried
about his HPFP popping out.Seems like an excellent solution to an
existing issue.


----------



## Rolando_TX (Oct 14, 2008)

I ordered this to get rid of that problem


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rolando_TX said:


> I ordered this to get rid of that problem


 That is one way to do it, but i don't really like the stud idea just cause you need to COMPLETELY remove the pump (meaning also pull down the fuel hose) to get the pump removed.And that is a PITA to do cause it's not really that flexible....

Using reinforced threads like the time serts (helicoils don't seem to be up to the task of repeated removal) you retain the OEM removability (meaning you just pull off and twist the pump to get to the follower) and you also solve the issue of torquing correctly cause you now have a steel thread instead of soft aluminum.

But sure studs are one way to deal with the issue, even though you still have to tightened them on soft metal...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So i decided to go with the Helicoils instead of the Time serts cause of the design of the
actual threads and the little material around the hole.The Time serts would have been
the better solution but it was double the cost and there were some installation
issues i would have to solve to make it work.

So, waiting for the Helicoils to get this done.

And as always waiting for the next misfortune to happen.I've started to get
so used to it i am feeling something's wrong if everything is going smoothly.....


----------



## Lawn_Mower (Jul 15, 2008)

Rolando_TX said:


> I ordered this to get rid of that problem


Where did you order those from?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Quick update before videos start coming in... 

Car is back to working properly, stripped thread was repaired but i might go to
studs anyway....(anyone have a link for them ?)

Tried a bit of higher boost today for the first time, engine can only go up to 1.6 bar without
going lean.I desperately need for a LPFP....Since there is so much talk about the TTRS pump i might go with that.

I am pretty sure i will reach the limit of the injectors before i run out of LPFP (as it seems to be
the general idea) but i have long decided NOT to go with W/M or extra injectors, so the
HP limit will be what the RS4's support with the rest of the fueling system maxed.

I am hoping to get around 500 crank and call it a day although the rest of the engine supports
WAY MORE than that....


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

good news 

are you running 130 BAR Rails pressure ? any plans for 145-150 BAR Rail pressure ?

At what RPM does the boost kicks in ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> good news
> 
> are you running 130 BAR Rails pressure ? any plans for 145-150 BAR Rail pressure ?
> 
> At what RPM does the boost kicks in ?


I still have the RS4 valve and Revo doesn't support higher rail pressures so until i
finalize the hardware and go with a different tuner i have to stay with 130 bar.

Having said that even if i could, i don't think there is sufficient data on camshaft/follower
wear with such higher pressures so i wouldnt risk ANOTHER failure just to get some extra HP.

For me this engine needs a meaty powerband and not max HP simply because there will always be the
next part that fails, and even with a race head you still run the risk of failing somewhere down the (hardware) road...So until larger injectors are found i will have to stick with what the rest of the fueling system can handle (meaning HPFP and LPFP).

As for boost, i have upgraded to a 30 psi spring and using the EBC boost is almost K04 like.
I am now seeing 1.6 bar of boost with just 45% on the EBC and medium gate pressure.
I'm pretty sure this turbo can make upwards of 2+ bar with ease.Don't really know if i will need to go that high though since the fueling system will be the one failing first....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Aaaand as to not break the streak of bad luck, i now have a clutch issue....

Clutch pedal started vibrating midway, and then stuck to the floor.

Heard a screeching sound coming from the clutch and engine stalled.

Attempts to bleed and repressurize the clutch system failed and the clutch pedal
remained limp...

So now BETS ARE ON PEOPLE !!!!

Let's see who gets this right...

WHAT IS IT ???????

Winners gets a buck mailed to his house (please contact me for shipping costs).

EDIT:Just to add there was no sign of fluids loss and the container was topped off...


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

flywheel bolts ? (hope not)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> flywheel bolts ? (hope not)


The symptom is complete lack of pressure in the system.

If the bolts were sheared there wouldn't be any loss of pressure and there would be
HUGE amount of noise from the free spinning flywheel (i would guess).

Chances are it is a clutch cylinder issue with a)the one behind the pedal b) the one inside the
clutch cover.

In any case , it might be a chance to upgrade to a GolfR or TTRS cylinder...Can't really be certain
what is best/compatible.

Here's a discussion about it in the... another forum.

http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175147

EDIT: One more thing to add that might help those in the know how is the fact that lately i had
been having an "early hardening of the brake pedal" with the engine shut off.Meaning the feeling of rock hard brake pedal you get when pumping the brake with the engine off, was happening without me actually pumping the clutch.No clue if that explains anything.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

The car is FINALLY up and running.

Reason for the clutch failure was a busted throw out bearing.

Now the fun can slowly begin.Did some testing runs on "low" boost upto 1.6 bar
and medium timing T7 and the car hauls ass 

Not going to up the timing more till the engine is properly broken in, and
the LPFP limits the amount of boost i can run.

Preliminary results seem promising...

Videos to follow.


----------



## SCIROCCO SPEED (Dec 6, 2002)

GolfRS said:


> The car is FINALLY up and running.
> 
> Reason for the clutch failure was a busted throw out bearing.


 I was getting ready to suggest throw out bearing. Mine is getting a little noisy too. Caught up on the last few pages, glad you're making progress!:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SCIROCCO SPEED said:


> I was getting ready to suggest throw out bearing. Mine is getting a little noisy too. Caught up on the last few pages, glad you're making progress!:thumbup:


 If you are getting "juddering" at the point of engagement it is most probably your throw out bearing and
if you are due for a clutch swap, better make it faster cause it CAN mess up your clutch and
leave you stranded....Cost is around 130 $ and should be changed even if you think it's OK....
Don't take chances cause you'll end up paying more.

Have to say for those that are curious about the effects of lowering CR that i am just
getting used to the behavior change of the engine.Definitely needs lots of fine tuning to
find the best point between turbo and timing to make up for the CR drop.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone know what are the side effects/ damage that rise from
a badly timed oil pump/balance shafts ??

Short and/or long term that is...


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

You should hit up "[email protected] Parts" he seemed legit opcorn:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> You should hit up "[email protected] Parts" he seemed legit opcorn:


Awesome bro.

I'll get right on it. :thumbup:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Anyone know what are the side effects/ damage that rise from
> a badly timed oil pump/balance shafts ??
> 
> Short and/or long term that is...


Long term I would presume it could damage the bottom end bearings. A rotating assembly out of balance will put extra strain on the crankshaft and main/thrust bearings. Not sure if it would effect the engine in any other ways, but I'm sure if it's off enough it could cause some false readings for ignition timing pull, etc.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Long term I would presume it could damage the bottom end bearings. A rotating assembly out of balance will put extra strain on the crankshaft and main/thrust bearings. Not sure if it would effect the engine in any other ways, but I'm sure if it's off enough it could cause some false readings for ignition timing pull, etc.


Those were my thoughts too, still i am getting LOTS of resonace between 2000 and 3000 rpm
and noises coming from the upper timing belt area...

Car is going back in for check up.Let's see when i'm finally gonna get this on the road. :banghead:


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

The balance shafts run 180 degrees out of balance at all times when in time to negate noises.... 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> The balance shafts run 180 degrees out of balance at all times when in time to negate noises....
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


So what if the shafts are a tooth off left or right ?

What does that do to the engine ?


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

I would assume nothing.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Hmmmm....

How many of you think i should plug this into my OEM LPFP and watch what happens ?? :laugh:










Getting ready to upgrade my fueling system...


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> How many of you think i should plug this into my OEM LPFP and watch what happens ?? :laugh:
> 
> ...


Is that the VAG flux capacitor?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Is that the VAG flux capacitor?


Yep...That's the one !!!!


Seriously though,this is the TTRS LPFP Controller that APR also ships with
their LPFP Upgrade kit.Supposedly it can deliver more juice needed for the
TTRS pump.

Just wondering what effect it will have on the stock pump.Someone measured the
two pumps and found the OEM flowed more for the same voltage, but the TTRS one
was getting/needing more voltage and in the end flowed more....


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> How many of you think i should plug this into my OEM LPFP and watch what happens ?? :laugh:
> 
> ...


Is this the RS4 LPFP controller?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Is this the RS4 LPFP controller?


Did you read the post above yours ????


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Did you read the post above yours ????


 my bad.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So the car is back on the road and the resonance noise is greatly reduced.

As it turns out i had a faulty belt tensioner and a loose idler roller, all contributing to the
noise.It also seems the engine was losing power from the belt not setting correctly
from the bad tensioner.New tensioner installed the car seems to pull harder in the low-mid revs
and revs now rise like crazy during acceleration.Also, for those wondering about the
Ferrea shims, i can tell they seem to make a difference both in power consistency as well
as engine revving.

In dire need of a LPFP though as the car seems to cut off with anything above 1.5+ bar :/

Will (again) try to make some vids to show you guys how the car accelerates.
It's nuts....

P.S. I wish we had a reinforced DMF choice as the SMF is getting a bit (more) annoying with
both the rods and pistons swapped.Sure the parts were balanced, but even so the more i look into it the more important a DMF gets in these engines.And to those deleting the balancing assembly
i say "AAAHAHAHAHAHA...you must be joking...."


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

Balance shaft assembly runs out of time to get rid of the audible engine noise. Has zero to do with bearing wear or anything else for that matter. Only thing they do well is blow up

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> Balance shaft assembly runs out of time to get rid of the audible engine noise. Has zero to do with bearing wear or anything else for that matter. Only thing they do well is blow up
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


Perhaps but i cannot accept VW went to all this length to install a whole assembly for no reason.

Also, there ARE cases where people that had them removed just went back and re installed them
cause of the horrible vibration and noise...Maybe your engine was different somehow ?


----------



## flat tyre (Jul 3, 2013)

I think VW installs the balance shaft because otherwise there would be too much vibration. My toyota pickup has an i4 with no balance shaft and it vibrates a lot even on stock soft mounts.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

flat tyre said:


> I think VW installs the balance shaft because otherwise there would be too much vibration. My toyota pickup has an i4 with no balance shaft and it vibrates a lot even on stock soft mounts.


Truth is the more you modify your car the more you actually need the balance shafts
(and the DMF for that matter...wish there was an aftermarket one, i'd jump on it in an
instant) cause the vibrations are getting out of hand.

Even with balancing the rotating assembly, "vibration control" is based mainly on the DMF and shafts,
and once you lose BOTH, no fluidamper is gonna save you (ask me how i know...).

There is a nice video about how the DMF works that sheds light on the VERY IMPORTANT
aspect of an engine's fuction, which is vibration dampening.Have a look and you might change your
mind about going SMF....







P.S. Notice how the TFSI is mentioned in the vid ???


----------



## mrbikle (Jul 2, 2005)

When I get home I'll post the documents stating the purposes of the shafts. It's only for cabin vibration

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

mrbikle said:


> When I get home I'll post the documents stating the purposes of the shafts. It's only for cabin vibration
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


How can vibration that reaches the cabin not effect the whole assembly ??

Even so that is more than enough reason for me to keep them in ESPECIALLY with all
the crap resonance the SMF and harder mounts make....:banghead:


----------



## Rolando_TX (Oct 14, 2008)

If you want to build a relatively high power car you should keep in mind all the effects its going to have on dd, i dont mind vibrations and sounds at all on mine. 
Now on my dd 2007 Malibu i want it as comfortable as it can be


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rolando_TX said:


> If you want to build a relatively high power car you should keep in mind all the effects its going to have on dd, i dont mind vibrations and sounds at all on mine.
> Now on my dd 2007 Malibu i want it as comfortable as it can be


You can have a fair amount of power and still have a relatively "quiet" car.

Mine wasn't that quiet either with the SMF and the mounts, but after the second rebuild using
both pistons and rods, resonance at a certain range was unbearable.So yeah some sounds are
more "acceptable" than others.In my case i could not stand it any longer.Maybe i'm getting old..
Who knows.... :facepalm:


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

have you tried a DIESEL flywheel ?

it's much much more stronger than the TFSI flywheel !


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> have you tried a DIESEL flywheel ?
> 
> it's much much more stronger than the TFSI flywheel !


Hmmm interesting...More info please (part no etc).

Does that even fit ?

Some have said LUK S3 flywheels are also durable but i want something i can
install and FORGET.

Do you have experience with high power/torque TFSI's and DMF's ??


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

it's the flywheel from 2.0 TDI !
fits like a glove !
only works with pressure plate designed for it ! 
sachs have a stronger pressure plate, for this DMF.


i had DMF on my old setup.
660 NM torque. DMF + sachs pressure plate.


i have e friend with a 2.0 TDI clutch (the hole clutch) on a K04, BWJ engine, boosting 2.4 Bars out of it on the medium RPM range, and the clutch dosn't slip!


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> it's the flywheel from 2.0 TDI !
> fits like a glove !
> only works with pressure plate designed for it !
> sachs have a stronger pressure plate, for this DMF.
> ...


What about the clutch disc ? Which one did you use ? The one for the diesel also ?

So you practically used the whole TDI clutch kit ?

Any part numbers you can give ?


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Truth is the more you modify your car the more you actually need the balance shafts
> (and the DMF for that matter...wish there was an aftermarket one, i'd jump on it in an
> instant) cause the vibrations are getting out of hand.
> 
> ...


Removing the DMF does disturb things. But those of us with BPY motors who need better clamping force don't have many options with clutch kits that work with the factory DMF. I'm not aware of the TDI clutch setup having a higher torque rating, but if so, something to look into.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

bostonaudi1 said:


> Removing the DMF does disturb things. But those of us with BPY motors who need better clamping force don't have many options with clutch kits that work with the factory DMF.


What about the TDI clutch mentioned above then ?

Do you have any experience with that ?

I am SERIOUSLY looking to get rid off my SMF...I've had enough of it..


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> What about the TDI clutch mentioned above then ?
> 
> Do you have any experience with that ?
> 
> I am SERIOUSLY looking to get rid off my SMF...I've had enough of it..


No I don't, but since retiring my K04 GTI from track events wouldn't mind a factory setup again on the clutch that could work. I don't dislike my SB stg2, it works great but on a street only car the factory setup is better for daily driving.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

bostonaudi1 said:


> No I don't, but since retiring my K04 GTI from track events wouldn't mind a factory setup again on the clutch that could work.


After all these years of having a tuned TFSI i really believe the worst thing you can do to
your car is install a SMF.And i am not talking about the effects on the life of the engine,
or even the effects on the performance of the car (yes i DO believe you can make more
power on a DMF), but about the effects on my driving comfort and noise control.

Not every one is a race car lover, and some might want to preserve the comfort of the car
(whatever is possible anyhow) and still have a high powered vehicle to have fun with.

I am gonna look into this diesel clutch a bit further, and i might even have one installed
since i am gonna need a new clutch soon by the looks of the one i have in right now.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an OEM solution to keep the oem driving experience and still
hold the power ?


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> After all these years of having a tuned TFSI i really believe the worst thing you can do to
> your car is install a SMF.And i am not talking about the effects on the life of the engine,
> or even the effects on the performance of the car (yes i DO believe you can make more
> power on a DMF), but about the effects on my driving comfort and noise control.
> ...


I may have missed this since I tune in and out of this thread but did you ever try the USP fluid dampner with your SMF? I have it on my k04 set up and it makes a world of difference from when I originally installed the clutch and SMF combo


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> I may have missed this since I tune in and out of this thread but did you ever try the USP fluid dampner with your SMF? I have it on my k04 set up and it makes a world of difference from when I originally installed the clutch and SMF combo


Yes it is not mentioned in the thread but i've had it on for a long time.

It did make a small difference with the SMF but nothing significant....


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

Rub-ISH said:


> I may have missed this since I tune in and out of this thread but did you ever try the USP fluid dampner with your SMF? I have it on my k04 set up and it makes a world of difference from when I originally installed the clutch and SMF combo


USP is just one of the retailers.

It's actually made by Fluidampr. 

Not to nitpick - just clearing that up.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

Here is a STOCK 2.0 TDI CLUTCH:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Interesting...

Did some searching on the net and i found this.

http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?141271-Audi-A3-2-0-TDi-Sport-Flywheel-Recall-VOSA

Now i'm guessing these are older versions of the flywheel, but it shows failure is always a
possibility.

Gonna look into the part numbers a bit more.


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

GolfRS said:


> After all these years of having a tuned TFSI i really believe the worst thing you can do to
> your car is install a SMF.And i am not talking about the effects on the life of the engine,
> or even the effects on the performance of the car (yes i DO believe you can make more
> power on a DMF), but about the effects on my driving comfort and noise control.
> ...



The new RSR clutch by HS Tuning is supposed to function like OEM and hold 500+ HP


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

This might be wtat are you looking for !

http://www.darksidedevelopments.co....el-with-sachs-sre-performance-clutch-kit.html


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ghita.silviu said:


> This might be wtat are you looking for !
> 
> http://www.darksidedevelopments.co....el-with-sachs-sre-performance-clutch-kit.html


Yes i saw that, but it is actually the same kit used in the TFSI (meaning clutch disc and pressure plate)
with the exception of the TDI flyhweel that (i'm guessing) supports ~480Nm with the organic disc and
520Nm with the sintered one.

Do you think the "safety limit" built into the DMF is enough to cover BT torque numbers ?

You said you used it with 600+ Nm but how long did it last ??

I already have the pressure plate in my kit, and i have a springed disc (can i use it with the TDI DMF ?)
should i purchase the DMF and call it a kit ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well i have to say i am AMAZED how the car is transformed in the way it pulls
from before.My guess can only be there was an issue with timing/tensioner setup
which was corrected and the car now runs as it should...

From logging a can see the cam timing advance works much better now, reaching
almost 27 degrees up top as opposed to max 24 degrees i was seeing earlier.

Boost to maf values have also changed and i am now seeing much more flow for the
same amount of boost (weird ?).

Still trying to make an acceleration video for those interested.I myself also love threads with
lots of pics and videos and i know i haven't been putting much stuff up but this is gonna
change now that (i feel) the engine issues seem to have gone away. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok here's a quick vid i made.It has two pulls, one in 4th and the next in 5th gear from
almost the same point in the tacho.If you compare it to my older similar video it seems
kind of slower (i had OEM compression on the other one) BUT this one is still on low
(1.5 bar) boost and on T8 on the timing setting.You can also see it's 35 C outside.

