# Got it running



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

Kinda.








Need to get the car to idle. Just need to play with the ISV setting in Autronic.
Also need to readjust the settings for a 3.0L and 8:1 CR and 72lb injectors instead of 55.

Good news is that it is running and sounds superb.


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: Got it running (JsnVR6Corrado)*

All I have to say about that:


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: Got it running (J Dubya)*

UH, yeah Jarod... I know where you live







I saw you take that pick What's up man...


----------



## synthsis (Sep 4, 2001)

*Re: Got it running (DTRguy)*

un-friggin-real, cant wait to see the 1/4 mile numbers


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

wow that looks amazing completed what did you end up doign about the hood clearance issue?


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisbmx68* »_wow that looks amazing completed what did you end up doign about the hood clearance issue?

One big giant hole... for now. But I believe we are going to be doing a power bulge/cowl induction kind of thing off towards the pass side. Ran a lot better today. Changed a lot of the fueling numbers, and it saw about 5psi (for a tiny second) to see boost threshold. Around 3500 or so. Wow it sounds AWESOME! Kind of like a stock car but smoother with no rasp. Just mean ass deep VR6. BOV's sound cool also. We hope to get all of the tuning done Thursday.


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

good news keep us updated i bet the numbers should be pretty good as long as the engine can spool both those turbos adequately


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

oh man....IT'S ALIVE!!!!!!!


----------



## 95GLS (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: (SoFarKingFast)*

More pics man, looks crazy good...I think we've all been watching this thing progress over the months, I mean damn the hotside pics you posted when the engine was on the stand was my backround







Lets see some timeslips too once you get it dialed in http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: Got it running (JsnVR6Corrado)*

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


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: Got it running (nycvr6)*

DTR guy needs to download the pics I took while trying to follow the beast yesterday.


----------



## GKONYA (Jan 31, 2001)

*Re: Got it running (Power5)*

Yeah, lets see the pic of those exhaust twists again.


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)




----------



## Volkswagen2NR (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*

that is crazy http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## keith_r2 (Feb 7, 2002)

Very nice bit of fabrication!!


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: (keith_r2)*

When's the dyno visit?? Numbers buddy, numbers!!!!


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: (zippy_109)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zippy_109* »_When's the dyno visit?? Numbers buddy, numbers!!!!









It's at the dyno right now.


----------



## QuickA2 (Aug 5, 2003)

*Re: (J Dubya)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J Dubya* »_
It's at the dyno right now.









So.........
what are the numbers


----------



## mj6234 (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: (QuickA2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *QuickA2* »_
So.........
what are the numbers









I'm guessing 200whp.


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: (mj6234)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mj6234* »_
I'm guessing 200whp.

















What are you retarded? At least 225 WHP. Remember, he has TWO turbo's.


----------



## euroroccoT (Nov 18, 2002)

*Re: (J Dubya)*

2 turbo don't mean more power, ,that's why the highest hp supra all run single turbo. That set up looks amazing, but never understood why go thru all the trouble of it??u it will be harder to tune, maintain, and harder ta make reliable power. I mean for show it's great but to be a powerhouse, i don't think i would of chosen that path, but a really big http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for yourself to have done it and looking has good has it does.


----------



## VR6-JettaIII (Jul 21, 2003)

*Re: (euroroccoT)*

would the flow from just 3 cylinders be enough to get spool from both of the turbo's tho?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 7, 2004)

*Re: (VR6-JettaIII)*

Looked good at the Massiv. Hope to see this thing runnin the 11th! Good luck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

thats what a lot of peopel are wondeirng i think (about the spooling off of 3 cylinders)


----------



## turbojeta3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*

awsome man. work of art. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif its better in person


----------



## mj6234 (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: (turbojeta3)*

What kind of turbos does he use? 1.4L for each turbo...I think we may have found a use for the K03 turbo. On a 1.4L engine, I bet they could make 17psi all the way up top. 
I am guessing he has some sort of T3?


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (QuickA2)*

Well, we have the initial tuning setup on the car and trying to break in the engine. I put like 100 miles on the engine yesterday. So, on the dyno we saw 228hp below 6900rpm (break in rev limit) and only using 9 psi. The turbos spool JUST FINE. Right now we have the timing set back until the engine is broken in. Plus 3.0 really helps off boost performance. Jason revealed to me that his single turbo on the same dyno (Dyno Dynamics) put down 200hp. At the track he trapped 107. Another VR6t we know on a Dynojet dyno put down 270hp, but only traps 104. Soooo... put it all together? It has more than 228whp. This car hauls ass and it isn't even close to its potential. We will try and get some pix up soon.
Kevin


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (DTRguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTRguy* »_Well, we have the initial tuning setup on the car and trying to break in the engine. I put like 100 miles on the engine yesterday. So, on the dyno we saw 228hp below 6900rpm (break in rev limit) and only using 9 psi. The turbos spool JUST FINE. Right now we have the timing set back until the engine is broken in. Plus 3.0 really helps off boost performance. Jason revealed to me that his single turbo on the same dyno (Dyno Dynamics) put down 200hp. At the track he trapped 107. Another VR6t we know on a Dynojet dyno put down 270hp, but only traps 104. Soooo... put it all together? It has more than 228whp. This car hauls ass and it isn't even close to its potential. We will try and get some pix up soon.
Kevin

You cant compare 2 different cars stats like that. Regardless a single turbo setup makes way more sense if power is the goal.


