# FrankenTurbo F25 Prototyping & Testing



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

A little over a year ago we undertook the development of a turbocharger to support the VW 2.5L engine. Before the design work began we took a long look at the market and the motor itself. We found plenty of offerings suited to large-budget, ambitious 2.5L projects. But we judged the lower-budget "downmarket" to be under serviced. And that suited us just fine. We know that kind of market. FrankenTurbo thrives in it on other platforms.

We decided to focus on the possibilities for these motors within the limits of the stock internals, with the stock air metering system, with the stock intake manifold. Clutch. Gearbox. And perhaps (eek!) even the stock exhaust system. And we wanted to make the turbo small. That would be unique for the market, which has plenty of honking big Garretts, Precisions, etc. but nothing that would approximate a "stock" turbocharged driving experience. This meant available boost at all engine speeds. It meant strong, safe torque levels in normal street driving. Ultimately the goal was to transform a naturally-aspirated 2.5L into a power-plant that rivaled -- or even bested -- stock motor 2.0L FSI & TSIs. 

At that point, we had our product brief. It had to be affordable. It had to work on a largely stock car. And it had to deliver power that could hang in right with a well-sorted K04 FSI. Not that we advocate racing, or anything. But if it had to do it, it could.

Our starting point was the turbo's internals. To keep costs and complexity down, it was to be oil-feed only. No water jacket to plumb for. And this oil-cooled center cartridge should closely mirror the terrific K16 used in that OTHER 2.5L engine: the TTRS. So the F25's and the K16's wheels are very similar. Our 25-series compressor wheel is a mixed-flow geometry, like the Extended Tip Technology 2480-series compressor used in the K16. The turbine rotor is a traditional 12 blade, open-back design like used in the K16. But neither wheel is simply a clone of its TTRS counterpart. The F25's combination of wheels are unique to it. The compressor wheel is larger. The turbine wheel is as well. So the backbone of the turbo is every bit the match of the one fitted to the TTRS. Here it is:











When we turned to the housings and actuator, the priorities were cost, simplicity and small size. To manage the first, we selected the already-developed C2Motorsports exhaust manifold. It has a T3 flange. So we built around that. The turbine housing we chose for the prototype fits the manifold, but it also has a modestly-sized interior dimension. In the turbo industry, this dimension is typically referred to as "Area Ratio", or A/R. Garrett Turbocharger has an excellent tutorial on this topic, and it can be found HERE. Simply put, the small A/R we wanted to use would emphasize turbine power at lower engine speeds. Just as a stock turbocharger would. And so our turbine housing specification is .67A/R. This is quite small for a T3-flanged housing. So the turbo's T3 inlet flange is a bit of a misdirect. This is not a big turbo, despite the connection between it and the manifold. This is reflected in the size of our compressor housing. Also small, it is designed for low-end responsiveness versus gobs of airflow at 7000 or even 8000rpms.

Lastly we chose to keep the turbo internally gated, just as the K16 is. But we specced our uprated actuator that we've used for years on our 1.8T, 2.7T & 2.0T products. It's the same spring on a different bracket. And the waste gate port is on the small side, too. It's 26mm. Again, this matches the dimensions of all our other products. The end result, looked like this:











The next step was to see if the turbo would mount to a 2.5L engine. Our friends at ForceFed Engineering assisted with this, providing a guinea pig motor for the work. Here we go:






































What followed after this successful dry-fit process was many months of installing the prototype into our Haldex-based test car. Because of our regular posts to another thread, many of you are probably familiar with the steps that went into this unconventional setup. Our test car is a 1.8T-based platform, not a 2.5L car like a Rabbit or Jetta. So what gives there? Well, chiefly it was because the car -- dubbed the FrankenTT -- for years has been a reliable test mule for a variety of technologies and modifications. It'd already seen two motors and numerous turbochargers, intercoolers & fueling systems. Importantly, it is bristling with sensors and gauges, allowing us to have unprecedented data collection on the car. And lastly, nobody else had ever succeeded with a 2.5L swap into a Mk1 TT225. So we knew there'd be a lot of opportunity for learning. 

As documented in the thread linked above, the work to get the car running was handled by ForceFed Engineering and Nothing Leaves Stock. Without the hard work and expertise of both, the car would never have gotten running. And this bad-boy is definitely running. Here's an audio sampling of it on the streets.