Anyways, this is a VERY early video, just to keep a record of how fine tuning and
upping boost/fueling goes.






P.S.120 to 200 Km/h in 6 seconds in fourth isn't that bad...is it ?


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

Any issues with your TTRS LPFP controller? You are using the TTRS LPFP as well yeah?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Any issues with your TTRS LPFP controller? You are using the TTRS LPFP as well yeah?


Haven't installed the TTRS pump yet.I do have the controller yes and i even thought about "testing it"
on my stock LPFP but i am afraid it might actually burn the pump and leave me stranded so i am
holding until i install both and be done with it.

Having said that, i did read in the other forum someone got a "circuit open" error using
the whole "kit" but that might be a coincidence.Most that are using the pump seem to
have no issues whatsoever.

I even asked Revo if a software adjustment is needed for the "kit" and they said no.
APR on the other hand is selling this kit separately, and if APR doesn't say "it only works
with the proper APR software adjustments" (as they do for almost everything) 
then you can be sure it works fine on any software.OR there are too few people using it
and most of them don't write in forums to let the rest of us know....
software.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Still in the hunt for a better clutch config i discovered Sachs has been doing some
changes to their kit...

To be more specific, there seems to be a change in the Pressure Plate part number
included in the kit, going from part no. *883082 999788* to part no. *883082 001422*.

Now if this a change that might effect/solve the gear engaging issues the kit had in the past
i do not know, but all over the net the second part number is being sold as a "replacement" to
the previous one, which makes me think i should get a new pressure plate as well once i
redo my clutch....

And as for the TDI DMF i am getting mixed info.Some seem to have no issues and some are
again experiencing failures.What i cannot know is how many of the above have power rating as
same as mine...


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Haven't installed the TTRS pump yet.I do have the controller yes and i even thought about "testing it"
> on my stock LPFP but i am afraid it might actually burn the pump and leave me stranded so i am
> holding until i install both and be done with it.
> 
> ...


 Well that would be me, I'm using the full TTRS LPFP with the controller. Funny thing is, the car starts up fine, idles fine. Did some logs with it, it seems to be holding fuel pressure but I do get an error in vagcom in the ECM - 

012403 - Fuel Pump Circuit 
P3073 - 004 - Electrical Malfunction - Intermittent 
Freeze Frame: 
Fault Status: 00100100 
Fault Priority: 0 
Fault Frequency: 2 
Mileage: 146992 km 
Time Indication: 0 
Date: 2000.00.00 
Time: 19:46:11 

Freeze Frame: 
RPM: 809 /min 
Load: 2.0 % 
Speed: 0.0 km/h 
Temperature: 54.0°C 
Temperature: 47.0°C 
Absolute Pres.: 1000.0 mbar 
Voltage: 13.716 V 


This fault only appear when I use the TTRS LPFP controller, when I switch it back to the GTI LPFP controller + TTRS LPFP, no faults. 

Another issue I'm facing is the inaccurate fuel gauge readings with the TTRS LPFP. For example, when I'm pump a full tank of gas, the gauge only reads 1/4 tank left. :banghead:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Well that would be me, I'm using the full TTRS LPFP with the controller. Funny thing is, the car starts up fine, idles fine. Did some logs with it, it seems to be holding fuel pressure but I do get an error in vagcom in the ECM -
> 
> 012403 - Fuel Pump Circuit
> P3073 - 004 - Electrical Malfunction - Intermittent
> ...


 Well starting in reverse order, the issue with the gauge readings is common knowledge by now, all that is left to determine is if the floater/sensor combo itself is to blame, or the interface between the controller and the gauge.For starters , have you noticed if you are getting the same false readings with the GTI controller also ?Meaning is it independent of the controller/interface ?
Then what needs to be determined is if the fault is cause by the different floater design/sensor, which would be the most plausible explanation IMO cause the TANK of the TTRS is probably different (or the pump position in it for that matter) and that causes an "off" reading based on the sensor settings for that tank.A solution to that would be to dismantle (dunno if it's even possible without damaging it) the floater/sensor combo from your old GTI pump and installing it into the TTRS pump.

Now critical in this procedure would be to check for size/height/position of the old to new floater, and simply replace without altering the old config.That SHOULD fix things, but since i don't own a TTRS pump yet i cannot guarantee it can be done...That is what i am planning to do though....

As for the circuit open error....it kinda sounds like an electrical malfunction of shorts, meaning something with the pump/controller and not with how the ECU "accepts" the pump.

I remember reading somewhere that some of the TTRS pumps had some electrical issues and there was even a "guide" on how to fix them, but i didn't save that info so i might have to go looking for it.
In any case there are many using this setup and do not report errors like yours.I would remove the pump to check for loose connections/shorts and replace the floater/sensor in the process...:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

With a bit of looking around i also found THIS post by a fellow vortexer....

Seems interesting and something that might need to be looked into for the
fuel gauge problems.Once again i have not tried any of these as i don't have a pump yet,
but it is good info for those that are planning to install it.




> _"Today I discovered that you can use a VAG-COM to adjust the displayed fuel level on the gauge in the instrument cluster. Last year I replaced the fuel level sender on my fuel pump and ever since the indicated fuel level has been off. Specifically, when the fuel tank was filled up completely (pump auto shut-off), the gauge wouldn't indicate a full tank. Instead, the level was just below the full mark, which has been really annoying after spending €54 ($70) on a new fuel level sender (which commonly go bad on high-mileage MKIV cars) and spending the time removing the fuel pump from the tank to access the sender.
> Well, it turns out that every level sender is a little different and the gauge in the instrument cluster needs to be calibrated to the output from the new sender. Also, an error can develop in the instrument cluster even without a change in the fuel sender and this error can cause the fuel gauge to display the incorrect fuel level. Here's what you can do to fix the problem.
> 
> 
> ...


 And credit goes to:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-a-VAG-COM&p=38097899&viewfull=1#post38097899


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

And YES, of you know where to search you come up with really interesting stuff....

Have a look at this pic i found of the actuall Audi TTRS 2.5L gas tank configuration....










It would seem the TTRS uses a dual tank / dual fuel level sensor (which might or might not be common practice in 4WD VAG cars, i haven't a clue) which would definitely complicate things as the sole purpose of that is to keep a watch on ALL of the available fuel, meaning on both sides of the tank.

Now some might say that these tanks are interconnected (i don't know) or that the rate of consumption should be the same (if pumping from both sides) but that would actually negate the need for a second level sensor, and as you can see that isn't the case....

So what all of the above probably means is that the TTRS level sensor needs to be replaced for the GTI gauge to display properly....But since we are all going into uncharted territory, one would have to trial and error to figure out how to solve this....I am open to suggestions....

EDIT: Come to think of it though, there is only ONE filling hole so these two compartment SHOULD be connected...But then once again what is the need for a second fuel level sensor ???  
I'm confused....


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

The AWD tanks have at least 2 pump/level sensors. The one you see pictured to the left there is the main pump/sender. That's what the cluster reads and what pumps fuel to the engine. The other pump is only there to pump fuel from the lower sump up to the main pump. These tanks are weird because of the driveshaft clearance.....the center bowed part of the tank is very shallow and will not allow fuel to spill back to the main pump(hence the secondary one). 

But if you are having a level sensor issue, I would start by making sure the TT pump levcel sensor is positioned in the VW tank the same way the OE one is. If it isn't 100% the same, then you'll have a false reading or a float that cannot go through its full range of travel. You may even need to swap the OE level sender over to the TT pump if that will work. I'm not familiar with the swap as of yet, so I'm just brainstorming with you. 

This is one of my next mods, so I'll have to go down this road when I get there. 
J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> The AWD tanks have at least 2 pump/level sensors. The one you see pictured to the left there is the main pump/sender. That's what the cluster reads and what pumps fuel to the engine. The other pump is only there to pump fuel from the lower sump up to the main pump. These tanks are weird because of the driveshaft clearance.....the center bowed part of the tank is very shallow and will not allow fuel to spill back to the main pump(hence the secondary one).
> 
> But if you are having a level sensor issue, I would start by making sure the TT pump levcel sensor is positioned in the VW tank the same way the OE one is. If it isn't 100% the same, then you'll have a false reading or a float that cannot go through its full range of travel. You may even need to swap the OE level sender over to the TT pump if that will work. I'm not familiar with the swap as of yet, so I'm just brainstorming with you.
> 
> ...


 The problem that could arise with swapping the level sensor is the "resolution" of the sensor itself.
As you said one part is the "leveling" of the floater itself (which will of course also depend on the possible height of the TTRS pump vs stock) but also the range of motion that might depend on the
electronics of the TTRS sensor.

But trial and error is what is needed in this case.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Today i decided to increase timing to T9 and see how the engine responds.

Still in "low" boost @ 1.5 bar the car breaks loose in 4th.

Did some logs of the fueling system and what puzzled me is the fact i am now (after the
compression drop) also seeing rail pressure drop following the LPFP drop, something that
was not happening before....

Here are some logs for reference...

LPFP Pressure











Rail Pressure











As you can see the low pressure system cannot cope with the demand and that also starves the rail dropping high pressure to ~115 bar at times, raising injector timing to compensate.

So this seems to be the maximum limit of the fueling system at this point.A lpfp will change things, but the fact the ECU is running the engine rich (at 0.77) is gonna be a limiting factor once again when increasing power.Maybe new software is needed....We'll see....


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Still in the hunt for a better clutch config i discovered Sachs has been doing some
> changes to their kit...
> 
> To be more specific, there seems to be a change in the Pressure Plate part number
> ...


 On my Cupra with 650whp I used SPEC mini twin disc clutch with no problems at all, lasted about 20,000kms when a rebuild was needed.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well there seem to be mixed reports coming from the internet as to if the TTRS or
TTRS+controller pump are a plug n play solution.

Dunno if something has changed since then but i've read APR no longer uses the
fueling kit in their Stage 3 kits (well that was fast going from "1000$ for fueling solution" to
"we don't use this anymore").

The reason seems to be the inability to prime the pump using the door opening (please someone
correct me if i'm wrong), but that is not really that much of a nuisance since the pump
primes i think again once you turn the ignition key.It's just the delay in start up that i guess
APR doesn't like, and that made them ditch the kit altogether (still the kit is advertised in their web page).

In any case, as i said there are mixed reports with people using the pump itself with no issues on the
STOCK controller, others using both the controller and pump and working perfectly, and others having
issues even AFTER removing the TTRS pump...Weird stuff.....

Another issue is the cabling between the battery and the pump that might need to be upgraded
to accommodate the increased current load, as well as the pump fuse that is set to go off at a much lower amperage....

Still a work in progress as you can see....


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

I have the USP version of the TTRS pump on the stock controller and the car has adapted very well to the pump. No issues to speak of but I need to do some logging once I get back in the state. 

Any blocks you would like to see when I do? GIAC Ho ko4 file


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> I have the USP version of the TTRS pump on the stock controller and the car has adapted very well to the pump. No issues to speak of but I need to do some logging once I get back in the state.
> 
> Any blocks you would like to see when I do? GIAC Ho ko4 file


 Interesting....Could it be something in APR's coding ??

I read about people removing the pump kit and STILL experiencing CEL's.

What you could log is blocks 103, 230 and 231 i think (you better confirm).

Those are for Current fuel (low) pressure, Rail (high) pressure and pump duty cycle.

I would also to a throttle body and load log just to see if the ECU is cutting throttle to
make it easier for the pump to make requested.That's what i do anyway.

EDIT:You say you are on the stock controller, which might be the reason for the adaptation.There are reports of the controller working well, working for a couple thousand miles or burning on the spot.One of the reasons behind the use of the TTRS controller is the more current it can deliver to the pump but also that it doesn't get burned.Time will tell if yours can handle it.I would either way have another controller backup in the car if you can just to avoid being left stranded.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

I will log the fuel system...those are the correct blocks for the low and High...what about the throttle body values? do you know them off hand?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

There are many blocks that have the TB , group 060 is one, but i think i also get it from 003 which also has timing and other stuff....

P.S. when you do a run, have your rear seat slightly unbuttoned and touch the OEM controller
carefully to see if it heats up too much.Heat is one of the reasons these fail...


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

Rub-ISH said:


> I have the USP version of the TTRS pump on the stock controller and the car has adapted very well to the pump. No issues to speak of but I need to do some logging once I get back in the state.
> 
> Any blocks you would like to see when I do? GIAC Ho ko4 file


 No issues with the fuel gauge readings???


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> No issues with the fuel gauge readings???


 Nope working normally. I have an 06 A3 which did have some issues with heat and vapor on the stock pump. That original stock pump was switched on a recall. I believe the original controller was swapped as well!


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

Rub-ISH said:


> Nope working normally. I have an 06 A3 which did have some issues with heat and vapor on the stock pump. That original stock pump was switched on a recall. I believe the original controller was swapped as well!


 Hmmm strange...on my 06 GTI with the AXX engine with the TTRS LPFP, on full tank - It only shows 1/4 tank left of petrol. :what:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Hmmm strange...on my 06 GTI with the AXX engine with the TTRS LPFP, on full tank - It only shows 1/4 tank left of petrol. :what:


 Have you tried the adaptation quoted above ??

It could also be you have the pump in the wrong way.

I believe there is a specific place you have to put it rotationwise.

Maybe your floater isn't sitting at the right spot ??

Why not try to re-seat it ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Trying to get as much from my LPFP i did a bit of tweaking and i managed to get
almost an extra 1.2 bar of fuel pressure up top... 










I am still though experiencing dips in the rail pressure, and that is with a
new Autotech pump....










Also, somehow the software is starting to fail me, as both the target lambda
as well as the actual lambda are really screwy...I need to finalize the hardware
to go on to (better ?) software.I say that even though the car just spins all the
way through 4th gear, but drinks gas like an Irish man on St.Patrick's day...:facepalm:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Looking are Revo's site they have updated the TFSI stage info to include a new Stage 5
software option that says the following...

_*Stage 5 2.0TFSI Performance Software* is designed for those customers that want the ultimate from their 2.0TFSI. Whilst Stage4 software is designed to be run with all of the bolt on hardware Stage 5 is designed to maximise the potential and adjustability to make the most of cars running fully built engines with uprated valve-train. Stage 5 software could be classed as a full ‘Race’ map, with an 8000rpm rev limit, a very wide range of timing adjustment allowing you to account for race fuel and water meth if you choose to. It is also fully compatible with external boost controllers for those that really want to push things to the next level._
_*Hardware Requirements:*_



_3071R External Wastegate Turbo Kit with associated hardware for fitting and installation_

_RS4/R8 injectors_

_3.0"Turbo back exhaust without pre-cat and with decat or highflow catalytic convertor_

_Cold Air Intake with correctly scaled MAF housing - Click for details (inlet hose might require modification depending on turbo kit)_

_uprated or additional intercooler (S3 uses larger stock IC but additional IC is recommended) - Click here for details_

_highflow mechanical fuel pump - Click here for details_

_uprated intank fuel pump_

_uprated engine internals (rods, pistons, valve-train. Revo recommend keeping stock compression)_

_Uprated Engine Mounts - Click following for details: engine, transmission, dogbone_

_PCV Revamp kit - Click here for details_

_Uprated Brakes - Click here for details_

_NGK Iridium Spark Plugs_

_Uprated Clutch_


_*Hardware Recommendations:*_



_Boost gauge - if you want to run an MBC and over 1.6/1.7bar peak_

_Wideband AFR gauge - for setup purposes_


_http://www.revotechnik.com/2-0tfsi-k03-vehicle-stage-4-and-5/_


Now considering i have a 7200 rpm limit and i'm pretty sure this stage did not exist when i was flashed......why is my dealer not flashing me with this file ???I'm pretty sure i'm covering ALL the specs...

For all those on Revo BT software, why not ask your dealers about this ??

I know i just did....


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Have you tried the adaptation quoted above ??
> 
> It could also be you have the pump in the wrong way.
> 
> ...


 Yup I tried the adaptaion as quoted. Still the same, no change. 

I've re-seat it as well, the position is the same as my OEM pump. I might consider switching the OEM GTI floater to the TTRS LPFP instead, see how that turns out.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Yup I tried the adaptaion as quoted. Still the same, no change.
> 
> I've re-seat it as well, the position is the same as my OEM pump. I might consider switching the OEM GTI floater to the TTRS LPFP instead, see how that turns out.


 Yeah that should be the definite solution cause probably the position/bends of the TTRS floater as well
as the sensor resolution must be different.

What about the CEL you had.Did you clear codes and is it coming back ??

Also, do a log of your low fuel pressure.I'm curious to see the performance.


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Yeah that should be the definite solution cause probably the position/bends of the TTRS floater as well
> as the sensor resolution must be different.
> 
> What about the CEL you had.Did you clear codes and is it coming back ??
> ...


 I compared the TTRS position / bends of the floater to the latest GTi LPFP *1K0 919 051 DB* version, it is slightly different. The TTRS floater sits about 5mm lower than the GTI. 

For the TTRS LPFP + controller, I have an error on ECM but it doesn't throw up a CEL. 

Here's my logs of the LPFP, I'm running a hybrid GT2871R turbo at 26PSI for this run.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> I compared the TTRS position / bends of the floater to the latest GTi LPFP *1K0 919 051 DB* version, it is slightly different. The TTRS floater sits about 5mm lower than the GTI.
> 
> For the TTRS LPFP + controller, I have an error on ECM but it doesn't throw up a CEL.
> 
> Here's my logs of the LPFP, I'm running a hybrid GT2871R turbo at 26PSI for this run.


 Well the 5mm difference should not be an issue, but having different bends might actually effect the way the floater rises and drops and that in turn might effect the sensor readings...OR the sensor itself might have different resolution, the same way a 4 bar map sensor is different to a 3 bar one.

