# C2 VRT Dyno Results are in!



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

Well, I finally got to goto the dyno!
I wont yibber jabber.. But here are the facts you want to know








Best pull was on *15psi*, i did *408.4whp and 354.9trq*
on only 10psi i put down 361whp but i dont remember the trq..
My goal was to have the highest HP for the least amount of boost...I think I did a good job!
yes i know it smokes on down revs..still trying to figure that out..
youtube vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR3lx-_AUaM
photobucket vid:

The car:








The engine:








The specs:
Stock 2.8L Fully Rebuilt Block w/all ARP Hardware
C2 8.5:1 SS Spacer
C2 42# Software (Custom"ish" chip)
GSB Enterprises Stage 2 Port & Polished
41mm Schrick Intake Valves
36.2mm Schrick Exhaust Valves
Ina Lightweight Hydraulic Followers
Autotech HD Valve Springs
Schimmel Performance 263 Cams
Samco Radiator Hoses
Setrab Aftermarket Oil Cooler
Brand New Coil Pack
Mk4 12v Spark Plug Wires
NGK Cold Spark Plugs
Bosch 42# Injectors
Stainless Steel Oil Feed with oil restrictor
Tial 38mm Wastegate
Garrett T04S with .70 a/r Divided, 4 inch inlet, w/V-Band
TurboXs RBV-25 Diverter
2.5 inch Intercooler Piping
27x12x3 Intercooler
4 inch MAF
Walbro 255 Inline Pump
Removed A/C
Removed Secondary Air Pump (Via 42 Draft SAI Plug)
All New Coolant housings and 70 degree thermostat
AEM Wideband O2
The proof:









_Modified by Weak VR at 5:45 PM 6-9-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:45 PM 6-9-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 12:10 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 4:59 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:22 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:46 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 6:09 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:15 PM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:18 PM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:18 PM 6-10-2007_


_Modified by Weak VR at 1:19 PM 6-10-2007_


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

Nice numbers.
If you don't mind me asking, is your manifold built for a divided turbo?


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_Nice numbers.
If you don't mind me asking, is your manifold built for a divided turbo?

well.. its a kinetic mani, I hand ported out the hole to gasket match the t4 housing... but as far as having dividers in the mani...no it doesnt..


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_well.. its a kinetic mani, I hand ported out the hole to gasket match the t4 housing... but as far as having dividers in the mani...no it doesnt..

I see. I really want to see a VRT with an actual twin scroll setup to see how much it actually affects spool.


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_
I see. I really want to see a VRT with an actual twin scroll setup to see how much it actually affects spool.

i dont think their are any out their.. unless custom http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

insane #s
ive never seen them so high on such little boost. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_insane #s
ive never seen them so high on such little boost. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

thats what i was trying to do! thank you!


----------



## gtifella2 (Dec 1, 2005)

thats awesome man good bizness


----------



## formulavr6 (Oct 9, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_
thats what i was trying to do! thank you!

Well you've certainly acheived that!! good work


----------



## tekstepvr6 (Aug 15, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (formulavr6)*

Nice numbers. It looks like the head work is really paying off. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (tekstepvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tekstepvr6* »_Nice numbers. It looks like the head work is really paying off. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

thats what im thinking..thanks!
video is gonna be hosted soon...quality is crappy...but ohh well


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_I see. I really want to see a VRT with an actual twin scroll setup to see how much it actually affects spool.

How would you go about doing a divided 6 cylinder manifold? The best way I could think to do it would be to have two pairs of cylinders going into a respective side of the collector, and then split the other pair of cylinders with one going into each of the other collectors.


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_
How would you go about doing a divided 6 cylinder manifold? The best way I could think to do it would be to have two pairs of cylinders going into a respective side of the collector, and then split the other pair of cylinders with one going into each of the other collectors.









It would depend on firing order. That is key to a divided mani's success. On a VR6, you might be able to get away with dividing up the mani the way the stock ones are.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TallaiMan* »_It would depend on firing order. That is key to a divided mani's success. On a VR6, you might be able to get away with dividing up the mani the way the stock ones are.

