# Stage 2 vs Stage 3



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Does anyone have a dyno comparison of stage 2 vs stage 3? I thought someone posted their APR stage 3 dyno run vs their previous stage 2, but I can't find it anywhere.  The result was about a 60hp difference. The closest thing I can find is Marty's comment:



> 2) The kit makes the maximum power on your TT-RS, but in exchange it adds substantial turbo lag. Floor it at 2000 RPM and nothing happens. Then you pass 3000 RPM, and you're still waiting... Then you hit 3500-3600 RPM and the boost kicks in and by 4000 RPM you are flying. On the track, this makes being in exactly the right gear critical (especially with large speed decreases going from a fast straight into a much slower turn), whereas on the stock car (or stage 1 / stage 2) you make much more power at lower RPM than with stage 3, so it is more forgiving. Similarly, on the street you really need to down shift and rev it out to use the power. Passing people on the highway when cruising in 6th is noticeably slower (because the RPM is down around 2800 RPM).
> 
> At 2500 RPM, a stage 2 car makes about *twice* the power as stage 3.
> 
> 3) While the kit makes maximum power, you are paying a lot for that bit extra over Stage 2. For example, my car dyno'd ~301 whp / 300 wtq 100% stock, and dyno'd ~410 whp / 404 wtq with the stage 3, both on 91 octane. A stage 2 car would probably hit ~340-350 whp for around $4500 (rough estimate for intercooler, tune, and downpipe including install labor). Do the math and you'll see that you are paying a LOT of $ per hp for that extra ~60 whp. Put in 100 octane instead and it's a different story...


I'm also looking for a stage 2 vs Loba stage 3 dyno sheet, but that seems impossible to find also. Unless the numbers are coming off the same car with the same mods, the stage 3 gains seem inflated because they are installed with high flow DP/exhaust, FMIC, and other supporting mods.


----------



## Fined (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm thinking about going Loba, myself. And would like to see some dyno comparison also. 

Just seems a lot more cost effective. 

But I will disagree that the dyno for APR Stage III is inflated.. you have to get the downpipe/exhaust for stage II.. So then at Stage III these items are already on the car. Same with HPFP. Its needed for stage II+ so then if you went stage by stage.. when you get to stage III you already have the DP and HPFP and possibly I/C already on the car.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

APR Stage 2 with exhaust decat is 420-440hp depending on type of intercooler fitted on UK 99 ron. Loba without meth is 485hp with full bolt ons, on UK 99ron. APR III with gtx3076 is 530hp on uk 99ron. APR III with GTX3576 is 560hp on uk 99ron iirc.

Our 99 is your 95.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

I'd be interested in hearing what you find about the Loba. This is also the path I'm looking at and have just been gathering information from shops in the US to find out who has done one and how much all in. I've heard numbers around $15k to go from stock to stage 3 Loba including labor and all supporting mods. I will probably start off though with APR downpipe, stage 2 with mobile switching, and FMIC. Then add all the other parts until I'm ready to pull the trigger on the Loba turbo and tune.

Anyway, back on track. I didn't mean to say the APR numbers were wrong, even if they do read comparatively high. It is just that most people look at stage 2 with the down pipe and tune. The stage 3 has the advantage of the FMIC, HPFP, and whatever else. As Marty was saying, it probably is closer to a 60WHP gain if you compare just the turbo upgrade on 91 octane. This is the comparison I'm trying to get at, because I'm looking to build up all the supporting mods anyway, and if I'm just giving up 60WHP, I may prefer the low end torque, $15000 in my pocket, and some factory warranty.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

A hpfp doesnt add power though. The intercooler benefits all turbo selections though.

I drove the loba demo car back in 2010 or 2011, me and my pal had both been waiting an age to get this turbo upgrade, and where pretty much set on getting the loba, until we drove the car. Yes its faster than stock turbo, but the feeling that struck both of us after the test drive was "is that really it?". If you want to be able to feel where your hard earned went everytime you put your foot down, you might be disappointed. The push in the back feeling was pretty much the same as the stock turbo.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty said:


> APR Stage 2 with exhaust decat is 420-440hp depending on type of intercooler fitted on UK 99 ron. Loba without meth is 485hp with full bolt ons, on UK 99ron. APR III with gtx3076 is 530hp on uk 99ron. APR III with GTX3576 is 560hp on uk 99ron iirc.
> 
> Our 99 is your 95.


Thanks Poverty. We don't get anywhere near that octane unless you go to a special gas station or track. 91 octane seems to really hurt the stage 3 numbers and since that is the most widely available gas in North America, I'd tune for it with the option of switching to a 94 or 100 tune.

Can you post some dyno sheets though? I'm really curious to see the differences.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty said:


> A hpfp doesnt add power though. The intercooler benefits all turbo selections though.
> 
> I drove the loba demo car back in 2010 or 2011, me and my pal had both been waiting an age to get this turbo upgrade, and where pretty much set on getting the loba, until we drove the car. Yes its faster than stock turbo, but the feeling that struck both of us after the test drive was "is that really it?". If you want to be able to feel where your hard earned went everytime you put your foot down, you might be disappointed. The push in the back feeling was pretty much the same as the stock turbo.


