# Convince me, facts requested...



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Experienced opinions needed please, 

Full bolt ons, and Stage 2 tune (APR or UMS), on 91 oct, what is the most power seen to the wheels?

I am asking to see if its really worth it to go up to the Stage 3 kit as I am in a position to make the decision any time now.

We are surrounded by ****ty 91 oct so thats where the information is needed on that. I know on race fuel the Stage 3 can go well into the 600s... and ill definitely play with that if I go there, but it will be few and far between.


Or, if you have other info for a different build, enlighten me. I want to get the most bang for the buck, and going up to $23,000 in Stg 3 kit, i want to verify all the alternative options lol.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Way to keep my hanging Poverty... :wave:


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 25, 2013)

Dan.S said:


> Or, if you have other info for a different build, enlighten me. I want to get the most bang for the buck, and going up to $23,000 in Stg 3 kit, i want to verify all the alternative options lol.
> 
> Thanks for the info.


Dan,

Hopefully trichards will post up his experience with the Loba hybrid kit as it is much cheaper than the comprehensive (and amazing) APR set up. Sound like a relative bargain given the gains.

Just my .02

Jeff


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Great, a compendium of knowledge is what I'm after to make the most effective financial/enjoyment decision.


----------



## CarbonRS (Jul 15, 2013)

I made a thread about 91 octane comparisons a while back. Stage 2 with full boltons or the Loba made the most sense.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Simple answer is that stage 2 > stage 3 in the gain/dollar/reliability equation.


----------



## Hybrid_Hatch (Oct 24, 2005)

Have you talked to Hank At Iroz Motorsport in Vegas? He has more ttrs' in there then almost anyone... he has a kit that is cheaper than most and has a dyno on site to deal with any 91 octane issues...


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

All I will say is, hehehehehehe.....


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*just saw this...*

ok, so here's my 2 cts on the loba kit: to me, down low, (no i don't have the dyno sheet) the loba kit seems like the stage 2 with 100 octane, its not until you hit the upper range/speeds that the real difference presents itself. where the giac stage 2 would drop off in acceleration the loba lets me keep going. i almost think the best thing about the loba kit is the upgraded fuel delivery from the new pump. the car is very smooth with no lag at all. 

i'm supposed to go in to giac for an updated file here soon that is supposed to bump the torque up in the higher revs too. 


i realize that without the dyno plots that this is just me talking, but remember my car was the test mule for the giac ttrs tuning in the usa, and has been through a lot of updates and bumps. i can say with much conviction that the loba kit with its upgraded fuel pump pulls quite a bit harder than the full stage 2.


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

trichards69 said:


> ok, so here's my 2 cts on the loba kit: to me, down low, (no i don't have the dyno sheet) the loba kit seems like the stage 2 with 100 octane, its not until you hit the upper range/speeds that the real difference presents itself. where the giac stage 2 would drop off in acceleration the loba lets me keep going. i almost think the best thing about the loba kit is the upgraded fuel delivery from the new pump. the car is very smooth with no lag at all.
> 
> i'm supposed to go in to giac for an updated file here soon that is supposed to bump the torque up in the higher revs too.
> 
> ...


Todd, if you are ever in Las Vegas with the car, I'd love to put the car on my dyno. I'd do it for free and take you to lunch. I wouldn't even ask for a pair of Arnettes.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Stop at Stage 1 (or at most Stage 2), in my opinion. And I have an APR stage 3 on my car... it is not everything it is cracked up to be.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Marty said:


> Stop at Stage 1 (or at most Stage 2), in my opinion. And I have an APR stage 3 on my car... *it is not everything it is cracked up to be.*


Ouch. 

Seems like for a flagship turbo kit, APR should do a better job of supporting it. 

@URHank, your turbo kit looks great :thumbup: Which model EFR is that? Have you considered getting the manifold ceramic coated to help reduce under-hood temps? 

Dave


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

crew219 said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Seems like for a flagship turbo kit, APR should do a better job of supporting it.
> 
> ...


I would think at most, APR would create a kit that had the majority of its benefits on pump gas, as that is what 90% of customers are on 90% of the time. Thats why on my other car im going back to a 91 tune from my E85, as its a pita to deal with trying to be a round an E85 station, and I cant run lower than 1/4 tank without it getting ****ty.

Im a street guy mostly, with occasional trips to the track, just makes sense to me.


