# so, I bought a TT...



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Found a nice deal on this busted motor TT. Bought it site unseen for pennies on the dollar. Brought her home last weekend to see what is wrong with it and why it didn't run. I'll let the picts do the talking: (She's a little rough on the body too, but we'll straighten her out)















































































Then ripped the head off because the car wouldn't start according to previous owner:


















































































then found these around, so gonna use them when she's up and running.















found one of these online, so snagged it up, will have to do the Mad Max 'mod' to it:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Hey, the headlights aren't broken, the rad support isn't broken, and the hood doesn't look bad (other than right over that driver's fender). Those are the hard things to find. I'm going to be stripping out my black interior from my 225 in the next month or so, let me know if you need anything (though mine is pretty trashed).


----------



## jaxtt (Jul 17, 2012)

I just saw a silver tt being parted out in the market place and someone else is selling some clean black interior pieces. Good luck with build!


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

5 valves per cylinder.. Except #4cyl has 3 

Just messin dude. If you don't mind me asking, what does a TT with a bad motor sell for? I know you can find a fully functional TT for pretty cheap these days. I'd love to know the story of this car from the po. Looks like it was neglected pretty badly. Either way, I'm sure it's in good hands for a rebuild. Good luck.


----------



## TTC2k5 (May 23, 2008)

Pennys on the dollar...pics would suggest it's worth every bit of a dollar. 

Seems like a massive effort but good-on-ya for trying to save one. You got bigger ball$ than me and I do applaud your effort.

:thumbup::thumbup:


cheers.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Unfortunately, the headlight on the one side is a little bit messed up. It has a deep scratch and the inner orange marker is broken. Some ding bat broke the inner plastic pieces that attach to the rad support :facepalm: I'll have to open them up and see how easy it is to fix. I've done retrofits before so no big deal, just time consuming. Plus, the wife isn't a huge fan of me sticking headlights in the oven  These headlights are huge, much bigger than I anticipated.


The front bumper is pretty bad. I might do some custom work on it, I got a new fender already. The lower side skirt (I didn't realize that was metal at first), but they are on here for 100 bux and can find them in silver. I saw the guy parting out the 225 in lake silver. I won't be needing the interior anyway beside carpet/dash, gonna try and make it like my last car (I don't rely on these vehicles for DD duty, I know better  )


Hopefully it will look similar to this but with carpet: 











Let's just say I got it for cheap because it wasn't on a lot, I found it by dumb luck. I mean 2K would be worth it to me with busted motor as is. The interior is MINT. I didn't even see the car before I paid and transferred titles.


With a little sound advice from Adam/Max I'll make this a fun car. I already have a new motor for it, this car won't stay on stock turbo ever from now on. One day, time being my biggest issue, it'll be a hillclimb car. I already have 17x9's ready to go on it it'll poke like Max's car


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

You might not need to put them in the oven. A hot hair dryer should do the job :thumbup:


----------



## Raek (Aug 1, 2003)

The oven thing is scary at first...but, not a big deal at all once you do it. 5 or 6 minutes at 200 should do the trick. 

It's just the initial thought of actually putting it in the oven that's weird/difficult to get past. But, it's the most effective as it heats up at all angles.

And, don't feel too bad about the body. I got mine with 1/2 a front bumper, hahaha...


----------



## TheEnforcer98 (Aug 4, 2010)

Brought it home huh? You mean Taylor's house, haha. Nice to see you're finally posting it up on here. I need to start keeping up with posting my car on here, haha.

I know you and Taylor will make this thing a beast for sure.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

warranty225cpe said:


> You might not need to put them in the oven. A hot hair dryer should do the job :thumbup:


This is what I've used twice. Hairdryer is super easy and the headlights are simple to pop apart and fix. Have fun with the build!


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Got a chance to work on the it this weekend for a few hours on Saturday: (progress







) It is definitely heavier that when I yanked the 1.8T motor out of my Jetta. Tighter squeeze for sure.


