# G60 boost return



## tklies (Apr 5, 2007)

Just wanted to know what are the benefits of removing the boost return? Also, besides the block plate on the charger what else needs to be done?


----------



## g60301 (Aug 5, 2011)

No benifits beside having one less pipe in your car. It will sound like it has a bov, however the boost return does have oil vapors from the pcv that lubricates the apex strips in the g lader. If your going to remove the boost return I suggest you get a catch can.


----------



## weejunGL (Feb 2, 2005)

it will get an obnoxious sound aswell..

it will always make a loud blowing sound when you are cruising..

some might like that noise, i think its pretty gay

tried it on my golf one day.. removed it


----------



## V-TEC this!!! (May 4, 2003)

It will also coat everything underneath the throttle body with a nice thick layer of oil and dirt, I mean everything axle, subframe, steering rack, engine block, part of the tranny and the fire wall.


----------



## tklies (Apr 5, 2007)

Based on all your input I'm going to just leave my boost return on.  Thanks for the help.


----------



## crazynorweegian (May 8, 2006)

tklies said:


> Based on all your input I'm going to just leave my boost return on.  Thanks for the help.


I would too. There is a mod that replaces it with a braided steel line which looks interesting.


----------



## g60301 (Aug 5, 2011)

crazynorweegian said:


> I would too. There is a mod that replaces it with a braided steel line which looks interesting.


Hmm haven't seen that yet. Pic?


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

[/URL]
[/IMG]

This is my underhood:
benefits:
- BOV sound
- lower temperatre on G60 inlet
- double inlet
- one pipe less

obections:
- no oil vapor (I won't call it weakness)

Tbh I'm lubricating G60 with PFTE spray every 500km, and "G" is working perfectly.


----------



## crazynorweegian (May 8, 2006)

You lost me at BOV sound.


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

crazynorweegian said:


> You lost me at BOV sound.



Your plug leads are crazy long.


----------



## etta gli (Sep 5, 2011)

increases boost at partial throttle, increases boost lost between gear shifts. Slams a lot of air against a closed throttle body instead of recirculating it to the supercharger. 

Stops circulation of valve cover breather into the charger, which contains vaporous oil that is likely important since it was installed factory. 


If you want it to sound "cool", buy a lysholm. RSR, 70mm inlet with a cone should be plenty in the noise department.


----------



## V-TEC this!!! (May 4, 2003)

etta gli said:


> increases boost at partial throttle, increases boost lost between gear shifts. Slams a lot of air against a closed throttle body instead of recirculating it to the supercharger.
> 
> Stops circulation of valve cover breather into the charger, which contains vaporous oil that is likely important since it was installed factory.


 
That first part you wrote - None of it is true, all you are doing is removing the hose that connects the throttle body to the charger, you are not changing any mechanical parts of the system it will still work exactly the same. The only difference is it will vent to atmosphere as opposed back to the supercharger. The only "increase" you might gain is the charger will be getting less hot, already once compressed air. 

As for the lack or circulation of oil, yes you are right. If you remove the bypass and do not plumb the breather back in to the intake you should lubricate the charger every once in a while.


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

I wouldn't be so sure about the "lower intake air temperature" argument. 
Just think about it: The air, that is recirculated in the factory setup is compressed, then cooled down in the intercooler and then expanded in the boost return pipe. That's kind of like a refrigerator works: compression, cooling down compression-heat, expansion. 

So I wouldn't be suprised, if the returned air is actually cooler in the factory setup. 

No matter what, i have tried it once and i wouldn't want my car to sound like that. but then i am not 18 anymore


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Damn I'm 30... And i enjoy the sound. 

Anyway I have inspected my charger yesterday after some time without boost return. It looks very good, nothing unusal happened.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

I tried it, and there was no benefit, though I have a hybrid platform. 
I chalked it up to VW spending thousands designing it for a purpose, that if you delete, you potentially impact something else (charger oiling). Unless you put thousands of miles on and then split the case and inspect oil seals and apex strip integrity, you cannot say it does no harm to the G Lader. I have my crankcase plumbed to the charger, and my BOV's back to the return as designed (though hybridized) If there was a benefit to it venting to atmosphere it would have designed that way. 
Deleting it, proceed with caution..


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Taken from UK Dubforce forum: 

Standard Airbox, still with snorkle inlet and a new paper filter: 277.1bhp/7026rpm 244.0lbft/4502rpm 
Standard airbox, snorkle removed and box cut away above cc: 287.4bhp/6954rpm 249.7lbft/4496rpm 
SWG Twin inlet lid, cut away box bottom: 293.0bhp/7015rpm 251.1lbft/4477rpm 
Jabbasport Single large cone filter and heat shield: 297.4bhp/7211rpm 250.0lbft/4704rpm 
SWG Twin cone kit with heat shild: 303.2bhp/7153rpm 255.5lbft/4957rpm 

There IS a diffrence.


----------



## tklies (Apr 5, 2007)

Anyone on here running the SWG set up?


