# VR6 ITB ?'s



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

I've seen very few ITB set-ups for a VR6. Now two variations I have seen use different methods to ensure even flow across the head. One used different length horns and I believe the same size throttle bodies. The other uses different throttle body sizes (Larger throttle size for the 1,3 and 5 cylinder and a smaller throttle body for the 2,4 and 6). 
How do you determine correct TB size. Are there any mathmatical, thermo or any other substantiation other than having mulitple setups and running on a dyno? Also what is more thechnically sound, using different horn lengths, different throttle body sizes or a combination of both?


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

whooooooooooaaaaaaa adam...................englishhhhh


----------



## BennyB (Mar 27, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

I beleive the proper method would be to have different length trumpets. if you change the TB sizes it may get the same airflow but the velocity would be different. This would change the cylinder filling under varying RPMs (ie the large TB cylinders would fill more at high RPM)
Ben


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (BennyB)*

when imade my vr6 ITBS i used the same diameter TB but then made oval shaped ports for the manifold for 3 cylinders to compres the air and thus make more velocity!


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

jw how you determined the appropriate size/diameter of the oval shape to make the flow even?


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Mk2enthusiast)*

Send a mail to [email protected] he is a god when it comes to ITB set-ups.


----------



## quinntendopower1 (Nov 20, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Vento_Gareth)*

does anyone sell kits for these cars yet? I wouldn't mind fabricating some stuff, if i had a bit of direction.


----------



## G2darwin (Aug 4, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (quinntendopower1)*

Do a search on Cdndub 8v ITB posts, they have quite a bit of info. IRCC it was around 168 pages printed.
-G


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (quinntendopower1)*

Grant Motorsport sell a very nice kit, the race version is fitted to 95GLX's car, do a search for his post on the ITB kit. I have photo's of the kit on my computer and can help with purchasing from the U.K. if anyone is interested. Drop me a PM with your email details and I can send pictures and more info.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Vento_Gareth)*

I'm gonna start designing my ITB's for my VR soon. Ill post my progress when I have a chance.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

i'm doing staggard placement of my throttle bodies. i'm using gsxr 600 tb's, was planning on measuring the difference of the runner lengths inside the head and then staggering the throttle bodies accordingly. that way they will be straight off the head and not spread out like other setups i've seen. doing so is going to require two sets of throttle linkages, but in the long run should be a much more sano setup. 
here's a pic of a manifold the same shop did for a local customer....similar to kevinmacd's setup, but different also...they are 750 throttle bodies....i may be upgrading to those for the higher air flow...


















_Modified by DCI VW at 6:50 PM 10-29-2004_


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

wow that does look just like mine!


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

The throttle bodies don't look like they are staggered at all, unless your intake manifold isn't done yet. I beleive you can achieve what you are doing by varying the length of the air horns.
And im not totally sold on using the size throttle bodies for all the cylinders, but I guess until I can prove other wise, keep us all posted on your progress.


_Modified by stark22 at 4:11 AM 11-2-2004_


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

that's not my manifold and itb setup either.







like i said, that's another manifold setup for another local guy that the same shop did. it's just an example. those t.b.'s are 750's, i'm using 600's...
mine is in the works. probably going to be made from one big chunk of aluminum and cnc'd out w/ the different length runners....that's what the machinist wants to do, and i aint stoppin him.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

How are you determining the length of each runner? Are you gonna just make them the stock intake length for each cylinder and have it be 420 mm or are you gonna change the length for a specific rpm range?


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

there is a formula available online
i found it when i did mine with diameter and RPM range for peak torque and horspower and sm other variables u can calc. the exact length!


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

the runners are going to be as short as possible...the motor is going into a mk2 and i'm pressed for room up front. but the offset is going to be setup so that all runners are the same length. it's going to be a more complicated throttle cable setup, as i'll have to split the one cable into to so that both banks of t.b.'s have throttle cables.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

sounds like a bad idea
the multi cable thing might lead to unbalanced cylinders and
possibly leaning one out
and why are you tight on room up front my setup is almost 15 inches long with everything an dits a mk2


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

that's also with you moving your radiator forward and downward, i'm sure the big bumper helps in hiding where you have it sitting, i'm going to be running euro smalls, wont have any room to move it forward like you did, let alone downward. not to mention i'd like to retain where it mounts on the lower radiator support. as of right now, i'm talking with PWR in making me a custom radiator...
...and when the throttle linkage is setup properly, i'm not going to lean out any cylinders.
It's not going to be a hokey back yard job where i've got little clamps and sh*t holding cables onto my linkage on the throttle bodies. therefore making it perfect before it's even bolted onto my cylinder head....let alone run with.


_Modified by DCI VW at 9:13 PM 11-3-2004_


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

oh ok thats good to know as long as your not hacking it it should be ok
and yes my radiator is 5 inches down and 4 inches forward


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

Why don't you want to use varying air horns and save yourself the headache?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

cause if you do it that way, the runners end up spreading outwards like posted above and like kevin's manifold....
...now in my head, that would tell me that the runners for 1 and 6 aren't the same as 3 and 4...is it a lot? no, but, they are naturally going to be longer, the air horns would be all sorts of crazy sizes. stagering them the proper amount ensures equal runner length. 100%.
not to mention, it's going to look a lot better.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

ive had no problems with my equal length runner setup for 5k miles so it can't be that bad


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

You may not be having problems, but your engine is probably not running at its greatest potential. Also looking at the head, cylinder ports 2,4,6 are oval in shape, in order to keep air velocity uniform across all the cylinders you need to accelerate the air to these cylinders. Also the varying distance the air must travel has an effect on its over all velocity when it reaches its destination, the cylinder. So varying airhorns or different length intake systems would need to be used. 
Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

mine works and you have not even started yet so maybe you should not run your mouth!


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

I'm not on here to play childish games, I give my opinions and my insights. 
RELAX! 
I started this post to acquire information as well as share what I have learned and continue to learn. 
The technical forum is not for show and tell. So unless you have technical information, stop showing off and be useful.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

we planned on using different length manifold runners and stagering them cause at the plenum connection, all the ports are the same size. we aren't using any kind of scientific equations or sh*t like that. it's more like common sense. if we translate the size of the port (ported or not) and bring it out far enough and match it up to what would be equivilant to the runners on the intake plenum, then throw the itb's on it, it should work perfect. in fact, the gsxr600 t.b.'s are maybe 2mm bigger (i haven't measured to be for sure, but held one of the secondary butterfly's up the plenum and it sat on top of the hole barely), so it's going to be almost to factory type specs (minus the manifold with all it's walls and what not inside), butterfly to runner size anyways.
kevin, no offense, but i dont see how you can say your runners are all equal length. you're saying that if you were to cut your cylinder 3 runner and your cylinder 1 runner, straighten out the #1 runner, it would be the same length as #3? if your manifold looks like the one i posted, that's not the case. is it close? sure, it's probably really close, probably to close to make a serious difference performance wise. that's pretty obvious as your car is running fine and making power (dunno how much though)...i would think over a long run of time though, you'd notice a difference between all the cylinders.