Which control arms are these? I keep seeing conflicting information on part numbers: http://www.myturbodiesel.com/1000q/a4/audi-tt-spindle.htm

Parts

8N0 407 151D - Left Audi TT/VW golf R32 (mk4) lower control arm
8N0 407 152D - Right Audi TT/VW golf R32 (mk4) lower control arm
8N0 407 255E or 8N0.407.255B - Left Spindle
8N0 407 256B - Right Spindle
8N0 407 365B or 8N0.407.365A - Balljoints x 2
1J0-498-625














these look like 8N0 407 155


No ESP that's for sure and no wing:


----------



## G'D60 (Mar 11, 2002)

No wing TT? NO ESP too boot? didn't this conversation just pop up? 

What do the control arm bushings look like? Pix? can you imagine if it had real MK1 arms? what a find!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

8N0 407 151/152 were pre recall arms. 

8N0 407 165/166 were post recall arms. I'd say that's a 165 and a post recall arm. I don't know why everyone makes out like the pre recall arms are "such a find." Yeah, you don't have to buy/make Defcon inserts. Other than that, adding an aluminum sleeve, aka Defcon, makes them functionally the same thing. /nobigdeal.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Thanks Adam! So, I didn't luck out on the control arms. Seems as though it would save me ~400 bones though if I did have the old style arms eh?


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

The steering rack looks a little beat up on this TT. Somehow the boots are ripped, but nothing is leaking. Since I have it all apart I might as well swap for a newer one that isn't going to cause issues down the road. 

What is the stock ratio of the rack? Is there a better suited one like 3:1 or something close to there or is that close to stock? Not a huge deal for me since I am no autoX person, just curious.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

18T_BT said:


> Thanks Adam! So, I didn't luck out on the control arms. Seems as though it would save me ~400 bones though if I did have the old style arms eh?


Much less. I'll PM you.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Thanks Adam!


Has anyone tested the necessity of lowering a TT? The only reasons to lower a car are to lower the center of gravity (Cg) and to place the suspension in a state where camber is GAINED upon compression….or ostensibly in a position that inhibits bad toe changes. It is a strut based car (thus junk LOL), which tend to react poorly to lowering….it might actually be favorable to keep it at or near stock ride height. Do you know what ride heights of TT’s that race in touring class run, as well as what competitive DS or DSP classed TT’s in auto-x run. I know that even the WRX and EVO guys don’t lower very much, AWD-related possibly?


Is the weight distribution favorable in these cars? Has anyone corner weighed them? I am all for throwing cash at necessary parts but want to make sure I am doing it correctly.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

It's not just about gaining camber advantages. It's also about getting the roll center as close to the center of gravity as possible. This requires some modeling to fully understand. MacPherson isn't junk, it's just not the best performance setup, but is also a product of space restrictions. The roll center is a point along the center line of the vehicle that is located by drawing a line from the top of the strut, perpendicular to the strut, towards the centerline. Now draw a line from the ball joint to the pivot point of the control arm (basically the plane of the control arm) and extend it towards the centerline. Where those two lines meet is your instantaneous center. Lowering the car changes the line of the control arm, which lowers your instantaneous. Increasing camber at the strut top also changes the location of this point. With the control arms lowered to the point of being angled up and above parallel to the ground, the roll center is below ground, which is why you don't want excessive lowering on Mk4/TT/MacPherson setups. 

Weight distribution is low 60's front high 30's rear. I've never seen exact numbers except from Max and his car is a vert. I think one of the Verdict guys did corner weighting recently but can't remember/find the thread.