I know that it depends on the firing order... my only point was, you have three different sets of 'paired' cylinders as opposed to two sets on a four cylinder car. On a four cylinder car, you obviously just run each 'pair' into one side of the divided manifold/turbo.
On a stock vr6, you have cylinders 1/2/3 and 4/5/6 paired together. I believe the firing order is 1/5/3/6/2/4. I was considering pairing 1/5, 3/6 and then running 2 and 4 to one of each of the other sets. Then, I was trying to also compensate for the extra lengths that cylinders 1/3/5 needed. In the end I didn't bother with the divided manifold. This is what I/we ended up making in the end.








To the OP, sorry for the semi-threadjack. If you want, just PM me and I will remove the manifold jibber jabber. Anyway, back on topic...
What sort of dyno were these runs on? The numbers are beyond impressive for the boost level, especially with the stock intake manifold. If the numbers are correct, that worked head is worth it's weight in gold http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## UBER KUHL (May 16, 2005)

What did you do between run 4 and 5 to make a 20+whp difference?


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (leebro61)*

Like I said, I would most likely keep them divided in the same way that the factory has them. It would save space, too. 
I might be building a VRT B5 Quattro next year, so if nobody has done it by then, I will.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*

I don't think keeping them paired in the factory orientation would take advantage of the exhaust pulses the way that a divided setup does (unless I am misunderstanding the theory {entirely possible







}). I thought divided setups paired the cylinders that fired together to get a stronger 'pulse' to spin the turbine wheel. With the stock configuration, you would never have two fired cylinders entering the same side of the turbine at the same time.
Would you be building the manifold from scratch or just using an Y pipe off the factory manifolds?


----------



## trbowgn (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: (UBER KUHL)*

I think he increased his boost. Dustin awesome numbers! We'll have to go for a ride sometime http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TallaiMan (Mar 2, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_Would you be building the manifold from scratch or just using an Y pipe off the factory manifolds?









You have it right. I must have misunderstood the firing order or cylinder orientation then...
It would be from scratch.


----------



## J.Q. Public (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TallaiMan)*

Awesome numbers for the setup.
Correct me if I am wrong but these appear to be from a Dynocom dyno. I wasn't able to find much on them in regards to correlating to the standard Dynojet numbers we all know and love.
Does anybody else know how the Dynocom numbers stack up?
Still sounds like it runs great.


_Modified by J.Q. Public at 12:32 AM 6-10-2007_


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (J.Q. Public)*

after run 3, i upped boost about 2 psi per run, till i got 400...
ive never heard of the dyno i used today.. but they dynoed a stock LS b series honda motor and got 115 hp..sounds right on the money for me...


----------



## MiamiVr6T (Jul 24, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

awesome numbers... see what she does at the track http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## The Yoda (Nov 28, 2005)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (MiamiVr6T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MiamiVr6T* »_awesome numbers... see what she does at the track http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

what he said!


----------



## hubbell (Oct 30, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

confused.....c2 says not to remove the sai due to o2 control on obd2 cars....i know this is true so whats the deal with your car if your sai is gone?


----------



## J.Owen (May 31, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (hubbell)*

removing the sai completely is bad, but i am assuming the OP is using the resistor to fool the ecu into believing the sai still exists which should allow it to run as normal.


----------



## AlexiGTIVR6 (Jul 21, 2000)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (bugasm99)*

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

_Quote, originally posted by *bugasm99* »_removing the sai completely is bad, but i am assuming the OP is using the resistor to fool the ecu into believing the sai still exists which should allow it to run as normal.

Not always . I have mine completely removed also. No resistor to fool the ecu needed. I have the proper SW for it







No CEL or rediness code problems either


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (AlexiGTIVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AlexiGTIVR6* »_
I have the proper SW for it







No CEL or rediness code problems either









sw??


----------



## AlexiGTIVR6 (Jul 21, 2000)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_
sw??

software


----------



## steve05 (May 24, 2006)

i love ya dustin, that dyno was amazing, im happy you hit the numbers!!! have a good one!!