_Quote, originally posted by *"stark22"* »_The technical forum is not for show and tell. So unless you have technical information, stop showing off and be useful.

he's got a point. you're answers are very vague and not helpful at all. honestly, you're being kinda cocky about "having the first US ITB'd VR6".....i noticed it even when i was IM'ing you some questions i had, they were all one line responses. .....being all closed up on your information isn't going to keep you the only person with the setup, if that's what your scared of for whatever reason. it's definatly not going to keep them from stumbling across your flaws...in my book that's kind of a real as*-holish thing to do. do i know all about the setup? no, cause i haven't got mine finished yet, but i am glad to give the guy ideas as to what road to head down on his venture, wether it be an easy road that you took, or a slightly more complicated but better in the end road.
i'm just sayin.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

I understand your idea about the throttle bodies and I never looked at it that way. I do have a question though, I thought the intake ports for the rear 3 cylinders where oval in shape? something like this:
() 0() 0() 0 
Where the "()" are the rear cylinder intake ports and the "0" are the front cylinder ports. To be honest, I need to take apart a vr engine.
About the throttle bodies you are using, does one of the bodies already have the throttle position sensor and the mass air flow sensor installed? And are the throttle bodies already pre-taped for use in the brake line?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

the ports are shaped like that. it's more like this (same concept)
O0O0O0
the "O" being the front cylinders and the "0" being the back.
staggering the runners should aid in the air flow to even it out across the cylinders, similar to the manifold on the car stock. it's got all those walls and what not to help out with even air flow, well, since i wont have room for all that (obviously), we'll just stagger them. like i said, since the port holes on the plenum at the connection to the manifold are the same size across the board, the longer runners should help equal it all out.
as for the sensors, yes, one has a TPS on it, and there is no MAF involved. the brake line will be tapped off of the manifold we are making, not the throttle bodies.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

heres another idea: why not hook up the TBs onto the lower intake manifold where all the runners are round? 
it would probably be in the way of several things, not to mention it probably wont fit under the stock hood, but at least at _that_ point vw has already done the engineering to make all the ports the same size. 
it seems like a lot of trouble trying to bolt the TBs directly to the head because of the 0()0()0() ordeal.....any thoughts?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*

yeah, it'd work really well i think doing it like that, but there is no way that is all fitting under the hood....
...i'm not trying to do anything like that black race car with those velocity stacks coming out the hood.
...i'm trying to drive this thing on a "daily basis"....meaning, i dont want to have it be a nice day out and turn crappy with rain and not be able to drive home cause i've got open ports to my cylinders sticking out of my hood...
....and a cowl induction style hood aint happening.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

what are you gonna do about the MAF or does the TPS take care of it when using stand alone?
Here is what i was planning to do, basically i would use a lower intake manifold similar to the vr's and because some of the intake ports are oval, the runners extending from those ports would start off being oval (starting from the head) and would eventually become round to attach correctly to the throttle body. In order to keep even flow, the use of airhorns would be require to ensure the the actual distance the air travles is uniform for each cylinder. Now although i have thrown around the idea of different throttle body sizes for speicific cylinders, this may add another varible which may act as a problem and not a solution. Again, this is where the airhorns come in to take care of things. I still have to figure out the correct size for the throttle bodies and possibly equal exhaust manifold to compliment the entire system. 
I will probably end up using the SDS system for management just because I have a budget, and it gets the job done.
I won't even begin to collect parts or start building my system until I have crunched a few numbers and talk to some people. But, until then here's my idea and everyone else, keep giving your input.


_Modified by stark22 at 3:44 AM 11-10-2004_


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_yeah, it'd work really well i think doing it like that, but there is no way that is all fitting under the hood....


yea i noticed that after i posted, even if they wrapped all the way up on top of the valve cover there is no way to fit six 40-42mm TBs in that area.

_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_
...i'm not trying to do anything like that black race car with those velocity stacks coming out the hood..

thats the race version, the street version fits under the hood like vento_garths setup, only his is a 24v http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_
....and a cowl induction style hood aint happening.

that was the other thing i was wondering about. which would be the better way to get airflow, a subaru style scoop or a v8 style cowl hood? thats a lil off topic, but ive always wondered this.....


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*

Ram air isnt a bad idea and a less turbulent air source is a good idea, this is why your airbox pulls are from the fender, generally.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_here's a pic of a manifold the same shop did for a local customer....similar to kevinmacd's setup, but different also...they are 750 throttle bodies....i may be upgrading to those for the higher air flow...


















how much does that cost to get made?


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*

ok I see what you guys are saying about the circle and oval
but mine is different than the above pictures because I am doing 3 oval and 3 round mine are exactly the same size and shape for all 6 as the lower intake where it meets the head
Don;t know if its easy to see in this picture


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2manvr6* »_
how much does that cost to get made?

that manifold would probably cost around $900 to get made now....
talk to Todd at RT Performance, he's the guy who did it.
http://www.rtperformanceparts.com
he's a super nice guy to work with and talk to. just mention the vr6 ITB manifold he did ....


_Modified by DCI VW at 9:52 PM 11-10-2004_


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

How do you plan to cover the intjector ports on the throttle bodies?
Oh and dont you need a MAF sensor?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

no, you dont need a maf sensor.
stand alone will read on the coolant temp, tps, and map....
the throttle bodies wont be positioned like kevin's...they are all going to be rotated 90* so that the throttle linkage will be located on the top of them, injector ports will be filled and smoothed, and new bosses will be machined and welded onto the short section of manifold....
....i've been thinking of the idea of doing two fuel rails to do all 6....position cylinder 1, 3, and 5 at a greater angle so that it can shoot the fuel more down the runner, vs. at the floor of the port somewhat like it is now...but we'll see about that.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

where is the MAP sensor gonna be located?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

wherever i want it to be located....same with the coolant temp and all the other sensors (except tps, that has it's obvious location)


----------



## jib.ninja (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_where is the MAP sensor gonna be located?

most people just thread it into one of the tb's


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (jib.ninja)*

if it's a GM style map though, it'll be flat with the plug and i just run a vacuum line to it.
i'm contemplating tapping all the runners and bringing them into one cylinder that runs along the head (like a fuel rail) and having my brake booster line come off of the end where it's able to collect a lot of vacuum, and then be able to tap it with smaller outlets for other lines...it would also help smooth out vacuum pulses so the map sensor wouldn't freek out...


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

i understand for the other sensors and what not...you probably already knew but the brake booster doesn't need nearly that much vaccuum, if that changes things for ya







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


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Mk2enthusiast)*

with SDS a map sensor is not necessary
I do not run one


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

When using SDS I know you have to install the magnets onto the crank and then mount the hall sensor to the block...what's the name of the company that has the mount for the hall sensor and doesnt the same company also make the crank with the holes already pre fabed for the magnets?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

you're thinking of the crank trigger magnets and the trigger sensor that you mount to the block, not the hall sensor (in some ways i guess it's a hall sensor, but typically, those are found in the distributors).
Ross Machine Racing or something like that makes a billet piece so you can bolt on the SDS trigger sensor, but it's for 4cyl only. as for installing magnets onto the crank, it's just the pulley. i dont know if that's what you meant, just want to clarify that.
there may be some SEM's out there that will/would/could utilize the factory Crank Position Sensor and wheel on the crank...but i know others can't due to the size of the "window" and how close it is/isn't....
if you are going to end up going through the trouble of mounting itb's to your vr6, have your machinist fab up something to hold your crank trigger sensor. wouldn't be hard at all.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

I thought I heard of a pulley that already had the holes pre-drilled to mount the magnets. If not, I guess Ill see what i can do.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

the bracket is pretty easy to make and the holes are on the block just need longer bolts as faras the pulley SDS recomends not suing the stock one because the rubber insert can cause flex and errors
I used a turn 2 one it worked great and its lightened!!


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

Ya, ill look into the turn2 crank pully.
Thanks.


----------



## TGC_1 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

How much power can you expect from a ITB'd VR6?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Stillflossin15)*

well, i made mention i want 300 and just about everybody and their mothers brother called me stupid, a wisher, insane, etc....i never said i wanted that at the wheels or crank...
....kevin is only shootin for 225...
....WRD is claiming 245 at the wheels with their vr car...and that's with a schrick manifold still "restricting" massive airflow...
so, i'm shooting for 300 w/ no power adders, however i can get it (wheels or at the crank). i'm walkin a walk that nobody else really has done...


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_well, i made mention i want 300 and just about everybody and their mothers brother called me stupid, a wisher, insane, etc....i never said i wanted that at the wheels or crank...
so, i'm shooting for 300 w/ no power adders, however i can get it (wheels or at the crank). i'm walkin a walk that nobody else really has done...

anthony dowds car is making just under 230 whp and he has done a lot of mods( ITBs, BVH, all the bolt ons, etc) to his car. the biggest limitation on his car right now is that he has nearly 200k on his stock block. im sure he isnt going crazy when he bores it out, so we'll see what a built 2.9 can make. i still dont beleive he is going to get another 30hp from boring it out. 
my goal since day one has been to have 100hp per liter, but that doesnt seem possible. id like to see someone prove me wrong, maybe its you, we'll find out...... good luck to you http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

i was going for 230 wheel!!
you let me know when you get to 300 cuz we will all be dead by then


----------



## DHill (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

Has anyone considered making a CAD design and having eMachine Shop make it? Just wondering.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DHill)*

i machined mine all myself by hand
im not nearly as good with cad as i am with my bridgeport!!


