# 2.8 VR6 TURBO GT35 + CAMS TECHTONICS 288* does not start when total cold



## Rocky_VRT (Aug 10, 2011)

HI GUYS

I HAVE PROBLEM SINCE I INSTALED CAMS 288* TT. 

car:
golf 2.8 VR6 turbo gt35 + cams 288* compression 7.9:1 on VEMS

Car doesn't start when totally cold. The Only solution is to remove the hose from manifold to give additional air.

where should i make a changes?

how the timing map and VE should look like?

when there is warm and normal temp of engine there is no problem to start and idle...

the preassure on cylinders: 9,6-9,7bar

thanks for help


----------



## Capt.Dreadz (Jun 4, 2003)

Why 288's? Those are for Naturally Aspirated high revving VR6's. Not to mention your valves aren't gonna like you. 288's don't wake up till 4500-5k


----------



## Rocky_VRT (Aug 10, 2011)

Capt.Dreadz said:


> Why 288's? Those are for Naturally Aspirated high revving VR6's. Not to mention your valves aren't gonna like you. 288's don't wake up till 4500-5k


I know I dont need low range rpm... Im revving 7500rpm... this is only for 1/4 mile car. But I cant manage with total cold;/. how looks timing map on idling and cruisin? 6dec 8dec 12dec 16dec??


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

Capt.Dreadz said:


> Why 288's? Those are for Naturally Aspirated high revving VR6's. Not to mention your valves aren't gonna like you. 288's don't wake up till 4500-5k


Welcome to 2007


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Capt.Dreadz said:


> Why 288's? Those are for Naturally Aspirated high revving VR6's. Not to mention your valves aren't gonna like you. 288's don't wake up till 4500-5k


The blue 10sec. Mk3 at waterfest is running 288's


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

Maybe with the extremely low compression and improper cams making poor vacuum and compression.... unable to such through turbo, intercooler and piping to feed air into motor or get a proper signal to the ecu via the vacuum hose attached to the motor and runs to the ecu. Too much cam profile in my book. Better suited for NA or race application. For a street car, stock to 264/260 cams work best for forced induction.


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

Rocky_VRT said:


> cams 288* compression 7.9:1



I found your problem - race car cams and compression akin to a 1970's turbo car. :facepalm::facepalm:


----------



## MarcoVR6SC (May 3, 2003)

When cold, if the engine starts when spraying some 'easy start' in the intake, then it needs more fuel.

When cold, these engines need a lot of fuel, plus, if you have less airflow(big cams) then part of the fuel drops out of the airflow and puddles in the intake manifold(liquid fuel doesn’t burn), so my guess, it needs more fuel.


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

The fact that this problem started with the installation of the cams, is proven fact that large duration cams make low vacuum and that on top of the fact that he has lower compression than what a modern turbo motor can maintain safely [9:1 is more realistic these days a low compression] again compounds the issue that the motor will again have issues as large duration and low compression are not meant to function together. Large duration cams require high compression. Switch back to stock cams or raise your compression.


----------



## 05JettaGLXVR6 (Jan 25, 2006)

There is alot of false info in this thread. Alot of people thinking they know what there talking about. I like all the people that think stock cams make all this power turbo. Do any of you know ANY stock cam Vw that makes power turbo? Were talking 700+ hp here. Nope.

But for refrence 

My car has a 8:5:1 headspacer has 288's and gets reved to 8k rpm(with just ****ty valvesprings) at 30+ psi on a 67mm turbo.

I usually unplug my BOV when i start the car cold. They other options are to wire in an idle valve or use the stock 0bd2 throttle one.


----------



## 05JettaGLXVR6 (Jan 25, 2006)

Capt.Dreadz said:


> Why 288's? Those are for Naturally Aspirated high revving VR6's. Not to mention your valves aren't gonna like you. 288's don't wake up till 4500-5k


----------



## Rocky_VRT (Aug 10, 2011)

I solved the problem. There is the idle stepper settings. So when cold i set 100% open stepper. + 22dec on idle spark

i have on this 288's only 0,2 vaccum on idle... when i revv and rpm decrease there is 0,8 0,7 0,6 - 0,2idle... is it correct?


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

I have these cams in my car. A 3l 9.7 to 1 vrt. I have a mustang TB with no iac and run a lugtronic (vems). I have ID1000 injectors My car does take a second to cold start and itidles abit rough until warm w/o any help. 700-800 rpm when cold 1100 rpm when hot. No hot start issues at all


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

05JettaGLXVR6 said:


>


You have to remember Tim this is the vw mentality. Hell when i first turboed my vr a T04e was considered huge and the schrick 268s i had were WAYYY too big for FI.