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

crew219 said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Seems like for a flagship turbo kit, APR should do a better job of supporting it.
> 
> ...


I PM'ed you. I am not a vendor here, and I rather enjoy helping the community out.


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

Marty said:


> Stop at Stage 1 (or at most Stage 2), in my opinion. And I have an APR stage 3 on my car... it is not everything it is cracked up to be.


That's such a bummer to hear Marty. I'm actually really glad I didn't go huge and get the apr kit.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

^^^^^ and that's exactly why I made this thread. I was about a week shy of ordering the Stage 3 kit with every bolt on.... Shame to have been disappointed at over a $23,000 expenditure.


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

:thumbup:


Dan.S said:


> ^^^^^ and that's exactly why I made this thread. I was about a week shy of ordering the Stage 3 kit with every bolt on.... Shame to have been disappointed at over a $23,000 expenditure.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

trichards69 said:


> That's such a bummer to hear Marty. I'm actually really glad I didn't go huge and get the apr kit.


Todd are you running the LO500P or the LO470p? I'm curious to see what overall power output is like and how it compares to a stage 2 car. I'd imagine that it would produce much more usable power vs the 4krpm spool of the stage 3 kit. 

Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

URHank said:


> I PM'ed you. I am not a vendor here, and I rather enjoy helping the community out.


Thanks for the PM Hank. It's a beautiful piece of fabrication and I like how you've opted to use the EFR turbo over a lesser turbo like the GTX series. With minimal retail cost differences between the EFR and the GTX, I have to question why GTXs are still considered since it is relatively old technology/design.

Dave


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

crew219 said:


> Todd are you running the LO500P or the LO470p? I'm curious to see what overall power output is like and how it compares to a stage 2 car. I'd imagine that it would produce much more usable power vs the 4krpm spool of the stage 3 kit.
> 
> Dave


 Its the LO500 kit. and there isn't any noticeable increase in boost lag from stage 2. If anything it almost feels more responsive due to the Loba hpfp.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Dan.S said:


> ^^^^^ and that's exactly why I made this thread. I was about a week shy of ordering the Stage 3 kit with every bolt on.... Shame to have been disappointed at over a $23,000 expenditure.


Yes. My car is perpetually in the shop to try and fix issues, with the latest being a low boost issue on track that doesn't reproduce in short bursts on the street.

Fitment is too tight in the engine bay. Makes service a huge time sink. And I still get clunks and loud buzzes from the fitment / routing of the downpipe and other lines hitting the firewall. More of just an annoyance, but it makes the car feel a bit cheap. Could be install-related, but the design certainly heavily contributes.

Oh, and I get occasional stalls in traffic or parking lots from poor idle stability / incomplete idle software tuning.

The turbo lag is really bad... very slow spool at high RPM, and virtually no boost below 4000 RPM. On track, it makes me have to downshift at turns where I didn't have to before, and I end up going slower through those sections (making up for it on straight-aways).

Turbo also has audible compressor surge (oscillating boost and loud whirring sounds in the midrange). Textbook oversized turbo / excessive pressure ratio for the mass flow rate.

On the upside, the high RPM power is smooth and solid (no hesitation ever). 

VERY detailed review with pictures and videos coming from me in the near future...


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

Marty said:


> Yes. My car is perpetually in the shop to try and fix issues, with the latest being a low boost issue on track that doesn't reproduce in short bursts on the street.
> 
> Fitment is too tight in the engine bay. Makes service a huge time sink. And I still get clunks and loud buzzes from the fitment / routing of the downpipe and other lines hitting the firewall. More of just an annoyance, but it makes the car feel a bit cheap. Could be install-related, but the design certainly heavily contributes.
> 
> ...


Can't wait for that. I heard the APR kit is a .63 hotside. That is interesting to me. Why use a 35r turbine if you are oging to choke down the flow with the .63 hotside and make it have the same corrected turbine flow as the .82 30r turbine.










I want to see an APR kit with HTA3582r instead of GTX3576r. It isn't as big as it sounds, it is only a 59mm inducer vs the 58 on the gtx, but they spool nicely on the .82AR with a 2.5T. We make 640-650whp on that turbo on 2.5T pretty easily and have street spool at 4000rpm. I think the transient response is better though. GTX's full blade compressor is made to maximize flow per mm of compressor for inducer dictated classes. They are amazing at higher pressure ratios. Problem is, pump gas and high pressure ratios is an oxymoron. The benefit isn't realized unless pressure ratios are high and that efficiency can be take advantage of. The GTX does well on race gas or e85 but is kindof laggy and has poor transient for street cars. 