As for the logs, your low pressure is looking good, so maybe the error you are getting is circuit related and not related to the pump itself....dunno....

Also, what software are you using ?? Your high pressure is really high up top, and even though it is related to the 144 bar request, i don't know if you should be running 155 bar....:what:
Are you using the HPFPupgrade valve ?? Does your programmer know you ar overshooting that much ?


----------



## J-GTi (Jan 12, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Well the 5mm difference should not be an issue, but having different bends might actually effect the way the floater rises and drops and that in turn might effect the sensor readings...OR the sensor itself might have different resolution, the same way a 4 bar map sensor is different to a 3 bar one.
> 
> As for the logs, your low pressure is looking good, so maybe the error you are getting is circuit related and not related to the pump itself....dunno....
> 
> ...


 Yeah I shall swap the floater and see how it goes. I'm currently running a custom software by .doTuning :thumbup: and the 155 bar HPFPupgrade prv. We are still in the midst of fine tuning the software.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

J-GTi said:


> Yeah I shall swap the floater and see how it goes. I'm currently running a custom software by .doTuning :thumbup: and the 155 bar HPFPupgrade prv. We are still in the midst of fine tuning the software.


 Ok cool just watch your cam/follower...

And report back once you've swapped floaters...I'm curious...


----------



## AKSAlex (Feb 28, 2013)

I've supplied and fitted loads of the TTRS pumps now. Only had one car where the level has been playing up. Rest have been fine. Its a MK5 ED30 with Scirocco R colour clocks if that makes a difference. Drops down the gauge fine, but wont shoot straight to the top after filling up. Just bent the arm slightly differently to see if that makes a difference.

The main fault that I get up on customers cars is the fuel pressure outside specifications, mainly due to the pressure being higher than the old pump. Easily sorted by tweaking the map to move the tolerances further apart. Fault doesn't cause any issues though.

APR have reported fuel pump controllers dying, but I've not experienced this yet even after running the pump in my personal car for 6k now.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

AKSAlex said:


> I've supplied and fitted loads of the TTRS pumps now. Only had one car where the level has been playing up. Rest have been fine. Its a MK5 ED30 with Scirocco R colour clocks if that makes a difference. Drops down the gauge fine, but wont shoot straight to the top after filling up. Just bent the arm slightly differently to see if that makes a difference.
> 
> The main fault that I get up on customers cars is the fuel pressure outside specifications, mainly due to the pressure being higher than the old pump. Easily sorted by tweaking the map to move the tolerances further apart. Fault doesn't cause any issues though.
> 
> APR have reported fuel pump controllers dying, but I've not experienced this yet even after running the pump in my personal car for 6k now.


Good to know about the fuel gauge.Please report back if bending the arm somehow made a difference..

As for the controllers....this seems to be getting more and more complex....
You are using stock controller that doesn't get burned ?
In your view there is no need for the TTRS controller ?
I would think pump+controller would be the proper package for max performance
and durability, and if indeed there is an issue with the pump priming maybe it could be
solved with rewiring the plugs ?

Also, there have been reports of the pumps turning off and on on extended load (0-200).
What i do not know is if that happens on the ttrs pump+oem controller
or the ttrs pump+ttrs controller....


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Subbed to work with J Hines on this fueling issue. Only K04 but my LP is dipping as well.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

Still haven't got a chance to log fuel pressure due to 100+ temp daily. What fuel pump adaptation are you speaking of? I have noticed that the TTRS pump does register an empty tank sooner and when I went to fill it up I only needed 12 gallons instead of the usual 14


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I decided and helicoiled all 3 of my fuel pump holes.I was thinking of running
studs but i saw them wiggling in the holes and i really don't want to loctite them
OVER the helicoil cause that would destroy the whole helicoil process.And if i
had left them without loctite i'm pretty sure the locking nuts would untighten
them during nut removal and practically turn them back into normal screws....

So i think i will stick with helicoil+screws hoping i won't have an issue (i doubt it).

On another note....does anyone know what the correction factor is for the
RS4 injectors in VCDS ? I know S3 injectors are +13% but don't even have a
clue for the RS4's.If anyone knows please let me know too.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

small update if you are interested...I ended up swapping the level sender from my old stock (blue) fuel pump to the new TTRS (yellow) pump. 

The arms are totally different as the floater on the original blue pump has the floater oriented away to the right and the new TTRS pump has the floater turning into the left in front of the pump. It essentially makes the level sensor taking fuel reading from the wrong part of the tank...The yellow pumps level sender arm is also longer and lays lower in the tank which also keeps the pump from giving a true reading...short version...swap the fuel level sensor

:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> small update if you are interested...I ended up swapping the level sender from my old stock (blue) fuel pump to the new TTRS (yellow) pump.
> 
> The arms are totally different as the floater on the original blue pump has the floater oriented away to the right and the new TTRS pump has the floater turning into the left in front of the pump. It essentially makes the level sensor taking fuel reading from the wrong part of the tank...The yellow pumps level sender arm is also longer and lays lower in the tank which also keeps the pump from giving a true reading...short version...swap the fuel level sensor
> 
> :thumbup:


See ? I told you. I was pretty sure that was the issue.

It would be nice if you did a small DIY on how to swap the sensors, anything that needs to be
careful with, any special instruction.I will probably be going down the same route and
a DIY could save me (us) some trouble. :thumbup:

I'm really surprised no one had thought of that before.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well i flashed to Revo's Stage 5 today and first impressions are... not much has changed...

I think the ECU needs to adapt, even though i went up to T9 (again) with no ill effects.
I thought stage 5 was supposed to give more timing room but it seems my car can handle it.
I will do some logging to see if actual timing has changed from previous logs and then
i will start cranking up the boost to see what's up....

One really welcome change is the rev limiter, and it honestly
felt nice to take advantage of the race head for the first time.
Was kind of a weird feeling taking it to 8000 (sort of like time stood still for 1000 rpm LOL) and i will have to "adjust" shifting to take that into account.

We'll see how that goes....:thumbup:


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> See ? I told you. I was pretty sure that was the issue.
> 
> It would be nice if you did a small DIY on how to swap the sensors, anything that needs to be
> careful with, any special instruction.I will probably be going down the same route and
> ...


It's not complex...only three lead wires just had to free the pin with a pick and swap them over to the old sensor...one thing is that the old arm will need to be bent a bit away from the new TTRS pump or else it will rest on the pump housing...which will also throw off the reading. Not very complex at all:beer:

Edit may help to have an extra set of hand to remove the pins from the sensor...its finicky/fiddly work...the pins need to be free on both sides of the sensor...then just wiggle them out


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Second day on stage 5 and i took the car out for a ride...

All i can say is WOOOOW !!!!

First (or rather second) impressions are that it's a whole different car... :what:

Didn't really have time to run logs just did a few short pulls but man does the
car pull !!! Torque is out of this world and the turbo spools as fast as the K04
would...I am seeing some timing pull with T9 now so i'll see if i keep it or lower it
to T8 and increase boost.I've always been more of a "timing advance vs boost" kind of guy
so i won't enjoy that but i don't want to go W/M so it will have to do.

Does anyone know what is the restrictive part of the exhaust once you go BT ?
I have a 3''->2.75'' setup with a 100 cell car now but i feel i could do better.
Don't really want to go decat though....Maybe a larger cat ?

P.S.Still to decide but with today's test i have the feeling my previous hunch about
stage 4 being "safe" and "rod friendly" is being confirmed....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Did some more testing today.Car is running great but i can't decide
what boost i should be running.

What boost are you BT guys running at 7000 and 8000 rpm ?
And with what timing ?

I unfortunately have no "reference point" to see if i should stay at the
boost i'm running or it is too low for a BT car....

Oh and what g/s are you reading at that boost ?

Anyone ?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Second day on stage 5 and i took the car out for a ride...
> 
> All i can say is WOOOOW !!!!
> 
> ...


Leave the exhaust as it is and get a 3" electronic cutout, turbo spooled 500rpms earlier with the cutout open and you should also notice a power gain.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> Leave the exhaust as it is and get a 3" electronic cutout, turbo spooled 500rpms earlier with the cutout open and you should also notice a power gain.


Not a big fan of open exhaust and that is also the reason i haven't gone (and won't be going)
decat yet either.

Dunno how much a larger DP (3.5'' ?) and a larger cat back is gonna effect things but it is all
that is left for me to do engine wise.

Also thought about getting larger IC pipes cause i do feel the twintercooler hoses are
not the most flowing...


----------



## [email protected] Parts (Nov 27, 2006)

:thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Not a big fan of open exhaust and that is also the reason i haven't gone (and won't be going)
> decat yet either.
> 
> Dunno how much a larger DP (3.5'' ?) and a larger cat back is gonna effect things but it is all
> ...


The good thing is you can only open the cutout to race and the car will be as it is if you leave it closed.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Feels like i'm talking to myself in this thread lately.
The car feels great on T9 with 0 (?) CF's on full boost (wtf Revo..this is a "race" file ?)
and i'm settling more towards 24 to 25 psi at redline.

Had a couple more runs to finalize the settings and i am
getting some misfires after repeated pulls on high boost.
It could just be the plug gaps that need closing though.

I thought i might try range 9 plugs to see if that helps with
anything.Been running 8's so far and i have no issues but
i've seen people recommend 9's when running on high boost BT
setups...

AFAIK the best range plug is the coldest you can run without
getting fouled.9's might be a stretch but i've checked my
8's a couple of times and they are clean as a whistle....Hmmmm...


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Won't lie. I'm here for the knowledge regarding the oem in tank pump upgrade. Sounds like the sensor swap is the best ticket.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Won't lie. I'm here for the knowledge regarding the oem in tank pump upgrade. Sounds like the sensor swap is the best ticket.


That's cool.

It's not just a thread about my car but also containing useful info and
"R&D" about problems arising with tuning this engine.

The sensor swap suggestion came out of logical thinking about
what could be the cause of the bad gauge readings.It's nice it worked out.
Could also have been a miss, but wasn't...

Next up are probably some tests with the TTRS controller on stock pump to
see if 1) the OEM pump can handle it 2)If it makes any difference or not and
3) if there is any way to avoid/fix the door priming "bug" according to APR...

Stay tuned. :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Feels like i'm talking to myself in this thread lately.
> The car feels great on T9 with 0 (?) CF's on full boost (wtf Revo..this is a "race" file ?)
> and i'm settling more towards 24 to 25 psi at redline.
> 
> ...


How much timing advance do you get on T9?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> How much timing advance do you get on T9?


I get about 15 degrees at about 7200 on 24 psi.

And that is with just pump gas and no W/M.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

How much timing pull under those conditions?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> How much timing pull under those conditions?


On 24 psi i don't get any timing pull.

Above that it starts getting to the -2's and -3's.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm playing with the idea of using my second WG port to run more boost up top but i don't
seem to have luck using the schematics from turbosmart.

They are for an EWG but i was thinking it could be used on an IWG as well.
Just don't know if i should reverse the connections since the function of
the two WG's is the opposite of each other.

Any advice ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

That's what it's there for- go wild!


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Unfortunately i can't get the twin port to work properly.... 

I will probably install the red spring in the Forge wg and call it a day
going back to the single port hook up.

What i am not really sure about is if i should reseal the lower port
(like it was from Forge) or let it open venting to atmo...
Don't really know if there is a difference in that.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Dropped the twin port idea completely cause i was going to install a stiffer spring anyway and
i didn't want to go through the hassle of setting up both the twin port AND the "spring
stiffness".

So now the car is running an "up to 30 psi" spring and it made a world of difference.
Also gained a lot of pressure up top that makes me think the wastegate was not setup
properly during the install...

I periodically keep getting the following error in VCDS though.... 

012556 - Low Pressure Fuel Regulation: Fuel Pressure Drops Intermittently 
P310C - 004 - No Signal/Communication - Intermittent

Now this could be a "normal" LPFP not keeping up error, but i am seeing this
at lower than max load states which makes me think it could be the pump controller
overheating.The car is not stalling, but it might just be the chance i was looking for
to install and try the TTRS controller i have standing by....My only fear is it might
overload the OEM pump and leave me stranded..........


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Soooo....

As promised i did a bit of testing using the TTRS LPFP controller over the stock
controller while maintaining my OEM GTI LPFP...

For starters the controller is a direct plugin, no tabs or cable switching
required.I also opted to install it on a COLD engine that has been standing
over night just to see what all the fuss about "APR's no door priming" talk was
all about.Guess what....Zero issues.Yes the door did not prime, but turning
the ignition key DID, and the engine fired right up...Who would have thought...:banghead:

Now keep in mind as i said above the car was standing over night so cranking pressure
in the fuel lines was produced SOLELY by the turning of the ignition key, making
the door priming issue non existent in my book....But hey it's APR...

As for the controller...The car felt peppier from the start.More throttle response, felt
more torquey down low, and a few (low rev) pulls i was able to do showed an increase
of 0.4 to 0.2 bar as revs increased over what i was seeing with the stock controller.
Some might say it could just be that the oem controller was starting to lose it,
but i doubt it as it could maintain enough pressure to hold 24 psi up top.

Anyways, gonna do some more testing (including high rev logs) and report back.

So far what i can see is that the TTRS controller is a nice upgrade even ifyou don't have
the TTRS pump to get some more juice going out of your OEM LPFP.Now depending on
the turbo and pressure you are running, that might be enough to spare you of a new
LPFP, and as already known is a nice side upgrade to a TTRS LPFP. :thumbup:


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

GolfRS said:


> Soooo....
> 
> As promised i did a bit of testing using the TTRS LPFP controller over the stock
> controller while maintaining my OEM GTI LPFP...
> ...



The TT-RS controller isn't going to solve your LPFP fueling issues. The TT-RS LPFP will flow more than the OEM GTI pump, but is prone to *turning off during high loads*. That's why APR pulled the pump from their kits. The no door priming was a secondary issue. 

Don't take my word for it . . . how about the words of a known APR detractor and GIAC user? 

http://golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1318238#post1318238


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

crew219 said:


> The TT-RS controller isn't going to solve your LPFP fueling issues. The TT-RS LPFP will flow more than the OEM GTI pump, but is prone to *turning off during high loads*. That's why APR pulled the pump from their kits. The no door priming was a secondary issue.
> 
> Don't take my word for it . . . how about the words of a known APR detractor and GIAC user?
> 
> http://golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1318238#post1318238


I did read about the switching off issues but AFAIK they were limited ONLY to
APR software users.

There are a lot of ppl running the TTRS LPFP on STOCK controller with no issues
whatsoever.

You of all people know APR aren't very good at programming.... :laugh:

EDIT: Just had another look at the link you posted and i was right to remember i had already read it...

Here's Arin's quote:
_
"The pump needs more bits to work correctly. *A controller will allow it to run without overheating, but it interprets can messages differently and will not prime the pump when you open the car door after sitting over night*. To us, that's not a solution, so we scrapped it and are building our own. _"


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Wrong. Not an APR issue.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Wrong. Not an APR issue.


That was a joke Arin.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

On a serious side, key priming seems to work ok....why exactly is
door priming an issue for APR ??


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

Nothing for nothing but my has hasn't had so much as a hiccup with the TTRS pump and OEM controller. Granted I have not been over 120 in it but I rarely drive that speed EVER? I will go out and see if I can induce this Fuel cut...but I seriously doubt it will happen

GIAC high output k04 file has adapted very very well even in 110+ temps


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Sorry to bother you guys. Can you confirm that the TTRS pump is in fact P/N: 8J0919051E?
Thanks!
Smithers


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Sorry to bother you guys. Can you confirm that the TTRS pump is in fact P/N: 8J0919051E?
> Thanks!
> Smithers


Yes that is the part number for it.

Just make sure it is the yellow top one cause there were some blue top ones
at first (dunno if they had the same number) that had issues....


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Any pics from the sensor swap?


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Any pics from the sensor swap?


Sorry no pictures but it's pretty straight forward...once you have the two pumps in front of you it's obvious what has to be done


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> That was a joke Arin.
> 
> Don't get your panties in a bunch.


I did not read it as a joke. Panties still good on my end.



> On a serious side, key priming seems to work ok


IIRC, it should. When you put the key forward, it should tell the pump to prime. Opening the door doesn't though. For you, just one guy with a custom setup, I'm sure you'll just say "Big deal" and move on, but our customers _would_ make a big deal out of it, so it's not a production solution. 

But, that's only one issue we found with the whole setup. There are others.



> ....why exactly is
> door priming an issue for APR ??


It's not an APR issue. It doesn't have anything to do with the tuner. Leave the car stock, same result.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> But, that's only one issue we found with the whole setup. There are others.


I'm all ears.

Do help a fellow dubber.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

I'm going to pick one up from Paul at DeutscheAutoparts today. J Hines will do the swap for me this evening. I'll let ya know how it goes! :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> I'm going to pick one up from Paul at DeutscheAutoparts today. J Hines will do the swap for me this evening. I'll let ya know how it goes! :thumbup:


 :thumbup:

If you do the sensor swap please take pics.

It will be a great help for those to follow.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Got the sensor swapped. Pump installed. Can get the car to start. In tank pressure 2.5bar, rail 3.5 bar. I don't need the Audi pump module do I? Did you have to rewire anything?


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Also, did you have to seal off the auxiliary fuel line that would other wise run to the transfer pump?


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Also,
Fuel gauge isn't reading


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Also, did you have to seal off the auxiliary fuel line that would other wise run to the transfer pump?


I bought mine from USP so I presume they did any kind of sealing off before it got to me. If the fuel gauge isn't reading the sensor might not be wired right. That sensor you swapped is a direct connection to the gauge


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Okay. So here's what we discovered. The hose end highlighted in red actually sprays fuel. I always thought it was an input from the secondary pump in the Quattro tank. So we stuck a temporary plug in there and viola, the car started. Still no fuel level though. I can't run this thing all the way to H2Oi with a temporary plug in place. I'm switching back to the OEM pump for now. When we swapped the level sensors were opened up the sensor to get the wires free then clipped the clamshell back together. Should we not have opened the level sensor? We should have access to additional level sensors. I'll post up if the level sensor works when we switch it back to the OEM pump.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Good news. OEM pump is back in and sensor is working. I need to drop back and do more research. Think if I let [email protected] do an infinite keg stand at H20 he'd let me know what needs to be done to the pump to prep it? :laugh:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

USP pump only has one hose Pete......so obviously there is something different that was done here. Looks like the TTRS pump you have in color and wires, but only has one line going from pump up to the cover.