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

Actually, I do know of a stock VR6 cam that makes good power and that is the stock Mk3 cams. Not 700 hp, but damn close considering it lost traction on the dyno which ended the tuning session for the day. It was our Corrado that we build and dyno tuned with Kevin Black at AP Tuning back a few years ago made 617 hp to the wheels before it started having the traction problems. If Kevin had had been pushing VEMS [if it was available at the time also] and we had had a set of slicks with us, the hp numbers would have been greater, but that was then and yes, big power with stock cams is possible. Cams should always be the last thing when tuning for power on a turbo car.



















We had no problem makeing 450 hp on a 16V with stock cams as well.



















Real power is in compression and if you don't believe that, then Todd's 16V running 10:1+ compression with over 700 hp will prove that point.


----------



## 05JettaGLXVR6 (Jan 25, 2006)

Rheinland Technik said:


> Real power is in compression and if you don't believe that, then Todd's 16V running 10:1+ compression with over 700 hp will prove that point.



Todd had a good cam setup in that car. Kevin will tell you Compression doesnt matter as much as people think. I think we can trust his opinions.

Im not in the tipical vortex mentality that low compression is needed for turbo only reason my car has the spacer is cause it was in the motor from 2 years ago.

Hell my car only makes 120psi of compression. 110 on one back cylinder and its fine. Smokes a little tho


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

But just think, which will give you quicker sppol up and faster throttle response on a turbo motor without changing turbos? Higher Compression. I am fine with the 8.5:1 that your running, it is the ratios that go lower that bother me. The miss informed mass public reading books written by guys from the 70's and early 80's and thinking VW and Audi got it right with the early turbo 5 cyls and the G60 motors [7.8:1 - 8:1] are surely mistaken and need a kick in the teeth. I learned a long time ago that those books were good for fixing wobbly kitchen tables by sticking them under the short leg and that the G60 made so much more power with longer rods and higher compression. God it needed it with the grenade that they used to feed the motor, but it did at least take some strain off the charger and required less boost to make more power than it did with the stock compression. The last VR6 that I built was 8.5:1, but that is what the guy wanted. It does come down to what your comfortable with and how much you rely on the mass and those old books.


----------



## Rocky_VRT (Aug 10, 2011)

Rheinland Technik said:


> But just think, which will give you quicker sppol up and faster throttle response on a turbo motor without changing turbos? Higher Compression. I am fine with the 8.5:1 that your running, it is the ratios that go lower that bother me. The miss informed mass public reading books written by guys from the 70's and early 80's and thinking VW and Audi got it right with the early turbo 5 cyls and the G60 motors [7.8:1 - 8:1] are surely mistaken and need a kick in the teeth. I learned a long time ago that those books were good for fixing wobbly kitchen tables by sticking them under the short leg and that the G60 made so much more power with longer rods and higher compression. God it needed it with the grenade that they used to feed the motor, but it did at least take some strain off the charger and required less boost to make more power than it did with the stock compression. The last VR6 that I built was 8.5:1, but that is what the guy wanted. It does come down to what your comfortable with and how much you rely on the mass and those old books.


what about boost and pinging ("knocking combustion (process)")?? there is always says: without lower compression there is no posibility to boost becouse of PINGING...

what ignition timing have this vrt 600++hp at what boost?


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

The motor ran 93 octane on SDS no knock control as a daily driver and on the weekends at the track it was ran on 100 octane. It was about six years ago so I can't recall the timing we ran on it. It was a 9:1 compression motor as well [~8.8:1 - 8.95:1 / Running 9:1 JE's with a spacer slightly over stock thickness]. The motor is still out there in a daily driver Golf and the turbo system is out there somewhere too. We didn't have any issues with pinging, but we could lift the head though.


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

Rheinland Technik said:


> Actually, I do know of a stock VR6 cam that makes good power and that is the stock Mk3 cams.


Yeah, and it stops making power at 6,500 RPM. Bigger cams would have that power continuing upwards after 7,000. Peak numbers don't mean **** to anyone but dyno queens, you don't run a race in one gear.




Rheinland Technik said:


> Real power is in compression


I'll agree with you here. Sure you can make power with lower compression, but you have to throw boost at it and off-boost driveability suffers - power under the curve, spool time, fuel mileage, throttle response....