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

being tremendously cool is worth whatever the downsides are


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

Power isn't the only goal of course. Anyone can bolt on a single turbo and shoot for big power. We wanted something different with the possibility for big power, but better driveability. I think we are well on our way to achieving it. Anyhow, don't tell Porsche that their twin turbo 911's could make more power with one [turbo]. I think that we have to compare this way. How else do we compare? Well, believe what you will. I can't change your opinion and I don't intend to. 
Cheers,
Kevin


nycvr6 said:


> You cant compare 2 different cars stats like that. Regardless a single turbo setup makes way more sense if power is the goal. [/QUOTE


----------



## mj6234 (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: (DTRguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTRguy* »_Power isn't the only goal of course. Anyone can bolt on a single turbo and shoot for big power. We wanted something different with the possibility for big power, but better driveability. I think we are well on our way to achieving it. Anyhow, don't tell Porsche that their twin turbo 911's could make more power with one [turbo]. I think that we have to compare this way. How else do we compare? Well, believe what you will. I can't change your opinion and I don't intend to. 
Cheers,
Kevin


nycvr6 said:


> I think what he was saying is you can make the same power with 1 turbo and save a ton of money (less piping, 1 less wastegate, 1 less turbo, etc etc...). I don't think you can really compare Porsches because they have a flat 6. Not easy to make a mani that bolts up to both halves of it to hold 1 turbo. Especially in the limited space in a 996 engine bay.
> You cant compare 2 different cars stats like that. Regardless a single turbo setup makes way more sense if power is the goal. [/QUOTE


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (mj6234)*

I will say this about the idea of a twin turbo setup. Review the pic of the hot side. Look how long the headers are. That is the primary reason we wanted to use 2 turbo's. The size turbo that he originally wanted to run would have been too difficult to fit with the amount of header length desired. Collecting 6 runners cleanly the way I have done with only three would have been a lot more difficult. Then trying to run a big enough downpipe to get it to breath the way we wanted would have been nearly impossible. Hey maybe I am wrong here. But I saw more ability to make power with two turbos than with one using this design we came up with. So, like it or not we are going to do our best to post big numbers and do different kinds of stuff with the car. BTW, custom built a stainless strut tie bar/harness belt bar as well as the rear seat delete deck (battery area cover over the back seat well). Now we just need to carpet the back, and work on the hood!


----------



## 04RSR32 (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: (DTRguy)*

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








I also have a plan in the works. i want to get a TT set up for my 20th. a few years from now but it would be interesting. i would like to see about putting 4-motion under the car too, to help use the TT setup put all the power down.


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: Got it running (JsnVR6Corrado)*

T H A T
I S
S W E E T !


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (20th_Ann_GTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *20th_Ann_GTi* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








I also have a plan in the works. i want to get a TT set up for my 20th. a few years from now but it would be interesting. i would like to see about putting 4-motion under the car too, to help use the TT setup put all the power down.

Cool! That will be interesting I am sure. I am finishing up a Golf Synchro conversion and 16vt for the sam now. The next project if he wants to (still deciding) is a VR6t corrado 4motion. Looking forward to making that go if we can.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (DTRguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTRguy* »_Power isn't the only goal of course. Anyone can bolt on a single turbo and shoot for big power. We wanted something different with the possibility for big power, but better driveability. I think we are well on our way to achieving it. Anyhow, don't tell Porsche that their twin turbo 911's could make more power with one [turbo]. I think that we have to compare this way. How else do we compare? Well, believe what you will. I can't change your opinion and I don't intend to. 
Cheers,
Kevin

I see what youre saying about something different. But the comment about porsche doesnt make sense, they arent shooting for max power with that car, they want a medium of power and efficiency. You cant compare your car to another car's performance, there are too many variables. No need to compare anyway, dyno the car and run it, numbers speak for themselves. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## AbqVR6 (Dec 29, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
But the comment about porsche doesnt make sense, they arent shooting for max power with that car, they want a medium of *power and efficiency*. 

thats exactly what he said, he wants drivabilty more than insane hp...