As for the gauge, I'll do my homework on that and we'll get that straight. But I have the solution to the line......just seal it off down near the pump with a plug/clamp as we said and you'll be golden there.
J. Hines


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

to the naked Eye I don't see the thin gauge black, blue, or red on the picture of the TTRS unmodified pump


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> to the naked Eye I don't see the thin gauge black, blue, or red on the picture of the TTRS unmodified pump


On the actual pump Pete has, they are there. Not sure what exactly went wrong there. I'm going to mess with it and get it working and a permanent solution to the hose block-oiff once they get back from H20. He needed a 100% reliable FSI(as if that exists  ) to go up to Maryland with this weekend.
J. Hines


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

The area circled in red is the root of the secondary output which I need to plug. This will most likely be a 304 stainless steel plug pressed in the tube and oetiker clamped in position. Pictures are from deutscheautoparts.com .








Regarding the difference in sensors. I plan on cutting some sheets of corrugated cardboard out. I will place these under the float on both factory sensors/units and measure the change in resistance. I will then enter the values into a spread sheet and graph them. I'll swap the sensors between units then repeat the experiment. This will give us an idea on the different in resistance values between combinations. If the height:resistance value is liner perhaps a resistor can be employed (in series or parallel) to get the value of the modified TTRS pump more inline with the stock unit. 
Disclaimer: This is all theory from an idiot know for sticking a beer tap on his trunk lid.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

I'm also debating putting in one of these:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Remind me to bring you the FSI pump I have at home, so when the solution is resolved, we can just swap it in and keep your pump intact


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

GolfRS. Should I create a new thread and stop threadjacking yours?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> GolfRS. Should I create a new thread and stop threadjacking yours?


I don't mind.

It's not like there are stuff in here only about my car.

As many have said in the past they are following this thread
for all the info it contains and maybe not as much for my build.

Giving to the community is what it's all about and not
just showing off the stuff you buy and install.

I never really liked "show off threads"....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Any update on the rewiring procedure for the TTRS pump ?

Testing of the TTRS controller shows an increase in low down torque.

Idle rail pressure is fluctuating slightly over the OEM controller one
but still being managed by the ECU.

I am guessing the more available fuel on demand is what is
giving that sense of torque on throttle.

Still have yet to find something "bad" about the controller, but have yet
to do full WOT logging to see the numbers....Soon....


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Which controller are you running again?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Which controller are you running again?


It's the OEM TTRS controller, the factory one for the pump you are trying to install.

According to APR it is required to prevent pump shut downs from overheating
although it is not necessarily reproducible from every single person using the
pump by itself.

In any case the controller is designed for that pump and provides more juice
for it to work 100%.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Crap... I thought I could use the OEM unit.  That controller costs more than the damn pump! :banghead: I'm thinking about mounting a heat sink to the controller using thermal expoxy. 
And then stick this on there:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Crap... I thought I could use the OEM unit.  That controller costs more than the damn pump! :banghead: I'm thinking about mounting a heat sink to the controller using thermal expoxy.
> And then stick this on there:


LOL i think you've done too much CPU overclocking and it is getting to your head... :laugh:

The controller is indeed pretty pricey, but the more i test it the more i think it is worth it.

Car pulls much harder with it even on the OEM GTI pump, and i have yet to discover any
ill effects APR is (not) mentioning to deter me from using it.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok upon further reviewing the logs with the TTRS controller i am amazed at the
difference it made to how the fueling on the car now works.

Still, i cannot be certain that my OEM controller wasn't on its way out, but
one important change is the huge difference in injection times and the lambda
regulator values that show A LOT more fuel is being delivered than before.

One little detail i have yet to short out is if that fuel can still be delivered in the
high revs.I've seen a big difference up to 6600 rpm but using a BT the area
between 6500 and 8000 is the "horsepower range" and where a bigger turbo
differs from a humble K04.Have yet to confirm but the actual LPFP might be
running out of breath at that range no matter how much voltage you throw at
it.

All of the above actually means the controller might also be a good side
upgrade to those highly tuned K04 setups, and is sure is needed for BT
setups, but in the second case a LPFP is also needed just to cover
the extra reving capabilities of (for example) Revo's Stage 5.

Still logging though....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Any update on the sensor swap ?

I'm sure there are many waiting to see a DIY and get the
pump installed....:beer::thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Anyone know how to remove the fuel level sensor from the pump basket ???

Don't want to start breaking stuff... :banghead:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok after fiddling with the TTRS pump i think i might have found a solution to the
level sensor/gauge issue.

Will have to install and see.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Hey sorry. Was busy with H2Oi last week. I didn't make any progress this week. My plan is to block off the tube using a SS bolt and clamps. I will swap the sensor over and see if I can get it to work. Not sure when though.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Hey sorry. Was busy with H2Oi last week. I didn't make any progress this week. My plan is to block off the tube using a SS bolt and clamps. I will swap the sensor over and see if I can get it to work. Not sure when though.


Plugging the second hose won't be an issue.

I'll probably do it using a screw and the cut down oem hose
so it will also "screw in" and also get clamped with a clamp.

That is the best way in case you want to resell it to a 4wd owner
or maybe even reuse it yourself in a new car in the future.

USP's solution is on the permanent side and i don't want that.

As for the sensor, i just wanted to know how you or your installer
removed the TTRS sensor as it seems to be "cassetted" in but cannot be
made to budge and i don't want to break it loose...


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Ask J Hines. He's the man. I know it wasn't easy by watching him. Neither is depinning the cassette. We ended up separating it to get the wires out.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Plugging the second hose won't be an issue.
> 
> I'll probably do it using a screw and the cut down oem hose
> so it will also "screw in" and also get clamped with a clamp.
> ...


I'll go to the shop and get my friend to do it with a pump they have laying around. It took him like 15 minutes to depin and swap. Super quick


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> I'll go to the shop and get my friend to do it with a pump they have laying around. It took him like 15 minutes to depin and swap. Super quick


Please do.

And post some pics. :thumbup:


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Please do.
> 
> And post some pics. :thumbup:


Here ya go...sorry if the video is a little fuzzy but it should explain it


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> Here ya go...sorry if the video is a little fuzzy but it should explain it


Awesome.

That first part is the scary one.

I'll get right on it.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

Any updates?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Did the sensor removal and am waiting on some special plugs to plug the
second uptake so as to not destroy it like USP does with their pumps.
It's better to have the option to reuse it or resell it as a 4WD pump than
to not have it at all.

As for the controller i have to say all my tests show it delivers MUCH
more fuel in the low to mid range than the stock controller and that
most probably for really big BT projects it is a must.It could also
help with highly tuned K04 setups that run tons of peak boost,
since they do not need the extra fueling up top the TTRS pump
provides.

Once i get the pump installed i'm gonna run both controllers back to back
and log the performance.But as far as serious "issues" with the TTRS controller
as APR mentions....i've seen none so far....


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Thanks so much! Can you share details on the 'plugs'? I still haven't progressed past that. I was thinking of ramming a stainless steel pin down the tube then applying oitiker clamps? Can you provide details on the USRT issue? I was afraid my method was going to be worse than whatever solution they were employing?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So...

This is what i ended up with after a lot of trial and error and difficulty actually
finding the proper parts.

Maybe a "USP style" melt down would be easier but i still have the port for
4WD use.

I got some diesel leak plugs that ended up being too short for the occasion,
but are fully gasoline resistant.I had to slightly trim the pipe to be able to
push the plug further down, and even though initially i was going with
a replacement oetiker clamp, i wasn't able to get hold of any, and it
actually wouldn't fit over the plug....So i went with the twisting wire
method.It think it worked out ok.What do you guys think ??




















Hopefully i can get this in the car tomorrow and have some FUN....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so the "cap" idea didn't work out in the end....

Even though i removed the "wire lock" and installed a proper
clamp, the moment i started up the engine it flew off...

Now that seemed really strange cause supposedly the second port is an
intake not an output one, but the result was i had to actually melt the
port like USP to get it to work properly...

So pump is in the car, WITH the TTRS controller and ready to made some logs...

P.S.Since this thread is also about sharing info on the TFSI, one thing i should mention is
the following......When the pump was running with the second port open, i noticed it made
a LOT of sucking noise (which made me remove it to check it out and find the cap off)
and it also worked its ass off at full load to barely make 2 bar of pressure at idle.

Now that doesn't sound like such a big deal BUT....what was more interesting was the fact i had chosen to use my stock controller at first so i can log its performance.That fact actually made
the engine STALL, and proved to me that i would be definitely getting engine cut off's at WOT if
i was to use it (and providing the second port was sealed). So in a sense that was a good
checking trick (albeit unintended) to see that i would not be able to use my OEM controller and that the TTRS one is a MUST.Now "maybe" some newer Gti controllers could take the load,
but i really don't feel like going around to find any....So there you have it....As the Greeks used to say "more i live the more i learn..."


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Thanks, great info. Make no mistake, the extra hose sprays a lot of fuel when not plugged. Hence no fuel pressure. I'm wondering if I can stick a check valve inline? There should always be enough pressure on the valve to keep it shut. Can you explain the USP issue further? I'd like to know what I should be avoiding.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

What exactly is the USP issue you keep referring to ?

EDIT:Read your edited post above and i still don't get what you think is the
"USP issue" and what exactly you are asking you should avoid...

Please be more specific or i cannot answer your question and help you.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

its so strange that some controllers stall and others do not! I haven't had that experience at all 

as I mentioned earlier i did have some issues with my original pump (stock) and there was a service recall on them...at that time the fix may have been to replace the original controller. 

You don't happen to have a picture of both the Stock controller and the TTRS one? 

I'm trying to verify if mine is different stock...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> its so strange that some controllers stall and others do not! I haven't had that experience at all
> 
> as I mentioned earlier i did have some issues with my original pump (stock) and there was a service recall on them...at that time the fix may have been to replace the original controller.
> 
> ...


You can find the TTRS controller pic in the previous posts (just rewind the pages).

As for the stock controller, it's just the same as yours (same shape etc) but it is
probably older since mine is a MY2006.I've heard later controllers like the Golf R ones
have greater success, but keep in mind mine (ans possibly yours too) did not fail at normal
city driving, but at HIGH load situation brought on by the "bypass" of the second (open) port.

That would simulate a high load/ time situation when full pump load is requested for long
periods of time.I cannot imagine there is any stock controller that can take the load, but rather
not reaching the load/time state to cause it....And that might have to do with both the pump/controller BUT also the air/boost you are putting through the engine....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so the first logs with the TTRS controller+ pump combo are in...

Running a boost pressure of about 26 psi at 7500 rpm the pump holds 6.5 bar of fuel pressure... 

The car still needs to adapt to open the closing throttle up top from fuel starvation, but
injection times and rail pressure are all looking super.

For me this can be the "end all" solution for LPFP issues.

Still gonna do some more logging to see how the turbo/engine react to the extra fueling. :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

:thumbup:


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

Anyone using the TTRS or a modified RS4 fuel controller, have you notice that the fuel pump is still running, for a couple of minutes, after shutting down the engine?
So two side effects on using these controllers:
1) No door opening prime, not really a problem, just turn on the ignition for a couple of seconds and then start.
2) Fuel pump running for a couple of minutes after engine shut off, also not really a problem. There's a way around this. After engine shut off just switch on the ignition for a second or two then switch off and the pump will stop pumping.

There are two wires that are not being used when using the TTRS/Modified RS4 fuel controller, that is used on the stock fuel controller.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> Anyone using the TTRS or a modified RS4 fuel controller, have you notice that the fuel pump is still running, for a couple of minutes, after shutting down the engine?
> So two side effects on using these controllers:
> 1) No door opening prime, not really a problem, just turn on the ignition for a couple of seconds and then start.
> 2) Fuel pump running for a couple of minutes after engine shut off, also not really a problem. There's a way around this. After engine shut off just switch on the ignition for a second or two then switch off and the pump will stop pumping.
> ...


Yes both of these are facts, but as you say not really an issue.I also keep getting an "intermittent communication" error
that is non load dependent (meaning it is not caused by overloading the pump/controller) and it could also be
caused by the mismatch of canbus/controller as APR mentioned in the past.

All of the above though are "misdemeanors" when weighed against the flow of the controller/pump combo.

Could it be there are some wires that need to be swapped to make the connection work as intended ?

P.S. Don't really know if these are also occurring with the RS4 controller,or if it "flows" the same as the TTRS one.


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

Essentially the RS4 and the TTRS fuel controller module is the same, just the plugs are different.

Unfortunately we can't swap wires around to try to fix the side effects.
The stock controller itself actually controls the door priming ignition off, etc... and it gets the "info" from the two wires that are not used on the TTRS/RS4 controllers.
Off my head these are pins 3 and 7 on your black plug that connects to your TTRS blue male plug. I'll double check that on the circuit diagram during the weekend.
If I can remember correctly those two wires are actually just power wires that are connected to different power circuits on the fuse box.
So if you just open the door your instrument panel powers up by using a secondary circuit and one of the two wires are connected to that circuit which will run the pump for a few seconds. Same goes with the ignition. I think you get the idea.

One can actually build a little circuit board by using some logic IC the likes of the 7400 series IC and a switching transistor to control the door priming and the proper off on ignition off .
Now find time to do this myself in between my house renovations.

If you look at the TTRS/RS4 fuel controller module you will see that there's only five wires.
Two are the supply in (+ and -) the very thick wires, other two are supply out to pump (+ and -) not so thick and the last one is the "control" wire from the ECU.
The stock fuel controller it has the two extra wires which the controller will do the door priming and proper switch off when the ignition is off.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> Essentially the RS4 and the TTRS fuel controller module is the same, just the plugs are different.
> 
> Unfortunately we can't swap wires around to try to fix the side effects.
> The stock controller itself actually controls the door priming ignition off, etc... and it gets the "info" from the two wires that are not used on the TTRS/RS4 controllers.
> ...


Well it could really be as simple as those two wires actually just there to complete a circuit that connects to
a switch to the door.That means there is no IC or anything that complicated needed, just need to
use two wires that may probably even have a soldering point inside the PWM.But i don't really
care about the door priming thingy.I have ZERO issues priming the pump by ignition sequence.

P.S. Could you check if you are also getting a recurring "intermittent communication" error on your LPFP also ?
Curious if this is a wiring issue that also existed with the OEM controller or it has to do with the lack of wiring
to the TTRS one (or even the failed door priming sequence that might be causing it).


----------



## brundy (Jan 4, 2012)

My guess is that your intermittent communication error is due to the lack of door priming. From what I learned talking to some other A4 B7 guys is the J519 "power supply" is able to sense the load demand, probably by measuring the current draw, and when the door opens and the pump doesn't activate (no current draw) then it throws a code. So there is an "intermittent communication" to the pump. I know when someone tried to run the pump directly off the battery, bypassing the J519, the car didn't like it and he had a number of fault codes. So the J519 power supply (not a real traditional supply) can sense the load. 
I would love to get my hands on a stock LPFP controller and reverse engineer it. Maybe see if it is modifiable, but I won't be able to do that until I start my BT build early next year. I have all the equipment at work to test and modify the LPFP controller. 
If I can figure out how the stock LPFP controller works with the door priming it could also be possible to add that functionality to the RS4 controller. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

brundy said:


> My guess is that your intermittent communication error is due to the lack of door priming. From what I learned talking to some other A4 B7 guys is the J519 "power supply" is able to sense the load demand, probably by measuring the current draw, and when the door opens and the pump doesn't activate (no current draw) then it throws a code. So there is an "intermittent communication" to the pump. I know when someone tried to run the pump directly off the battery, bypassing the J519, the car didn't like it and he had a number of fault codes. So the J519 power supply (not a real traditional supply) can sense the load.
> I would love to get my hands on a stock LPFP controller and reverse engineer it. Maybe see if it is modifiable, but I won't be able to do that until I start my BT build early next year. I have all the equipment at work to test and modify the LPFP controller.
> If I can figure out how the stock LPFP controller works with the door priming it could also be possible to add that functionality to the RS4 controller.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the input.

To be honest i am already thinking for a solution to the priming issue and it could be simpler than
anyone thinks.

On the other hand, i was also thinking of the priming action as the reason for the error BUT
i can now see the error pops up not at 0 rpm but at higher than that rpm which would indicate
the pump is actually running when it throws the code....

....and then it hit me.....That error is actually the ECU's attempt to LOWER LPFP function to
compensate for a rich/high low pressure condition, but it just cannot lower the voltage any
more or it triggers a fault when it does so.That can also explain the "lower limit exceeded"
indication that comes with the "communication error".

So in a sense the pump is too strong for "it's own good".Now there might be a solution to that
problem also, and it would entail the actually "stressing" of the pump which would actually
necessitate the increasing of the voltage OR the drop in pressure to a point where it would
no longer be needed for the ECU to lower the voltage to a point it triggers that error.
Now that is actually "counter productive" i know, but there is so much fuel available now
in the low pressure system it's almost laughable....

One thing i don't like is i am still getting TB closure above 6500 rpm and i don't seem to be
able to find the reason for it.It could be my exhaust system has reached its potential
even though i am on a 76-70 diameter with a 100 cell cat.....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Update is i also have an *01259 - Fuel Pump Relay (J17) * Open or Short to Ground error
that is also probably caused by the lack of door priming or pump cut off at engine off...
Still don't really care seeing the amount of fuel this pump delivers....

As for the TB closure....i'm stumped...Cannot find the reason for it, just happened to
find another Revo BT thread were the owner also seemed to have the same issue
with TB at 90%...

http://www.vwgolf.net.au/showthread...-pending-.....&p=193148&viewfull=1#post193148


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

I don't have any errors on the logs that you are getting on the pump.
I do occasionally get the pressure too low on the LPFP side. This is most properly due just starting the engine without switching on the ignition for a few seconds and then starting. Have sometimes noticed that by doing that I had to swing the engine longer to get it started.

