# Franken turbo?? Hearing great things ((Owners Chime In))



## xrecklesdriverx (May 19, 2006)

hey guys so my volkswagon just reached the* 100k mile mark 
* 
...im tired of researching into the *big turbo's *as i feel this car *needs some power now *rather then *saving the extra couple thousand* for a full quality BT build 

i see 300hp in some of the F4T online videos but i kinda *wanna get personal opionions cause im ready to kick some a$$* on the streets now ... 

*whats the cost on average for this turbo + the misc parts *and *whats some results for AWW 1.8t's * 

(Im stock turbo with exhaust diode mbc and bov ...running 18psi no misfires an around 14psi at redline) 

*ALL OF THIS IS COMING FROM ME BEING TIRED OF LOSING TO THESE FASTER CARS SO HELP A FELLOW VW TUNER OUT PLEASE*


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

xrecklesdriverx said:


> hey guys so my volkswagon just reached the* 100k mile mark
> *
> ...im tired of researching into the *big turbo's *as i feel this car *needs some power now *rather then *saving the extra couple thousand* for a full quality BT build
> 
> ...


 
I have one and :heartheart: it!:thumbup: Your gonna spend roughly $1200 on the kit, $225 on 440cc injectors and about $600 on some Unitronic stage 2+ tuning. The only complaint you will hear from people is that you need to set the wastegate before you put it on the car to make sure that it is set to the proper psi. People(myself included) had problems with overboost so you will need to run a mbc(which you already have) in parallel with the n75. Like I said I really like my FT and would recommend it to anyone. This little frisky hybrid will really blow some boost. I spike 24-25psi, run 22-23psi and will hold 20psi to redline with no problem. In my opinion this is a great option for people not wanting to go with a true baller big turbo set up. I tossed a water meth kit on my car and it came to life even more! You will need to at least do a bigger side mount or a FMIC as this turbo is a little much for the stock IC.


----------



## Ninorc (Nov 4, 2007)

I am in roughly 2G's after everything is all said and done. I did a lot of shopping around and lurking in the for sale's. 

Mk1 FrankenTurbo 
FMIC 
386cc Audi TT injectors 
Audi TT MAF sensor + housing 
Blox velocity cone air filter 
3" 42DD Exhaust 

Motoza Custom Tuning. What made it all come to life. 

I just hit 25,000 miles on the Franken, and I've loved every foot of it. 

I spike at 22 psi and rest at 20 psi. It will slowly taper to 18 psi. But that is limited to my fuel injectors not being able to keep up. I was told if I wanted more, go to the 440's. But I'm happy where I'm at. 

Will be getting a dyno next month when its cooled down a little more here in Florida. But I'm expecting nice numbers.


----------



## xrecklesdriverx (May 19, 2006)

Twopnt016v said:


> I have one and :heartheart: it!:thumbup: Your gonna spend roughly $1200 on the kit, $225 on 440cc injectors and about $600 on some Unitronic stage 2+ tuning. The only complaint you will hear from people is that you need to set the wastegate before you put it on the car to make sure that it is set to the proper psi. People(myself included) had problems with overboost so you will need to run a mbc(which you already have) in parallel with the n75. Like I said I really like my FT and would recommend it to anyone. This little frisky hybrid will really blow some boost. I spike 24-25psi, run 22-23psi and will hold 20psi to redline with no problem. In my opinion this is a great option for people not wanting to go with a true baller big turbo set up. I tossed a water meth kit on my car and it came to life even more! You will need to at least do a bigger side mount or a FMIC as this turbo is a little much for the stock IC.


 great info ...since i wasnt going full big turbo i wonder if the godspeed should be enough for just a basic fmic ..or maybe the godpseed side mount......just saw a couple more vids online and for software to get some serious number i heard upgrading to bt software would be the best option....gonna give uni a call tommorow to get some more opinions


----------



## xrecklesdriverx (May 19, 2006)

Ninorc said:


> I am in roughly 2G's after everything is all said and done. I did a lot of shopping around and lurking in the for sale's.
> 
> Mk1 FrankenTurbo
> FMIC
> ...


 
that sounds awesome man keep me posted i will continue to research but all dyno vids and results would be grately aprreciated


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Ninorc said:


> Motoza Custom Tuning. What made it all come to life.


 :thumbup: 
Dave is a terrific tuner. He's prudent and knowledgeable. A great combo.


----------



## hatetolovemydub (Oct 27, 2009)

I would research unitronic and over boost before you jump on that bandwagon... There are other tuners who don't need mbc to control boost spikes. Matozza is one, I have a Malone tune, and although it isn't finalized yet,I have been happy so far. The tune is definitely the deciding factor here, in my opinion. 

Sent from my PG06100


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

There are more people then just the Unitronic people that are having over boost issues. I've read of non Unitronic people having overboost issues. There are also quite a few people with Unitronic that have NO over boost issues. It some what seems to be hit or miss depending on the car. I can personally say that my car feels off the hook with the Unitronic. Looking at my logs vs other tuners I would easily wager that my car makes more power. It doesn't really matter to me that you have to run a MBC. Do a search and you will find that most people who run regular Ko4's run a MBC to eliminate boost spikes anyway. This is just my .02.....I'd rather have more power and run a MBC then have less power with no MBC. 

edit...and to play devils advocate here....I've heard countless people bitch about how they can't get their tune back from Mark in a timely fashion or he is non responsive to their emails etc...Who wants to wait forever for a tune??


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm running an f23 and I love it! I've had it on since the bigginning of the summer, I had an old gpop built hybrid that put down 283whp/293ftlbs on only 20lbs, and this f23 certainly pulls harder, check my mods in my signature... 

I'm going to run this guy on the dyno this coming weekend I'll let you 
know what kinda power i see... 

customer service is awesome, I've met doug a few times he's a great guy, always happy to help and constantly looking to improve his product


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> There are more people then just the Unitronic people that are having over boost issues. I've read of non Unitronic people having overboost issues. There are also quite a few people with Unitronic that have NO over boost issues. It some what seems to be hit or miss depending on the car. I can personally say that my car feels off the hook with the Unitronic. Looking at my logs vs other tuners I would easily wager that my car makes more power. It doesn't really matter to me that you have to run a MBC. Do a search and you will find that most people who run regular Ko4's run a MBC to eliminate boost spikes anyway. This is just my .02.....I'd rather have more power and run a MBC then have less power with no MBC.
> 
> edit...and to play devils advocate here....I've heard countless people bitch about how they can't get their tune back from Mark in a timely fashion or he is non responsive to their emails etc...Who wants to wait forever for a tune??


 Malone definitely made a mistake and took on too much at one time. But he's getting everyone caught up and is making things right. But my car, even though I'm only on my second revision of the first FT tune Mark did, feels great at WOT. I'm getting 220+ g/s through my MAF and the car pulls hard, I also have no overboost issue (and no MBC). I'm not saying there haven't been some WG actuator issues, but it is 100% possible to tune out the overboost.


----------



## iTech (Dec 29, 2008)

Doug has many great things to come.....stay tuned.


----------



## Downeywu (Apr 27, 2005)

i run a FrankenTurbo AWW and i spent close to $3,000 if not a little more for the upgrade...which included FT kit, injectors, godspeed SMIC, Mark Malone tuning with loader, oil, install kit and some other little things. that doesn't include the price of an exhaust, which can add another $800 easy depending on what you get. then with that power you should atleast upgrade your brakes and suspension. 

with that being said...this turbo sure is fun, holds boost great with a lot of power...i upgraded from a ko3s with an aggressive Giac file....i cant wait untill the winter months ...the summer heat put a damper on it, mainly because of my SMIC.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Ft's turn your car into a major torque monster. i hope you are at least considering upgrading rods. 

IMO for the money you'll be spending. Keep saving up and go BT. Over a k03s / k04 your not going to see a HUGE difference. You can find yourself some nice used kits on here and other places for the same price as what you'll be throwing into an FT build. FT has a great idea with these turbos but its something you should be seeing on our cars from the factory / not as an upgrade (IMO).


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Here we go:laugh:...


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> I have one and :heartheart: it!:thumbup: Your gonna spend roughly $1200 on the kit, $225 on 440cc injectors and about $600 on some Unitronic stage 2+ tuning. The only complaint you will hear from people is that you need to set the wastegate before you put it on the car to make sure that it is set to the proper psi. People(myself included) had problems with overboost so you will need to run a mbc(which you already have) in parallel with the n75. Like I said I really like my FT and would recommend it to anyone. This little frisky hybrid will really blow some boost. I spike 24-25psi, run 22-23psi and will hold 20psi to redline with no problem. In my opinion this is a great option for people not wanting to go with a true baller big turbo set up. I tossed a water meth kit on my car and it came to life even more! You will need to at least do a bigger side mount or a FMIC as this turbo is a little much for the stock IC.


 I would go bigger than 440cc injectors for 300bhp(crank) there is not much scope for down the road.


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

i hate to break the news to ya, but a frankenturbo isn't going to keep up with a "fast" car. a smedium sized turbo will make way more power :laugh: they are a nice option and will increase your car's fun factor tho


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> I would go bigger than 440cc injectors for 300bhp(crank) there is not much scope for down the road.


 440cc is what is recommended. This turbo isn't gonna produce anything after 300 if that...but I fell what your saying.:thumbup:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Big_Tom said:


> i hate to break the news to ya, but a frankenturbo isn't going to keep up with a "fast" car. a smedium sized turbo will make way more power :laugh: they are a nice option and will increase your car's fun factor tho


 Alright Tom:laugh:...I know how you big turbo guys get down(I am one of you) but this is a good option and I think it would surprise you a little..... It's definitely not gonna hang with a BIG turbo car of course. One of my good friends that's a tech at NGP was down for a visit this past week and he had been trying to tell me I was gonna be wasting my money and wanting more immediately. We went for a stroll and he was surprised and he adds 200 pounds to the mix. I wanted to build this car as a nice quick daily/autocross car and this definitely has me in the range I want to be in. I didn't want to sacrifice the low end torque that you loose going BT. Anyway....I got my flame suit on so bring it!!!:laugh::wave:


----------



## MightyDSM (Apr 16, 2006)

Was Unitronic able to get their tune to work with FT? I remember they had some issues


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

MightyDSM said:


> Was Unitronic able to get their tune to work with FT? I remember they had some issues


 Not exactly sure...I have the stage 2+ 440cc file and had overboost problems and everyone passes the buck on who's fault it is. I got the beta file I guess you could say. I put a MBC in and am very happy with the Uni tune:thumbup:


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

Big_Tom said:


> i hate to break the news to ya, but a frankenturbo isn't going to keep up with a "fast" car. a smedium sized turbo will make way more power :laugh: they are a nice option and will increase your car's fun factor tho


 That's not breaking news to anyone.  

The FT is a great option for those that want to have a fun DD without the expense of going BT (or the hassle of doing rods/engine mods). Obviously BT will make more power, just like BAT will make more power than BT. If you want more power all you have to do is break out your wallet. 

I've put about $2500 into my FT setup and once I get my FMIC installed and get the last little bits of my tune sorted out I will be very happy with it. I don't see myself doing any more turbo upgrades to this car unless it gets moved over to project car status and not DD. My car should run 13's when I'm done, which is quick enough to keep up with most stock "quick" cars. It's not fast, but it's decently quick IMO.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Twopnt016v said:


> I can personally say that my car feels off the hook with the Unitronic. Looking at my logs vs other tuners I would easily wager that my car makes more power.


 I'd foot the cost to find out. Where's the nearest dyno? With those logs and w/m? I gotta think the rollers would like your car.


----------



## MÄDDNESSS (Oct 18, 2010)

i have a used, but rebuilt FT. no tune yet. and i still love it. 
i have a MBC and dialed it back to 11PSI. 
my ko3s was making 18 psi. 
but my butt dyno says im making more power with the FT. 
and friends that hav ridden in it love it. 
one guy from Chicago said it has more hang time (in the boost range, 2700-redline) than Micheal Jordan. :laugh: 

and i have a freind with a godspeed FMIC and hates it. 
i have a TyrolSport SMIC and love it. 
i'll post up my IATs when i get my car running again.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'd foot the cost to find out. Where's the nearest dyno? With those logs and w/m? I gotta think the rollers would like your car.


 :thumbup: There are a few dyno's in my area. I was trying to hold out until I get my intake manifold repaired( I'm the guy with the broken ABD). I just put a stock mani on and sent it back with my buddy to weld since I have no way to weld aluminum. He should have it back to me in a week or so and I am headed to the rollers. I could dyno it without I just wanted to see what the complete picture looks like. 

I have also been playing around with nozzle sizes and think I have it dialed it but I have one more nozzle on the way. I'm currently running two 100cc nozzles and have a 175cc nozzle on the way I want to try after the IC.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Camride said:


> That's not breaking news to anyone.
> 
> The FT is a great option for those that want to have a fun DD without the expense of going BT (or the hassle of doing rods/engine mods). Obviously BT will make more power, just like BAT will make more power than BT. If you want more power all you have to do is break out your wallet.


 The last time I checked the FT can turn a 1.8t into a nice rod bender. So you may want to think twice about that suggestion. What sort of engine mods are you talking about? I hope your not going to go spend $1k+ on an aftermarket turbo and then not get at least the bolt-ons to get the power out of it after you spent that kind of money. It's just something to think about but if your going with anything over a ko4 the best suggestion is to just do rods and get it over with. With that said your still looking at money no matter what route you decide to go. So why not go after more power. Any BT setup can still be daily driven and still be a fun experience so I'm still not quite sure where you were headed with that statement. 

IMO if you ask me it's laziness that people want a solution like this. When I say solution I mean doing sh!t completely half @ssed. If your going to go invest in a larger turbo then do it right the first time. Are we starting to reflect on the Honda scene where we just throw a turbo and loud exhaust on our cars then rebuild our motors every 6 months and wonder why?


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> The last time I checked the FT can turn a 1.8t into a nice rod bender. So you may want to think twice about that suggestion. What sort of engine mods are you talking about? I hope your not going to go spend $1k+ on an aftermarket turbo and then not get at least the bolt-ons to get the power out of it after you spent that kind of money. It's just something to think about but if your going with anything over a ko4 the best suggestion is to just do rods and get it over with. With that said your still looking at money no matter what route you decide to go. So why not go after more power. Any BT setup can still be daily driven and still be a fun experience so I'm still not quite sure where you were headed with that statement.
> 
> IMO if you ask me it's laziness that people want a solution like this. When I say solution I mean doing sh!t completely half @ssed. If your going to go invest in a larger turbo then do it right the first time. Are we starting to reflect on the Honda scene where we just throw a turbo and loud exhaust on our cars then rebuild our motors every 6 months and wonder why?


 Torque spike is what kills rods on smaller turbos, as long as the tune on the FT is done right that should not be a worry as the F4L FT doesn't make so much overall power to break rods (F23 is a different story). I'm not doing things half-assed, I'm just not doing things that aren't absolutely necessary with this build. I've only heard of one person breaking rods on a FT so far so I'm not worried. 

And it's not laziness either trying to get the most out of your car without getting into engine mods. That's a lot more work/time/money that not all of us have. I won't get my Audi into engine mods until it's not my DD anymore, that's my personal preference. If I make a mistake and end up windowing my block then I will buy a new DD and make the Audi a project car. 

But most of the people I've seen running the FT have stock rods and stock heads. Building the engine out for a FT is overkill IMO, it's just not really needed with a proper tune. It's generally accepted that the 1.8T will take up to 300whp, and the FT is not going to make that much power. As long as you aren't spiking something ridiculous (which would be a tune issue).


----------



## MrSavvy (Mar 21, 2011)

travis_gli said:


> The last time I checked the FT can turn a 1.8t into a nice rod bender. So you may want to think twice about that suggestion. What sort of engine mods are you talking about? I hope your not going to go spend $1k+ on an aftermarket turbo and then not get at least the bolt-ons to get the power out of it after you spent that kind of money. It's just something to think about but if your going with anything over a ko4 the best suggestion is to just do rods and get it over with. With that said your still looking at money no matter what route you decide to go. *So why not go after more power.* Any BT setup can still be daily driven and still be a fun experience so I'm still not quite sure where you were headed with that statement.
> 
> *IMO if you ask me it's laziness that people want a solution like this. When I say solution I mean doing sh!t completely half @ssed.* If your going to go invest in a larger turbo then do it right the first time. Are we starting to reflect on the Honda scene where we just throw a turbo and loud exhaust on our cars then rebuild our motors every 6 months and wonder why?


 Are you serious right now? That would be like me asking you "Why do you drive a VW and not a Mercedes SLR?" Because you're totally half @ssing it driving a VW and not a Mercedes or better. I mean you spend money either way. Don't be so damn lazy. 
/rant 

Not everybody has the time and money and resources to go BT. If I had the money I'd go APR Stage 3+, top of the line FMIC, 870cc injectors, everything. But I don't. So I'll save my money and get the most HP out of the smallest amount of $ possible, within reason. 

Just because you have the cash to throw down on your car doesn't mean you should criticize other people' budget. 

disclaimer: I'm not flaming just telling you how it is.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

MrSavvy said:


> Are you serious right now? That would be like me asking you "Why do you drive a VW and not a Mercedes SLR?" Because you're totally half @ssing it driving a VW and not a Mercedes or better. I mean you spend money either way. Don't be so damn lazy.
> /rant
> 
> Not everybody has the time and money and resources to go BT. If I had the money I'd go APR Stage 3+, top of the line FMIC, 870cc injectors, everything. But I don't. So I'll save my money and get the most HP out of the smallest amount of $ possible, within reason.
> ...


 Obviously you completely read that wrong. Half @ss'ing doesn't mean FT. Half @ss'ing means going with something larger than the car can support without throwing any sort of internals at it then later down the road b!tch at why your sh!t isn't holding up. And guess what? I don't have the cash to throw down (my signature shows that). Rather I'm trying to save money right now so my girl and myself can move into a bigger better apartment. However rather than blowing $1k out front on a small setup why wouldn't you save and do it right? Just a thought. I'm not here to flame either. I know the benefits of frankenturbos but the benefit of them compared to the cost is minimal compared to going BT IF and ONLY IF you do it right the first time around. 



Camride said:


> Torque spike is what kills rods on smaller turbos, as long as the tune on the FT is done right that should not be a worry as the F4L FT doesn't make so much overall power to break rods (F23 is a different story). I'm not doing things half-assed, I'm just not doing things that aren't absolutely necessary with this build. I've only heard of one person breaking rods on a FT so far so I'm not worried.
> 
> And it's not laziness either trying to get the most out of your car without getting into engine mods. That's a lot more work/time/money that not all of us have. I won't get my Audi into engine mods until it's not my DD anymore, that's my personal preference. If I make a mistake and end up windowing my block then I will buy a new DD and make the Audi a project car.
> 
> But most of the people I've seen running the FT have stock rods and stock heads. Building the engine out for a FT is overkill IMO, it's just not really needed with a proper tune. It's generally accepted that the 1.8T will take up to 300whp, and the FT is not going to make that much power. As long as you aren't spiking something ridiculous (which would be a tune issue).


 So after you just went to say all of that... There isn't even a proper tune made yet for FT's. I'm not quite sure where your seeing these numbers on 1 person breaking rods but I've seen multiple cases so far of bent rods. 300whp isn't going to break rods but torque will. Again take your chances. It's really not difficult to spend an extra $400+ and spend a little extra time or $1k more at the garage to take the precautions necessary of a proper build (rods). You're no better than the Ebay guys right now. Frankenturbos are the new trend, have fun on the band wagon. 

You all realize how much bullsh!t priced everything in the Euro scene is right? For example, used k04's (borgwarner) off of Mazda speed 3's go for like $150 used. They are having the same problems with speed 3's as the franken turbos. The turbo is so small it spools to fast, spikes and rods get bent. Most guys with the speed's are upgrading to larger turbo's because of this. And here we are buying beefed up k04's? Makes no sense. :facepalm:


----------



## MrSavvy (Mar 21, 2011)

My bad Travis I see what you mean. I'm with ya there. When it comes to cars I always save $ until I can buy good quality parts and do everything right. :beer:


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

MrSavvy said:


> My bad Travis I see what you mean. I'm with ya there. When it comes to cars I always save $ until I can buy good quality parts and do everything right. :beer:


 I'm really not here to flame. I just want to throw my opinions out there. I may get a bit nasty at time but nobody listens to anybody on this forum anymore. It's surprises me that people still ask for opinions. IMO if you want to burn your tires off daily then a FT is the way to go. But at least do it right. If you don't want to burn your tires off daily and get a smooth power curve go BT and do it up even more right. I've cheaped out in the past when I first got my car with stupid sh!t to learn my lesson. I guess it's going to take that experience with other users until they learn.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Twopnt016v said:


> I have also been playing around with nozzle sizes and think I have it dialed it but I have one more nozzle on the way. I'm currently running two 100cc nozzles and have a 175cc nozzle on the way I want to try after the IC.