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (AbqVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AbqVR6* »_
thats exactly what he said, he wants drivabilty more than insane hp...

almost any other single turbo vr would be just as driveable or more so than that car, but its hard to speculate on this car as they really havent gotten is tuned up just yet...so we shall see...i just think this project is absolutely awesome and props to being original http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







glad to see those elbows for the intake work out ok jason http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## MDTurborocco (Aug 24, 2003)

*Re: (Gavster)*

This is one of the sickest cars ive seen. Fabrication wise, but why go with 2 T3s over T4s . Everyones saying how inneficient this setup is, but really there is nothing wrong with a twin turbo setup if everything is sized correctly. Why not go with 2 GT28RS or something like that??
I gained alot of respect for twin turbos after my friend ran a 12.5 in his 300z with a chip and DP back exhaust







, focker


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (MDTurborocco)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MDTurborocco* »_This is one of the sickest cars ive seen. Fabrication wise, but why go with 2 T3s over T4s . Everyones saying how inneficient this setup is, but really there is nothing wrong with a twin turbo setup if everything is sized correctly. Why not go with 2 GT28RS or something like that??
I gained alot of respect for twin turbos after my friend ran a 12.5 in his 300z with a chip and DP back exhaust







, focker
















Thanks! Well, the turbo's are t31 turbines 48ar 76mm wheel, t04s 70ar 60mm wheel 60 trim. Why these turbos instead of something else? In a word, ECONOMICS. These turbos cost 350 each BRAND NEW. We can bolt on another turbo pretty easily once we find out how they work and from there decide which direction to take. When I do my next TT vr6 I intend to probably use the afformentioned GT28rs turbos.


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: (VR6-JettaIII)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6-JettaIII* »_would the flow from just 3 cylinders be enough to get spool from both of the turbo's tho?

Boost threshold is just over 3000 rpm. I am already seeing 3 psi by 3500 and that is with some very conservative timing.


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (mj6234)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mj6234* »_I think what he was saying is you can make the same power with 1 turbo and save a ton of money (less piping, 1 less wastegate, 1 less turbo, etc etc...). I don't think you can really compare Porsches because they have a flat 6. Not easy to make a mani that bolts up to both halves of it to hold 1 turbo. Especially in the limited space in a 996 engine bay.

You may be able to make the same power with 1 turbo, but it will start making that power much higher in the RPMs. Also, you will be running much more boost on 1 turbo to make the same power that this setup will make with 2. I am guessing that 300whp is possible on a dynojet at 9-10psi after proper tuning. We will see if I am close. anything bigger than these turbos and the boost would come on too late, and that would deffinately negate the 2 turbo setup. If you want to spool after 6000, and make 500whp, yeah single is the way to go. This will spool by 5000 and make much more power.
Oh, and has anyone tried putting a T-88 behind a VR6 and keeping A/C? Hmmmmmmmm. Well, maybe that is why the Supra gods can run those monsters. Their turbos mount off to the freaking side of the damn engine. I wonder if anyone told KTR that running a single turbo off of a V6 was a bad idea, because the piping has to run around the engine. 
Everything I wrote is my stupid inexperienced opinion. BTW, anyone that wants to race their single turbo A/C equipped, street driver, VR6, just bring it to ohio, and we can setup a race.


----------



## mattstacks (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (Power5)*

Ill race ya for the fun of it. Got plenty of respect for the build on that car. Not trying to prove any thing. 
T04b with AC that blows ice cold.
340 WHP on a Dyno Jet at 15 PSI 
Are we racing with our AC on?









daily driver, meaning no slicks correct ?
Cause I gots none.


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: (mattstacks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mattstacks* »_Ill race ya for the fun of it. Got plenty of respect for the build on that car. Not trying to prove any thing. 
T04b with AC that blows ice cold.
340 WHP on a Dyno Jet at 15 PSI 
Are we racing with our AC on?









daily driver, meaning no slicks correct ?
Cause I gots none. 

At least wait until it's tuned.


----------



## mattstacks (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_

Everything I wrote is my stupid inexperienced opinion. BTW, anyone that wants to race their single turbo A/C equipped, street driver, VR6, just bring it to ohio, and we can setup a race.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_
You may be able to make the same power with 1 turbo, but it will start making that power much higher in the RPMs. Also, you will be running much more boost on 1 turbo to make the same power that this setup will make with 2. I am guessing that 300whp is possible on a dynojet at 9-10psi after proper tuning. We will see if I am close. anything bigger than these turbos and the boost would come on too late, and that would deffinately negate the 2 turbo setup. If you want to spool after 6000, and make 500whp, yeah single is the way to go. This will spool by 5000 and make much more power.
Oh, and has anyone tried putting a T-88 behind a VR6 and keeping A/C? Hmmmmmmmm. Well, maybe that is why the Supra gods can run those monsters. Their turbos mount off to the freaking side of the damn engine. I wonder if anyone told KTR that running a single turbo off of a V6 was a bad idea, because the piping has to run around the engine. 
Everything I wrote is my stupid inexperienced opinion. BTW, anyone that wants to race their single turbo A/C equipped, street driver, VR6, just bring it to ohio, and we can setup a race.


You dont know what youre talking about. I ran a T72 on a vr6 and it started spooling a little above 4000rpm's. I made 577whp at 5800 rpm, so where is this start spooling above 6000? AC is for sissy marys. Are you honestly making that challenge against single turbo cars, that is ridiculous.


----------



## GLST (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_

You dont know what youre talking about. I ran a T72 on a vr6 and it started spooling a little above 4000rpm's. I made 577whp at 5800 rpm, so where is this start spooling above 6000? AC is for sissy marys. Are you honestly making that challenge against single turbo cars, that is ridiculous.










