# 444whp 16VT



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

I just dynoed this Friday at BSM in Honolulu,85 deg. ambient,114octane 28psi boost.








2.0aba block with JE piston,total seal rings,Pauters,1.8lPL head,ported,with 254 exhaust cam,GT3076R turbo,.63 a/r,Zornig log manifold/short runner intake,3"full exhaust,02J with Peloquin diff.
SDS EM4E,660 inj.,MSD trigger box,tuned by TAI-VW,Wahiawa HI....


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

Biggest/baddest rods I could afford!








Engine shot








IC fab








No bling here.......all go no show








This pic is actually printed on my business cards!
















I never knew what it made,but since I built the engine/fabbed up exhaust/IC,installed/tuned SEM myself,am very proud of what it made so far,and still have more to go. Aloha.....










_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 10:45 PM 12-2-2006_


----------



## fvdub00 (Jan 19, 2005)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

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


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

nice work thomas. too bad you guys dont have a strip anymore.


----------



## fastrabbit (Jan 17, 2002)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (TBT-Syncro)*

wow great numbers


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

That's AWESOME. SICK numbers. With the amount of hard work and dedication you have put into Tai-VW, you deserve these big numbers! Awesome man!


----------



## GuerillaVWarfare (Nov 14, 2006)

Owner built is the only way! Congrats!


----------



## Rado.16vT (May 25, 2005)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

Looking good man







. Ever thought of running bigger cams intake and exhaust? Would be nice to flow better and produce the numbers with less boost so you can try some pump fuel and shift your peak power higher up.
Car is looking good with alot of power to boot http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jmaddocks (Jan 31, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (Rado.16vT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rado.16vT* »_Looking good man







. Ever thought of running bigger cams intake and exhaust? Would be nice to flow better and produce the numbers with less boost so you can try some pump fuel and shift your peak power higher up.


I was wondering the same -- maybe try to shift the torque curve higher from 6500 - 7500 and gain some hp through rpm?


----------



## Jeebus (Jul 8, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (jmaddocks)*

Very nice... congrats. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## BahnStormer202 (Nov 20, 2001)

Awesome numbers... 
So does that mean you finally took the bumper off to get the car on the rollers? lol


----------



## Vdubsolo (Apr 11, 2004)

*Re: (BahnStormer202)*

holly crap thats sick! how much is it making on pump gas?


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (Vdubsolo)*

Glad that 400+whp is still a respectable # around here!Everybody is making so much HP now, remember when 300whp was a BIG deal???,lolOn pump it made 393whp(actually pump with a little octane booster,don't like to run run straight pump gas,since it is varying in quality,and since octane booster is cheaper than a new motor any day)......as for bigger turbo,actually thought of going 35R,but this is a streetcar,and it has all the lag I can stand in a street car,and really like how the car is still very responsive with this turbo,and since car is still running hydro lifters,it doesn't have to rev as high to get some HP.The turbo still has another 4-5 psi in her,so next time,so will try some more boost next time........I ended my dyno run @444 since on that run,the rear straps popped off of the dyno and if there were no wheel chocks in front of the rear tires, would have crashed right into the wall!!Needles to say,I got spooked!!
Overall,very happy with the #'s,and this is no dyno queen,it actually is drivent to work,so am happy the "way it is"......anybody notice the decent area under the tq. and hp curves?










_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 4:16 PM 12-3-2006_


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

Awesome work Thomas.
You always had a GT3076R?


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

Thanks Issam,no I actually had it since last year,beginning of summer.Tried 50trim and 57 trim,both good,but the 3076 hit harder for sure,the new thing (for VW)is the gT35R,DSM,Honda,VR guys were already using this last year,guys are starting to make big hP with that turbo,so I am like a year behind,lol


----------



## lugnuts (Jul 26, 2001)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

good job thomas.
can you get and email me the dynojet files, I can graph yours against a 1.8t 3076 .83 and a GT35 .63


----------



## PADILLA (Sep 26, 2000)

*Re: (lugnuts)*

Good work Thomas http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## gopher11 (Nov 24, 2004)

85 degrees.....i'm jealous


----------



## G60RRADO (Nov 30, 2000)

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








good job buddy! street/track tuned... dyno verified! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 20v_BT (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: (G60RRADO)*

nice work hater.









j/p.


----------



## sdezego (Apr 23, 2004)

*Re: (G60RRADO)*








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


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (sdezego)*

Padilla,Larry,Kevin......... glad you guys still remember me http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Will try to get the run files sent to you,my friend has them,and will have him e-mail those to you this week!


----------



## DieGTi (Jun 19, 2001)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*








Nice numbers.