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_i was going for 230 wheel!!
you let me know when you get to 300 cuz we will all be dead by then

thanks for the support, *****. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif sorry i was 5hp off....jesus...
we'll see what happens, isn't gonna be a reality until next year sometime as all the sh*t i'm plannin on is expensive...
~$1,000 rods
~$800 pistons
~$1,000 machine work (if i'm lucky)
~$1,500 cylinder head
~~$500-$600 to fix cylinder head
~$500 on cams
~$1,000 manifold w/ itb's
~$800 on header and exhaust
~$1,600-$1,800 on managment (real managment)
that's just a quick list....
nobody can tell me its not possible because nobody has gone down the same road. anthony is probably closest, but he also is limited by a beat to sh*t block....
all the other higher hp n/a guys are using stock managment with chips and stock manifolds or the 2.9 (euro and diy) manifold...i just dont think those manifolds flow well enough to come close, hence the reason for the itb's...
with the right head work done, the right internals and some proper tuning....i honestly think i'll be close.
if i could only come into about $10k, i'd have it (the engine) done by spring time....


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DHill)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DHill* »_Has anyone considered making a CAD design and having eMachine Shop make it? Just wondering.









that's how mine is going to be done. out of one huge chunk of aluminum. if done properly (the drawing and ability of the machine), no welding should be needed.
worst case scenario is it is machined in a upper half and lower half and welded together in the middle.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_
nobody can tell me its not possible because nobody has gone down the same road. anthony is probably closest, but he also is limited by a beat to sh*t block....
all the other higher hp n/a guys are using stock managment with chips and stock manifolds or the 2.9 (euro and diy) manifold...i just dont think those manifolds flow well enough to come close, hence the reason for the itb's...
with the right head work done, the right internals and some proper tuning....i honestly think i'll be close.
if i could only come into about $10k, i'd have it (the engine) done by spring time....

i agree with you on several points. as far as anthonys car goes, i already pointed out that his block has almost 200k on it. if/when he does freshen the block, i doubt he will see another 30whp to get him into the 250whp area, if he does, awesome, if not, maybe you will. i truly believe this motor can achieve 100hp per liter with the right set-up and still be streetable.
why do u feel the need to get into the block. they can handle 400hp and i think we both know you wont be close to that. thats 2 grand that you can put towards the tranny, axles, and other accessories to handle that power. i really would like to see you make good power because you arent afraid to spend some money and do things your own way. thats a big http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif in my book.
BTW what cams are u plannin on using? i think youd probably want something in the 276-288 range? i dont think 268s will cut it, but we'll see.....


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_i'm walkin a walk that nobody else really has done...

Just curious, what do you mean nobody else has already done?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*

the same setup that i'm doing....
all the itb setups out there aren't on good motors....they aren't built to their full potential. they're either freshened up or have nothing done to them at all. or they are just for show...
that's what i'm talking about...
eiprich told me back in the day they saw like, 250-260 whp on one of their n/a vr6's....back before some of the technology that's out today. WRD is making 245 with a piggy back system and a 2.8L....
but nobody, from what i've seen or heard, with an ITB setup, has built a motor to go to the max. sure, their making power, but i honestly think they could make more if they go through the whole bottom end. and the people that have made serious power are still messing around with stock managment and manifolds that are just ported...i honestly believe that manifold is a big hang up on making n/a horsepower. i could be wrong, as i haven't had the time to go have one flow tested yet.
hell, paul made almost 200 n/a with a misfire and what seemed to be a horrible running car in general...and still almost pulled a 12 in the 1/4....


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*

I hear ya. 
I honestly feel that you could go a different route than what you are talking and still achieve the results. It is just that here are a few things on your list of things to do that just push the cost of the build up pretty high and really are not needed. That is just me, I say go for it...
I do like the fact that you have considered offset TB's, should be just about a 3.125" offset, that is the way to go. I say work out the 2 different throttle linkage issues and bark up that tree. Don't let the offset "airhorn" thing be misleading, to equal flow and be effective the offset has to after the TB.
What bore will your finished engine be?

_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_WRD is making 245 with a piggy back system and a 2.8L....

That motor was a 3.0L block, even still... I don't think they are making that kind of power with that car.




_Modified by billyVR6 at 4:36 PM 11-28-2004_


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*

i'll be at 3.0L when all is said and done. all bore.
didn't realize the WRD car was a 3.0L...even still, they are only running the schrick manifold with the unichip software i believe...
the only part on the list i mentioned that is questionable is the rods...i'm only contemplating them for the weight reduction i'll see with the pauter rods, or whatever brand i end up going with....i know shot peening and polishing my rods would make a world of difference in it's own....i may end just using my own rods, we'll see.


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_the only part on the list i mentioned that is questionable is the rods...i'm only contemplating them for the weight reduction i'll see with the pauter rods, or whatever brand i end up going with....i know shot peening and polishing my rods would make a world of difference in it's own....i may end just using my own rods, we'll see.

Yeah, that is one of the parts I would question. The weight reduction is a key factor for an all out race motor, the cost is pretty mean though. It also comes into a factor in an RPM range that the VR just doesn't like to go to. I would say do the stock rods unless a low budget lighter rod comes along from Eagle or Scat. Even if you happen to get the shift points in the low 7K area the stock rods will be fine. Like I said, more power to ya if you do chose to get the aftermarket rods...
The other thing was the engine management, a properly tuned and "good" piggy back system will be more than enough to dial in any all motor engine and costs so much less. Now if you are looking for a 2 step or something, that is a different story...

_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_didn't realize the WRD car was a 3.0L...even still, they are only running the schrick manifold with the unichip software i believe...

Yeah, only a VGi and Unichip... but even still those quarter mile results tell us the real story.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*

so your going for 300 on an unlimited budget?
Sad thing is i still don't think its possible
What sort of timetable you have for this?
I will be back up and running around mid march if the body shop stays on schedule with painting my bay
I should be finish the bodywork by x-mas
all the motor parts are ready 
rebuilt bottom end 0 miles
BVH 442 intake 38mm exhaust
mk4 headgasket
TT 288 cams
my ITBS and Manifold
SDS
autotech lightened flywheel 
trun2 pulley
peloquin
3.94 with taller 5th


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_so your going for 300 on an unlimited budget?
Sad thing is i still don't think its possible

I think will be possible since Bernd is getting 272whp as the engine sits right now. Yes, that is a 24v but it is still a VR6 engine. With getting the car dialed in a little more the with management over the winter I am sure will produce a bit more power. Also, figure that they are running the only Schrick cams you can get, as more grinds become available that will net more power as well. If the topic of streetable come into play, the engine is only 12.3:1 not that far of a cry from 11.5:1-12:1 ratios that have been proven streetable.
It really all just takes time, I think people are getting very close. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I am personally still just going to focus on getting my little 2.8L budget monster to where I want it to be. I just nailed down the last piece of the puzzle so I am pretty much ready to start working it all out so I can have it ready to go for the early races in March.
Man, I can't spell today.


_Modified by billyVR6 at 12:35 PM 11-29-2004_


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billyVR6* »_
It really all just takes time, I think people are getting very close. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I am personally still just going to focus on getting my little 2.8L budget monster to where I want it to be. I just nailed down the last piece of the puzzle so I am pretty much ready to start working it all out so I can have it ready to go for the early races in March.


i agree about it taking time to see the results, but i think the biggest hurdle that has kept the vr6 from showing its true potential is the lack of an aftermarket and no factory racing support. its still nice to see guys sticking to the 12v motor and pulling some really nice numbers out even when there is a better flowing motor waiting (the 24v). im personally waiting for the race shop to lead the way and ill follow their path. 
billy, ill be waiting for march as well. good luck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_so your going for 300 on an unlimited budget?
Sad thing is i still don't think its possible
What sort of timetable you have for this?


you can't rush perfection, son. maybe you'll learn that someday.







as obviously you have rushed other things in the past, and it shows...
thanks for the support billy...we'll see what happens, especially if i get the cylinder head i'm lookin at....basically what the race shop wants to do, but has already been done.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_
you can't rush perfection, son. maybe you'll learn that someday.







as obviously you have rushed other things in the past, and it shows...


what do you mean here?


----------



## Craige-O (Mar 1, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_


















I need a set of these ASAP!!!!
Where can I get um??