So what kind of ECU software is managing that awesome-sounding motor? Some kind of exotic stand-alone system by a third party company? Nope, the car has a VW 2.5L motor ECU. And its running a prototype file via C2Motorsports. I am calling this candidate software "Stage2F". And let's talk about that:


*C2Motorsports "Stage2F" candidate file specs:*

Stock 3" MAF sensor and housing
Bosch 550cc EV14 fuel injectors
Stock intake manifold
Stock throttle body
Stock fuel pump and fuel rail
FrankenTurbo F25 running 12psi actuator spring pressure


One additional MUST HAVE is an intercooler. Yes, this adds expense, but bear in mind there's only one VW car that's ever left the factory with sufficient intercooling for the power of Stage2F: the Golf R. So as long as any GTI needs money spent towards its intercooling, why shouldn't a 2.5T Rabbit/Jetta? 

With these items in place, our projection for power levels will be at least 280whp/300whtq. We know this because we've dynoed our test car in Stage2F form and achieved just this kind of power. Here it is:











As I indicated, our test car is fitted with a full complement of sensors and monitors. So the power figures you see here were achieved while staying within safe boost and exhaust gas temperature limits. We're very mindful of the fact this is a motor designed for natural aspiration, so any Stage2F kit will have to work within considerable limits. And here are the data demonstrating it does:











I should note that these EGTs were collected immediately across from the exhaust port for the hot, central cylinder 3. And they are also being collected in a 3" exhaust system that lacks a catalytic converter. How any Stage2F car would perform with an emissions-compliant exhaust is a bit of a question mark. But there are plenty of other questions, such as fitment in a 2.5L car. Tuning options. And the exact nature of any FrankenTurbo kit. To answer these questions we'll be conducting a beta test program. The first order of business is to sort out a stock-fitment connection of the turbo to a 2.5L exhaust system. We know an adapter is going to be required. But will we be able to use the turbo and C2Manifold unchanged from what they are now? We'll be working with our partners ForceFed Engineering to tackle these questions.

In the meantime, we're opening this thread for community feedback and comment. In addition to answering your questions, I intend for it to cover a few important topics related to engine performance.

Thanks

Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## patrwng (Jun 12, 2013)

Awesome job! Would love to see you guys working on a tune including the ie sri manifold. I know on another thread it was mentioned that on your particular 2.5 steering pump in the way but anyways something for you to think about for those of us still na with ie manifold. Can't wait for the release of product looks really promising and exactly what I want. Lol for me I don't want a huge turbo just a really fun car.


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

Subscribed


----------



## hazard520 (Feb 2, 2013)

Nice! Love to see people still showing this engine some love. Any ideas on the price range your shooting for?


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

hazard520 said:


> Nice! Love to see people still showing this engine some love. Any ideas on the price range your shooting for?


this.


----------



## MK7Matt (Apr 11, 2014)

Sounds exciting...can't wait to see/hear more! opcorn:


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

Yes, I volunteer my Golf 2.5 as a test mule for the IE SRI & a tubular header from Iroz Motorsports. :laugh:


----------



## HelloMyNameIs (Aug 2, 2011)

Yes, you may take my money :laugh:

Really good stuff. Great video.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Im liking the thought behind this turbo setup. If I ever do turbo my car, I didnt really want a crazy amount of power or an overly large turbo. This kit seems to be just what Id be looking for and makes plenty of power on not alot of boost either. I need it to still be relatively reliable since my car is my DD and not a show piece or weekend toy. Looking forward to seeing a price for this kit. Nice work guys :beer:


----------



## A1an (Mar 22, 2007)

Very cool.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

tay272 said:


> I'm liking the thought behind this turbo setup. If I ever do turbo my car, I didn't really want a crazy amount of power or an overly large turbo. This kit seems to be just what I'd be looking for and makes plenty of power on not a lot of boost either. I need it to still be relatively reliable since my car is my DD and not a show piece or weekend toy. Looking forward to seeing a price for this kit. Nice work guys :beer:


Everything this guy said. A s/c would be utopian for me, but it's nice to see that you guys haven't let the bottom half of the niche just be ignored. Way to step up to the plate and bring us 2.5L owners a product worth having. I look forward to seeing how this fits with a stock exhaust. :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Our next step is to determine the possibility of an adapter from the turbo that would allow the stock downpipe to be retained. We'll need a test car for that. Anyone local to the NYC area should contact us. Turbo and installation by FFE in Deer Park NY would be free in exchange for use of the car. However, there would be costs for supporting parts such as the intake, intercooling & PCV system. But hey, free turbo.