I can see that. It probably plateaus early like the stock and doesn't have that constant build up of power to redline like the APR. It is underwhelming, but if it is making the power, I'm fine with it and can be smoother on the track.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> Thanks Poverty. We don't get anywhere near that octane unless you go to a special gas station or track. 91 octane seems to really hurt the stage 3 numbers and since that is the most widely available gas in North America, I'd tune for it with the option of switching to a 94 or 100 tune.
> 
> Can you post some dyno sheets though? I'm really curious to see the differences.


Are you any good with excel?

If someone makes me a template of a dynosheet that goes to 7500rpm, 650lbft, and 650hp, I'll input all the data of the dyno sheets ive got, ie stage 1, stage 2, loba, stage 3+.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I dynoed my car on the same dyno with stage 2 and Loba.


Dyno: Mustang
Stage 2 pump fuel + wmi = 352 Wheel Hp
Stage 3 Loba pump fuel + wmi = 384 Wheel Hp


Dyno: SuperFlow (or whatever brand it was):
Stage 3 Loba pump fuel + wmi (identical setup and fuel with the mustang test) = 454 Wheel Hp

The mustang wheel Hp figures are very close to what the Vbox is measuring as whp power. Also, someone else tested the car completely stock on a mustang and he obtained 276 whp (same power showed by my vbox when the car was stock).


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

cipsony said:


> I dynoed my car on the same dyno with stage 2 and Loba.
> 
> 
> Dyno: Mustang
> ...


That is a huge difference between dynos. Ok, I got a bunch of questions: 
What octane is your pump gas? 
Which stage 2 tune were you using and what mods did you have at the time? 
What parts did you need to add when you got the Loba? I'm under the impression once you have a downpipe and FMIC, you really only need the Loba turbo, HPFP, and tune.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Are you any good with excel?
> 
> If someone makes me a template of a dynosheet that goes to 7500rpm, 650lbft, and 650hp, I'll input all the data of the dyno sheets ive got, ie stage 1, stage 2, loba, stage 3+.


I'm not all that great, but I can do it. How many data points do you have per curve? e.g.: every 500RPM would be 14 or so values depending on starting RPM.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> I'm not all that great, but I can do it. How many data points do you have per curve? e.g.: every 500RPM would be 14 or so values depending on starting RPM.


If you guys are going to do this, use an APR mobile. The logging speed will make for much better results.


----------



## adamTTRS (Jan 28, 2013)

*APR Mobile Logging*

I will be attending a three day track event at the beginning of April. I intend on using the APR Mobile to log the entire weekend. I am excited to compare to my regular data logging device.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

CarbonRS said:


> I'm not all that great, but I can do it. How many data points do you have per curve? e.g.: every 500RPM would be 14 or so values depending on starting RPM.


I have already done everything you're asking for. I extracted all the curves off of the APR website and plotted them on too of each other. I'll post this up tonight.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Marty said:


> I have already done everything you're asking for. I extracted all the curves off of the APR website and plotted them on too of each other. I'll post this up tonight.


That would be great! Do you have your dyno sheets also? It would be much appreciated.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> That would be great! Do you have your dyno sheets also? It would be much appreciated.


Ive nearly finished plotting a set too, I just need to input the data from apr's latest stage 2 dyno results.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Ive nearly finished plotting a set too, I just need to input the data from apr's latest stage 2 dyno results.


Cool. I definitely want to see your numbers to get a better perspective on the APR published data. What mods did you have when you did the stage 2? The amount of work you have put into your TTRS is unreal, I wish I had the cash to do it!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Info.

Stage 2 software is from MRC, a well regarded tuner in the UK. Loba figures taken from a loba posted dynosheet. Stage 3 car figures taken from my car.


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*Loba stage 3*

Hey I'm just getting the final tuning for my Loba 500 kit. Giac is doing the tune and I should have the car back next week. If any of you are looking to do the loba kit, Giac will have the file matched with awe ic and complete switch path exhaust and vwr intake.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Torque figures:


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Nice graphs Poverty! Thanks for doing those. Those look like numbers from a 93+ octane tune? What mods were on the car at stage 2?

I want to think the Loba would do better than that, but it is impossible to do a comparison without it all being on the same dyno.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> Info.
> 
> Stage 2 software is from MRC, a well regarded tuner in the UK. Loba figures taken from a loba posted dynosheet. Stage 3 car figures taken from my car.


Are all of your curves from different dynos??