Power5 was just guessing at the spool time. Are you the bitter type, or just FLAT OUT jealous of this set-up?? Quit bagging on this car and it's builder!! The car will walk anything in it's path!!











_Modified by GLST at 6:28 PM 7-10-2004_


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (GLST)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GLST* »_
Power5 was just guessing at the spool time. Are you the bitter type, or just FLAT OUT jealous of this set-up?? Quit bagging on this car and it's builder!! The car will walk anything in it's path!!









_Modified by GLST at 6:28 PM 7-10-2004_

I never bagged on the car. I said a single turbo would be better for big power, and then they said they want efficiency so that was that. What do i have to be jealous about? My car makes a lot more power as of now, and will not be walked in any manner by this car. So you need to take a seat with your silly babble.
As for the car, im really liking the work done, it looks great. As indicated by my first post in this thread.


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

mmmm twin turbo vr6 corrado mmmm UPDATE TIME!!!!


----------



## rossmc1 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*

Updates???
And some more pics would be cool.
Also what sort of costs are you at,just wondering on a compare to a single set up cant be double the costs,ya must have saved something alone on piping


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (rossmc1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rossmc1* »_
Updates???
And some more pics would be cool.
Also what sort of costs are you at,just wondering on a compare to a single set up cant be double the costs,ya must have saved something alone on piping









Well, on the turbo system I am sure it wasn't as expensive as some. I did a lot of things to the car separate of the turbo system as well. My labor on everything I have done is around 8500. Remember though, I touched every aspect of this car. Including the fuel cell upgrade (rebuilt trunk area) complete fuel system, front end modifications, interior modifications, all wiring, removing and installing the engine, getting it running, and stand by while tuning was being accomplished. Of course I fabricated all of the turbo system and exhaust. I think that is a bargain if you ask me. But, I am biased I guess!


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

I was refering to ful spool.
He hits 16-17psi at 5k with conservative timing, when do you hit 16-17psi?


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
AC is for sissy marys. Are you honestly making that challenge against single turbo cars, that is ridiculous.










A/C is just showing that some of the stock stuff is able to be retained with this setup. The hood could have been retained, but the slight buldge it will recieve is minimal and makes a much simpler charge pipe setup.

Dyno numbers should be tough to beat when the boost is turned all the way up in a few weeks, though also. For waterfest it will be running a tuned 15-20psi, but no slicks.

_Modified by Power5 at 2:46 PM 7-13-2004_


_Modified by Power5 at 2:47 PM 7-13-2004_


----------



## Tommy K (Feb 23, 2003)

*Re: (Power5)*

twin turbo corrado... mmmmm
it would really impress me if it was a 24v and the engine was in the back.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_I was refering to ful spool.
He hits 16-17psi at 5k with conservative timing, when do you hit 16-17psi?

I have 16-17 psi by 5k also.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_
A/C is just showing that some of the stock stuff is able to be retained with this setup. The hood could have been retained, but the slight buldge it will recieve is minimal and makes a much simpler charge pipe setup.

Dyno numbers should be tough to beat when the boost is turned all the way up in a few weeks, though also. For waterfest it will be running a tuned 15-20psi, but no slicks.

_Modified by Power5 at 2:46 PM 7-13-2004_

_Modified by Power5 at 2:47 PM 7-13-2004_

Dyno #'s should be tough to beat? That's quite a claim, since there are so many very powerful vr6's out there already. 
Doesnt look like im gonan be ready for waterfest, but i should be there. Why would you run with no slicks on a turbo car? why run at all then?


----------



## rossmc1 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (DTRguy)*

A bargain for sure,good luck with the tuning,one of the best looking instals i've seen


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
Dyno #'s should be tough to beat? That's quite a claim, since there are so many very powerful vr6's out there already. 
Doesnt look like im gonan be ready for waterfest, but i should be there. Why would you run with no slicks on a turbo car? why run at all then?

Sorry god of the Turbo VRs. You must be the highest horespower car out there. How could I have ever questioned what someone says on the Vortex.
I dont know why you are so defensive about something. I have not said anything bad about your car, I am just stating reasons why the car was built how it was, and what our predictions are. When you got yours together, I bet you were happy, and relieved to have it done. I bet you told everyone it was probably the fastest of its kind. Even though yours was probably shy of 450whp.
And maybe the reason it wont be on slicks is the main reason behind this car in the first place:
*ITS NOT A DRAG CAR, ITS A STREET CAR*
Now, go rain on someone elses thread, because this one is for the people who were actually interested in seeing something nice.


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: (Power5)*

The reason I wont be on slicks at waterfest is because I am scared of the tranny.
Darren just blew something in his with slicks. I would like to drive this car since I just got it runing.









Please forgive the people that are defending my car. It is hard to express emotion on the internet and they are probably reading into what you are typing and not getting the actual tone correct.