----------



## vask8r2002 (Sep 7, 2008)

evosilica said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about the "lower intake air temperature" argument.
> Just think about it: The air, that is recirculated in the factory setup is compressed, then cooled down in the intercooler and then expanded in the boost return pipe. That's kind of like a refrigerator works: compression, cooling down compression-heat, expansion.
> 
> So I wouldn't be suprised, if the returned air is actually cooler in the factory setup.
> ...


The bypass happens when the throttle is closed. An intercooler cools the boost output through conduction when air travels over the cooling fins. Air doesn't pass over when sitting still. Unless you have a fan for that purpose like a radiator. eace: Try it out, buy some cleaning wipes learn through trial and error. Also I'm 26 and I enjoy the sound plus it looks a lot cleaner yet lonely


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Also I'm planning to put those: 

http://www.baldwinfilter.com/productsairchannelflow.html

on the both sides of G60. Just after some flange, with no angles. It will look super clean.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

vask8r2002 said:


> The bypass happens when the throttle is closed. An intercooler cools the boost output through conduction when air travels over the cooling fins. Air doesn't pass over when sitting still. Unless you have a fan for that purpose like a radiator. eace: Try it out, buy some cleaning wipes learn through trial and error. Also I'm 26 and I enjoy the sound plus it looks a lot cleaner yet lonely


You forgot that inter-cooler air is cooled by convection, and even when sitting still the inter-cooler is cooling.
Deleting the bypass does no good and primarily generates noise and accelerates G Lader wear unless you plumb the crankcase to the charger.

The more I modify VW's, the more I appreciate that it is pretty hard to optimize on the core design.
Thinking you can do better than what VW spent thousands on in R&D and lifecycle development is a tall order. Every alteration comes with effects on lifecycle and performance. 
But go ahead try to do better than what VW did.


----------



## vask8r2002 (Sep 7, 2008)

It isn't trying to do better than VW, it's all about personal style of your car. Granted some things are going to harm rather than help(suspension geometry) but this isn't re-inventing the wheel. Some people route the breather to the charger but it is a minuscule amount. Side note do you feel as if every forum becomes a bash session? Modifying car websites are meant to help, get ideas, and see what future vw tuning has to offer.


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

vask8r2002 said:


> The bypass happens when the throttle is closed. An intercooler cools the boost output through conduction when air travels over the cooling fins. Air doesn't pass over when sitting still. Unless you have a fan for that purpose like a radiator. eace: Try it out, buy some cleaning wipes learn through trial and error. Also I'm 26 and I enjoy the sound plus it looks a lot cleaner yet lonely


So you're telling me the air in the intercooler is "sitting" still, when the throttle is closed??
If so, you are heavily missinformed on how the g60 engine works.

The G-Lader doesn't care, if the throttle is open or closed, it always pushes full amount of air through the intercooler.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

vask8r2002 said:


> It isn't trying to do better than VW, it's all about personal style of your car. Granted some things are going to harm rather than help(suspension geometry) but this isn't re-inventing the wheel. Some people route the breather to the charger but it is a minuscule amount. Side note do you feel as if every forum becomes a bash session? Modifying car websites are meant to help, get ideas, and see what future vw tuning has to offer.


Personal style aside it *can be* at the expense of performance and life-cycle.
I am not bashing, if you like the hiss of a BOV, power loss, and wear on your G Lader, go for it. The amount of bypass is not miniscule, the G60 is an effective high volume, low pressure air pump. The return charge is a lot of air.
Forums stop helping when people give opinions over sound advice.
Read my thread, I have tried recirculation bypass, BOV's, draw through, blow through and silenced bypass.
In the end I have gone back to a setup very similar to what was designed OEM after having seen the results first hand and doing a lot of reading inside the forums as well as in VW manuals, tuning books, and technical documentation.


----------



## vask8r2002 (Sep 7, 2008)

evosilica said:


> So you're telling me the air in the intercooler is "sitting" still, when the throttle is closed??
> If so, you are heavily missinformed on how the g60 engine works.
> 
> The G-Lader doesn't care, if the throttle is open or closed, it always pushes full amount of air through the intercooler.


Give me a real quick run down then please. Teach me I might be way off track but I have owned two corrados and a small car lot of volkswagens through the years. I am a marine mechanic by trade so a nice refresher might be in order.


----------



## vask8r2002 (Sep 7, 2008)

nbvwfan said:


> Personal style aside it *can be* at the expense of performance and life-cycle.
> I am not bashing, if you like the hiss of a BOV, power loss, and wear on your G Lader, go for it. The amount of bypass is not miniscule, the G60 is an effective high volume, low pressure air pump. The return charge is a lot of air.
> Forums stop helping when people give opinions over sound advice.
> Read my thread, I have tried recirculation bypass, BOV's, draw through, blow through and silenced bypass.
> In the end I have gone back to a setup very similar to what was designed OEM after having seen the results first hand and doing a lot of reading inside the forums as well as in VW manuals, tuning books, and technical documentation.


I would love to play a game of cards with you:laugh:.