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*yeah...*

yeah, those graphs are all over the place. There is no way based on what I have driven that the stage 2 is quicker down low than the loba kit. After just the turbo and fuel pump were installed without the new tune the car was way snappier down low. not buying it


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

trichards69 said:


> yeah, those graphs are all over the place. There is no way based on what I have driven that the stage 2 is quicker down low than the loba kit. After just the turbo and fuel pump were installed without the new tune the car was way snappier down low. not buying it


Or put a nicer way, perhaps there were some unmentioned variables. However, I don't see what is so surprising about a turbo upgrade causing more lag.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Here are 91 octane charts I created by painfully extracting the power curves from the APR website (it's especially hard due to the poor choice of scaling of the power and RPM axes on the APR chart on every graph... the only reason I can think of that they would do this is to specifically make it hard to do what I did: extract the info contained in the chart). 










Here's my stock vs. Stage 3 on 91 octane comparison taken on a Mustang AWD dyno (spoiler: 301 whp stock, vs. 410 whp on Stage 3):










I thought the ~410 whp was pretty low compared to the APR-advertised ~455+ whp, so I re-dyno'd the car on a Dynojet AWD dyno with 95 octane in the car with both the 91 octane and 93 octane tunes for comparison:










To check how much driveline loss I was getting, the dyno operators then did a "negative power run" where they decelerated the rollers with just the driveline of the TT RS to see how much power was being lost there during the run. That run is shown here (~46 whp of driveline loss at the peak of ~420 whp, for a total estimated crank output of about 466 hp):










Summary:

APR claims:
- stock 91: 323 whp
- Stage 3 91: 457 whp
- gain: +41%

My results on the Mustang dyno:
- stock 91: 301 whp
- Stage 3 91: 410 whp
- gain: +36%

It'd be nice to find that extra 5% somewhere... but the relative gains are at least in the ballpark.

As for crank HP, APR claims:
- stock 91: 374 hp
- Stage 3 91: 518 hp

My results based on the Dynojet run including the driveline loss extraction:
- Stage 3 91: 420 whp + 46 whp driveline loss = 466 crank hp

518 crank hp vs. 466 crank hp is a pretty big discrepancy. But again, it's pretty hard to actually try and calculate crank hp numbers, so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

trichards69 said:


> yeah, those graphs are all over the place. There is no way based on what I have driven that the stage 2 is quicker down low than the loba kit. After just the turbo and fuel pump were installed without the new tune the car was way snappier down low. not buying it


What you are disregarding is that they are from different mappers, with different tuning philosophies. MRC are riding the boost hard from the word go, whilst the Loba map is from Revo and is the "official UK Loba map" and what the majority of Loba users in the UK running.

If I remember correctly, the reason why it's a bit more tame down below is because of EGT's. Down low was sacrificed for a better on top.

There's hybrid turbo dyno sheet somewhere which is mapped by MRC I'll have to search for it tonight and input that data and then we can see if there's any difference in that. Also then all 3 results will have been taken from the same dyno.

I also thought the Loba Revo results where a bit poor low RPM, that I searched for more graphs, I found one with better results, and re-input the data, so what you see is actually the better results of two sources.

The dyno sheets are on loba's website.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

cipsony said:


> Also, someone else tested the car completely stock on a mustang and he obtained 276 whp (same power showed by my vbox when the car was stock).


Here's my stage2+ car with 034downpipe, 100 cell secondary cats, milltek rear muffler, apr intercooler, and bmc panel filter element on 91 apr tune vs same car stock. This was on gst motorsports mustang awd dyno.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

CarbonRS said:


> That is a huge difference between dynos. Ok, I got a bunch of questions:
> What octane is your pump gas?
> Which stage 2 tune were you using and what mods did you have at the time?
> What parts did you need to add when you got the Loba? I'm under the impression once you have a downpipe and FMIC, you really only need the Loba turbo, HPFP, and tune.


With stage 2 I had: IC, exhaust (fully decatted 1 pipe X 76mm), Intake ITG, WMI
With stage 3 I only added the turbo & updated the software + changed the WMI settings and nozzles.
Both of them with Revo + 98RON fuel --> The wmi increases a lot the resistance to knock so basically you can advance the timing a lot but you need to have a software that copes with wmi.

I didn't have the HPFP nor the CNC intake pipe.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Wow, that was a lot of stuff to wake up to. Thanks for posting all your dyno info!

From Marty's comparison, this looks more in line with what I'd expect from a larger turbo. Especially the low end lag falling below the stock turbo until 3800RPM. From Poverty's stage 2 to Loba comparison, the Loba would easily get over 400WHP on Marty's graph achieving over half the gain of the APR stage 3 vs stage 2. So you get more than half the performance for less than half the price with the Loba, at least at 91 octane anyway.

smack_ttrs dyno reads low all over and that really highlights the problem with these "Wheel HP" comparisons. It seems no dyno manufacturer can agree on what wheel HP is or how to measure/correct for it. If we were to take smack_ttrs's gain of 28% over stock and put it on Marty's graph, it would be topping out at 415WHP. Then if you look at cipsony's 9% gain over stage 2 and add that to the 415WHP number, the Loba would be 453WHP on Marty's graph. How is that for some wild assumptions? The funny thing is it probably is close due to comparing percentage of gains vs stock.