Hank


----------



## MSS Automotive (Mar 20, 2013)

trichards69 said:


> ok, so here's my 2 cts on the loba kit: to me, down low, (no i don't have the dyno sheet) the loba kit seems like the stage 2 with 100 octane, its not until you hit the upper range/speeds that the real difference presents itself. where the giac stage 2 would drop off in acceleration the loba lets me keep going. i almost think the best thing about the loba kit is the upgraded fuel delivery from the new pump. the car is very smooth with no lag at all.
> 
> i'm supposed to go in to giac for an updated file here soon that is supposed to bump the torque up in the higher revs too.
> 
> ...


I prefer firsthand driving feedback. I find Dynos never tell me anything meaningful. I say that because when I went from stock to Stage 1 (stock IC) to Stage 1 (aftermarket IC) to Stage 2 (aftermarket IC) the Dyno showed Stage 1 with aftermarket IC as having the best power. To me, the car felt great from Stock to Stage 1 even with stock IC yet Dyno shows only a modest power and Torque increase. I did notice the power drop off on warmer days still with stock IC and after upgrading the IC to Pro-Alloy back in Jan 2011 the car felt great and power drop off was gone for good.

Going to Stage 2, I still did not detect a great improvement in power however I found that torque was stronger and thus I could still maintain higher gears in slower bends - which was the key reason for the mapping for me.

Speaking to various people about Stage 3 - yourself included, it would appear that trait is not eroded and so for me when my stock Turbo should die a S3 LOBA kit would seem a reasonable move...as we will be in a change window anyway.

I have charted our progress on Dyno from stock in 2010 to current Stage 2 which I have not fettled with since being upgraded back in 2011. 

Jim recently commented that we may need to go to Stage 3 sooner when he last drove the car on track however on closer inspection we found the clutch was on its last legs and replaced that...power is back on song again and the Stage 2 feels strong again triggering TC with ease as it used to when the clutch was younger back in 2010. 

Was an eye opener for me to notice how much stronger the car feels with a new clutch...speed uptake is such a breeze again...in the last days of the old clutch, mid power was weak so overtaking became a little laboured.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I went from Stage 1 to Stage 2 and then to Loba 500P & some serious weight reduction.
This year i had to bring the car back to stock and sell it - so I sold the car with everything OEM except the Loba turbo --> It is amazing how well it works with the stock software and to anyone who wants to go stage 3 big turbo I advise the following:
First put the OEM software back on the car (even you have stage 2 IC, exhaust ...) and see how smooth and "unstressed" the car is working --> This might convince you weather to go the Loba kit which is as close to OEM as possible or a big turbo.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

URHank said:


> Can't wait for that. I heard the APR kit is a .63 hotside. That is interesting to me. Why use a 35r turbine if you are oging to choke down the flow with the .63 hotside and make it have the same corrected turbine flow as the .82 30r turbine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


640whp on what octane and what dyno?

On a Dynojet AWD dyno, I made 420whp on 91 octane tune and 439 whp on 93 octane tune with my APR Stage 3. (all runs were done in 96 octane fuel)


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*hey...*

hey Marty, I'm going to be up in your neck of the woods (portola vly) in late September, be great to meet up and do skyline/hwy17 or something ? we could swap cars for a couple runs and get a feel for the different tunes


----------



## MSS Automotive (Mar 20, 2013)

cipsony said:


> I went from Stage 1 to Stage 2 and then to Loba 500P & some serious weight reduction.
> This year i had to bring the car back to stock and sell it - so I sold the car with everything OEM except the Loba turbo --> It is amazing how well it works with the stock software and to anyone who wants to go stage 3 big turbo I advise the following:
> First put the OEM software back on the car (even you have stage 2 IC, exhaust ...) and see how smooth and "unstressed" the car is working --> This might convince you weather to go the Loba kit which is as close to OEM as possible or a big turbo.


Ohh, interesting point there Cip...


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

trichards69 said:


> hey Marty, I'm going to be up in your neck of the woods (portola vly) in late September, be great to meet up and do skyline/hwy17 or something ? we could swap cars for a couple runs and get a feel for the different tunes


Definitely. I'd love to get some VCDS logs of speed vs. time to get a real feel for the power differences.