----------



## killa (Nov 26, 2000)

*Re: (DieGTi)*

Good Numbers Tom, now get that thing down the track somewhere and see what it can do at the new powerlevel http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Loren Wallace (Oct 15, 2005)

Looks great, awesome numbers too http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif good luck with it


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: (J Eagan)*

Great #s man!


----------



## VWralley (Mar 30, 2002)

*Re: (veedub11)*

looks great man! awesome work


----------



## Corradokcid (Nov 6, 2006)

*Re: (VWralley)*

very nice tune







keep us posted on this car


----------



## bigbumpmike (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: (Corradokcid)*

i want video


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (VWAUDITECH)*

is it just me or does it seem like it isnt making alot of power at 28psi for all the work it has done to it?
I would think around 20psi it would make that..


----------



## jettatech (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*

Heck yeah man! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







bern


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_is it just me or does it seem like it isnt making alot of power at 28psi for all the work it has done to it?
I would think around 20psi it would make that..









20psi and 500+ crank horsepower? what freaking planet do you live on?


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (TBT-Syncro)*

Give me a break,I am still a novice when it comes to dyno tuning!







This is actually the first time I have dyno tuned my car,so yes,I am sure there are people that could get way more hp (cough *lugnuts* cough)out of this,but I am happy for what it is,being my first time and all.The car ran 426 whp street/track tuned,and with a
little leaner afr and less timing I gained about 18whp,so it was "better" than when I started,which is always a good thing.
*watch this space* ,will try for some better #'s next time out.










































for all those who had good things to say.......


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_is it just me or does it seem like it isnt making alot of power at 28psi for all the work it has done to it?
I would think around 20psi it would make that..









Yea! Also, didn't Paul run 500+whp on a stock block?









Again, great #s.


----------



## Rado.16vT (May 25, 2005)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_is it just me or does it seem like it isnt making alot of power at 28psi for all the work it has done to it?
I would think around 20psi it would make that..









20psi is not enough boost to make the power you are saying, dont forget this turbo isnt that big. With better cams and less boost he would make more power. He also said he was conservative on timing







. He is also using log exhaust manifold which isnt that good for peak power. WIth bigger cams, more boost and more timing he will make more power and will max this turbo QUICK


----------



## killa (Nov 26, 2000)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (Rado.16vT)*

444whp looks good to me, Im sure that there's more left in it and Thomas himself said he wasn't running much timing, why argue safe numbers?
Paul


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
20psi and 500+ crank horsepower? what freaking planet do you live on?
Where did I say 500+ crank horse?? Where do you live is the REAL question!
I stated at 28psi he made 444whp.. I just think thats too low for all the work thats done. Yes hes hardly pulling any timing.. And I overlooked the log mani... But I just thought with that amount of boost with that compression, bolt ons, and he would make more.... Guess we'll wait and see...
Sweet job tho!!!

















_Modified by 1.8TRabbit at 9:41 AM 12-6-2006_


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_Where did I say 500+ crank horse?? 




_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_
I would think around 20psi it would make that..

short term memory much?


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_

short term memory much?









Reffering to making 444whp!







Stop telling us about your mental issues...







This is a web site.. Not a institute..


----------



## cardshockey31 (Sep 11, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*

A lot of people might equate 444whp to 500 crank. What would I know though I'm just an engineering major?


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (cardshockey31)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cardshockey31* »_A lot of people might equate 444whp to 500 crank. What would I know though I'm just an engineering major?









Well then you have to figure out the % of power loss through the drive train. And since you have the degree in that area.. I'll leave that up to you to figure out!








60+ hp loss in a fwd car seems a little much wouldnt ya think?...
(But then again Im no Engineering Major either!














)



_Modified by 1.8TRabbit at 8:59 AM 12-7-2006_


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: 444whp 16VT (1.8TRabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8TRabbit* »_








Well then you have to figure out the % of power loss through the drive train. And since you have the degree in that area.. I'll leave that up to you to figure out!








60+ hp loss in a fwd car seems a little much wouldnt ya think?...
(But then again Im no Engineering Major either!














)

_Modified by 1.8TRabbit at 8:59 AM 12-7-2006_

Man, you really haven't said anything in this thread to build any creditability with your arguements.


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

lets use a proportion shall we....
444/x = 83/100
that is assumin 17% drivetrain loss
so now take that 444 and multiply it by the 100 and then divide it by 83....what do you get? well GEE GOLLY 535HP at the crank....people seem to forget that while drivetrain loss remains consistant the more power you make the more the loss will be








and of course you can lower the loss and say its only 15% and that will yield 522HP at the crank


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: (the_q_jet)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the_q_jet* »_lets use a proportion shall we....
444/x = 83/100
that is assumin 17% drivetrain loss
so now take that 444 and multiply it by the 100 and then divide it by 83....what do you get? well GEE GOLLY 535HP at the crank....people seem to forget that while drivetrain loss remains consistant the more power you make the more the loss will be








and of course you can lower the loss and say its only 15% and that will yield 522HP at the crank
 GGEEEE!! Mister!! Glad to know someone has a degree and knows how to use it!