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

nbvwfan said:


> In the end I have gone back to a setup very similar to what was designed OEM after having seen the results first hand and doing a lot of reading inside the forums as well as in VW manuals, tuning books, and technical documentation.


As have I. Just consider all the R&D that went into the design. One could argue its development all the way back to the mid 70's with the Audi 50. Then to the G40 during the 80's, culminating with the G60 in the 90's. 
It's not perfect but, they put a lot of thought into it. More than I'm willing to, anyhow.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

mateok said:


> As have I. Just consider all the R&D that went into the design. One could argue its development all the way back to the mid 70's with the Audi 50. Then to the G40 during the 80's, culminating with the G60 in the 90's.
> It's not perfect but, they put a lot of thought into it. More than I'm willing to, anyhow.


This borrowed and improved upon a steam engine application from the 20's
Re-inventing the wheel I think not.
Truing the wheel, I think so.
The G Lader was an amazing feat of engineering for it's time.

I think it was VW saying "let's do something everyone say's cannot be done"


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

VW's never had a very good reputation, even today. They should have made it a serviceable part. But then again, they didn't really produce enough to care.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

mateok said:


> VW's never had a very good reputation, even today. They should have made it a serviceable part. But then again, they didn't really produce enough to care.


Reputations are based on the population.
If a sample represent a lack of maintenance and service history, then the failure rates would trend towards poor life-cylce and reliability.
The G60 was an additional risk incorporated into an already problematic design.
Couple that with outsourcing to new contract manufacturing (Germany to Mexico) and the added costs of specialized service and training along with the fallout with Bosch (CIS to Digi), and it is clear there would be reputation impacts.
the late 80's to early 90's were the "bad years"


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

Exactly, what were they thinking when they decided to make their own engine management? I bet Bosch were laughing their tails off when they heard about that.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

mateok said:


> Exactly, what were they thinking when they decided to make their own engine management? I bet Bosch were laughing their tails off when they heard about that.


If you read the history on it, you will find it was due mostly in part to COGs (cost of goods) and the partnership with Bosch that VW shared across multiple manufacturers that fell flat.
VW had gross margins to factor, and CIS was adding too much to the total cost to manufacture. They did what was best for the future and ongoing product base.
Digi I (II) is a pretty simple yet proven design; people just muck it up, and electronics subject to environmental, temperature, and chemical exposure will always fail at some point.


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

vask8r2002 said:


> Give me a real quick run down then please. Teach me I might be way off track but I have owned two corrados and a small car lot of volkswagens through the years. I am a marine mechanic by trade so a nice refresher might be in order.


Are you being sarcastic?  There's a lot great mechanics that don't know about the g60, so what does this have to say?

As you know, the G-Lader is belt driven, so how is it supposed to stop flowing air, when you close the throttle?? And even if it would (it doesn't), why would you need the dual throttle system then?

I'm not sure if your kidding or not


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

evosilica said:


> Are you being sarcastic?  There's a lot great mechanics that don't know about the g60, so what does this have to say?
> 
> As you know, the G-Lader is belt driven, so how is it supposed to stop flowing air, when you close the throttle?? And even if it would (it doesn't), why would you need the dual throttle system then?
> 
> I'm not sure if your kidding or not


 This modification continues to be one of the most absurd mutilations performed on the g60 perpetuated by ignorance, removing the bypass increases the power the charger consumes when not at full throttle, it is and will always be a performance downgrade...it is not lost on me however that sometimes people must learn this for themselves, and this won't damage the charger opcorn:


----------



## wed3k (Feb 22, 2010)

without that stupid pipe there, it makes adjusting the timing so much easier. 

i drive mine 1000 miles a year, im pretty sure i won't blow it up any time soon and if so then a lysholm is going to be fitted.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

wed3k said:


> without that stupid pipe there, it makes adjusting the timing so much easier.
> 
> i drive mine 1000 miles a year, im pretty sure i won't blow it up any time soon and if so then a lysholm is going to be fitted.


 So do you run the return vented to atmosphere, or are you blocking it off? 
Blocked off you would be inducing a pressure head that the G Lader is always fighting to maintain, causing undue wear and heat. 
Vented, you lose the benefits of oiling the charger with crankcase vapor, while also adding to the heat cycle by losing the ability to cool by forced convection. 
But as I said before, plenty are of the false opinion they can out-design what VW put a lot of thought into. 
If the "+" is easier timing adjustment, I wonder, what keeps needing to be adjusted? Timing is something you set it, then forget it, and usually only do if performing major maintenance. 
I am certain the causes of G Lader failure are from ideas like these, and not from a poor design. Those that blow up a G Lader ought never to have owned one.


----------



## wed3k (Feb 22, 2010)

that portion i have it vented and it always made a whistle sound until i removed the cap off the purge evap port since i deleted that as well. 

i was adjusting timing to try and help me on the smog test but it made no difference. 

ill probably pull the block off plate off the glader and hit it with a spritz of oil. it's only 1000 miles old so the kluber grease should be doing its job :laugh:


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

The Boost return helps with emissions as does the G Lader (zero overlap) cam. 
Defeating one item will invariably have a resulting consequence. 
Let me guess, you were trying to get Nox down right? 
I had that in my Vanagon and after 4 tests I finally passed by 2ppm. 
I guess you can go ahead and oil as you see fit instead of relying on hundreds of R&D hours by VW.