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (steve05)*

vid is posted..
as far a i know...c2 designed the chip to run with no airr pump... i have the the selonoid plugged in and the vacuum lined tee'd together...
ohh yeah did i meantion my car is *CEL FREE?!*


_Modified by Weak VR at 5:23 AM 6-10-2007_


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

I thought the SAI thing was for mk4 cars? That is what I remember hearing at least. I'm sure Jeff will come in and let us know whats up. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*

i cant get the vid


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*

Proof that, while you can make big power on the stock head, a worked head like this one has a really nice powerband and doesn't require as much boost http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
By far the most efficient vr6 turbo I've seen with the c2 software, or any software/standalone for that matter.
I just really wish it was a dynojet or other more common dyno. I've never heard of a dynocompute. Is that the name of the dyno or just the dyno program it uses?
edit* found the website. Looks like a nice product to me. 
http://www.dfwwebdesign.com/Dynocom/features.asp


_Modified by [email protected] at 12:03 PM 6-10-2007_


----------



## VR6rocks (Jun 5, 2004)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_i cant get the vid









Me neither








Very very impressive numbers indeed. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for a good work.... I wonder what it will do on 18 or 20 psi








If you don't mind me asking, did you remove the A/C because you couldn't fit the 4" turbo inlet? I am aiming for the same setup, T04S/Kinetic manifold combo, and was wondering if I would be able to keep my A/C.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

what gear where they doing the dyno pulls in?


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Proof that, while you can make big power on the stock head, a worked head like this one has a really nice powerband and doesn't require as much boost http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
*By far the most efficient vr6 turbo I've seen with the c2 software, or any software/standalone for that matter.*
I just really wish it was a dynojet or other more common dyno. I've never heard of a dynocompute. Is that the name of the dyno or just the dyno program it uses?
edit* found the website. Looks like a nice product to me. 
http://www.dfwwebdesign.com/Dynocom/features.asp

_Modified by [email protected] at 12:03 PM 6-10-2007_

thanks for the compliment! maybe later in the year ill got a better dyno..

_Quote, originally posted by *VR6rocks* »_
Me neither








Very very impressive numbers indeed. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for a good work.... I wonder what it will do on 18 or 20 psi








If you don't mind me asking, did you remove the A/C because you couldn't fit the 4" turbo inlet? I am aiming for the same setup, T04S/Kinetic manifold combo, and was wondering if I would be able to keep my A/C.

i probably will never do 20 psi..i dont want to break anything..
yeah i dont have ac..there is NO WAY to fit that turbo and that manifold in their with ac lines... also, the turbo blocks part of the throttle body fyi
I posted a link to youtube..try that..(i cant view because of this computer im on at work)


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_what gear where they doing the dyno pulls in?









they were done in 3rd gear. i talked to them about it..and the last 2 pulls were in 4th... i think?!


----------



## VR6rocks (Jun 5, 2004)

Thanks for the tip


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (VR6rocks)*

dyno pulls should be in 4th for the most accurate results, but they wouldnt be off by much in 3rd. 
crazy vid. 
(i got it to work on my PC, wouldnt work on the mac.)


----------



## formulavr6 (Oct 9, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TBT-Syncro)*

Man, just looked at the vid, that thing works gooood!! Nice


----------



## The Hustler (Oct 24, 2005)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*

lookin good..










_Modified by The Hustler at 7:23 PM 6-10-2007_


----------



## MiamiVr6T (Jul 24, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*

they all look like 3rd gear pulls... sounds good


----------



## herbehop (May 4, 2004)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_I thought the SAI thing was for mk4 cars? That is what I remember hearing at least. I'm sure Jeff will come in and let us know whats up. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

You can't eliminate the SAI on MKIVs without losing wideband a/f control from your 02 sensors. 

To the poster:
Very nice numbers!


----------



## Soupuh (Apr 29, 2005)

im one of three vrt's in the columbus area that has no sai. i also have no cels.


----------



## Jopn (Oct 22, 2004)

*Re: (Soupuh)*

what gas?


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Jopn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jopn* »_what gas?

93 octane


----------



## Jopn (Oct 22, 2004)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

damn! that's amazing.


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Jopn)*

yeah, my torque is a little lo though...im unhappy with that..


----------



## tekstepvr6 (Aug 15, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_yeah, my torque is a little lo though...im unhappy with that..

Your transmission is probably happy about that.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_yeah, my torque is a little lo though...im unhappy with that..

The torque is proper for the boost you are running.
-Jeff


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_
The torque is proper for the boost you are running.
-Jeff

hmmm...and yes the trans likes that... haha
hmm.. well what kills the stock pistons...? psi, hp, or trq?


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_
hmm.. well what kills the stock pistons...? psi, hp, or trq?

