# CAMS!



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

Lose the SRI, forget the turbo.. WHEN DO WE GET CAMS?!

Every car I've owned had cam(s) at one point or another and it was always my favorite mod. 

1.8l 16v Scirocco + cams = awesome
2.0l 16v GTI + cams = more awesome
12v VR GTI + cams = most awesome

Mind you I've had a lysholm Corrado (had a mild cam), supercharged ABA Golf (also a mild cam), b4 A4 with a 1.8t (no cam but lots of boost) AND my wife's Tiguan (not modded, but I wanted to point out it's turbo).

Boost is nice, but I love me some lopey, naturally aspirated horsepower.

/rant


----------



## eatrach (May 13, 2004)

for me, I think SRI would be a better upgrade, along with an exhaust and CAI. I am not sure about the turbo,yet.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

cams should be on market, sooner than later. 

but honestly, i much rather get the SRI than cams... 

cams are only going to move the power band. 
SRI is going to give you more HP.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

Nothing like a cam'd n/a mkv .:R :thumbup:

272 shrick cams + e85 tune+ hpa im= SEX :laugh:


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

thygreyt said:


> but honestly, i much rather get the SRI than cams...
> 
> cams are only going to move the power band.
> SRI is going to give you more HP.


thats not really 100% true. cams can move the power, and raise the redline power area. BUT cams can and will make power.
i'd bet that cams could make more power then a SRI on the 2.5L


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Josh knows best so Im gonna agree with that statement. Deffinately gonna be my next major engine mod whenever someone comes out with some. Prolly gonna be pretty expensive so I can be patient and wait for the time being. Cant even imagine my car with some cams on it how it sits now hahaha. I would get into some trouble for sure


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> i'd bet that cams could make more power then a SRI on the 2.5L


i havent driven a cammed car... but yes, i do understand it... lol, i'm just not great at explanations!

i am waiting for cams..! lets see how they do.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

thygreyt said:


> i havent driven a cammed car... but yes, i don understand it... lol, i;, just not great at explanations!
> 
> i am waiting for cams..! lets see how they do.


 What'd you say?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

not busting on you fred or putting you down. sorry if it sounded that way!:beer:

but from the cars i've cammed. for knowing what the poor specs are of the 2.5L cams...i'd be willing to bet the cams would be great in this car with a tune..and killer with sri and turbo


----------



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> not busting on you fred or putting you down. sorry if it sounded that way!:beer:
> 
> but from the cars i've cammed. for knowing what the poor specs are of the 2.5L cams...i'd be willing to bet the cams would be great in this car with a tune..and killer with sri and turbo


The 2.5l is so under-tuned from the factory.
Cams would wake the beast!


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> not busting on you fred or putting you down. sorry if it sounded that way!:beer:
> 
> but from the cars i've cammed. for knowing what the poor specs are of the 2.5L cams...i'd be willing to bet the cams would be great in this car with a tune..and killer with sri and turbo


lol, no worries josh... 

i just edited the post... i put an N there by mistake, that made all the difference
hopefully the cams will make a huge diff.. we just have to wait and see what they do.


----------



## SQRABBIT (Aug 28, 2008)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> i'd bet that cams could make more power then a SRI on the 2.5L


I'll bet with ya, if I win you buy me cams, and if you win you buy me cams. Deal?


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

It depends on the motor. But for the 2.5, it appears that an SRI is essential and should be first. Cams are secondary.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

I think ~300 crank is entirely reasonable, NA... 

It would be good clean fun in a caterham 7.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

are you guys planning on doing some cams for us?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

SQRABBIT said:


> I'll bet with ya, if I win you buy me cams, and if you win you buy me cams. Deal?


umm, no haha




zevion said:


> It depends on the motor. But for the 2.5, it appears that an SRI is essential and should be first. Cams are secondary.


nope, dissagree 100%





[email protected] said:


> I think ~300 crank is entirely reasonable, NA...


i agree. or close at least


----------



## eatrach (May 13, 2004)

I can care less about cams. Moving the window power doesn't benefit me if I am starving for low-end power. 
My 'ol MKII GTI 16V had cams, and it sure had plenty of top end power; low end power lacked it. 
My 'ol E36 M3, with Dinan S/C had a discriminate loss of power down at the low end. Even my mechanic complained about it, and we thought that we should have removed the cams after installing the S/C. From 900 RPM up to 4300 RPM had a lag-an absent of power. Prior to installing the cams, power kicked in at around 3000 RPM. 
I know better now. I'd rather have a SRI, and a turbo over cams.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

It always entertains me that people think their experiences with some engines apply to all engines. We are talking about a completely different engine than either of those and stressing the "with a tune" part.