Anybody interested should contact us here: [email protected]

Thx


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

I volunteer! I'm out on long island.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

This seems pretty damn epic.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> I volunteer! I'm out on long island.


Hehe. Hold your horses. Before anybody drops their keys in Ed Woolsey's hands, it's a good idea to go over all the "little" extra costs that any forced induction project would entail. Anybody want to help with the list? Here's what I can say is necessary for a 300whtq/280whp conversion:


FrankenTurbo with oil lines
Exhaust manifold
Downpipe adapter / new downpipe
Catch can or some other solution for the PCV system
Intercooler and associated piping
Software
Fuel injectors

Those first three items would be free, as I said before. But if you go down the list, the dollars pile up quickly. So I look at this "teaser" for a free turbo kit as a good indicator for the 2.5L community. If we can't even get anyone to bite on a 2.5T build with $1500 of free stuff, maybe we need to look at other products.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Hehe. Hold your horses. Before anybody drops their keys in Ed Woolsey's hands, it's a good idea to go over all the "little" extra costs that any forced induction project would entail. Anybody want to help with the list? Here's what I can say is necessary for a 300whtq/280whp conversion:
> 
> 
> FrankenTurbo with oil lines *[free ] *
> ...


just some ideas, and stuff out of my head.

owner would still need to drop a good 2-3k.

It sounds like an amazing deal!


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

Wouldn't you take this opportunity to develop the fmic and piping for the mkv or mkvi chassis? I mean while you are testing out your downpipe adapter on whom ever car.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Hehe. Hold your horses. Before anybody drops their keys in Ed Woolsey's hands, it's a good idea to go over all the "little" extra costs that any forced induction project would entail. Anybody want to help with the list? Here's what I can say is necessary for a 300whtq/280whp conversion:
> 
> 
> FrankenTurbo with oil lines
> ...


For manual cars, the stock clutch will go out at those power levels, budget $700-$1000 for that.


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

Will watch this thread. Always exciting to see more 2.5T development. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Im guessing if you need an adapter for the downpipe that those of us with a testpipe would also need an adaptor as well/whole different downpipe?


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

tay272 said:


> Im guessing if you need an adapter for the downpipe that those of us with a testpipe would also need an adaptor as well/whole different downpipe?


The adapter will probably mate up with the stock downpipe, so if yours has the same flange, it could work.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> just some ideas, and stuff out of my head.
> 
> owner would still need to drop a good 2-3k.
> 
> It sounds like an amazing deal!


I forgot about the intake piping. We can cover that with silicone hose. I prefer that over metal for cost and sound suppression.



vwluger22 said:


> Wouldn't you take this opportunity to develop the fmic and piping for the mkv or mkvi chassis? I mean while you are testing out your downpipe adapter on whom ever car.


Yes. I have some ideas about the intercooler. My expectation is that we could provide the piping only, not the intercooler. We offer inlet pipes for the Audi 2.7T FrankenTurbo products and have a good fabricator for that. But the question is what intercooler would we configure them for? One derived from a Mk5/Mk6 GTI? Or do we simply provide the piping for an inexpensive Ebay unit such as this one:











I'm not joking about this unit. We've tested it to support over 300whp at 25psi on a 1.8T. It's cheap but works very well.




tay272 said:


> Im guessing if you need an adapter for the downpipe that those of us with a testpipe would also need an adaptor as well/whole different downpipe?


I don't want to get involved with the exhaust system. Emissions compliancy is just too complicated. So the ambition is a manifold/downpipe-adapter combo that allows stock fitment of the stock exhaust.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

I know plenty of people who run similar 'cheap' ebay intercoolers. They work well for what they are, sure there are more efficient options out there, but they will get the job done. I think that would be a good option for this budget turbo system.


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

Another option for intercooler could be a cts turbo 350hp core for $279? 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScienceJesus (Jun 6, 2013)

So I'm guessing this won't work for the MAF-less '09 cars without custom software? Or is that something you guys are looking at working with C2 on down the line?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

ScienceJesus said:


> So I'm guessing this won't work for the MAF-less '09 cars without custom software? Or is that something you guys are looking at working with C2 on down the line?