Found it: here


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Roll center and what they do on true racecars (open wheel) is a hotly contested subject from what I've read. Entire textbooks have been written on it, and the vast majority doesn't seem to apply to street cars. Too many compromises have been made for packaging and other interests for it to be as relevant as I'd think. We aren’t shifting roll centers below ground, which is bad anyway, on a street car. The key information to me seems to be: Is the small drop in Cg worth putting the suspension in a position where the camber/toe/bump steer curves are going to hinder generating optimal cornering conditions (even tire temps across contact patch, low to no roll onto sidewall, not quite reaching full neg camber under max compression on the outside corner…etc)? If it is, and can be proven so, then lowering static ride height is worth it. This doesn’t even touch on other mechanics regarding droop etc. 


From reading this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5197012-Let-s-talk-TT-suspension

_The correct order mentioned above is to first determine the optimal spring rates, then have the shocks valved to control the chosen rates and finally bring swaybars into the equation as trim pieces to fine tune the overall balance. The hertz number is from the springs and simply put, the frequency at which they oscillate up and down before they settle down. _

I thought that roll rate is a combination of spring rate (which directly affect ride frequency, which what defines NF Hz Max is referring to). Sway bars do not do anything other than in roll, so they are excluded from the rate determination. Ultra high NF = serious damping to control it, conversely low NF = OEM spring rates and soft compliant ride. Optimal NF is objective, only the driver can tell what is too much vs not enough as you said later in the thread. As for bars: it’s a combination so my choices are if I can tolerate a high NF then I'll ditch the bars entirely and spring very high. If I can’t handle the high NF values, then no revalving is necessary because I will not be able to run a spring stiff enough to warrant it. I will need giant ****ing sways though. 


What I've read Max has is reduce the front sway input by making custom brackets, run ~700lb springs in the front and 1300lb springs in the rear and completely remove the rear bar? 

Essentially, I am trying to figure out how stiff are 1300lb spring in a pretty heavy car. The huge increase in rear spring rate needed to provide roll resistance in the absence of a rear bar is that why you are running 1300lb rear springs? (Or did I misunderstand what your rear suspension set up?) Same goes for the front, a 700 lb spring seems pretty low for such a heavy car. I don't mind having aggressive spring rates and dampers to handle it, I just want to get a good set up from the get go. I don't plan on autoX, but I do plan on some road courses/hill climb events once I get the car running, so I want to be ready to buy.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

There's a lot to digest here. First off, open wheel cars are going to have double A arms and are no way comparable to MacPherson setups. You can have perfect spring rates, damper rates, and swaybar installed, all giving the desired wheel rate (combined spring rate of spring, damper, tire, bushings, etc into usable value, the spring rate itself isn't useful enough as wheel rate changes with tire type and even pressure, etc) to give a completely neutral understeer gradient, and still not have optimal camber curve. This all relates to Dick Shine's setup of stiff springs and little to no drop, which is a good handling solution because of the compromise of the camber curve when lowering in the MK4 chassis. Now the TT's control arms/sprindles (basically ball joint location) are better, but still room for improvement. How much camber you need/want is going to depend on your use for the car and tire choice, life expectancy, weather, etc. 

The high spring rates in the rear are due to the geometry of the suspension. With the two lateral links giving you the basis of camber curves, the spring is located forward of this location (about 2/3rds between the pivot point of the trailing arm and hub, closer to the hub). This means the spring doesn't have a 1:1 affect on the motion of the hub like it would if the spring was over the vertical axis of the hub (like the strut (true coilover) in the front). That means if you have a 1000lb/in spring in the rear, it's effective spring rate is ~660lbs/in. You need the stiffer spring rate (than what is considered "normal" to give a proper wheel rate for the rear weight of the car. 

Lastly, you can't really lower the CoG as the bulk of the things in the car that make up its mass are fixed (engine, trans, rear diff, chassis, subframes, etc). The proper term here is center of mass (CoM). The CoG is really just a measure of the distance from the ground to the CoM. Think of using a 12" long wrench versus a 3' long breaker bar. The bar gives more leverage due to it's length. The same priniciple applies to the weight of the car. If the CoM is 2' above the roll center, the mass of the vehicle will have a much larger affect on roll than if it was 6" above the roll center. Once you understand that, it's obvious lowering helps......but there is such a thing as too low. Driveability/road conditions, harshness, loss of camber curve, increased static camber, etc etc all play a roll where you want to set the height. The basic rule here is a little is good, a little more is bad (same as Mk4's). To define a specific rule would only apply to you, your car, and what you use it for, and takes some trial and error. 