Detonation. (cylinder pressure)

-Jeff


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_
Detonation. (cylinder pressure)

-Jeff

hmmm.. so with proper tuning i *could *reach 450whp?


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_
hmmm.. so with proper tuning i *could *reach 450whp?

Been there, done that.









-Jeff


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_
i probably will never do 20 psi..i dont want to break anything..


You changed your mind pretty quick








With the way your head flows, I wouldn't be suprised to see you put down the highest c2 hp number. With 20+ psi and race gas its there for sure.


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_
Been there, done that.









-Jeff


Jeff,
IMs sent. no response??


----------



## tekstepvr6 (Aug 15, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You changed your mind pretty quick








With the way your head flows, I wouldn't be suprised to see you put down the highest c2 hp number. With 20+ psi and race gas its there for sure.

With the amount of power his car is putting out at 15 psi I don't think he can push 20 psi without maxing out the 42# injectors.
Weak VR, if you decide to turn it up past 15 psi make sure to watch your wideband or better yet do some VAG-COM logs to calculate the duty cycle on the injectors. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You changed your mind pretty quick








With the way *that dyno reads*, I wouldn't be suprised to see you put down the highest c2 hp number. With 20+ psi and race gas its there for sure.
 There fixed it. 
No offense to the O.P. as its a very nice looking setup but those numbers seem a good bit higher than anyone else has dynoed at similar boost levels. If you search around you won't find too much good written about the Dynocom dynos. I don't see how a stock intake manifold and what appears to be an Ebay intercooler are going to make that power at such low boost levels. How does 10 psi get you 361whp but 15 only net 408whp? At those boost levels you should be picking up more than 9hp/psi. While the O.P. didn't post the full specs on the turbo I would think that any turbo that moves enough air to do [email protected] would really be coming on at 15psi and do a good bit more than [email protected] 
It is a very nice build and I am sure it moves out I think its just a little misleading to post numbers like that. I don't want to hear its the head because 1.) that GSB head has never been proven to make any real power over stock and 2.) whatever gains you are getting from the head at 10psi should be even greater at 15psi. 
Get that thing to the track or at the very least a Dynojet and then post your numbers. I think the numbers you are seeing are a result of the correction factor applied (doesn't really work for a fi car) and a happy dyno. Take away the 7% the cf is adding and a couple of percent for the happy dyno and you have numbers that seem much more inline with other results ([email protected], [email protected]).


----------



## steve05 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: (vw1320)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_ There fixed it. 
No offense to the O.P. as its a very nice looking setup but those numbers seem a good bit higher than anyone else has dynoed at similar boost levels. If you search around you won't find too much good written about the Dynocom dynos. I don't see how a stock intake manifold and what appears to be an Ebay intercooler are going to make that power at such low boost levels. How does 10 psi get you 361whp but 15 only net 408whp? At those boost levels you should be picking up more than 9hp/psi. While the O.P. didn't post the full specs on the turbo I would think that any turbo that moves enough air to do [email protected] would really be coming on at 15psi and do a good bit more than [email protected] 
It is a very nice build and I am sure it moves out I think its just a little misleading to post numbers like that. I don't want to hear its the head because 1.) that GSB head has never been proven to make any real power over stock and 2.) whatever gains you are getting from the head at 10psi should be even greater at 15psi. 
Get that thing to the track or at the very least a Dynojet and then post your numbers. I think the numbers you are seeing are a result of the correction factor applied (doesn't really work for a fi car) and a happy dyno. Take away the 7% the cf is adding and a couple of percent for the happy dyno and you have numbers that seem much more inline with other results ([email protected], [email protected]). 

according to your signature you are just a hater on C2 stuff, and i was there and saw the numbers, the car moves out, i have seen it, besides, your biggest gains are always on the first like, 8-10psi, after that you wont see as much of a hp per psi.... my cousins mitsu galant vr-4 was the same way as is my turbo swift, i am at about 160whp on 8psi, but 25psi (an additional what, 17ish?) will only make me 240-260whp.... stock is about 80whp.