----------



## wed3k (Feb 22, 2010)

im way better than vw...i tossed the oem rod and piston setup, had a custom piston with scat scirocco rods. 

lost over 200 grams each cylinder in just rotating assembly. now it can really fry the tire. my nox is high because my a/f ratio is lean at cruising.


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

wed3k said:


> im way better than vw...i tossed the oem rod and piston setup, had a custom piston with scat scirocco rods.
> 
> lost over 200 grams each cylinder in just rotating assembly. now it can really fry the tire. my nox is high because my a/f ratio is lean at cruising.


 You missed my point. 
I'll expand, 
Do what you did above and reproduce it for the life of the product line at 10,000-15,000 units per year, keep costs at a stable minimum while also maintaining reliability that meets or beats current trends while also addressing the common consumer ignorance and anticipates the unknown. 

VW could always go above and beyond past performance, but one has to look at the magnitude of design in the global marketplace. 
Anyone can do a one off, there is no fault in that with the intention of blowing standards out of the water, but considering the design flawed because it fails to meet one unique users complaint is missing the boat entirely.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

:laugh: any bets on who's gonna whip it out first?


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

Lysholm said:


> :laugh: any bets on who's gonna whip it out first?


 Not me, I just think it is silly to say a single persons approach bests hundreds of design hours and multiple engineers inputs in a product design and development cycle.


----------



## wed3k (Feb 22, 2010)

nbvwfan said:


> Not me, I just think it is silly to say a single persons approach bests hundreds of design hours and multiple engineers inputs in a product design and development cycle.


 so are you a vw engineer?


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

wed3k said:


> so are you a vw engineer?


 Not quite, half that.. 
But I would not mind being an engineer for VW. 

Granted, I was not bashing your accomplishment either. I would really like to get the piston design from you if you care to share. I would be interested in applying it to lower the rotating mass in my 16V Dual G60 build.


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Returning to previous thread. Can you explain me why am I lowering performance by removing bypass return?


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Returning to previous thread. Can you explain me why am I lowering performance by removing bypass return?


Welcome back.
Re-read the posts in the thread. Then buy a book on thermodynamics and read about forced convection cooling, and Corki-Bells "Supercharged" where it talks about intercooling and compressor efficiency.

If you don't see where you are losing power (lifecycle), put your pipe back on and dump the dual inlet as it does no good.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

nbvwfan said:


> So do you run the return vented to atmosphere, or are you blocking it off?
> Blocked off you would be inducing a pressure head that the G Lader is always fighting to maintain, causing undue wear and heat.
> Vented, you lose the benefits of oiling the charger with crankcase vapor, while also adding to the heat cycle by losing the ability to cool by forced convection.
> But as I said before, plenty are of the false opinion they can out-design what VW put a lot of thought into.
> ...


would like to re-litigate this if that ok I'm not sure I know what you mean when you refer to the heat cycle, also what forced convection are u reffering to, also although like I am not a fan of elimination of the bypass system, I do think redirecting the crank breather into a catch can will keep the vapors and other oily stuff out of your charger and engine

By the way, I know you are running cis in conjuction with a rising rate on you golf, but what are you using for ignition, and which compression motor are you using?


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

Lysholm said:


> would like to re-litigate this if that ok I'm not sure I know what you mean when you refer to the heat cycle, also what forced convection are u reffering to, also although like I am not a fan of elimination of the bypass system, I do think redirecting the crank breather into a catch can will keep the vapors and other oily stuff out of your charger and engine
> 
> By the way, I know you are running cis in conjuction with a rising rate on you golf, but what are you using for ignition, and which compression motor are you using?


Lysholm,
I am referring to heat cycle in terms of heat removed from the G-Lader.
The air returned, may be higher temperature than atmosphere, but it is less than the temperaturs of the charger, and charge temperature due to the intercooling that it is sent through. Additionally, it is also under pressure, so when re-directed to the G Lader it cools it by forced convection.
I liked thermodynamics in college, but a lot of the mathematical theory was beyond me. But after thinking this over and discussing a cooling scenario with a principle mechanical engineer I work with, I realized, VW added the recirculation for two purposes.
1. To push crankcase vapor into the charger to keep the apex strips wet as well as cool it by soaking it with a medium thicker than just air. (Air has a Q for heat removal, Air + oil has a higher Q)
2. By forcing air into the charger, it is being force cooled by the return charge even if it is above atmospheric temperature. Think of it like turning a fan on and blowing hot wet air over your arm. That is (forced) convection cooling.