Here's a bit of a drill down on the TTRS/RS4 fuel pump controller. 
Sorry it's a bit long winded.

On the stock controller there are two extra wires. The TTRS/RS4 controller only has 5 wires. Two thickest wires are the supply (+ and -), two slightly thinner wires is the fuel pump supply (+ and -) and the last very thin wire is the ECU wire.
The stock controller has two extra wires which are:
1) The ignition supply wire.
2) The pull down wire for the driver's door.

The main supply, to the controller is always on and it is not connected to the ignition supply circuit.
With the ignition supply wire the fuel controller knows when the ignition is on or off and acts accordingly to it.
There is a constant voltage on the pull down wire for the driver's door. So if the ignition is off and the driver's door opens the controller will run the fuel pump for a couple of seconds. There is a timer on this, when the last time the fuel pump was primed, so it won't prime all the time when closing and opening the door.

Here's the pin out description of the 10pin female plug:
1 - Positive supply (Continuous on).
2 - ECU (Controls the pump (PWM line)).
3 - Ignition supply (Ignition on).
4 - Fuel gauge (Sensor).
5 - Fuel gauge (Earth).
6 - Negative supply (Earth).
7 - Pull down for driver's door.
8 - Fuel gauge (Supply)
9 - Not used.
10 - Not used.

Now to understand why the fuel pump carries on running after turning of the engine, I had a look at Pin 2. I found that the Pin 2 still had the PWM signal and that causes the fuel pump to carry on running after the engine was turned off (ignition off). Just by turning on the ignition and off again, the PWM signal from the ECU stopped and in turn stopped the fuel pump.
What I've done to prevent the fuel pump running, I've used a relay that will switch the ECU line from the controller between Pin 2 or Pin 7.
On an ordinary 12V supply relay you'll have five pins.
Two pins for the coil. You supply that with current to "operate" the relay.
The other three pins are used for switching.
One is common, the other one for normally closed and the last one for normally open.
- On the common relay pin I connected the ECU wire from the fuel controller.
- On the normally closed relay pin I connected the pull down driver's door Pin 7 of the 10 pin female plug on the car (This doesn't work at the moment, see later on).
- On the normally open relay pin I connected the ECU Pin 2 of the 10 pin female plug on the car.

When the ignition is off the fuel controller ECU wire is connected to the pull down driver's door pin (Pin 7). The controller supplies a 12V on the ECU wire. If this gets pulled down to earth and release and pulled down and so on, this is what PWM is all about, the pump will run. In this case by using the pull down driver's door which will only pull down and the fuel pump won't run since there's no pull down and release and so on (no PWM).
When the ignition is on the relay will switch the fuel controller ECU line from the pull down driver's door to ECU, PWM Line pin (Pin 2). When the engine was running and the ignition was turned off the relay would switch away from the ECU PWM Line and since the fuel controller is not getting the PWM signal from the ECU the fuel pump stops.

Now since the door prime doesn't actually work you can leave this wire off from the relay (normally closed). One would need to build a little circuit to simulate the expected PWM when the door opens. You can use a 555 IC, this is a timer IC, to build a simple PWM signal to get the door prime working.

On your throttle closing problem, ten to one it is REVO's VE (Volumetric Efficiency) maps that doesn't want you to go higher boost. Your logs will indicate everything is okay.
I was with REVO and went for Eurodyne Maestro. Smiling ear to ear ever since. Running two bar boost at 7400rpms (1650m above sea) without any problems and seeing timing at around 18 - 20 without any pulls on a cold day. Averaging around 15 - 17 with -1 to -3 on a hot day (30 degrees C). That's on 95 RON pump fuel and WMI (50/50 mix).


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Slowboat said:


> I don't have any errors on the logs that you are getting on the pump.
> I do occasionally get the pressure too low on the LPFP side. This is most properly due just starting the engine without switching on the ignition for a few seconds and then starting. Have sometimes noticed that by doing that I had to swing the engine longer to get it started.
> 
> Here's a bit of a drill down on the TTRS/RS4 fuel pump controller.
> ...


Looks like you have thinks figured out.I am not that proficient in the field of electronics
and i don't think i could build a circuit like this.The door priming doesn't really bother me
but i would like to get rid of all the errors i am getting.Maybe we could crack open the
OEM controller and replace the parts that get overheated to make it more resilient and more
capable of delivering more voltage...But i haven't a clue if that can be done so don't take that
seriously...Still i am gonna give it a go and open it to see what can be done.



> On your throttle closing problem, ten to one it is REVO's VE (Volumetric Efficiency) maps that doesn't want you to go higher boost. Your logs will indicate everything is okay.
> I was with REVO and went for Eurodyne Maestro. Smiling ear to ear ever since. Running two bar boost at 7400rpms (1650m above sea) without any problems and seeing timing at around 18 - 20 without any pulls on a cold day. Averaging around 15 - 17 with -1 to -3 on a hot day (30 degrees C). That's on 95 RON pump fuel and WMI (50/50 mix).


Well i was afraid someone would say that, and as you say since i cannot find ANY reason for the ECU
doing that my thoughts were about the software also.But it doesn't really make sense cause this is
stage 5 and it is supposed to be "unlimited" as far as horsepower goes....

Don't really know how Revo thinks about the VE maps you say but if that is the case doesn't that limit you
power wise ?I've seen Stage 4-5 cars make upwards of 500 bhp and i doubt i am at that point
on 26 psi.I also thought it could be a MAF/load related issue, but i am using the ATP maf and AFAIK that
is what Revo is coding on.It's sad that stage 5 has the 8000 rpm revving capabilities and yet i get
closure above 6500...Lot's of HP going to waste...(IF of course this is a Revo issue...).


----------



## HocusPocus (Nov 19, 2013)

Guys just a question, has anyone noticed the 1.5mm restriction on the fuel feed coming from lpfp to metal pipe which feeds the hpfp? Can this not affect the volume etc? Some models which don't have the restriction on the pipe like the one in the pic have it on the brass fitting which is on the hpfp. Anyone no the purpose of this?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

HocusPocus said:


> Guys just a question, has anyone noticed the 1.5mm restriction on the fuel feed coming from lpfp to metal pipe which feeds the hpfp? Can this not affect the volume etc? Some models which don't have the restriction on the pipe like the one in the pic have it on the brass fitting which is on the hpfp. Anyone no the purpose of this?


There was a discussion about that in another thread a while back.

The restriction you mention has been "moved around" by VAG in different places, one being the one
you show on the picture, the other in the brass fitting and i believe there was one in the T piece on the
return line.

The theory of the restriction's existence probably has to do with preventing the pulsation of
the lines during the cracking of the rail pressure valve.I can be wrong though so anyone that
thinks differently do chime in....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

For those following this thread, i have decided it might be a good time to go from an internal
wastegate setup to an external wastegate one.It am looking at CTS Turbo's manifold and
downpipe combo that uses a T3 instead of the "usual" T25 internal GT28 setup.
That for me is the best build and designed kit as i have said in the past and way
beyond ATP's kit of top mounted EWG.

Having said that, this is what made me think about changing my setup.
At first i wanted to stay with the GT28 turbine side for early spool and 
streetability, but started to think my T25 IWG was not helping with the
26 psi of boost i was passing through the system.General idea is the more
boost you are running the smaller your WG needs to be, but that
comes to a point where the total volume of the produced gases needs a larger
escaping route provided you are not running the turbo at 100%.

The other thing was the T3 .63 housing has the same flow as the T25 .86
IWG housing but with the same spool as the T25 .64 AND the added
effect of the larger EWG on back pressure.All of this adds up to about
30+ BHP up top and a more efficiently working engine.

Also there are some more (secret  ) benefits that arise from running such a setup
but that will remain a surprise for the time being....

In any case if i finally decide to make the leap it should be an interesting
change with lots of new info and experience gained....

Stay tuned. :thumbup:


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

opcorn:


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Finally got my pump installed. Stock controller. Car is running much better now. I still need to log low side pressure and boost.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Finally got my pump installed. Stock controller. Car is running much better now. I still need to log low side pressure and boost.


Cool !!!

You won't have any issues with the stock controller until you hit its limit power wise.

Then the load of the controller will hit max, it will overheat and it will shut off.

But it all depends on your fueling needs.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

I'm hoping I can fly under the radar with a simple K04. We'll see what happens during the summer heat.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> I'm hoping I can fly under the radar with a simple K04. We'll see what happens during the summer heat.


No worries.

The stock controller can easily handle a K04.

The issue is with BT fueling needs.

Relax and enjoy.


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Rock solid low side fuel pressure. :thumbup: Boost seems a little low for B9-T6-F9 settings.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

You should log/post you WG duty cycle.

There could be an issue other than fueling.


----------



## AKSAlex (Feb 28, 2013)

I keep the blanks in stock to blank the outlet line on the TTRS pumps. I'm in the UK though.

The second line is there for the 4WD cars to push fuel into the other 'pump' on the other side of the tank. The pump is actually a suction jet pump. The fuel is pushed to the pump, then there is a small turbine there which then pushes/pumps the fuel back from that side to the main LPFP's basket. Hence the other hose that comes back over.

Hope that explains exactly what its for?


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Thanks. Yeah, we knew its purpose however blocking it off is the tricky part. What I really need is a SS piece CNC'd that will plug into the quick disconnect. I just just the line and threaded in a bolt. Doesn't leak a drop.


----------



## AKSAlex (Feb 28, 2013)

SmithersSP said:


> Thanks. Yeah, we knew its purpose however blocking it off is the tricky part. What I really need is a SS piece CNC'd that will plug into the quick disconnect. I just just the line and threaded in a bolt. Doesn't leak a drop.


That's what I have. A CNC'd blank that plugs in. Made a load up a while back.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

AKSAlex said:


> That's what I have. A CNC'd blank that plugs in. Made a load up a while back.


Too late for me.

In any case i would be unsure all the time if that thing pops of and leaves me stranded.

That is why i bit the bullet and welded that sucker SHUT....


----------



## AKSAlex (Feb 28, 2013)

GolfRS said:


> Too later for me.
> 
> In any case i would be unsure all the time if that thing pops of and leaves me stranded.
> 
> That is why i bit the bullet and welded that sucker SHUT....


There is no way it can come out. The fitting is basically the same as the fuel filter fittings. Used on plenty of cars so far with no issue.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

You guys think i should go with the .63 or .82 housing ??

Trade offs in spool and power ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> You guys think i should go with the .63 or .82 housing ??
> 
> Trade offs in spool and power ??


Since i didn't get any answer to the above, i'm just gonna move on
saying i had a try at hacking open the OEM LPFP controller today only
to discover what i have been dreading all along and that is that
the controller is FILLED with a rubber or polyurethane compound
and it covers all the electronics inside of it.

Thinking about it, it could be one of the reasons the controller is
overheating and shutting off at max load, but that fact by itself
(the compound) also prevents reverse engineering of the
circuit or changing parts on it.I DID try and take a shot at
removing it but it was waaaaay too cumbersome so i just...threw it on the floor...:screwy:

Anyways....moving on again....still in the process of going EWG with a
T3 setup....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So i finally got around to dynoing my car and the results are awesome.

Keep in mind this is on pump gas, WITH a 100 cel cat, WITHOUT W/M
and with a 76/70mm exhaust combo on a 0.64 T25 IWG housing but
i never wanted to build a racecar but rather a "factory like" higher
HP car.

ECU is cutting off above 6500 rpm (hence the max power rpm) and
the car definately needs to breath better to make more HP.
I'm calculating an extra 30 whp+ going to T3/EWG and possibly
removing cat/ getting a 76 cat back..

Here are the results.Once again i'm stoked..










For those looking for a similar setup stay tuned to see the difference a T3/EWG makes and how much more
power can be achieved.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Some parts came in....:thumbup:












Some are still on the way...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok so parts are now all here (thanks to Clay from CTS) and getting ready to begin installation,
followed by lots of logging and finally a new dyno to see the difference.

One thing that has me puzzled is the T31 housing size that seems a bit (a lot) off
from the size of the gasket...Here's a pic for looks.










Red colored area is what "shouldn't be there" since it creates a step in the flow of the gases.
The CTS manifold side on the other hand is a perfect match....

You guys in the know how....do you think i should break out my trusty dremel before i go ahead with the
install and port that sucker down to size ????? :laugh::what:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

I always did that when I was installing turbos on my Eclipse back in the day. Haven't made it that far with any of my VWs yet, but I would recommend gasket-matching the components always. Just make it a nice smooth transaction and clean it very well when done. But will definitely get a lot better airflow if there is consistent size all the way from head ports, through manifold and into turbine housing. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> I always did that when I was installing turbos on my Eclipse back in the day. Haven't made it that far with any of my VWs yet, but I would recommend gasket-matching the components always. Just make it a nice smooth transaction and clean it very well when done. But will definitely get a lot better airflow if there is consistent size all the way from head ports, through manifold and into turbine housing. :thumbup:


Any porting tips would be welcome...

To be honest i'm afraid i might cut off more than i should and jeopardize the thickness/ strength
of the housing neck..I might attack it at an angle and just match the lip...

Looking around the net there are big gains from this....mod.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Yea, it's a HUGE advantage when done right. I'd never seen it much until I got into the DSM world. But the guys swear by it and I've seen the benefits. AS for how much, I'd def. start with getting the neck flared out where it should be and then taper it down to the "normal" casting down towards the bottom. There is enough meat that just tapering it you won't run the risk of it cracking later on. Now if you start opening up the entire neck top to bottom, you can go too far. 

My tool of choice is a pneumatic dremel and carbide bits. I have something a little different because I do a lot of VR head porting and intake manifold work, do needed some really long reach stuff.

Start with taking a little at a time until you get the hang of it, then open it up and get to where you want it. I have used the dremel method in the past when porting cast V8 heads and even my first few turbine housings, but it took FOREVER to do because the dremel would get so hot from working so hard on the cast materials. 

And here are a few threads that may help. Just google search "turbine housing porting". These guys did a lot of porting/polishing jobs for us and always netted some crazy gains.
http://www.dallasdsm.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5102


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Yea, it's a HUGE advantage when done right. I'd never seen it much until I got into the DSM world. But the guys swear by it and I've seen the benefits. AS for how much, I'd def. start with getting the neck flared out where it should be and then taper it down to the "normal" casting down towards the bottom. There is enough meat that just tapering it you won't run the risk of it cracking later on. Now if you start opening up the entire neck top to bottom, you can go too far.
> 
> My tool of choice is a pneumatic dremel and carbide bits. I have something a little different because I do a lot of VR head porting and intake manifold work, do needed some really long reach stuff.
> 
> ...


:beer::thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

JOB DONE !!!

Considering i had previous experience porting my K04 this was child's play..










I'm pretty sure this will do wonders to both power and spool.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks good man.......I have been contemplating porting the K04 on my car and port-matching the manifold to the head/gasket. But without removing the head and gasket-matching it as well.......don't see the point for me. Did you see a big difference in anything? I'm also concerned about building up more heat inside the manifold/head with it all.
J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> Looks good man.......I have been contemplating porting the K04 on my car and port-matching the manifold to the head/gasket. But without removing the head and gasket-matching it as well.......don't see the point for me. Did you see a big difference in anything? I'm also concerned about building up more heat inside the manifold/head with it all.
> J. Hines


I did see a difference with the K04 porting but it was a pita to do without taking the turbo apart.

I was careful to plug the manifold with a rag and use a vacuum cleaner (yes you heard it right) to
keep a constant suction and take the metal shavings away.

I ended up gasket matching the manifold to the gasket and saw an increase in response as well as
a 0.05 bar increase across the range.Not much i know but the turbo is already maxed as it is compressor wise,
even a small increase means something changed.


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

Lookin good! :beer::thumbup:


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I did see a difference with the K04 porting but it was a pita to do without taking the turbo apart.
> 
> I was careful to plug the manifold with a rag and use a vacuum cleaner (yes you heard it right) to
> keep a constant suction and take the metal shavings away.
> ...


hmmmm.....might be something to consider. Need to get some of my other projects caught up so I can down it for a little while. Working on a new tune right now, so we'll see how that goes first. Hopefully it'll be an increase, can't take another decrease in power like the last tune did....lol. GLI feels barely faster than my VR at the moment.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Sooo...new stuff came in today while still waiting for the EWG conversion...










Been thinking of getting the Tyrolsport kit for some time now.My subframe has been clicking from
probably day one of modifying my car, and i now know for a FACT no other solution is gonna help
when going BT because of the increased torque and harder motor mounts.

As for the second item...you have to stay tuned and find out. :laugh:

P.S. I was thinking of also getting the master bracket they make but maybe later.This collar kit is a
pricey item but i'm pretty sure it's worth the money.Quality is EXCELLENT btw.I will let you guys know what it feels like.


----------



## Nevaeh_Speed (Jul 9, 2004)

I see 70mm TB :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Nevaeh_Speed said:


> I see 70mm TB :thumbup:


:thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Still haven't done the EWG swap but new updates include a new (reinforced) pressure plate and
new organic clutch disk.For those that had/have this kit and always wondered about the disk's
direction (cone facing the engine or the gearbox) Sachs now LABELS the disk as "gearside" for the
flat side of the disk, making the "cone inside the flywheel" compulsory for proper installation....

Shifts are butter smooth now, engagement point is mid way (as it should be) and not 1 inch of the
floor.Perfect setup for K04 and BT cars.

I also installed the Tyrolsport collar kit and that also made a HUGE difference.I have been plagued
with clunking subframe even since i got the car and started moding it, and this was the
definite fix i was looking for.I'm sure you can find a lot of reviews about it on the web but for me
it made the car feel firmer, shift better but also an unexpected "side effect" was how quiet the
car is now even with the race engine mounts.... Thumbs up to Tyrolsport. :thumbup:


----------



## skateboy_918 (Mar 15, 2013)

GolfRS said:


> Too late for me.
> 
> In any case i would be unsure all the time if that thing pops of and leaves me stranded.
> 
> That is why i bit the bullet and welded that sucker SHUT....


can you please share the details of what you used to weld that port shut?

