# Audi Big Turbo Build



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

Just thought I would throw up some pics of the TT I am building for a friend of mine. We are doing the ATP eliminator, REVO stage 3 With big injector program, Genesis 440 injectors, all 3 inch exhaust from turbo back with hi flo cat. HaldexBlue Controller, Kinetic Motorsports FMIC, Samco intake hose, Forge Diverter Valve, Spec stage II clutch with Lightened flywheel and some other odds and ends...here is some cell phone pics from today...


----------



## darrenbyrnes (Jan 4, 2005)

Sweet.


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

interested in knowing more about your build - i didn't know REVO got stage 3 for 225 model.


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (cruzad3r)*

Your Revo dealer needs to contact his technical staff. There are many more files available than what shows on the extranet for the Revo retailer. They are able to meet most custom applications. I will get some more pictures up and information.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (CinergySwedge)*

Why did you guys go through all that and use an Eliminator?


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

Eliminator in my opinion is a good RELIABLE turbo. I have used many of the atp product. I have had nothing but good experiences, and the one time the turbo was sub-standard, they took care of it without
issues. This turbo will all the other modifications will make the horsepower number we are looking for, that was another major factor.


----------



## jwalker1.8 (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: (CinergySwedge)*

IS this the Eliminator generation 1 or 2? The turbo may be reliable but it is restrictive...you could make better numbers off the same turbo with a different mani and hotside...but to each his own...same goes for the Revo software...there are other companies that will net you more power and tuning options out there.
Either way good luck with the build...Oh, what is the hp number you guys are after?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (jwalker1.8)*

LOL, Cinergy beat me to posting on this. The TT is my car. I chose to give the Eliminator a try because this Eliminator is unique to the 225 TT. Unlike the other transverse Eliminators, the one for the 225 TT is a straight shot from the exhaust manifold flange to the turbine side, kinda like the longitudinal elminators, but still not exactly the same. There is no gen 1 or 2 for the 225 Eliminator.
I chose to go this way for several reasons. Yes, I understand that I'm leaving some hp on the table due to the flange restriction, but in return I'm getting a highly reliable setup that we're hoping will make around 275-310 awhp and a daily driver stealth setup. If it wasn't for the exhaust, I would doubt you could spot the setup without a hard look.
My other reason is that I'm the type of person that doesn't buy into the mass thinking. I found little or no information on the 225 TT Eliminator (again, completely different setup than the other transverse Eliminators), so I've decided to try it myself and see what an Eliminator will really do on a 225 TT. Same for the REVO tune. Lots of old info but no real info on what they have going today. Cinergy knows his way around the REVO software and is dialing it in as I type this. 
Besides, if the Elimiator doesn't work out, we can always replace the manifold, downpipe and the turbine housing.
I've had my share of very high performance vehicles and I know you can build the daily fun out of them. Not this time.
It's an experiment, but a well thought out one. We'll keep you posted on the good and the bad.
BTW, the injectors are 550's, not 440's.


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

ok so what is your budget for this project if you dont mind me asking. also is it correct that i can compare your kit against the basic kit from CTS (garrett t3/t4 with 630cc software)


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (cruzad3r)*

Don’t know what to tell you on comparing the CTS kit to this. I’m sure you can eek out more hp out of a PagParts or CTS kit, but that’s not what it’s all about for me. Reliability is big part of my performance equation. I want to just get in it and have some fun with it. Performance for me is measured in miles as well as hp. Ask me again in 20K miles.
However, it would fun to do a side by side with someone with a CTS/PagParts kit, on a 225 TT, with a similar BT, on the street as a daily driver, not just on the dyno. 
One question on my mind is spool-up. Given the straight shot from the flange to the hot side, it should be similar to what the A4 folks are seeing with their Eliminator kits…we’ll just have to get it on the road and find out.

As for cost, it depends on what you already have before you want to move up. If you already have a downpipe, TIP and other assorted items, cost can be a lot less than the other kits. I had to buy the Eliminator kit, the injectors, software upgrade and some other small items. I did score on the Eliminator kit in that I found a dealer wanting to get rid of it off his shelve, so I made him an offer that surprised even me that he took it. ($1,400) 
Frankly, I don’t want to get into of discussions “this” is better than “that” because what is important to me isn’t the same thing for you and I really just don't know. I’m sure I’m going to get a lot of negative feedback on this setup do to a lot of hearsay, fine… Let’s get it on the road first and see.
More on this setup as time allows.



_Modified by Atomic Ed at 4:13 PM 11/30/2009_


----------



## jwalker1.8 (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

What kind of timeline is this build on? Will it be done soon? Interested in seeing what the kit does for you


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

i like your attitude. if you can update every now and then as you're moving a long with the build, that would be great.
for me, 300 or 350 at the wheel on a TT is plenty fast. i had my mind set to 250 at the wheel and i'm close to it. reliability is definitely on top of my list. i dont want to go big turbo and then have the car sit while trying to figure out what's wrong with it. there are plenty of guys put a big turbo, drive for a bit then give up. anyway, good luck with everything. if this works out for you, i'm going to call you up for more info


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (cruzad3r)*

We should have it on the road in a couple of days. Cinergy is working on the final tune tonight or tomorrow. It seems that we need more fuel to get the A/F down, which is a good thing…the need for more fuel means we should have good power. It looks like a 4.5 bar fuel pressure on the 550cc injectors will get us into the right A/F ratio. 
I’ll let you know what the first impressions are, but there will be a break-in period for the new clutch, so I won’t be flogging it. At some time in the near future, I do plan to take it to the local dyno shop to see what its doing. We’ll post the results. 
Gotta get it on the road this weekend to take the girlfriend wine tasting! Did you know that you can get three cases of wine in the trunk of a TT roadster? 
More info to come.


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

added to my watched topics, dying to see what you put out of this kit as I checked it several times without buying tough


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

Is this the GTRS or the GT2871R Eliminator?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Late__Apex)*

This kit is the GT2871R eliminator for the 225Q.
We've had a setback in that REVO sent the wrong software, but fortunately they caught it quickly. A dead battery didn't help either. Hopefully we'll get it on the road this weekend. 
There is a few things that I should bring out. First, the casting and milling on the turbine housing was poor to say the least. I spent several hours cleaning up casting marks and mis-matched milling with a die grinder. A smoothed up path to the turbine wheel should help with the spool-up.
Also, since I had the die grinder out, I did take some time to port match the exhaust manifold and the turbo. Can't hurt and may help.
I'll get back with the first impressions when I get it out on the road.