With my relatively decent understanding of the way this engine works and how it is setup from the factory. I'm going to have to side with Josh.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

yup.
all motors are not created equal.
nor are cams.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Having already done quite a bit of profile work on these cams  I can say this; the limiting factor here is that the retainer nearly touches the valve stem seal at stock lift. You can go a smidge more, after that, all you can do is add duration, in "drop in" form anyways. So there will be two options, one for those who want to drop in, and one for those who are building a head and can install other guides or press theirs in further. 

That's why I put an extra long "aero" tip on our rabbit guides. Always planning ahead  

The other thing I can tell you is that it's not easy to put a HUGE valve spring in these engines, and while most of you will probably not care too much about this- I do not think it will be very easy to get to 10k-11k rpm on these heads. 9500 should be no problem though. 

For higher rpm we are probably talking a 5.5mm stem valve setup, or Ti valves + ethanol/methanol fuel, or billet rocker arms.

I am already making copper alloy valve seats (this week) for much much larger intake valves to drop in. Even the 1mm over valves offered hang halfway off the OE seats on basically all mk5 heads- pretty hack job stuff to do those on stock seats.


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> nope, dissagree 100%


Just basing this off of Jeff Attwood's data not my own. Be good if he could chime in and clarify.


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Having already done quite a bit of profile work on these cams  I can say this; the limiting factor here is that the retainer nearly touches the valve stem seal at stock lift. You can go a smidge more, after that, all you can do is add duration, in "drop in" form anyways. So there will be two options, one for those who want to drop in, and one for those who are building a head and can install other guides or press theirs in further.
> 
> That's why I put an extra long "aero" tip on our rabbit guides. Always planning ahead
> 
> ...


Can't wait to see your offerings for the 2.5. I have IE rods in my 570+AWHP R32. Very nice stuff.

http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2338095&postcount=80


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

zevion said:


> Can't wait to see your offerings for the 2.5. I have IE rods in my 570+AWHP R32. Very nice stuff.
> 
> http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2338095&postcount=80


:what: Thats the plan when I get my .:R.... Sooo what do you have going on in the dsg to hold the tq? Other than a flash obviously? :sly:


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Even the 1mm over valves offered hang halfway off the OE seats on basically all mk5 heads- *pretty hack job stuff to do those on stock seats*.


Sure is :thumbup:


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> :what: Thats the plan when I get my .:R.... Sooo what do you have going on in the dsg to hold the tq? Other than a flash obviously? :sly:


Working with SSP on custom clutches. They are close. Intend to be at 650AWHP and 550 ft-lb torque at 30lbs boost with the custom packs. For now been running 22lbs on stock clutches with Jeff Attwoods software. No slip and I've been punishing it. Drove 2500 mile round trip to SoWo as well, no issues.

However, at these torque levels the clutches won't last long. I just figured that if a better clutch solution doesn't materialize, then I'll stick at current power levels and run stock clutches and replace them every couple of months as necessary. Just consider it part of the cost of a heavily modified car that puts down big numbers. That's not for everyone, but works for me. Had the DSG out 5 times. Further Performance in Minneapolis got pretty good at it!


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

zevion said:


> Just basing this off of Jeff Attwood's data not my own. Be good if he could chime in and clarify.


funny since he is the one that started the cam stuff and says he still is on it.....
i'm sticking to my guns...cam over sri. both good with a matching tune.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

zevion said:


> Working with SSP on custom clutches. They are close. Intend to be at 650AWHP and 550 ft-lb torque at 30lbs boost with the custom packs. For now been running 22lbs on stock clutches with Jeff Attwoods software. No slip and I've been punishing it. Drove 2500 mile round trip to SoWo as well, no issues.
> 
> However, at these torque levels the clutches won't last long. I just figured that if a better clutch solution doesn't materialize, then I'll stick at current power levels and run stock clutches and replace them every couple of months as necessary. Just consider it part of the cost of a heavily modified car that puts down big numbers. That's not for everyone, but works for me. Had the DSG out 5 times. Further Performance in Minneapolis got pretty good at it!