All that said, the mild drop I have my newly installed PSS's at have made a HUGE difference in how the car "feels" during aggressive turns. I thought the handling was good with stock suspension, good tires, and a rear swaybar. That was all relative, because now at the same speed in the same turns, the car doesn't even feel like it's close to the limits that would have given the feeling of being near the edge of the limits on stock suspension.


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

^_^


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

1300lbs, I think maybe they listed it in kg. I've often read that is 1300lbs myself but some folks do springs in metric. 

I'm running 300lb fronts and 290lb rears on my Impreza with a 24mm rear anti roll bar and 21mm front. It rotates the nice.

Also went back to Group N rubber bushings in spots.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Thanks Adam!
> 
> 
> Has anyone tested the necessity of lowering a TT? The only reasons to lower a car are to lower the center of gravity (Cg) and to place the suspension in a state where camber is GAINED upon compression….or ostensibly in a position that inhibits bad toe changes. It is a strut based car (thus junk LOL), which tend to react poorly to lowering….it might actually be favorable to keep it at or near stock ride height. Do you know what ride heights of TT’s that race in touring class run, as well as what competitive DS or DSP classed TT’s in auto-x run. I know that even the WRX and EVO guys don’t lower very much, AWD-related possibly?
> ...


Lowering is never too good in McCrapson strut designed cars because of the horrible camber curving inherent to the design. Whenever you have a hub following a single arc (dictated by the control arm in our specific case), that arc is tend to very abrupt for any small distance traveled. What does this mean? Excessive camber movement, going from gaining - to neutral at the top of the arc - to losing camber after that point. 

When you are at stock height, you will have X degree of compression before reaching the top of the arc, and start loosing camber resulting in overloading of the outer edge of the contact patch (a formula for understeer). Say you lower the car 60 mm... now at static height, you've already exhausted the part of the camber curve that you would gain camber :screwy:. So, all that you do at this point, whenever the car rolls and the suspension compresses, is loose camber and the car feels miserable at cornering. That is the main reason for limiting the amount of lowering in our cars, or any McCprapson cars like the EVO and WRX you mentioned. 

There is not much bump steer in the TT spindle, so little even at the extremities the arcs (with compression or droop movement of the arms and steering linkage) that they remain close to parallel and follow the virtually the same arc. So you can forget about setting static height with bump steer or dynamic toe changes in mind, it's a waste of time. The TT is in DS but not in DSP, SCCA classed the TT in BSP (moving it down from CSP where it was before :banghead. The height that these competitive cars are set at, are mostly a result of what the allowances are, not necessarily what is ideal. For example, a softly sprung DS car will have no choice but to remain at stock height because any decent lowering would result in poor performance from the lack of roll resistance they have. In other words you have to make the most of what the rules allow you, therefore often compromising from an ideal setup without compromise. (I will bring the roll center and center of gravity to the discussion later to reply to the next set of exchanges between you and Adam. You guys are kind of blending different issues and concept together while they are really separate and should be looked at and improved on perately). 