Software support for the F25 is going to be up to the tuning industry. There's no reason a file for the Mk6, MAFless cars can't be done. So hopefully it will happen.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Software support for the F25 is going to be up to the tuning industry. There's no reason a file for the Mk6, MAFless cars can't be done. So hopefully it will happen.


United Motorsports has a tune to flash the MAFless 2.5


----------



## dhenry (Feb 10, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Our next step is to determine the possibility of an adapter from the turbo that would allow the stock downpipe to be retained. We'll need a test car for that. Anyone local to the NYC area should contact us. Turbo and installation by FFE in Deer Park NY would be free in exchange for use of the car. However, there would be costs for supporting parts such as the intake, intercooling & PCV system. But hey, free turbo.
> 
> Anybody interested should contact us here: [email protected]
> 
> Thx


pmed.. im in the area. maybe we can work something out


----------



## ScienceJesus (Jun 6, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Software support for the F25 is going to be up to the tuning industry. There's no reason a file for the Mk6, MAFless cars can't be done. So hopefully it will happen.


Well, the 09 was still a MkV but is kind of the oddball of the bunch since it switched to MAF-less before the rest of the design did. So that's why I asked. Lots of things that'll work on 06-08 MkV or a different thing for the 10+ Mk6 and sometimes the 09 gets left out. Figured I'd make sure.

Guess I'll be waiting until someone does something for the 1 year of MAF-less MkV's.


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

There already are 2.5T for the 09 mkv. Thygreyt has been turbo for 2 years now I think and I'm sure he's not the only one. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScienceJesus (Jun 6, 2013)

lessthanalex said:


> There already are 2.5T for the 09 mkv. Thygreyt has been turbo for 2 years now I think and I'm sure he's not the only one.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk



Sorry. I meant something more like this F25 rather than a big higher-end turbo since this would still be a daily driver. Everything I've seen for the 09 has been the bigger/higher-end set-ups that eventually require the expensive process of adjusting internals & whatnot.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Doug --use an OEM+ intercooler. S3, Golf R or something like that. **** cheap ebay ****.


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Doug --use an OEM+ intercooler. S3, Golf R or something like that. **** cheap ebay ****.


That would be terribly expensive and a very complicated install procedure. Sandwich mount ic plus specific hose mounting points that are not terribly convenient and still don't perform as good as a small and inexpensive core such as the cts I suggested. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I reckon the supporting intercooler kit for Stage 2F would have to cost our customers no more than $500 including everything. And it has to be configured for a DIY install to the stock, plastic intake.

My maths are starting to form up like this:

FrankenTurbo parts: turbo, manifold, intake hose, downpipe adapter, intercooler piping & injectors = ~$2000.

That's what I've got for a trial balloon.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I reckon the supporting intercooler kit for Stage 2F would have to cost our customers no more than $500 including everything. And it has to be configured for a DIY install to the stock, plastic intake.
> 
> My maths are starting to form up like this:
> 
> ...


its a good deal. more people should be jumping.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

lessthanalex said:


> That would be terribly expensive and a very complicated install procedure. Sandwich mount ic plus specific hose mounting points that are not terribly convenient and still don't perform as good as a small and inexpensive core such as the cts I suggested.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


Side mount inherently has issues I dislike, and aftermarket front mount announces you have a turbo.

--and S3 intercoolers are relatively cheap. They go on sale for $200, and really aren't that hard to install. I put one in a friend's MK5 --not hard.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I reckon the supporting intercooler kit for Stage 2F would have to cost our customers no more than $500 including everything. And it has to be configured for a DIY install to the stock, plastic intake.
> 
> My maths are starting to form up like this:
> 
> ...


I'll ship you my car from Texas if nobody else bites.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

if this is happening on the west coast, i'll be ALL OVER it. I even have alternative transportation lined up for the next 6 weeks. bummer...


Edit: both RRR and my car have SRI though, may cause unwanted complication in the tuning process.

Peter


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Side mount inherently has issues I dislike, and aftermarket front mount announces you have a turbo.
> 
> --and S3 intercoolers are relatively cheap. They go on sale for $200, and really aren't that hard to install. I put one in a friend's MK5 --not hard.


I've also installed one on my buddies gti. But that came with it from the factory. It's not that simple to just add it to your car. Not to mention running the piping and getting custom piping would be too much of a pain for a company to do, a simple front mount is way better for the general consumer. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> aftermarket front mount announces you have a turbo.