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (DCI VW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DCI VW* »_especially if i get the cylinder head i'm lookin at....basically what the race shop wants to do, but has already been done.









What does that mean?


----------



## eatthis (Nov 30, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*

i own an obd2 golf vr6 highline have around £1300 to spend and would LOVE itb's is it feasable for this money and has any1 got a kit yet thanks


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (eatthis)*

Check out grant motorsports in the UK...but plan on spending alot more money.


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

i made a model for you this weekend adam for your mani... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
so what if it was peanut butter and crushed up saltines, you can do it in CAD later








edit: its all about the budget


_Modified by Mk2enthusiast at 8:35 PM 12-3-2004_


----------



## Lum (Apr 12, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (billyVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billyVR6* »_
Yeah, that is one of the parts I would question. The weight reduction is a key factor for an all out race motor, the cost is pretty mean though. It also comes into a factor in an RPM range that the VR just doesn't like to go to. I would say do the stock rods unless a low budget lighter rod comes along from Eagle or Scat. Even if you happen to get the shift points in the low 7K area the stock rods will be fine. Like I said, more power to ya if you do chose to get the aftermarket rods...
The other thing was the engine management, a properly tuned and "good" piggy back system will be more than enough to dial in any all motor engine and costs so much less. Now if you are looking for a 2 step or something, that is a different story...
Yeah, only a VGi and Unichip... but even still those quarter mile results tell us the real story.









EIP makes some custom Titanium con rods, that are sure to be lighter than just about anything. http://www.eiptuning.com/eip/6cylinderrods.html
But for 2600 bucks, I'm not sure its worth it.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Lum)*

any updates on this?


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*

just talk to him actually, he gave me a formula for exhaust length on my 16v. ill let him know to update this..


----------



## chopWet (May 10, 2003)

okay when is somebody gonna be a old skool and put carbs on a VR6, imagine THAT sound...


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (chopWet)*

this guy gave some thought to it...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1816561


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*

I have read of a few methods for determining the proper throttle body size for the vr. As of now, I going to use 40mm throttle bodies for the setup. The projected plan is to build the throttle bodies myself. 
I am still undecided what to do about the radiator. I don't know if I want to drop the rad a few inches or just have the velocity stacks go over the rad and come out the hood.
As far as engine management, Grant motorsports has a loom that apparently can run off the stock inginition and plugs and all you have to do is hook up the given TPS to the throttle bodies. Off course this cost 1600 but is not that much more than the SDS (1200) with would require i new crank to mount the crank postion sensor.
As I stated earlier in the post, I won't be able to start building until summer when I have time.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (stark22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_
As far as engine management, Grant motorsports has a loom that apparently can run off the stock inginition and plugs and all you have to do is hook up the given TPS to the throttle bodies. Off course this cost 1600 but is not that much more than the SDS (1200) with would require i new crank to mount the crank postion sensor.
As I stated earlier in the post, I won't be able to start building until summer when I have time. 

What do you mean here about SDS
SDS is super easy
hence the name!


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_
What do you mean here about SDS
SDS is super easy
hence the name!

so is this...

_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_The projected plan is to build the throttle bodies myself.


----------



## havocsource (Feb 8, 2005)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*

what CFM does each cylinder require? thinking about carbs myself...
i have access to plenty of bike carbs, and could machine a rack and manifold, but need some numbers i havn't been able to find...


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (havocsource)*

I believe max cfm on the vr is around 280, if the head was perfectly efficient. Even if the vr would be able to flow this much I have read for any head, surpassing 300 cfm is not a good idea. I have read an equation that can determine proper throttle size given a specific cfm. But as I have discussed with others, there is no need to have a throttle body larger than your intake port. Imagine a funnel. The amount of water that comes out off the small end has no effect on the size off the larger end. (of course neglecting weight of the water) I crammed some numbers and apparently a 46mm would hav been appropriete for the vr, but given the stock dimenstions of a the intake ports and valve intake ports, I believe it is not necessary for this size. Then again, the only way to prove or disprove a system is to build and dyno. Ill post some equations for you next time im on. 

As for SDS, for an extra 400 I could get a loom from DTA that would fit all my current sensor, which sounds more appealing since a new crank would be about 300 anyways. It is just an idea. And nothing is ever simple when it comes to a car.
As for putting carbs on a vr...good luck.


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

45mm tb's can be had pretty easily they would prob work ok right?


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*

so whats the deal did you finish your ITB's yet or is this thread BS?


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_so whats the deal did you finish your ITB's yet or is this thread BS?


_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_
As I stated earlier in the post, I won't be able to start building until summer when I have time.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_so whats the deal did you finish your ITB's yet or is this thread BS?

This thread is not BS, it just takes time to build "The second VR6 on ITB's in the US."


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (stark22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_
This thread is not BS, it just takes time to build "The second VR6 on ITB's in the US."


There's already been two for a LONG time.


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
There's already been two for a LONG time.

tell kevinmacd that


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
There's already been two for a LONG time.


yeah i know. There are probably a few out there.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (stark22)*

i know there is two mine and anthony's!!!!


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*

I know Grant Motorsport is building at least 2 VR6 3 litre ITB engines for UK customers for this years show season. The two guys are well known in the U.K. and I'm sure their cars will get PVW magazine features. It sounds like one or two of you are thinking on going the ITB route which is good news, way too many forced induction motors in the US and not enough well tuned normally aspirated engines. Do the ITB's you will stand out at any show you roll up to.








On the topic of ITB size, Jenvey do off the shelf 45-42 tapered housings which would be suited to 12v or 24v applications.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (Vento_Gareth)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Vento_Gareth* »_I know Grant Motorsport is building ...ITB ... engines ... for this years show season. 

This is classic case of "why botherism." 
Anyway, there are plenty of US all motor cars that whoop it up. We make the power and run numbers. You don't need ITBs to do that.
Anyway.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

Concerning throttle body size:
If you were to imagine a funnel, no matter how much larger you make the large end of the funnel it will not effect how much water will be flowing out the small end. With this in mind, you do not need (in my opinion) to use a throttle body larger than the actual intake port. It is also important to keep the bodies as close as possible to the head. And to make sure the injector position is stock, or no greater than 20 degrees with respect to the intake port( I am goin to check that statement again to make sure im right).

As for the other BS:
Again, I am sharing my information and at the same time seeing others inputs on my ideas and there own. I am in no why intentionally trying to upset anyone. I hope my sarcasm was seen in the previous post as I do not care about winning awards, braggin rights, or any other BS that seems to be following this post. Lets just get back to discussing ITB's.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (stark22)*

You actually want the throat where the throttle valve sits bigger because the plate and rod for the throttle actually take up some port volume. Also you want a taper as you get closer to the head anyway to bring up velocity. Making the TB slightly bigger then the port isn't a bad idea at all as long as you don't oversize and have a nice, smooth transition.


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (stark22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_I believe max cfm on the vr is around 280, if the head was perfectly efficient. Even if the vr would be able to flow this much I have read for any head, surpassing 300 cfm is not a good idea... 

Running the calcs for the 2.8L using 85% vol eff, and 7k rpms I get about 294cfms (For NA u'll prolly be revving to 7.5krpms and get the 314cfms). Also that "benchmark" of 300cfms is actually 300ft/s, as introducing more cfms into the engine is _almost_ always a good idea (see forced induction...). Also, note that the 300ft/s "benchmark" can pose some problems and that most/alot of in-use, proven applications tend to be waaaaay below that (around 150 - 200ft/s), (i.e. use a larger throttle body than required to give the 300ft/s) as that "benchmark" assumes that the air flows directly into the cylinders right after the throttle body







(no manifold/head/valves







). 
In doing some research about short runner manifolds I wondered the same thing concerning the different length "in-head" runners. The best I could come up with is the fact that the opposing cylinders end up having long "in-head" exhaust runners, u end up balancing out the intake length differences. It obviously isn't ideal but to perfect your intake 'compensations' u'd have to compensate for the exhaust also otherwise you might actually end up w/ an unbalanced engine. Here's my ideas on something to consider (using equal length airhorns and runners):
1) Use as long of a runner as u can fit under there (a 420mm difference has less of an effect on something infinitely long). 
2) Use the larger 46mm throttle bodies (the taper from TB to head port should help smooth/speed up the air and the large TB size should make up for the low end shift in the powerband from the long runners. This'll also give u more freedom to play around w/ injector arrangement... (email for more ideas on injector arrangement...)
3) Move the radiator (down and fwd like mentioned in this thread) and stick the airhorns close behind the grill (appropriate water-ingestion protection required...). Also put a heat blanket under the runners to avoid heatsoak. U can also start playing w/ different cooling methods on the runners (your own custom ice to air intercooler on a NA... that actually works....)
4) Run Megasquirt 'n Spark (and be my lab rat...)
5) Consider putting some N2O nozzles (5 or 10hp custom fabbed jets...) in those long runners.... 
For economic/ease of engineering reasons I'd also p & p the lower intake manifold and adapt it somehow (cut? flange?)