_Modified by Atomic Ed at 10:43 AM 12/9/2009_


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

Okay....With a software setback and a few housekeeping items..this car will be on the road tomorrow afternoon. It all turned out great with great response and smooth acceleration. Here is some pictures of it as it was on the hoist to get some under the vehicle shots....This has been a fun and exciting project...


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

what were the issues with the intallation? (since it's atp, there must be some just hope it'sminor stuff)


----------



## Boomdaddymack (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

nice build chad and atomic ED. 
for some reason i thought it was a 3071 you were putting on it. ok i'm sure you will get me from a dig but i wanna run ya on a freeway pull from 50mph and see how my gti does againt that kit. i hope i get to see this at work tomorrow http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## SteveCJr (Aug 3, 2008)

I would recommend not using that intake. Mine has seem to only cause problems. (assuming, misplaced my factory box) I have read it causes turbulance over the MAF and I have gone through two this year.
Thought I would throw that out there.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (SteveCJr)*

So far, so good on the Misimoto intake. I did replace the "see through" filter sent with the intake with an AFE dry filter and I've had no problems. Did you put the flow straightener from the OEM MAF body in the Misimoto MAF body?
We'll see how it does with the increased flow.
That said, I may go back to the OEM intake just to finish off the completely stock look.


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 7:17 AM 12-15-2009_


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

Cinergy should chime in here, but the only issue from the ATP fit was the poor casting and milling on the custom hot side. If you deside to go this route, I would crack open the hot side and clean it up. Here's a pic of what I'm talking about:








I really don't know how much or how little this mismatch would affect performance, but I'm anal enough to take the time to clean it up.
The actual fit-up was straight forward, no issues.
It's going on the road tonight, but we have ice and snow on the roads.










_Modified by Atomic Ed at 7:50 AM 12-15-2009_


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

Ed did do a lot of clean up on the lines of the Turbo like he said. It was smooth and matched nicely when I picked up the parts from him. I do know what he is talking about. I have used atp's parts before, they are good quality, but there is always room for some finishing touches. My only complaint on the turbo installation itself, was the cold side of the turbo hits the lowest most passenger side exhaust mounting stud for the manifold, had to do some trimming there to ensure that the turbo would mount completely and flushly to the exhaust manifold without any obstructions. Also had to make a slight clocking change on the center section of the turbo and the cold side to allow for optimum fit and proper drain back for the oil return. Just some fine tuning of the installation in my opinion.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (CinergySwedge)*

Yeah, the clocking issue was probably my bad since I disassembled the turbo to clean it up.


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

so what is the cost of all this? also how much whp are you expecting and at what range of rpm? for me this would be awesome if i can get about 350 at the wheel and they're readily available from 2.8 - 5.5k rpm and the total cost is about 3-4k include installation, i would jump on it in a heart beat.
i have almost everything except the down pipe and a bigger turbo







so cost wise it should be "cheaper" right? On another note, what kind of torque are you expecting and will stock internal good enough?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (cruzad3r)*

The cost for the turbo and all of the oil/coolent lines was $1,400.
Injectors - $300
Downpipe -$580 for a 42DD downpipe and cat (225Q downpipes aren't cheap!)
Ceramic coating of the downpipe (inside and out) - $120
Ceramic coating of the Turbine housing/Manifold - $120
Miscellanious -~$200(?)
As for the software, tuning and installation, PM CinergySwedge for pricing, he's a REVO tuner. Your going to have to do some research and run your own numbers to figure out if it is cost effective.
I don't think this setup is going to meet your goal of 350 at the wheel, but again, I just don't know, it might be close with the right tune and a push on the boost level. My guess right now is roughly 275awhp at 18 psi with a good spool at 4k rpm. It's all a guess right now in that there are too many varibles to get a reasonable estimate. The turbo cleanup, the unique design of the turbine housing for the 225q, the tuning and upgrading of the software, Cinergy's tuning skills







, and the ceramic coatings will all play out in the end. 
Remember the haldex sucks another 10% from the bhp, so 275 is a pretty good target. If it's fun to drive and flattens my eyeballs, I really don't care too much about the dyno numbers.....Yeah, OK, I admit that I want put it on the dyno just to see what the numbes are, but that's later. Drivability first.

I've never understood the spoolup at x rpms thing. Tell me me how many seconds it takes on the street to spool up....thats what's important to me. 
_Modified by Atomic Ed at 11:12 PM 12/15/2009_


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 11:15 PM 12/15/2009_


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

good stuff dude. thanks for sharing all the details. CinergySwedge, if i was to guess tuning and installation of the turbo cost about 1k, is that appropriate? i know it's different between different vendors so a better question is how long did it took you guys to install the turbo and iron out all the kinks? this is purely on the turbo itself and making sure proper fitment between the exhaust manifold and the surrounding area.


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

I'd love to see some Vag-Com logs. If you have them available, do you think you could post 002 & 115 for a good pull?
Thanks for the detailed and complete thread.


----------



## Boomdaddymack (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: (cruzad3r)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cruzad3r* »_good stuff dude. thanks for sharing all the details. CinergySwedge, if i was to guess tuning and installation of the turbo cost about 1k, is that appropriate? i know it's different between different vendors so a better question is how long did it took you guys to install the turbo and iron out all the kinks? this is purely on the turbo itself and making sure proper fitment between the exhaust manifold and the surrounding area. 

i would like to know this also i was also wondering could you do a stage 1 revo tune on my ecu if i sent you the ecm or do you have to have the car. or are you so good at tuning these ecm's that all you have to do is hold it in your hands. for stage 1


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Late__Apex)*

A good pull is going to be tough here right now. The roads are iced packed. I'll see about getting it done when we get some clear weather and dry roads.