There is a lot to speculate about, but the stage 2 tune with all the supporting mods of the stage 3 seems to narrow the gap considerably on 91 octane as smack_TTRS demonstrated. I'd also wonder if cipsony could get more out of his car with the HPFP and Loba CNC intake. A 9% gain over the stock turbo seems well within reason though.

Edit: Just to add, if you take Marty's real numbers it is a 36% gain from stock to stage 3, putting it at 440WHP on his comparison graph. It really looks like we are running into limitations of the engine at 91 octane. You could safely assume the Loba and APR are just about the same peak output on 91, just the curve on the APR stage 3 is more exciting from the drivers seat.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

The only hope of comparing the APR Stage 3 output to the Loba is to get both cars with equivalent mods at the same dyno at the same time.

I'm trying to talk trichards into doing this in about two weeks. Just need a good AWD dyno in the Los Angeles area.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

A HPFP in my case would add nothing because I injected wmi which acts like a fuel.

What I liked at the loba turbo is that the car felt more OEM'ish than with the OEM turbo: good response, linear acceleration that increased with rpm and a wide band for changing the gear (you could rev up to 7200 or just to 6000 and the car accelerated very fast).
I personally don't like the feeling of the big turbo and I would put a big turbo only on a very old car prepared for straight line (like boba's golf).


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

That would be incredibly useful if you both could do that! Even if you don't make it on the same day, just use the same dyno and octane.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Marty said:


> The only hope of comparing the APR Stage 3 output to the Loba is to get both cars with equivalent mods at the same dyno at the same time.
> 
> I'm trying to talk trichards into doing this in about two weeks. Just need a good AWD dyno in the Los Angeles area.


APR did this in the UK, Loba vs GTX3076.

The result was very interesting. The dyno wasn't shared on the Loba owners request.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> APR did this in the UK, Loba vs GTX3076.
> 
> The result was very interesting. The dyno wasn't shared on the Loba owners request.


Worthless then! Plus it was the older APR kit turbo. I have no shame, I'm willing to share my Loba vs. APR Stage 3 results even if the APR ends up being lower somehow.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

What's important is on road performance,and in that respect my stage III works very well.
I was concerned that power wouldn't be there to cruise at 70 mph in 7th (2000 rpm),but there's plenty of torque available to accelerate.Above 2600 rpm,it starts flying even in 7th.
Drop into 6th,and it is still much faster than a standard car accelerating from 60 mph


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Marty said:


> Worthless then! Plus it was the older APR kit turbo. I have no shame, I'm willing to share my Loba vs. APR Stage 3 results even if the APR ends up being lower somehow.


Hah good. I don't think it will be lower, it has the potential for more peak power than the Loba, but if the 91 octane is the limiting factor, it really comes down to the tune/temps/meth injection.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

jaybyme said:


> What's important is on road performance,and in that respect my stage III works very well.
> I was concerned that power wouldn't be there to cruise at 70 mph in 7th (2000 rpm),but there's plenty of torque available to accelerate.Above 2600 rpm,it starts flying even in 7th.
> Drop into 6th,and it is still much faster than a standard car accelerating from 60 mph


You're dreaming if you think the instantaneous acceleration at 3000 RPM on the Stage 3 is greater than stock. At 3000 RPM, a stock car puts out about 30-40% more power than Stage 3.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> From Poverty's stage 2 to Loba comparison, the Loba would easily get over 400WHP on Marty's graph achieving over half the gain of the APR stage 3 vs stage 2.


Except that the loba kit is using WMi. If you put 91 octane into the Loba, it's not going to make 400whp. If you add WMi to Martys car and run the 100 map, it will pass everything but a gas station. (Note: APR officially recommends against using WMi, due to the risk of engine damage)

034 took a TT-RS with the APR Stage 3 kit (no head porting or anything else.. same kit/engine as Marty) to the tuner grand prix with race fuel in the tank.

http://www.europeancarweb.com/events/1402_european_car_tuner_grand_prix_2013/viewall.html



> The tuner had seen power in the 600s before the event but was delighted when the Dynapack revealed a best run of 667hp and 566 lb-ft.


Granted, it was a dynopack.. but, the numbers still speak for themselves. This was done by a magazine, not APR, not a tuning shop and not a customer.

Edit: You could even put WMI onto a Stage 2 and you'll be very close to the LOBA numbers without the longer wait for spool.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

The assumption of the Loba performance on 91 octane was it showed a 9% improvement in peak output over the stock turbo. To get an apples to apples we needed a known stage 2 to apply the 9% percent to. Smack_ttrs has all the supporting mods of a stage 3, but with the stock turbo and stage 2 tune running 91 octane, this is perfect. To adjust his dyno run to use the APR dyno graph Marty created, I applied smack_ttrs 28% peak gain to the 323WHP APR stock number to get a peak power of 415WHP. Then simply add the 9% for the Loba and you get a peak theoretical number of 453WHP. Now this isn't perfect because of the demonstrated limitations at 91 octane. We know the APR stage 3 kit would peak out at 440WHP using Marty's real world results and adjusting them to the APR graph, showing that we are limited more by the 91 octane and the Loba will definitely hit the same ceiling. So my conclusion is still the same until we can see both cars run back to back as Marty has suggested. It is going to come down to the tune and supporting mods at 91 octane, although it wouldn't be surprising if the bigger turbo edges out the Loba. We all know the bigger turbo can make bigger numbers with higher octane.