You open to heading down the road to a shop with a dyno?


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

E85. We have done 625whp on 100 oct with the turbo. This is 034's old dyno before they got their Mustang last year. Only changes is that they corrected their values plus ~7% to match the local Mustang, and I have left mine at zero, so it reads what it reads. Stock TTRS's do about 295-305whp depending on carbon on the valves.



















It was 110 degrees out that day, so we were only doing 10 second pulls to keep IAT's comfortable. A longer pull with more load dumps it down into the 4000rpm range for full boost like it does on the street. This is with stock 07k NA 2.5L cams, which are terrible. We have a set of TTRS cams we will put in it for testing soon, and that will make a bunch of difference for the top end power dropoff.

Yes it is a riot in a 2700lb quattro.

Hank


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

What is in the addition of your stage 3, over your other turbo?


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

Marty said:


> Definitely. I'd love to get some VCDS logs of speed vs. time to get a real feel for the power differences.
> 
> You open to heading down the road to a shop with a dyno?


hey guys i talked to mike at gst in hayward and he's good with throwing all our cars on to see how they compare on the mustang dyno. no cost(well probably a 12er of becks but...).
it would have to be a saturday so he has time.

btw this is my apr stage 2 car which has 034 downpipe, 100 cell secondary cats(still dual midpipe setup), apr intercooler, and bmc panel filter in stock housing on 91. the base curves are my car in stock form(sport exhaust in case that actually makes a difference) also on 91.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

smack_ttrs said:


> hey guys i talked to mike at gst in hayward and he's good with throwing all our cars on to see how they compare on the mustang dyno. no cost(well probably a 12er of becks but...).
> it would have to be a saturday so he has time.
> 
> btw this is my apr stage 2 car which has 034 downpipe, 100 cell secondary cats(still dual midpipe setup), apr intercooler, and bmc panel filter in stock housing on 91. the base curves are my car in stock form(sport exhaust in case that actually makes a difference) also on 91.


I'm in any time. Your car puts out some solid power for Stage 2!


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> hey guys i talked to mike at gst in hayward and he's good with throwing all our cars on to see how they compare on the mustang dyno. no cost(well probably a 12er of becks but...).
> it would have to be a saturday so he has time.
> 
> btw this is my apr stage 2 car which has 034 downpipe, 100 cell secondary cats(still dual midpipe setup), apr intercooler, and bmc panel filter in stock housing on 91. the base curves are my car in stock form(sport exhaust in case that actually makes a difference) also on 91.




When??? If its a couple weeks off, I need to send my ECU to get the UM stage 2 tune. And time to put on the APR FMIC.

I vote Sept 20 or 27th. 

So this would give facts....of Same DYNO same day APR Stage 3, APR Stage 2 and UM Stage 2


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I find the power delivery of the APR stage III kit to be very good. I get decent power coming in at 2600 rpm with power really kicking in after 3400 rpm.
Cars tested on APR Europe's Maha dyno are 600-640 hp ATF on 95-98 US octane fuel (98-102 EU octane) 750 hp with a step up in turbo 3582.
My engine is out at the moment having all nice new pistons,rods etc and some nice head and valve work done, so no valve float or similar problems.
Once finished, power will come in earlier still and over a wider range.Aiming for 700 hp and 700nm with nice road manners.

Here's a chart from a car with similar mods on 95 octane (Different map to mine)





Need to see some acceleration figures for you car Marty,seems a bit strange that your not impressed with the stage III,plus it seems someone fitted it wrong ?


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

jaybyme said:


> I find the power delivery of the APR stage III kit to be very good. I get decent power coming in at 2600 rpm with power really kicking in after 3400 rpm.
> Cars tested on APR Europe's Maha dyno are 600-640 hp ATF on 95-98 US octane fuel (98-102 EU octane) 750 hp with a step up in turbo 3582.
> My engine is out at the moment having all nice new pistons,rods etc and some nice head and valve work done, so no valve float or similar problems.
> Once finished, power will come in earlier still and over a wider range.Aiming for 700 hp and 700nm with nice road manners.
> ...