I'm installing an mk5 r32 LPFP in my GLI and it has a similar port


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

skateboy_918 said:


> can you please share the details of what you used to weld that port shut?
> 
> I'm installing an mk5 r32 LPFP in my GLI and it has a similar port


Well not rocket science really.

The little pipe is made of plastic and melts in close proximity to an open flame (please do this
BEFORE you let any gas into the pump OR wait for it to dry completely if you have
run it at all).

I used a small lighter and made sure i didn't hold the flame too close to avoid BURNING
the pipe.You only want it to melt so you can mold it.Burning it (black carbonization)
effect the properties of the plastic making it brittle and it might pop off if you don't
keep it pliable.So but using small amounts of "on/off" heat you can slowly turn the pipe
in on itself slowly sealing it permanently.It does take some skill to avoid breaking off the
melted plastic and having to start over, since you only have a limited length to work with,
and the closer you get to the base the less chance you have of properly sealing it.

You also need to be careful not to DROP any piece of mellted plastic inside the pipe cause that
would most probably mean the end of the pump itself :facepalm: .So in all it takes patience and some
degree of skill to make it right and avoid damaging the pump.I would suggest trying on another
piece of plastic pipe with the same characteristics before actually attempting the "fix" on the pump.
That might give you an idea of the heat you need to use and the moves you have to
follow for a proper seal...


----------



## DUB_MANGv2 (Oct 28, 2008)

i only got through the first 2 pages, but what happened to your car sounds EXACTLY like what happened to mine. my car randomly shut off at idle and it turns out the chain freakishly snapped but i had ZERO head damage.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

DUB_MANGv2 said:


> i only got through the first 2 pages, but what happened to your car sounds EXACTLY like what happened to mine. my car randomly shut off at idle and it turns out the chain freakishly snapped but i had ZERO head damage.


You were simply lucky...

Do read through the thread though cause it happens again, in a different way.... :facepalm:


----------



## RSS Edition30 (Jun 23, 2013)

i have the ttrs lpfp on my 2007 big turbo gtx30 golf mk5

been getting some problems with the car cutting out at around 140mph didnt know what the problem was but i am seeing info like this now.. so i guess this is probaly the issue?

im using stock controller, if i fit a ttrs controller will this fix my problems? and the lpfp running for a few minutes when engine is switched off, can that be bad for the car?

thanks


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

RSS Edition30 said:


> i have the ttrs lpfp on my 2007 big turbo gtx30 golf mk5
> 
> been getting some problems with the car cutting out at around 140mph didnt know what the problem was but i am seeing info like this now.. so i guess this is probaly the issue?
> 
> ...


The TTRS controller WILL solve the shut off issue and will give you more fuel than you can
ever use.I will probably be selling mine the coming days cause i really don't need that much
fuel on a GT28 and i am not getting shut off on the stock controller.

The pump running for a few minutes is not an issue and in any case you can stop the pump running
by turning on and off the ignition key (without starting the car).


----------



## RSS Edition30 (Jun 23, 2013)

great.. really glad i know what my problem is now and how i can solve it

many thanks for the help


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

It would appear that APR has come up with a legit solution for the BPY.
http://www.goapr.com/products/lpfp_20t.html


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> It would appear that APR has come up with a legit solution for the BPY.
> http://www.goapr.com/products/lpfp_20t.html


I am known for criticizing overpriced APR ''innovative" products and this is no exception...

You might think this is a proper solution but how different is it to the USP one ?The presence of a fancy "CAN Controller" means nothing to me since it could be (and probably is) just a CAN reader instead of a boost valve for the USP.

Think about it....if APR could actually "control" the inline pump through CAN wouldn't it be easier to control the "factory" TTRS pump which is MADE for CAN control?

Just food for thought...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well EWG kit is finally in and running.

First impressions once i get it dialed in and fix some small hose routing issues.

Seems i gained some lag and maybe gained some up top though. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Still trying to dial in the new setup.

Changed plugs from NGK Iridium 8's to some hotter F5DP0R and there was a change in response as well
as engine sound (the idea being ther more free flowing T3 setup actually cooled the chambers making
8 plugs too cold for the setup).

Haven't tweaked the EWG yet as far as settings and spring goes but to be honest, even on a
GT28 the increase in lag is ON THE LIMIT as far as my taste goes.I cannot imagine also having
gone GT30 and the even more lag it would bring....So to those wanting quick low down spool
i'd say stick with a GT28 T25 setup cause you might not like what you end up with otherwise.

Having said that tweaking the settings migh bring back some spool and i still have to
determine if the swap (+ the extra ponies it brings) was worth the money/ hassle...

Stay tuned for more.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Thought i would bump this to the top again since i am still trying new stuff on the car just had to battle a lot of parts replacement due to the car being close to 10 years old... So i went ahead and did all three mounts (review of that soon to be posted and should be pretty helpful to those that are thinking about it...), and also had to order a new solenoid valve for my eboost2 since the one it came with bit the bullet for some reason...I am now getting a 4 WAY solenoid instead of a 3 way one, which supposedly is better for handling EWG's and high boost applications. I'll be back with more.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I was thinking of getting a higher pressure rated "performance" valve from hpfpupgrade.com Currently i am running the RS4 valve (isn't everyone ?) but i've seen Revo's stage 5 requesting 135 bar of pressure and the actual pressure maxing at the rated 136 bar. Kind of have the feeling the ECU might want to exceed that but can't. John from hpfpupgrade recommends a valve that is +10, +12 bar rated over requested, and offers 2 options a 145 bar and a 155 bar valve. Now i don't really know what would any one chose the smaller one (must be a reason) but the 155 bar one should cover all future possible rail pressures (including custom software). Anyone has this installed and has any advice on what i should do ?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well i tried contacting [email protected] about the 145 PRV but i have yet to receive a reply. Is that company still in business of have they shut down ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

I think you will find that under some circumstances the HPFP will ride the PRV regardless of what request is. Low load, shifts, etc. I tested the 155 and logged spikes as high as 165-168 bar, which is getting a little unnerving.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I think you will find that under some circumstances the HPFP will ride the PRV regardless of what request is. Low load, shifts, etc. I tested the 155 and logged spikes as high as 165-168 bar, which is getting a little unnerving.


 Thanks for the reply Pete. My question is if Revo is requesting 135 bar on their stage 5 BT software why aren't they suggesting a higher PRV like APR does on their stage 3 GTX kit (155 bar valve). And with the RS4 being a 136 bar valve, i am not as much scared of "overshooting" but rather the (maybe even worn down) valve opening and closing constantly with requested (and actual) so close to the rated pressure. Btw how come IE isn't offering something like this ?? Do you guys think it's not necessary ? I know i cannot get it from APR and so far HPFPUPGRADE hasn't replied either.....


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Yea- we're playing around with them right now on our Golf R, as well as a real / very nice LPFP solution, and some other stuff.  

My experience as I mentioned is that the HPFP does ride the PRV to some degree- the control is just not that good compared to the much smaller OE pump. We've tested ~all the HPFP and they all do the same thing- wanted to make sure we weren't just silly. Now, you are correct to worry about the PRV wearing out. They can, and will. Also, the springs can fail completely, and this leads to ~no rail pressure. Had that one happen as well on a 15x bar PRV. 

I think the 145 ish is the reasonable solution for now. I didn't like the nearly 170 bar spikes we logged on the higher pressure PRV's.

For some reason, we played around with 1.8t's for far too long before moving on, so we're a little behind. Coming full steam now though


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Yea- we're playing around with them right now on our Golf R, as well as a real / very nice LPFP solution, and some other stuff.  My experience as I mentioned is that the HPFP does ride the PRV to some degree- the control is just not that good compared to the much smaller OE pump. We've tested ~all the HPFP and they all do the same thing- wanted to make sure we weren't just silly. Now, you are correct to worry about the PRV wearing out. They can, and will. Also, the springs can fail completely, and this leads to ~no rail pressure. Had that one happen as well on a 15x bar PRV. I think the 145 ish is the reasonable solution for now. I didn't like the nearly 170 bar spikes we logged on the higher pressure PRV's. For some reason, we played around with 1.8t's for far too long before moving on, so we're a little behind. Coming full steam now though


So will you be offering a 145 bar valve then ? And how soon will that be ?? 

P.S. I think you guys should "spill the beans" on some of your future projects.All us IE fans need to know what to look forward to...


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Is that company still in business or *have they shut down ?*


I hope so

It was nice to see competition in the market and all but hpfpupgrade left a bad taste in many a mouth


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> I hope so
> 
> It was nice to see competition in the market and all but hpfpupgrade left a bad taste in many a mouth


Well John finally got back to me and it seems i might be getting the 145 version to match my 135 requested Stage 5 pressures.

Still think a 136 PRV (RS4) is too close to requested to be properly functioning.

As to you experience, i haven't had any business with them yet so i can't comment on that.

I will however write my review on their PRV and how or if it made a difference with Revo's tune. :thumbup:

P.S. John also suggested the 155 bar valve but as pete said i wouldn't want to go over certain pressures, and the
RS4's are different than an S3 tune requiring more rail pressure.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Found a really nice discussion about fuel pressure valves on Audizine.

I think it's worth a read for those interested....

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...er-tune-drive?highlight=data+log+graph+thread


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Has REVO indicated whether or not they would provide you with a tune that would request the higher PRV values?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

SmithersSP said:


> Has REVO indicated whether or not they would provide you with a tune that would request the higher PRV values?


Don't want to say my Revo dealer didn't know higher PRV's existed (more than RS4 that is)...but he didn't...

That probably means Revo doesn't "support" higher pressure PRV's and i never heard anyone running one on Revo software,
BUT having seen how stage 5 software requests 135 bar as i said (don't know that many people running stage 5 software BTH)
i can't help but think i am losing pressure from a poor/ weakened RS4 PRV, hence the decision to get the 145 bar one.

And to answer your question, no....i don't think Revo will support going higher than 135 bar even when getting a higher pressure PRV.

I am just doing it (as i have many things before) for testing purposes, and to see what (good or bad) effect it will have on my
stage 5 tune.

Who knows...if i get a good result i might recommend it to Revo for stage 5 users....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> the control is just not that good compared to the much smaller OE pump.


The factory ECU calibration is expecting a smaller piston. If it's a concern, you need to dial in the pump calibration.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Think about it....if APR could actually "control" the inline pump through CAN wouldn't it be easier to control the "factory" TTRS pump which is MADE for CAN control?


The TTRS pump will overload the factory controller. The TTRS controller unfortunately doesn't talk to the ECU the same way as the OEM controller. CAN communication goes to other controllers. Because of this, you'll get issues. The pump not priming while opening the door and the pump running on after shutting down the car for quite some time. I believe there were a few other issues as well. These were some of the reasons why we chose not to support the TTRS pump and controller any longer. These may not be issues to you, but we have a different customer base with different expectations.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> The TTRS pump will overload the factory controller. The TTRS controller unfortunately doesn't talk to the ECU the same way as the OEM controller. CAN communication goes to other controllers. Because of this, you'll get issues. The pump not priming while opening the door and the pump running on after shutting down the car for quite some time. I believe there were a few other issues as well. These were some of the reasons why we chose not to support the TTRS pump and controller any longer. These may not be issues to you, but we have a different customer base with different expectations.


and overheating


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well the 145 bar PRV is on its way from HPFPUPGRADE and i probably need it more than i thought
cause for some reason i don't seem to be able to hold more than 115-120 bar of rail pressure :/

My theory is that Revo's 135 bar stressed the already softened RS4 valve and it now cracks
at almost OEM pressure levels.This has sky rocketed my injector times making the
car feel really SLOW....

Hopefully this will solve the issue and restore proper fueling.I could of course go for an
RS4 replacement but where would be the fun in that....right ? :laugh:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Wow. I've been gone for almost two years and the FSI crowd is still dealing with the same BS. geez.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just got the 145 PRV from [email protected] and all i can say for now is that it's a really high
quality part.It doesn't seem OEM, meaning it is not a drilled/modified OEM or RS4 valve but rather
a custom made valve.

Gonna install it this week hopefully and see what difference it makes.

Having seen the valve though, i don't really know why anyone would buy
an RS4 valve instead of this one....excluding cost that is (but
you are getting a future proof part).


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Just got the 145 PRV from [email protected] and all i can say for now is that it's a really high
> quality part.It doesn't seem OEM, meaning it is not a drilled/modified OEM or RS4 valve but rather
> a custom made valve.
> 
> ...


I am running the same valve as well as the Stage 2 HPFP from him. I'm only K04, so not needing as much fuel as you by any means. But as far as product quality goes, I have had no issues with any of John's stuff since the Beta testing phases. I run his HPFP, follower and rail valve. So good luck to you and definitely keep us updated on results
J. Hines


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Here's a quick log i made of req rail (red) vs actual (blue).










Haven't had any issues with pressure so far so a cannot tell if this is typical of PRV failure,
but those who have please feel free to comment on it.

One could also blame a failing pump and/or a high pressure sensor, but both are brand new with less than 5000 miles on them.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

jhines_06gli said:


> I am running the same valve as well as the Stage 2 HPFP from him. I'm only K04, so not needing as much fuel as you by any means. But as far as product quality goes, I have had no issues with any of John's stuff since the Beta testing phases. I run his HPFP, follower and rail valve. So good luck to you and definitely keep us updated on results
> J. Hines


A stage 2 pump would also be nice...

But i guess the Autotech does the job ok too.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS, there are two different rail sensor type and they read to different values. One's maxed out at 140 and the other is maxed out at 200 if I recall correctly. You can't swap the sensors unless you've made a change to account for this in the software. Point being, make sure you don't have the wrong part number or the scaling will be off and give you tons of headaches.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> GolfRS, there are two different rail sensor type and they read to different values. One's maxed out at 140 and the other is maxed out at 200 if I recall correctly. You can't swap the sensors unless you've made a change to account for this in the software. Point being, make sure you don't have the wrong part number or the scaling will be off and give you tons of headaches.


I know there is a TSB for improper part number rail sensor for different engine but i was referring to the
one on top of the HPFP, not the one on the rail.


----------



## quietA3guy (Oct 12, 2007)

You can test the cracking pressure of the valve by getting the engine up to temp then shutting it off. The fuel in the rail will heat soak and eventually get to a high enough pressure to make the valve open.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

quietA3guy said:


> You can test the cracking pressure of the valve by getting the engine up to temp then shutting it off. The fuel in the rail will heat soak and eventually get to a high enough pressure to make the valve open.


You mean looking at the rail pressure in VCDS ?

What exactly should i be looking at ?

AFAIK once you turn off the engine the rail pressure starts to drop.

Mine does anyway, but it did so from day one also.

Also.....now that i think about it...idle rail pressure is ~30 bar on a BT setup...Even if the RS4 valve is down to OEM pressure levels...
....there is no way by shutting of the engine fuel pressure reaches that 100+ pressure...

So now i don't really know what you mean....


----------



## quietA3guy (Oct 12, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> You mean looking at the rail pressure in VCDS ?


Yes using VCDS.

On my car it takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to reach approximately 125 bar. Then I can hear a high pitched squeak and the pressure quickly drops a couple bar. I know of one other person who tried this with a stock prv and reached 130 bar before releasing. I can't guarantee that it can reach 145 bar but if you can't even reach 125 bar then there is probably a small leak somewhere.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

quietA3guy said:


> Yes using VCDS.
> 
> On my car it takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to reach approximately 125 bar. Then I can hear a high pitched squeak and the pressure quickly drops a couple bar. I know of one other person who tried this with a stock prv and reached 130 bar before releasing. I can't guarantee that it can reach 145 bar but if you can't even reach 125 bar then there is probably a small leak somewhere.


I have never seen rail pressure rise after i shut down the car.Even from day one using the RS4 valve.

It might remain "stable" for some time but then it starts dropping and not increasing.

But i will give what you suggested a shot.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)




----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well it's been a long time since i posted but i finally got around to installing the new rail pressure regulator valve 
from HPFPUPGRADE and it works like a charm.

It's also reassuring that knowing how to diagnose an issue using logs can help you avoid unnecessary
abd time consuming changes that have nothing to do with the problem.

So for those that haven't read the above posts, i was experiencing issues with loss of power,
LOTS of lag and generally a stumbling feeling on acceleration.I traced the issue to low rail pressure,
BUT i was not getting any CEL or error massages related to that.The car wasn't even throttle cutting,
but instead it was running very low to negative advance (and it could also be opening the DV for all i know
amongst other stuff).

Having done a lot of logs in the past, i noticed the issue had started more than a year ago, but i never noticed
cause the car was running ok.I did see increased injector times but i had attributed that to me changing to EWG
and the extra flow.I never reall suspected a rail issue cause both my casing and the Autotech internals were new.

Anyways, this is a heads up to those that might be having issues, that the OEM RS4 valve isn't all that it's
hyped up to be.ESPECIALLY for those like me that are running 135+ rail pressures, that valve WILL FAIL
and you will be none the wiser....

Thanks to John for making available the uprated valves, and afaik they are also covered with a 5 year warranty which
is more than many OEM parts have. :thumbup:


----------



## SmithersSP (May 24, 2006)

Nice! MY HPFPug prototype pump finally failure after 20K. It was a prototype/beta unit so I ain't even mad. 
I do have a new OEM pump arriving at IE (hopefully today) and I'm getting their rebuild service. Looking forward to having 130 bar again. I have my S3/K04 REVO tune in stock mode right now and it's killing me!


----------



## torkme (Oct 11, 2012)

GolfRS said:


> Well it's been a long time since i posted but i finally got around to installing the new rail pressure regulator valve
> from HPFPUPGRADE and it works like a charm.
> 
> It's also reassuring that knowing how to diagnose an issue using logs can help you avoid unnecessary
> ...


Thank you for the review!