 So you'll be going from 200cc overall to 275, yes?


----------



## MrSavvy (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't ask for opinions anymore just mechanical help haha


----------



## Jayj (Jul 1, 2011)

If I wanted to put some power in my ride and not be pissed about dealing with a heavier clutch that chatters like nobody's business or turbo lag associated with a large turbo or vibrations associated with heavier mounts then this is definitely the route I would take. Some people define civility in their dd's in different manners. I described mine above. It's not half assed or lazy. Its quick for what it is without sacrificing too much of the stock drivability. I'm sure this is the market Doug was shooting for with its creation.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> So you'll be going from 200cc overall to 275, yes?


 :thumbup:Yep


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> So after you just went to say all of that... There isn't even a proper tune made yet for FT's. I'm not quite sure where your seeing these numbers on 1 person breaking rods but I've seen multiple cases so far of bent rods. 300whp isn't going to break rods but torque will. Again take your chances. It's really not difficult to spend an extra $400+ and spend a little extra time or $1k more at the garage to take the precautions necessary of a proper build (rods). You're no better than the Ebay guys right now. Frankenturbos are the new trend, have fun on the band wagon.
> 
> You all realize how much bullsh!t priced everything in the Euro scene is right? For example, used k04's (borgwarner) off of Mazda speed 3's go for like $150 used. They are having the same problems with speed 3's as the franken turbos. The turbo is so small it spools to fast, spikes and rods get bent. Most guys with the speed's are upgrading to larger turbo's because of this. And here we are buying beefed up k04's? Makes no sense. :facepalm:


 My tune from Malone works pretty damn well. I have some small issues but the car runs great at WOT. Most of the issues that have come up have been stuff like vac leaks and other stuff that had nothing to do with the tune. I get no boost spikes and I'm not at all worried about breaking a rod. You can call it whatever you want, but for me this was a great option between a K04 and BT. I've got ~$2500 into the whole setup which includes all the hardware (turbo kit, injectors, FMIC, etc) and the tune. I just don't see rods as being a need for this setup as long as the tune is right. If I were getting boost spikes I'd definitely be worried about breaking a rod, but I'm not, so I'm not. 

I also don't really care what the Mazda scene is doing or how much you can get a used K04 for. I wanted a *new* turbo that would make more power than a K04 without having to get into engine mods. This fit the bill and it's worked out great. I really don't see why you're saying it's stupid to not do rods when most FT owners haven't and neither Doug nor Malone have recommended it be done. There are other tunes out there that have boost spike issues, so it wouldn't surprise me that more than 1 person has bent rods on the FT. But the point is that's a tune issue, not a FT issue. And it's an issue I don't have. 

You can call is a fad if you want, but I've got 15k miles on my FT with no issues and I've seen others with 25k miles on theirs. I've seen plenty of BT guys blow up turbos with 1/4 the miles that I have. 

And I lol'd at your "burning tires" comment, you realize I drive an AWD Audi right? And an automatic at that! Even with the FT my car is not capable of a burnout.  

I do understand where you're coming from but I think the FT has gotten a little bit of an undeserved bad reputation because of some of the tune issues out there.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Travis try and not take offense to this but the OP asked for FT owners to chime in and you are not one. I doubt he was looking to turn this into another BT vs FT debate. Some people would say that you doing every bolt on mod know to man on a K03 is a waste of effort also. Yes loads of torque at low rpm can bend rods...I drive my car everyday with a very smooth power band and I am not roasting my tires etc. As you know going true BT = upgraded clutch which = lightened flywheel which= might as well do a LSD cause your going to need it. Plus you now have BT fueling issues to deal with (pumps, fuel rails, regulators etc.), rods and head gasket kits and head studs(if you do it right) etc.etc.etc....and you haven't even started spending on the good stuff yet. 
I realize that doing any real turbo upgrade ko4 especially = you are on borrowed time as far as rods go but let me give you an example... My roommate has had a ko4 with 100shot Nos on his jetta for over 6years now and drives the piss out of it everyday with no issue. 
Plus some people aren't into buying used parts. We all see people get burned by that everyday....yes good used parts exist but it can be a headache. Trying to equate us with the ebay crowd or the honda crowd is a joke. For the record..I have built a K03 car like you and a true BT car with a t3 super 60-1 done the right way and the FT is loads cheaper and a good option for those who want more but don't want to go BT. I feel what you are saying...I really do...and for the record I will be tossing some rods in my car soon.:beer:


----------



## VDuBPL (May 10, 2006)

FrankenTurbo is a nice upgrade. 

I have 1 in my 2005 1.8t, got it after my k03s took a dump. It was cheap and it gave me that much more hp, if your doing it to increase power then I would say save for a BT, its a slight increase in power and pretty cheap too. 

You will need to get 

-Franken turbo with exhaust manifold, TIP, upgraded intercooler, injectors, a tune and a downpipe. 

I first tried to run the turbo with a stock downpipe and misfired anything after 15 psi. 

I do put down 260 whp and 270 wtq with my misfiring uni tune but do need to get re dynoed as I did some fine tuning now with a MBC and am not misfiring at 24psi.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

VDuBPL said:


> FrankenTurbo is a nice upgrade.
> 
> I have 1 in my 2005 1.8t, got it after my k03s took a dump. It was cheap and it gave me that much more hp, if your doing it to increase power then I would say save for a BT, its a slight increase in power and pretty cheap too.
> 
> ...


 260 is a little more then "slight" power increase. Sounds like you need to get your car running right and you will be much happier then "slightly"...:laugh::beer:


----------



## VDuBPL (May 10, 2006)

my car is running 100% right now. Its a nice increase but of course I want more :laugh:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

VDuBPL said:


> my car is running 100% right now. Its a nice increase but of course I want more :laugh:


 We always want more:laugh::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## JWoody (May 17, 2006)

Check out my little build Thread. 
 
I'm at 14k miles. Just got a new case of Boost Juice. The last case made it near 6 months. Not bad for $41.50 shipped. You must have adequate cooling in these little turbos for sustained performance. 

We do need some more Dyno's of other folks running UNI STG2+ 400cc. Otherwise I am just going have to back up there and make a new one. Cooler weather now also...:thumbup: 





 
-J


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Camride said:


> I do understand where you're coming from but I think the FT has gotten a little bit of an undeserved bad reputation because of some of the tune issues out there.





Twopnt016v said:


> I feel what you are saying...I really do...and for the record I will be tossing some rods in my car soon.:beer:


 At least you guys know what I'm saying. Again I wasn't here to flame. And for the record, you will always want more power... it's just how things work at least if you're a gear head and adrenaline junkie like myself. The want is always going to be there. If I could go back I would have saved all of my money and went BT from the get go. It didn't work out that way so here I am, every bolt on in the book on my car, no money, and the want of more power. The only route I have right now to get that is to open another line of credit and go BT. Would I do that? Hell no, I'm in enough debt from school as it is. Also I wasn't pointing fingers at the general FT user and calling them no better than the Ebay guys. Was only saying that about people who don't want to build their engines right and would rather take the chances.


----------



## checkdalevel (Apr 29, 2005)

here is my frankenturbo run.... 
Since then i installed an AGU big port intake manifold. 
all my 300 pounds of TQ has killed has been my clutch (trying to get out of the snow in the winter) 

i am still running original Uni Stage 2+ with a 3.5 FPR 

i dont beat the car in 1st or 2nd gear because I like my car and feel that these cars just take the abuse like a honda wood. 
so here is my frankenturbo contribution


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

checkdalevel said:


> here is my frankenturbo run....


 250+ whp?... If I'm not mistaken a k03s with bolt ons, fmic, water meth and a bit of timing can make that. Given the right tune.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

250whp and ko3s is sorta like a unicorn though, there's only a handful of people that've gotten that far which adds up more like a happy dyno. If there were hundreds of people with them or trap speeds to back 250whp up, it'd be a different story.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

checkdalevel said:


> here is my frankenturbo run....
> Since then i installed an AGU big port intake manifold.
> all my 300 pounds of TQ has killed has been my clutch (trying to get out of the snow in the winter)
> 
> ...


 You still rocking the stock rods too? Your gauge set up looks nice:thumbup:..wish I had the 20th cluster in my 337


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

screwball said:


> 250whp and ko3s is sorta like a unicorn though, there's only a handful of people that've gotten that far which adds up more like a happy dyno. If there were hundreds of people with them or trap speeds to back 250whp up, it'd be a different story.


 Understandable but it's always something to shoot for before spending a grand or two.


----------



## checkdalevel (Apr 29, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> 250+ whp?... If I'm not mistaken a k03s with bolt ons, fmic, water meth and a bit of timing can make that. Given the right tune.


 okay...... 
have u seen what a 250 whp on a k03s dyno run looks like? 

its like a honda b18B that hits 200whp from 8-8.5k not exactly usable and not exactly fast. 

its a nasty power band with mearly a spike. :screwy:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Checkdalevel are you still on stock rods???


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

checkdalevel said:


> okay......
> have u seen what a 250 whp on a k03s dyno run looks like?
> 
> its like a honda b18B that hits 200whp from 8-8.5k not exactly usable and not exactly fast.
> ...


 lol what?! :screwy: I don't know where the hell you pulled that information from but you're hardly right. I'm quite certain at this point you've never seen the results from an 052 dyno run with proper tuning and bolt ons.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

If I find out my cylinder head is fucocked I'm parting my engine/turbo setup and throwing one of these kits on a stock small port motor and selling the car.


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> At least you guys know what I'm saying. Again I wasn't here to flame. And for the record, you will always want more power... it's just how things work at least if you're a gear head and adrenaline junkie like myself. The want is always going to be there. If I could go back I would have saved all of my money and went BT from the get go. It didn't work out that way so here I am, every bolt on in the book on my car, no money, and the want of more power. The only route I have right now to get that is to open another line of credit and go BT. Would I do that? Hell no, I'm in enough debt from school as it is. Also I wasn't pointing fingers at the general FT user and calling them no better than the Ebay guys. Was only saying that about people who don't want to build their engines right and would rather take the chances.


 For me it's really not a money issue, it's a time issue. Plus I really don't need more power than the FT delivers in this car until it's a project car because it's got 155k miles and other things will start breaking (like the trans). Plus I have my motorcycle when I want to go fast.


----------



## hatetolovemydub (Oct 27, 2009)

Camride said:


> For me it's really not a money issue, it's a time issue. Plus I really don't need more power than the FT delivers in this car until it's a project car because it's got 155k miles and other things will start breaking (like the trans). Plus I have my motorcycle when I want to go fast.


 ^ Nailed it. These cars are aging.... Mine has more miles than this. I want a spirited DD. The Ft does all that and more.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

travis_gli said:


> I'm really not here to flame. I just want to throw my opinions out there. I may get a bit nasty at time but nobody listens to anybody on this forum anymore. It's surprises me that people still ask for opinions. IMO if you want to burn your tires off daily then a FT is the way to go. But at least do it right. If you don't want to burn your tires off daily and get a smooth power curve go BT and do it up even more right. I've cheaped out in the past when I first got my car with stupid sh!t to learn my lesson. I guess it's going to take that experience with other users until they learn.


 I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't have a FT or a BT (still rocking the OEM K04). 
The point you seem to be missing is that both bigger frame turbo and stock frame/hybrid turbo have their place, depending on what the goal is for the car. 

It's not a matter of doing it right the first time, I see a lot of butchered BT setup on this board that make half the power they should really be making. If your goal is big numbers, even if it's not a powerband that can realistically be used, or you're building a drag car, than BT is definitely the way to go. However, the majority of people here build cars that they don't even track, let alone be competitive in any type of racing. Why in the world would they not want a car that's peppy in the streets and have power on tap whenever they need it? I don't see why dropping rods in a car is such a big deal, even the stock turbo if pushed hard would brake the OEM rods (I am the leaving proof and bent two 20 mm rods at 360 AWTQ). It's just a necessity for any kind of serious buid, BT or not IMO. 

BT are laggy and too lazy for the streets, no matter what you say to convince yourself otherwise. I would drive my car off a bridge, if I had to wait till past 3.5K to be in business (and I'm not the only one). Do you think ED at ForceFed or any "real" BT builders would DD their monsters? I think not, they are smart enough to know what works and where. I daily drive my car but also autocross it at a national level in SCCA, I could not make use of anything bigger than a hybrid turbo because by the time any BT would get off their lazy ass, it's already time to brake again. 

I see BT people come and look down on people doing hybrids in here all the time and that stuff is getting old. I'd pay to see one those BT come and play with me at any track that you actually use the steering wheel and the gas pedal, hell I bet those BT monsters/posers wouldn't even hang with me light to light in the streets and they would need at least a freeway or highway to be able to do stretch their legs. BTW I only make 400 AWTQ/310 AWHP on a Dyno Dynamics and have a great area under the curve (stock turbo, manifolds, cams so there's lots of room for improvement), I'd like to know how much you'd expect to make on your BT, that you can really use :beer:!


----------



## sponcar (Feb 5, 2010)

travis_gli said:


> 250+ whp?... If I'm not mistaken a k03s with bolt ons, fmic, water meth and a bit of timing can make that. Given the right tune.


 Have you ever think how much money could cost to do that in a stock k03s? 
also how hard can be to fine the right tune for this? 

Well I guess that we all looking at FT because as for DD we are not looking to spent A LOT time, money, and brain trying to take our k03s to the max somewhere that it might not be reliable anymore. 


So yeah. I wonder why people with the F23 still not sharing that much info as we can find of the f4h... I know there are a lot of fellas running this turbo, but they haven't share that much about their experience, why? 

Honestly, I would be more than happy with the f23. 280hp/280lbtq sounds more than perfect to me.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

sponcar said:


> Have you ever think how much money could cost to do that in a stock k03s?
> also how hard can be to fine the right tune for this?
> 
> Well I guess that we all looking at FT because as for DD we are not looking to spent A LOT time, money, and brain trying to take our k03s to the max somewhere that it might not be reliable anymore.
> ...


 
From what I know there aren't so many of us f23 owners out there, the majority are running the f4. I'm going to the dyno this weekend with another f23 owner, both running eurodyne files (I'm still on a 440cc file, he's running maestro on 550cc injectors) and we both are very happy with them. Still peppy light to light, but a tad slower spool than the ko3s. there's one out there I've been in contact with on an Audi with a high flow manifold similar to mine holding around 23lbs from 3500 to 7k. Doug does great work with putting together graphs and data from the logs we get. Give it a week or so and hopefully he'll be able to post some really good hard data on here for you. 

But like madmax and other hybrid turbo owners, they have their place on the road, my not be on light highway pulls, buy they're sure as hell fun to blast around with


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Camride said:


> For me it's really not a money issue, it's a time issue. Plus I really don't need more power than the FT delivers in this car until it's a project car because it's got 155k miles and other things will start breaking (like the trans). Plus I have my motorcycle when I want to go fast.


 If you have the money and no time find yourself an engine builder / garage that will do the work for you? Problem solved. 



madmax199 said:


> I don't see why dropping rods in a car is such a big deal, even the stock turbo if pushed hard would brake the OEM rods (I am the leaving proof and bent two 20 mm rods at 360 AWTQ). It's just a necessity for any kind of serious buid, BT or not IMO.
> 
> BT are laggy and too lazy for the streets, no matter what you say to convince yourself otherwise.
> 
> I see BT people come and look down on people doing hybrids in here all the time and that stuff is getting old. I'd pay to see one those BT come and play with me at any track that you actually use the steering wheel and the gas pedal, hell I bet those BT monsters/posers wouldn't even hang with me light to light in the streets and they would need at least a freeway or highway to be able to do stretch their legs.


 You just proved your hypocrisy. You said it's not a big deal to put rods in a car then you went on to say even a stock turbo can bend OEM rods.... :screwy: I'm not quite sure where you got the laggy BT setup from but there's multiple ways to beat lag in a BT setup. A small shot of nitrous until a given psi will fix lag all day. Also BT doesn't have to mean a .60 - .70 monster that spools like a grandma either. As for talking big and calling BT guys posers... I won't touch on that. :facepalm: 

Btw I would love to see your car get eaten alive. Maybe you'll snap out of this denial phase.


----------



## flood514 (Jun 3, 2011)

Why don't you guys take it outside: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...lenger-to-FrankenTurbo&highlight=frankenturbo 

I wanted to read about peoples FT setups


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

flood514 said:


> Why don't you guys take it outside:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...lenger-to-FrankenTurbo&highlight=frankenturbo
> 
> I wanted to read about peoples FT setups


 I'm good, I enjoy reading about vortexers silly decisions and ignorance. :thumbup:


----------



## Jayj (Jul 1, 2011)

travis_gli said:


> I'm good, I enjoy reading about vortexers silly decisions and ignorance. :thumbup:


 Every conversation I've read of yours always ends in this fashion. Honestly, judging others preferences in haste, when they don't match your own, is quite a mistake on your part. Especially while bringing very little to the table to begin with. This to me is arrogant and ignorant. All I'm saying is speak from experience and leave guessing at the door. You think spraying is the way to get rid of bt turbo lag.. I think they are still looking for streetable power in its truest form. To bring up spraying as a way of reaching that goal is a bit misguided in its use.


----------



## EErie A4 (Jun 6, 2008)

travis_gli said:


> You just proved your hypocrisy. You said it's not a big deal to put rods in a car then you went on to say even a stock turbo can bend OEM rods.... :screwy: I'm not quite sure where you got the laggy BT setup from but there's multiple ways to beat lag in a BT setup. A small shot of nitrous until a given psi will fix lag all day. Also BT doesn't have to mean a .60 - .70 monster that spools like a grandma either. As for talking big and calling BT guys posers... I won't touch on that. :facepalm:
> 
> Btw I would love to see your car get eaten alive. Maybe you'll snap out of this denial phase.


 Autocross is his thing and n2o is not allowed. 

...and some people don't want to have to constantly fill a bottle.


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

flood514 said:


> Why don't you guys take it outside:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...lenger-to-FrankenTurbo&highlight=frankenturbo
> 
> I wanted to read about peoples FT setups


 Here's what I'll tell you I've learned about the FT since I started down this path in January: 

Decide on W/M, a good intercooler or both at the start. You'll need at least one of them. The FT blows some f*cking hot air, and the summer months will show you that. On the flip side the car turns beastly when it cools off. 

If you haven't replaced a K03 before be prepared, the first time isn't fun. Also, while I would not recommend this, you can evidently get away with not putting all the manifold nuts back on. I'm missing 3 nuts on the bottom because I just couldn't get to the little bastards and I have no leaks. Again, I wouldn't recommend it but I've been fine. 

Use some kind of method to secure your exhaust manifold to turbo bolts. Mine have come loose about 4 times now. It's easy to fix, but annoying. I'm thinking nordlock washers. 



Other than that, it's a great option. As I mentioned I haven't put a ton of money into my setup and it's a lot of fun. If you've got any miles on your car make sure you check vac lines because that is a weak point. If you have any questions that you don't get answered here make sure you email Doug, he emails back quickly and is one of the coolest people I've ever dealt with. Also be sure to read up, there are several threads here and several on Audiforums.com that have a ton of great information. And whatever tuner you choose make sure you ask them lots of questions before hand. You want to make sure you know all the hardware you're going to need to buy beforehand. 

Oh, and make sure your fuel filter is in good shape.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

EErie A4 said:


> Autocross is his thing and n2o is not allowed.
> 
> ...and some people don't want to have to constantly fill a bottle.


 Again I said it's a simple way. You can take advantage of VVT when you go BT which can also cut lag and increase power. 