I don't understand the obsession with lowering the compression to stupid low levels with VW's. Nowhere else will you find people so willing to make their motors as inefficient as possible. Just like chip options, the VW tuning world is stuck 15 years in the past.:facepalm::banghead:




Rocky_VRT said:


> what about boost and pinging ("knocking combustion (process)")?? there is always says: without lower compression there is no posibility to boost becouse of PINGING...


This isn't 1980 - we have much more efficient compressors, much more efficient charge cooling solutions, and much more knowledge/experience with turbo cars. 

You can run pump gas on a boosted 10:1 motor and you will make more power on less boost, get better fuel mileage, and have a much better driving car than any of these 8:1 motors running 500 pounds of boost just to make 400 horsepower.:banghead:


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

Yes, cams would have shifted the rpm band, just as a different a/r would have shifted the torque up or down a few hundred rpms. It was far from a dyno queen, as many more people make more power than this thing did. This was on SDS, though an affordable and reliable system, it had its limits. This was a street car, so even so, it made decent power in lower rpm's and lower gears. This was a 4th gear run, as close to a 1:1 that the 02A tranny had. The fact that is doubled its hp in 1K rpms between 4K and 5K rpms was where it made things interesting to drive and usually was in 3rd gear when it started to get traction. 1st and 2nd were and are in most cases gears just to get the car rolling as short ratios are for road course event style racing such as SCCA anyway and you never make peak power for long sustained periods either. No, you don't run a race in one gear, but you do run it in the ones that you make the power in. It is all relavent to the style of racing and track features as to when and where you want your power to be. Once more, this was a street car. NASCAR, though I don't care to follow it as a fan, runs 3rd and 4th at 9500rpms on average. Our Beetle drag car ran in two gears, 1st and 2nd, that was all it had and it ran 9.45's are 145mph, of course, it was built for one purpose and that was the 1/4 mile and with 550hp to the wheels, it did it well and was no dyno queen either.


----------



## Juiced6 (Feb 1, 2004)

05JettaGLXVR6 said:


>


its why i do not hang out in the tech section much any more


----------



## Juiced6 (Feb 1, 2004)

.therealvrt said:


> You have to remember Tim this is the vw mentality. Hell when i first turboed my vr a T04e was considered huge and the schrick 268s i had were WAYYY too big for FI.


i had that setup in 2001 and caught some flak as well

i have never tried 288s but did have 268s and a stand alone - loved the car but too many speeding tickets :laugh:


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

Rheinland Technik said:


>


too me, thats a perfect example of a car having the wrong cams, or wrong size hotside. tq peaks, and then immediately falls down. proper cams it would have probably made another 100Hp at the same boost levels.

NA or FI, you figure out where you want to make power, and you pick the cams that work best in that rpm range.

:beer:


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

I am not saying that the setup was perfect, nor am I saying that I know everything about everything. But, if you look at 1.8T or even 2.0T torque curves [there are plenty of them to be found on the internet] as compared to this one, the torque curve is fairly flat on the top end with only 125 lbft drop off from 5700 to 7500 rpms. There are plenty of plots that look worse than this and they have stock cams as well. The hot side on the turbo was a .84 Percision PT74, which at the time was the largest turbo used on any VR6, even Mr. Green's Jetta when he was making around 670 hp to the wheels back around Waterfest 10. Not many people ran cams in VR6's then and with this engine, it was a test bed anyway. A whole nother motor was planned to go after this one, but once the car was sold and a new project came into play, it was cancelled.


----------



## lugnuts (Jul 26, 2001)

Cliff notes:

O.P. had an idle air problem, and a tuning problem (The fueling is much different between 288 cams and any of the other smaller cams)

One big problem not mentioned is, it's easy to have issues with valve guide(seal) to retainer clearance if you are not careful putting larger cams in an engine (without the correct parts) and also some cams have incorrect index issues that can cost a lot power and powerband, which can give "big cams" a bad name when it is not the cam's fault.

Anything under 8.5:1 compression is un-necessary unless you are trying to make a new record on 87 octane.

But if you have a 8-1 motor built, put the slide rule down, log off of vortex, and go run the thing anyway. It will be fine.

1 point of compression D.D.S. (Technical Tuning Term, take a guess) once you are in the sweet spot for that particular motor.

Nothing wrong with big cams in a turbo car at all. I'd definitely recommend doing decent size cams for any race car before head work. (Until you get the powerband you want, you need reliable test results. If you mess up a head it's too time consuming and expensive to get another head done, and it may not be the same)

Stock port AEB head is good for 1000+ whp, and stock port 1.8 16v head is good for 700+++whp.