----------



## Boomdaddymack (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

ice is gone and sunshine outside with dry roads lets get some feedback on how this thing pulls


----------



## mazen... (Sep 30, 2008)

*Re: Audi Big Turbo Build (CinergySwedge)*

exhaust manifold and down pipe stock flanges???


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Boomdaddymack)*

Haven't got it on the road yet.







Chad had found that the downpipe was rattling against the floorboard due to a missing hanger on the 42 DD downpipe. Chad welded up a new hanger and we're ready to go, now that I'm back in town....and of course the weather sucks today. The roads are like ice rinks here. 
Mazen, 
Yes, the manifold and down pipe are stock flanges at the stock locations.


----------



## mazen... (Sep 30, 2008)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

and what about inake side(cold side of turbocharger???


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (mazen...)*

Got to drive it a few blocks last night! My first impression is how smooth it drives with the REVO software. Mash on the gas cominng off a ramp and the acceleration just keeps building. By 4K to 4.5K rpm in fourth gear boost is hitting hard. There is no torque spike. We're only running 18 psi for right now until things get settled in. 
THe ECU still needs to adapt, but overall impression is I think I'm going to be happy with this setup!
Still having problems with the 42DD downpipe hitting the floorboard at certain times. Of all things, the new exhaust has been a pain. We've got a poly mount for the dogbone on its way to control engine rock. The Eliminator turbo install has been relativly simple.
I'm out of town again. Maybe the weather will clear up some by next week and I can get the TT out for a real test drive.

Mazen,
Yes, the intake is the same as the stock location. The kit comes with two TIP adapters, one for stock diameter and one for a larger diameter TIP.


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

did you use the stock size TIP or big size, I'm shopping for one larger and can't find any


_Modified by Volksdude27 at 11:12 AM 12-30-2009_


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

We used the stock sized, silicone TIP. It's still slightly larger than the compessor inlet. We'll see how it does when we turn up the boost.


----------



## mcttr3 (Mar 29, 2009)

*initial setup of the wastegate?*

How did you set up your wastegate? Did you set the tension using the adjustable screw based upon some predetermined air pressure? What PSI did you set?
thanks


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (mcttr3)*

All kinks worked out...The exhaust is overcome with the rubbing of the firewall issue and making an obnoxious noise in the passenger area....It runs nice and smooth...The car will be going home to Atomic Ed later today so he can start playing!!! I am sure this thread will Stay updated as things go along with testing and changing settings...
-Chad
Here are the final pictures...everything almost looks completely stealthy and stock.....


----------



## cdougyfresh (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (CinergySwedge)*

Very nice... I'm from Spokane I'd love to come down and see that in person sometime


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (CinergySwedge)*

As Cinergy said, I picked up the TT last night from his house. I only had about 45 minutes to take it for a spin to gather some first impressions of the new setup, but just like a first date, first impressions are important. 

Just granny driving around, not much real difference in the feel of the car. In some sense, it’s easier to drive with the torque spike at 2.5k rpm now gone. Acceleration is now a smooth, predictable push up to 4k rpm. After 3k rpm, you do notice something is different with acceleration building faster than the stock setup. At 4k, acceleration ramps up hard and keeps building well past 6k. I stopped by a friend’s house that has a slightly built-up Mustang and took him for a quick ride. His comment was “This thing is like an angry gnat!”
I do want to spend some time driving it and I’ll try to stay subjective on commenting about this build. But if I had to say right now, this upgrade is a success! Its smooth driving, pulls hard from 4k, all emission equipment is working, and virtually undetectable with just a visual inspection. Tune is conservative at 18 lbs boost and minimum timing advance for now. 
I was considering rods for this setup, but given how smooth the boost comes on, I don’t think they are necessary, even when I push the boost in the future. 
Did I save a bunch of money using the eliminator? I did, but a CTS or Pag Parts kit will be within a few hundred dollars if you use their basic kits.
Was it an easy install? Ask Cinergy, but from what I can tell, Yes. Other than the interference of the one manifold bolt, it bolts right in with the same amount of hassle of a stock turbo install.
Is the REVO software working? Yes, the stage III 550cc file works great with this turbo! Idles better than stock. No dips or soft spots in the acceleration. No CELs.
Power? I need to get it to a dyno, but it is without a doubt, a big jump in power. Yes, I leaving some power on the table, but I am retaining what I think is a sense of quality and reliability. 
Bottom line, it works. The eliminator for the 225Q TT spools up nicely starting around 4k on the street and is a hoot to drive as a daily driver. I need to live with it for a while, but I’ll get back after some miles are on it.



_Modified by Atomic Ed at 8:42 AM 1/12/2010_


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (CinergySwedge)*

I should bring out what made this a successful build:
Number one thing: A knowledgeable tuner/builder.
Cinergy’s meticulous attention to detail, his experience, and his knowledge of both VAG cars and REVO tuning is what really made this a successful project. 
I’m no stranger to wrenching in that I’ve built a turbocharged motorcycle on my own and multiple other performance vehicles. I could have taken this on myself, but as I get older, I’ve learned to call in help to get things done right the first time. 
Cinergy was able to quickly figure out a several small issues that would have left me pondering on them for weeks, adding up to frustration and a negative attitude towards the build. He also had quite a few tricks up his sleeve that has made this a very drivable car. Also, the right tools were on his shelf, making the job an easy task for him, but would have been a PITA for me. He’s done many a VAG performance build and can talk from hands on experience, not message board chatter. Cinergy just wouldn’t let the car go until it was perfect.
So my recommendation is even if you are taking on the build yourself, get a mentor and pay him. He’s worth every dime and then some.
Kudos Cinergy, thanks for the cool build.