Yeah, we know APR Stg 3 makes power great oh higher octane fuel jay, we are specifically arguing the merits of who has better performance for 91 octane here in the US, becasue thats the majority of fuel we are around, and will run 90% of the time. Therefore we want what gets us the best performance for the money on this fuel, with race fuel or higher octane being a secondary concern.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Audi recommend at least 98 ,so 93 US octane.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Negative... In the US, 91 is the predominant octane. 91 is classified as "premium" in the majority, whereas 93 is unicorn blood and can only be had in certain markets.


----------



## IMARMED (May 10, 2014)

93 is common in the midatlantic, northeast, midwest and the south. AZ, CA, UT, OR, IA are the states with crappy 91 gas.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

Add ME to that list. Also SD and WY


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Surprising that the quality of fuel available is so poor in the US. I suppose in the years of driving around in huge V8's it didn't matter.
Nowadays it's all about downsizing with small efficient engines,so hopefully things will change.


----------



## MSS Automotive (Mar 20, 2013)

In the UK we take 98 for granted...some even shop around for the '_cheapest_' 98...which has had its drawbacks.

In fact, cannot remember the last time I went to even an outpost small village petrol station without a 98 pump.

Though on track days especially at Thruxton and Bedford the on-site fuel station pump is '_only_' a 95...when you need it surely makes not a blind bit of difference though - recalling countless times when I have almost run out of fuel on track...!


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

jaybyme said:


> Surprising that the quality of fuel available is so poor in the US. I suppose in the years of driving around in huge V8's it didn't matter.
> Nowadays it's all about downsizing with small efficient engines,so hopefully things will change.



Don't worry, not only is the best fuel we can get 91 on the west coast, it is watered down(literally) with 10% ethanol and they want to push it to 15% ethanol.

The "green" people haven't figured out that with better octane and no ethanol you get better fuel mileage.:banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Ethanol INCREASES octane... Not dilutes it.

thats why a **** load of people out here in the west tune our race cars for e85. It's available at the pump, cheaper than 91 and has an octane rating of race fuel 108 oct.

the he reason they want to add ethanol levels from 10 to 15 is that it's a "cleaner" fuel and produces less emissions.


----------



## IMARMED (May 10, 2014)

Dan.S said:


> the he reason they want to add ethanol levels from 10 to 15 is that it's a "cleaner" fuel and produces less emissions.


Ethanol is about politicians buying votes in the farm states like Iowa, nothing more. It's hilarious that this benefits the tuning community the most.

This is one of the best explanations of why car-hating states, like Virginia, have beautiful 93 octane and you guys in car-friendly AZ and CA get crap gas:
http://www.modified.com/editors/technobabble/0201scc_techno/

And the good news is that premium gas sales are way down, so states with 93 will keep it:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A133600001&f=M


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

Dan.S said:


> Ethanol INCREASES octane... Not dilutes it.
> 
> thats why a **** load of people out here in the west tune our race cars for e85. It's available at the pump, cheaper than 91 and has an octane rating of race fuel 108 oct.
> 
> the he reason they want to add ethanol levels from 10 to 15 is that it's a "cleaner" fuel and produces less emissions.



Yes Ethanol burns "cleaner" but.........lets take 1 gallon of straight 91 octane fuel, you will go 30 miles on the freeway. Now make that 10% ethanol "91" octane you will go 26 miles.

So you took .9 gallons of 87 added .1 gallons of ethanol and wham you have "91"

Its great for race cars but for everything else it sucks. Plus the ethanol degrades seals gasket and basically anything rubber that it touches. 

Now if you had 1 gallon of 100octane it would take 1.4 gallons of ethanol to go as far.

The reason I said dilutes, is because ethanol absorbs water and goes bad a lot quicker than non-ethanol fuel, thats why non-ethanol race gas is good for a year if you keep it in the can and out of the sun, if you have ethanol fuel it will go bad within 30 days. And that is one of the reasons gas station quality varies so much, is because depending on how frequent the turn over is at the station will determine how fast the ethanol laced fuel goes bad, and any lawnmower, RV, Generator that uses pump gas, you have to add stabile, otherwise your system will gum up from the algae that grows in the water that the ethanol absorbs.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Your calculations on adding ethanol for a desired octane rating are, lets say, way off... along with your mileage guestimates

Every car is different and cant be summed up into 2 + 2.



Ethanol wont hurt any car made int he last 15 years, probably more. When converting many of the cars I have to run ethanol the only thing we needed to change is the ethanol fuel level, and pump/injector size to push more fuel. 