P.S. 
For those who were asking, the formula for flow is Q = AV
where Q is volumetric flow in ft^3/min (cfm)
A is the cross sectional area in ft^2 (obviously there are conversions to be made). Remember u're tryna find diameter btw.
and V is the velocity in ft/s (great... more conversions







).
Also consider flow loss in your calcs (throttle plate, bends in intake tract, valves, etc).
Hope I've helped _somebody_. If not. Shoot me.
Kurt


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (bettonracing)*

where's my gun at....
i hated math even though i was always a year ahead....


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (Duff Man)*

For calculating CFM I used a lower rpm i believe i use 6800 or maybe lower...basically the stock redline. But yes I agree that using a NA motor would probably see higher revs ie CFM increases.
I was under the impression that surpassing 300ft/s is a bad idea, as stated by corky bell, for NA motors. I also played with some numbers and I determined that 46 mm throttle bodies are an appropriate size. However, givin the restrictions of the manifold dimensions and the size of the engine bay, it would be difficult to arrange such a large body so close to the the head. It should be noted that the throttle plate should be as close to the head as possible. To use the 46 mm and have an appropriate taper to the head, they would have to be a considerable distance from the head, which would have an adverse affect. Also given the constraints of the engine compartment as well. Using throttle bodies the same size as the intake runner of the stock lower intake manifold, i feel, should suffice as an appropriate diameter (36 and 38 mm). 
And yes for keeping even flow through, varying the lengh of velocity stacks are needed. The stock intake length is 420 mm and I think for similar characteristics as the stock motor having each intake length 420 would probably have similar hp and torgue curves in appearance, but the actual numbers of the ITB's will be produce higher values. Of course hp curve would be better up top as the engine can flow more air. With this said, if your building "top end" engine, shorter intake length would be appropriate (pressure waves in a pipe come in play) to produce better top end flow and thus power.
In my case, i will remove the radiator fans completly to free up some space and will be lowering the radiator to make for room for the velocity stacks. Ill probably just weld up some new brackets to support the rad.
For the fuel injectors, they should be spraying into the the intake at a specific angle which should be directed at the top of the intake and should not exceed an angle of 20 degrees with respect to the runner (Let me double check that info).
I will be building my set off the lower intake manifold. Where the setup can be bolted on directly to the existing lower mani( That is the plan as off now)
As to using megasuirt....I have looked at it and did consider it for controlling only the fuel injection. For the price it could be a good idea.

Kurt,
Please correct anything I have stated concerning fluid theory and other such topics as I do not want to mislead anyone...




_Modified by stark22 at 10:07 PM 3-24-2005_


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (stark22)*

Sorry about the long delay...
I know 3 ppl who drive daily w/ 7500rpm (or 7200? above 7000) chips on stock engines (1 w/ heavy duty vsprings and drives WOT all day) so I'm guessing that w/ a built motor (u _*are*_ gonna get HD vsprings, right







...) u should see _atleast_ 7200 w/ no prob. Plus w/ the ITB's it'll sound sweet up there too.
U are correct about the 300ft/s mark but that is an upper limit for airspeed (i.e. do not go w/ a diameter small enough to cause air to go faster than 300ft/s). However, from what I've seen (and calculated from other ppl's cars), they tend to go w/ air speed ranging b/t 150ft/s to 250ft/s. esp on high hp cars (upper range power vs low end torque). But I don't see where we're disagreeing on this. I just think I worded myself 'strangely' so this is just for clarification. Just so we're on the same page, a larger diameter = slower velocity and vice versa. 
I ran some calcs too and I'm getting an "ideal" throttle body size in the 20mm to 30mm range (need to recheck) but these calculations (using Q = VA) assume there is no head loss (air friction coefficient and 'pumping losses') between the throttle body and the head. Using a head loss factor (again from personal experiences and avg'ing) of 1.75 should drop u in the ball park. It drops me at exactly 44mm (7200rpm redline, 85% VE, ~ 200ft/s Vel) which is right where u were before. I'm using other assumptions too and was just curious as to what formulas u used to get the 46mm TB's (and I wanna double check mine too







).

_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_ It should be noted that the throttle plate should be as close to the head as possible. 

I've seen ITB installations using the TB's up to 25" away and others inbetween w/ no major ill effect other than an *assumed*
loss in response (this was a 300hp 9500rpm race motor so it was really unnoticable but from a Vel = Distance/ time perspective, we assumed some loss). I can see harmonics being a 'factor' but too small of a factor to really affect the engine performance over all. I think the broader torque range gained outweighs the 'harmonic differences'. However, shopping around (and even looking at stock ITB's) will show a trend towards bringing them (throttle plates) closer to the head. Simultaneously, I haven't seen any more applications using a 'odd runner' head like the VR6...

_Quote, originally posted by *stark22* »_ The stock intake length is 420 mm and I think for similar characteristics as the stock motor having each intake length 420 would probably have similar hp and torgue curves in appearance, but the actual numbers of the ITB's will be produce higher values...

*Slaps forehead*
Two words come to mind when I think of stock: Compromise & Compromise. (Ferrari being an exception in most cases http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ). Your engine doesn't seem like u're building it w/ compromise in mind (to an extent). Please (<- clasped hands, teeth showing) don't build your engine based on 'stock characteristics' ( + ITB advantage). There's so much more to be had. U're on the right track. Don't throw it all away trying to get 'stock characteristics' (+...). 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif on the radiator relocation
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif on the adaptation of the lower intake. For the home hobbyist I don't think it can be beat (vr6 situation...). Now add in the longer runners and throw in some staged injectors and slap an extra MS (speed density) on there and voila! perfect emmisions, perfect gas mileage and perfect power!... 
*crickets chirping*
...Did I mention I have a tendency to get drunk w/ my ideas?...








I still the moviong the throttle plates outboard will end up being an easier/ more beneficial setup. I say do it so we have something to measure up against the existing ITB VR6's (the shape of the curve, not the ultimate output) and u can always use silicone hoses and use diff length runners (post throttle plate) and see some dyno #'s and feel the diff in response. And u can always still adapt varying length airhorns once u shorten the runners. Last but not least, it'll give u the space to run taper from the 46mm's to the head.
Now look into the eyes until u get sleepy







































































*Subliminal message attached: B_E _M_Y_ G_UI_N_EA_ P_I_G*
Kurt



_Modified by bettonracing at 10:10 AM 3-28-2005_


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (bettonracing)*

When I was refering to "stock characteristics" I was meaning that the motor having similar intake runner lengths to stock will produce the power at the rpms that compliment the stock cams, timing, bore, stroke, stock lifters, stock head dimenstions blah blah blah...
My mind is probably going faster than I can type, but what I was thinking was; not to create power for the motor at high rpm's when the motor is already designed for producing max numbers at specific rpms. I don't have the extra the money to change out the cams and do other well needed things to create a higher reving motor for a hp at higher rmps. Therefore having the runner lengths similar to stock length I though would be the better idea.
Does that make sense or is my idea still confusing or just plain wrong?


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (stark22)*

I hate the frikkin finance dept.







Always ruining the fun. 
Ok. Please inform me of the expected engine work (mainly head but interested in shortblock too). I might have some more crazy ideas fer ya...
<insert evil sinister laugh here>


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (bettonracing)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bettonracing* »_*Subliminal message attached: B_E _M_Y_ G_UI_N_EA_ P_I_G*
Kurt


id love to be the guinea pig, except im in cali.......


----------



## chopWet (May 10, 2003)

So why is no one doing a 3.1 VR6 on ITBs, surely the extra capacity will help get a few more horses, or does this weaken the block too much?