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (Atomic Ed)*

Ed, Thanks for the props and compliments. I hope you are enjoying it so far. I look forward to stopping by and giving you your vag-com cheat sheet. Until then..Have loads of fun driving that "ANGRY GNAT".See you tomorrow night..
Cinergy


----------



## cruzad3r (Jan 24, 2007)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (Atomic Ed)*

from your original post, you didnt have rods reference so i'm assuming you did not install rods. 
also, your comment said the cost of this kit came out to be the same as the CTS version, i was under the impression your kit would be cheaper due to cheaper/discounted parts. 
are you holding 18lbs all the way till red line or it spiked at 18? thanks for posting and sharing your info.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: initial setup of the wastegate? (cruzad3r)*

Correct on the rods. I thought about them, but given the behavior of this setup, I'm going to pass on putting them in.
My bad on the cost comment, I was thinking about the retail cost of a 2871 eliminator and the cost of a PagParts super 60 kit, which are close to the same price. I forgot the super 60 is for a FWD only. But again, you should do your on research on the costs. You could find that the cost could be within a few hundred dollars between an elimiator and another kit...It could also be as much as $1,200 difference for a 2871 setup. 
I didn't have the boost gauge hooked up the other night, so I can't answer you on the boost question.


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

My question is for Cinergy and since I think it's good for everyone I'm posting it instead of private msg
I received my 71R Elim today (might say you were right about the poor finish of casting I will def do some job on it ) as well as the two inlet
one (the one already installed on the turbo) is meant to go on the stock 2" TIP (or silicone upgrade) and the other one has a 3" OD.
So my question is as follows, will it make THAT much diff if i use the bigger one. I guess yes on upper boost level and it's where I want to go so I doubt the smaller one will be enough but I wanted to know your tought about it


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

also, did you have all the gaskets (downpipe and manifold) witht the kit? cuz I haven't received them


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

*FV-QR*

any updates?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

Sorry about no updates. I've been traveling so much lately that I haven't had the time to do any real test driving on the new install and it doesn't look like I'll gat a chance soon either....really irritating. 
As for the larger TIP adapter, I too am wondering the same thing. However, once you get the turbo on, you'll see there isn't much clearance for a larger diameter TIP without a lot of re-work. I want to do some logging and a dyno run first before I start thinking about changing out parts, if I do at all. I'm not going to do a lot of re-work just to squeeze a few hp out of this setup.
For some inspiration, go look at what the A4 folks are doing with a REVO tune and the ATP eliminators. I think the design of the 225Q eliminator matches the A4 eliminator alot better than the 180 TT setup for comparison.
No gaskets with the ATP kit.


----------



## A4 1.8 Turbo (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

are you still cel free? cels are my nightmare!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (A4 1.8 Turbo)*

None so far, but I need to get out and push it a bit. This damn work thing gets in my way to go play....


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

I am not sure that the 3" adapter for the Turbo inlet will improve things that much overall unless you are going to make a wild and crazy boost set up. I do not expect to see any CEL lamps on this rig. Things were done and tuned correctly to where this wont happen. I agree that CEL lamps are anyones night mare and a big pain in the A$$!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A4 1.8 Turbo (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (CinergySwedge)*

so how are things going with this? any kinks or issues since you've now had some time to get it out? These are my favorite builds!! nice and reliable but not stupid insane! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

Atomic Ed and I have been communicating about Ed's setup and he asked me to post his Vag Com boost log. Here it is:











_Modified by Late__Apex at 8:43 PM 2-23-2010_


----------



## A4 1.8 Turbo (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Late__Apex)*

hmmm.....little late to spool according to that graph......


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: (A4 1.8 Turbo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A4 1.8 Turbo* »_hmmm.....little late to spool according to that graph......

that late spool is a downside of the eliminators, but I'm sure it could be better anyway, with a high flow manifold perhaps?
a company in the uk is making one for the K04-02X but it'll be really too expensive to get it this side of the ocean (they'll ask 479 brithish pounds)


----------



## A4 1.8 Turbo (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

well I guess as long as you shift near redline you'll atleast be dropping into the range where boost will still be there


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Late__Apex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Late__Apex* »_Atomic Ed and I have been communicating about Ed's setup and he asked me to post his Vag Com boost log. Here it is:








_Modified by Late__Apex at 8:43 PM 2-23-2010_


Pretty sad that it spools slower then a GT35








Please do a full system pressure check.
I bet i leaks.
Btw the turbo inlet is no restriction under 350whp.
Even a 600whp unit is fine with a 55mm inlet hole to the turbine


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

Yea, I was expecting some lag, but not THATmuch lag. Cinergy and I are going to work on it and see what we can do to improve on the lag. A boost leak is definitly a possiblility. 
But, as I said earlier, it's an experiment. Worst case, I can back-fit a new hotside, manifold, and downpipe.
Volksdude27 - Where in the UK did you find the high flow manifold for K04-2x that fits the 225Q??? I have some contacts in the UK and may have them pick one up and ship it.
It's still a fun car to drive on the street. Power comes in nicely at 4k. I think I need a trip to the dyno to get a better picture of what's going on.
Thanks for the comments folks.....I'll be back when I have an update.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

I would check it in this order.

1:ALWAYS pressure test. ive even had leak on injector o-rings and FPR








2:You need to check waste gate pretension. it shold be 1/4th -1/2 of the pin vs hole pre tensioned

3:Fuel and ignition logs below 4000rpm

I cant se any problem on either turbo manifold design OR that turbo charger.
So check this first http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

*ONLY restriction *i can see is that crappy kinetic intercooler.
Remember it have same nr´s of flow tubes and is thinner then OEM so it has same flow area.








A.k.a it flows like a OEM intercooler and longer tubes = even more pressure loss.


_Modified by [email protected] at 7:29 AM 2-25-2010_


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Thanks for the hints. I'll add them to my ever-growing list of things to check. 
I'm on a steep learning curve right now. These really are BT projects.


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

Ed has been sending good data from his testing and VAG logs. It will allow for some fine tuning. Also...I did a smoke test on the system twice to check for leaks...But...it always could be!







It is definitely a work in process!.....


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (CinergySwedge)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CinergySwedge* »_Ed has been sending good data from his testing and VAG logs. It will allow for some fine tuning. Also...I did a smoke test on the system twice to check for leaks...But...it always could be!







It is definitely a work in process!.....

ok http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Then its back to check pre tension on the waste gate actuator
Make sure that it is pre tensioned and dont leak due to low clamp force


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_
Volksdude27 - Where in the UK did you find the high flow manifold for K04-2x that fits the 225Q??? I have some contacts in the UK and may have them pick one up and ship it.