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (vw1320)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_ There fixed it. 
No offense to the O.P. as its a very nice looking setup but those numbers seem a good bit higher than anyone else has dynoed at similar boost levels. If you search around you won't find too much good written about the Dynocom dynos. I don't see how a stock intake manifold and what appears to be an Ebay intercooler are going to make that power at such low boost levels. How does 10 psi get you 361whp but 15 only net 408whp? At those boost levels you should be picking up more than 9hp/psi. While the O.P. didn't post the full specs on the turbo I would think that any turbo that moves enough air to do [email protected] would really be coming on at 15psi and do a good bit more than [email protected] 
It is a very nice build and I am sure it moves out I think its just a little misleading to post numbers like that. I don't want to hear its the head because 1.) that GSB head has never been proven to make any real power over stock and 2.) whatever gains you are getting from the head at 10psi should be even greater at 15psi. 
Get that thing to the track or at the very least a Dynojet and then post your numbers. I think the numbers you are seeing are a result of the correction factor applied (doesn't really work for a fi car) and a happy dyno. Take away the 7% the cf is adding and a couple of percent for the happy dyno and you have numbers that seem much more inline with other results ([email protected], [email protected]). 

i agree with you somewhat..the dyno was def a walmart dyno... here is how the numbers come:
in this order:
361 10psi
33# 10psi
dont remember but somehwre around 330
378 13 psi
381 14 psi (spiked to 15 then to 14)
408 15 psi (spiked to 16 then to 15)
the guys at the dyno let theca rcool down cause i lost 30whp after just 1 pull...
either way... all i remember people posting is how stupid it is to put cams in a fi vr...and i want to prove them wrong..
if i do up the boost, ill be watching the wideband for sure... but i really cant... my clutch is slipping at 10psi right now..and i dont think ill be buying one for the rest of the year.. im having fun on low boost still


----------



## Zupek (May 10, 2000)

*Re: (vw1320)*

it's all legit, accept it...

_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_ There fixed it. 
No offense to the O.P. as its a very nice looking setup but those numbers seem a good bit higher than anyone else has dynoed at similar boost levels. If you search around you won't find too much good written about the Dynocom dynos. I don't see how a stock intake manifold and what appears to be an Ebay intercooler are going to make that power at such low boost levels. How does 10 psi get you 361whp but 15 only net 408whp? At those boost levels you should be picking up more than 9hp/psi. While the O.P. didn't post the full specs on the turbo I would think that any turbo that moves enough air to do [email protected] would really be coming on at 15psi and do a good bit more than [email protected] 
It is a very nice build and I am sure it moves out I think its just a little misleading to post numbers like that. I don't want to hear its the head because 1.) that GSB head has never been proven to make any real power over stock and 2.) whatever gains you are getting from the head at 10psi should be even greater at 15psi. 
Get that thing to the track or at the very least a Dynojet and then post your numbers. I think the numbers you are seeing are a result of the correction factor applied (doesn't really work for a fi car) and a happy dyno. Take away the 7% the cf is adding and a couple of percent for the happy dyno and you have numbers that seem much more inline with other results ([email protected], [email protected]).


----------



## Zupek (May 10, 2000)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_dyno pulls should be in 4th for the most accurate results, but they wouldnt be off by much in 3rd. 
crazy vid. 
(i got it to work on my PC, wouldnt work on the mac.)

on a 5speed 02A, its 3rd gear...


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (fatfreevw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fatfreevw* »_it's all legit, accept it...


hey im fine with the fact that it could be incorrect.. it doesnt bother me.. i know i can hit 400whp whether its on 15psi or 25 psi...


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

actually, the only thing that makes me wonder is the fact that PolskiHetzen put down 416whp/373wtq and i only have 354 trq...


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (fatfreevw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fatfreevw* »_on a 5speed 02A, its 3rd gear...

we have always used 4th


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

I meant no disrespect to you at all and you seem to have a very good attitude about the whole thing. I just think this thread might be a little misleading to other people putting together similar setups when they don't dyno the same. 
To everyone else Think about it for a second - there is a reason why you haven't seen another car dyno this high with this low of a boost level. 