On my build, I have not tried an FMU, though I have played with hooking up the FPR to my manifold pressure. It helps in one area, idle, throttle tip in, A/F response, but hurts in one big way, Stumble at the point of boost.
Ignition, I have left it stock, though right now I have a valve in line with the ECU port to only register vacuum to atmospheric. This seems to help in overall throttle response, but it seems like there is something missing in the ignition performance, and I think it is because of the N/A timing maps. I have a feeling I need to run either a vacuum advance (+retard) old style distributor or get an MSD boos retard. But my stumble seems to be from a fuel metering issue.

I have an RD 86 GTI engine, stock internals, and from what I have read, it is 9:1.
I have the stock intercooler plumbed like on a Corrado G60 and I installed recently, a stock G60 cam to end overlap and see if it helped my WOT stumble.

When it is not raining, I need to get it on the road to try some tweaks to my Haltech F5 module (and trim down the rate) as I think the triggered fuel injector is making the fuel system pressure drop. CIS does not seem to like a fifth injector firing all of a sudden. If you have any ideas about solving my ignition problems I am open to input.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

Actually you bypassed air expands back to near atmo as it enters charger intake, which draws the recirculated air back in plus air thru air box to make up what was consumed by engine, glader is a positive displacement pump with no internal compression there's virtually no boost until the bypass closes and the charger outflows the engine, crank vapors are ingested for emissions control, would be better to keep it out plus lowers effective octane rating and helps gum up the works

I read thru your build thread as much as I could there's a lot so you'll have to forgive me If I didn't catch it all, but you were definately correct in moving sensor plate back to the intake side of charger, I doubt the fifth injector is affecting system pressure enough to cause problems, I would think bypass charger and tune fueling for natural aspiration then bring in additional fueling with add on controller in conjunction with wide band datalogging and testing

If you have a vacuum advance distributer you should switch to a dual port canister, other than that I have melted pistons that are great conversation pieces for when it goes terribly wrong


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

> Re-read the posts in the thread. Then buy a book on thermodynamics and read about forced convection cooling, and Corki-Bells "Supercharged" where it talks about intercooling and compressor efficiency.


Nice one.

Please, don't disregard others because you have no idea who are you dealing with.

Anyway, I'm still thing you are wrong, beacuse when I'm pushing down acceleration pedal, primary throttle opens, than secondary. At full acceleration, 3-rd throttle is totaly closed! Throttle return line is cutted off. I thing in that situation G-lader is creating underpressure in boost return at full throttle. Air is taken only from air filter side od the g-lader.

What do you thing about it?


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Nice one.
> 
> Please, don't disregard others because you have no idea who are you dealing with.
> 
> ...



He does need to be a bit less abrupt, back to your question about my claim about performance downgrade...it has to do with recirculated air helping to autorotate/freewheel the charger, recirculated air at throttle conditions where boost is present but bypass is not totally closed expands in intake of charger and helps turn reducing the parasitic loss off of your crank, in your case, if I read correctly, you are dumping mechanical bypass and boubled up your intakes, wot is where others have done double intakes would claim gains, the problem is that all the dyno data reported over the years points to no real measureable gains, cheers:beer:


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Returning to previous thread. Can you explain me why am I lowering performance by removing bypass return?


After looking at the engine pic of your car what are the other mods, and what boost are you seeing? You should weld a nipple onto your boost tube for your idle valve, that way it will not bleed off boost above 9 psi


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

_*He does need to be a bit less abrupt, back to your question*_

xxMAXIMxx
I may have been blunt because after almost two months and 12 more posts I made, it did not seem like you even read any more inputs in the discussion.

Lysolm, good point on the internal compression factor, and auto-rotation element (VW performance Handbook ref)
I still stand by air recirculated aids to the cooling of the G Lader. 
Additionally, it was VW's way of reducing emissions, and noise.
Some may not care about either. 

And some don't know that no one knows who they are on vortex.

Good dialoguing with you on it.
As for my build, The CIS-E runs fine N/A, and I have pretty much done about what you indicated.
At this point (and after another 80 mile trip) I think my primary fault lies in the ignition mapping.
The stock distributor is on and my ECU feed has a one way valve on it. Driving it today I heard some pinging, and I had several cases of stutter and stumble, it seems to me like the knock is taking effect, and causing the stumble, and I equated it to the fuel system.

I will update my thread and continue accordingly, but will try to be less of a wordsmith.

Thanks for helping shed some light on xxMAXIMxx's question, I obviously was too direct and hurt his feelings.


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Constructive criticism! I like it! *searching for my boost return pipe someehere in wardrobe*


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Constructive criticism! I like it! *searching for my boost return pipe someehere in wardrobe*


While its still out you should add a poppet style turbo bypass valve, bbm has been using them for years and boost will happen much more dramatically at part throttle in some cases people have seen higher peak numbers as well, makes the car a little jumpy and there's still the problem of digi lag but should give the result you seek, then you can join it to return tube

You also should maybe talk to Frank (G60ING), he ran dual intake with a bypass for years and has quite a bit of dyno dat under his belt as well, and I think he has one of the only chargers to successfully have a larger intake tube welded to the casing


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Maybe I'm searching not properly.... Can't find that thread with dual intake G60 with bypass... any help? 