JBS is the company that has it under developpement:
http://www.jbsautodesigns.co.u...ifold
and here is graph from there prototype testing:
http://www.tt-forum.co.uk/foru...rt=15
if you ever get a hold on one, let me know I might just buy one too


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I would check it in this order.

1:ALWAYS pressure test. ive even had leak on injector o-rings and FPR








2:You need to check waste gate pretension. it shold be 1/4th -1/2 of the pin vs hole pre tensioned

3:Fuel and ignition logs below 4000rpm

I cant se any problem on either turbo manifold design OR that turbo charger.
So check this first http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

*ONLY restriction *i can see is that crappy kinetic intercooler.
Remember it have same nr´s of flow tubes and is thinner then OEM so it has same flow area.








A.k.a it flows like a OEM intercooler and longer tubes = even more pressure loss.

_Modified by [email protected] at 7:29 AM 2-25-2010_


So you're saying the design would be good on the eliminator and that unit should spool faster than this?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Volksdude27* »_

So you're saying the design would be good on the eliminator and that unit should spool faster than this?

if you calculate gas speed vs area in manifold and the turbo inlet etc there are no real restriction at this powerlevel.
Remeber that TIAL 700Hp+ unit got a 2.25 inch inlet http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I dont see any design flaws on the setup exept the intercooler from kinetic that is a bit restrictive.
Even more restrictive then the oem setup.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: (Volksdude27)*

Volksdude27 - Thanks for the hookup! Glad to see someone has stepped up to the table and put out a cast high flow manifold for the 22Q. Cinergy and I will ponder on this also. 
Price is a little high, but without the UK Vag tax, it would be in the neighborhood of $575. I'm up for trying it.


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 12:35 PM 2/25/2010_


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

at that price, I would be for it too, maybe a group buy?
Let me know if you get in touch with them to know release date etc...


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*another high flow manifold*

I also know another guy who's developped a high flow manifold for a k04-02x application but it's meant for his k04 hybrid
http://frankenturbo.com/frankenlog.html I might ask him if he would ever want to sell the manifold alone (would be a tubular one tough)


----------



## CinergySwedge (Apr 15, 2006)

*Re: another high flow manifold (Volksdude27)*

definitely looking into it!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: another high flow manifold (CinergySwedge)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CinergySwedge* »_definitely looking into it! 

guys
remember that this lagg issue got nothing to do with OEm manifold design.
Its acctually a good manifold with tappared runner design to slowly get the correct area for the turbo inlet.
No nazty rapid area increase/decreas on the manifold.
It should have supperior spool due to that design. 

keep the setup and do the check points 
ill try to get some 2871 spool test from our cars http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: another high flow manifold ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
guys
remember that this lagg issue got nothing to do with OEm manifold design.
Its acctually a good manifold with tappared runner design to slowly get the correct area for the turbo inlet.
No nazty rapid area increase/decreas on the manifold.
It should have supperior spool due to that design. 

keep the setup and do the check points 
ill try to get some 2871 spool test from our cars http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

So you're saying that the K04 manifold is good enough to spool that turbo?
could it be the housing itself then?
just asking cuz I'm doing the same setup and if I can make it spool great with the oem manifold it might be the difeerence between regular software and eurodyne Maestro 7 lol
and when you say you'll test your car, do you mean you do have eliminator setup on it?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: another high flow manifold (Volksdude27)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Volksdude27* »_
So you're saying that the K04 manifold is good enough to spool that turbo?
could it be the housing itself then?
just asking cuz I'm doing the same setup and if I can make it spool great with the oem manifold it might be the difeerence between regular software and eurodyne Maestro 7 lol
and when you say you'll test your car, do you mean you do have eliminator setup on it?

no elimintor.
a 2871 comparision.
There is nothing wrong with the exhaust housing , manifold etc.
and software should not make that much difference.
The K04 manifold is desighnwise better then 99% o the manis out there.
But the 2871 can make 400whp on race fuel and that is to much.
so its a missmatch and the normal GTRS 2560 might be better suited combo.

But with this particular setup something is wrong.
Thighten waste gate then please do a MAF logg + ignition logg + N75 duty logg + (LOAD+spec+actuall)


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

*Re: another high flow manifold ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
no elimintor.
a 2871 comparision.
There is nothing wrong with the exhaust housing , manifold etc.
and software should not make that much difference.
The K04 manifold is desighnwise better then 99% o the manis out there.
But the 2871 can make 400whp on race fuel and that is to much.
so its a missmatch and the normal GTRS 2560 might be better suited combo.

But with this particular setup something is wrong.
Thighten waste gate then please do a MAF logg + ignition logg + N75 duty logg + (LOAD+spec+actuall)










dammit I was about to order the GTRS elim when I decided to go with the 2871R lol
but anyway I'll wait like you for those logs


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: another high flow manifold ([email protected])*

Foffa,
I'm assuming you mean measuring blocks 2, 20, and 115? If so, I have them with me, I just need to figure out how to get them to you.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: another high flow manifold (Volksdude27)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Volksdude27* »_
dammit I was about to order the GTRS elim when I decided to go with the 2871R lol
but anyway I'll wait like you for those logs










Its nothing wrong with the 2871
But the concept is to bolt on turbo and not hustle with rods n clutch etc
RODS=300whp
Clutch 350-400Nm
Manifold 300whp-330whp
Intercoolers 250-270whp
exhaust 250-270whp
And 2871 got a 400whp capacity and will give you ~600-1000rpm boost lagg vs the small 2560 that is more of a 300whp unit match

But it will save the clutch from tq spikes instead


----------



## MattAttack (Oct 10, 2008)

where are you getting these numbers from?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (MattAttack)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MattAttack* »_where are you getting these numbers from?

Flow tested both pumps injectors , manifolds , dyno tested a dossen GT turbos


----------



## wrparrish (Nov 13, 2008)

Appreciate you bringing that sort of information to the table, it helps all of us make more informed decisions.