----------



## mattstacks (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (JsnVR6Corrado)*

True, but why claim numbers and call out races, when you dont have it tuned and you dont have any numbers, aside from 228 at 9PSI.
I put down 270WHP at 9 PSI. 
It just doesnt make sense. 
Build it, then test it, then talk about it. Using the DATA that has been accomplished. 
I think it gets to everyone when people get on here and claim this and that.
With no substantial data.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_
Sorry god of the Turbo VRs. You must be the highest horespower car out there. How could I have ever questioned what someone says on the Vortex.
I dont know why you are so defensive about something. I have not said anything bad about your car, I am just stating reasons why the car was built how it was, and what our predictions are. When you got yours together, I bet you were happy, and relieved to have it done. I bet you told everyone it was probably the fastest of its kind. Even though yours was probably shy of 450whp.
And maybe the reason it wont be on slicks is the main reason behind this car in the first place:
*ITS NOT A DRAG CAR, ITS A STREET CAR*
Now, go rain on someone elses thread, because this one is for the people who were actually interested in seeing something nice.

God of the turbo vr's? haha That's funny. You make a lot of assumptions about me and you dont even know me. I am not defensive about anything, all i said is for high power levels a single turbo would be a better idea, and you guys jumped all over me. I never ever said my car was the fastest of it's kind, i know for every car built there is a faster one out there, i'm realistic. Im not like you making claims about SOMEONE ELSES CAR, that it can beat everyone and make more power than everyone. My car made 577whp at 5900 rpms btw, and i would never claim to make the most power or be able to beat anyone. You got me all wrong, and were an ******* about it....funny thing is it isnt even your car, as far as im concerned youre merely a cheerleader.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (JsnVR6Corrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JsnVR6Corrado* »_The reason I wont be on slicks at waterfest is because I am scared of the tranny.
Darren just blew something in his with slicks. I would like to drive this car since I just got it runing.









Please forgive the people that are defending my car. It is hard to express emotion on the internet and they are probably reading into what you are typing and not getting the actual tone correct.









I see what youre saying, if you are driving there it's probably a better idea, sh!t at least youre racing. 
You're exactly right on what you said in the last paragraph, no big deal. I highly respect the great fabrication done on your car, and look foward to seeing it this weekend in person. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (mattstacks)*

228whp on a dyno dynamics, which dyno'd the single setup at 200whp. That setup ran 13.5 @ 107 What does your 270whp run? That would give a comparison at least. Yes not the most accurate, but it would give some idea.
I did not instigate the races, just responded to someone claiming that the twin setup is a waste of time because a single is SOOOOO much better and easier. 
Seems that attacking is more appreciated than defending what took lots of time and effort to accomplish.
I have never attacked the single turbo setup. I am putting one on my VR6. All I have been doing is defending against the vortex crowd that thinks anything not made by HPA or ATP or other big brands is not worth it and will never work.
Everyone on here seems to want to be the one that is able to say, "I told you it wouldn't work, but you didnt listen to me."


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_228whp on a dyno dynamics, which dyno'd the single setup at 200whp. That setup ran 13.5 @ 107 What does your 270whp run? That would give a comparison at least. Yes not the most accurate, but it would give some idea.

.
I went 13.1 @ 112 on 9psi, base ATP kit and 17" wheels.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_228whp on a dyno dynamics, which dyno'd the single setup at 200whp. That setup ran 13.5 @ 107 What does your 270whp run? That would give a comparison at least. Yes not the most accurate, but it would give some idea.
I did not instigate the races, just responded to someone claiming that the twin setup is a waste of time because a single is SOOOOO much better and easier. 
Seems that attacking is more appreciated than defending what took lots of time and effort to accomplish.
I have never attacked the single turbo setup. I am putting one on my VR6. All I have been doing is defending against the vortex crowd that thinks anything not made by HPA or ATP or other big brands is not worth it and will never work.
Everyone on here seems to want to be the one that is able to say, "I told you it wouldn't work, but you didnt listen to me."


I hope youre not implying that i said any of those things? I never said a TT setup was a waste of time, i never mentioned ATP or HPA. All i said was for big power a single turbo is a better choice. youre the one who got your panties in a bunch and called me jealous and that the car is gonna make more power than everyone and smoke everyone in a race haha. You crack me up. This isnt your car, why are you defending it?


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

id like to say that from followign the buildup of this car it wont have the highest hp ever because its not a straight up drag car its a street car its designed for drievability fast sppol and lots of useable power not break ur neck spool of a huge turbo kicking in for what he is trying to do this setup will be great and i give him props for doing it and doing it right even with all these ppl giving him crap about it


_Modified by chrisbmx68 at 12:59 PM 7-14-2004_


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_.
I went 13.1 @ 112 on 9psi, base ATP kit and 17" wheels. 


Sorry, forgot to mention that the car weighed in on the scale for the 1/4 mile run at more than 3000 lb with me in it.


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
I hope youre not implying that i said any of those things? I never said a TT setup was a waste of time, i never mentioned ATP or HPA. All i said was for big power a single turbo is a better choice. youre the one who got your panties in a bunch and called me jealous and that the car is gonna make more power than everyone and smoke everyone in a race haha. You crack me up. This isnt your car, why are you defending it? 

I hope you are not saying that I said it would make more power than anyone else, and that it would smoke any car.
Why am I defending it????? Are you retarded or just stupid? Lets see, Hundreds of man hours involved and I was one of the builders. And he is my Brother???