I suggest all you who think these are comparable to dynojet numbers do a couple of things:
1. Watch the video then watch a video of a similar spec and hp car make the "same" hp on a Dynojet. The video of Mole's car is a good comparable. The Dynocom takes all of three seconds to make a pull. The Dynojet will take at least six seconds if not more. Obviously the Dynocom has a much lower inertia roller and is more susceptible to error. If you don't think you can tell a good bit by how a car sounds on the dyno and how quick it makes a pull you haven't dynoed enough cars. 
2. Do a quick search for Dynocom. Most of what you will read will not be favorable. There is a reason they are the cheapest dyno out there. 
3. Take a look at the compressor maps for a 60-1 and tell me how its going to flow enough to do [email protected] While you are at it do some looking and realize that a turbo will make the most power per psi in its most efficient range - then realize that it isn't 10psi for a 60-1. At 15psi its getting there but not at 10.
4. Do a little research on similar setups. Tell me why it usually takes ~20psi to make 400whp on a 60-1. I don't want to hear anything about the GSB head as there has never been concrete proof that its any better than a stock head either NA or FI. 
5. *Think for yourselves for once. *
As for my sig its there for a reason. If anyone really wants to know pm me as to why and I will tell you. Otherwise this isn't the time nor the place. To those of you that think I am hating on C2 tell me where I said anything about not believing the power #s do to it being on C2 software? I wouldn't believe those power numbers at that boost level, on pump gas, from this setup, no matter what it was tuned on. 
On a final note on the whole 3rd or 4th gear dyno issue - its makes very little difference to the final power numbers but can influence spool and the shape of the curve. For the sake of this thread it wouldn't make a difference if it was in either of those gears.


----------



## VolksWurks (Oct 20, 2006)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_Well, I finally got to goto the dyno!
I wont yibber jabber.. But here are the facts you want to know








Best pull was on *15psi*, i did *408.4whp and 354.9trq*
on only 10psi i put down 361whp but i dont remember the trq..
My goal was to have the highest HP for the least amount of boost...I think I did a good job!
yes i know it smokes on down revs..still trying to figure that out..
youtube vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR3lx-_AUaM
photobucket vid:

The car:








The engine:








The specs:
Stock 2.8L Fully Rebuilt Block w/all ARP Hardware
C2 8.5:1 SS Spacer
C2 42# Software (Custom"ish" chip)
GSB Enterprises Stage 2 Port & Polished
41mm Schrick Intake Valves
36.2mm Schrick Exhaust Valves
Ina Lightweight Hydraulic Followers
Autotech HD Valve Springs
Schimmel Performance 263 Cams
Samco Radiator Hoses
Setrab Aftermarket Oil Cooler
Brand New Coil Pack
Mk4 12v Spark Plug Wires
NGK Cold Spark Plugs
Bosch 42# Injectors
Stainless Steel Oil Feed with oil restrictor
Tial 38mm Wastegate
Garrett T04S with .70 a/r Divided, 4 inch inlet, w/V-Band
TurboXs RBV-25 Diverter
2.5 inch Intercooler Piping
27x12x3 Intercooler
4 inch MAF
Walbro 255 Inline Pump
Removed A/C
Removed Secondary Air Pump (Via 42 Draft SAI Plug)
All New Coolant housings and 70 degree thermostat
AEM Wideband O2
The proof:









_Modified by Weak VR at 5:45 PM 6-9-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:45 PM 6-9-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 12:10 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 4:59 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:22 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 5:46 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 6:09 AM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:15 PM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:18 PM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:18 PM 6-10-2007_

_Modified by Weak VR at 1:19 PM 6-10-2007_


Is that 2nd gear on the dyno or do you run a 3:94 final.


----------



## Zupek (May 10, 2000)

not to answer for him, but he does run 3.94


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (fatfreevw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fatfreevw* »_not to answer for him, but he does run 3.94

yes i have a 3.94...and yes its way to short


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (vw1320)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_I meant no disrespect to you at all and you seem to have a very good attitude about the whole thing. I just think this thread might be a little misleading to other people putting together similar setups when they don't dyno the same. 
To everyone else Think about it for a second - there is a reason why you haven't seen another car dyno this high with this low of a boost level. 