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

*Re: (Atomic Ed)*

Ed, here is the data you asked for, I didn't get the N75 log from you










_Modified by Late__Apex at 9:53 PM 2-27-2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Late__Apex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Late__Apex* »_Ed, here is the data you asked for, I didn't get the N75 log from you









_Modified by Late__Apex at 9:53 PM 2-27-2010_

Still OEM MAF?
*
Here is BOOST and MAF gram.*
MAFgr = ~Whp
Something is defenetly wrong.
Your car produce ~10wHp more then K04 and got 25whp less down low








*Foffa K04 file vs ATPgtrs REVO*









1:crank just a little WG = solve low end lagg
2o lambda logg to see if its fueling 
3:Ignition logg to see if it atleast stay over 15*
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re:*

Any news?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*

No real news yet. Cinergy and I both worked all weekend and didn't get a chance to do any additional logging.
Cinergy is positive the wg is tight in that he had to redo the wg arm when he clocked the turbo. 
We know that we are lean in that the multiplicative lambda is running +20%, right on the edge of adaptation. I'm have some ideas and so does Cinergy. 
One thing I need to check is the ID on the Misimoto inlet where the MAF is mounted. If it has a bigger ID than the stock 225 MAF housing, I suspect its throwing the A/F ratios off.
Cinergy thinks it might also be the N249 valve. Hopefully I'll get some free time this weekend to log the timing.
Thanks for sticking this out with me. 


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 10:04 AM 3/3/2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_No real news yet. Cinergy and I both worked all weekend and didn't get a chance to do any additional logging.
Cinergy is positive the wg is tight in that he had to redo the wg arm when he clocked the turbo. 
We know that we are lean in that the multiplicative lambda is running +20%, right on the edge of adaptation. I'm have some ideas and so does Cinergy. 
One thing I need to check is the ID on the Misimoto inlet where the MAF is mounted. If it has a bigger ID than the stock 225 MAF housing, I suspect its throwing the A/F ratios off.
Cinergy thinks it might also be the N249 valve. Hopefully I'll get some free time this weekend to log the timing.
Thanks for sticking this out with me. 

_Modified by Atomic Ed at 10:04 AM 3/3/2010_

ok so you run a billet maf?
did it come with mishimoto intake or revo software?
either way OEM maf and airbox handle 400hp easy.
And get less turbulent flow and better reading.

MAF grams is propably screwed up due to MAF housing size.
ID should be 74mm or similar


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*

A little progress this weekend. Did some additional logging and found the timing needed pulling back quite a bit. The dip in the upper rpm range was definitely from the knock sensor and is now gone. 
Better fuel trim logging on my part found the adaptation on the fuel trims to be around +11% max, livable. EGT's are around 725° C max.
However, the N75 valve duty cycle was logged at 100% throughout the entire rpm range, only going to 95% at the upper end, not good. So figured I wanted to try clamping down on the wastegate. I started to dig into the adjusting the wastegate arm and found that I have no more thread left on the arm, crap. Some re-thinking needed here.
Didn’t get a chance to open up the intake and measure the ID on the Misimoto housing yet. Maybe this next weekend.
About 3 p.m. I closed the hood and took the girlfriend wine tasting. At some point you need to just take a drive….

_Modified by Atomic Ed at 9:17 AM 3/8/2010_


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 9:22 AM 3/8/2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_A little progress this weekend. Did some additional logging and found the timing needed pulling back quite a bit. The dip in the upper rpm range was definitely from the knock sensor and is now gone. 
Better fuel trim logging on my part found the adaptation on the fuel trims to be around +11% max, livable. EGT's are around 725° C max.
However, the N75 valve duty cycle was logged at 100% throughout the entire rpm range, only going to 95% at the upper end, not good. So figured I wanted to try clamping down on the wastegate. I started to dig into the adjusting the wastegate arm and found that I have no more thread left on the arm, crap. Some re-thinking needed here.
Didn’t get a chance to open up the intake and measure the ID on the Misimoto housing yet. Maybe this next weekend.
About 3 p.m. I closed the hood and took the girlfriend wine tasting. At some point you need to just take a drive….

_Modified by Atomic Ed at 9:17 AM 3/8/2010_

_Modified by Atomic Ed at 9:22 AM 3/8/2010_

please post lambda logg block 030-031








Hmmm 95-100% is very bad.
Then its a OEM actuator.
Change it for a ATP 18psi unit and make sure to disconnect the N75 until REVO can give you a 18psi actuator file.
Should have like 10-20% N75 value instead


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*

Here is the 30 -31-32 logs.








The new actuator came in yesterday. ATP dosen't have an 18 psi acturator for this setup, so I picked up a 20-22 psi actuator. 
Cinergy believes we need to take another look at the fueling also.
We're just trying to fine the time to dig into this.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_Here is the 30 -31-32 logs.








The new actuator came in yesterday. ATP dosen't have an 18 psi acturator for this setup, so I picked up a 20-22 psi actuator. 
Cinergy believes we need to take another look at the fueling also.
We're just trying to fine the time to dig into this.

Hi
Its way to lean up top.
As you can see its going from requested 0.875 to 0.91
Thats a nice high hp lean request at 12.5:1 to a UBER lean 13.4:1
Its basicly not hitting target at ANY rpm.
Bump fuel pressure OR check fuel pump.
What fuel pump do you use and what fuel pressure?
If its a 2001> use lemmi and add another 10% fuel
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*

Thanks for help again Foffa. 
The fuel pump is stock with a 4 bar fpr. Unfortunatlely, this is an AMU narrow band ecu, so no lemmi adjustments. 
Help me out on your comments on measuring block 31. I thought the first lambda voltage column was the actual voltage and the second lambda voltage column was the requested voltage....and isn't the voltage such that 1 equals a 14.7 AFR? Wouldn't that make the voltage like .88 equal 12.9 AFR? And what does UBER mean?
BTW, the Misimoto billet MAF housing is 2.725 and the stock MAF houaing is 2.745, both measured. Not a lot of difference, but I may go back to the stock MAF housing.