:laugh::laugh::laugh: you'll have to keep me posted on those clutch packs :thumbup: Im not shooting for the same power levels as you lol, but ~450-490 awhp. Just enough to give every porsche owner around here a bad day via VW :laugh:.. Maybe if I get it soon I can talk Navydub into a motor swap :laugh:


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> funny since he is the one that started the cam stuff and says he still is on it.....
> i'm sticking to my guns...cam over sri. both good with a matching tune.


Yeah, will have to ask him.


----------



## Golf 2.0T (Apr 17, 2007)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> i'm sticking to my guns...cam over sri. both good with a matching tune.



cams are THE weakest link in the 2.5 ..making it the most significant mod to do on the 2.5 and the only unchecked item on my to do list , 8000rpm here i come


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

Golf 2.0T said:


> cams are THE weakest link in the 2.5 ..making it the most significant mod to do on the 2.5 and the only unchecked item on my to do list , 8000rpm here i come


Says the guy pushing 430 awd whp... So I trust him!

Lol, weren't you gonna make some custom? Or so I read yesterday on your thread... Went through it all!


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

ha, good luck with that... Can't regrind the OE cores, can't weld them up- The only option would be a set of custom billets, you'd be looking at $3-5k for a one off set with design work. 

The cores do not lend themselves to castings because VW made them quite complex, lots of features- so the ones which will eventually make it to market will be billets. 

The other thing is the cam has a pretty harsh inverse radius on one flank of the cam lobes, which rules out quite a few cam grinding companies and drives up the price a bit because a small diameter grinding wheel must be used. 

It'll get done though. :thumbup:


PS: Eventually the main issue with these motors will be keeping flywheels attached to them with the wimpy 6 bolt design. They will need to be either tapped bigger + dowel pinned, double drilled to 12 bolt, or some combination / iteration of those ideas. Not a lot of fun, you need a tall machining center to stand the 2.5L crank up in it. I can't do it in house. :facepalm:


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

Golf 2.0T said:


> cams are THE weakest link in the 2.5 ..making it the most significant mod to do on the 2.5 and the only unchecked item on my to do list , 8000rpm here i come


Again this is a conversation to have with Jeff Attwood. Recent dyno work shows that stock cams produced usable and linear power up to 7000 rpm in-conjunction with SRI, and torque as flat as a pancake.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...w-Intake-Manifolds-Ready-to-ship-at-APTuning-!!!

He called me when I was at SoWo a few weeks back and said early dyno work showed the stock cams again producing linear power up over 8K perhaps with some torque roll of up top. This makes stock cams to NOT look like the limiting factor. Not saying they won't make a difference, but not a FIRST step in an NA build. And doesn't appear to be the best bang for the buck as an only mod.

But again, just passing on my interpretation of Jeffs information. Really need him to chime in here and clarify. I am very interested.


----------



## Golf 2.0T (Apr 17, 2007)

zevion said:


> Again this is a conversation to have with Jeff Attwood. Recent dyno work shows that stock cams produced usable and linear power up to 7000 rpm in-conjunction with SRI, and torque as flat as a pancake.
> 
> .


yeah i know all that mine stays at 340lbs from 5500rpm till 6700rpm ...then it drops to 300lbs at 7400rpm not that bad i must say ... but one can only imagine if that torque could stay up till 7500rpm . on my car would probably make 60whp more at same boost even with a mild cam say 250duration . so im not gonna stick with the stock cams just because they're not that bad .


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

zevion said:


> Again this is a conversation to have with Jeff Attwood. Recent dyno work shows that stock cams produced usable and linear power up to 7000 rpm in-conjunction with SRI, and torque as flat as a pancake.
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...w-Intake-Manifolds-Ready-to-ship-at-APTuning-!!!
> 
> ...