Weight Distribution in the TT is just like it is in the EVO and WRX, the front axle support the bulk of the weight in most situations. What seems to be pretty decent in the TT is the wet cross weight with driver, but I don't believe in those (especially in cars with stabilizers as part of the setup). So, from this set of data (if you were to do your corner-weighting), I would not recommend setting the static ride height from that. :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Roll center and what they do on true racecars (open wheel) is a hotly contested subject from what I've read. Entire textbooks have been written on it, and the vast majority doesn't seem to apply to street cars. Too many compromises have been made for packaging and other interests for it to be as relevant as I'd think. We aren’t shifting roll centers below ground, which is bad anyway, on a street car. The key information to me seems to be: Is the small drop in Cg worth putting the suspension in a position where the camber/toe/bump steer curves are going to hinder generating optimal cornering conditions (even tire temps across contact patch, low to no roll onto sidewall, not quite reaching full neg camber under max compression on the outside corner…etc)? If it is, and can be proven so, then lowering static ride height is worth it. This doesn’t even touch on other mechanics regarding droop etc.
> 
> 
> From reading this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5197012-Let-s-talk-TT-suspension
> ...


Let's try to do a crash course here to bring you up to speed:

We can lower the CoG a little bit (as Adam pointed) with some lowering, but besides what that does to the camber curve, there is also what it does to the roll couple. BTW, we can bring the roll center subterranean in the TT if lowered excessively (50 mm seems to put the roll center at the ground plane with 25" tall tires). But, subterranean roll center isn't the real issue here, it's the elongation of the roll couple that is undesirable. The roll couple is the distance from RC to CoG, the longer that distance is, the more forces are acting on the car to make it roll. Therefore, a long roll couple acts as a long lever trying to force the car to roll laterally as weight is transferred. This makes your spring/bar feel softer than they really are (long roll couple), or stiffer than they are (short roll couple) when there is weight transfer (nothing to do with compression or bumps in the road). The thing here is that when you lower the center of gravity a little bit by lowering, you also lower the roll center, but a lot more for the same amount of drop. This creates a longer roll couple, and is worse for the dynamics than the small gain that a lower CoG gave you (nothing to do with the camber/bump steer/toe curves that should be seen as totally separate issues). In conclusion, it's better to go after a better roll couple than a small drop in CoG... your car won't feel like a boat as a result. It should be mentioned that all that can be offset by very stiff springs/bars, but tires (especially street based) get overloaded and/or loose traction easily when operating at high Natural Frequency ranges. (more on NF later).

The reason roll center is debated and sometime downplayed in open wheel/formula circles, is because these machines are often designed from scratch with almost zero roll couple (static roll center and CoG very close to each other by design; or even better, dynamically meeting each other's migration in the meat of the weight transfer in a turn). In our production-based cars, that we decide to fiddle with, ignore the jacking effect of a long roll couple, and you'll find yourself scratching your head because you're still having pig-like handling even with high wheel rate and an otherwise sound suspension setup (I learned the hard way :laugh. 

Now with Natural Frequency, what you need to know is that you need them for choosing your spring rate. What determines what you'll be targeting in terms of NF is not from driver preference, but rather tire preference (what the choosen tires will like and allow for the surface of use). Other variables are dampers ability to control the springs that will give you X Natural Frequency, and the use of aero grip (cars that rely simply on mechanical grip usually struggle with NF above 3Hz, while cars with good aero grip can make good use of 3+ Hz of NF even on "bumpy" tracks. Here again, nothing to do with personal tolerance, but should be based on the dynamics of the specific setup and use. 

My 1300 lbs spring selection is, as you'd imagine, dictated by my target NF... Nothing more, nothing else. And, that is chosen to work in conjunction with a rear stabilizer bar (stock bar with holes drilled to give me some trimming ability from slippery asphalt, to grippy concrete surfaces). 1300 lbsd isn't by any mean "stiff" because of the rear motion ratio. The 700 lbs fronts are as much as the design would allow me to get away with (without an effective front splitter). This rate works better with a bar as well (modified to be softer than the factory rate in order to no not have the bar be so intrusive in the dynamics). I tried without a front bar completely, the steady state grip as well as the ability to power-out was out of this world, but transitional sharpness took a hit, and that is why the reduced-rate bar was the happy medium. 