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 6:11 AM 3-16-2010_


----------



## jwalker1.8 (Mar 4, 2008)

*FV-QR*

Narrow band is possibly some of the problem. When he says "Uber" he means "extremely"


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_Thanks for help again Foffa. 
The fuel pump is stock with a 4 bar fpr. Unfortunatlely, this is an AMU narrow band ecu, so no lemmi adjustments. 
Help me out on your comments on measuring block 31. I thought the first lambda voltage column was the actual voltage and the second lambda voltage column was the requested voltage....and isn't the voltage such that 1 equals a 14.7 AFR? Wouldn't that make the voltage like .88 equal 12.9 AFR? And what does UBER mean?
BTW, the Misimoto billet MAF housing is 2.725 and the stock MAF houaing is 2.745, both measured. Not a lot of difference, but I may go back to the stock MAF housing.

_Modified by Atomic Ed at 6:11 AM 3-16-2010_

Narrow band








Crap then calc dont work.
BUT you still got some limitations
Ok its your intank pump.
Running 550cc at 3bar + 1.5bar boost = 4.5bar total pressure.
At 4.5bar it might be able to deliver requested.
But when you run 4bar fpr + 1.5bar of boost the 5.5bar total is way to high total pressure and OEM pump flow fall of drasticly.
So even that yoyr 550cc deliver far beyond 600cc at 4bar FPR it will actually deliver more with the 3bar and some 10% fuel added with lemmi..

Or just ad a walbro inline and you got a 120$ cure for the problem
Btw test the OEM housing.
Got more accurate reading with the dual screens


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Narrow band








Crap then calc dont work.


What calc are you talking about? 
So I have two things to dive into this weekend. 
1) Get the new 20 psi actuator installed and tweeked in to help with spoolup and N75 cycle time. 2) Look into adding fuel at the top end, possibly a new fuel pump.
BTW, I thought with the REVO stg III software on an AMU narrowband ecu the lemmi tweeks don't function. (?)
Thanks again, I'm still learning a lot on this.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Re: (Atomic Ed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Atomic Ed* »_
What calc are you talking about? 
So I have two things to dive into this weekend. 
1) Get the new 20 psi actuator installed and tweeked in to help with spoolup and N75 cycle time. 2) Look into adding fuel at the top end, possibly a new fuel pump.
BTW, I thought with the REVO stg III software on an AMU narrowband ecu the lemmi tweeks don't function. (?)
Thanks again, I'm still learning a lot on this. 


Hi
The lambda conversion to AFR dont work.
So logging a narrow band lambda is useless.
Remember to bypass N75 before you add the 20psi acctuator.
Otherwise its not 6psi+95% duty
Its 20psi+95% duty = 40psi boost spike
















Just bypass the hoses and leave it hanging it the cable harness so that it dont trow codes or cause leaks to the TIP
Lemmi doesent work with that ECU
What FPR and injectors does revo specify their software with?
There is no way OEM pump will work with 4bar FPR.
Give revo a call and ask if their software is 3 or 4bar with the 550cc.
If its 4bar then you need a walbro inline pump http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

*FV-QR*

bump


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (MKllllvr28)*

I guess it’s been a while since we’ve posted where we are at. Both of us have been very busy and just haven’t been able to devote the time to this project.
We found that the actuator arms on both the standard equipped 0.8 bar wastegate and the replacement 1.5 bar wastegate did not have enough threading to allow adjustment to keep the wastegate fully seated. A simple fix was to just re-thread the arm to allow the proper tension to be set. Hopefully this will solve some of the lag time, N75 cycle time and requested verses actual boost issues.
Cinergy has been playing with duty cycle times verses fuel delivery and he has come to the conclusion if you are going to run more than 18 psi on this setup, you’ll need a better fuel pump. He’s installing a Bosch 044 fuel pump in the next few days and that should solve the fuel issue.
I’ll get some logs up when we get it back on the street.


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

*FV-QR*

?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (MKllllvr28)*

Still waiting fo the last piece of the puzzle to come in. Hopefully it will be back together and tuned up by this weekend.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (MKllllvr28)*

Foffa got me to thinking about fuel pumps and what Cinergy and I am trying to do here, so I thought I would share some research I did.
The Genesis 550cc injectors (which are what I’m using) can flow 52.5 lbs/hr. at 3 bar. For four injector’s, that’s a max flow of 210 lbs/hr or 150 Ls/hr. It’s looking like the sweet spot for this setup on the street is going to be 22-24 psi boost. So for a 3 bar setup, that’s a minimum pump head pressure of 68 psi and for a 4 bar setup, that’s 83 psi.
Take a look at this graph:
http://jayracing.com/images/pr....JPG 
As you can see, the Walbro 255 is OK using a 3 bar FPR (right at 210 ls/hr), and close at 4 bar (roughly 175 ls/hr). Even though the Walbro 255 can produce the fuel flow, it’s under the ideal conditions of 13.5 volts. If you have any voltage drop due to corrosion on the terminal, or a weak charging system, you’ll fall outside the pump curve and won’t have the fuel flow. 
The Bosch 044 on the other hand stays above 250 Ls/hr, even at 4 bar and 24 psi boost; a good safety margin. The nice thing is we can go move between FPRs and get the equivalent of a 630cc injector with the 4 bar FPR without fuel starvation. Even if the pump degrades somewhat over time, we’ll be OK.
BTW, the stock fuel pump only produces roughly 130 Ls/hr at 20 psi with a 3 bar FPR and roughly 110 Ls/hr with a 4 bar FPR, definitely a lean condition at WOT with this setup.
Pay the extra $75 bucks and get a Bosch 044 if you are going down this path.
Cinergy will be working on the tune this weekend if the parts are in. We’re close……
_Modified by Atomic Ed at 8:07 AM 4/30/2010_


_Modified by Atomic Ed at 8:10 AM 4/30/2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (Atomic Ed)*

Bosch is worth the extra.
Ran DUAL 044 on my s








1250cc setup on E85


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*

That is quite the soda straw Foffa! E85 fascinates me, but too much trouble for a daily driver here in Eastern Wash.
Cinergy is going way beyond my amateur knowledge with this build. He's installing improved MAF and O2 sensors to up the response time of the electronics. Given that we are going to push it a little above the normal REVO/Eliminator build, this seems like a wise move.
I think Cinergy is having way too much fun with this build......


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

getting this thread back from the dead to know what's going on with this build

had my elim for a full season now and it pulls really nice, and spools only 200rpm slower than a full frame 71R on a 1.8t!!