The stock cam doesn't have the duration to make power way out there. No amount of wishful thinking will make that happen. 

Dunno how you are judging the bang for the buck on something which doesn't exist yet? No prices or gains given?


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

Golf 2.0T said:


> but one can only imagine if that torque could stay up till 7500rpm . on my car would probably make 60whp more at same boost even with a mild cam say 250duration . so im not gonna stick with the stock cams just because they're not that bad .


Agreed. I see it the same way.



[email protected] said:


> The stock cam doesn't have the duration to make power way out there. No amount of wishful thinking will make that happen.
> 
> Dunno how you are judging the bang for the buck on something which doesn't exist yet? No prices or gains given?



Hey, like I said, just giving my interpretation of what Jeff said to me and hoping he would explain so that all could be clarified. At this point I have nothing except his words and me supplementing it with my own misguided opinion. But he's a busy guy, so who knows when he'll jump in. I would be very happy to invest in R&D on the 2.5, including cams and valve train, to see what could be done. Me, well I will do cams when/if they are available for sure. I am designing ITB's for the 2.5 right now (for stand alone ECM though).

Also, like I said earlier, I have liked the parts from IE that have been used on my cars. Would love to see what else you develop for the 2.5 in future.

Cheers!


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i may jump on some cams once they are available.. but internals and turbo are first.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

must be the tune. we did SRI, header, etc etc etc with a custom C2 tune that now availible to the public. we pulled GOOD power till 7120RPM's. highest hp yet as well.
and still had good mid range as well.


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

There is no point in speculating about cams yet. The peak power probably isn't going to get bumped like it does with an SRI. Just because the cams and head are built for fuel economy and low end torque doesn't mean dropping in new cams w/a lil head work will yield results. The space is extremely limited in the 2.5 head for cam work and nobody so far has been clever enough to regrind anything worth a hoot for the 2.5 either. To go big time NA it is going to take a lot of custom head work that will not be cheap. Billet cams in the past were around $2,000 for the 24v and 2.5 cams are even more complex with an even less demanding market.

I look forward to seeing a few cammed 2.5's and many 30 years from now but it is not something I believe will be very practical for average joe unless someone comes up with a very clever solution.

Oh, and as far as bang for the buck, this is a moot point because turbo will always win that point. Turbo always has and always will be cheaper than NA builds for 4 valve vw motors.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> Oh, and as far as bang for the buck, this is a moot point because turbo will always win that point. Turbo always has and always will be cheaper than NA builds for 4 valve vw motors.


I think youre missing the point. A turbo kit for our engine is alot more expensive then buying the manifold and tune (which yields pretty much the same power on both) so how exactly is that cheaper at all? Your logic is confusing me. Your talking about building a turbo motor vs an NA motor. In most cases your right but NA builds dont always require more money for parts then a turbo build would. When you wanna make alot of power outta a turbo then you have to spend alot to work the engine to that point (Stronger rods, low comp pistons, head spacer, bigger turbo, bigger injectors, better FPR, FMIC, free flowing downpipe and exhaust system, and I could go on.)
How exactly is any of that cheaper then working an NA motor which requires almost none of those things? Yeah if you wanna make alottt of power NA then youll have to do alot of custom work to certain parts but most of us regular guys arent ever gonna do that.


----------



## Golf 2.0T (Apr 17, 2007)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> must be the tune. we did SRI, header, etc etc etc with a custom C2 tune that now availible to the public. we pulled GOOD power till 7120RPM's. highest hp yet as well.
> and still had good mid range as well.


i have pulled 430awhp @ 7337rpm and 344awtq @ 6400rpm (16psi 35R) . what this tells me is that the 2.5 has a very high flowing cylinder head , to make these kinds of number with cams that have less lift and duration than the ones my grandpa's buick . i just cant wait to see what kinds of numbers i will put out at the same boost with better cams :thumbup:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

cant wait to get my very own 5857!


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

6262 or 6765  

Once the 2.5 is sorted it will run the 5857 out of breath at low boost.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

lol, i still have about 1 year before doing the turbo set up... but so far i want the 5857, which is the precision's version of the gt 35 which is what golf2.0 is using... and 400whp seems like enough... :laugh:


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

thygreyt said:


> lol, i still have about 1 year before doing the turbo set up... but so far i want the 5857, which is the precision's version of the gt 35 which is what golf2.0 is using... and 400whp seems like enough... :laugh:


But you need to accommodate for the extra displacement... 6262 is I'd say the better of the two.its got legs and a good profile. You don't want your ride going anaerobic...