I'm not trying to beat up APR, just get the real world performance gained by different upgrades at 91 octane. The water is very murky when the most quoted numbers don't take into account supporting modifications and quote peak power using race gas. As seen just the turbo upgrade alone at 91 octane isn't really shaping up to be much for the money. Next I'd like to to compare at 93-94 octane, which I'm sure you will be happy with the larger spread. Personally I want to get your downpipe and stage 2 tune which looks like the best bang for the buck. Although the Loba may end up meeting my needs after stage 2, but who knows, that is what this thread hopes to decide.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> The assumption of the Loba performance on 91 octane was it showed a 9% improvement in peak output over the stock turbo. To get an apples to apples we needed a known stage 2 to apply the 9% percent to. Smack_ttrs has all the supporting mods of a stage 3, but with the stock turbo and stage 2 tune running 91 octane, this is perfect. To adjust his dyno run to use the APR dyno graph Marty created, I applied smack_ttrs 28% peak gain to the 323WHP APR stock number to get a peak power of 415WHP. Then simply add the 9% for the Loba and you get a peak theoretical number of 453WHP. Now this isn't perfect because of the demonstrated limitations at 91 octane. We know the APR stage 3 kit would peak out at 440WHP using Marty's real world results and adjusting them to the APR graph, showing that we are limited more by the 91 octane and the Loba will definitely hit the same ceiling. So my conclusion is still the same until we can see both cars run back to back as Marty has suggested. It is going to come down to the tune and supporting mods at 91 octane, although it wouldn't be surprising if the bigger turbo edges out the Loba. We all know the bigger turbo can make bigger numbers with higher octane.
> 
> I'm not trying to beat up APR, just get the real world performance gained by different upgrades at 91 octane. The water is very murky when the most quoted numbers don't take into account supporting modifications and quote peak power using race gas. As seen just the turbo upgrade alone at 91 octane isn't really shaping up to be much for the money. Next I'd like to to compare at 93-94 octane, which I'm sure you will be happy with the larger spread. Personally I want to get your downpipe and stage 2 tune which looks like the best bang for the buck. Although the Loba may end up meeting my needs after stage 2, but who knows, that is what this thread hopes to decide.



I will do another graph when I have a chance of:

MRC stage 2 vs MRC hybrid turbo vs APR Stage 3, all results taken from the same dyno.

The Mrc hybrid map comes in a hard, but without WMI it "only" peaks at 475hp.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Except that the loba kit is using WMi. If you put 91 octane into the Loba, it's not going to make 400whp. If you add WMi to Martys car and run the 100 map, it will pass everything but a gas station. (Note: APR officially recommends against using WMi, due to the risk of engine damage)
> 
> 034 took a TT-RS with the APR Stage 3 kit (no head porting or anything else.. same kit/engine as Marty) to the tuner grand prix with race fuel in the tank.
> 
> ...


To be fair, there has to be something up with those dynopack numbers compared to the Mustang or the Dynojet that I dyno'd on. I don't buy that my 93-octane 440 whp number would turn into 667 whp (a gain of 227 whp, or *+52%*) with *just* a change from 93 to 100 octane. 

APR claims that switching from 93 to 100 octane bumps the Stage 3 from 492 whp to 604 whp (+23%). 

That being said, APR also claims going from 91 to 93 should bump the Stage 3 from 457 whp to 492 whp (+8%), while I saw 420 whp -> 440 whp (+5%). So it seems all very hard to compare numbers.

Though it'd be nice if every single calculation didn't show that I was putting out much less power than advertised (either absolute, or percentage gain) no matter how you slice it.  Just being 100% honest here... If it was truly just "dyno variation", I'd expect some calcs to show lower, some calcs to show higher, but all generally be in the ballpark.


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

This has become quite the conversation. As much as I despise pissing matches between different tuners, I think that this one has merit simply because the Loba kit is far less expensive than the Apr kit and maybe more practical for real world use. I think it will be interesting to see what GIAC brings to the table for the Loba 500 and supporting mods. Revo has been the only one to tune for the Loba kit and, well, it's Revo. I'm down to do a back to back dyno day with Marty when I get the car back. The results will be interesting simply for dollars to awesomes ratio but I'm not down to feed a dick measuring contest with APR.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Will be good to see the numbers overlayed with everything being equal.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

trichards69 said:


> This has become quite the conversation. As much as I despise pissing matches between different tuners, I think that this one has merit simply because the Loba kit is far less expensive than the Apr kit and maybe more practical for real world use. I think it will be interesting to see what GIAC brings to the table for the Loba 500 and supporting mods. Revo has been the only one to tune for the Loba kit and, well, it's Revo. I'm down to do a back to back dyno day with Marty when I get the car back. The results will be interesting simply for dollars to awesomes ratio but I'm not down to feed a dick measuring contest with APR.