As I preach to anyone who cares to listen, be careful with use of the bars! They can help keep the roll angles in check on a setup that is limited in spring rate. However, they have many drawbacks that can hurt you more if used excessively (see my references to the tripod effect in my suspension thread). :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

gdoggmoney said:


> 1300lbs, I think maybe they listed it in kg. I've often read that is 1300lbs myself but some folks do springs in metric.
> 
> I'm running 300lb fronts and 290lb rears on my Impreza with a 24mm rear anti roll bar and 21mm front. It rotates the nice.
> 
> Also went back to Group N rubber bushings in spots.


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


>


Nevermind... motion ratio. I didn't read. 

1300lbs is ridiculously high nomrally, it triggered my WTFbbqSC.


----------



## FatAce (Jan 30, 2012)

gdoggmoney said:


> WTFbbqSC.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Max, thanks for the reply. I'll read it more in depth when I get home. I understand why you did what you did. I am more than willing to ride on high spring rates and less sway bar which can be 'modified' to lessen their effect. I really don't want to spend 2G's on coils though. I can probably get inserts that are valved for whatever standard 2.5 inch coil at xxxx spring rate and go from there.

Reading up on this: http://www.motorgeek.com/viewtopic.php?t=26499


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Max, thanks for the reply. I'll read it more in depth when I get home. I understand why you did what you did. I am more than willing to ride on high spring rates and less sway bar which can be 'modified' to lessen their effect. I really don't want to spend 2G's on coils though. I can probably get inserts that are valved for whatever standard 2.5 inch coil at xxxx spring rate and go from there.
> 
> Reading up on this: http://www.motorgeek.com/viewtopic.php?t=26499


Old school insert job??? Flashback to the early-to-mid 90's? I was pretty sure H&R put an end to doing things that way with true coilovers . 

You don't need to drop $2000 on coilovers, a set of Billy PSS would do the trick for half of that. The reason I didn't go with them is because at the time that I was in the market for coilovers, I was still fairly green to the platform. I had no clue of how good/bad the default valving was on the RSS clubsports, so I bought them so I could dyno them and take it from there. Being that I ended up revalving them anyway (the default valving was pretty good, but I'm a perfectionist), I should've started with a set of PSS for much less (exact same shocks with different hardware and valving).

You can even score a used set of PSS, buy the spring of your choice/rate and send them to be rebuild/revalved. This would end up costing you much less than a thousand dollars, when its all said and done. :beer:


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Old school insert job??? Flashback to the early-to-mid 90's? I was pretty sure H&R put an end to doing things that way with true coilovers .
> 
> You don't need to drop $2000 on coilovers, a set of Billy PSS would do the trick for half of that. The reason I didn't go with them is because at the time that I was in the market for coilovers, I was still fairly green to the platform. I had no clue of how good/bad the default valving was on the RSS clubsports, so I bought them so I could dyno them and take it from there. Being that I ended up revalving them anyway (the default valving was pretty good, but I'm a perfectionist), I should've started with a set of PSS for much less (exact same shocks with different hardware and valving).
> 
> You can even score a used set of PSS, buy the spring of your choice/rate and send them to be rebuild/revalved. This would end up costing you much less than a thousand dollars, when its all said and done. :beer:



Well, this way I can get an insert into the stock housings valved to whatever spring rate I want and I can even get the GC sleeves and ask them for whatever springs at whatever rate I need. If I need to, I'll measure the insert and space it out inside the tube as necessary. 2.5 inch springs are abundant...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Well, this way I can get an insert into the stock housings valved to whatever spring rate I want and I can even get the GC sleeves and ask them for whatever springs at whatever rate I need. If I need to, I'll measure the insert and space it out inside the tube as necessary. 2.5 inch springs are abundant...


I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. These insert jobs may have been OK back in days when there was no options, but with technological advancements, there are too many drawbacks to do things that way anymore (it's like going back to a caburator on our modern fuel injected TT... will work, but pointless). 