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> lol, i still have about 1 year before doing the turbo set up... but so far i want the 5857, which is the precision's version of the gt 35 which is what golf2.0 is using... and 400whp seems like enough... :laugh:


No, not really- I just finished up a bunch of dyno testing with the 5857 and is only a ~630 crank bhp turbo. It's a really wicked street turbo on 2L 1.8t's... The 2.5L will kick its butt. 

It wouldn't make power past 26psi up top on our cammed 1.8t / 2L. 

The 35r is more like 700-710 crank. 

:thumbup:


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> and 400whp seems like enough... :laugh:


With my R32 I thought 430 AWHP would be enough. Then I was shooting for 570 and got there....wasn't enough. Now I have to solve trans/clutch issues to reach 670 AWHP (800ish crank) and my guess is after a week or two it won't be enough.

Is it ever enough? :laugh:


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

zevion said:


> With my R32 I thought 430 AWHP would be enough. Then I was shooting for 570 and got there....wasn't enough. Now I have to solve trans/clutch issues to reach 670 AWHP (800ish crank) and my guess is after a week or two it won't be enough.
> 
> Is it ever enough? :laugh:


Hmmm. I think I'm gonna need a ride in this.... 670 awhp on a dsg will be interesting :sly:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> No, not really- I just finished up a bunch of dyno testing with the 5857 and is only a ~630 crank bhp turbo. It's a really wicked street turbo on 2L 1.8t's... The 2.5L will kick its butt.
> 
> It wouldn't make power past 26psi up top on our cammed 1.8t / 2L.
> 
> ...


http://www.034motorsport.com/turboc...57-turbo-billet-compressor-wheel-p-19956.html



034 motorsports said:


> Taking the ground breaking technology of the Garrett GT turbos one step further, Precision has engineered these turbos from the ground up to be the most efficient, most powerful turbochargers the aftermarket has ever seen.
> 
> Rated conservatively for about 605 crank horsepower by Precision, early Evolution IX users are seeing as much as 650 WHP.* This turbo offers power similar to a GT35R with the spool of a GT30R.*
> 
> ...


it looks good on paper. 
what do you think about the 2.5 on a 5857?? a good complete answer!!!  not just "2.5 will kick its but" lol.

and, i think 25psi would be a bit much... even after building the engine... so i think that would be my limit...


----------



## zevion (Oct 23, 2009)

kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> Hmmm. I think I'm gonna need a ride in this.... 670 awhp on a dsg will be interesting :sly:


It's still a lot of fun at 570. Where are you located? You are certainly welcome to take her for a spin if close to Minneapolis. Else will be at H2O this year.


Anyways, back to 2.5 cams. Sorry for the thread-jack.


----------



## digitalpirat (Jan 15, 2009)

Interested in what you have in store for us Pete! :thumbup:

camscamscams


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

PLLLEEEAASSEEE!!! My tax return for this year will deffinately be funding these if they are available by then.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

zevion said:


> It's still a lot of fun at 570. Where are you located? You are certainly welcome to take her for a spin if close to Minneapolis. Else will be at H2O this year.
> 
> 
> Anyways, back to 2.5 cams. Sorry for the thread-jack.


Live in Cleveland, Im working on getting to H2O this year, but will most likely only be there for the last weekend. A local shop is finishing up a second BT mk4 r32, which should put down 7-800awhp and Im gonna get a ride in on that, but ya I wanna test out a dsg with similar levels of power :laugh:


----------



## motocaddy (Jul 12, 2007)

2.5 cam threads make me sad.  After we get our new C2 tune, we'll pretty much be at the current limit for NA, without expensive head work. We probably only have 2-3 years left with our 2.5 and I don't anticipate cams during that time period, so big turbo is starting to look like the only real option for more hp.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

motocaddy said:


> 2.5 cam threads make me sad.  After we get our new C2 tune, we'll pretty much be at the current limit for NA, without expensive head work. We probably only have 2-3 years left with our 2.5 and I don't anticipate cams during that time period, so big turbo is starting to look like the only real option for more hp.