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (chopWet)*

I would love to....but im not rich.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (chopWet)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chopWet* »_So why is no one doing a 3.1 VR6 on ITBs, surely the extra capacity will help get a few more horses, or does this weaken the block too much?


you can always set up ITBs on a 2.8 and once its all running an you need more power, _then_ u go with the 3.1








edit: now that i think of it, i think that is exactly where anthony dowd is basically at with his 12v gti, but his block is just tired and deserves some 85mm pistons....


_Modified by 2manvr6 at 12:39 AM 3-30-2005_


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (2manvr6)*

I just read something interesting: This one source states that individual throttle bodies can restrict flow. Basically what is saying is; imagine that a throttle body for a cylinder can flow 330 max cfm. Now that cylinder is restricted to flow only that amount. Now if the that cylinder was allowed to recieve air from the other throttle bodies it would have a max flow of 1980 cfm (6 cylinder, so 6 throttle bodies). Now what interest me, on the grantmotosport ITB setup, it appears that they have 6 throttle bodies attached to a rectangular box which is then attached to the intake runners. (search for 95glx for a pic). Now discussing having 6 itbs attached to a rectangular box, then have the intake runners feed off this box does not sound like a good idea. Going from a circular cross section, to square, to circular could cause a great deal of turbulence and the car is no longer an ITB.
Discuss.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (stark22)*

so dont make it a box, make it a tube with venturi's .... 
that does make sense though.....i think you'd still get somewhat of the desired effect of it all and you wouldn't be limiting the cylinders indivdually...not to mention it'd be a lot easier to set it up vs individual runners straight to the throttle bodies.
what if you were to do indivdual runners, but connect them all with a tube down the center...kind of splitting them up, but you aren't breaking up the runner with a box/tube, you are just able to pull air from one runner to another when/where needed.....?


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (Duff Man)*

are you suggesting maybe a tapered, log style manifold, tied to the throttle bodies??


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*

i believe thats how Garrets is on his 24V!


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_i believe thats how Garrets is on his 24V!


Yeah, if you look at Garrets 24v, all his intake runners tie into a common, I guess you could call it a log manifold, area. Then six throttle bodies are fix to that.
Although I have been informed that this particular setup is bad, there really aren't that many people who have tried both and tested it. I probably will stick with the individual throttle body setup but will increase the size of the body to prevent the intake side from being the restrictor in the system.
But if anyone has other input, the log style manifold setup would be much easier to frabricate.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (stark22)*

i'm going to try the log style setup and see what happens...once i get my bills sorted out and i'm at my new house permanetly, i'm going to start on at least the manifold portion of the project...


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Duff Man)*

I dunno guys... From a standpoint of giving the cylinder an "infinite plenum" to draw from, I can see this design being more efficient than having individual throttle bodies. On the other hand, I highly doubt that there's more than 1% VE to be gained from this (of course this is my opinion as I haven't tested it...). Basically giving the cylinder more throttle bodies to draw from can only increase cyl pressure by increasing the VE. I think this advantage (increased VE) of the plenum actually might eat itself... Here's why:
At the instant the valves open and the cyl starts drawing air, the air rushes in thru all the throttle bodies simultaneously, all of which obviously don't have a straight path the the target cylinder. This curved path the air now has to take creates turbulence (prolly very small but still is there). Also, there's the time lag of the air trying to "fill" the plenum before actually heading towards the cylinders (of course it doesn't completely fill it...). This outward motion (of "filling" the plenum) also slows the air and creates slight turbulence. 
Now think of the instant that the target cylinder's valve closes and another opens and the air has to redirect itself towards another cylinder (see firing order). More turbulence, more velocity reduction. Of course all this introduced turbulence is way too small to notice and obviously works in a single throttle body application so it's still driveable and can still make good power.
My point then? u lose a little of the increased throttle response from the ITB's, u lose slight VE (when compared to ideal conditions: 6 ITB'S per cylinder [straight shot]) and u'll prolly lose some of the ITB sound (of course different sizes w/ produce diff sounds, some louder, some quieter but that's another convo...).
Additionally, the benchmark I'd use to say it prolly isn't 'sound engineering' is that I'm yet to see a factory setup (stock and race) using ITB's w/ a plenum. I know new stuff comes out everyday but I would expect that for somethng that easy (w/ no apparent side effects other than the aforementioned and maybe a few more anybody can think of? cost shouldn't be that much higher, relatively easy to fabricate), somebody (manufacturer) would have developed something atleast similar. Using this logic (which isn't perfec logic), I'd say the disadv's outweigh the adv's. Please inform me of any other setups w/ the plenum that I missed during my searches.
After all that, I can't really argue w/ the ease of fabrication... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I say build the one I was describing earlier and use "design intent" (ability to change 'object' b/t TB's and lower manifold) to allow testing w/ long runners, short runners, _and_ plenums. I'm sure if u volunteer for testing, some ppl would put up some money for dyno testing (me included) or u might even find a shop willing to allow dyno testing cause they'll benefit too (obv shops interested in ITB's w/ the dyno would be a better bet...)
I'll pay for 1 dyno run if u get more area under the curve &/or peak power w/ the plenum than w/ my preferred long runner setup and the 46mm's














(Max redline for wager: 8000rpms)
Keep us posted. 
Kurt


_Modified by bettonracing at 11:22 AM 4-1-2005_


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (bettonracing)*

not positive, but i think the e30 is designed that way. good power regardless.








heres the link to the full size pic....
http://www.s14.ctmnet.de/0192/04.jpg


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*

Isn't that plenum "pre-throttle plate"?...







I thot we were talking about "post-throttle plate".


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (bettonracing)*

sorry, didn't mean to confuse


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

*Re: (stark22)*



stark22 said:


> Yeah, if you look at Garrets 24v, all his intake runners tie into a common, I guess you could call it a log manifold, area. Then six throttle bodies are fix to that.QUOTE]
> Log manifold area? By Jenvey throttle bodies are bolted straight to the head (see photo), there is no extra manifold
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Vento_Gareth)*

Hey stark22. I was browsing thru my fav's list and came across some sites that may be of interest to u:
http://www.newcovenant.com/spe...e.htm
<mainly based on regular intake manifolds but still useful>
http://www.not2fast.com/gasflo...t.htm
<see towards the end. Talks about ITB plenums IIRC>
Vento G: Don't get me started on turbos... That's where my heart lies...
*looks around nervously for girlfriend*
But some ppl see boosted engines almost like 'cheating' (I personally see unturboed engines as incomplete, F1 and Funny car <sc'ed> included) and powerful NA engines are given a 'honorable' kind of respect by some. And then there's the eargasmic sound they give off (esp hi comp ratio w/ ITB's)... 
Personally, I'm just considering one of them (NA eng) to take off the lo-rpm load from my real engine and get that fat bastard of a turbo spooled... <see http://www.durocco.com if prev statement is unclear. Not mine, but an example of what I'm considering>
All that said and done, it's your (whoever) car, your money. I can give u my _opinions_ and/or _recommendations_ based on my preferences. 
Kurt

P.S. Why do my posts always end up longer than planned?











_Modified by bettonracing at 4:57 AM 4-7-2005_


----------



## DHill (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (bettonracing)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bettonracing* »_
http://www.not2fast.com/gasflo...t.htm
<see towards the end. Talks about ITB plenums IIRC>


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


----------



## monster007 (Feb 27, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (stark22)*

Sorry did not read every thing. but did make an intake for a VR using twin plenums, the runners were measured from the valve. worked great.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (monster007)*


_Quote, originally posted by *monster007* »_Sorry did not read every thing. but did make an intake for a VR using twin plenums, the runners were measured from the valve. worked great.

post some pics, im curious.... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## dohc (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2manvr6)*

There's alot of hokey math going on, on page 3















I don't know where you guys get your information.
The only real useful information in this whole thread is what was provided by kevin and the two links above. The rest of this thread is full of optimistic assumptions.


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (dohc)*

Please educate us oh wise one.... 
(These forums are also filled w/ pessimistic presumptions...)


_Modified by bettonracing at 7:08 AM 4-28-2005_


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

yes this thread is full of BS
especially the people that claim to be making a set when they get time!!!


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

Please can we keep this informative?
I'm asking nicely.