There's no measuring contest.. I'm as curious about the results as anybody else. I have my predictions about what the outcome will be, but they're solely that, my predictions.

I believe in our product, but that's because I've driven it.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Yes, it is getting interesting. Thanks all for participating while remaining remarkably unbiased. That really is the purpose of this, compare real world how each upgrade effects performance. There clearly is no right or wrong way to upgrade this car because each choice has different attributes at different octanes. I appreciate the help gathering the info and ultimately making my (and others reading this) upgrade choices easier. Please don't take this as a pissing contest as that would be widely missing the point.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Marty said:


> To be fair, there has to be something up with those dynopack numbers compared to the Mustang or the Dynojet that I dyno'd on. I don't buy that my 93-octane 440 whp number would turn into 667 whp (a gain of 227 whp, or *+52%*) with *just* a change from 93 to 100 octane.
> 
> APR claims that switching from 93 to 100 octane bumps the Stage 3 from 492 whp to 604 whp (+23%).
> 
> ...


Prior to APR, I built ECUs and accompanying systems for industrial prime movers. In that industry, the dyno scores are everything and they have to be 100% accurate. Many of my units ended up attached to alternators generating electricity for a power company. Because of that, all of my customers could directly measure the power output of the engine. I had a very expensive, super-precise engine dyno that was calibrated on a regular basis. We built correction factors based on real world testing of the engines we were using and had a full environmental control system for the cell. Adjustable temperature, pressure and humidity.

I could count on the numbers from that thing without question. 

I really get a kick out of the way it's done on the car side. The variations in dynos are so huge and they leave out so many variables, it's basically impossible to compare anything.

Marty, the short version is that the dynapack is more repeatable than any other dyno and it's also safer to run (car is 100% stationary and can't become a hazard in any way). The reason that it's so repeatable is that there is no extra mass and there are no friction couplings involved in the measurements.

At APR, repeatability is the most important thing. (We need that for calibration)

Any rolling dyno will have substantial amounts of error that increase significantly at higher speeds and higher loads. The error can go either way (high or low) , but it will always be there.

I can't speak specifically to your numbers because they aren't really comparable to ours. If you find a dynapack near you, take a run on it. You should be within a small margin of our results.

Regarding the TT-RS specifically, it's VERY knock limited. 100 octane fuel makes an enormous difference in the car. Buy a tank sometime and you'll instantly understand. A stage 2 car with race gas is roughly comparable to a Stage 3 on 91.

A stage 3 on race gas is a BEAST. At that grand prix link I posted, Eurocode brought their APR tuned S6 (Twin turbo V8). 034s TT-RS out dyno'd it (same dyno, same day) by well over 100hp.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Prior to APR, I built ECUs and accompanying systems for industrial prime movers. In that industry, the dyno scores are everything and they have to be 100% accurate. Many of my units ended up attached to alternators generating electricity for a power company. Because of that, all of my customers could directly measure the power output of the engine. I had a very expensive, super-precise engine dyno that was calibrated on a regular basis. We built correction factors based on real world testing of the engines we were using and had a full environmental control system for the cell. Adjustable temperature, pressure and humidity.
> 
> I could count on the numbers from that thing without question.
> 
> ...


Great insights, thanks. :thumbup: Sounds like trichards and I need to find a Dynapack in LA.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Marty said:


> You're dreaming if you think the instantaneous acceleration at 3000 RPM on the Stage 3 is greater than stock. At 3000 RPM, a stock car puts out about 30-40% more power than Stage 3.


Dreaming LOL,I've done 10,000 km with stage III so have a bloody good idea what I'm talking about.
I'm running US 98 octane fuel. Power really starts coming in at 2600 rpm,by latest 3400 rpm full torque is available.
I'll do some 4th gear runs from 60 mph in the next few days if you want proof.
This video driving in normal traffic was made to prove to someone else that said the car would be useless unless I had at least 4000 rpm on the clock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axtCGlYOvTw


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

I'm just going by the clear dyno data. If you have any other data, please do share.

As soon as I get my car back from the shop again, I'll talk my friend with a stock TTRS into some side-by-side rolling acceleration runs on the highway in 6th gear at 65 mph. You can judge for yourself how they compare in that scenario.