And my dad can beat up your dad too.....


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_Dyno numbers should be tough to beat when the boost is turned all the way up in a few weeks

There's you saying that it will make more power than other vr6's since the "numbers should be tough to beat"
It wasnt you, but another one of your cheerleaders who said this nonsense:
"The car will walk anything in it's path!! "








You act like your the only one who has put a lot of work into a car. Give me a break, quite a few people here have put endless hours into building cars, so dont act like what you guys did is anything different.


----------



## Power5 (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_.
I went 13.1 @ 112 on 9psi, base ATP kit and 17" wheels. 

Awsome time man. I see DTA and C2 in your sig, which management are you using? Is your car intercooled?


----------



## catfishez (Jun 11, 2001)

*Re: (Power5)*

area under the curve. 
nycvr6 <---


----------



## JamieK18T (Jan 14, 2002)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_
And my dad can beat up your dad too.....









lol


----------



## fast_a2_20v (Jun 25, 2004)

sweet ride! i would have done a spearco a/w core not the pwr's but http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif anyways. 
as for the porsche twin turbo. 
If you look under the back of a STREET single turbo 911. You'll see that the passenger side bank of exhaust actually goes forwards, around the front of the motor, all the way across the car, and back down the drivers side, where it merges with the drivers side header, and goes into the turbo at the far drivers side corner of the car. The downpipe then goes into the muffler in the middle and out the passengers side. 
This extremely long exhaust path caused too much lag. So they switched to twin turbos for street cars. No other reason then that. 
The old porsche race cars were single and produced well up near 1000hp out of 2.5L back in the 80's. These however didn't need a muffler so they put the turbo dead in the middle, had both headers go straight into it, and the downpipe was just a 90 degree dump pipe. 
so basically, comparing a twin turbo setup on a porsche, to a twin setup on the vr6 which is basically an I6, is 100%, totally useless.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (catfishez)*


_Quote, originally posted by *catfishez* »_area under the curve. 
nycvr6 <---
















Fool


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

The fact of the matter is everyone is jumping on me because they don't know anything. You guys just wait and we'll see what kind of "BIG" numbers this car will make, and see how extremely fast it is, then remember how right i was. I've been screwing with this stuff for a while and ive learned what works and what doesnt. I fabricate all my own parts, then some fool like power comes along and bashes me. Power, you said you spent endless hours working on that car, what exactly on that car did YOU build, what did YOU do? Let's have some details of your endless hours of work that lets you act like this car is yours, and allows you to talk like you actually know what youre talking about.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

Power is taking this like it's a pissing match. All i said is a single turbo could make better power than two turbo's, but he must know better than all the RX-7 and Supra drag racers out there. If he said in the beginning they just wanted to do something different, then i can respect that. I got all this mumbo jumbo how it's #'s are going to be tough to beat, and they wanna set up races against a single turbo car, etc... Then he makes that stupid dad comment like "I" turned this into a pissing match. I'm not comparing my car to this car, i never did, you can read through all my posts. I only brought up my car when in his minimal knowledge said that a big single turbo will spool above 6000 rpm just to make 500hp, i have facts that you can make that power with a turbo that spools under 5000rpm. 
Again, like i said, this has nothing to do with you Jason, i respect the work and quality of work put into your car, and none of this is directed towards you.


----------



## rocco2.0gtiLondon (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

Quit bitchin.
Like a load of girls up in this forum


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (rocco2.0gtiLondon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rocco2.0gtiLondon* »_Quit bitchin.
Like a load of girls up in this forum









Who's bitching? Im merely stating a point because people are jumping all over me for nothing. Im the furthest thing from a girl, anyone care to test me in person ill be at show and go in a few months.


----------



## catfishez (Jun 11, 2001)

*Re: (catfishez)*


_Quote, originally posted by *catfishez* »_area under the curve. 
nycvr6 <---


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (catfishez)*

Who are you? You're a nobody from nowhere? Go babble your BS somewhere else if you dont have anything productive to say. If you have an argument to back up anything, say it, otherwise youre a clown..


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

nycvr6: dude, chill out, 90% of the threads you are in you are defending yourself or posting big rants. Just let it go...it is only an online forum...
The other 10%, you give good advice. We have talked about this before.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (SoFarKingFast)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SoFarKingFast* »_nycvr6: dude, chill out, 90% of the threads you are in you are defending yourself or posting big rants. Just let it go...it is only an online forum...
The other 10%, you give good advice. We have talked about this before.

I think you got those figures backwards. 10% of the time i am arguing with ignorant people, and the other 90% i help out. I am here to help which people dont realize. search the threads im involved in, i GUARANTEE the majority of them i am giving advice and or help. People always take me the wrong way, i understand it is hard to express emotion on the internet, but give me a break, where in this thread did i start anything, i merely retaliated. you can click on my name and see my watched topics. 