Also BOV? Where should I install it?? 

I'm during total Rallye Golf rebuild, I can do anything right now because all mechanical parts are removed from the car! Need more advice!


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

Yeah it seems you can no longer search all the way back anymore, which is kinda a problem...i'd install turbo valve offof the mechanical bypass and connect you control signal

If I read correctly, and you own a rallye golf, I would recommend restoration only using quality parts a car like that is worth more as is


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

Oh yeah..
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3013972-SWG-s-Twin-Intake-for-G60


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

I have found this thread: 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...r-MK1-Swap-Has-Neuspeed-ISV-Kit-Few-Questions

ISV is rerouted to boost pipe as you can see on 1-st pic through one-way valve. Even when ISV opens boost over 0,6bar (9psi) is not "bleeded off" as you wrote few post before. The situation is the same on the factory setup? I think factory setup rerouting ISV to boost return pipe is generating more boost lag.



> Lysholm
> Oh yeah..
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...Intake-for-G60


I have studied this thread before and I'm still no wiser...

Thanks for replies from newbie questions, appricated.



> If I read correctly, and you own a rallye golf, I would recommend restoration only using quality parts a car like that is worth more as is


Yes I do own Rallye Golf since 2003. For the 7 years or even more I didn't realize what kind of car do I own. Now I'm VW fan because of it. During restoration I'm using only OEM parts, and some poliurethans for rear suspension for eximple.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

The fitting in the thread you linked to is from an old neuspeed hp kit and with the idle valve re-routed into boost ube you don't need the one way valve, you would use one way valve if you didn't want to cut up the throttle body hose to install the tee, one or the other you don't need both

Factory setup has idle valve into your bypass tube, in your case to that little breather filter, at 9 psi it opens to limit boost and even though your mechanical bypass is closed your idle valve acts as a limiter and recurculates back to the intake of charger, with idle valve plumbed to boost tube or with check valve, the valve is prevented from leaking boost

Where in the world are you located, I assume if you bought a rallye on awhim you must be outside usa?

The thread I posted really talks more about crankcase vapors being used as apex seal lubrication for glader, I'm of the school of thought that it contaminates charger and is not a reliable way to lubricate so is purely an emissions device


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

> with idle valve plumbed to boost tube or with check valve, the valve is prevented from leaking boost


Allright, so I'll reroute ISV to boost pipe. Also I'll install boost return pipe with plumbed ISV route and with connected oil vaporing.

I have seen some PG engines with melted pistons because of one-way valve between ISV and boost return pipe, why that happened? Lean AFR?

I come from Poland, bought car here also.


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> I have seen some PG engines with melted pistons because of one-way valve between ISV and boost return pipe, why that happened? Lean AFR?
> .


I had a G-Force International valve in my ISV hose for the better part of a decade (I had forgotten it was in there, if I'm honest). It certainly didn't melt my pistons or cause any undo harm to the engine.


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Allright, so I'll reroute ISV to boost pipe. Also I'll install boost return pipe with plumbed ISV route and with connected oil vaporing.
> 
> I have seen some PG engines with melted pistons because of one-way valve between ISV and boost return pipe, why that happened? Lean AFR?
> 
> I come from Poland, bought car here also.


You should gain about 2 psi about 0.13 bar if thats your thing, this certainly is not a modification that you need to be concerned about engine damage, I would think that the damage you've seen is due to inproper timing


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Thank you. 

I'm little bit suprised because noone here runs that kind of engine setup. 


My current setup:
350cc (3 bar) 1.8T injectors
4 bar fuel regulator (optionally)
68mm g-lader pulley
Very rare large channel head
Ported head
Schrick crankshaft 272/268
Totaly custom stainless steel exhaust (designed & made by me)
Custom intake pipes
K&N air filter in standard airbox
RS3 chip
Platinium spark plugs
Large Rallye Golf FMIC

Without dyno runs and dedicated setting up it showed 215hp

Next month I'm planning dedicated setting up and finall effect. Hopefully 250bhp.


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Allright, so I'll reroute ISV to boost pipe. Also I'll install boost .


But why? 
No offence but that mod is just a terrible hackjob people used to do in the late 90s.

The proper way to prevent your ECU from dropping boost over~5,5k rpm is to get a proper chip (ECU) that has that routine deactivated. This way you can leave your piping stock AND still have all the digifant's knock safety functions functioning (boost dump in case of heavy knock)

btw. whats a "Very rare large channel head"? Pictures? Do you mean the "P-Head" every '91 has?


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

> btw. whats a "Very rare large channel head"? Pictures? Do you mean the "P-Head" every '91 has?


Okay, you've killed me. I thought it's rare, because every PG/1H i have seen has "A-head". Found only one piece and bought it cheap. Every 91'? Damn it! Anyway, it's ported and flow should be way better than before. I haven't done dyno run after it's ported.



> to get a proper chip (ECU) that has that routine deactivated


Ok, I'll call guy that is gonna do the ECU job for me...


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

evosilica said:


> But why?
> No offence but that mod is just a terrible hackjob people used to do in the late 90s.