:thumbup: You got it :beer:


----------



## Pineapplegti ! (Dec 17, 2008)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> funny since he is the one that started the cam stuff and says he still is on it.....
> i'm sticking to my guns...cam over sri. both good with a matching tune.


Finally something we agree on.. :laugh:



[email protected] said:


> PS: Eventually the main issue with these motors will be keeping flywheels attached to them with the wimpy 6 bolt design. They will need to be either tapped bigger + dowel pinned, double drilled to 12 bolt, or some combination / iteration of those ideas. Not a lot of fun, you need a tall machining center to stand the 2.5L crank up in it. I can't do it in house. :facepalm:


 Damn back to 8 dowel setup just like a type one motor :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> :thumbup: You got it :beer:



What's going to happen to the 2.5L after it goes out of production... They aren't going to all evaporate, explode, or run away at night. The 1.8T has been out of production for half a decade now and yet product development persists. An even larger example is the Honda B series / DSM 4G63... 

Parts will continue to come out, it just takes some time. Consider that 5 years into the run of 1.8t's guys were still struggling and blowing up engines at ~300whp, and the APR stage 3 was king kong. People were trying to fool the stock ecu with diode's and secondary banks of injectors. 

Be patient, there are people out there working on it, and they aren't going to stop just because production is over. In fact, we find that most of the time it takes 5-6 years after the cars come out for people to even really begin buying engine parts in any volume. :thumbup:


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

^ Misunderstanding  Im not complaining at all just answered a question. I feel there are plenty of parts out NOW to build a reliable 2.5 forced or n/a. When did VW announce that the 2.5 is out of production? Last I heard it was gonna be the new void between the VR6 and 2.0l, which is making a slow unfortunate return


----------



## TrillyPop (Jan 27, 2010)

That's a questionable statement. Plus, sure you can build a n/a or turbo 2.5L but the prices right now are outrageous compared to what they will be in a few years.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

TrillyPop said:


> That's a questionable statement. Plus, sure you can build a n/a or turbo 2.5L but the prices right now are outrageous compared to what they will be in a few years.


Gotta pay to play, pretty cut and dry if you ask me. I dont understand where you guys are comming up with these "outrageous" price points... The parts offered to us dont cost any more than they do for any other motor, we just have to wait for them... I respect wanting a discount and always asking for group buy pricing, but you guys need to realize they dont have to offer that at all.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

The parts which are the same, are priced the same as other engines. Rods, pistons, spring kits, etc, most of it is essentially divide by 4 and multiply by 5. 

It's a big, relatively complex motor despite it's "base model" status (in mk5 anyways)... You've got 2 billet cams (or assembled OE, but they will never be cast cheap ones...), roller followers, carefully engineered progressively wound springs, variable cam timing, a big huge forged crank, etc etc... It probably has 4 times more parts in it then a single 8v engine, and for that reason building one will never be dirt cheap. It's the price you pay for a nice engine with a fat powerband. 

Kevin- Sorry, I shouldn't have quoted you, I was mostly replying to comments made above you. :thumbup:


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

I respect the fact that its expensive...and I totally respect the r&d to produce reliable, performing, complete parts...

This motor is not a simple motor, nor are any of the components...think about even the timing chain cover, its got an upper section that has the radiator hoses going through it, requiring an o ring and essentially a serious tear down just to access the chain, cam gears etc...

The thing that I have tried to remind myself anytime I get ready to purchase a part for my car like my intake, chip, exhaust, motor mounts etc...think about what you'd pay for that part from VW!

These cars aren't exactly cheap in the first place. And parts from the dealer aren't nearly as affordable from vw as they would be from another auto manufacturer...

When it comes to performance, and this motor...i would rather pay a little more for the r&d and wait for the perfect go fast bit!

HOWEVER! and thats a huge however, I would love cheap parts! Cams are going to be AMAZING!

doing a little head work i'd think will be really nice!

The 2.5 flows really well, but opened up with more lift and duration...and less of the "econ" type power band is going to scream!


----------