_Modified by nycvr6 at 5:04 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## German_Muscle (May 12, 2002)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

i have had the privelage to see this hauss in person. The car is amazing and runs nice. I know of a person who can tune the corrado, i woulda spoke to you about it at the CVOL BBQ but there were always ppl around you and always talking to you and i didnt want to interupt. His name is Adam Blevins he lives right across the river from louisville KY. He is very expeirienced with Tuning Stand alones and many different cars especially Autronic. Heres his resume(sort of) This is a 1997 Eclipse GSX that he tuned its built up pretty nicely and runs a T66 turbocharger and Autronic on a 4 cylinder. This is the car on 25 lbs of boost with no spray. It is going to run 35 lbs of boost and run a 100 shot of nitrous in the next tuning session.







If you have any questions IM me on this forum and we can get the raddo on the dyno and make some big par if your up for the journey to louisville. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Also, the only negative things i can pick out about this car is the fact that the external wastegates are ran back into the exhaust which isnt that big of a deal. Also the fact that its not tuned to its potential.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (German_Muscle)*

That is a really nice curve right there. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Yorldi (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: (DTRguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTRguy* »_don't tell Porsche that their twin turbo 911's could make more power with one 


Don't compare a flat six, with cylinder rows one each side and big distance, to a VR, a "nearly" straight six with just one head. Twin turbos on a Porsche is the way to go, for tractable power. anyway, give me a 930 single K27 turbo..... That thing flied!!! (917s, 935........)
Anyway, cool car, although I prefer single turbos. Lag roolz


_Modified by Yorldi at 11:01 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
I think you got those figures backwards. 10% of the time i am arguing with ignorant people, and the other 90% i help out. I am here to help which people dont realize. search the threads im involved in, i GUARANTEE the majority of them i am giving advice and or help. 
_Modified by nycvr6 at 5:04 PM 7-20-2004_

Most of you guys are all over justin for no reason...ive been reading through this whole thread and nowhere can i tell that he ever tried to bash on anyone...hes just stating his point (opinion -> key word here) not that anoyne has to agree, but given his opinion is based on a lot of first hand knowledge i tend to trust him. No one else in this thread has an "old" turbo setup that made nearly 600 whp. Justin knows what hes talking about and will probably have one ofthe, if not the fastest vr of all of us. Plus he has helped me on more occasions than i care to count, so all of you need to grow up and just chill. I can understand why everyone is frustrated, esp. Justin. Good luck w/ the new 42r http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by Gavster at 11:08 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## mattstacks (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (Yorldi)*

Oh no, he said single turbo...
Nice curve indeed. 


_Modified by mattstacks at 6:11 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (Power5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Power5* »_Awsome time man. I see DTA and C2 in your sig, which management are you using? Is your car intercooled?


The 13.1 @ 112 on 9psi was with a stock ATP stage 2 chip, which is ****. DTA now, 112 traps are a thing of the past. Air/air for the run.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Gavster)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Gavster* »_
Most of you guys are all over justin for no reason...ive been reading through this whole thread and nowhere can i tell that he ever tried to bash on anyone...hes just stating his point (opinion -> key word here) not that anoyne has to agree, but given his opinion is based on a lot of first hand knowledge i tend to trust him. No one else in this thread has an "old" turbo setup that made nearly 600 whp. Justin knows what hes talking about and will probably have one ofthe, if not the fastest vr of all of us. Plus he has helped me on more occasions than i care to count, so all of you need to grow up and just chill. I can understand why everyone is frustrated, esp. Justin. Good luck w/ the new 42r http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by Gavster at 11:08 PM 7-20-2004_

Thank you, i appreciate the words bro. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Holy Piston (Oct 24, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

I feel the same way sometimes......







I think the main point NYCVR6 was getting at is,........get that car quicker/faster than a [email protected] then start talking sh*t! haha .......cool car,awesome fabwork,and I love Rados,I got one.....but a time slip will tell the REAL story and cut through all this BS.If that twin setup does not yield some dam impressive results,then yes,I would say that was done more for "show",or "to be different",which is cool too,I guess=) I give respect for the hard work yu guys have done,but getting a VW down the 1320 fast isn't easy......look,it took 5 years to get a MK4 into the 11's and it took NOS and turbo and a spool........


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

DYNO CHANT CHANT


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (Holy Piston)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Holy Piston* »_I feel the same way sometimes......







I think the main point NYCVR6 was getting at is,........get that car quicker/faster than a [email protected] then start talking sh*t! haha .......cool car,awesome fabwork,and I love Rados,I got one.....but a time slip will tell the REAL story and cut through all this BS.If that twin setup does not yield some dam impressive results,then yes,I would say that was done more for "show",or "to be different",which is cool too,I guess=) I give respect for the hard work yu guys have done,but getting a VW down the 1320 fast isn't easy......look,it took 5 years to get a MK4 into the 11's and it took NOS and turbo and a spool........