Because Neuspeed said it would make your car go fast


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

evosilica said:


> But why?
> No offence but that mod is just a terrible hackjob people used to do in the late 90s.
> 
> The proper way to prevent your ECU from dropping boost over~5,5k rpm is to get a proper chip (ECU) that has that routine deactivated. This way you can leave your piping stock AND still have all the digifant's knock safety functions functioning (boost dump in case of heavy knock)
> ...


Pretty sure none of the chip manufacturers stateside have adressed anything but fuel timing maps, to be honest I wasn't aware that isv control was reprogramable, please elaborate


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

xxMAXIMxx said:


> Okay, you've killed me. I thought it's rare, because every PG/1H i have seen has "A-head". Found only one piece and bought it cheap. Every 91'? Damn it! Anyway, it's ported and flow should be way better than before. I haven't done dyno run after it's ported.


Haha, i'm sorry, but yes, every '91. At least in Europe, dunno about the US-market.

VW did that, since they got many complaints about the power output, especially from Corrado and Passat drivers bc of the small intercooler. The early G60 with small IC hardly measured over 150 crank hp on dynos, when they should have had 160.
So '91 VW changed the head from A to P with larger ports, increased the crank pulley from 140mm to ~143mm (more boost) and remapped the ECU to 98Octane (not sure what they did to US spec cars). So they finally all delivered 160 crank hp.

Be happy, the P-head is a great improvement, ported even better :thumbup:


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

Lysholm said:


> Pretty sure none of the chip manufacturers stateside have adressed anything but fuel timing maps, to be honest I wasn't aware that isv control was reprogramable, please elaborate


I am no chip programmer, so i can't provide any details but chips with deactivated boost dump are available since 2000 or even earlier.
it's just a simple if-statement in the software.

almost every serious chip seller in Germany has that implemented now.

Then there's the anti-DigiLag improvement that got viral the last few years, that makes the engine more responsive at WOT.
the original chip is pretty laggy, when the WOT switch is activated. in stock form it takes ~2s to go from lambda 1 to ~0,8. Anti digilag chips instantly switch to rich mixture, making the car more responsive, esp. in 1st and 2nd gear.

Here's a good explanation, but it's german (google translate?)
http://gummel.net/bofh-ng/de/digifant-1/verzoegerte-vollastanreicherung-a.k.a-digi-lag


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

evosilica said:


> I am no chip programmer, so i can't provide any details but chips with deactivated boost dump are available since 2000 or even earlier.
> it's just a simple if-statement in the software.
> 
> almost every serious chip seller in Germany has that implemented now.
> ...


We had a small company selling anti lag, which i understood was a improvement to the latest motorolla eproms, but i don't think this was/has been adopted industry wide on this side of the Atlantic, i am quite certain no one has addressed isv subroutine, and many highly modified cars over here have gone to standalone due to problems w/ digi 1 when pushed, i am actually very excited to hear this, would you mind sharing the name(s) of the reputable chip tuners that you are refering to? :thumbup:

i think i can answer the us market question as well but i will check my cars cylinder heads when i get home...but we got the bigger crank pulley but i'm almost certain we got stuck with the crappy cylinder head right to the end of model year 1992 stateside, frankly we're used to getting screwed...:banghead:

also the 98 octane rating that is a RON rating correct?

thanks for the link as well, my Deutsche is beyond rusty but i'll give it a shot


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

Of course.
I would recomend Zoran from custom-chips.de
http://www.custom-chips.de/neu/index.php
his chips were a serious improvement over the SLS chips (sls-tuning.de) and derivates, that were common before and used so called "bypass valves" to prevent boost drop - same hackjob. 
i can't believe they still sell that crap nowdays.
http://www.slstuning.de/shop/de/G-Lader/Leistungskits-Teile/Sonstiges/Bypassventil-G60.html

I have one from Zoran in my G60 (68mm pulley, golf g60 IC, 268/276 schrick, stock P head) and it runs very good- no boost drop, though afaik digilag has not been adressed yet in my version (i bought it ~2005).

The guy responsible for the digilag link (grummel.net) also really seems to know, what he's doing. He has reverse engineered the digifant code and people using his software/chips write very good reviews. For my next chip i will contact him and give it a shot.

http://www.dubracers.de/ is good (but afaik gets his software from zoran anyway)

Yes, the "98 / SuperPlus" fuel in Europe is research octane number.RON/ROZ


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

^ good stuff, thanks for sharing:thumbup:


----------



## G60ING (Jun 27, 2000)

I ran a bunch of different g60 engine configurations over the years while I was going to school. I made two different dual air inlets (one with a return pipe and one without). 



















I only went to the dyno twice with my G60s The first time was:










the 2nd time was with a conservative aba block build (78mm pulley was used~low psi) Specs









When I was really playing around with my g60 I never dynoed my setup but I was able to run a pretty fast 1/4 mile (fast in terms of the g60 corrado) a 14.47 sec time









I do know that a friend of mine (CREZ) had a Lysholm G60 that I did a lot of work on and he had a dyno of something like 190+ with a extrude honed head and I think my car was every bit as fast as his if not faster but the two weren't at their peak power at the same time so its hard to tell. 