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

lugnuts said:


> Anything under 8.5:1 compression is un-necessary unless you are trying to make a new record on 87 octane.


:laugh: lmao


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

lugnuts said:


> Anything under 8.5:1 compression is un-necessary unless you are trying to make a new record on 87 octane.


Challenge accepted.


----------



## Juiced6 (Feb 1, 2004)

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Challenge accepted.


----------



## zwogti (Jan 11, 2004)

05JettaGLXVR6 said:


> There is alot of false info in this thread. Alot of people thinking they know what there talking about. I like all the people that think stock cams make all this power turbo. Do any of you know ANY stock cam Vw that makes power turbo? Were talking 700+ hp here. Nope.
> 
> But for refrence
> 
> ...




Dyno shows power at the wheels and still got more boost to go, 12V vr6, 127K miles stock vr6 cams, 95*F florida temperature and inside Dyno room


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

zwogti said:


> Dyno shows power at the wheels and still got more boost to go, 12V vr6, 127K miles stock vr6 cams, 95*F florida temperature and inside Dyno room


A much more useable powerband than the other dyno in this thread


----------



## Olbrenner (Aug 23, 2008)

If you scale the pics of the two dyno plots out, there is actually many similarities between them. The smaller plot looks as if it falls off more drastic, but the cell width is what makes it look that way though it is really as flat as the second plot. Everything below 5000 is spot on the sam with only a slight hp difference. From 7000 and up, the hp and torque numbers are about the same, with the one making just slightly more hp and at 7500, they are about equal. The peak hp is more on the second plot as is torque, but the power bands on both are very useable and with additional tuning, the smaller plot engine could easily pick up power and not require 288's. A set of 260s, 264/260s or even 268s would work. Only until you scale it out and overlay them do you see that they are not that different.


----------



## purple-pill (Feb 2, 2003)

Rheinland Technik said:


> The motor ran 93 octane on SDS no knock control as a daily driver and on the weekends at the track it was ran on 100 octane. It was about six years ago so I can't recall the timing we ran on it. It was a 9:1 compression motor as well [~8.8:1 - 8.95:1 / Running 9:1 JE's with a spacer slightly over stock thickness]. The motor is still out there in a daily driver Golf and the turbo system is out there somewhere too. We didn't have any issues with pinging, but we could lift the head though.


I had the turbo from daves car on loan in my car last year. Any chance you know where that radiator support went for the corrado?


----------



## purple-pill (Feb 2, 2003)

keep in mind this dyno was done in 2004-2005.
at 5800 it looks like it started loosing traction


----------



## Rheinland Technik (Apr 2, 2010)

Not sure where the cool arse radiator support went, unless it was with the car when it was sold. I do know that another one was made for Rob Allen's Corrado, so it would almost be possible to have a thrid one done up. The car did loose traction on the dyno during that run and the one or two after that, which ended the session.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

purple-pill said:


> keep in mind this dyno was done in 2004-2005.
> at 5800 it looks like it started loosing traction


i remember when people first started making those numbers. 500+whp seemed unimaginable back then.

:beer:


----------



## lugnuts (Jul 26, 2001)

zwogti said:


> Dyno shows power at the wheels and still got more boost to go, 12V vr6, 127K miles stock vr6 cams, 95*F florida temperature and inside Dyno room



I'm surprised this is on stock cams. What turbo is that? the 67/65 on Timmy's and Miamivr6t's cars both come in hard at 4,500 rpm, much earlier than this example.


----------



## zwogti (Jan 11, 2004)

lugnuts said:


> I'm surprised this is on stock cams. What turbo is that? the 67/65 on Timmy's and Miamivr6t's cars both come in hard at 4,500 rpm, much earlier than this example.



Turbonetics T-72 turbo


----------



## Mark Morris (Dec 15, 2001)

lugnuts said:


> 1 point of compression D.D.S. (Technical Tuning Term, take a guess)


I love it when you get technical, Mr. Doesn't Do Sh*t. :laugh:


----------



## VRNY1 (Nov 6, 2005)

Hello all! I am not tech savy at all but have a question for you all. Please don't scold for i am a newb and have been told this wasn't possible. What exactly would I need to do/get to run 268 cams with an ar .50 or an ar .60 turbo on a vr6? all info would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## VRNY1 (Nov 6, 2005)

I saw you guys have had this question asked before. I see i need to know where or how high in the rpm band i want to go. I would say in the 7500 range. Do i need stand alone or could i just run the C2 software and be ok? Also would i need to do internals on both head and block? I was told be a few people that it's not necessary.


----------