First off, I just want to say THANKS to the great reception I was awarded at WF with the Corrado. Next to avoid all possible flame wars (which I truly want no part of I don't have time for all of that) let me say this. My intent with the design that I have devised and implemented on this car was to be as functional as possible. Not all of the design principles are mine, but most are (since I fabricated it). The headers were made as smooth, and long as I could for timing and smooth exhaust flow to each turbo. The intake system was made as short and flowing as possible to increase overall power and throttle response. The turbos were chosen because they were CHEAP. This is a big experiment. So far through the help of a close friend that is a GE engineer in Aerospace division according the pressure ratios we are running the car is running as expected. Yes we are going to see where the car ends up as far as power is concerned. I have no control on when the car is raced nor do I have my hands on the steering wheel when it is. I will say from my experience working on Porsches (yes I was a Porsche Tech) this car is as quick as a 993 turbo. And (still avoiding flame wars) my comment on the single as opposed to twin on the flat six, of course plumbing is simpler, but as I understand the main reason is driveability. Having long exhaust piping to the inlet of the turbo allows for much more aggressive timing to help spool. Most of the drag turbo cars I have seen have had extremely long turbo headers. JUST like the Porsche race car single turbo. But, they are race cars. So for the street it isn't bad for spool if you can run the timing. On a 911 motor timing is ultra critical. The air cooled nature creates a much more difficult car to tune without destruction. The use of a big turbo on early 911's meant that the compressor would move high volumes of air without superheating it. But it was laggy. You can't make big power on a turbo (truly big power) without some lag. The Rado has some lag, very minimal. It is very easy to drive fast or slow. All in all I think that I have met or exceeded all of MY goals as the builder of this car. I have still much more to learn and intend on bigger and better things in the future. Hopefully I can keep from getting burnt too bad from ya'll for having my own opinions on how I should do something and why.


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (DTRguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTRguy* »_
First off, I just want to say THANKS to the great reception I was awarded at WF with the Corrado. Next to avoid all possible flame wars (which I truly want no part of I don't have time for all of that) let me say this. My intent with the design that I have devised and implemented on this car was to be as functional as possible. Not all of the design principles are mine, but most are (since I fabricated it). The headers were made as smooth, and long as I could for timing and smooth exhaust flow to each turbo. The intake system was made as short and flowing as possible to increase overall power and throttle response. The turbos were chosen because they were CHEAP. This is a big experiment. So far through the help of a close friend that is a GE engineer in Aerospace division according the pressure ratios we are running the car is running as expected. Yes we are going to see where the car ends up as far as power is concerned. I have no control on when the car is raced nor do I have my hands on the steering wheel when it is. I will say from my experience working on Porsches (yes I was a Porsche Tech) this car is as quick as a 993 turbo. And (still avoiding flame wars) my comment on the single as opposed to twin on the flat six, of course plumbing is simpler, but as I understand the main reason is driveability. Having long exhaust piping to the inlet of the turbo allows for much more aggressive timing to help spool. Most of the drag turbo cars I have seen have had extremely long turbo headers. JUST like the Porsche race car single turbo. But, they are race cars. So for the street it isn't bad for spool if you can run the timing. On a 911 motor timing is ultra critical. The air cooled nature creates a much more difficult car to tune without destruction. The use of a big turbo on early 911's meant that the compressor would move high volumes of air without superheating it. But it was laggy. You can't make big power on a turbo (truly big power) without some lag. The Rado has some lag, very minimal. It is very easy to drive fast or slow. All in all I think that I have met or exceeded all of MY goals as the builder of this car. I have still much more to learn and intend on bigger and better things in the future. Hopefully I can keep from getting burnt too bad from ya'll for having my own opinions on how I should do something and why.









Very well put. I knew someone with a brain was behind the important work done (Fabrication). Opinions are allowed, it's just when people can't respect conflicting opinions is where a problem arises. I look foward to seeing more progress with the car, good luck with it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

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


----------



## DTRguy (Oct 19, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
Very well put. I knew someone with a brain was behind the important work done (Fabrication). Opinions are allowed, it's just when people can't respect conflicting opinions is where a problem arises. I look foward to seeing more progress with the car, good luck with it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Thanks! I truly appreciate it. Stay tuned for more at DTR (it is just me for now







)


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

a nice car for sure. nobody will ever tell you its not. 
But people, dont get all upset if someone says something like, "1 turbo will make more power than 2". I mean nycvr6 wasnt ragging on the car IMO, he was just arguing a point about turbo motors in general.
Just because the car is nice, doesnt mean you have to assume that it is "the" car, and it will romp everything, and you should all just talk it up to high heaven.
Some people see a really nice car, then they think its like impervious to any flaws.
Anyways, the car is cool, I like it, and good luck.


----------



## MDTurborocco (Aug 24, 2003)

*Re: (speed51133!)*

Someone needs to buy this car and further the development. It seems all the car needs is a tuner and time. Its really sad to see cars like these parted, so quickly at that.


----------



## German_Muscle (May 12, 2002)

*Re: (MDTurborocco)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MDTurborocco* »_Someone needs to buy this car and further the development. It seems all the car needs is a tuner and time. Its really sad to see cars like these parted, so quickly at that. 

Uhh, what are you talking about?


----------



## MDTurborocco (Aug 24, 2003)

*Re: (German_Muscle)*

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1529166


----------



## German_Muscle (May 12, 2002)

*Re: (MDTurborocco)*

yeh i seen it now, i almost want to cry


----------