Jayj said:


> Every conversation I've read of yours always ends in this fashion. Honestly, judging others preferences in haste, when they don't match your own, is quite a mistake on your part. Especially while bringing very little to the table to begin with. This to me is arrogant and ignorant. All I'm saying is speak from experience and leave guessing at the door. You think spraying is the way to get rid of bt turbo lag.. I think they are still looking for streetable power in its truest form. To bring up spraying as a way of reaching that goal is a bit misguided in its use.


 I'm not judging anybody, I'm simply asking people to make wise decisions because they obviously know nothing about forced induction. I'm also getting really sick of people acting like BT setups are not streetable. That is literally the dumbest sh!t I have ever heard. I also never said spraying is a goal of being streetable? I said it's a way to get rid of lag and it's a very very reasonable solution. You also don't have to spray n20. Meth injection can help plus some timing advance. Again not like anybody in this thread has any idea what I'm talking about, you all are set on worrying about a small bolt on turbo that in the end costs a small amount less than a budget BT setup.


----------



## Jayj (Jul 1, 2011)

travis_gli said:


> Again I said it's a simple way. You can take advantage of VVT when you go BT which can also cut lag and increase power.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not judging anybody, I'm simply asking people to make wise decisions because they obviously know nothing about forced induction. I'm also getting really sick of people acting like BT setups are not streetable. That is literally the dumbest sh!t I have ever heard. I also never said spraying is a goal of being streetable? I said it's a way to get rid of lag and it's a very very reasonable solution. You also don't have to spray n20. Meth injection can help plus some timing advance. Again not like anybody in this thread has any idea what I'm talking about, you all are set on worrying about a small bolt on turbo that in the end costs a small amount less than a budget BT setup.


 define irony...


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

travis_gli said:


> You just proved your hypocrisy. You said it's not a big deal to put rods in a car then you went on to say even a stock turbo can bend OEM rods.... :screwy: I'm not quite sure where you got the laggy BT setup from but there's multiple ways to beat lag in a BT setup. A small shot of nitrous until a given psi will fix lag all day. Also BT doesn't have to mean a .60 - .70 monster that spools like a grandma either. As for talking big and calling BT guys posers... I won't touch on that. :facepalm:
> 
> Btw I would love to see your car get eaten alive. Maybe you'll snap out of this denial phase.


 I don't care or want to make this a pissing contest with you but somebody else reading may believe what you're saying. Show me data of a big turbo spooling at 3k on the stock displacement and I'll be the first one to buy it. 

I get the notion that BT are laggy from experience at the track, if you have you've ever negociated an hairpin in your life, you know that even a k03 falls out of boost and takes a second before you can get going - a BT is pathetic in such a situation. I have personally wasted some serious money in a 30R turbo in my evo, only to find out that it was too lazy for any real work. Your nitrous solution is only valid for Drag or the "fast and the furious". It's not legal in any sanctioned SCCA or NASA Solo, road racing, Time Trial and rally (plus what would do you do in 40 min race session after you run out of nitrous in your warm up lap?) 

I have a sponsored nationally competitive car that trophied in both SCCA solo National tour and ProSolo. I have won WF 16, WF 17 solo competition destroying all other VW and Audis (including some BT cars). It's real easy for a BT car classed similarly to come eat me alive since I'm campaining all over the east coast and at the National final in the heartland. How about you build your BT car, learn how to drive and come show us what you can do with a BT at WF next year? 
I'll be waiting to be eaten alive! 

(I'm officially done with this discussion unless you bring some some data to prove that BT can spool early enough on stock displacement to be really used in the streets or any racing environment that involves braking and taking turns)


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> Again I said it's a simple way. You can take advantage of VVT when you go BT which can also cut lag and increase power.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not judging anybody, I'm simply asking people to make wise decisions because they obviously know nothing about forced induction. I'm also getting really sick of people acting like BT setups are not streetable. That is literally the dumbest sh!t I have ever heard. I also never said spraying is a goal of being streetable? I said it's a way to get rid of lag and it's a very very reasonable solution. You also don't have to spray n20. Meth injection can help plus some timing advance. *Again not like anybody in this thread has any idea what I'm talking about, you all are set on worrying about a small bolt on turbo that in the end costs a small amount less than a budget BT setup.*


 Yeah, I'm done discussing anything with you. :thumbdown:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Big_Tom said:


> i hate to break the news to ya, but a frankenturbo isn't going to keep up with a "fast" car. a smedium sized turbo will make way more power :laugh: they are a nice option and will increase your car's fun factor tho


 depends on how you wanna "keep" up 

My FT A4 had no problem pulling a bus length or two on a co workers 530whp 1.8t car from a roll, while he lagged/spun/shift, lagged/spun/shift, i just went once in third he finally started gaining. 

Obviously on the highway i would get destroyed but most fun is had stop light to stop light and ripping through back roads in which big turbo cars cant keep up


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

madmax199 said:


> I don't care or want to make this a pissing contest with you but somebody else reading may believe what you're saying. Show me data of a big turbo spooling at 3k on the stock displacement and I'll be the first one to buy it.
> 
> I get the notion that BT are laggy from experience at the track, if you have you've ever negociated an hairpin in your life, you know that even a k03 falls out of boost and takes a second before you can get going - a BT is pathetic in such a situation. I have personally wasted some serious money in a 30R turbo in my evo, only to find out that it was too lazy for any real work. Your nitrous solution is only valid for Drag or the "fast and the furious". It's not legal in any sanctioned SCCA or NASA Solo, road racing, Time Trial and rally (plus what would do you do in 40 min race session after you run out of nitrous in your warm up lap?)
> 
> ...


 I think this is hilarious because I never once mentioned using nitrous at the track. Neither did the OP of this thread mention racing autocross. Nor did anybody else for that matter. You're the only one here that has your head wrapped around your "track days" along with your "track experience". Pull you head out of your @ss. Nobody is wanting information on "track use". The OP simply stated "ALL OF THIS IS COMING FROM ME BEING TIRED OF LOSING TO THESE FASTER CARS SO HELP A FELLOW VW TUNER OUT PLEASE." If he wants to invest I'm trying to throw him toward a different more sensible route. I'm not even quite sure how the faster spool came about. No sh!t a small turbo that can fit inside all BT's can spool faster its common sense. I simply through out options on how to cut that spool time down. I never came in here trying to throw a comparison on FT vs BT. There is no comparison in the two. The BT will come out on top in certain applications. In the whoop @ss on the street comparison that the OP is looking for the BT application will always and forever come in 1st. On the track, not so much unless your running a larger motor with a compound setup. However when it comes to straightaways I would love to watch all the BT cars blow your doors off. You might have them out of the turn but they'll catch up and fast. That small turbo of yours has to stop building power sometime and when it does guess who will keep building power? I love sh!t talkers. :thumbup: I have and will have a small turbo until the budget comes along for a BT setup. I'm not the one in denial here. 

Btw I'm done with this thread, I've ran out of effort and hope. :bs:


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

travis_gli said:


> I think this is hilarious because I never once mentioned using nitrous at the track. Neither did the OP of this thread mention racing autocross. Nor did anybody else for that matter. You're the only one here that has your head wrapped around your "track days" along with your "track experience". Pull you head out of your @ss. Nobody is wanting information on "track use". The OP simply stated "ALL OF THIS IS COMING FROM ME BEING TIRED OF LOSING TO THESE FASTER CARS SO HELP A FELLOW VW TUNER OUT PLEASE." If he wants to invest I'm trying to throw him toward a different more sensible route. I'm not even quite sure how the faster spool came about. No sh!t a small turbo that can fit inside all BT's can spool faster its common sense. I simply through out options on how to cut that spool time down. I never came in here trying to throw a comparison on FT vs BT. There is no comparison in the two. The BT will come out on top in certain applications. In the whoop @ss on the street comparison that the OP is looking for the BT application will always and forever come in 1st. On the track, not so much unless your running a larger motor with a compound setup. However when it comes to straightaways I would love to watch all the BT cars blow your doors off. You might have them out of the turn but they'll catch up and fast. That small turbo of yours has to stop building power sometime and when it does guess who will keep building power? I love sh!t talkers. :thumbup: I have and will have a small turbo until the budget comes along for a BT setup. I'm not the one in denial here.
> 
> Btw I'm done with this thread, I've ran out of effort and hope. :bs:


 
you own neither a BT or a FT, so thank you for contributing nothing but negativity, go away


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

jettaglx91 said:


> depends on how you wanna "keep" up
> 
> My FT A4 had no problem pulling a bus length or two on a co workers 530whp 1.8t car from a roll, while he lagged/spun/shift, lagged/spun/shift, i just went once in third he finally started gaining.
> 
> Obviously on the highway i would get destroyed but most fun is had stop light to stop light and ripping through back roads in which big turbo cars cant keep up


 cool story bro :thumbup:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Big_Tom said:


> cool story bro :thumbup:


 right? 

Im sure it would give your "fiddy" trim a run :banghead: 

my point is it makes for a quick fun daily driver. which to me is what the op asked. 

Ive owned 400+whp VRT's 500+whp 1.8t's and this is way more fun stoplight to stoplight as a daily, but i understand your mentality that you need a "big" turbo like yours(even though its nothing compared to the real "big" turbos ive used) 

Im assuming you have never owned a FT? How much power does your car make? dyno charts please


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

mk4boost said:


> you own neither a BT or a FT, so thank you for contributing nothing but negativity, go away


:laugh:


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

Damn Travis, you're still going in here?!


----------



## the awesome (Oct 7, 2003)

This is a technical forum, people need to stop using the term BT

What the hell is a BT anyways? If you asked 20 people you would most likely get 20 different answers. Believe it or not there are quite a few options between a Frankenturbo and a GT40R

The reason I upgraded is because of flexibility, having a T3 flange opens up a world of options that are plentiful and cost effective. 

Why not compare relevant setups? 

I started with a S60 (which shows similar #'s to a frankenturbo 280-290 whp) and decided I wanted a bit more so I got a 50 trim and I love it. 

Once the infrastructure is built and you have the proper SW it's plug and play.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

the awesome said:


> This is a technical forum, people need to stop using the term BT
> 
> What the hell is a BT anyways? If you asked 20 people you would most likely get 20 different answers. Believe it or not there are quite a few options between a Frankenturbo and a GT40R
> 
> ...


You have good advice. That setup gives you alot more headway for future upgrades. W/ the stock k03 / k04 flanges you really don't have any options.

IMO BT is anything larger than the parameters of stock / OEM turbos. Frankenturbo doesn't fit in that category because its a reworked OEM turbo.



screwball said:


> Damn Travis, you're still going in here?!


:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Funny, but I agree with that way of looking at it. It's more the manifold flange that determines "big" for me. I guess that puts Eliminators in an odd place, but oh well.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Funny, but I agree with that way of looking at it. It's more the manifold flange that determines "big" for me. I guess that puts Eliminators in an odd place, but oh well.


IMO and I'm sure I can speak for alot others here on vortex that eliminators are garbage and shouldn't even be considered as an upgrade. Everybody has had mixed results with them, most of which far from great. They are most definitely the odd ball, the oddball that I would never recommend to anybody. Your turbos are a hell of a better option compared to eliminator kits given the OEM quality and reliability. However I haven't seen any high mileage frankenturbo setups yet so I guess I still shouldn't be making that assumption.


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

jettaglx91 said:


> right?
> 
> Im sure it would give your "fiddy" trim a run :banghead:
> 
> ...


:facepalm: im sure you know a lot about "my mentality" :thumbdown: I'm also sure that i'd don't care about anything else you say lol


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

Eliminators are wonky on the Transverse cars, but they seem much better on Longitudinal platforms for whatever reason.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Big_Tom said:


> :facepalm: im sure you know a lot about "my mentality" :thumbdown: I'm also sure that i'd don't care about anything else you say lol


i do know your mentality, just like you list every nut and bolt as modifications in your signature and you now know everything

and you wanna sh*t on the frankenturbo because its not big enough and your setup is soooo much better. What do you even have to contribute to this thread?


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

screwball said:


> Eliminators are wonky on the Transverse cars, but they seem much better on Longitudinal platforms for whatever reason.


Yea the fitment and reliability suck on transverse but have run them numerous times on B5 chassis cars and work well


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

jettaglx91 said:


> i do know your mentality, just like you list every nut and bolt as modifications in your signature and you now know everything
> 
> and you wanna sh*t on the frankenturbo because its not big enough and your setup is soooo much better. What do you even have to contribute to this thread?


you FAIL. let my nuts go cause i wasn't even talkin to you in the 1st place. you decided to engage in an argument with me. i didn't come in here claiming to be the all knowing. the problem is UMADBRO and you need to let it go. ur the one blabbing like you know everything, just like how you claim to know "my mentality" ahahaha.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Big_Tom said:


> you FAIL. let my nuts go cause i wasn't even talkin to you in the 1st place. you decided to engage in an argument with me. i didn't come in here claiming to be the all knowing. the problem is UMADBRO and you need to let it go. ur the one blabbing like you know everything, just like how you claim to know "my mentality" ahahaha.


Ha your a clown, you said a FT cant keep up, i simply stated my experience, then you were a smartass.

I dont claim to know everything but arrogant or not i do know alot as i have been building high horsepower vw's for a long time



go tint ur windows or put on your "euro" tails, you sound like a cliche mk4 troll :laugh::laugh:


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

I love how the OP stated he didn't want a BT and asked for FT owners to chime in....


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

screwball said:


> Eliminators are wonky on the Transverse cars, but they seem much better on Longitudinal platforms for whatever reason.





jettaglx91 said:


> Yea the fitment and reliability suck on transverse but have run them numerous times on B5 chassis cars and work well


That is true I haven't heard anything bad about the longitudinal setups however I have heard horror stories about the internals of the turbos themselves. 



Big_Tom said:


> you FAIL. let my nuts go cause i wasn't even talkin to you in the 1st place. you decided to engage in an argument with me. i didn't come in here claiming to be the all knowing. the problem is UMADBRO and you need to let it go. ur the one blabbing like you know everything, just like how you claim to know "my mentality" ahahaha.


Did I start something here?  



Camride said:


> I love how the OP stated he didn't want a BT and asked for FT owners to chime in....





> ...im tired of researching into the big turbo's as i feel this car needs some power now rather then saving the extra couple thousand for a full quality BT build


That's not a legitimate reason and he never said he didn't want a BT. He just basically said he's not patient or responsible enough to save up the money. We're just simply giving him reason to think twice about his decisions, you know like a true fellow vortexer should do. We're not here to persuade we're here to offer our opinions and let the OP decide for himself. He's also wanting to make 300hp out of an FT setup without realizing he's going to need to put a little more money into it than just $1200 for the kit (rods and software).


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Camride said:


> I love how the OP stated he didn't want a BT and asked for FT owners to chime in....


i think the biggest reason being the FT can be done easily for half if not less then a typical BT setup


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

jettaglx91 said:


> i think the biggest reason being the FT can be done easily for half if not less then a typical BT setup


Again if he's looking at making 300hp and handling over 300+ ft lbs tq your talking $3000+. That's not far off from a budget BT setup.


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

jettaglx91 said:


> i think the biggest reason being the FT can be done easily for half if not less then a typical BT setup


I agree, though I was pointing to the fact that the thread has become something entirely different than what the OP was looking for.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

travis_gli said:


> Again if he's looking at making 300hp and handling over 300+ ft lbs tq your talking $3000+. That's not far off from a budget BT setup.


i totally agree but he was simply stating he saw nearly 300hp from people running the FT and wanted opinions on it.

The FT can be done with $2K no problem


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

jettaglx91 said:


> Ha your a clown, you said a FT cant keep up, i simply stated my experience, then you were a smartass.
> 
> I dont claim to know everything but arrogant or not i do know alot as i have been building high horsepower vw's for a long time
> 
> ...


:facepalm: get ur own life and stop worrying about mine. :screwy:


----------



## Dub-Nub (Sep 27, 2005)

holy **** guys

OP wants to get franken turbo...its a great turbo if you aren't wanting to progress further with power.

Chances are he will want to go bigger, which means spending more money...let him get the dam franken turbo.


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

Dub-Nub said:


> holy **** guys
> 
> OP wants to get franken turbo...its a great turbo if you aren't wanting to progress further with power.
> 
> Chances are he will want to go bigger, which means spending more money...let him get the dam franken turbo.


:thumbup: frankenturbo is great lol


----------



## EErie A4 (Jun 6, 2008)

screwball said:


> Eliminators are wonky on the Transverse cars, but they seem much better on Longitudinal platforms for whatever reason.


That's like the SEM Intake... From what I understand it is the Holy Grail of intakes for you transverse guys yet their longitudinal is relatively "ho-hum" and amounts to little more than $1,000 wasted. ...oh well


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Holy Moly this thread has got all out of shape, LOL.

To the OP, i run a Hybrid K04-023, while its not and FT i am fully aware of Doug's turbo's and mine share alot of the same characteristics of the F23. When i started this build i simply wanted a load of low end torque and decent top end.I decided to go for a hybrid for this reason, i am pushing about 330lb/ft by 3300rpm and make 325bhp airflow by redline(not including the ton of timing advance).

This setup is perfrect for me, i'd don't do lots of track days or 1/4miles, only street driving.My aim is to push this hybrid setup to 350bhp crank which is similar to the GT28rs figure but great low end torque, i am not far off that at this stage.

Now, my engine has had a full rebuild, rods etc.. and i have a ton of other mods, its an advanced Hybrid setup as i am trying to push to as far as it will go but realistically if you are looking for extra power and good low end with respectable top end FT is defo the way to go, if you are tyring to avoid or worried about things like rods your tuner can keep the map respectable avoiding high boost, just a nice linear torque curve.

If you want more top end bhp, save and go for a mid frame turbo, its kind of a lifestly choice.

One thing the graphs and info doesn't transmit is how the hybrid power delivery feels so much different from OEM even if on paper the figures aren't massively different.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Dub-Nub said:


> holy **** guys
> 
> OP wants to get franken turbo...its a great turbo if you aren't wanting to progress further with power.
> 
> *Chances are he will want to go bigger, which means spending more money...*let him get the dam franken turbo.


Exactly my point.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Dub-Nub said:


> holy **** guys
> 
> OP wants to get franken turbo...its a great turbo if you aren't wanting to progress further with power.
> 
> Chances are he will want to go bigger, which means spending more money...let him get the dam franken turbo.


This statement sounds stupid considering you do make more power with the frankenturbo. It's funny how people act like everyone will always want more power in every application. I highly enjoy this turbo on my 337 at it is plenty. If i want more power I just go to my garage and get in my mk2 and I am housing just about anything:laugh:


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

Damn dude 3k for a frankenturbo setup?


I'm like 3k in for a 3076R pagparts setup that was used. Including some 3651 cams.


:laugh:


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Twopnt016v said:


> This statement sounds stupid considering you do make more power with the frankenturbo. It's funny how people act like everyone will always want more power in every application. I highly enjoy this turbo on my 337 at it is plenty. If i want more power I just go to my garage and get in my mk2 and I am housing just about anything:laugh:


Not everybody has that luxury. :screwy:



gdoggmoney said:


> Damn dude 3k for a frankenturbo setup?
> 
> 
> I'm like 3k in for a 3076R pagparts setup that was used. Including some 3651 cams.
> ...


Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


----------



## Dub-Nub (Sep 27, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> This statement sounds stupid considering you do make more power with the frankenturbo. It's funny how people act like everyone will always want more power in every application. I highly enjoy this turbo on my 337 at it is plenty. If i want more power I just go to my garage and get in my mk2 and I am housing just about anything:laugh:


If I had two cars and I could use one for a daily and the other for a speed demon then I would have kept my k03s or went k04 just like you. I really don't think your opinion matters anymore since you have a faster second vehicle. Most have only one car and have to decide what power we want to make.. You don't think much about the power you got since you got a mk2 which can wax most things.

If you get a vband setup you can get a gt28rs for a daily and then swap to like 3076 for a track 

/I'm out!