Then to be fair, I'll also do one in 3rd.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

To be honest you don't put a stage III kit on your car to make it win races accelerating from 2000 rpm in 6th, but as long as it can cruise that's the main thing


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

jaybyme said:


> To be honest you don't put a stage III kit on your car to make it win races accelerating from 2000 rpm in 6th, but as long as it can cruise that's the main thing


No debate there. Although stock-like spool and more low end would be nice, but I understand the fundamental tradeoff here.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> Dreaming LOL,I've done 10,000 km with stage III so have a bloody good idea what I'm talking about.
> I'm running US 98 octane fuel. Power really starts coming in at 2600 rpm,by latest 3400 rpm full torque is available.
> I'll do some 4th gear runs from 60 mph in the next few days if you want proof.
> This video driving in normal traffic was made to prove to someone else that said the car would be useless unless I had at least 4000 rpm on the clock
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axtCGlYOvTw


Jay, stage 2 is much faster if you compare + the manual have a longer gear than DSG 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77uHZtxkRxY


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

And a movie with loba & wmi --> It was fast enough for me


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

cipsony said:


> And a movie with loba & wmi --> It was fast enough for me


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4axCqIXIso


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

popcorn.... lol


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

As mentioned before Ciprian there is no point in comparing any videos to what I posted as it was not a proper acceleration run,it was just to show that the car will accelerate perfectly well from 2000 rpm in higher gears.
I bet that the 100-200 kmh time in 4th gear will be faster than any normal stage 2 car which average around 8.5 , 9 secs,and much quicker than a standard car.
I'll time some runs soon.
(didn't know the the manual was higher geared in 4th,5th,6th ?) both manual and DSG hit the standard limiter pretty much at 200 kmh


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Vbox times....? or GTech????


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> As mentioned before Ciprian there is no point in comparing any videos to what I posted as it was not a proper acceleration run,it was just to show that the car will accelerate perfectly well from 2000 rpm in higher gears.
> I bet that the 100-200 kmh time in 4th gear will be faster than any normal stage 2 car which average around 8.5 , 9 secs,and much quicker than a standard car.
> I'll time some runs soon.
> (didn't know the the manual was higher geared in 4th,5th,6th ?) both manual and DSG hit the standard limiter pretty much at 200 kmh


Sorry my bad. I wanted to say that a stage 2 have a much better lag, I mean the difference in engine response is quite big between the stage 2 and big turbo --> clearly visible from both movies. This doesn't stop someone in driving the stage 3 at basically any rpm but the car behaves differently when you press the pedal. On a dsg car the lag is not such "problematic" because you always have the "kick down" option but on a manual I would prefer something close to OEM lag. Once you reach high rpm I believe the big turbo is faster than both stage 2 and Loba (highway or 1/4 mille). On a racetrack or b-roads ... I don't think a stage 3 manual will be faster because you are not constantly over 5000-6000 rpm (at least not in my hands).


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Whilst out today I just done a few 100-200 4th gear runs timed with the on board computer to confirm what I know,and they were under 7 secs.
I'll do Vbox runs soon,but obviously the times will still be very quick and like I thought easily quicker than any stage 2 or normal hybrid turbo cars.
Ciprian,I don't really class it as lag,more as to where the power band is.If you want to drive fast you will never have a problem as you will always be above 3000 rpm.
Basically if your at 3000 rpm,the car will fly.In manual I can still accelerate faster than your normal family car from 1400 rpm in 7th,it's just there is a huge jump in power once above 3000 rpm


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Even above 3000 the stage 2 looks faster. Probably above 5000~5500 you can really see a difference in the favor of stage 3.
In addition, according to Poverty the stage 2 APR is faster than any other stage 2 so basically it would move better than the video I posted


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

cipsony said:


> Even above 3000 the stage 2 looks faster. Probably above 5000~5500 you can really see a difference in the favor of stage 3.
> In addition, according to Poverty the stage 2 APR is faster than any other stage 2 so basically it would move better than the video I posted


It's prett clear from the APR dynos:

- Stock puts out more power than Stage 3 up until about 3500 RPM
- Stage 2 puts out more power than Stage 3 up until about 4000 RPM
- the biggest power difference with Stage 3 comes over the 5000-7000 RPM range


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Marty: If you cruise in 6th gear at a very low rpm and you downshift in a gear to 4000-5000 is the car accelerating instantly? .... or do you have a small delay?


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Marty said:


> It's prett clear from the APR dynos:
> 
> - Stock puts out more power than Stage 3 up until about 3500 RPM
> - Stage 2 puts out more power than Stage 3 up until about 4000 RPM
> - the biggest power difference with Stage 3 comes over the 5000-7000 RPM range


Check out this APR dyno run, and you can see that the power matches stage 2 from 2600 rpm,the way the power comes in on this chart is how it feels when driving my car.

http://s203.photobucket.com/user/jaybyme/media/Audi TT RS/TTRS-2WD_zps18f6df37.jpg.html?sort=3&o=5

I know my car is faster than it was with any stage 2 map above 3400 rpm,no matter what gear I'm in. The stage 2 would just have more from 2-3000 rpm.
Ciprian the fastest and most powerful Revo/Loba car on the German forum,posts a 7.2 sec 100-200 km/h with weight savings,another car 7.4 sec.Seems like your WMI and map made a big difference.
A good stage 2 might get down to 7.6-7.8 secs. A good Stage III gets down to 5.8 secs or lower and any stage III car no matter what fuel and weight, will easily go under 7 secs.
The only time any stage 2 car will be quicker is when accelerating in a high gear between 1500-3400 rpm,which is pretty irrelevant.There are diesels that are also quicker,so just buy a diesel if that's important.