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

you might be able to question the mathematics when you graduate from rutgers with an engineering degree









you're adding the bull****, the theories are legit http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Mk2enthusiast)*

*sigh* 
Please inform us of our errors and help us come to a <neutral> conclusion.
And please feel free to add any thoeries u might see applicable


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_yes this thread is full of BS
especially the people that claim to be making a set when they get time!!!

Not worth it.


----------



## dohc (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Mk2enthusiast)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mk2enthusiast* »_you might be able to question the mathematics when you graduate from rutgers with an engineering degree









you're adding the bull****, the theories are legit http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

OK, I already have a mechanical engineering degree. The theories are even hokey.
When I get some time I will give my two cents. Don't take things so personally, they weren't ment to be.
After ready through the other posts more carefully (I skimmed the first time), I will say my first statement might have been a bit harsh, but there still needs to be some corrections.


_Modified by dohc at 12:19 PM 5-2-2005_


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (dohc)*

HAs anyone thought about using CB Performance throttle bodies on toop of the Valve cover? 
These:
http://www.cbperformance.com/c...D=412
And then fabbing a manifold to sit 3 of them on top of the engine. With the longer runners, you would gain torque?? 
Just an idea.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

not everybody likes to whip something together half assed just to say they were the first to do it....
i'm just sayin...


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

C'mon guys.... keep it above the belt....


_Quote, originally posted by *Shurls* »_Has anyone thought about using CB Performance throttle bodies on top of the Valve cover? 
These:
http://www.cbperformance.com/c...D=412
And then fabbing a manifold to sit 3 of them on top of the engine. With the longer runners, you would gain torque?? 
Just an idea. 

Can u explain a bit more please. I'm not exactly following the setup. more specifically where are u suggesting to place the throttle plates (relative to the int manifold flange) and do u mean a 'U-bend' to place the 'trumpets' (or equivalent) on top of the valve cover? If so (i.e. U-bend), am I correct in assuming the 'trumpets' would be facing opposite to the direction of vehicle motion? (Not bashing the idea when referring to reverse direction. Leslie Durst (?) actually uses some odd-ball setup like this in her NA honda drag car [darn reverse rotation honda engines!







] but they grab air by the windshield base [think reverse cowl]... speaking of which, all who're looking for an intelligent aerodynamics discussion regarding reverse hood cowls, please email me as there is no appropriate forum here on vortex. We can come to an agreement of where to put the discussion so it can be "critiqued" by the masses...







).
Lemme know.



_Modified by bettonracing at 4:24 PM 5-4-2005_


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

What I was saying is place the 3 CB preformance throttle bodies directly over the valve cover and U-band the intake runners to the units. You could even employ a log style so the manifold would be balanced and everything should still fit under the hood. You wouldn't have to relocate the radiator at all. Maybe even fab up a airbox and use a blow through turbo system? Basically when you open the hood the 3 throttle body assemblies would be right there smack dab on top of the motor.


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

Gotcha http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif.
Immediately, heat soak comes to mind but that can be fabbed around (wrap/shield/coating/etc). I'd originally be against turning the intake inlets the opposite direction to vehicle motion (just seems counter-intuitive), but w/ the appropriate "cold air induction" (maybe somehow do a unnoticable reverse cowl?







) it could also be fabbed around. 
btw, how much roof clearance are we looking at here?


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

Should be just enough. I am using my MKIV for reference. I think if someone did it with a very slight cowl hood it would look OK. Plus you would have the cold air style induction. If you plumbed the fuel injectors off of the stock lower intake mani, and plugged the ones on the TB's, then you would eliviate fuel puddle problems, but how would that effect tuning having the throttle blades that far from the injectors? I have never done this, I was just following the thread and pondering this idea. It may be completely untunable but..... its just an idea. Plus if you polished out the units and valve cover it would look prety cool. Also if you made a shared manifold and just used 2 dual TB's, but 50mm each, that would still be better than the stock TB


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

The distance of the throttle plate from the injector shouldn't be a problem. If u were referring to the distance of the throttle plates from the cyl head, my 'args' state that the distance from the head makes a difference in throttle response but when compared to a single throttle body + plenum setup, is not noticable. However, the setups I'm referring to had straight runners (intuitively, the U bend shouldn't make _that_ much of a diff. once there's a large enuff bend radius but I'm sure somebody w/ a engineering degree can use some Reynold's Transport/Bernoulli's eq/Force vectors to refute that the force vectors from the bend cause an x+dx amount of head loss...







). 
I wouldn't worry about "tunability" of the setup cause once it's tuned, u _shouldn't_ have to touch it again. 


_Modified by bettonracing at 5:52 PM 5-4-2005_


----------



## vwmk1gti (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

I like the idea of the throttle bodies on the top of the valve cover. The heat soak is a problem but it would make things easier. You wouldn't have to move the rad and there would be room for different size trumpets. A cowl hood would work I wonder if a subaru style hood scoop could work blowing cold air down on the valve cover.


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (vwmk1gti)*

This would be way cool if some one did it. I just don't have anything close to the funds needed to try.


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

I think a "vortex group project" would be appropriate....
I'd pool in some resources and time. Anybody else willing? 
Stark22 and Duffman are two prospects for test mules (please excuse the attempt to be humble... i.e. "mules"). Are they willing? Kevin, u willing to try new setups (existing setup to compare against so don't jump me)?

If I was gonna invest, I'd prefer to see something setup w/ a design intent of being able to try the aforementioned theories. long runner, short runner, different TB sizes, same TB sizes, trumpets... etc. That way I can have emperical data to record and the owner can get the best setup of the lot.
[email protected]
Please don't post "me me me!!!". If u're seriously interested and are willing enough to put fwd resources (cough-$$-cough) and time (not your daily driver unless u can pedal like Lance Armstrong). Please email me and I'll try coordinate and I'll try coordinate all interested (new post?).


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

I have a friend who does all my CNC work and he is really advanced at Master Cam. I will let him know my idea and maybe he can program something. Does anyone have the files for the stock VW Manifold? I can get the file from CB Performance, or just use my side drafts as a base for measurements.


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

I'm still awaiting correction (or intelligent discussion) for my 'hokey math and theories'...

P.S. the responses to my 'group project' proposal have been overwhelming...







as was expected...


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*

I had flanges cut for the manifold, I am now in the process of sourcing some sculpter's wax to carve a mold, Then I was planning on taking this to my old high schools foundry class. I don't know how well it will work but this may be the easiest way to do it. If I made the thing on a CNC it would need to be 3 pieces and the machine time is way to expensive.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Shurls)*

why not just fab it all individually and then tig weld or have it welded?


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (kevinmacd)*

I think it would be easier to make a casting. This way duplicates can be made extremely easy. If I go through all the hassle of making one, I want to make a few and get my time invested paid for.


----------



## asmith18 (Apr 12, 2004)

what is the price for a setp of this nature & no i have not read all 5 pages of this thread to find out


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: (asmith18)*

I scrapped the project. I am too busy builing my caddy right know. Not to mention I found a hook up on a turbo so I may go that route.


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (Shurls)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Shurls* »_I scrapped the project. I am too busy builing my caddy right know. Not to mention *I found a hook up on a turbo so I may go that route*. 









looks like mac-diesel is still the first and only vr6 on ITBs in the US







anyone know if he has finished his new setup?


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (2manvr6)*

I did finish my new motor back in april Ihave put almost 1000 miles on it so hopefully the next couple weeks i will get the final tune and dyno done!!!


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_I did finish my new motor back in april. I have put almost 1000 miles on it so hopefully the next couple weeks i will get the final tune and dyno done!!!

 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ill be waiting for a dyno sheet


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (2manvr6)*

ok!!!