I lost track of how many of those I've build over the years, and I can tell you:
a) the tiny inserts don't appreciate being used in a McCrapson design with lots of weight on the front end. The seals in those aren't designed for the twisting loads involved, so be ready to rebuild very often in the front (the rear wouldn't be a problem because the design doesn't ask them to support weight and lateral loads). 
b) Another big design drawback is that you have to compress the spring to lower the strut assembly, this obviously forces you to give away valuable travel as the entire shock body doesn't screw in/out of the housing like in modern true coilovers (sleeves setups belong in museums IMO :laugh . I know that this can be somewhat solved with longer spring with primary and secondary rates, but why bother? Trust me when I say "go with a revalved set of PSS"... there is nobody more grassroots and DIY-oriented than me. :beer:


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Ok, I'll look for a set of PSS's


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Ok, I'll look for a set of PSS's


You'll be amazed what a revalved set of Billies can do! :beer:


----------



## Jayizdaman (Apr 18, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> You'll be amazed what a revalved set of Billies can do! :beer:


Marcus,

Because of your recommendation, I plan on getting Bilstein PSS's once I get the monies. I hate you for making choose the more expensive albeit more sensible decision. :laugh:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Jayizdaman said:


> Marcus,
> 
> Because of your recommendation, I plan on getting Bilstein PSS's once I get the monies. I hate you for making choose the more expensive albeit more sensible decision. :laugh:


For under $1K, the benefits far outweigh the cost savings. I'm loving my freshly installed PSS's. I drove my fwd KW v2's to the airport last week and they're composed but they don't heal with imperfect surfaces any where close to the smoothness of the PSS's, even on full soft.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

18T_BT said:


> The steering rack looks a little beat up on this TT. Somehow the boots are ripped, but nothing is leaking. Since I have it all apart I might as well swap for a newer one that isn't going to cause issues down the road.
> 
> What is the stock ratio of the rack? Is there a better suited one like 3:1 or something close to there or is that close to stock? Not a huge deal for me since I am no autoX person, just curious.


Anyone know the steering rack difference between mk4 and TT? I presume it's probably the tie rods?

The stock one seems to work well: http://shopping.boraparts.com/product_info.php?products_id=304

Can't really find a ton of information on this subject but saw this thread: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-fit-a-mk4&p=11391922&viewfull=1#post11391922


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Tie rods are different as one style mounts with the end going down through the spindle and the other mounts with it going up through the spindle, but that's because of the spindle, not the rack. Obviously the ratio is different, so I'd assume that second link is a misprint in saying the same rack is used on GTI's, GLI's, and TT's.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I am guessing that mk4 racks in general are all the same sans R32 and TT is probably very similar if not the same as R32 for the quattro ones of course. I will have a better look at condition of rack next time when I drop the subframe, since the rack is out, figured I'd get some items like mike P's solid subframe bushings, and steering rack bushings. I know the one side looked ok, I'll check other, if not rust on shafts, and I saw no leakage after yanking the motor, typically its fine. Maybe just buy new seals and run it.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

so, put the TT motor on a stand only to find this:














 that could have ended badly....time to freshen it up...get it ready for some boosting


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Oh well, not like it's going to run a stock small port head anyways.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

18T_BT said:


> so, put the TT motor on a stand only to find this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THe exposed bearing?


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

20v master said:


> Oh well, not like it's going to run a stock small port head anyways.



ha, that's my built motor with AEB head


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

18T_BT said:


> ha, that's my built motor with AEB head


x3 Then technically, it is the Jetta motor and not the TT motor if it's never been in the TT and will remain as such until it is installed.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Yep, Jetta motor until it ends up in the TT. The TT motor is in the Jetta, so I am all confused on what to call them at this point  I am glad I saw this before anything bad actually happened. I'd be needing a new large port at the minimum. So, a new timing belt and HG and roller is on order. Oh, the fun of rebuilding motors, how it never really ends.


----------



## 1.8t67 (Dec 7, 2008)

project looks great val!


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

Subscribed to this for future updates:thumbup::thumbup:


----------