Yes, you have to push more fuel, I say big deal, its significantly cheaper. Ethanol makes ANY car run stronger, better, its a proven fact. 


And obviously so do the powers that be. 

Ethanol is cleaner, period, and thats all they care about.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

Not4show said:


> When??? If its a couple weeks off, I need to send my ECU to get the UM stage 2 tune. And time to put on the APR FMIC.
> 
> I vote Sept 20 or 27th.
> 
> So this would give facts....of Same DYNO same day APR Stage 3, APR Stage 2 and UM Stage 2


i had only talked to him about running a couple cars so not really a full dyno day or anything like that but i would like to finally see how the um tune stacks up.
let me make sure mike's cool with doing 4 cars. i might need to actually pay him a bit but we'll see. 
as for the day, that all depends on when todd's available because i'm really interested in that lo500 setup of his and how much it gives up overall to the apr kit. personally i'd give up 50whp up top for 1500rpm earlier spool.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Ask him when I can get that kit info too lol. Im waiting on the info.


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> i had only talked to him about running a couple cars so not really a full dyno day or anything like that but i would like to finally see how the um tune stacks up.
> let me make sure mike's cool with doing 4 cars. i might need to actually pay him a bit but we'll see.
> as for the day, that all depends on when todd's available because i'm really interested in that lo500 setup of his and how much it gives up overall to the apr kit. personally i'd give up 50whp up top for 1500rpm earlier spool.


I'm not worried about a FREE Dyno , I"m willing to kick in for it. I'd like to see all the different tunes run also.:beer:


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

jaybyme said:


> I find the power delivery of the APR stage III kit to be very good. I get decent power coming in at 2600 rpm with power really kicking in after 3400 rpm.
> Cars tested on APR Europe's Maha dyno are 600-640 hp ATF on 95-98 US octane fuel (98-102 EU octane) 750 hp with a step up in turbo 3582.
> My engine is out at the moment having all nice new pistons,rods etc and some nice head and valve work done, so no valve float or similar problems.
> Once finished, power will come in earlier still and over a wider range.Aiming for 700 hp and 700nm with nice road manners.
> ...


Custom-tuned, development APR Stage 3 kits owned by distributors don't count


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

This is not from a distributor,this was Jonny Cockers car. APR's distributor car in Europe is knocking out a lot more power,around 750 hp.
As from next week mine will be the same spec as JC's car,but will be running with a better map,so I will have to wait and see what power figures are.
Normal customers cars are 580 + hp in Europe,depending on fuel.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

jaybyme said:


> This is not from a distributor,this was Jonny Cockers car. APR's distributor car in Europe is knocking out a lot more power,around 750 hp.
> As from next week mine will be the same spec as JC's car,but will be running with a better map,so I will have to wait and see what power figures are.
> Normal customers cars are 580 + hp in Europe,depending on fuel.


JC's car was everything but stock. It was a fully built motor/trans (Race Developments) + high flow heads with custom tuning. The engine bay also caught fire after he sold the car. 

Dave


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

A couple notes on the Ethanol conversation. I did my undergrad paper on ethanol as a viable fuel and also was a team caption of the FSAE Formula Hybrid competition for my university and team of engineers that won outright the international competition behind a E85 powered Yamaha WR250 powerplant. I am pretty passionate about the subject.

FlexFuel is a big farce, but engines built to run on ethanol do not give up the ~20% economy penalty. With increased octane and cooling effect, increased compression ratios boost thermal efficiency ~.75% per point of compression. This is to say, if a normal gasoline engine is 33% thermal efficient it is converting 33% of the BTU's in Ethanol into physical mechanical energy. By increasing the compression ratio to say 13:1, you can get ~2.5 increase of thermal efficiency from a 9.5:1 compression TFSI engine, which would put it at 35.5%. 33/35.5 is 8% more power being converted from chemical to mechanical energy. It is also 8% more fuel efficient, as it takes less BTU's to do the same amount of work if thermal efficiency is increased. Also because of the higher octane and cooling properties, ethanol engines can burn lean without the high EGTS or knock potential of a standard petrol engine. This means that it can do more work with the less dense btu's found. It is not uncommon for us to run .83-.84 Lambda on 30psi cars on e85 with EGTs similar to gas at .78 lambda.