Maybe Doug can arrange to buy 10 of the ebay cores, powder coat it black, and then sell it as a part of the kit (as an option?)


Peter


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> if this is happening on the west coast, i'll be ALL OVER it. I even have alternative transportation lined up for the next 6 weeks. bummer...
> 
> Peter



After we've sorted the manifold/downpipe configuration we'll be doing a round of beta testing. We've got a good relationship with AUTuning in Huntington Beach. I'm sure they'd be interested to test fit the prototype parts.



gugu1981 said:


> Maybe Doug can arrange to buy 10 of the ebay cores, powder coat it black, and then sell it as a part of the kit (as an option?)
> 
> Peter



I don't have the space for intercoolers. But I've reached out to XSPower, who we've bought from in the past. They have a $99 FMIC that looks interesting and not too big.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> After we've sorted the manifold/downpipe configuration we'll be doing a round of beta testing. We've got a good relationship with AUTuning in Huntington Beach. I'm sure they'd be interested to test fit the prototype parts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am SOO down for prototype test fitting. Huntington Beach is not far from me at all. And if this can happen in the next 6 weeks or so, I have another car to drive so they can have the car for as long as they need it. Just have to remember that my car has UM SRI, so make sure that's what you want tested. I don't want you to be surprised when all arrangement has been made and my car turns out to be something you weren't expecting.

My car is 2010 with 5 speed manual, just FYI.


Peter


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

the XS-Powers website is so terrible. All kinds of deadlinks, crossed linked pages, photos that doesn't match the description... Anyways. Let me know how I can help. VERY EXCITED to see another kit being developed for the platform.


Peter


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

I live right next door to C2 and have cash in hand, hurry up with the beta testing and send me a kit. I already have 3"exhaust and C2 SRI, stage 3 clutch, stage 2 motor and tranny mounts ect... Potter could tune this one in house. My wife wasn't thrilled at $5k just for a kit +labor and odds and ends needed. This would allow me to replace all the bushings and refresh other parts of the car. I have had my SRI on for years(C2's SRI R&D car) car is finally paid off and wife will finally let me drop more money into it (she wants more done to her GTI). Let me know!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbidrabbitt said:


> I live right next door to C2 and have cash in hand, hurry up with the beta testing and send me a kit. I already have 3"exhaust and C2 SRI, stage 3 clutch, stage 2 motor and tranny mounts ect... Potter could tune this one in house. My wife wasn't thrilled at $5k just for a kit +labor and odds and ends needed. This would allow me to replace all the bushings and refresh other parts of the car. I have had my SRI on for years(C2's SRI R&D car) car is finally paid off and wife will finally let me drop more money into it (she wants more done to her GTI). Let me know!


Is this car flashed with C2 software currently? If not, and you know FI is in the car's future, get them to flash the ECU and have it dynoed there. There's a real value in knowing your baseline NA power beforehand.


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Is this car flashed with C2 software currently? If not, and you know FI is in the car's future, get them to flash the ECU and have it dynoed there. There's a real value in knowing your baseline NA power beforehand.


It has C2 SRI software, it was their R&D car for their SRI. 
http://youtu.be/WwRPf5qOrQc
When we put it back to stock it was 138whp, with SRI and software it was over 200whp.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Well I think I speak for a number of people in saying let's get you on the dyno with the car as it sits now. It will be no problem to organize a beta-test turbo kit in the future. But it'd be invaluable to see exactly what a well-modded NA motor can do on its own. If you have data logs, I'd love to see them.


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Well I think I speak for a number of people in saying let's get you on the dyno with the car as it sits now. It will be no problem to organize a beta-test turbo kit in the future. But it'd be invaluable to see exactly what a well-modded NA motor can do on its own. If you have data logs, I'd love to see them.


http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-ve-Been-Up-To-Today-(C2SRI-Tune-Dyno-content!) 
Here is the thread.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbidrabbitt said:


> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-ve-Been-Up-To-Today-(C2SRI-Tune-Dyno-content!)
> Here is the thread.