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Dub-Nub said:


> If you get a vband setup you can get a gt28rs for a daily and then swap to like 3076 for a track


This! :thumbup:

Or get a decent electronic or manual in cabin boost controller and tune it down until some @sshole decides to start revving his crapshoot beside you.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Dub-Nub said:


> If you get a vband setup you can get a gt28rs for a daily and then swap to like 3076 for a track
> 
> /I'm out!


this would be a great idea if you have a bunch of useless money sitting around and dont know what to spend it on lol

but is ideal in reality as i think a couple cars in the SCC street car shoot out have been doing that now for dyno/dragstrip versus autocross


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

travis_gli said:


> Not everybody has that luxury. :screwy:
> 
> 
> 
> Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


My car was bone stock when I started, so the price is going to vary depending on existing mods and how far you want to push it. But you can easily get away with the FT kit + tune only.

Sent from my DROIDX


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

travis_gli said:


> Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


should be about $2K done out the door


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

travis_gli said:


> Not everybody has that luxury. :screwy:
> 
> 
> 
> Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


i feel you trav. i thought about gettin a k04/frankenturbo before i went bt. the turbo/mani/tip/dv are not that expensive. the new injectors and the tuning and rods you *should* do are what make it damn near the cost of a BT. i know i wanted over 300whp, more like 330whp-350whp. for me i spent a lot less money doing that with a used CTS 50 trim kit, and no rods. both setups will need a clutch, but i believe one should do rods with the F23/F4 FT more so than a 50 trim at ~20psi


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Big_Tom said:


> i feel you trav. i thought about gettin a k04/frankenturbo before i went bt. the turbo/mani/tip/dv are not that expensive. the new injectors and the tuning and rods you *should* do are what make it damn near the cost of a BT. i know i wanted over 300whp, more like 330whp-350whp. for me i spent a lot less money doing that with a used CTS 50 trim kit, and no rods. both setups will need a clutch, but i believe one should do rods with the F23/F4 FT more so than a 50 trim at ~20psi


I agree, due to the outrageous torque they are capable of putting down in such a small period of time compared to a BT. Might I add, a clutch would also be a wise investment for anyone that wants an FT setup. The overall quickness of the torque is whats going to kill rods. This goes for the clutch as well.


----------



## JWoody (May 17, 2006)

travis_gli said:


> Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


 Wow, Page 5 at least half the responses are folks arguing...come on people. :thumbdown::facepalm:

* Concur, total cost including F4T, injectors, software and W/M (Snow Kit) came to $2450. Not too shabby for +60WHP gain.*

-J


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

JWoody said:


> Concur, total cost including F4T, injectors, software and W/M (Snow Kit) came to *$2450*. Not too shabby for *+60WHP gain*.


:screwy: 60WHP for $2450........

Not including labor of installation, not including rods, not including a future clutch, not including an upgraded SMIC / FMIC, fuel pump and I'm sure a few other odds and ends that I'm missing.

Again I'm not arguing at all, I'm providing advice.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Dub-Nub said:


> If I had two cars and I could use one for a daily and the other for a speed demon then I would have kept my k03s or went k04 just like you. I really don't think your opinion matters anymore since you have a faster second vehicle. Most have only one car and have to decide what power we want to make.. You don't think much about the power you got since you got a mk2 which can wax most things.
> 
> If you get a vband setup you can get a gt28rs for a daily and then swap to like 3076 for a track
> 
> /I'm out!


My opinion does matter because I have a FT and the OP asked for people to chime in that have said turbo...My opinion also matters because I have actually built a big turbo car and a FT car which means my statements are actually based off experience vs just talking out my ass like a few people on this thread are doing.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

travis_gli said:


> Not everybody has that luxury. :screwy:
> 
> 
> 
> Again my point. :thumbup: Most guys here are reporting 2k+ for their FT setups.


Dude your missing the point... 3k for a used Bt set up doesn't include the rods,clutch flywheel set up,LSD, fueling etc. You can get a FT and put down 275+whp and 300wtq..ON A STOCK MOTOR!
Not too shabby...even for $2500. Trust me if you drove my FT car I bet you would think it is more then a little faster then your Ko3s car. Lets be real about this.. Rods, clutch and flywheel set up and LSD are going to run you over 3k. Your going to need all of that on a true BT setup. You can get away with out doing that on a FT set up. My stock clutch is holding up nicely with the FT and 100k. The rods are a good idea but not a must on the F4t, they are a little more needed on the F23. I would think someone like yourself could see a place for a turbo application like this considering you are on a budget and trying to save money to get a place with your girl. I can also tell you from experience a lot more goes into getting a BT car to run right on a daily then does a FT setup.


----------



## Downeywu (Apr 27, 2005)

buy the FT you wont be disappointed...just make sure you have everything for the install including all the nuts,bolts, and gaskets. make sure you double check your oil feed line :thumbup: 

also buy an MBC and install it before you even run the FT, simply because its going to spike 30 psi right off the bat


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Twopnt016v said:


> My opinion does matter because I have a FT and the OP asked for people to chime in that have said turbo...My opinion also matters because I have actually built a big turbo car and a FT car which means my statements are actually based off experience vs just talking out my ass like a few people on this thread are doing.


I don't think making those assumptions about anybody makes you any better and most people here talk from experience and not out of their @ss.



Twopnt016v said:


> Dude your missing the point... 3k for a used Bt set up doesn't include the rods,clutch flywheel set up,LSD, fueling etc. You can get a FT and put down 275+whp and 300wtq..ON A STOCK MOTOR!
> Not too shabby...even for $2500. Trust me if you drove my FT car I bet you would think it is more then a little faster then your Ko3s car. Lets be real about this.. Rods, clutch and flywheel set up and LSD are going to run you over 3k. Your going to need all of that on a true BT setup. You can get away with out doing that on a FT set up. My stock clutch is holding up nicely with the FT and 100k. The rods are a good idea but not a must on the F4t, they are a little more needed on the F23. I would think someone like yourself could see a place for a turbo application like this considering you are on a budget and trying to save money to get a place with your girl. I can also tell you from experience a lot more goes into getting a BT car to run right on a daily then does a FT setup.


Actually that does include most of everything. Labor may be a bit more expensive if you decide to get lazy and have somebody else do most of the work. This is all considering the point of a "used BT setup" or "budget BT setup". Parts can be had for cheap if you are patient and shop around while watching the classifieds and any local sales closely. I'm not here to argue which is better I'm just here to prove that there's more wise routes to throw your money at.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

the FT can easily be done for bout $2K, no im not including clutch or intercooler or exhaust as thats typically things already done to the car before a turbo upgrade

The FT kit is I think $1100, injectors-$200, software about-$500, fuel pump-$200-$250

I think its illogical to factor in labor as most people on a budget arent going to pay someone to install a big turbo kit why would they pay to replace "stock" parts which mechanically is the equivalent of the FT

Also not counting rods as I know the ft puts you at the edge but unaware of anyone who as killed rods yet on one, and no one looking about 300-350 on a BT usually do either

you would be hard pressed to find everything needed especially good quality stuff new or used for a typical big turbo piece together. Keep in mind most people dont account for couplers, nuts, bolts, hoses, etc. which tend to add up to a decent amount more and just not worth the pain in the a$$ factor. 

Where as the FT installs in a couple hours, done, over no headaches and comes with everything needed besides an air filter or coupler depending on your intake setup


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

travis_gli said:


> I don't think making those assumptions about anybody makes you any better and most people here talk from experience and not out of their @ss.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that does include most of everything. Labor may be a bit more expensive if you decide to get lazy and have somebody else do most of the work. This is all considering the point of a "used BT setup" or "budget BT setup". Parts can be had for cheap if you are patient and shop around while watching the classifieds and any local sales closely. I'm not here to argue which is better I'm just here to prove that there's more wise routes to throw your money at.


The purpose of me saying that was not to sound as if I think I am better. I was simply responding to the statement that "my opinion no longer mattered because I have a faster second vehicle".:screwy:

You probably shouldn't be so concerned with what other people throw their money at...if it works and is quality and they achieve the results they were after then so be it...it definitely sounds like you are trying to talk people out of the FT and going with a BT setup.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

jettaglx91 said:


> the FT can easily be done for bout $2K, no im not including clutch or intercooler or exhaust as thats typically things already done to the car before a turbo upgrade
> 
> The FT kit is I think $1100, injectors-$200, software about-$500, fuel pump-$200-$250
> 
> ...


:thumbup: Exactly. Very well put!:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## six sigma (Jun 22, 2007)

travis_gli said:


> *I agree, due to the outrageous torque they are capable of putting down in such a small period of time compared to a BT.* Might I add, a clutch would also be a wise investment for anyone that wants an FT setup. The overall quickness of the torque is whats going to kill rods. This goes for the clutch as well.


See, I *like* that kind of torque. 

That's why I'm leaning heavily towards a FT (and plan on rods no matter which way I go). I'd miss the low end on all the twisties around here.

To me the bottom line is that both FT and BT are the right answer, depending on how/where you want to drive.:thumbup:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

six sigma said:


> See, I *like* that kind of torque.
> 
> That's why I'm leaning heavily towards a FT (and plan on rods no matter which way I go). I'd miss the low end on all the twisties around here.
> 
> To me the bottom line is that both FT and BT are the right answer, depending on how/where you want to drive.:thumbup:


def agree to each his own, i for instance will be swapping out the FT over winter, possibly for a R32T :laugh:

But the goal it sounds from the OP is the most power for least amount of money and i think the FT fits the bill perfect for that


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

I don't know if the VDubs need a fuel pump for some reason but I'm still running the stock pump and FPR on my B5.

Another good reason for the FT is you don't have to do the supporting mods if you don't want to. If you blew your K03 and wanted to replace it but give yourself some room down the road to pick up some HP you can throw on the FT kit and run it like stock until you have the money for injectors/tune. Or if you wanted to push the FT you can do all the supporting mods (including rods) and wring every last ounce of HP out of it. If you go BT you're looking at a lot of upgrades you're going to need right at the start. It makes it harder for people on a budget.

Plus I can't really run anymore HP than the FT provides anyway, I've got a Tiptronic. :laugh:


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

jettaglx91 said:


> Also not counting rods as I know the ft puts you at the edge but unaware of anyone who as killed rods yet on one, and no one looking about 300-350 on a BT usually do either
> 
> Where as the FT installs in a couple hours, done, over no headaches and comes with everything needed besides an air filter or coupler depending on your intake setup


I have seen a couple horror stories so far of people killing rods. BT doesn't give you that quick torque like the FT would because of the slower spool. That's why people are having greater success with stock rods at higher numbers. Also the stock turbo setup is far from no headaches...



Twopnt016v said:


> You probably shouldn't be so concerned with what other people throw their money at...if it works and is quality and they achieve the results they were after then so be it...it definitely sounds like you are trying to talk people out of the FT and going with a BT setup.


So if I'm trying to help people make wise decisions and invest in more than adequate ways that makes me wrong? I don't know, I'm just asking. I'm not here to force the "religion" of BT on anybody I'm just making a stand about why one is a smarter route than the other.



six sigma said:


> See, I *like* that kind of torque.
> 
> That's why I'm leaning heavily towards a FT (and plan on rods no matter which way I go). I'd miss the low end on all the twisties around here.
> 
> To me the bottom line is that both FT and BT are the right answer, depending on how/where you want to drive.:thumbup:


You like rod bending torque that you'll never get to the ground because you'll be running street tires that are only going to spin? :thumbup: Where or how you want to drive is not a parameter in the argument. You can drive anywhere with a BT or FT setup and you can drive anyway you like with both. BT can be run as a daily driver and without all the headaches that people think. I'm tired of coming into forums and people thinking that BT setups are only meant for the track and weekend driving.



Camride said:


> If you blew your K03 and wanted to replace it but give yourself some room down the road to pick up some HP you can throw on the FT kit and run it like stock until you have the money for injectors/tune. Or if you wanted to push the FT you can do all the supporting mods (including rods) and wring every last ounce of HP out of it. If you go BT you're looking at a lot of upgrades you're going to need right at the start. It makes it harder for people on a budget.


If you blew your K03 / K04 you should be rebuilding it for sub $100 or buying another out of the classifieds and rebuilding that one. Instead of spending $1200. You can do the same thing with BT without all those "needed upgrades," whatever they are. I know alot of guys running large turbos that keep the boost tapered down until they can afford at least rods. 

Nobody really has a solid argument here. Not even myself and that's understanding but there are benefits of going straight to BT.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

travis_gli said:


> I have seen a couple horror stories so far of people killing rods. BT doesn't give you that quick torque like the FT would because of the slower spool. That's why people are having greater success with stock rods at higher numbers. Also the stock turbo setup is far from no headaches...
> 
> 
> If you blew your K03 / K04 you should be rebuilding it for sub $100 or buying another out of the classifieds and rebuilding that one. Instead of spending $1200. You can do the same thing with BT without all those "needed upgrades," whatever they are. I know alot of guys running large turbos that keep the boost tapered down until they can afford at least rods.
> ...


\


I def agree that you are def at the limit but im unaware of FT kits that have broke rods

is there any threads on this? not being a smart a$$ seriously curious

Im not sure what headaches there are with the stock turbo setup, ive been working on and modifying 1.8t's for 10 yrs and its a quite simple setup thats fairly quick and easy to work on. Point being installing the FT only requires basic knowledge and no fabrication.

I honestly dont believe you are going to build a quality big turbo setup for $1200 and running it "semi-stock" is usually out of the question as it physically cant incorporate stock parts to stay running properly.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

The FT is absolutely a viable option in terms of larger than stock turbo setups. I'm not sure why Travis is beating this to death. I run a jazzed up 50 trim setup, I would totally consider an FT if I was still on stock turbo parts and looking to upgrade soon. The 50 does nothing until 3200rpms, nada, zip, nothing until then. After that and at peak spoolup it's great, but hardly what I would call responsive. The FTs lack a bunch of top end to some degree, but that low punch is definitely viable for a large portion of users.

If I was in a higher mileage (looking to replace an old or worn stock turbo) A4Q or TTQ I would be looking seriously at these setups.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

jettaglx91 said:


> \
> 
> 
> I def agree that you are def at the limit but im unaware of FT kits that have broke rods
> ...


I'll have to dig around. I could have swore I seen 2 posts about bent rods running FT.

IMO the stock setup is a nightmare. If you piece together a nice BT kit you shouldn't need to do any fabricating either. That's the point of buying previously owned piping / etc as all the work was already done.

I never said that you could build a BT setup for 1200. It's going to cost around the $3k area. However until its all said and done your going to have over $2k in an FT setup anyway. (I don't think I have to repeat this again.)



screwball said:


> The FT is absolutely a viable option in terms of larger than stock turbo setups. I'm not sure why Travis is beating this to death. I run a jazzed up 50 trim setup, I would totally consider an FT if I was still on stock turbo parts and looking to upgrade soon. The 50 does nothing until 3200rpms, nada, zip, nothing until then. After that and at peak spoolup it's great, but hardly what I would call responsive. *The FTs lack a bunch of top end to some degree, but that low punch is definitely viable for a large portion of users.*
> 
> If I was in a higher mileage (looking to replace an old or worn stock turbo) A4Q or TTQ I would be looking seriously at these setups.


Wait what? :screwy: It's not larger than stock, it's a reworked OEM turbo and I will beat that to the death every day. 
"*The FTs lack a bunch of top end to some degree, but that low punch is definitely viable for a large portion of users.*"
You hit the nail on the head there.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

You're splitting hairs dude, it's a viable upgrade if you want more power/torque. That can't be argued. If it was smaller than stock I wouldn't care.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

travis_gli said:


> However until its all said and done your going to have over $2k in an FT setup anyway. (I don't think I have to repeat this again.)


I have just under $2k in mine and thats at full retail pricing including tax. Have been driving it and running it hard for about 6 months now with no issues other then horrible gas mileage :laugh:


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

screwball said:


> You're splitting hairs dude, it's a viable upgrade if you want more power/torque. That can't be argued. If it was smaller than stock I wouldn't care.





jettaglx91 said:


> I have just under $2k in mine and thats at full retail pricing including tax. Have been driving it and running it hard for about 6 months now with no issues other then horrible gas mileage :laugh:


Again I'm not really here to split hairs or argue. I just wanted to give the OP a second opinion and different option. No crime, no harm done.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

travis_gli said:


> Again I'm not really here to split hairs or argue. I just wanted to give the OP a second opinion and different option. No crime, no harm done.


you're right and i just want to give my info so the OP gets the opinion of people who actually have the part he is inquiring about


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

Lol, 4pages and you're not splitting hairs! ha.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Travis it is not a reworked OEM vw mk4 turbo...it is bigger then a stock ko3s...period!!! It amazes me you fail to see this point. Your acting like it sucks and is no bigger then stock but yet a FT car will walk all over a highly moded ko3. This turbo may not stand up to a real BT setup on the top end but it by no means lacks top end power. I really made a guy in a bi turbo S4 smile the other night on the highway when he couldn't walk away from me and his car didn't look stock by any means. No its not the fastest set up ever but it is well worth the money and makes the car feel completely different. It's not like ANYONE is going to put this turbo on their car and say..."man this sucks...I feel no real diffrence". I put this setup on my car and after the first test drive said....F_ck yeah!!:laugh: I took it to a track day shortly after and pissed off a few techs I work with that were there running their e46 m3's. While it may not out run everything on the planet it is a lot of fun to drive!!


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

screwball said:


> Lol, 4pages and you're not splitting hairs! ha.





Twopnt016v said:


> Travis it is not a reworked OEM vw mk4 turbo...it is bigger then a stock ko3s...period!!! It amazes me you fail to see this point. Your acting like it sucks and is no bigger then stock but yet a FT car will walk all over a highly moded ko3. This turbo may not stand up to a real BT setup on the top end but it by no means lacks top end power. I really made a guy in a bi turbo S4 smile the other night on the highway when he couldn't walk away from me and his car didn't look stock by any means. No its not the fastest set up ever but it is well worth the money and makes the car feel completely different. It's not like ANYONE is going to put this turbo on their car and say..."man this sucks...I feel no real diffrence". I put this setup on my car and after the first test drive said....F_ck yeah!!:laugh: I took it to a track day shortly after and pissed off a few techs I work with that were there running their e46 m3's. While it may not out run everything on the planet it is a lot of fun to drive!!


can we just agree to disagree :laugh: :thumbup:

Maybe you suck at reading or have no idea what a frankenturbo really is so let me break it down for you. A frankenturbo is solely based on borg warner 3k series. They are a hybrid type so they are mixed parts of 3k series. K03S or K03-052/053 is a hybrid of a k03 / k04. All of which are 2075 compressors. The only thing that frankenturbo really does is slap in their own compressor wheel along with slightly rework the turbo. Larger? No. More efficient? Yes. Reworked OEM turbo? Yes. Expensive for what it is? Yes and No. If it is truly Borg Warners that they are using then the price tag is fair. If they are not using Borg Warners and sourcing from somewhere else then they are overpriced.



jettaglx91 said:


> you're right and i just want to give my info so the OP gets the opinion of people who actually have the part he is inquiring about


:thumbup:

EDIT: By the way Doug and everybody over there at FT are staying very calm about this bickering and not really chiming in. I highly respect that about a company. Today alone one of my local garages decided to chime into a thread of mine while throwing a b!tchfit just because I said their tire mounting and balancing is way overpriced (which it is). That wasn't respectable in the least bit because he kept going on and on and on about it. It was the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen and for such a well known garage as them (for the East coast anyway) it was a bit disturbing.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I actually have been reading the thread and find it really interesting. I'd be "jumping in" if I felt the tone was getting toxic or impolite. But even from my highly subjective perspective, I feel everybody is right in their own way.

I'm headed down to ForceFed for a dyno test of our F23 this Saturday. Anybody local who would want to do a compare/contrast?


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I actually have been reading the thread and find it really interesting. I'd be "jumping in" if I felt the tone was getting toxic or impolite. But even from my highly subjective perspective, I feel everybody is right in their own way.
> 
> I'm headed down to ForceFed for a dyno test of our F23 this Saturday. Anybody local who would want to do a compare/contrast?


:thumbup:


----------



## flood514 (Jun 3, 2011)

> Wait what? It's not larger than stock, it's a reworked OEM turbo


The scroll casing looks to be larger.









Is it just the pic, because it looks a bit larger to me.


----------



## Darktuner (Dec 25, 2010)

dude travis give it a rest. im sure the OP knows about the BT option have you looked through the 1.8T section?...... plus like you said you dont have a FT or BT so you have no actual insight to the issue. and have you ever thought that the FT is a good option for people that cant legally do a "Big Turbo?" say like all of us out here in california. the FT is a great option for us since it looks stock and the cops or smog tech wont know the difference. so chill out....:screwy:


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'm headed down to ForceFed for a dyno test of our F23 this Saturday. Anybody local who would want to do a compare/contrast?