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*

what's diff in the new setup? from your seat-of-the-pants evaluation, does it feel any different? how so? pics? (if there's an appropriate link for all this info, could u please link it)
and hurry up and get to the dyno! *bangs table*


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (bettonracing)*

KevinMacDizzle
apparently you have some carbs on that vr??? at least thats what the latest eurotuner says in the caption


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mk2enthusiast* »_KevinMacDizzle
apparently you have some carbs on that vr??? at least thats what the latest eurotuner says in the caption
















really?
there is a pic in the new eurotuner? the one with Franks car on the cover?
As for the new motor its a 2.8 bottom end
P&P BVH with 42mm intakes and 38mm exhaust
schrick valve springs
Schrick 276 cams








Mk4 HG
ARP studs
Ported OBX header
Defintely feels a hell of alot stronger and it pulls for days!!!
Schrick makes a hell of a cam


----------



## bettonracing (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*

great... Now I'm all geeked up about ITB VR6's again...
Ok. What's your idle like? Do u feel a 'surge' at any rpm? How's low rpm in 5th gear? Does it pop and bang on deceleration (if not then make it)? When can we get some video/audio clips? And have you made your dyno appointment? Don't make me have to come up there and drag u there!!! (no pun intended) *wags fist*


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_Schrick 276 cams









Beware of the front one


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
Beware of the front one









i had a feeling u would show up with that comment!!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*

Someone had to say it, had to be me. You're just lucky I didn't whip out the pic!


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

Come on lay it on us for old times!!!!


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: (2manvr6)*

Not true as there was another set at Show N Go last year with Kevin on a MK3 VR6 Cabrio.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_Come on lay it on us for old times!!!!


----------



## jib.ninja (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*
















wow, how did that happen?
Im suprised at how weak cams can be. I had that happen to my old turbo diesel. I had the cam out, dropped it from 1" onto a towel on my workbench and it cracked clean in two... nuts


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (jib.ninja)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jib.ninja* »_ wow, how did that happen?

Best I can tell is a flaw in the casting combined with the aggressive grind on these buggers. Only 3200mi on the camset too. **** breaks.


----------



## Shurls (Jan 25, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

You should contact the supplier as Schrick will replace that camshaft. Did you have the cam journals align bored? Maybe the head was a little out of round?


----------



## jib.ninja (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: (Shurls)*

wow, I thought those were your stockers and you upgraded when it broke...
something seems kinda wack, like all the caps weren't torqued the same or something... running a bit more lift shouldn't do that... that or a manufacturing defect.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (Shurls)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Shurls* »_You should contact the supplier as Schrick will replace that camshaft. Did you have the cam journals align bored? Maybe the head was a little out of round? 


That's funny because they won't replace it. I didn't have the journals align bored until I had to get bearings installed in the head to fix it after the cam broke. The head was 100% OK came straight from CCH, double checked before install, and ran for 3200 miles. Believe me, it wasn't the head causing anything, it was a **** cam, it happens.
All the cam caps were torqued properly, even double checked them all with the wrench after I took them off. Everything was at torque. It was a mfg defect.


----------



## apples33d (Dec 22, 2002)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Duff Man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Duff Man* »_the ports are shaped like that. it's more like this (same concept)
O0O0O0
the "O" being the front cylinders and the "0" being the back.
staggering the runners should aid in the air flow to even it out across the cylinders.
as for the sensors, yes, one has a TPS on it, and there is no MAF involved. the brake line will be tapped off of the manifold we are making, not the throttle bodies.

staggered how?
O O O | i | i | i
0 0 0 or 
will you be able to run a MAP sensor from the manifold you make?,
if there is only one inlet to the manifold you make why not run MAF?
fuel maps based on tps and rpm?


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_









i think its just another flaw in the original 12v design. that plus the crazy motor that paul built and the motor will go bye bye.... just like paul said, **** breaks, especially when u drive it like you stole it.... my motor is nowhere as crazy as pauls but ive broken a lot of stuff too ,which reminds me i need to talk to b&m


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_Schrick 276 cams








Mk4 HG


It is a valve bending extravaganza.








Check your clearances, watch how you rev the engine when the oil temps are cold and the lifters are pumped up.
- billy


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (billyVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billyVR6* »_
It is a valve bending extravaganza.








Check your clearances, watch how you rev the engine when the oil temps are cold and the lifters are pumped up.
- billy


i told you!!!
anyways ITBs are so late 90s.


----------



## stark22 (Feb 22, 2002)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*

Hey guys Im sellin the vr...good luck to all building itbs.


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

Does this mean that the Grant Motorsport kit with DTA management is still the only kit for sale world wide that actually works on the VR6 and 24v?


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (Vento_Gareth)*

sounds like it! its either those or make your own


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (kevinmacd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevinmacd* »_sounds like it! its either those or make your own

still no #s mac?


----------



## 2manvr6 (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: (2manvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2manvr6* »_
still no #s mac?

i guess its for show........


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (2manvr6)*

I heard there was an ITB'd VR6 going pretty quick at Waterfest.


----------



## dohc (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (bettonracing)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bettonracing* »_I'm still awaiting correction (or intelligent discussion) for my 'hokey math and theories'...

P.S. the responses to my 'group project' proposal have been overwhelming...







as was expected...

WOW, its been awhile since I posted that. Sorry for the delay, but I just haven't had time to post till now. I haven't been on the tex for awhile.
I'll have to read through the whole thread again, I just don't remember any of it








needavr6, your cam must have been dropped or hit during shipping. That just shouldn't happen to healthy metal. Damn UPS








I had a friend that worked for UPS, you wouldn't believe the stories he told me


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (dohc)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dohc* »_needavr6, your cam must have been dropped or hit during shipping. That just shouldn't happen to healthy metal. Damn UPS










If it was dropped, it was done so in 1995 and in the original beefy Schrick packaging. Otherwise I know exactly where it's been and how it was treated. Generally 'dropped' cams are a little bent and bind in the cam bearing bores. This one didn't.


----------



## ThatGuy (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (need_a_VR6)*

lots of reading, but not many answers, i will talk to some people


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (ThatGuy)*

after a state to state move and having to sell a ton of parts...top that off w/ the machinist that was going to help me w/ my manifold basically taking a hike on me and dumping my parts at my feet before i moved, i've scraped this project as well...
i'm building my gti w/ an ITB'd 16v and making my jetta nice to drive, then i'm done with cars for a while.
it's time to move onto a house, something that will make me money in the long run...i'm gettin burned out on cars...


----------



## ThatGuy (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (Duff Man)*

maybe i'll buy another VGI, or maybe either buy ITB's or make em, i dunno


----------



## 2.8 MK3 (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (ThatGuy)*

just a question why would you want to junk the fuel infection and fit ITB's when they will be heavier on fuel and i dont know how much power for the price you have paid. why not go FI.


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: VR6 ITB ?'s (2.8 MK3)*

it's the search for power w/o help, basically...some people see going FI as "cheating"...


----------



## TLB (Feb 2, 2005)

how about ITBs on a 2.0 16v? how hard/how expensive
i've heard it's not near as complicated as with the vr6 as the block doesn't have staggered cylinders, is it a tough operation?


----------



## subrosasix (Jul 30, 2005)

*Re: (TLB)*

omg tons of reading and no specific numbers.

mk4hg + 276's you must not see 7k at all.


----------



## kevinmacd (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: (subrosasix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *subrosasix* »_mk4hg + 276's you must not see 7k at all.

why do u say that?


----------



## Duff Man (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (TLB)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TLB* »_how about ITBs on a 2.0 16v? how hard/how expensive
i've heard it's not near as complicated as with the vr6 as the block doesn't have staggered cylinders, is it a tough operation?

i did a set in 3 days of work, and that's working on it AFTER work each day....probably just a couple hundred bucks into it total...


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (Duff Man)*

any updates on this?


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fourthchirpin* »_any updates on this? 

he still has the car in the same condition. He's still in college and interning with Formula Mazda this summer consulting aerodynamics. 
he has been researching in his spare time but doesn't plan on bringing it together until he's finished school and gets free time. his main focus as of recent is working on a formula one team.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mk2enthusiast* »_
he still has the car in the same condition. He's still in college and interning with Formula Mazda this summer consulting aerodynamics. 
he has been researching in his spare time but doesn't plan on bringing it together until he's finished school and gets free time. his main focus as of recent is working on a formula one team.









it's funny because, iam just about to graduate and ive been researching hard on this. I may just attempt, I just need to know lil things.


----------



## Mk2enthusiast (Oct 14, 2001)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

if you like i can put you in touch with him, he's never on a computer anymore but i speak to him frequently


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (Mk2enthusiast)*

u really wouldn't mind that. thanks alot. i pm'ed u and sent ya email.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

does anybody have that pic of the manifold that was in the pics in this thread. apparently it's not hosted any more. if not it's not a problem.


----------