----------



## torkme (Oct 11, 2012)

SmithersSP said:


> Nice! MY HPFPug prototype pump finally failure after 20K. It was a prototype/beta unit so I ain't even mad.
> I do have a new OEM pump arriving at IE (hopefully today) and I'm getting their rebuild service. Looking forward to having 130 bar again. I have my S3/K04 REVO tune in stock mode right now and it's killing me!


I also think we did that upgrade on a used fuel pump, lol. 

You should have emailed us and had us rebuild the pump for you.


----------



## torkme (Oct 11, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I think you will find that under some circumstances the HPFP will ride the PRV regardless of what request is. Low load, shifts, etc. I tested the 155 and logged spikes as high as 165-168 bar, which is getting a little unnerving.


I wouldn't worry about the spikes, we see spikes over 200 bar


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

Golfrs or Torkme...I recently installed the 145 valve on my K04 setup...I was seeing codes before the install of p2096 too rich at B1 S1... Drivability and gas milage went into the toilet. I had a hunch that my RS4 valve had bit the dust after reading this thread. (I have the TTRS in tank pump, autotec hpfp, and S3 injectors on a very aggressive Drivers Motorsports tune)

To my satisfaction 145 valve solved my drivability issues like a charm, but right after the install the car started throwing a soft code of P0191 - Fuel Pressure Sensor (G247): Implausible Signal...

My instincts are to just replace the G247 as the car is 10 years old, but I am curious if you think the new fault code is a direct result of the higher rated valve?

Any advice on how to proceed with diagnosing if this is an issue I need to keep account of would be great...

My concern here is this info I found about how the G247 reacts under fault conditions 









The car feels great but I am seeing this code register almost daily since the HPFP 145 valve install 

Thoughts?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Could you post a log of your rail pressure logs?

My feeling is that (if most probably you have a BPY engine) you are exceeding the range of the rail sensor which is at 140 bar MAX, without the proper tune to avoid tripping the error.

You could install the higher rated S3 or Golf R rail sensor but that would also have to be coded for in the software...


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

I will have to get a log going tonight or in the next couple of days. I do indeed have a BPY motor. I will have to reach out to DM to see if they can adapt my tune for this valve.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> I will have to get a log going tonight or in the next couple of days. I do indeed have a BPY motor. I will have to reach out to DM to see if they can adapt my tune for this valve.


I would think based on you using S3 injectors you should have high rail pressure for them to work.

That means you should probably tune for the S3 sensor rather than the PRV valve.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just a heads up...

I have been experiencing random misfires and jerking at low to mid revs while getting
a P0010 code.

Just replaced the N205 valve from a 100k mile A version to a new C version and
the issue has gone away.Now looking to see if the CEL has gone also.

The above is for those that are getting similar symptoms....these valves (albeit simple in concept)
DO fail..... :thumbdown:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just a small update, i went ahead and replaced the oil rings on the chain cover today just to be sure
i wasn't off timing from oil leaking past them.

As it turns out the rings were ok but i replaced them anyway.

Still seem to be experiencing low(ish) rail pressure, although MUCH higher than before the 145 bar valve.
Rail pressures just don't seem to want to go above 125-128 bar with a requested of 135...
That fact just keeps my injector times high and car is leaning throughout the powerband.
Tech's opinion is that i have probably maxed my fuel system, starting from the Autotech pump.
I am now thinking if HPFPUPGRADE's "stage 2" pump might be a good idea.

Anyone had experience with that ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well after many hours of logging i really think my HPFP can't keep up with the demand....

I'm not planning to go W/M any time soon so i HAVE to find a way to up the rail pressure,
which is in the 125 to 128 bar area which is -10 bar than the Revo spec 135 bar.
Now that is A LOT of fuel lost in a BT car .

Tried again contacting [email protected] since he is the only one offering a higher flowing
option than Autotech or APR. If he thinks his pump will do the trick i might put my Autotech up for sale.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

What about LOBA and HPA's HPFPs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

AFAIK all pumps in the market flow the same as they are based on the
"original" pumps like APR or Autotech.

The issue is the pump just can't keep up with the demand but it is not
"fuel cutting" like in the older OEM vs upgrade pump thing.

It just can't make the 135 bar cause the RS4's are draining it.
This is normally something not that much discussed cause most
BT users either go with WM OR choose a secondary non direct injector.

In my case i really want to keep the car running full DI and without any other
fueling besides gasoline.

I just don't know many people running stage 2 pumps to get some feedback
on its "capabilities" and/or "issues"....


----------



## brundy (Jan 4, 2012)

Does your low pressure drop at all? Or does that not even factor in the equation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi man,

Great explanation now I see the limitation in all the right contest.

Maybe if you contact Integrated Engineering (I forgot to mention his HPFPS before) they can help you with a solution other than going with WAI or having to add a secondary fuel pump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

brundy said:


> Does your low pressure drop at all? Or does that not even factor in the equation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am using the TTRS pump so low pressure is keeping up with demand.

It's just the HPFP that "tries" to supply requested but just can't keep up with
the airflow.

Under "normal" circumstances 125-128 bar of pressure might even be considered fine
(let's say for a K04) since most software requests ~130 bar of pressure and most
pumps also make that 128 variance....BUT in this case the extra +10 bar (up to 135)
is CRUCIAL to maintain proper AFR's for the turbo flow and to keep injector times down.
It's just that the pump can't keep up with demand, like you have an open faucet and
your household pressure isn't enough to fill the "bucket" (to put it in layman's terms).


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> Hi man,
> 
> Great explanation now I see the limitation in all the right contest.
> 
> ...


IE's pump also flows roughly the same as the others.

Most of these pumps run a MAX of 10mm piston and provide
more or less the same flow.

HPFPUPRADE's stage 2 version has an even larger piston and some internal
modifications AFAIK that increase flow even more.

Here's a comparo pic from their site.










Pump on the far left is the stage 2 pump, middle is stage 1 (same as others) and
right is stock one.You get the idea.


----------



## jhines_06gli (Feb 3, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> IE's pump also flows roughly the same as the others.
> 
> Most of these pumps run a MAX of 10mm piston and provide
> more or less the same flow.
> ...


I run John's STG 2 HPFP(was actually the original beta STG 2 pump) and it's always been awesome. I'm only K04, but I have seen no need for in-tank pump upgrade since using the STG 2 HPFP and his 145BAR rail valve. I'm sure if I continue pushing the car I'll need an in-tank pump in warmer weather, but has been good so far.

He's a tough one to get in touch with, so just be patient if you truly want to talk to him and run his pump. But I can vouch for the STG 2 pump doing good work. 
J. Hines


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I am using the TTRS pump so low pressure is keeping up with demand.
> 
> It's just the HPFP that "tries" to supply requested but just can't keep up with
> the airflow.
> ...


GolfRS Would you do me a favor and look over my logs... I am having issues with that p0191 code still...Its interesting though because we have almost identical fueling systems and I am making too much rail fuel pressure at time. S3 injectors, Auto tech HPFP, 145bar PRV, USP (TTRS) LPFP...It was confirmed that I do have the 141bar sensor and I recently replaced it with a brand new 141bar.

The car runs great when its not tripping the limp mode. I have tried a new tune which requests 141 at certain times but I still am tripping limp mode. At this point I'm wondering if Im not better off going back to a 136 PRV...It has been discussed doing a new remap of the file for a newer 200bar sensor but that is going to Cost me a bit...8o bucks for the sensor and a couple hours of remapping hours form my tuner! We discussed this P0191 code being cause by extreme deviation between actual and requested and not maxing the sensor, but at this point I feel strongly that its a direct cut from the sensor and not a mechanical issue.

*Groups 002,003,230*







[/url]Untitled by Rub-ISH, on Flickr[/IMG] 








[/url]Untitled by Rub-ISH, on Flickr[/IMG]

*Groups 115,118,230*







[/url]Untitled by Rub-ISH, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Untitled by Rub-ISH, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well there are several things that don't look good from your logs...

For starters i don't know what turbo you are on but your g/s values are really low (if you are on a K04 for example).

Another thing is your engine load values that are below max, even though your TB is wide open.

And finally, you are not in control of your rail pressure (dunno why, could be software related) since
you request lower than you get, not taking into consideration the times at lift of where pressure maxes out.

I do think you should look into your software a bit more.A lower PRV will definitely NOT cure your issues
but more likely make them worse.

Also a 200 bar sensor is only gonna let you "view" the higher pressures but if software does not control the
actual there is nothing you can do to fix it.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

I am on a K04 but the MAF value is coded out...I.E. mafless, as well as having the Intake manifold flappers coded out. (they are still in place but always open)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> I am on a K04 but the MAF value is coded out...I.E. mafless, as well as having the Intake manifold flappers coded out. (they are still in place but always open)


Right.

Well my guess is it's a software error cause a hardware fail would probably cause you to "underpressure" rather than higher.

I would try some "canned" software from a known company and see if that changes things.

Seeing the car doesn't see max 191.7 load value means it's holding back for some reason...


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> Right.
> 
> Well my guess is it's a software error cause a hardware fail would probably cause you to "underpressure" rather than higher.
> 
> ...


So I have since had a corrected file from my tuner which maxes the requested fuel so I am getting 140bar through the power band and the logs look spot on according to tuner (all of my timing is inline and both requested and actual fuel and boost are never more than 2-4 units off...I am still going into limp mode and throwing P0191 code...Its frustrating and I'm fairly confident that the USP ttrs pump is finally causing issues. 

Everything in the fuel system has been checked and double checked besides the intank pump. I also occasionally get a very strange stumble and stall on start up. Again no code is thrown, not even a misfire! 

Not sure what more I can do...


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> So I have since had a corrected file from my tuner which maxes the requested fuel so I am getting 140bar through the power band and the logs look spot on according to tuner (all of my timing is inline and both requested and actual fuel and boost are never more than 2-4 units off...I am still going into limp mode and throwing P0191 code...Its frustrating and I'm fairly confident that the USP ttrs pump is finally causing issues.
> 
> Everything in the fuel system has been checked and double checked besides the intank pump. I also occasionally get a very strange stumble and stall on start up. Again no code is thrown, not even a misfire!
> 
> Not sure what more I can do...


I don't think it's the TTRS pump.I am using it also without issues.

What i DO think is that your tuner cannot code out triggering the limp mode once the sensor maxes out.

I believe that is your problem.

Also, i would advice a bit of caution since you are "blind" as far as absolute rail pressure is concerned
which means you could be running MUCH more than 140 bar rail pressure and
that is something you should think about....

P.S. The stumble is 99.99999% caused by the "stuck open" flaps.Read the TFSI engine study to see what the flaps actually do to the engine.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I don't think it's the TTRS pump.I am using it also without issues.
> 
> What i DO think is that your tuner cannot code out triggering the limp mode once the sensor maxes out.
> 
> ...


The next move for me I believe is to get the 200 bar sensor and get a proper remap of things...Its all I can do short of pulling the pump in the tank which really hasnt given me problems except at the redline


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> The next move for me I believe is to get the 200 bar sensor and get a proper remap of things...Its all I can do short of pulling the pump in the tank which really hasnt given me problems except at the redline


I've heard of issues when trying to move over to the larger sensor....

Just try not to make things worse.

Come to think of it since you are on a K04 why not lower rail pressure to accommodate the regular sensor ?

I doubt you are making that much flow to max the S3 injectors on (lets say) 135 bar.

But again it is an issue of coding and if the tuner can't stabilize the pressure to ~135 you will again hit limp mode.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

GolfRS said:


> I've heard of issues when trying to move over to the larger sensor....
> 
> Just try not to make things worse.
> 
> ...


The tune from the Logs I posted earlier are on a file that requests no more than 132...The issue I was hitting was the run away fueling as a result of the better PRV install(maybe exposed that the tune is around a valve meant to leak). So the response was that code was being caused by the deviation between requested and actual...Seems logical too me! The quick and dirty solution was to up the requested to match the actual, but I am getting the same results (p0191 and limp mode)

I was also told that my file was written specifically for the apr HPFP, but I am running and autotec...another option was to write a file specifically for the specs of the Autotech but that shouldnt make a huge difference.

The final option was to map the file for the 200 bar sensor and adjust the tune accordingly...I just want the random limp mode to stop (it becomes very concerning when the car pulls like a train one minute, then wont make more than 5lbs at wot the next)

It seems logical to try the 200 bar map since the car is already running on a golf R map sensor as well...but I am no tuner and my knowledge of what is best is useless


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Rub-ISH said:


> The tune from the Logs I posted earlier are on a file that requests no more than 132...The issue I was hitting was the run away fueling as a result of the better PRV install(maybe exposed that the tune is around a valve meant to leak). So the response was that code was being caused by the deviation between requested and actual...Seems logical too me! The quick and dirty solution was to up the requested to match the actual, but I am getting the same results (p0191 and limp mode)


No no...This is a bad way to look at things.The PRV plays NO ROLE on what the max pressure will be on the system.It is just there as a fail safe in case something goes wrong,
acting as a relief valve so that things don't go boom.What is determining the rail pressure is the actual PROGRAMMING and rising requested by (lets say) +10 bar just to
make +5 bar on actual is stupid programming to be honest.Your tuner needs to learn how to properly code the fueling system so that requested and
actual don't deviate that much.He needs to code for 135 and GET 135 +/- 5 bar. In that way you will still be lower than triggering limp mode and also have
sufficient fuel to run the K04.Once again the PRV doesn't control rail pressure.It's there to prevent accidents.



> I was also told that my file was written specifically for the apr HPFP, but I am running and autotec...another option was to write a file specifically for the specs of the Autotech but that shouldnt make a huge difference.


I honestly don't believe those two pump have that much flow difference to necessitate coding adaptation.
I believe most if not all pumps make around the same flow considering the size of the piston.



> The final option was to map the file for the 200 bar sensor and adjust the tune accordingly...I just want the random limp mode to stop (it becomes very concerning when the car pulls like a train one minute, then wont make more than 5lbs at wot the next)


Don't keep thinking about the limp mode.It is just a side issue caused by lack of proper rail pressure control and not your main concern.
Yes i understand it causes the engine to malfunction but you should focus on stabilizing rail pressure and not getting rid of limp mode.
Limp mode is there to protect your car same as the PRV.Even coding it out (like i suggested above) is a band aid and not really the proper
way to do things.To make it more clear lets say you DO get the 200 bar sensor and your programmer DOES make it work.What then ?
You don't trigger limp mode, you see that you are actually running 160 bar (let's say) and then what ? You get a code for rich condition
cause the injector times are also coded for 135 bar and the ECU now takes over to try and correct the mistakes the tuner has done.
Again that is no way to do things....



> It seems logical to try the 200 bar map since the car is already running on a golf R map sensor as well...but I am no tuner and my knowledge of what is best is useless


The golf R map sensor would make sense if you are running of the N75 valve, so that the ECU can get feedback on pressure and load to adjust
accordingly.IF you are running on a boost controller, the ECU can't control pressure anyways, so it checks other sensors like maf and O2 sensor
to get the engine working right.

There might be issues with a car with a mafless file and a different MAP sensor.It would take a lot of effort to make it work right
since both sensors that the ECU uses to check on load and flow are now altered.

Come to think of it i don't really know why you have cannibalized your (K04) engine when that turbo has no need for all of the above.
You could just get a proper tune for 135 bar and the S3 injector flow could exceed the flow of the turbo itself....
Can't really understand all the trouble you've gone through.Now if you are preparing to go BT i can understand that, but that is
a whole new ballgame and everything you have done so far will have been in vain...

At least that is how i see it.


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

The car is on a built bottom end and I wanted a tune to maximize that while considering a bigger turbo set up.

I am running no electronic boost controller and I originally went mafless to run the CTS 3inch intake but have since abandon it for my old eurojet that places the inlet outside of the engine bay.

All of this started with a bank1 s1 too rich code and my solution was to swap the PRV which did clear up that issue...I assume the RS4 valve was leaking and causing the HPFP to work double time. (could certainly be wrong)

The interesting part is that the initial instance of this also was accompanied by the p0191 code but i have been unable to remedy this. 

I's sort of stuck between a rock and hard place with this because the car is running very well while the ecu isn't trying to check the system.

I could resort to older version of the tune before the flapper motor delete but that was installed in prep for the new IE intake manifold. 

Perhaps the best route here is to resort to an older version of the tune and see if this is still an issue.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

So finally another error pops up and it could be the reason for all the shuddering i have been experiencing...

01117 - Generator Terminal DF Load Signal: Implausible Signal
Anyone ever heard of this ??

Says possible alternator wiring fault or alternator or voltage regulator....

Fingers crossed it's just that and easily fixable...


----------



## RexKiller (Apr 5, 2012)

Great thread!

I am actually going to be doing a similar engine build. I give you two thumbs up! :thumbup::thumbup:
I hope to use a lot of your R&D when installing rods (Properly), piston choices and hopefully my block doesn't need to be machined too much... (It is seized right now ) 

I do appreciate your time that you put into this thread because I am truly going to need it!


----------



## Devo567 (May 28, 2007)

Just wondering if you fixed fuel issues. Sounds to me like lpfp. Yes ttrs is a solid pump but you're way ahead of that pump. Lots of options out there....


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Devo567 said:


> Just wondering if you fixed fuel issues. Sounds to me like lpfp. Yes ttrs is a solid pump but you're way ahead of that pump. Lots of options out there....


Long time since i updated this thread just a lot to do and so little time to diagnose the car....

Anyways, fueling issue still persists although the HPFPUPGRADE stage 2 pump has helped a lot.
Still, on WOT rail pressures never reach requested 135 bar but hover between 120 and 130 bar.
The previous Autotech pump also showed dips to 80 bar which worsened the situation.

As to the LPFP mentioned above, there are no signs this is a low pressure issue.
The TTRS pump holds almost 6 bar up to redline with a small drop to 5.5 up top.
Load values for the pump are less than 85% which shows it can take the strain.
One think i thought was actual "overfueling" caused by the hugely uprated system
and failure of the Revo file to actually control it, causing dips in rail pressure.
But something against that theory is the fact the file REQUESTS 135 bar which
indicative of a "normally" functioning system.