What time Saturday? I was going to race but can do this instead.


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

madmax199 said:


> What time Saturday? I was going to race but can do this instead.


Blasphemy! :laugh:


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Darktuner said:


> dude travis give it a rest. im sure the OP knows about the BT option have you looked through the 1.8T section?...... plus like you said you dont have a FT or BT so you have no actual insight to the issue. and have you ever thought that the FT is a good option for people that cant legally do a "Big Turbo?" say like all of us out here in california. the FT is a great option for us since it looks stock and the cops or smog tech wont know the difference. so chill out....:screwy:


It's a great option for California. That's 1 out of 50 states. :laugh::thumbup: 



flood514 said:


> The scroll casing looks to be larger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Longitudinal K03 vs K03S










Transverse K03 vs K03S (top)










Wheel comparison










Left to right, EO5b(mk4), K03sport(mk4), K03(b5)










E05










K03S










K03










K04-001












That turbo on the right looks even smaller than the usual longitudinal k03.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

I"ll dyno my 50 for comparison, but only if Travis forks up the $$, lol...


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

FT aren't legal in California either so that's not really an argument, just having the modified TIP that comes with the FT is gonna be grounds enough for any decent smog tech to know you have modified the car in a way that would fail you. You can hide a BT kit from smog nazi's just like you can hide a FT kit... hell it might even be easier since a BT isn't gonna be spooling off idle when on the rollers.

A big part of the problem in these type of thread is everyone's precesion of "BT" is different, it's way to broad of a term. When some says FT, you know exactly what they are talking about the F4t. When someone says BT there is a range of turbos that fall from 50 trims to GT40R and larger. Car modification especially engine modification is all about balance and finding that spot where you give up some aspect of the car your not going to be using a lot in order to gain in an aspect you will use a lot.

If your going to compare the frankenturbo to a BT set up you have to kinda state what BT set up your comparing it to. A comparison of a FT versus a V-banded [email protected] is much different then a FT compared to a budget 50 trim build running 15PSI because they couldn't afford rods.

You have to be honest with yourself and figure out not only what you want, but what your going to be using the car for... That's the hardest thing for people to do sometimes when choosing performance upgrades.


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

Are there any housing comparisons between a K03, K03s and K04? I'm not sure if the K03s and the K04 have the same housing size or not.

I agree that BT can be done on a budget and it can be a great option for people depending on what you want. But the FT is also a great option as well, just a different path. I'm happy with my decision and so are most FT owners that I've talked to.

:thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

op,

Given all this, have you made a decision yet? And what VW are we talking about here? You didn't give any of year and/or model.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

travis_gli said:


> can we just agree to disagree :laugh: :thumbup:
> 
> Maybe you suck at reading or have no idea what a frankenturbo really is so let me break it down for you. A frankenturbo is solely based on borg warner 3k series. They are a hybrid type so they are mixed parts of 3k series. K03S or K03-052/053 is a hybrid of a k03 / k04. All of which are 2075 compressors. The only thing that frankenturbo really does is slap in their own compressor wheel along with slightly rework the turbo. Larger? No. More efficient? Yes. Reworked OEM turbo? Yes. Expensive for what it is? Yes and No. If it is truly Borg Warners that they are using then the price tag is fair. If they are not using Borg Warners and sourcing from somewhere else then they are overpriced.


Travis your never gonna let this die are you? I own a FT so I am fully aware of what it is. You on the other hand don't have a FT or a BT so you trying to give people advice sounds funny as you have no personal experience to base your opinion off of. All of the miscellaneous expenses that add up when going BT you have never paid for so you are really just talking. When you say it's going to burn your tires up and bend your rods you are just talking. I was going to agree to disagree but not after you acting like I am clueless. The turbo is bigger and if you cant wrap your head around that then I don't know what to tell you. Of all the pics posted the FT looks noticeably bigger then any of the other comparisons. It doesn't matter if the turbo is a similar frame or not, bigger is bigger. You personally think to only go that much bigger is a waste of money and you want to make sure everyone knows that and now feels the same way you do. It's not a waste of money coming from someone who bought the turbo which is what the OP wanted to know. I'm done playing reindeer games....think what you want.


----------



## flood514 (Jun 3, 2011)

> Atomic Ed
> 
> op,
> 
> Given all this, have you made a decision yet? And what VW are we talking about here? You didn't give any of year and/or model.


I think the OP was scared off about 135+ posts ago! 




> That turbo on the right looks even smaller than the usual longitudinal k03.



It is supposed to be a long k03s, but its not my pic so I can't say for sure


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

Twopnt016v said:


> Travis your never gonna let this die are you? I own a FT so I am fully aware of what it is. You on the other hand don't have a FT or a BT so you trying to give people advice sounds funny as you have no personal experience to base your opinion off of. All of the miscellaneous expenses that add up when going BT you have never paid for so you are really just talking. When you say it's going to burn your tires up and bend your rods you are just talking. I was going to agree to disagree but not after you acting like I am clueless. The turbo is bigger and if you cant wrap your head around that then I don't know what to tell you. Of all the pics posted the FT looks noticeably bigger then any of the other comparisons. It doesn't matter if the turbo is a similar frame or not, bigger is bigger. You personally think to only go that much bigger is a waste of money and you want to make sure everyone knows that and now feels the same way you do. It's not a waste of money coming from someone who bought the turbo which is what the OP wanted to know. I'm done playing reindeer games....think what you want.


Dude, you are too intelligent to not realise that you're wasting your breath with this guy. I gave up on him a few pages ago. No personal experience, yet claiming to have an answer for everything. Give up like I did because this thread is a *travis*ty!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Yeah, it was a feeble attempt to bring this back around to the op’s questions. Putting myself in his shoes, I wouldn’t have a clue where to go from here.


----------



## Niagara_V_Dub (Sep 25, 2007)

I just wish I could read a FT thread that is not littered with *BT*ards saying GO BT! I am trying to decide between a FT or air ride. And it is honestly really difficult to read any FT thread cause inevitably some jackass has to chime in, and in some cases, chime in REPEATEDLY about BT. Guess what if the guy wanted a BT he would get one. Its not like BT is some well kept secret and you have to inform the masses cause Moses and Jesus delegated the task to you and only you. 

What I want to know is... I currently am sitting with basically no engine mods. Just a air intake and exhaust and APR R1 dv cause my OG VW one failed. No software, no FMIC, no TIP or anything. Is the frankenturbo gonna make my car more fun at low rpm's from the lights cause I am sick of getting pulled on by old ladies in Impalas. When I put my exhaust on it felt like the low end grunt sorta disappeared. I know that I won't have the top end of a monster sized BT with 1,000cc injectors... but I am not looking for a killer in the 5500 rpm range. I hardly ever drive in those rpm's. I want something peppy from idle to 4,000. Is the FT worth it in that sense? Or am I better served just getting software and saying f it and getting air ride? And travi, don't bother responding cause I am looking for a FT owners answer, not a forum ninja who's FT and BT experience is from looking at a computer screen. :facepalm:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Niagara_V_Dub said:


> I just wish I could read a FT thread that is not littered with *BT*ards saying GO BT! I am trying to decide between a FT or air ride. And it is honestly really difficult to read any FT thread cause inevitably some jackass has to chime in, and in some cases, chime in REPEATEDLY about BT. Guess what if the guy want a BT he would get one. Its not like BT is some well kept secret and you have to inform the masses cause Moses and Jesus delegated the task to you and only you.
> 
> What I want to know is... I currently am sitting with basically no engine mods. Just a air intake and exhaust and APR R1 dv cause my OG VW one failed. No software, no FMIC, no TIP or anything. Is the frankenturbo gonna make my car more fun at low rpm's from the lights cause I am sick of getting pulled on my old lady's in Impalas. When I put my exhaust on it felt like the low end grunt sorta disappeared. I know that I won't have the top end of a monster sized BT with 1,000cc injectors... but I am not looking for a killer in the 5500 rpm range. I hardly ever drive in those rpm's. I want something peppy from idle to 4,000. Is the FT worth it in that sense? Or am I better serve just getting software and saying f it and getting air ride? And travi, don't bother responding cause I am looking for a FT owners answer, not a forum ninja who's FT and BT experience is from looking at a computer screen. :facepalm:



You will def have fun with the FT def more fun for the average daily driver and more fun around town and back roads rather then going 100mph. 

For the mk4 i would recommend the FT with the UM 440/415 tune, it can all be done for about $2K from aptuning for turbo setup, tune, injectors, and fuel pump


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

madmax199 said:


> Dude, you are too intelligent to not realise that you're wasting your breath with this guy. I gave up on him a few pages ago. No personal experience, yet claiming to have an answer for everything. Give up like I did because this thread is a *travis*ty!


:thumbup::beer:eace:


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

Niagara_V_Dub said:


> I just wish I could read a FT thread that is not littered with *BT*ards saying GO BT! I am trying to decide between a FT or air ride. And it is honestly really difficult to read any FT thread cause inevitably some jackass has to chime in, and in some cases, chime in REPEATEDLY about BT. Guess what if the guy wanted a BT he would get one. Its not like BT is some well kept secret and you have to inform the masses cause Moses and Jesus delegated the task to you and only you.
> 
> What I want to know is... I currently am sitting with basically no engine mods. Just a air intake and exhaust and APR R1 dv cause my OG VW one failed. No software, no FMIC, no TIP or anything. Is the frankenturbo gonna make my car more fun at low rpm's from the lights cause I am sick of getting pulled on by old ladies in Impalas. When I put my exhaust on it felt like the low end grunt sorta disappeared. I know that I won't have the top end of a monster sized BT with 1,000cc injectors... but I am not looking for a killer in the 5500 rpm range. I hardly ever drive in those rpm's. I want something peppy from idle to 4,000. Is the FT worth it in that sense? Or am I better served just getting software and saying f it and getting air ride? And travi, don't bother responding cause I am looking for a FT owners answer, not a forum ninja who's FT and BT experience is from looking at a computer screen. :facepalm:


It really depends on how you want to spend the next around 2K of your mod money. Just getting a FT without a FMIC,software,injectors isn't going to gain you much... will you notice a difference? probably but if you drop the money on a FT kit without software,injectors and a FMCI you would get walked on by a k03s w/software. It's like installing a k04 in a completely stock awp motor you don't see the gains until you get the k04 software.

Air ride on the other hand isn't going to make your car any faster, but it's not something that is going to require more money to use to it's full advantage, whenever you do an engine mod especially something as big as swapping the turbo there is always going to be supporting mods that should be done to optimize it to your engine. 

But yes a FT with proper software and injectors will make your car more fun around town as well as in the top end. One of the greatest features of the frankenturbo is it's ability to hold boost in the higher rpms, where as the k03s/k04 will fade towards redline. Because of the frankenfins and other work done to the FT the low end is also increased.


----------



## travis_gli (Jan 31, 2008)

Twopnt016v said:


> Travis your never gonna let this die are you? I own a FT so I am fully aware of what it is. You on the other hand don't have a FT or a BT so you trying to give people advice sounds funny as you have no personal experience to base your opinion off of. All of the miscellaneous expenses that add up when going BT you have never paid for so you are really just talking. When you say it's going to burn your tires up and bend your rods you are just talking. I was going to agree to disagree but not after you acting like I am clueless. The turbo is bigger and if you cant wrap your head around that then I don't know what to tell you. Of all the pics posted the FT looks noticeably bigger then any of the other comparisons. It doesn't matter if the turbo is a similar frame or not, bigger is bigger. You personally think to only go that much bigger is a waste of money and you want to make sure everyone knows that and now feels the same way you do. It's not a waste of money coming from someone who bought the turbo which is what the OP wanted to know. I'm done playing reindeer games....think what you want.





madmax199 said:


> Dude, you are too intelligent to not realise that you're wasting your breath with this guy. I gave up on him a few pages ago. No personal experience, yet claiming to have an answer for everything. Give up like I did because this thread is a *travis*ty!


I'm sorry you have to sit there and judge me yet again. You have no idea what experience I have. I'm also sorry that you can't run some simple numbers through your head or know any physics behind forced induction. Also as I stated earlier and Frankenturbo themselves stated the F4 is built using 3k series borg warner turbos. 3k series borg warners turbos are all OEM spec. I guess your just to ignorant to read yet again. Would anybody like to post measurements of their F4 to either shut this guy up or myself?


----------



## flood514 (Jun 3, 2011)

> Niagara_V_Dub
> 
> I just wish I could read a FT thread that is not littered with BTards saying GO BT! I am trying to decide between a FT or air ride. And it is honestly really difficult to read any FT thread cause inevitably some jackass has to chime in, and in some cases, chime in REPEATEDLY about BT. Guess what if the guy wanted a BT he would get one. Its not like BT is some well kept secret and you have to inform the masses cause Moses and Jesus delegated the task to you and only you.
> 
> What I want to know is... I currently am sitting with basically no engine mods. Just a air intake and exhaust and APR R1 dv cause my OG VW one failed. No software, no FMIC, no TIP or anything. Is the frankenturbo gonna make my car more fun at low rpm's from the lights cause I am sick of getting pulled on by old ladies in Impalas. When I put my exhaust on it felt like the low end grunt sorta disappeared. I know that I won't have the top end of a monster sized BT with 1,000cc injectors... but I am not looking for a killer in the 5500 rpm range. I hardly ever drive in those rpm's. I want something peppy from idle to 4,000. Is the FT worth it in that sense? Or am I better served just getting software and saying f it and getting air ride? And travi, don't bother responding cause I am looking for a FT owners answer, not a forum ninja who's FT and BT experience is from looking at a computer screen.



I'm sure most of you have seen this one but:

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/416578-Frankenturbo-FAQ?styleid=8

AZ has a few good threads on it, seemingly less riffraff too!


----------



## flood514 (Jun 3, 2011)

PS: I bought one


----------



## omeletduefromage (Jan 13, 2011)

im thinking of going with a franken turbo. im just a little confused on what i actually need. first should i go with the f23 or f4? i already have a front mount and a 3 inch back catless exhaust. so if i get the f4 kit with the bigger maf the adapter the inline pump and a set of 440cc injectors will i be good? if so what tune? im seeing mixed reviews.

and is it absolutely necessary to build the bottom end at all? or can i get away with stock head bolts and rods? max i could afford would be ie rods and arp bolts if that on top of everything else. and being a college student who makes minimum wage, that poses a problem.


----------



## sponcar (Feb 5, 2010)

omeletduefromage said:


> im thinking of going with a franken turbo. im just a little confused on what i actually need. first should i go with the f23 or f4? i already have a front mount and a 3 inch back catless exhaust. so if i get the f4 kit with the bigger maf the adapter the inline pump and a set of 440cc injectors will i be good? if so what tune? im seeing mixed reviews.
> 
> and is it absolutely necessary to build the bottom end at all? or can i get away with stock head bolts and rods? max i could afford would be ie rods and arp bolts if that on top of everything else. and being a college student who makes minimum wage, that poses a problem.


As far what i have read by now, you can go with the f4th and without any internal modification but for the f23 you can't have the full advantage of it unless you do rods in order to save your engine.

I'm actually looking foward for the f23 and keep it in low boost (15psi max)until i can get my rods done, about software I've seen the eurodyno 440cc file works great with the f23. The f4t seems to be happy with the unitronic software instead of other in the market but there are also other companies or private parties doing custom tunes like malone, and gonzo.

I would suggest you to spend some time reading about it so you could come out with your own desicion of what software and hardware apply best for your needs and goals.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

omeletduefromage said:


> im thinking of going with a franken turbo. im just a little confused on what i actually need. first should i go with the f23 or f4? i already have a front mount and a 3 inch back catless exhaust. so if i get the f4 kit with the bigger maf the adapter the inline pump and a set of 440cc injectors will i be good? if so what tune? im seeing mixed reviews.
> 
> and is it absolutely necessary to build the bottom end at all? or can i get away with stock head bolts and rods? max i could afford would be ie rods and arp bolts if that on top of everything else. and being a college student who makes minimum wage, that poses a problem.


The easiest thing to do would be going with the F4T. The items you listed are correct as far as injectors and fuel pump go. I have the unitronic stage 2+ 440 cc file for the FT. It is not on the Uni website but if you call and ask they will give it to you. I am really pleased with the Uni file. I am running stock motor at this time. The F23 requires rods and changing the oil feed like etc. It would be good to do rods if you can but there are plenty of people running without them. You will need to get a Manual Boost Controller and you will be set and pleased with the end results.:thumbup:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Yea on the MK4 I would go with UM as they have a file for the FT which works great. Its based of the flow of a 28 with the response of a ko4 I cant remember off the top of my head but i believe is $499 or $599


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

sponcar said:


> As far what i have read by now, you can go with the f4th and without any internal modification but for the f23 you can't have the full advantage of it unless you do rods in order to save your engine.
> 
> I'm actually looking foward for the f23 and keep it in low boost (15psi max)until i can get my rods done, about software I've seen the eurodyno 440cc file works great with the f23. The f4t seems to be happy with the unitronic software instead of other in the market but there are also other companies or private parties doing custom tunes like malone, and gonzo.
> 
> I would suggest you to spend some time reading about it so you could come out with your own desicion of what software and hardware apply best for your needs and goals.



I've been running my f23 for like 5 months on 18psi with my stock bottom end, really on the edge but I'm one to take the chance like that... dougs other project car runs it around 24-25psi. Even lower boost like I'm running it's strong, and just under 300whp/ftlbs on the eurodyne maffless 440 tune. For the price difference if you plan tondo
rods anyway the f23 is definitely more powerful up top, and you can just run a safe psi for the time being. Eurodyne's tune is awesome, theyre gonna tell you it's not meant for that setup but from mine and another cars experience it's great for it. 

But this thread as usual has turned into a BT- hybrid argument, take it for what it is, everyone with a FT is satisfied, and that's what the op was asking


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mk4boost said:


> I've been running my f23 for like 5 months on 18psi with my stock bottom end, really on the edge but I'm one to take the chance like that... dougs other project car runs it around 24-25psi. Even lower boost like I'm running it's strong, and just under 300whp/ftlbs on the eurodyne maffless 440 tune. For the price difference if you plan tondo
> rods anyway the f23 is definitely more powerful up top, and you can just run a safe psi for the time being. Eurodyne's tune is awesome, theyre gonna tell you it's not meant for that setup but from mine and another cars experience it's great for it.
> 
> But this thread as usual has turned into a BT- hybrid argument, take it for what it is, everyone with a FT is satisfied, and that's what the op was asking


I know a couple of us b5 guys are trying to get doug to figure out a way to cram the F23 guts into a logitudinal F4 :laugh:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

jettaglx91 said:


> I know a couple of us b5 guys are trying to get doug to figure out a way to cram the F23 guts into a logitudinal F4 :laugh:


That would make it a FrankFrankenturbo!?!?!?!? MWAHAHAHAHAHA

Can't believe I didnt catch this thread earlier. Yes Frankenturbo is great for a daily. It makes the car noticeably faster than before. The F4 is more of a direct swap whereas the F23 is more along the lines of a k04-02x swap on steroids. There is just a touch slower spool on the f23 vs the F4 but for someone that want a touch more it can be done. My best dyno on the F23 was on the stock TT manifold and put down 300whp and about 310 lb/ft of torque (yes I have rods and afew other trinkets). I have since revised the intercooler piping, new intercooler, intake manifold and whatnot. Car is def making more power. How much? We will find out this weekend. Dyno tuning at ForcedFed Engineering. MK4Boost and I will be retesting our f23's


----------



## MÄDDNESSS (Oct 18, 2010)

Niagara_V_Dub said:


> I am trying to decide between a FT or air ride.


why not do both. i did.:laugh:


----------



## MightyDSM (Apr 16, 2006)

Some of you guys mentioned "UM". What does it stand for?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I didn't look for the use in context, but I would guess, maybe United Motorsports.


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

K03 with K04 internals has been tried and is a punchy little unit, it works but can run super hot when pushed.

http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=216627


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

STOICH said:


> I didn't look for the use in context, but I would guess, maybe United Motorsports.