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

Which eliminator do you have, volksdude? Any dyno sheet or data?


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

got the same setup as the op GT2871R with a 3" turboback system and Eurodyne maestro 7 for management.

Don't have any dyno sheet yet, the only sort of data I have is a 1/4 mile timeslip. at 20 psi,i expect around 280 WHP and I'm pushing it up to 24 next season (maybe with ater/meth)

it may be more powerful tough cuz i beaten a couple of 300+whp cars the night i went. but hp isn't my only goal cuz Iwant to track thecar next season


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

I'm running ATP gt2871 eliminator my car only put down 290awhp on the dyno that's running revo 550 file 3" maf 3" exhaust no cat or muffler abd intake manifold laborite stage 3 water meth and a bunch of other crap just to let you the turbo blew up it took a year but she died I was running it at 27psi when dynod I turned it up to 30psi but every time I hit the highway 160 was on the dash but for me my experience it's not worth the cash because now I'm doing it the right way gt3076r built but you never know you might be happy with 290 or 300


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

sometimes it's not the amount of mod you have but how the setup is done and tuned, I spent a couple hours tuning my **** with maestro 7 before having that, and I agree that 27 psi on that manifold will probably destroy the turbo, sometimes the more psi doesn't mean the more power...

edit: Just saw in another thread that your car is a a 180hp TT, so there is no comparison to make. Gen 1 150/180hp eliminator is a pile of **** and you were probably spooling near 5000rpm. 224 frame is a total other story, better housing AND better manifold at the start. No they aren't the best solution for BIG BIG powa but the 225 version is worth the money IMO


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

swift motor sports charged me 400 to dyno tune and took like 4 hrs he said at 290 awhp it was to close to what a stock motor can hold


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

you're comparing a 180 to a 225 in that thread man


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

True but I can't see it being that much different .I know the 225 has lower conpression but my experience it wasn't good and I tried a ko4 setup and that sucked two but to each their own


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

the engine's different (not that different but again), but I was talking about the eliminators, there's a big diff between the 180 and 225 version


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

The eliminator I bought was for the 225 because I had already swiched to a complete ko4 setup out of a225 from a junk yard mani down pipe ect ect


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

01ttgt28 said:


> The eliminator I bought was for the 225 because I had already swiched to a complete ko4 setup out of a225 from a junk yard mani down pipe ect ect


then somethin was wrong or you're tune was **** cuz 290 at 27 psi even with an eliminator is too low, but again it wasn't THAT bad if it was AWHP


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

if it was front wheel drive it would of been over 300 easy


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Folks,

Thinking about how long it’s been since I’ve posted here, I’ve decided to close out my input on this tread.

Over the last year, life happened for both Cinergy and myself. This project had to take a back seat to other things in both our lives. All is well now. 

In the end, we were able to achieve 328 fwhp with this setup…not bad. 

However, there was a few things I learned, or at least convinced that I understand and would take care of before I would be totally satisfied with this setup.

First and foremost, the stock exhaust manifold holds the spoolup of the eliminator back considerably due to its poor flow. It’s a must replacement for the 2871 eliminator on the TT 225. I spent lots of time over at the Audizine A4 forum studying why they were able to achieve spoolup on the exact same eliminator at around 3800 rpm (@ 20-22 psi) and I couldn’t get there until around 4800 rpm. My graph below shows the answer. With my turbo running on actuator spring pressure only (N75 disconnected), you can see that the turbo is very slow to spool. No other explanation that I can think of. (Note that the actuator was a 1.5 bar actuator, so the waste gate held and opened properly.)









I have confirmed through others that the stock TT 225 exhaust manifold flows less than the stock 180 hp mani and way less than an upgraded 180 hp mani. To run this turbo, you will need a high flow manifold of some kind. Either wait for INA or JBS to come out with their cast mani, or have someone build a simple tubular one for you. It doesn’t have to be equal length runners, just bigger diameter runners and a bigger (taller) collector head. Make it heavey duty to hold the extra weight and handle the heat cycling.

The next item is the TIP. I strongly suspected that I was getting near cavitation due to the high flow restriction at the compressor inlet. There is now a TIP on the market that can open up the intake side of the turbo to get the airflow you’ll need. Go read this post. 

http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=328699

Lastly, the REVO software. If you look at the graph, you can see a very late requested boost curve. I strongly suspect that is due to REVO conservatively modulating their boost curve off of the MAP. The MAP I was using for this run was a 3 bar MAP, which gives a lower PSI/volt readout to the ECU/REVO software than the stock MAP. I believe this is why the A4 guys can run up to 400 fwhp (@ 30 psi) with REVO software and get by without upgraded rods. The torque curve comes up very slowly with the boost with the 3 bar MAP.

BTW, I think this well modulated boost curve is a good thing for the REVO software. It keeps torque spikes in check and allows decent power build without the need for upgraded rods, if you’re very, very careful.

I do believe with a high flow manifold and high flow TIP, I could have achieved what the A4 guys are doing and met my goals. The eliminator turbo will work well with the TT 225 if you line up these two additional parts. More power and a quicker spoolup are available.

But I’m moving on to a new project. I’ve been given an opportunity to play with a new setup: a 2.1 stroker with a F23 Frankenturbo. I know most of you are shaking your heads and saying what a waste, but I’m not done playing in the response time sandbox yet. This should be a great daily driver around town. Torquey, with quick response. Remember the old adage “You drive the torque. You race the horsepower.”

I’ll post up when we get this put together. 

Let me know if my thinking is flawed. Comments and thoughts are welcomed.


----------



## Vdub 2.0 (Jan 8, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Folks,
> 
> Thinking about how long it’s been since I’ve posted here, I’ve decided to close out my input on this tread.
> 
> ...



:thumbup: thanks for the update i know a lot of people were wondering what happened to this build and the additional information is a great help,


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

:thumbup: Thanks for the update Ed.


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

good luck with the new build and keep us posted:thumbup:


----------



## cruzanstx (Oct 10, 2011)

Atomic Ed said:


> Folks,
> 
> Thinking about how long it’s been since I’ve posted here, I’ve decided to close out my input on this tread.
> 
> ...



Really informative findings!


----------