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

Are you guys allergic to upshifting to get into a powerband? Geesh! 

What a waste of a beautiful engine to be putting a turbo on it that drops off after 6000rpm. No turbo is efficient for more that 3500 rpm best case. Doesn't matter if it is 3000-6500 like the stock turbo or 4000-7500 with the GTX3576, it is just a powerband. This 07k based TTRS is just like every other roller rocker head in the VAG family, and they all have little issue reving to 8000 daily for years and years. If the head was limited to 6500rpm, it would be one thing, as the powerband would be short with only 4000-6500, but my heavens, the motor loves more RPM! It doesn't even sound like a 5 cylinder till 6500!!

I don't hear people jumping on 1000cc street/sport bikes and complaining that there isn't any power from idle till 6000rpm, they just make sure they are always in the powerband and all is good!


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

This is getting good.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Another Loba 2.5tfsi dyno'd on MRC's dyno and made a peak of 450hp without WMI.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Another Loba 2.5tfsi dyno'd on MRC's dyno and made a peak of 450hp without WMI.


Nice, I'm glad there are more cars out there to get some numbers from. Can you provide any details of the build and octane tested? I'm curious how much work it takes to get there. I'm assuming that is WHP on a 4WD dyno, but what kind of dyno was it and is that an adjusted number?

Thanks again Poverty!


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> Another Loba 2.5tfsi dyno'd on MRC's dyno and made a peak of 450hp without WMI.


Wheel hp? Again, here to compete without before / after dynos.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> Nice, I'm glad there are more cars out there to get some numbers from. Can you provide any details of the build and octane tested? I'm curious how much work it takes to get there. I'm assuming that is WHP on a 4WD dyno, but what kind of dyno was it and is that an adjusted number?
> 
> Thanks again Poverty!


Those are flywheel numbers with UK 99 ron aka USA 95.

They said the ****ty Revo branded pipercross open cone was causing it to heat soak and lose a bit of power, so maybe once that's sorted and tuned again it will dyno 470-475hp flywheel like the other hybrid cars have done on that dyno


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> Those are flywheel numbers with UK 99 ron aka USA 95.
> 
> They said the ****ty Revo branded pipercross open cone was causing it to heat soak and lose a bit of power, so maybe once that's sorted and tuned again it will dyno 470-475hp flywheel like the other hybrid cars have done on that dyno


Flywheel numbers? :facepalm:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Marty said:


> Flywheel numbers? :facepalm:


Par for the course in Europe..


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

Poverty, do you have any baseline numbers from the same dyno with a stock car or even a stage 1 or 2. It is nearly impossible to compare that number, but if we could find a % gain over something we can reference, that would be great.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

CarbonRS said:


> Poverty, do you have any baseline numbers from the same dyno with a stock car or even a stage 1 or 2. It is nearly impossible to compare that number, but if we could find a % gain over something we can reference, that would be great.


I'll post every TTRS graph that's been done on the MRC dyno I can find later tonight :thumbup:


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

That would be great to get a comparison started.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

The real test is 1/4 trap speeds. Why is everyone concerned with dynos? Too many variables in my experience. Especially when comparing dynos from EU and UK to the US vice versa.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

steelcurtain said:


> The real test is 1/4 trap speeds. Why is everyone concerned with dynos? Too many variables in my experience. Especially when comparing dynos from EU and UK to the US vice versa.


Too many variables with track location, surface prep, driver, etc.

And no one should be comparing horsepower numbers at this point but % gain. That should be easy to plot if folks have a before and after graph.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Too many variables with track location, surface prep, driver, etc.


Agreed, American tracks are fastest, because admittedly they are easily the best prepared strips.

The continent times ie Greece, Romania, arguably have bad timing equipment because they post really quick times on crappily prepared surfaces.

And the UK, well we only have Santa pod for a FIA spec track, and it's slow most of the time, badly prepared.

100-200kmh is probably our best bet as it's one gear change, from 3rd to 4th and that's pretty straightforward.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Agreed, American tracks are fastest, because admittedly they are easily the best prepared strips.
> 
> The continent times ie Greece, Romania, arguably have bad timing equipment because they post really quick times on crappily prepared surfaces.
> 
> ...


Agree with you, just that I was the only one willing to share the actual vbox file and not just a drawn graphic.
In addition, I tested the car in both ways of the same road so no one can tell it was windy or anything. All the data was present in the same vbox file and all was done 1.5 years ago. 
After so much "fuss" in relation to stage 3 Apr there still isn't any 100-200 vbox file (not graphic or picture).


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

bringing this back from the dead, maybe i can get some info.... post up updates people.

Thanks for the reminder carbonRS, there is still info to be worked out.


----------