Yep United Motorsport


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

spartiati said:


> That would make it a FrankFrankenturbo!?!?!?!? MWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Can't believe I didnt catch this thread earlier. Yes Frankenturbo is great for a daily. It makes the car noticeably faster than before. The F4 is more of a direct swap whereas the F23 is more along the lines of a k04-02x swap on steroids. There is just a touch slower spool on the f23 vs the F4 but for someone that want a touch more it can be done. My best dyno on the F23 was on the stock TT manifold and put down 300whp and about 310 lb/ft of torque (yes I have rods and afew other trinkets). I have since revised the intercooler piping, new intercooler, intake manifold and whatnot. Car is def making more power. How much? We will find out this weekend. Dyno tuning at ForcedFed Engineering. MK4Boost and I will be retesting our f23's



hahaha, I was gonna send you the link but I didn't want your blood pressure to skyrocket. :laugh:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Im planning on dyno'ing my F4 on E85 this weekend


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

R


jettaglx91 said:


> Im planning on dyno'ing my F4 on E85 this weekend


I woulda been running e85 long time ago. Unfortunately no gas station near me supplies e85. Please post the results. I would love to see how it goes.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Dyno tuning at ForcedFed Engineering. MK4Boost and I will be retesting our f23's


I'll join the fun, Doug asked if anyone wanted to do a comparison between "stock" and FT. Anyway I wanted to do a dynojet run so I can compare difference between the low reading Dyno Dynamic that I normally use and the more popular dyno. 
What time do you guys plan on meeting there Steve?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

1130 ill be getting there. Have some patients I have to see in the morning.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2006)

I guess I will start jumping into these threads as well, currently in the process of getting my Frankenturbo F23 finished on on my TT225, I have seen grams/sec ~245 and have backed off on tuning until my rods can go in the car (should be here monday)

My car is making a good amount of power more than my stock Ko4, with a great powerband (I am not interested in a strait line car that makes 500whp because driving around twists and turns is much more fun to me than running out of room on the highway) Boost response, part throttle, everything feels like stock drive-ability which is a great plus as I do daily drive my car. 

Might be throwing an AEB head on the car when the rods are thrown in, after that intercooler and finish installing my Snow Perf Stage III meth kit.

Should be able to make some great numbers with this turbo, nothing insane like a 3071+ but *SOLID* fun numbers that keep the car in the range of a daily driver, with a *USABLE* powerband. :thumbup:

-John


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> I guess I will start jumping into these threads as well, currently in the process of getting my Frankenturbo F23 finished on on my TT225, I have seen grams/sec ~245 and have backed off on tuning until my rods can go in the car (should be here monday)
> 
> My car is making a good amount of power more than my stock Ko4, with a great powerband (I am not interested in a strait line car that makes 500whp because driving around twists and turns is much more fun to me than running out of room on the highway) Boost response, part throttle, everything feels like stock drive-ability which is a great plus as I do daily drive my car.
> 
> ...


:thumbup:

I think I'm topping out around 220g/s (I think I've seen 225g/s once) with my F4, though typical numbers are in the 21x range above 5500rpm. It really is a solid platform and makes for a very fun ride. I can't wait to get my FMIC installed and get it running like it should.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Alright, I’ll confess…I’m in the middle of an F23 build myself. And….I can hear the face palms already…..I’m putting it on a 2.1 stroker in my TT.

I’m a firm believer in the old adage “You drive the torque. You race the horsepower.” I’ve had my share of monster hp vehicles, and I now that I’m older, I tend to think about how well balanced the vehicle is other than how much power it can make. The neck snap out of a corner or from a light is more of what I want than the buildup rush of a BT. Both are fun, but I want to play in the quick response sandbox for a while. I can always change my mind later.

I really enjoy the technical side of turbo charging. But sometimes, I turn off the data logging software, put away the dyno charts, tape over the boost gauge and just go for a drive. Does the car feel the way you want it to? Then enjoy!

It’s going to be an interesting experiment.

*Spartiati, Good luck with the dyno this weekend.*


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I guess I will start jumping into these threads as well, currently in the process of getting my Frankenturbo F23 finished on on my TT225, I have seen grams/sec ~245 and have backed off on tuning until my rods can go in the car (should be here monday)
> 
> -John


Imagine seeing 270g/s - It can happen 
Hybrid K04 on Audi S3 210 here...

Dougs exhaust mani, my spec of k04 hybrid, running largeport head, wmi, my 80mm TIP.. which should work lovely with your velocity stack btw :thumbup:

On our K03 hybrid+, 249g/s from its K03 frame turbo, 1.6bar sustained to 7500rpm.
950'c egt in manifold collector.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

badger5 said:


> Imagine seeing 270g/s - It can happen
> Hybrid K04 on Audi S3 210 here...
> 
> Dougs exhaust mani, my spec of k04 hybrid, running largeport head, wmi, my 80mm TIP.. which should work lovely with your velocity stack btw :thumbup:
> ...


Your TIP is part of my equation:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2006)

badger5 said:


> Imagine seeing 270g/s - It can happen
> Hybrid K04 on Audi S3 210 here...
> 
> Dougs exhaust mani, my spec of k04 hybrid, running largeport head, wmi, my 80mm TIP.. which should work lovely with your velocity stack btw :thumbup:
> ...



270g/s would blow my mind out of a ko4 framed turbo  I really am going to try for that.

Im running Dougs manifold, dougs ko4 hybrid (new), looking for a largeport head this weekend, WMI, your tip should be on in the future, our velocity stack and our full 3" race series exhaust. I really want to see how far I can push this car as far as airflow. Should be able to put down some good numbers!


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

badger5 said:


> Imagine seeing 270g/s - It can happen
> Hybrid K04 on Audi S3 210 here...
> 
> Dougs exhaust mani, my spec of k04 hybrid, running largeport head, wmi, my 80mm TIP.. which should work lovely with your velocity stack btw :thumbup:
> .


Is this a new CR hybrid, the last s3 I seen had a poor midrange and then a big surge of power after 4400rpm, not sure if it's the same turbo?


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> 270g/s would blow my mind out of a ko4 framed turbo  I really am going to try for that.
> 
> Im running Dougs manifold, dougs ko4 hybrid (new), looking for a largeport head this weekend, WMI, your tip should be on in the future, our velocity stack and our full 3" race series exhaust. I really want to see how far I can push this car as far as airflow. Should be able to put down some good numbers!


You defo will do 300whp or over with that setup, interestingly enough I always made my peak power through the wheels before peak G/s.

Would also advise you to do a dual nozzle wmi, just updated mine from single to dual today and so far seeing 0 pull across a 4th gear load with 22* top end.


----------



## JWoody (May 17, 2006)

John, when you guys done with the Golf/Jetta intake would like to know soonest. I want to compare 42DD intake against my BPi back up at NGP on my F4T.

-J


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

Atomic Ed said:


> Alright, I’ll confess…I’m in the middle of an F23 build myself. And….I can hear the face palms already…..I’m putting it on a 2.1 stroker in my TT.
> 
> I’m a firm believer in the old adage “You drive the torque. You race the horsepower.” I’ve had my share of monster hp vehicles, and I now that I’m older, I tend to think about how well balanced the vehicle is other than how much power it can make. The neck snap out of a corner or from a light is more of what I want than the buildup rush of a BT. Both are fun, but I want to play in the quick response sandbox for a while. I can always change my mind later.
> 
> ...


That's should be a crazy fun car to drive, in for updates! How far along are you?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

mk4boost said:


> That's should be a crazy fun car to drive, in for updates! How far along are you?


Block is done and head studs installed. Head is done also. Waiting on the crank to come back from the machine shop. 

We're many weeks out on this. Stay tuned!


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2006)

RobbieRolex said:


> You defo will do 300whp or over with that setup, interestingly enough I always made my peak power through the wheels before peak G/s.
> 
> Would also advise you to do a dual nozzle wmi, just updated mine from single to dual today and so far seeing 0 pull across a 4th gear load with 22* top end.


Absolutely, will be using a dual nozzle setup, very good chance that it will be three nozzles by the time I am finished with it. 




JWoody said:


> John, when you guys done with the Golf/Jetta intake would like to know soonest. I want to compare 42DD intake against my BPi back up at NGP on my F4T.
> 
> -J


I have had your name on the notify list for awhile now, no worries I will keep you updated


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

my car has seen 300-305g/s on a brand new tt 225 maf. I am running 3 nozzles on my water meth and holy crap is it working. 23-25* timing advance at redline with ZERO correction.

My car is normally run in mafless but I did some testing with the maf connected. I will be testing an S4 maf this weekend.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

spartiati said:


> my car has seen 300-305g/s on a brand new tt 225 maf. I am running 3 nozzles on my water meth and holy crap is it working. 23-25* timing advance at redline with ZERO correction.
> 
> My car is normally run in mafless but I did some testing with the maf connected. I will be testing an S4 maf this weekend.


Thats blowing some air!!:thumbup:
I've seen 240 on a 3" housing with a F4t...
I am running a WMI dual nozzle kit with 2 100cc nozzles. I'm not running that much advance tho...
Do you have a TT Spartiati? I was curious about a few things. One being the 3 nozzle set-up?...I assume you have a TT with 2 IC so three nozzles makes perfect sense. If you don't have a TT where do you have the 3rd nozzle placed and what are your nozzle sizes? Second question...Are you using unisettings to advance timing so it's getting advanced across the entire power band or are you or a tuner actually just applying the advance to the upper range?


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

spartiati said:


> my car has seen 300-305g/s on a brand new tt 225 maf. I am running 3 nozzles on my water meth and holy crap is it working. 23-25* timing advance at redline with ZERO correction.
> 
> My car is normally run in mafless but I did some testing with the maf connected. I will be testing an S4 maf this weekend.


 
What-How? what turbo is this, most i've pulled from a 2283 wheel inside a K04 is 260's g/s.

How are you guys running nozzles pre throttle body, i am on my 3rd throttle body now from water/meth ingress, i still haven't found a way around it.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> What-How? what turbo is this, most i've pulled from a 2283 wheel inside a K04 is 260's g/s.
> 
> How are you guys running nozzles pre throttle body, i am on my 3rd throttle body now from water/meth ingress, i still haven't found a way around it.


If you're overspraying and/or don't have the pre-tb nozzle at a distance that allows full atomization, it'll kill the TB. If nozzle placement is done right that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> What-How? what turbo is this, most i've pulled from a 2283 wheel inside a K04 is 260's g/s.
> 
> How are you guys running nozzles pre throttle body, i am on my 3rd throttle body now from water/meth ingress, i still haven't found a way around it.


I am running one right after my side mount in my mk4 gti which is about 15 inches away from my Tbody and haven't run into any problems. I running a 100cc nozzle pre Tbody. How big of a nozzle are running?


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

spartiati said:


> my car has seen 300-305g/s on a brand new tt 225 maf. I am running 3 nozzles on my water meth and holy crap is it working. 23-25* timing advance at redline with ZERO correction.
> 
> My car is normally run in mafless but I did some testing with the maf connected. I will be testing an S4 maf this weekend.


That's some sick airflow for a hybrid Steve :thumbup:, but again I see 245 on my K04 .
Tomorrow should be fun to compare my tired maxed out K04 to well developped F23s.


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> I am running one right after my side mount in my mk4 gti which is about 15 inches away from my Tbody and haven't run into any problems. I running a 100cc nozzle pre Tbody. How big of a nozzle are running?


I am running the Devils own D04 (252cc/min) about 6"" after the FMIC and a D01(63cc/min) post TB.Its doing my head in.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> I am running the Devils own D04 (252cc/min) about 6"" after the FMIC and a D01(63cc/min) post TB.Its doing my head in.


At what pressure? A nozzle placed 6" away from the TB (I'm not sure how long the pipe is on the VW) have little chance to fully atomize unless you run it a 200+ psi. Am I the only one with "OCD" testing these things before slapping them on the cars? 

Normally, before you use a nozzle at a location, you should do a bench test to see what distance it takes for full atomiztion at the pressure you'll be running your pump. A progressive pump starting a only 100 psi is not going to give the same results as a pump ran linearly at 200 psi; and that's why I stay away from the "progressive" gimmics and any WI system that use the old garbage shurflo pumps.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> I am running the Devils own D04 (252cc/min) about 6"" after the FMIC and a D01(63cc/min) post TB.Its doing my head in.


You should go with a smaller size nozzle after the FMIC. I would try a 100 or 175cc. It is better to have a smaller nozzle at higher pressure then a larger nozzle at lower pressure. What exactly do you mean by "its doing my head in"? 




madmax199 said:


> At what pressure? A nozzle placed 6" away from the TB (I'm not sure how long the pipe is on the VW) have little chance to fully atomize unless you run it a 200+ psi. Am I the only one with "OCD" testing these things before slapping them on the cars?
> 
> Normally, before you use a nozzle at a location, you should do a bench test to see what distance it takes for full atomiztion at the pressure you'll be running your pump. A progressive pump starting a only 100 psi is not going to give the same results as a pump ran linearly at 200 psi; and that's why I stay away from the "progressive" gimmics and any WI system that use the old garbage shurflo pumps.


Nah I am OCD as well, I check them before installing as well. I started with a 100cc nozzle after the IC and then even went down to a 60cc nozzle and my intake temps went back up a little so I went back to the 100cc nozzle. I see lots of people running a 225 nozzle after the IC...seems a little excessive on a vw where the nozzle isn't that far away from the tbody...
The only issues I had were after I installed the kit I started getting o2 sensor B1S1 heater circuit performance faults so I tossed a new one on since I turned 100k and the faults come back. I am guessing that the EGTs or WM are causing the o2 sensor to get "colder" and the heater circuit keeps kicking on resulting in that fault. I will just stop spraying for a while before emissions time..small price to pay for the results of WMI.


----------



## JWoody (May 17, 2006)

After several post's about +200 g/s measuring the Intake Air Mass I looked through some of my logs from the Dyno at NGP during the Beta testing of the UNi STG2+ file and some street runs.

182.44 g/s was the best I could find. I assume this is fairly standard for the 1.8T MAF sensor? I seem to recall that is the norm. Its the original stock MAF sensor since I bought the car 2004 December...maybe I should look at getting a new one.

HHhhmmm, maybe its on its way out, read on Ross-Tech; .80 x HP = g/s. Rule of thumb I suppose. So for me it would be 259hp x .80 = 207 g/s is what I should see...at least 200 g/s.

-J


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I am really jazzed about teaming up the 42DD intake with Badger5's TIP. Yeeeargh! It's an unholy alliance!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

JWoody said:


> After several post's about +200 g/s measuring the Intake Air Mass I looked through some of my logs from the Dyno at NGP during the Beta testing of the UNi STG2+ file and some street runs.
> 
> 182.44 g/s was the best I could find.
> -J


Woody - Uni's Stage 2+ on the transversal is/was scaled with some kind of offset. I've seen a number of guys showing MAF readings in that ~180-ish range. On that file, you're doing great with that number.
:thumbup:


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> You should go with a smaller size nozzle after the FMIC. I would try a 100 or 175cc. It is better to have a smaller nozzle at higher pressure then a larger nozzle at lower pressure. What exactly do you mean by "its doing my head in"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers guys, I'll start a new thread detailing my wmi install with the aim to tweak it.(with your help  )


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

2 hours till the car gets strapped down to the rollers!


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

spartiati said:


> 2 hours till the car gets strapped down to the rollers!


:thumbup: i love "car days" lol


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

I dyno'd mine today, I honestly forgot the exact number but think it was 238hp/255tq at 20psi

I have the files in my email I gotta save as jpeg in winpep when I get home later tonight

Pretty happy considering the car is completely stock hardware wise except the FT parts. Stock airbox, filter, cat, exhaust, and it's not fully "tuned" it's just tuned mathematically for e85 versus gas(except for some added timing), not actual car tuned

So for those who say the FT isn't really any better then a k04, please duplicate those numbers in the same fashion.

Gonna do intake and full exhaust probably next week and strap it down again


----------



## 1.8T_Guy (Feb 8, 2011)

Good #'s jettaglx91. Especially with no bolt ons. Dynojet?


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

1.8T_Guy said:


> Good #'s jettaglx91. Especially with no bolt ons. Dynojet?


yep dyno jet.

I didnt notice it on the dyno since there was no weird torque reading but the clutch just started slipping 

So prolly wont be back on the dyno for a couple more weeks


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

Here are the dynos, what is showed is how well the FT flows overall as the biggest difference is in the higher rpm of roughly 50whp/50wtq, especially from 4.5K to redline

*Just with the original UM tune*











*FT with UM Tune*









*
Before and after comparo*


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

^ Excellent gain for just bolting in on with stock intake and exhaust! A near perfect curve for the street!


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Couldnt have said that better myself. Excellent numbers. I will be making a new post with my results. Lets just say I was absolutely shocked to see the numbers I did.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Couldnt have said that better myself. Excellent numbers. I will be making a new post with my results. Lets just say I was absolutely shocked to see the numbers I did.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

spartiati said:


> Couldnt have said that better myself. Excellent numbers. I will be making a new post with my results. Lets just say I was absolutely shocked to see the numbers I did.





madmax199 said:


> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


:thumbup::thumbup:

great day yesterday guys! can't wait to see everything put together on paper


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

mk4boost said:


> :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> great day yesterday guys! can't wait to see everything put together on paper


A bit disapointing for me that the clutch was not holding the power down and spinning my torque away. I guess 318 whp is not too bad for a bone stock K04 on OEM manifolds and a spinning clutch. I can't wait to have a FT in there with high flow manifolds and a "real" clutch, 400 whp here I come!


----------



## MightyDSM (Apr 16, 2006)

jettaglx91 said:


> *
> Before and after comparo*


That seems pretty solid. Wonder what would it make on gas with bolt-ons?

Thanks for posting dynos. :thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> ... I will be making a new post with my results. Lets just say I was absolutely shocked to see the numbers I did.


We all are awaiting the new post on your results! Get them up soon or we'll start nagging you like an ex wife


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

The suspense is killing me.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*F23 dyno graph (Eurodyne/stock engine)*



RobbieRolex said:


> The suspense is killing me.


I know this isn't what you're waiting for, but we did dyno a different car. This one has stock rods, so the F23 had to be governed by a manual boost controller. Here are his numbers at two mbc settings:


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

Atomic Ed said:


> We all are awaiting the new post on your results! Get them up soon or we'll start nagging you like an ex wife





RobbieRolex said:


> The suspense is killing me.



He's out drag racing and show and go! more testing and results for you
guys. I'm sure doug will get the up soon as well...


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I know this isn't what you're waiting for, but we did dyno a different car. This one has stock rods, so the F23 had to be governed by a manual boost controller. Here are his numbers at two mbc settings:



Doug, I think this is the most flattering graph of a F23 to date. 
*262 whp at 16 psi *and *280 whp at 18 psi *on a car with nothing but a tune, intake and exhaust. That's what everyone with a well running "stockish" car should be looking at when doing the F23.
No rods needed, stock exhaust manifold and a nice 280 whp for daily fun (I bet if he had a better dv, that number would have increased) :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## sponcar (Feb 5, 2010)

madmax199 said:


> Doug, I think this is the most flattering graph of a F23 to date.
> *262 whp at 16 psi *and *280 whp at 18 psi *on a car with nothing but a tune, intake and exhaust. That's what everyone with a well running "stockish" car should be looking at when doing the F23.
> No rods needed, stock exhaust manifold and a nice 280 whp for daily fun (I bet if he had a better dv, that number would have increased) :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


I totally aggree with you.


----------



## Pen_vdubGolf (Mar 11, 2004)

yep cant wait i think i will soon be raping my rsp's a bit for the f23


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

What you've done is make APR III power for about $3000?? vs $4000 
Cheers gents...


----------



## MKllllvr28 (Sep 15, 2005)

madmax199 said:


> A bit disapointing for me that the clutch was not holding the power down and spinning my torque away. I guess 318 whp is not too bad for a bone stock K04 on OEM manifolds and a spinning clutch. I can't wait to have a FT in there with high flow manifolds and a "real" clutch, 400 whp here I come!


Did you get a torque figure maxx? Or was it all choppy because the slipping clutch?


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

MKllllvr28 said:


> Did you get a torque figure maxx? Or was it all choppy because the slipping clutch?