_Quote, originally posted by *veedub11* »_
Man, you really haven't said anything in this thread to build any creditability with your arguements.

Im not looking for any credibility....


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

no need for a degree.....simple jr high algebra


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: (the_q_jet)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the_q_jet* »_no need for a degree.....simple jr high algebra
I skipped Jr.High.. Doctors said I was more advanced with knowledge then the rest...


----------



## PADILLA (Sep 26, 2000)

*Re: (1.8TRabbit)*

Come on guys, let's not take Thomas's post away from him. All this bickering reminds me of the Holy Piston days


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (PADILLA)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PADILLA* »_Come on guys, let's not take Thomas's post away from him. All this bickering reminds me of the Holy Piston days









Reminds me more of the SILVERADO days!







The good ol' F/I forum days!


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: (the_q_jet)*


_Quote, originally posted by *the_q_jet* »_lets use a proportion shall we....
444/x = 83/100
that is assumin 17% drivetrain loss
so now take that 444 and multiply it by the 100 and then divide it by 83....what do you get? well GEE GOLLY 535HP at the crank....people seem to forget that while drivetrain loss remains consistant the more power you make the more the loss will be








and of course you can lower the loss and say its only 15% and that will yield 522HP at the crank

I have always used 15% to calculate drivetrain loss, and I also do the math differently. Have I been doing it wrong all these years? I'm so lost when it comes to math!
I always do WHP X 1.15 to calculate BHP, and use BHP / 1.15 to calculate WHP. 
So for 444 WHP, I actually get 510.6 BHP using a 15% drivetrain loss.
Is this wrong??


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

yes it is wrong becuz the way you did it calculates an extra 15% of 444whp. basically the way you did it assumes that if a motor makes 500hp at the crank and 420hp at the wheels...then 15% of 500 is equal to 15% of 420 which of course is false.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (Agtronic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Agtronic* »_
Reminds me more of the SILVERADO days!







The good ol' F/I forum days!

HERE HERE!
Thomas managed to keep this S/N for a good while








Looking forward to seeing this break into the 5's and maybe 6's?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (Agtronic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Agtronic* »_
I always do WHP X 1.15 to calculate BHP, and use BHP / 1.15 to calculate WHP. 


incorrect, but close enough
whp/0.85 =crank (assuming 15% drivetrain loss)
crank*0.85 =wheel (assuming 15% drivetrain loss)


----------



## 1.8TRabbit (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
incorrect, but close enough
whp/0.85 =crank (assuming 15% drivetrain loss)
crank*0.85 =wheel (assuming 15% drivetrain loss)








I need to go back to school!


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (1.8TRabbit)*

Wow,I am gone for one day and look what happens!!







It is great to see some of the "old timers" posting on here......








1.8T Rabbit,you will see when you do your own tuning how easy it "isn't".....







I actually thought this thread would get very little views/interest since it is not a 5-600whp thread,but I guess 400+whp is still "cool"







,I like that.........








I wish I could get my SILVERADO name back,but in reality,I had more mouth than brains back then







But atleast this place was exciting/dramatic/argumentative,and got some thinking out of the box........I remember when (as Justin aka HARDCORE VW) said"guys think T3 60 trims are too big for a VW".........those were the days.








I don't care what anybody says,I drove my car home from the dyno that night with the full boost,and I gotta tell you,500+bhp thrue the front wheels is quite a "rush"







If anybody ever m,akes it to the islands,hit me up,I'll take you for a ride!!


----------



## 801pete (Apr 20, 2006)

Well said... I think anybody actually making that kinda power will tell you its about 50x harder then you thought it would be when you first set out to do it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jamaicula (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Wow,I am gone for one day and look what happens!!







It is great to see some of the "old timers" posting on here......








1.8T Rabbit,you will see when you do your own tuning how easy it "isn't".....







I actually thought this thread would get very little views/interest since it is not a 5-600whp thread,but I guess 400+whp is still "cool"







,I like that.........








I wish I could get my SILVERADO name back,but in reality,I had more mouth than brains back then







But atleast this place was exciting/dramatic/argumentative,and got some thinking out of the box........I remember when (as Justin aka HARDCORE VW) said"guys think T3 60 trims are too big for a VW".........those were the days.








I don't care what anybody says,I drove my car home from the dyno that night with the full boost,and I gotta tell you,500+bhp thrue the front wheels is quite a "rush"







If anybody ever m,akes it to the islands,hit me up,I'll take you for a ride!!

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


----------