I lived in Brazil for a couple of years. Over there, there isn't really a flex fuel market. They are either 10:1 gasoline engines, or 14:1 E85 and E95 engines. The ethanol engines match gasoline counterpart engines mile for mile in economy, but make more power. One way to overcome a lower static compression ratio is to increase the dynamic boost pressure to take advantage of alcohol's properties. This is why turbocharged vehicles love e85. Running 30psi daily is no problem on e85, as the cooling effect and 109 octane rating keep knock counts non existent. With new technology such as variable lift and valve phasing become more mainstream, I can see ethanol becoming a major part of the fuel source. By being able to lower a 14:1 compression engine to 9.5:1 statically through overlap and other valve timing strategies, one could feasibly have a real "flex fuel" vehicle that can maximize economy on both fuels and basically take out the BTU penalty of ethanol. 

Even without fancy variable CR strategies, ethanol mixed fuel is promising. Ethanol has it's downsides such as cold weather starting at high concentrations, the tendency to absorb water, high spark requirements to light off mixtures, etc, but there are numerous studies including my own in college with over 400 hours on a dyno that suggest that a ~e30 mix of ethanol to gasoline would give the majority of the octane and cooling effects of ethanol without the downsides of ethanol. I would not be surprised if the 5% by 5%, our fuel supply gets to that 30% mark. I welcome it and just encourage manufactures to build technology that supports a superior fuel.

Last to get back on topic, the HPFP is going to be the limiting factor on the TTRS. My general rule of thumb when sizing out ethanol injection is that you need roughly 1000cc per 100whp on a mechanical drivetrain and about 900cc per 100whp on a haldex based system. The stock fuel pump would probably put up with e85 on stage 2 type tunes, as the tuners out there are dumping obscene amounts of fuel trying to cool EGTs and control knock. On multiple pulls, most of these stage 2 tunes are seeing ~.65 lambda once EGTs raise above 900C. It isn't their fault, it is just a byproduct of a small k16 being overspun out of it's efficiency range. If you were on ethanol, you could probably bring that back up to .80 lambda which would basically get you ~10-15% of your fuel consumption/HPFP capacity back and you would only need to come up with another 10% or so. If APR's HPFP is accurate, It should support ~610whp on e85 with the upgraded pump on stock injectors. On the stock pump, one should be able to support ~440whp at .82-.84 lambda. I doubt it would support a GTX3582r as we typically need around 7000cc/min worth of fuel on e85 to max them. That said on a linear HPFP plot like APRs, reving to 8000 RPM with uprated springs and a built bottom end would probably yield a tad bit more fuel.

The last issue arises with fuel available at certain RPMS. IF you have a k16 that is making 400whp @5200, look at what kind of fuel you have available at 5200 on the HPFP plots. You would need around 3600cc/min to make 400whp on a haldex based car, and it looks like at 5200 you only have around 2700cc/min on the stock and maybe 3500cc/min on the upgraded pump. I think E85 on a k16 would require a HPFP regardless.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

thanks urhank.

nice to see some in depth info passed along


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Hank slaps the BAZINGA down on E85! 

Lol


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

Hank...... anything?


----------



## mrvr6turbo1 (Feb 22, 2006)

Wow!!! Learning a lot about my TTRS. Thanks to all.


----------



## Ginovega (Jul 22, 2013)

mrvr6turbo1 said:


> Wow!!! Learning a lot about my TTRS. Thanks to all.


Me too! 
:cool


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

UM tune back and installed, FMIC this weekend.:beer: Any date yet for Dyno day?:thumbup:


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

Not4show said:


> UM tune back and installed, FMIC this weekend.:beer: Any date yet for Dyno day?:thumbup:


haven't heard from todd/marty yet. not sure if they're still up for it


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> haven't heard from todd/marty yet. not sure if they're still up for it


Alright, well I'm good for the next couple weekends if we can put it together, I"m pretty slammed from Oct 11 Until December for weekend time. I've got no issues with meeting up in the evening and or Fridays. I have Fridays off. :thumbup:


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

smack_ttrs said:


> haven't heard from todd/marty yet. not sure if they're still up for it


I'm in any time. Good luck getting Todd, though! His GIAC tune is dyno-shy. ;D


----------



## Ginovega (Jul 22, 2013)

*93 oct 100% gasoline*



URHank said:


> A couple notes on the Ethanol conversation. I did my undergrad paper on ethanol as a viable fuel and also was a team caption of the FSAE Formula Hybrid competition for my university and team of engineers that won outright the international competition behind a E85 powered Yamaha WR250 powerplant. I am pretty passionate about the subject.
> 
> FlexFuel is a big farce, but engines built to run on ethanol do not give up the ~20% economy penalty. With increased octane and cooling effect, increased compression ratios boost thermal efficiency ~.75% per point of compression. This is to say, if a normal gasoline engine is 33% thermal efficient it is converting 33% of the BTU's in Ethanol into physical mechanical energy. By increasing the compression ratio to say 13:1, you can get ~2.5 increase of thermal efficiency from a 9.5:1 compression TFSI engine, which would put it at 35.5%. 33/35.5 is 8% more power being converted from chemical to mechanical energy. It is also 8% more fuel efficient, as it takes less BTU's to do the same amount of work if thermal efficiency is increased. Also because of the higher octane and cooling properties, ethanol engines can burn lean without the high EGTS or knock potential of a standard petrol engine. This means that it can do more work with the less dense btu's found. It is not uncommon for us to run .83-.84 Lambda on 30psi cars on e85 with EGTs similar to gas at .78 lambda.
> 
> ...


Hey Mr Hank, here in South Carolina 93 octane 100% gasoline is available, ever since I found the gas station I've been putting 93 oct pure gasoline with no ethanol at all .is it better for my ttrs ? In performance and longevity? Or should I stick with 93 octane with 10% ethanol?
By the way ttrs is on stage 2, 034 downpipe ,Wagner Intercooler, etc. daily driver here.
Thanks


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

Marty said:


> I'm in any time. Good luck getting Todd, though! His GIAC tune is dyno-shy. ;D


Smack & Marty,

UM stage 2 is pretty impressive, lets get this Dyno comparison done.......


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

Ginovega said:


> Hey Mr Hank, here in South Carolina 93 octane 100% gasoline is available, ever since I found the gas station I've been putting 93 oct pure gasoline with no ethanol at all .is it better for my ttrs ? In performance and longevity? Or should I stick with 93 octane with 10% ethanol?
> By the way ttrs is on stage 2, 034 downpipe ,Wagner Intercooler, etc. daily driver here.
> Thanks


Well, it depends a bit. The problem with most 91 and 93 blends is that they are counting on the 10% of ~114 octane in the ethanol to dilute the garbage 87 or 89 octane base they start with. This pulls it up to 91 or 93 octane depending on the base octane. We keep 55 gallon drum of e100 at the shop and typically try and find pure 91 or 93 gas and blend in ethanol after the fact to get more octane and cooling effect. This brings a 91 up to 94 octane and the cooling effect of ethanol helps further above a typical gasoline 94 octane. 

Anybody considering blending ethanol fuels should bookmark this link. Fantastic site that does the hard work for you. It isn't that much work to meter out fuel using the pump's meter, and it doesn't turn into much of a hassle, especially if you have a way of changing maps. http://www.intercepteft.com/calc.html

A TTRS figures out octane content by knock count, not by a sensor of octane. If it senses light knock, it pulls timing back assuming the tuner didn't mess with the safety. Most fueling systems can support e20-e30 without running out of pump and injector. At e30 levels, the benefit of octane and cooling effect of ethanol starts to outweigh the BTU hit taken when using a less energy dense fuel such as ethanol. It isn't uncommon to see equal economy with much better performance at e30 levels. This is a great article on the subject from a school that took a TDI 1.9L and converted it to gas as a means of testing NEAT fuels at high compression. http://eri.ucr.edu/ISAFXVCD/ISAFXVAF/SuTCAF.pdf

There are a few other papers like that in the public and then some really cool stuff in the FSAE archives. 

Hope that helps.

Hank


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Not4show said:


> Smack & Marty,
> 
> UM stage 2 is pretty impressive, lets get this Dyno comparison done.......


I'm ready whenever!


----------



## Ginovega (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanks Hank. Have a good one ! As we say here in the South!


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

Not4show said:


> Smack & Marty,
> 
> UM stage 2 is pretty impressive, lets get this Dyno comparison done.......


todd's schedule has pushed a bit so waiting for him to clear some time.


----------



## Not4show (Jun 11, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> todd's schedule has pushed a bit so waiting for him to clear some time.



No sweat man, I'm more looking forward to bench racing with you guys, the dyno is just a bonus:beer:


----------