All choppy, but I'd guess in the 400s to be able to make 318 whp on a choking turbo! I'm waiting for the appropriate thread to see if posting my oddball graph (done in 3rd gear vs 4th gear for the other cars) makes any sense.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

3rd vs 4th won't make a ton of difference. It will shift where it spools slightly, and peak hp will move a little as well. Not night and day diff at all. 

What was the rest of the mod list for the F23 car? Graph vs rpm or did it have pickup probs? Looks like a wide powerband.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

need_a_VR6 said:


> 3rd vs 4th won't make a ton of difference. It will shift where it spools slightly, and peak hp will move a little as well. Not night and day diff at all.
> 
> What was the rest of the mod list for the F23 car? Graph vs rpm or did it have pickup probs? Looks like a wide powerband.


I have my mods in my signature, nothing really more than a front mount, meth, and a high flow exhaust manifold. The powerband is great, it picks up right away and doesn't really let off at all. I'll see if we can get the rpm graph up here.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> 3rd vs 4th won't make a ton of difference. It will shift where it spools slightly, and peak hp will move a little as well. Not night and day diff at all.
> 
> What was the rest of the mod list for the F23 car? Graph vs rpm or did it have pickup probs? Looks like a wide powerband.


F23 car, I wish! My car (audi TT) is still on the OEM K04 but with some mods and good fuel.
I will definetly be running a F23 next season


----------



## six sigma (Jun 22, 2007)

mk4boost said:


> I have my mods in my signature, nothing really more than a front mount, meth, and a high flow exhaust manifold. The powerband is great, it picks up right away and doesn't really let off at all. I'll see if we can get the rpm graph up here.


Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread, but are you driving an Audi or a mk4? I'm interested in the F23 for my GTI and realize it's a bit more tailored for the Audis.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

madmax199 said:


> All choppy, but I'd guess in the 400s to be able to make 318 whp on a choking turbo! I'm waiting for the appropriate thread to see if posting my oddball graph (done in 3rd gear vs 4th gear for the other cars) makes any sense.


Im confused, your making approx 400wtq and 318whp on a stock k04?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

jettaglx91 said:


> Im confused, your making approx 400wtq and 318whp on a stock k04?


Yes max is making that much but he has rods! Running 30+ psi with an intricate water injection setup and e85. Far from typical or for the faint of heart!


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

six sigma said:


> Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread, but are you driving an Audi or a mk4? I'm interested in the F23 for my GTI and realize it's a bit more tailored for the Audis.


I'm running the f23 on a Jetta, the dyno chart just posted by [email protected] was mine


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Hmmmmm......

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5465099-Frankenturbo-F23-did-what-now


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

jettaglx91 said:


> Im confused, your making approx 400wtq and 318whp on a stock k04?


Don't worry, it confuses a lot of people that have been brainwashed into thinking that this kind of numbers aren't possible on a stock turbo. What's even crazier is that I'm doing it on the OEM manifolds and TIP; wait till I get my clutch done and the F23 installed, BT people are going to be singing the blues :beer:


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

madmax199 said:


> Don't worry, it confuses a lot of people that have been brainwashed into thinking that this kind of numbers aren't possible on a stock turbo. What's even crazier is that I'm doing it on the OEM manifolds and TIP; wait till I get my clutch done and the F23 installed, BT people are going to be singing the blues :beer:


You are one of the few capable.


I'm looking at 2k ID's for my Jetta and E85 with a 3076R. I'm eager to see your numbers and results.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*FrankenTurbo F23 (on stock rods) dyno testing*



mk4boost said:


> I'm running the f23 on a Jetta, the dyno chart just posted by [email protected] was mine


Here's some video from the pulls.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

madmax199 said:


> Don't worry, it confuses a lot of people that have been brainwashed into thinking that this kind of numbers aren't possible on a stock turbo. What's even crazier is that I'm doing it on the OEM manifolds and TIP; wait till I get my clutch done and the F23 installed, BT people are going to be singing the blues :beer:


I figured it would be alot but 400wtq is crazy m, any dynos? It must look like a diesel


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Here's some video from the pulls.


:thumbup: pretty good for mostly iPhone video!


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

screwball said:


> What you've done is make APR III power for about $3000?? vs $4000
> Cheers gents...


I guess technically yes, but personally I think the powerband is much stronger on this setup, I'd like to see a comparison of the 2 together a little bit closer... if we can get someone who has actual dyno charts they can post that would be great. Not to say they aren't truthful but real results to me may be a bit different than what they would post on the website.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

I didn't post trying to take a dig at FT, I think it shows good promise on a pretty nice little upgrade they're offering. I own more than one VW and while my car runs a 50 trim, these FT kits seems viable for something I'd like to run in another car I'm looking at.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

jettaglx91 said:


> I figured it would be alot but 400wtq is crazy m, any dynos? It must look like a diesel


The torque curve is way too choppy to be usable because the clutch was slipping. For a K04 to make 318 whp you need to be pushing past 400 whp, it's just the nature of a turbo that doesn't flow much in the higher rpms.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

screwball said:


> I didn't post trying to take a dig at FT, I think it shows good promise on a pretty nice little upgrade they're offering. I own more than one VW and while my car runs a 50 trim, these FT kits seems viable for something I'd like to run in another car I'm looking at.


no no that's not how I took it haha, it was a good point... I would actually like to see the comparison out of curiosity... it's 2 comparable setups I'd like to see what would differ between the 2 on paper, maybe even on the street :sly:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

madmax199 said:


> The torque curve is way too choppy to be usable because the clutch was slipping. For a K04 to make 318 whp you need to be pushing past 400 whp, it's just the nature of a turbo that doesn't flow much in the higher rpms.


I need to post up the video of us trying to dyno that car. Hysterical. And didn't you just say somewhere that you don't need a new clutch? Noooooo.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I need to post up the video of us trying to dyno that car. Hysterical. And didn't you just say somewhere that you don't need a new clutch? Noooooo.


lol, my statement was more like the clutch is still good at holding normal TT power. Post that video, it's a riot :laugh:


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

A few RR figures for my F4h-T on my VW Bug










sorry for the poor quality of pics

Regards Lenny


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Lenny -- what injectors are you running? It looks as though the software must be holding back top-end boost. Is that fueling-related?


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

Hi Doug,
Running 386cc, afr is good across the rev range, it's IATs that's my problem as far as I know.
All looks good until then, and everything starts retarding big style.
I have spent some time over the last few weeks with my tuners, trying to get to the bottom of this, it is not easy. The IATs rise under boost, and drop again quickly once I'm off the gas

Regards Lenny


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

Any ideas guys

Regards Lenny


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Lenny

What is your IAT delta? How badly do the temps rise? Intercooling? Stock on the Bug still?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Lenny that is "normal" for these little guys to pump out heat. To get the most out of them front mount or atleast upgraded side mount is required. Otherwise it'll heatsoak almost instantly. Anything above 40* c the computer starts dialing back the timing some. This is before there is even a correction for knock applied. So lets say this, computer requests 20* (arbitrary number). Now before that level of timing is executed the computer does afew safety checks. Fueling, airflow, IAT l, Load, rpms, throttle position ..... Basically once the car sees the really hot iat it takes away X amount from the original 20*. Lets call it 15 now. That is the absolute possible ignition timing advance you will get. As temps keep rising the initial correction becomes greater. You will also be more prone to knock and whatnot. Basically water meth and a good intercooler setup are your friend.


----------



## Mike Pauciullo (Jan 8, 2009)

best bang for the buck:thumbup:


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

mk4boost said:


> I guess technically yes, but personally I think the powerband is much stronger on this setup, I'd like to see a comparison of the 2 together a little bit closer... if we can get someone who has actual dyno charts they can post that would be great. Not to say they aren't truthful but real results to me may be a bit different than what they would post on the website.


You can't possibly compare APR Stage 3 to this. You compare a problem free, rock solid full blown turbokit setup to a non-standard turbo pieced together by some unknown person that isn't really fully tested yet. I would EASILY shell out $1000 more or APR Stage 3 kit for driveability alone and not to have to think if my tune will work or if everything matches properly.

I've owned an APR Stage 3+ for 3 years and now I am on pagparts v-band setup. Let me tell you that up to 300whp on pump gas APR Stage 3+ is REALLY no brainer. After all these years it has yet to be beaten. Why? Because no other company makes software and hardware together, no other company makes full blown turbokit. You piece it together without anyone putting a guarantee on how it's going to run in the end.

I am not trying to turn this into this turbokit vs other turbokit but ...please


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Lenny
> 
> What is your IAT delta? How badly do the temps rise? Intercooling? Stock on the Bug still?


Hi Doug, temps rise from about 24c ish to 44/48c very quickly 
And drop back just as quick when I come off the gas
I'm running a tyrolsport smic with wheel arch venting.
Main prob with Bug is lack of space to do anything, was 
Considering intercooler mist kit, your thoughts please as to 
It's worthy or not ??
Regards Lenny


----------



## Scigano (Mar 10, 2011)

I just finished reading through this whole thread (n' have had my eye a bit on the F4T); I noticed a lot of critics say that a lot of money has to be spent on supporting OSS for running the F4 (like *software*).

I was told by Frankenturbo themselves that you could run the F4T on K03 software provided you run a MBC like Boost Valve's over boost solution to cap the turbo at 20 psi or less. It went against everything I thought I wad told before hand since the turbo will flow more air for given PSI, but they said leave fueling and air metering stock and just run a MBC in parallel with the N75.

I've got an Audi 180Q TT w/ the ATC block. I have the older, narrowband ECU so none of the major chip makers make a K04-001 tune or bigger for my computer. They told me Malone has experience w/ narrowband tunes, but that I could run the F4T indefinitely on the K03 GIAC chip w/ stock fueling and air metering ( and that many of their customers do apparently)

I've got that tune, plus a 42 DD cat-less down pipe, FMIC, Forge P007 D/V, and WakBox w/ K&N panel filter. I've been considering either the F4T set up on my current tune or water/meth w/ even more timing on top of what the GIAC K03 chip adds.


----------



## hatetolovemydub (Oct 27, 2009)

Scigano said:


> I just finished reading through this whole thread (n' have had my eye a bit on the F4T); I noticed a lot of critics say that a lot of money has to be spent on supporting OSS for running the F4 (like *software*).
> 
> I was told by Frankenturbo themselves that you could run the F4T on K03 software provided you run a MBC like Boost Valve's over boost solution to cap the turbo at 20 psi or less. It went against everything I thought I wad told before hand since the turbo will flow more air for given PSI, but they said leave fueling and air metering stock and just run a MBC in parallel with the N75.
> 
> ...


I ran mine for 3 months with an APR 93 octane tune, and no mbc. I was super careful to not spike big boost, and never had an issue with it. Malone has been working on my tune, but I haven't had any time to work on mine lately, so I'm just sort of waiting until I'm done with work for the year to get it totally squared away. I have plans to get WMI set up soon, a friend has a snow performance setup he is going to give me on the cheap.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

mescaline said:


> You can't possibly compare APR Stage 3 to this. You compare a problem free, rock solid full blown turbokit setup to a non-standard turbo pieced together by some unknown person that isn't really fully tested yet. I would EASILY shell out $1000 more or APR Stage 3 kit for driveability alone and not to have to think if my tune will work or if everything matches properly.
> 
> I've owned an APR Stage 3+ for 3 years and now I am on pagparts v-band setup. Let me tell you that up to 300whp on pump gas APR Stage 3+ is REALLY no brainer. After all these years it has yet to be beaten. Why? Because no other company makes software and hardware together, no other company makes full blown turbokit. You piece it together without anyone putting a guarantee on how it's going to run in the end.
> 
> I am not trying to turn this into this turbokit vs other turbokit but ...please


All I was looking for was a power comparison, where in my post did I ever mention anything other than that. "technically yes" was to agree with the fact that the power looks similar, and I'd like to explore that more. it's all in testing and new to the scene so yes, comparing it to other setups is a good way to see where it stands up, and where the niche will be for marketing. no one knocked thes apr kit, but that's your opinion, we're just looking to share what we have going on behind the scenes. my car, among others runs flawless, if you do it right and do your research there's no reason it shouldn't.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

mescaline said:


> You can't possibly compare APR Stage 3 to this. You compare a problem free, rock solid full blown turbokit setup to a non-standard turbo pieced together by some unknown person that isn't really fully tested yet.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

[email protected] said:


>



hmm... just as I thought it would look :laugh: eace:


----------



## Scigano (Mar 10, 2011)

hatetolovemydub said:


> I ran mine for 3 months with an APR 93 octane tune, and no mbc. I was super careful to not spike big boost, and never had an issue with it. Malone has been working on my tune, but I haven't had any time to work on mine lately, so I'm just sort of waiting until I'm done with work for the year to get it totally squared away. I have plans to get WMI set up soon, a friend has a snow performance setup he is going to give me on the cheap.


Yeah, Doug said that so long as you kept it under 20 psi w/ a MBC, whether or not you'd upgrade software was a matter of choice - not necessity.

Do they retail the turbos seperately, or can you only purchase the kit entirely?


----------



## hatetolovemydub (Oct 27, 2009)

Scigano said:


> Yeah, Doug said that so long as you kept it under 20 psi w/ a MBC, whether or not you'd upgrade software was a matter of choice - not necessity.
> 
> Do they retail the turbos seperately, or can you only purchase the kit entirely?


Just the kit. Unless Doug has changed things around these days.


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

What about the misting intercooler kit for my prob, good or bad, and if so (good) any make or type
Regards Lenny


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

It would help but honestly water meth would be so much more efficient and effective. Just run a 60 pre ic and 175 post and you and ur motor would be much happier.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

[email protected] said:


>


Why are people always running water/methanol? By the way, my statement still stands. You don't compare a tiny mismatched turbo on insanely restrictive stock manifold making half of its power because of water/methanol to full blown proven turbokit. That is just stupid. You know that people having been hitting 300whp on K04 on this forum? Doesn't make it the best solution.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

mescaline said:


> Why are people always running water/methanol? By the way, my statement still stands. You don't compare a tiny mismatched turbo on insanely restrictive stock manifold making half of its power because of water/methanol to full blown proven turbokit. That is just stupid. You know that people having been hitting 300whp on K04 on this forum? Doesn't make it the best solution.



hahahah... people run meth because it's a great mod for generating safe power, if it's the manifold that's bothering you wait or my rods to be done and my results posted... and what's mismatched about the turbo??

and it's a full blown proven kit that isn't anywhere near the potential it could have, thats what makes no sense about it to me... why run a kit that barely makes what it should?


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mescaline said:


> You can't possibly compare APR Stage 3 to this. You compare a *problem free*, rock solid full blown turbokit setup to a non-standard turbo pieced together by some unknown person that isn't really fully tested yet.




I will never say anything bad about the apr kit as it is a great kit for the money and does its job well. What is best about the kit is it is a complete engineered setup not just a bunch of pipes and clamps that kinda fit. 

However its far from problem free so dont use that as a comparison. The apr kit is notorious for manifold to turbo hardware issues on the 1.8t. and has had alot of cold start issues on the wideband cars. There are other tuners who have since made this better but APR obviously isnt going to go back and redo almost 10yr old software


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I may be doing a high flow swap this weekend and dynoing right after. Ill let ya guys know.

Peeople always run water meth because :
1 higher octane
2 cooler egt
3 cooler intake
4Much higher advanced timing. 

each one of those things make power. All 4 combined you have safer power.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mescaline said:


> Why are people always running water/methanol? By the way, my statement still stands. You don't compare a tiny mismatched turbo on insanely restrictive stock manifold making half of its power because of water/methanol to full blown proven turbokit. That is just stupid. You know that people having been hitting 300whp on K04 on this forum? Doesn't make it the best solution.


Do you know what water/meth does? Im not being a smartass im being serious, it really does a fantastic job. For example i ran it on my VRT while back and was able to manage 17psi on a stock motor and quite a bit of timing.(with out the meth it would ping at as little as 6psi)

Who runs a frankenturbo on a stock manifold? It comes with a high flow manifold, obviously not as good as some of the aftermarket manifolds but not as restrictive as stock

I made 241whp/256wtq that would be awesome if adding water meth would get me to 480whp/512wtq. sign me up :laugh:

But in all seriousness the power i make is not far off from an APR stage 3(gt28) and my car is completely stock other then the frankenturbo parts and UM software, stock cat, stock air box/filter, stock exhaust


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

I know what it does however you don't prove a turbo on an engine with water/methanol. People here make 300whp on frankenturbo with water/methanol. What they don't realize is that probably 40-50whp of that power is made because of water/methanol....and also that they gotta use it probably because this turbo is spitting out pure lava.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I am running still on a stock manifold. Will be going highflow this weekend if I have time.

Mesc sorry to say but you are wrong. I have done back to back on the dyno. Meth will not yield 40-50 hp. Stock ko4s were doing 240-250whp. Your saying dougs design yields 15-20hp and the other 40 from meth?

Well lucky enough we had done some back to back dynos of meth vs no meth. Difference was 309whp to 298whp. Torque figures I don't remember but it wasn't a huge difference. Its mostly used in my car to keep egts down and suppress knock at my timing levels.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

mescaline said:


> What they don't realize is that probably 40-50whp of that power is made because of water/methanol


Doug and (Spartiati) have done rigorus testing on these turbos for 2 years now, your trying to tell them what they dont realize??

:bs:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

mescaline said:


> I know what it does however you don't prove a turbo on an engine with water/methanol. People here make 300whp on frankenturbo with water/methanol. What they don't realize is that probably 40-50whp of that power is made because of water/methanol....and also that they gotta use it probably because this turbo is spitting out pure lava.


I knew you know what MWI does. So what if we want to run WMI? Yeah ko4's spit hot lava. WMI is just another mod for us and a safety net of sorts. Remember on this thread we are just telling the OP that those of us that really have a FT kit really like it. Thats it...this is not a FT is better then BT thread or that you can make 300whp with a FT alone thread. I also run WMI because I don't want to run a FMIC, I have a upgraded sidemount that works really well on its own but with the assistance of the meth my IAT's are superb.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

If the meth difference is only 10whp then you are really stretching the hell out of that turbo so even water/meth can't cool it down properly. When you add water/meth you can basically use race-gas tunes which will give you AT LEAST 30whp more (depending on how much power you are making).

APR Stage 3+ for example makes 300whp comfortably on pump gas. On race tune people have been getting over 350whp.

I just fail to see the reasoning behind these turbos and all that stretch on stock manifolds and what not. Have you seen stock manifold or the stock turbo flange? It's very very small. For almost the same money you can get a solid turbokit that makes the same power on a lot lower boost levels that won't spit lava into your engine. You are basically replacing everything anyway, turbo, manifold, intake. It will be cheaper in the long run. That's just my opinion.

Cheers


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> I knew you know what MWI does. So what if we want to run WMI? Yeah ko4's spit hot lava. WMI is just another mod for us and a safety net of sorts. Remember on this thread we are just telling the OP that those of us that really have a FT kit really like it. Thats it...this is not a FT is better then BT thread or that you can make 300whp with a FT alone thread. I also run WMI because I don't want to run a FMIC, I have a upgraded sidemount that works really well on its own but with the assistance of the meth my IAT's are superb.


You can not replace intercooler with water/methanol. NO side mount intercooler will flow enough for a turbo that makes 300whp. It will pressure drop...

The point of all this is that it's a bit unfair to compare overstretched turbo with water/methanol running insane amount of timing to a rock solid turbokit making the same power on moderate boost levels comfortably and built to do that for years. That turbokit will probably last longer than engine itself. Who can say the same about frankenturbo?


----------



## Malant (Aug 30, 2004)

mescaline said:


> You can not replace intercooler with water/methanol. NO side mount intercooler will flow enough for a turbo that makes 300whp. It will pressure drop...
> 
> The point of all this is that it's a bit unfair to compare overstretched turbo with water/methanol running insane amount of timing to a rock solid turbokit making the same power on moderate boost levels comfortably and built to do that for years. That turbokit will probably last longer than engine itself. Who can say the same about frankenturbo?


You just have all the answers don't you. :screwy:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

mescaline said:


> You can not replace intercooler with water/methanol. NO side mount intercooler will flow enough for a turbo that makes 300whp. It will pressure drop...
> 
> The point of all this is that it's a bit unfair to compare overstretched turbo with water/methanol running insane amount of timing to a rock solid turbokit making the same power on moderate boost levels comfortably and built to do that for years. That turbokit will probably last longer than engine itself. Who can say the same about frankenturbo?