I suggest all you who think these are comparable to dynojet numbers do a couple of things:
1. Watch the video then watch a video of a similar spec and hp car make the "same" hp on a Dynojet. The video of Mole's car is a good comparable. The Dynocom takes all of three seconds to make a pull. The Dynojet will take at least six seconds if not more. Obviously the Dynocom has a much lower inertia roller and is more susceptible to error. If you don't think you can tell a good bit by how a car sounds on the dyno and how quick it makes a pull you haven't dynoed enough cars. 
2. Do a quick search for Dynocom. Most of what you will read will not be favorable. There is a reason they are the cheapest dyno out there. 
3. Take a look at the compressor maps for a 60-1 and tell me how its going to flow enough to do [email protected] While you are at it do some looking and realize that a turbo will make the most power per psi in its most efficient range - then realize that it isn't 10psi for a 60-1. At 15psi its getting there but not at 10.
4. Do a little research on similar setups. Tell me why it usually takes ~20psi to make 400whp on a 60-1. I don't want to hear anything about the GSB head as there has never been concrete proof that its any better than a stock head either NA or FI. 
5. *Think for yourselves for once. *
As for my sig its there for a reason. If anyone really wants to know pm me as to why and I will tell you. Otherwise this isn't the time nor the place. To those of you that think I am hating on C2 tell me where I said anything about not believing the power #s do to it being on C2 software? I wouldn't believe those power numbers at that boost level, on pump gas, from this setup, no matter what it was tuned on. 
On a final note on the whole 3rd or 4th gear dyno issue - its makes very little difference to the final power numbers but can influence spool and the shape of the curve. For the sake of this thread it wouldn't make a difference if it was in either of those gears. 

all that sounds right to me...
a 60-1....isnt my turbo bigger than that? from what i know...which isnt much lol.. i have a to4s, 61 trim with a p trim wheel, 2.5 outlet with 3inch vband, .70 divided a/r... its a full t4
stock kinetic/atp kits come with a 60 trim t3t4 which is smaller than my turbo. so doesnt it make sence that on lower boost i should be able to get 400 hp (not saying it should be 5 psi less)
like i said...i dont know much about turbo sizes and such...but i know a bigger turbo means more air per psi
ive done research on the gsb heads...and i never heard anything about not gaining power (i know about the valve dropping issue though).... bigger valves are gonna make a difference idc what anyone says...


_Modified by Weak VR at 5:07 PM 6-12-2007_


----------



## RadoV6 (Oct 9, 2004)

*Re: C2 VRT Dyno Results are in! (TBT-Syncro)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Good job on the #'s man!


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (vw1320)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_
1. Watch the video then watch a video of a similar spec and hp car make the "same" hp on a Dynojet. The video of Mole's car is a good comparable. The Dynocom takes all of three seconds to make a pull. The Dynojet will take at least six seconds if not more. Obviously the Dynocom has a much lower inertia roller and is more susceptible to error. If you don't think you can tell a good bit by how a car sounds on the dyno and how quick it makes a pull you haven't dynoed enough cars. 


Its a dyno in 3rd gear and the car has a 3.94. 
Dynomite dynos are much worse IMO, but thats not really the point. The car makes more hp than hp because it has cams and some nice head modifications. It makes more power at a lower psi because it actually flows well, unlike a stock 12v head. Why is it so hard to accept.
354tq can easily be made at 14psi, and the head takes over from there. There is nothing far fetched about it.


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

yeah idk.. ill goto another dyno next year when i get a clutch and shatter some records







haha jk..


----------



## Vdubsolo (Apr 11, 2004)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

dude your gonna need a clutch soon..i wouldnt hold off on that..besides a semi sliping clutch in turbo vr6 will turn in to a fully slipping clutch in no time..unless you baby the car for all this time..and if you can do that..well then heres to you


----------



## J.Q. Public (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Its a dyno in 3rd gear and the car has a 3.94. 
Dynomite dynos are much worse IMO, but thats not really the point. The car makes more hp than hp because it has cams and some nice head modifications. It makes more power at a lower psi because it actually flows well, unlike a stock 12v head. Why is it so hard to accept.
354tq can easily be made at 14psi, and the head takes over from there. There is nothing far fetched about it.


Do you have proof that this head flows so much better than stock? Anyone can throw some bigger valves in and take a dremel to the ports and call it a stage 6000 if they want but without back to back dynos or at the very least some accurate flow data it really doesn't mean diddly

It would be one thing if the car had a custom tune to take advantage of the extra flow up top, or if the car had a short runner that usually trades mid range tq for top end power, this one has neither though. 
The large majority of all vr6 turbos with this basic setup (stock intake t04 turbo and 3" exhaust) all make about the same tq vs hp. Once you factor in the understandbly conservative timing that in the C2 tune very often they make more tq than hp. I believe your dyno graph demonstrates this very nicely








and if you look at the 15 psi pull on your car it's right at 351whp which is what almost every other VRT makes at 15psi once they are properly tuned. 
Another way to look at it is the difference between your 15 psi pull and WeakVr's 15psi pull was 50hp, at a pressure ratio of 2 this would mean that the head alone is worth 25hp NA.