As far as whats better for the dual filter setup its so minimal of a change that its hard to tell. The no return version isn't pumping hot air back to the charger and sounds cool. This also makes it difficult to hear boost leaks. Personally if I were to do it all over again I'd run a stock air filter for performance. 

Take a look at this pic that the TDIclub guys always reference when comparing an after market filter unraveled next to a stock paper filter unraveled 









After playing a lot with the G60s over the years and having tweaked a number of friends' cars I've decided that I'd rather follow than blaze a path when it comes to engine mods. Its a lot cheaper. Then again I drive a TDI Corrado now and enjoy not trying to be fast, then again I think I'm probably as fast as most stage 3-4 G60 Corrados.


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

G60ING said:


> As far as whats better for the dual filter setup its so minimal of a change that its hard to tell. *The no return version isn't pumping hot air back to the charger* and sounds cool.


As mentioned before, this is a claim nobody has proven yet.

think about it:
compress air, and it gets hotter.
expand it, and it immediately gets back to its initial temperature.
air is only compressed before throttle, the air in the boost return pipe always has atmospheric pressure. So where's the hot air?? where does the increase in temperatuer come from??

Now think further:
The compressed air (= hot air) even gets cooled in the intercooler.
expanded in the boost return pipe, it seems logical that it's even cooler than ambient temp. refrigerator principle. maybe it's just a tiny little bit. maybe it's nothing
but believing in physics, i see no way for the returned air to be significantly hotter than ambient temperature.





G60ING said:


> Personally if I were to do it all over again I'd run a stock air filter for performance.


Agreed. Those cone filters don't improve anything (well if a loud engine is an improvement for someone, then yes they improve sound. not for me)
In fact they tend to let more dust pass, which combined with oil (or klüber crap) results in a nice grinding compound, i would not want in my charger.
worst case example:


----------



## G60ING (Jun 27, 2000)

Feel the zero psi air coming out of the boost return pipe and you'll feel heat


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

Will have to try. Will even do measurements when i find time.

My point of view is only theoretical.

But then, if the returned air is significantly hotter, and then gets compressed by the charger again, it must get even more hotterer.  And then it's partly returned again and again and again ..... uncontrolled feedback loop ... boom ... division by zero


----------



## Lysholm (Nov 8, 2001)

evosilica said:


> Will have to try. Will even do measurements when i find time.
> 
> My point of view is only theoretical.
> 
> But then, if the returned air is significantly hotter, and then gets compressed by the charger again, it must get even more hotterer.  And then it's partly returned again and again and again ..... uncontrolled feedback loop ... boom ... division by zero


I have been thinking for years that a pitot tube and thermocouple sets for data logging at 3 or more points under the different conditions would resolve a lot of postulations and conjecture :thumbup:... too much assumed we need some empirical data

I dont like refrigerator cycle analogy, due to fact that the glader is simply moving air not compressing air amd there are only small localized pressure drops, once you factor in pumping losses and the fact that everything in the engine compartment is at least a hundred degrees Fahrenheit hotter we end up with what Frank stated higher than ambient recirculated air

great conversation by the way, this forum has turned into an awful snooz fest...


----------



## tklies (Apr 5, 2007)

Wow, I never thought I would start such a great discussion on such a simple question I had asked when I started this thread. I would like to thank everyone for their comments. :beer:


----------



## carrizog60 (Sep 13, 2003)

for me the return is only for emissions purpose.
yes,vw techs are way better than me but i dont have to deal with all the environement and noise issues when launching a car.
i bet if performance was the only factor things would be different...

i have no return and no oil vapors going to my charger and(knock on wood) its going good for the last 80.000km.
i dont rev the thing to death,and use it ocasionally but is still 80.000km and still boosts 1 bar as the day i installed it after rebuild...


----------



## mateok (Mar 14, 2001)

Lysholm said:


> I dont like refrigerator cycle analogy, due to fact that the glader is simply moving air not compressing air amd there are only small localized pressure drops, once you factor in pumping losses and the fact that everything in the engine compartment is at least a hundred degrees Fahrenheit hotter we end up with what Frank stated higher than ambient recirculated air


Even VW admits as much with the "pink" air. It's 305*F when it leaves the charger and 130*F when it's dumped back in it.


----------



## xxMAXIMxx (Oct 19, 2012)

> I would recomend Zoran from custom-chips.de


I have e-mailed them, but with no answer.


----------



## evosilica (Mar 6, 2012)

Try to contact dubracers.

Regarding the VW pic: 
VW said the G-Lader is "wartungsfrei" (maintenance-free).


----------



## vask8r2002 (Sep 7, 2008)

Noah where did you go?


----------



## nbvwfan (Aug 15, 2007)

vask8r2002 said:


> Noah where did you go?


I moved on to other threads.
This one was going in some circles and spun off to stuff not applicable to what I have done.
I am still running the boost return.


----------