Man you are way over exaggerating everything with statements like "overstretched" and still focusing on the stock manifold when this kit comes with a hi flow manifold. My sidemount is bigger then anyone on the market today and it does a good job for this application. Here agin he wanted opinions from FT owners not everyone else trying to criticize a kit they have no personal experience with. :beer:


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

All that is nice and OK however the point of Frankenturbo was to fill the gap between 200whp and 300whp right? Because lots of people are into this fast spooling medium power. 

People say they don't want BT setup and want a bit more power...all I see here is people getting this turbo and then killing the hell out of it and using all sorts of additives to make 300whp and still it spools as fast (read slow) as GT28RS. Isn't that a bit... hypocritical? I would understand if there was a turbo for $1099 or whatever to make safe 240whp however frankenturbo itself is putting totally unrealistic numbers on their website and ... just advertising how amateur all this is. :banghead:

But yea...whatever makes you happy : -)


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

mescaline said:


> All that is nice and OK however the point of Frankenturbo was to fill the gap between 200whp and 300whp right? Because lots of people are into this fast spooling medium power.
> 
> People say they don't want BT setup and want a bit more power...all I see here is people getting this turbo and then killing the hell out of it and using all sorts of additives to make 300whp and still it spools as fast (read slow) as GT28RS. Isn't that a bit... hypocritical? I would understand if there was a turbo for $1099 or whatever to make safe 240whp however frankenturbo itself is putting totally unrealistic numbers on their website and ... just advertising how amateur all this is. :banghead:
> 
> But yea...whatever makes you happy : -)


You can buy the kit and some software and make the 250 you spoke of very easily and reliable. I've personally never seen the FT website make any claims of 300whp? If people want to make more power then that they can. I can speak from experience and I also still own a gt28rs and a t3 super 60-1(that were both on cars I've owned) and I still opted to go with the FT on my daily 337 and I am very happy with the choice I made. This kit is a good choice for someone wanting to get a good stockish replacement for the ko3 or if someone wants to make in the realm of 300 it can be done but everyone knows it takes supporting mods to do so.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

mescaline said:


> All that is nice and OK however the point of Frankenturbo was to fill the gap between 200whp and 300whp right? Because lots of people are into this fast spooling medium power.
> 
> People say they don't want BT setup and want a bit more power...all I see here is people getting this turbo and then killing the hell out of it and using all sorts of additives to make 300whp and still it spools as fast (read slow) as GT28RS. Isn't that a bit... hypocritical? I would understand if there was a turbo for $1099 or whatever to make safe 240whp however frankenturbo itself is putting totally unrealistic numbers on their website and ... just advertising how amateur all this is. :banghead:
> 
> But yea...whatever makes you happy : -)


Hold on a sec unrealistic numbers? Dude mk4boost has the most typical package. 3" catback and the frankenturbo and HIGH FLOW MANIFOLD bolted on with a eurojet fmic. add water meth and at 17psi he is making 280whp. How is that unrealistic. With everything else I have STOCK MANIFOLD and the f23 and lots of other crap and im around the 330whp mark. 

Why is the frankenturbo under so much fire when just 2-3 years ago one of the more popular turbos was a t3 super 60 that put down 280-290 whp and 260 lb/ft of torque with slow spool. Run that through a .43 hotside like most did and you are still meeting a restriction. All be it less of a restriction than a KKK flange but still. people spent just as much as a BT for that and were happy. Running a faster spooling f23 on a bolt on car at lower boost levels is the same concept just backwards. Use a frame more suited to the level of power, and run it at lower boost for longevity and reliability. 

Again this isnt a FT vs BT debate. Simply this is what this turbo can do.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

mescaline said:


> All that is nice and OK however the point of Frankenturbo was to fill the gap between 200whp and 300whp right? Because lots of people are into this fast spooling medium power.
> 
> People say they don't want BT setup and want a bit more power...all I see here is people getting this turbo and then killing the hell out of it and using all sorts of additives to make 300whp and still it spools as fast (read slow) as GT28RS. Isn't that a bit... hypocritical? I would understand if there was a turbo for $1099 or whatever to make safe 240whp however frankenturbo itself is putting totally unrealistic numbers on their website and ... just advertising how amateur all this is. :banghead:
> 
> But yea...whatever makes you happy : -)



ok for starters the f23 spools damn near twice as fast as the 28rs, and people are running them at reasonable power, but the ones that are running higher power are us who are sharing it with everyone... I don't understand your issue here, if it's not what your into go away, we're tuning the cars and making horsepower, it's as simple as that, don't like it? keep your trap shut and talk to your boring off the shelf turbo kit friends... I don't see the experience in doing that, who wouldn't want to build their own set up, and tune it and tweak it to what they like? (apparently you) but that's pretty boring if you ask me


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

mk4boost said:


> ok for starters the f23 spools damn near twice as fast as the 28rs, and people are running them at reasonable power, but the ones that are running higher power are us who are sharing it with everyone... I don't understand your issue here, if it's not what your into go away, we're tuning the cars and making horsepower, it's as simple as that, don't like it? keep your trap shut and talk to your boring off the shelf turbo kit friends... I don't see the experience in doing that, who wouldn't want to build their own set up, and tune it and tweak it to what they like? (apparently you) but that's pretty boring if you ask me


Twice as fast? How do you calculate "twice as fast"? GT28RS has full boost at 3500rpm. 

I am just giving you reasoning behind reliable 300whp. If you want 250whp...then fine, if you are stretching your turbo, engine and adding other stuff to make 300whp...there are other, better ways. You still want to do it the stupid way? Go ahead.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

spartiati said:


> Why is the frankenturbo under so much fire when just 2-3 years ago one of the more popular turbos was a t3 super 60 that put down 280-290 whp and 260 lb/ft of torque with slow spool. Run that through a .43 hotside like most did and you are still meeting a restriction. All be it less of a restriction than a KKK flange but still. people spent just as much as a BT for that and were happy. Running a faster spooling f23 on a bolt on car at lower boost levels is the same concept just backwards. Use a frame more suited to the level of power, and run it at lower boost for longevity and reliability.
> 
> Again this isnt a FT vs BT debate. Simply this is what this turbo can do.


What FT can do? But it is not FT making power, it's water/methanol. You could use nitro and make 500whp and say that FT did it. People overstretch K04 turbos to make 300whp, it's totally doable...but at what price?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

mescaline said:


> What FT can do? But it is not FT making power, it's water/methanol. You could use nitro and make 500whp and say that FT did it. People overstretch K04 turbos to make 300whp, it's totally doable...but at what price?


3 years so far without one letdown. And yes I roadrace, autocross and drag race every year as well as daily drive my car. I say thats good enough so far. I have pushed this turbo farther than most anyone would. Well soon madmax will be running one in his SCCA comp TT at 30+psi and e85. that'll be crazier than what I do. 

Again not argueing that a 28rs will make the 300 easier. Your just gathering the lynch mob for us pushing this setup. Why not get on everyone elses case for running there k03s at 23psi. Those bastards!

I think your missing the point of water meth. It complements any setup. Its not a power adder like nitrous. Nitrous delivers freezing cold temps with a huge increase in oxygen. Water meth keeps things cool and can be done for cheap. Try refilling your nitrous bottle everyweek. lol. Maybe the f23 isnt "twice as fast" but its full spool by 3100 rpms. 400 rpms sooner will yield more torque and power down low. It holds just fine up top so you get a combo quick spool and good holding powerband. Rather than having a 4000-7000rpms powerband now you have a 3000-7000 rpm powerband. For me that is pretty important as the road courses I visit have some really tight corners where I'm in second gear. Coming out of the hairpin when I lay into it, it just goes with this turbo. Yes it goes with the 28rs but there is alittle more noticeable lag through the slower sections. My buddy has a 28rs in his gti so Yes I have hotlapped my car vs his so yes I do have experience with both turbos on a circuit. This is why I prefer my f23. If I wanted to make a squirt gun point and shoot of a car I would have gone much larger. I already get wheelspin in 3rd gear now so much more power is almost useless at full boost for me.


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mescaline said:


> I know what it does however you don't prove a turbo on an engine with water/methanol. People here make 300whp on frankenturbo with water/methanol. What they don't realize is that probably 40-50whp of that power is made because of water/methanol....and also that they gotta use it probably because this turbo is spitting out pure lava.


I run a longitudinal setup which is more comparable to the GT28, typically rated for right around 300hp crank and do about 260whp

My car did 240whp at 20psi on an otherwise stock car. So what case would you care to argue about whats wrong with my FT?


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mescaline said:


> You can not replace intercooler with water/methanol. NO side mount intercooler will flow enough for a turbo that makes 300whp. It will pressure drop...


Umm the drawback to a small/standard side mount is its cooling efficiency, it doesn't cause pressure drop, you are more likely to have pressure drop with a front mount due to sheer volume
:screwy:


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

mescaline said:


> Twice as fast? How do you calculate "twice as fast"? GT28RS has full boost at 3500rpm.


My ft is at full boost by 2500rpm so not sure how you compare its spool to a 28rs and call it slow.

I dont know how to calculate "twice as fast" but i would say 30% quicker if that helps :laugh:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

jettaglx91 said:


> Umm the drawback to a small/standard side mount is its cooling efficiency, it doesn't cause pressure drop, you are more likely to have pressure drop with a front mount due to sheer volume
> :screwy:


Pretty sure he know that...this guy is smarter then he may be making himself look. In the long run the cars ability to maintain a high level of boost by redline comes from getting rid of as many restrictions as possible. A side mount would become a restriction more so then a big free flowing front mount. I'm just guessing at the train of thought...


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

mescaline said:


> Twice as fast? How do you calculate "twice as fast"? GT28RS has full boost at 3500rpm.
> 
> I am just giving you reasoning behind reliable 300whp. If you want 250whp...then fine, if you are stretching your turbo, engine and adding other stuff to make 300whp...there are other, better ways. You still want to do it the stupid way? Go ahead.



I have a spool time calculator, it's very advanced you wouldn't understand...

your arguments are just terrible, how is it not safe hp? your not spooling all the time, your not spraying meth all the time, it doesn't even use the turbo damn near most of the time you drive. and even at that! Spartiati races the shot out of his car and daily drives it, runs great day in and day out for 3 years...

please , there's 5 other people commenting besides me who are baffled by your ridiculous statements. doesnt that tell you something?


----------



## HolvTT (Feb 22, 2011)

Sparti and Mk4Boost, what are your numbers and mods with the ft? and are you boht running the F23? becasue mk4 i know you have the hybrid for sale and said it made 29x or somthing whp and i just want to know haha


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5465099-Frankenturbo-F23-did-what-now
My car and setup.

325whp with my F23 and STOCK exhaust manifold 

mods in that post above


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

Why are you only trapping 109?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Only 109? Dude I'm starting to think you are just trying to knock anything anyone says. 109mph is a 12 second run. I launch at 12psi and then every other gear runs at 23 psi. Wheelspin in first and second. Temps were in the 50's and the goodyears I'm running weren't up to par for traction. Running a 2.4" 60' is what's killing me. Improving my launch just .2 seconds improves my overall time by. 4-.5 seconds. Stock cars can run 2.0" to 60'. On my stock turbo I was running 14.0 @ 100mph running a 2.0" 60'. 

I placed 3rd at waterfest autocross running only 13 psi due to traction issues. When road racing I can keep up with and pass e46 m3s keep up with stock 335's (not chipped obviously). I daily drive my car and have gotten over 30mpg on my mafless unorthodox "mismatched" setup. I have a nice fat and wide powerband. What are you really knocking? My turbo goes kaboom? Awesome. In four hours I can swap it over to a new one. How about a dual bb garret or whatever? No rebuilds possible, a new chra will run you tons more than a replacement frankenturbo would. 

Any videos of you racing? Lets critique.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

HolvTT said:


> Sparti and Mk4Boost, what are your numbers and mods with the ft? and are you boht running the F23? becasue mk4 i know you have the hybrid for sale and said it made 29x or somthing whp and i just want to know haha


my mods are all in my signiture, it's an F23... 

I used to have a custom hybrid I actually got from Spartiati a year or so ago, but yea that made close to the same power, only on higher boost, this setup hit basically the same power on 3-4psi less... they have the same compressor wheel, only the exhaust wheel is different, the f23 has a more efficient one


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Only 109? Dude I'm starting to think you are just trying to knock anything anyone says. Any videos of you racing? Lets critique.


:what: It took you long enough! Lot's of keyboard "seat time" in this technical forum, unfortunately, not many have any real life experience to back it up. You really have to sort through the pile when reading anything in here .. You have the FT experts that never ran one, people that swear they know the answer to everything, turbo and tuning gods that never unbolted a stud etc.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

madmax199 said:


> :what: It took you long enough! Lot's of keyboard "seat time" in this technical forum, unfortunately, not many have any real life experience to back it up. You really have to sort through the pile when reading anything in here .. You have the FT experts that never ran one, people that swear they know the answer to everything, turbo and tuning gods that never unbolted a stud etc.


Stud? Thanks for the kind words max my girlfriend thinks so also. Wait a stud is a car part? Where would one find this "stud" you speak of. Lol just kidding ... I think my fingers are getting to be arthritic from all this typing.

What I love is that you go tothese races like show ngo and waterfest and you see maybe one big turbo car running. Excluding the quick 8 class. Most everyone else is just showing there big turbo in the show car area. I built my car to be driven and beaten day in and day out. No catastrophic failures yet. Knock on wood. More than 400 and you start worrying about axles and other stuff breaking. 

Anyway I welcome other guys who want big power to come out and join me for some auto-x or road course work. I do mean that in a friendly nonsarcastic sense. I love hanging with people that fix there own cars and use them for what they intend them for. Having fun in what you built is what its about. I don't care if I lose. Hell I've lost plenty of times and admit that proudly. Just had a great time doing it. 

Anyways back to what this thread is about, a frankenturbo has its place. If you want relatively stocklike driveability at a bargain price (especially for the tt 225 guys) this turbo has its place.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

spartiati said:


> Only 109? Dude I'm starting to think you are just trying to knock anything anyone says. 109mph is a 12 second run. I launch at 12psi and then every other gear runs at 23 psi. Wheelspin in first and second. Temps were in the 50's and the goodyears I'm running weren't up to par for traction. Running a 2.4" 60' is what's killing me. Improving my launch just .2 seconds improves my overall time by. 4-.5 seconds. Stock cars can run 2.0" to 60'. On my stock turbo I was running 14.0 @ 100mph running a 2.0" 60'.
> 
> I placed 3rd at waterfest autocross running only 13 psi due to traction issues. When road racing I can keep up with and pass e46 m3s keep up with stock 335's (not chipped obviously). I daily drive my car and have gotten over 30mpg on my mafless unorthodox "mismatched" setup. I have a nice fat and wide powerband. What are you really knocking? My turbo goes kaboom? Awesome. In four hours I can swap it over to a new one. How about a dual bb garret or whatever? No rebuilds possible, a new chra will run you tons more than a replacement frankenturbo would.
> 
> Any videos of you racing? Lets critique.


109mph is a trap speed of like...APR stage 3 (gt28r turbo) on pump gas that makes like 260-270whp or so. Many K04 turbos do that as well. You should be trapping a lot more if you made 320whp+ as you claim. 60' have nothing to do with trap speed.

With 300whp I had on APR Stage 3+ i absolutely MURDERED BMW M3 and BMW 335i. I very rarely film my races so I can show them later on the internet : )

Anyway, if you are happy...then good.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

mescaline said:


> 109mph is a trap speed of like...APR stage 3 (gt28r turbo) on pump gas that makes like 260-270whp or so. Many K04 turbos do that as well. You should be trapping a lot more if you made 320whp+ as you claim. 60' have nothing to do with trap speed.
> 
> With 300whp I had on APR Stage 3+ i absolutely MURDERED BMW M3 and BMW 335i. I very rarely film my races so I can show them later on the internet : )
> 
> Anyway, if you are happy...then good.


I don't "claim" anything. I have dynos of my car proving what the car makes. 60' has lots to do with top speed. If your wasting your time spinning the front wheels rather than using that power to accelerate than you will suffer in the top end. Really confused how you don't see that correlation. And just to clarify by racing I didn't mean street racing. I meant trackwork just to clarify. A moron street racing hit me on my bicycle when I was fifteen leaving me with scars all over my face neck chest and arm, torn right bicep and nerve damage down my right arm and face so yeah. No street racing for me.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

A few road racing videos of a car with 300whp (just so you know you have more power than this one). It's enginerd and i loved his racing videos 

("track day" passing limited to the straights)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fCDN9ol28


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZFTUYe3Tg

vs. GT3 911

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


----------



## Camride (Oct 16, 2005)

mescaline said:


> With 300whp I had on APR Stage 3+ i absolutely MURDERED BMW M3 and BMW 335i. I very rarely film my races so I can show them later on the internet : )


You're going to reply to his 1/4 mi time with a street race which has infinitely more variables? :laugh: You funny.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

Camride said:


> You're going to reply to his 1/4 mi time with a street race which has infinitely more variables? :laugh: You funny.


the kid is helpless, he has no concept of what's going on here... I'm glad the rest of us do...

as for street racing, big deal, I pull with m3's as well, and so would Spartiati, and any other car you run with... he has more hp and more torque in the same car... I just dont see what your trying to prove here, nothing you have said this entire time has any relevance, I have to
sit back for a minute and try and understand what your even trying to say every post


----------



## jettaglx91 (Jul 27, 2004)

I *LOVE* how mescaline keeps comparing the FT to his _"rock solid"_ apr kit yet he had the known issue of the manifold to turbo gasket/hardware failure at least 3 times!!!

In my book that thats away from the reliability and does not constitute rock solid lol :screwy::screwy:


----------



## hatetolovemydub (Oct 27, 2009)

The more you spend, the more you have to justify....


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

mk4boost said:


> the kid is helpless, he has no concept of what's going on here... I'm glad the rest of us do...
> 
> as for street racing, big deal, I pull with m3's as well, and so would Spartiati, and any other car you run with... he has more hp and more torque in the same car... I just dont see what your trying to prove here, nothing you have said this entire time has any relevance, I have to
> sit back for a minute and try and understand what your even trying to say every post


What's even more helpless is:

1) The videos are not his thumbup: enginerd for at least getting his feet wet and actually doing what it's all about, I'm sure he wouldn't be making some of the helpless statements in this thread because he has actual experience).

2) Using HPDE wich is basically road racing for the impaired (instructors baby sitting the challenged and all kind of moronic driving) to try to rationalize the fact that he has no personal experience with real racing/testing to back it up (when you can come back with regional or national SCCA Solo, ProSolo, club or Pro road racing, even some lower level NASA, then we'll talk) . 

3) What is passing an 911/GT3 have to do with the turbo kit in the car? Any semi decent driver could get a rental Ford focus and do the same driving 8/10th :screwy:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Max -- I suppose I already know the answer to this, but can you increase the displacement on your engine and still qualify to race as you do?


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Max -- I suppose I already know the answer to this, but can you increase the displacement on your engine and still qualify to race as you do?


Yes and no, I currently race in SCCA's Street Prepared (CSP). Any non OEM spec internal upgrade on the engine, even boring more .020 will automatically put me in Street Modified (SM). 
In the SCCA racing circles, SM stand for Serious Money (think 20K on top the car cost, with the need for a trailer). A car on mechanical grip only, doesn't stand a chance of being competitive in that class, you need full aero that's functional at 30 MPH to even play, on top of that the car is basically a dedicated toy at this point (all gutted with the need for 500 WTQ at 3k and rubber/diffs to put it down).

This is what nationally competitive SM cars look like:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

*Vic Sias's of Siastuning.com  Supercharged M3, that car has full dynamic (I ain't kidding) aero spoiler*


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

*PJ Corales monster S40*


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

*Jarrod Hoops national champion car* 


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I don't even want to go play in that class. I went down that road before, literally taking a sawzall to a brand new EVO; I'm all about racing on a budget now and still have a car that can be legally registered 


*My evo with chopped fenders and quarter pannels, gutted interior and scary power (the car could almost lift the front wheel at WOT)*


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------