If that's the case than this head would be the bolt on answer for >200whp NA since a slew of Chip/Filter/Exhaust NA VR's are in the 170whp range. Since >200whp na VR's are a heck of a lot rarer than 400whp turbo ones I'm going to say not very likely.
But than again, I don't know what I'm talking about I only live in a world governed by reason and logic and not funny math and whimsical notions of power.
I'll say once again to the OP, kick butt car, you have the right attitude Take care of that clutch so you can enjoy all the power you are making, whatever the number might be.


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (J.Q. Public)*

thanks guys... 
well... my car did make 204 whp all motor b4 i owned it, haha..but that was with a matrix 3.1, and cat 2268's...


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

Did you have to get a custom burned chip to get away with taking the SAI off?


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (KubotaPowered)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KubotaPowered* »_Did you have to get a custom burned chip to get away with taking the SAI off?

nope, according to c2...u dont need to have it..


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (KubotaPowered)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KubotaPowered* »_Did you have to get a custom burned chip to get away with taking the SAI off?

im pretty sure the new 42# chips delete the air pump and the rear O2.
im not sure though since i dont make them.


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_
im pretty sure the new 42# chips delete the air pump and the rear O2.
im not sure though since i dont make them.









Interesting


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (J.Q. Public)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J.Q. Public* »_
It would be one thing if the car had a custom tune to take advantage of the extra flow up top, or if the car had a short runner that usually trades mid range tq for top end power, this one has neither though. 

He said it has a custom c2 chip.

_Quote, originally posted by *J.Q. Public* »_
The large majority of all vr6 turbos with this basic setup (stock intake t04 turbo and 3" exhaust) all make about the same tq vs hp. Once you factor in the understandbly conservative timing that in the C2 tune very often they make more tq than hp. I believe your dyno graph demonstrates this very nicely
and if you look at the 15 psi pull on your car it's right at 351whp which is what almost every other VRT makes at 15psi once they are properly tuned. .

My car was boost spiking a little bit on that dyno by about 3psi. I make 5-10 less tq than hp now with the profec ebc.
At 15psi I make 350tq, but only a little over 350hp because I have a completely stock head and intake mani.
The reason I think the dyno is legit is because he is about to make the same tq, because he still has the stock intake mani. But he makes more hp because of the headwork. 
Maybe the dyno is cheapy and is inaccurate at higher rpms, but I doubt it.


----------



## sinisterh22a (Oct 9, 2003)

whats the a/f at during the 400 hp run, i was looking is it high 12s?


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (sinisterh22a)*

yeah, but my wideband reads high 11's low 12's...the dyno's is at the muffler...reads leaner than it really is


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (Weak VR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Weak VR* »_yeah, but my wideband reads high 11's low 12's...the dyno's is at the muffler...reads leaner than it really is

post cat? if so, it could be leaner than reality, or it could be richer. it depends on a few things. either way, a post cat O2 is pretty much useless.


----------



## sinisterh22a (Oct 9, 2003)

i dont dout that you made the power. bt have never seen anyone make the power with such little boost. im sure the cams helped out also, but what i have learned is with a c2 chip you will be leaner. meaning if you are at 20#s without cams your a/f might be high 11s low 12s.. with thte cams you will be mid to high 12s maybe low 13s


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*

well.. i installed my wideband 36 inches away from the cyl. head.. it says to do that in the aem directions...
i have 3 o2 sensors in a row near the flange on my 20 squared downpipe...


----------



## Zupek (May 10, 2000)

*Re: (Weak VR)*

jesus people. He made the numbers, prove that he didnt....


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (fatfreevw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fatfreevw* »_jesus people. He made the numbers, prove that he didnt....


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (fatfreevw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fatfreevw* »_jesus people. He made the numbers, prove that he didnt.... 

x3
numbers are numbers. even if they're off by 10%. theyre still great!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*

Exactly, its the much higher hp than tq that I like http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Exactly, its the much higher hp than tq that I like http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

hey you can post my dyno on your site if you want..


----------