Other theory i am now just developing is a possible bad throttle body, since i am
also experiencing jerkiness in part throttle and increased engine breaking.
MAF measurements also show a saw-tooth like appearance which could also indicate
a bad throttle body.Now that "could" possibly effect rail pressures as fuel cannot "follow"
the fast drops in air mass from a closing TB but that still doesn't explain requested rail @ 135..
Gonna change the TB soon so this is gonna be taken care of.

P.S. As a side note just demolished my first gearbox....Now on a Cupra "uprated" gearbox and car
seems to accelerate more effortlessly since it has a different final ratio....Stay tuned for more.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Just a quick heads up for those looking for a proper dogbone solution...

After having used/tested about 3 or 4 different solutions, i was fooled by 34 Motorsports new alu dogbone insert as it
being the perfect vibration free solution, as it uses metal instead of urethane meaning it should be more rigid and also
degradation free.

Well i cannot argue the longevity part of it but let me tell you the insert SUCKS.
I haven't even put it on the car and i am considering not ever putting it on.
The reason for this rant ?? Well the insert is designed shorter than what is needed
meaning the actual length of it doesn't reach the opposing rubber leaving a gap of more than
2-3mm on both sides.Now that might be good for vibration purposes since it doesn't do anything
when engine is idling, BUT that also means there is a "huge" gap that needs "filled" by the
engine's motion/push on the OEM mount before the insert even touches the opposing wall
and starts "working". Now i don't really need to be an expert to know this will surely feel sloppy
on start ups and engine movement will be OEM up to the point the actual torque pushes the OEM
mount far enough for the insert to touch the opposite side.Some might say where is the problem with that....

The problem is this mount offers nothing on the part of engine movement up to the point engine deflection
is already big enough for the whole setup to feel sloppy.It is an un-acceptable for those looking for
a good insert.I would rather go buy a black series powerflex insert than to .... "experiment" with 34 motorsports
flawed design.Just another piece of junk for the warehouse....

Anyways i will post pics soon for those interested to make it even clearer how flawed this mount is...

P.S. One of my thoughts was to actually weld/fill the insert to make a snug fit, but why to i have to
resort to modification to make something like it should have been in the first place....:thumbdown:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Anyways, fueling issue still persists although the HPFPUPGRADE stage 2 pump has helped a lot.
> Still, on WOT rail pressures never reach requested 135 bar but hover between 120 and 130 bar.
> The previous Autotech pump also showed dips to 80 bar which worsened the situation.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the rail valve is opening. It opens around 130. Get one that holds more pressure.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Sounds like the rail valve is opening. It opens around 130. Get one that holds more pressure.


I already have the 145 bar one.

Didn't really change max values.It helped with consistency but nothing more....

Unless the new valve is also bad....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> I already have the 145 bar one.
> 
> Didn't really change max values.It helped with consistency but nothing more....
> 
> Unless the new valve is also bad....


Post up a nice long 4th gear pull. Log only Rpm, request/actual to get a high sample rate.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Post up a nice long 4th gear pull. Log only Rpm, request/actual to get a high sample rate.


Here you go.No clue what is going on....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Here you go.No clue what is going on....


Hmm, kinda hard to tell what's going on. But anyways, so it's not hitting request. Is that resulting in any other issues?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Hmm, kinda hard to tell what's going on. But anyways, so it's not hitting request. Is that resulting in any other issues?


Well with the Autotech i had at first it would plummet to 80 bar at time but no fuel cut was felt.
I changed to the HPFPUpgrade's stage 2 pump and it now can "hold" ~120 bar on 135 bar requested...So still not reaching requested.

I went back to my logs and it would seem this whole rail pressure thing started once i installed a (new) TTRS LPFP.
And yes my low pressure logs are ~6 bar holding to redline BUT there is a whole theory behind pressure vs volume,
and also pump voltage is a huge factor (on the TTRS pump), so i am planning to reinstall the OEM intank pump and
see how that goes.

I have a feeling software might also be responsible, with low pressure overwhelming the ECU control and
dropping rail pressure to avoid "flooding"...So it might also be a calibration issue....

EDIT:Forgot to mention that other than the rail pressure not hitting requested, lambda is on point, adaptation values
are -5% and 1.8% , and lambda adaptation on block 001 is not exceeding 5% on WOT.So yeah it's weird...


----------



## MattySachs (Mar 22, 2015)

Here is some decent info on the DW65v and the Aeromotive 340 Stealth LPFPs
http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192726


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

MattySachs said:


> Here is some decent info on the DW65v and the Aeromotive 340 Stealth LPFPs
> http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192726


Pretty awesome link Matty, I just read it all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

A lot has been going on with the car making it work like crap but a lot of
careful investigation and it is now back on track...

Since this is also an information containing thread i am going to give some heads up for those
with possible similar issues so you'll know where to start looking.

I've had the car pull a lot of timing lately and couldn't find why the hell this was happening.

Did a lot of pressure testing and no leaks, checked my DV...nothing...it ended up being my turbo to
intake silicone hose that had MELTED due to the returning oil from the PCV (even though i have a catch can).
The hose actually melted from the bottom and was not visual from above.Only when i was under the car to check the turbo i saw it just hanging down... :/ .Replaced the hose and ordered one with fluoro coating
to prevent this from happening again...

Also....I've had the same MAF sensor for a long time.I know they say TFSI maf sensor never (?) fails, but
i always thought my low maf values were cause of the aftermarket intake(s). Well as an act of desperation (and before noticing the melted hose) i went and bought a brand new one....Guess what...i am now seeing +30 g/s of air on the same setup/pressures i was seeing even when the melted hose was new...So people...IF you have any doubts about your MAF values that DON'T correspond to the cars actual feel of power, you MIGHT want to check for a new MAF sensor (or at least try a friend's newish one).

Lastly, still seeing low rail pressures, but now i went ahead and go myself a PM3 unit from torquebyte to use with my TTRS pump.Hopefully it will give me even more flow from the rear to see if it will help with rail pressures.Not really seeing very low low pressures, but i've had the car shut down on me once and i don't want to relive this....

Stay tuned for pics


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Another small update while trying to get the extra cabling to wire the PM3 up....

As i've posted in the past i already have the 70mm TB and i had it tested on the car with good results.
I did experience small rev surging at traffic stops but my theory is that since you need to
modify the manifold for it to fit, i hadn't really done a far enough job fearing weakening of the
plastic and so the TB was sitting rather "crooked" also causing a vacuum/boost leak.

In any case, i decided further grinding the manifold would be the wrong thing to do so i went ahead and
made a custom CNC spacer to move the TB further down.I know i could probably have used a
W/M spacer that are already in the market, but W/M isn't in my plans and i really hate the aftermarket
"tampered with" look they make.And of course a plug would be possible leak site so i ditched that idea.

So here it is...the end result.I hope you ppl like it. I do. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

A word of warning to those looking to install the larger TB.

You CANNOT do it properly without a spacer...
After having installed the TB i saw the tabs that center the original TB are OFF
when trying to install the larger one.At first when i tried to install without the
spacer i had to at least grind off the rear tab just to get the screws to fit.
Now after having installed the spacer and centered the TB, i can see that even the
front tabs is offset.So you either have to grind both off and somehow center the
TB or use a spacer (and practically do the same...).

Btw i saw a nice increase in response from this mod.No ill effects so far.
Will do some logging and report.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Beginning to think my rail pressure issue might actually be the
high demand put on the HPFP...:sly:

After getting a new MAF sensor and fixing my leak issues,
i am now seeing ~340 g/s at 7200 rpm.........:screwy:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well it's time for a HUGE update for those interested and following this thread.

For starters i found the reason for my low rail pressures....And some might say "it was one of 
the first things to check" i didn't, just because no one ever mentioned this part fails.

And....it was the rail pressure SENSOR...Yes folks...that little bastard has been plaguing me
for the best of 2 years.I never took the time to change it because of the cost and
because i was feeling it's not good diagnosis to just swap parts to see if it changes things.
But i did decide to change it when after going back and checking logs i saw my lambda and
injection times were the same as when my rail pressure was ok and that didn't compute.
The only logical explanation was the sensor.That meant the ECU was seeing lower pressures
but the O2 sensor was compensating and keeping AFR stable as requested.
I also changed the flaps motor that seemed to have bitten the bullet and that also helped a lot.

So the situation now is as follows.I am on HPFPUpgrade's stage 2 pump (which i may add is performing
FLAWLESSLY) and going to reinstall their 145 bar PRV.After talking to Revo i am now on a beta
145 bar request file that is simply MINDBLOWING.Fuel is not that stable cause of the installed
RS4 PRV but that is about to change...Stay tuned for that...

Another new development is that my turbo might be on it's way OUT...Having weird surging like symptoms
below 5000 rpm and boost isn't really stable.I am also hearing a weird increasing/decreasing whistle
at WOT that my mechanics say is the turbo's dying song....SOOOO....thinking of going one step up and getting
a brand new GTX3071.I am currently on a GTX2871 hybrid that is making 348 g/s @ 1.8 bar of boost.
Haven't dynoed that car but numbers look good.I know that MAF sensor maxes out at 364 g/s so i do have some
leeway.Some have even suggested i go GTX3076 since the car is now Stage 5 but i am already dreading
the increased lag from going to a GT30 turbine, i really don't want even more lag from the larger compressor...

Anyways, i am still thinking about it....

Stay tuned. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well not much has been going on in this forum lately...

Don't know if it's because people have gone and bought the Golf 7 or are just tired of tuning their car. 

Anyways, another update...

Seems my fueling issues are coming to an end.For all those that are running low on fuel...

UPGRADE YOUR FUEL RETURN VALVES !!!

I had been using the good old RS4 valve not knowing it had failed and coupled with a bad fuel rail sensor (what ?)
i couldn't begin to imagine why my car wasn't getting enough fuel.

So yeah the valve is pretty important.I would put it right up there with the upgraded HPFP as a performance part.

Having talked to John from HPFPUpgrade i will be getting the 155 bar version.John also offers a 5 year
warranty AFAIK so you are covered also in the event you get to have a defective valve (which i'm sure
John checks before shipping btw).

I would suggest to ANYONE to get that version also.People (and tuners) have been afraid of getting
a higher rated valve but i really don't see the reason.Horror stories of the past of the cam follower failing
have not been coupled to higher rail pressures and even stock cars might get damaged.Also i think i've
read somewhere our rail can hold up to 200 bar of pressure so you are also safe there.

I have to say +15 bar of fuel pressure (from the fairly standard 130 bar) can give you A LOT of headroom for
BT tuning.

I will be reporting back once i install the 155 bar valve. :thumbup:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

In for your experience with the 155 Bars valve!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> In for your experience with the 155 Bars valve!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm pretty sure it will be awesome.

After having fuel issues for so long and having "tasted" even the 145 valve i can tell you
this engine is thirsty for fuel.I know many run 130 bar and then compensate with W/M
but man being able to run a rich lambda with low injector times did wonders for me.

Especially now Revo has a 145 bar file, i am even hungrier for power.
Before i was like "ok lets tune it till fuel runs out..". Now i can tell you
i am VERY close to maxing the MAF sensor (no plans on going mafless btw) 
and there is HUGE headroom in fuel.Imagine what a +15 bar increase can
provide in terms of power.I believe it was John from HPFPUpgrade that
said 149 bars of actual pressure (possible with the proper tune and the 155 bar valve)
provides up to +100 whp of power.That is simply HUGE and waaaay beyond what a
FWD car can even put down...

Might have to think AWD conversion next....:laugh:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Sweet, those are huge numbers; a 4Motion conversion would be pretty awesome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

While waiting for my 155 bar valve.....i was thinking of getting a larger turbo...

Any thoughts about a GTX3071R vs a GTX3076R ???


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Awfully quiet...

Must be the season.


----------



## brundy (Jan 4, 2012)

I would say GTX3076. Going from the GTX2871 to the GTX3071 I don't think would be a big change.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

brundy said:


> I would say GTX3076. Going from the GTX2871 to the GTX3071 I don't think would be a big change.


Well i am getting conflicted opinions about this.

I totally see what you are saying but one of the reasons for changing to a GT30 turbo
is to free up the exhaust and eliminate the surging i am getting up to 6000 rpm.
Power is plenty even with the GT28 (what an amazing turbo).

On the other hand the GTX3076R is as a "mismatched" turbo as the GTX2871
(never really understood what that "means"...spool is amazing on the 28) but
IS indeed a "step up" from the 71 wheel and you can run low boost with it
and get the same results.Btw you can never have enough power...

Haven't really seen too many "fast" GTX3076 TFSI's around though.
Probably cause it is a rather large turbo and so far fueling was scarce.
But what i have seen with Revo's new file is that there is PLENTY of fuel now for even maxing the GTX3071R WITHOUT any W/M or AUX injectors.And that is
a big incentive for me.

Anyways still have time to decide since i am waiting for my 155 bar valve.
Once this is in i will be able to tell what kind of power potential there is
what turbo to get.

P.S. Power is nice but spool is VERY important.After having corrected all of the issues with the car i am now running into issues where i get surging or boost spikes, almost like the turbo is too "small".It makes me think the engine in its current state can easily spool even a GTX3076.I wouldn't even think of it otherwise.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Man... I see you leaning towards the GTX3076! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> Man... I see you leaning towards the GTX3076!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dunno man.

The compressor in the GTX2871 is the same as in the GTX3071 but for sure there is some
performance difference from freeing the exhaust.

As i said above i've seen mixed builds of cars with the GTX3076 and also cars with
71 and 76 going head to head for the most part of the pull so i don't really know if
it's worth the extra lag.I really need the turbo to be spooled by 4000 rpm and
some 76's i've seen start blowing above 5000.... :/

But then again (as always in tuning) if you don't get the bigger part you are always left
wanting....Still i am spinning 4th on 1.8 bar on the GTX28 so is there really any point in making the
car also spin 5th ?????

Of course you can run the 76 on low boost but then you just gain lag and nothing more...

Decisions decisions...

Here are some videos on the...matter for discussion...
















And this is interesting....


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Dunno man.
> 
> The compressor in the GTX2871 is the same as in the GTX3071 but for sure there is some
> performance difference from freeing the exhaust.
> ...


Amazing videos, thanks for sharing them! As you stated the last video is pretty interesting. I loved the SEAT LEON on the third video.

And yeah, to spool at 4,000 RPM is fine... Doing latter even if you can rev it throw the red mark gives you little space to play IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I don't remember mentioning i installed the red "R8 coil packs".
Instead of going OEM though i went for the NGK U5014 which are a direct replacement.

I started having some misses with my factory coils (yes i had them for over 100K miles)
so i opted to change them all to the R8 coils.

Can't really say i saw much of a difference though.Maybe a much quieter engine
but that's about it.Also probably cause i'm running low boost due to the
low rail pressure i am running now (till the valve gets here).

I also was running the Okadas for some time but couldn't justify the cost/performance
so i sold them to get some other goodies...


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Great man! I thought the Okadas where the real deal... But pretty expensive IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> Great man! I thought the Okadas where the real deal... But pretty expensive IMO.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well they were not "bad" but when one of them stopped working
it cost me 150$ to get a replacement (and yes they do go bad too).

Ans when another one also failed....You get the idea.

I have decided to use parts for my car that are factory/easily replaceable.

That is the reason i would not go for HGP injectors etc.

Parts DO fail and when the do you can't replace them as easily.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> Well they were not "bad" but when one of them stopped working
> it cost me 150$ to get a replacement (and yes they do go bad too).
> 
> Ans when another one also failed....You get the idea.
> ...


Yeah, you're more than right... And for some of us they're even more difficult to source out!

Keep the good work man! :thumbup: :thumbup:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Ok, here we go.Things are progressing now.FINALLY got the 155 PRV, installed it and made a
first log using medium boost.Results are spectacular as far as fueling potential goes BUT
have now revealed yet another weakness in the fueling system which is the stage 2 pump.

Now don't get me wrong i am by no means implying the pump is not working properly or
not supplying fuel.It's just that in the low to mid revs possibly the revolution of the camshaft
(hence the pumping action of the HPFP piston) isn't enough to reach requested rail pressure
leading to fuel shortage at that rev range.That might not be the pump's weakness per se
but it still leaves me with a feeling of never reaching my goal.I have contacted HPFPUpgrade and
awaiting their view on this.

The GOOD NEWS is that now the car has WAAAAAY too much fuel up top.
Lambda regulator has turned to -19% meaning it is getting 19% more fuel up top that
it needs.And that means a lot when you have a MAF reading of 353 g/s...

Here is a graph of rail pressure at this point....











Still i have to see if something can be done about the mid range fueling.

P.S. On a side not i still have my Autotech pump in my parts bin so i might throw that in
and see what a "stage 1" pump does against a stage 2.

P.S. 2 I also had to get a new Accelerator pedal....Yeah i know....right ??? Still, if anyone is
experiencing drops in acceleration and hiccups/ notchiness, you should probably get a new pedal
Everyone was telling me this part doesn't fail but guess what.It did...MISERABLY...


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi man, I'm happy you had progress on your filing system, and I hope you get a good solution for the mid range fueling!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

BETOGLI said:


> Hi man, I'm happy you had progress on your filing system, and I hope you get a good solution for the mid range fueling!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks.

I don't really know if it is even possible.
HPFP's have a known weakness on low revs that comes from their
mechanical characteristics.Still, i will have to rule out any case of the
HPFP not doing it's 100% and then i might even look into making larger
fuel lines, something that no one has looked into and it "might" help.

Car is not really getting lean, but i am seeing adaptation of ~ 10% in the
middle revs and i'd like to change that.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

I'll keep checking your advances man!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

For those looking to upgrade their turbo, Garrett has been releasing their new Dual BB Ceramic
turbos...

Have a look at the difference !!!


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> For those looking to upgrade their turbo, Garrett has been releasing their new Dual BB Ceramic
> turbos...
> 
> Have a look at the difference !!!


Sweet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