[email protected] said:


> We finally got the chance to give you guys exactly what you've been looking for: dyno numbers for a 2.5 with C2's SRI manifold and C2 Software... Victor's car was dropped off to us recently and we finally got the chance today to put it on the dyno (thanks again Victor :heart: ). We haven't had the chance yet to get a C2/C2 setup on the dyno so we were more than excited to see the results!
> 
> As a teaser (since we aren't done dyno tuning just yet  ), we have decided to post up INITIAL number from Victor's FIRST run on the dyno... Needless to say, we're pretty happy.
> 
> First run on the dyno: *197.9whp* :thumbup:


Walk us through what we're seeing here. thx


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Walk us through what we're seeing here. thx


First run on the Dyno with just the SRI and C2 race file.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-Significant-Gains-For-Your-N-A-OR-FI-Project
This is the thread with the Dyno sheet after the C2 SRI software.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

This is it, yes?



C2Motorsports said:


> I will ask that the dyno chart be pulled from the Mustang Dyno PC so we can update with a picture, in the meantime here is the tech specs from the best run:
> 
> 201.1whp
> 175.5wtq
> ...


Have you data logged the car? Knowing its mass airflow values would be helpful.


----------



## Rabbidrabbitt (Mar 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> This is it, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you data logged the car? Knowing its mass airflow values would be helpful.


Yes this is it, no I personally have not data logged, C2 might have more info. VCDS is on my list of things to get before anymore work is do e to my car, we have three VW's and I'm always begging for a friend to VAGcom something or another.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Rabbidrabbitt said:


> .......... I'm always begging for a friend to VAGcom something or another.


I hated this when I got my VW. Its definitely worth buying...and the stealership here charges $120 per scan. Smh

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Geo (Nov 14, 2000)

This looks to have some potential for what I want out of my car on the track. Hopefully I have some monies for when it becomes available!


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

can somebody with an sri offer their car up, the top end should open up even with the lower a/r ratio.
Not to say that the powerband show isnt a nice looking one.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

I'll be happy to be one of the beta testers when this releases even with the cxracing intercooler core, they actually arent too bad especially for the price. We ran one on a ~480 whp rb 240sx for quite a while


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

I would if this was being done in Northern Cali =( 
Would love to be the guinea pig for this.










Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## steve89 (Feb 5, 2008)

Doug. I am willing to offer my car. I am located in RI. I have a 2007 rabbit with IE SRI and c2 software already. Working around my bay should be fairly simple since it is shaved already. Shoot me a email if you want to discuss more SCDAY35 (at) gmail.com


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

we actually have more SRI cars being offered up than non-SRI cars. I guess the folks who are more interested in the turbo kit are likely to have bought the SRI already to satisfy SOME of the thirst for power.


Peter


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> we actually have more SRI cars being offered up than non-SRI cars. I guess the folks who are more interested in the turbo kit are likely to have bought the SRI already to satisfy SOME of the thirst for power.
> 
> 
> Peter


Let's be honest --we have SRIs because we planned to go turbo, and SRI'd turbo 2.5Ls make moar powa!


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Let's be honest --we have SRIs because we planned to go turbo, and SRI'd turbo 2.5Ls make moar powa!












I'm still trying to find a damn tune! >_< Without having to pull my ECU.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> I'm still trying to find a damn tune! >_< Without having to pull my ECU.


Yanking the ECU is easy peasy.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Yanking the ECU is easy peasy.


Yeah, but it's also my DD. Sending it off to get tuned is the last resort. I found a UM dealer that can flash it through the port. The only downside is it's from one end of Long Island to the other. Which pretty much means I'd need a day off to get it done.


----------



## WhatNoGarnish (Jul 6, 2007)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> Yeah, but it's also my DD. Sending it off to get tuned is the last resort. I found a UM dealer that can flash it through the port. The only downside is it's from one end of Long Island to the other. Which pretty much means I'd need a day off to get it done.



http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81853

CB tuning is only doing it locally for now.


How is a UM dealer doing a bench flash and not the others?


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

WhatNoGarnish said:


> http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81853
> 
> CB tuning is only doing it locally for now.
> 
> ...


All I know is I've got the bastard child of the 2.5 series. It's been the one pain in the dick so far, trying to find a tune for it. I'd have better luck trying to find Sofia Vergara's twin sister in a brothel. 

I spoke to a UM dealer in the city awhile back, and they said they could do it. If it's true, I'll be getting my SRI and tune there.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Let's be honest --we have SRIs because we planned to go turbo, and SRI'd turbo 2.5Ls make moar powa!


Very true, but that was up to this point. There was no other way to make serious power for under $3k before(c2 stage 2 is a $4000 kit, making 250whp). Now that [email protected] is working on the f25, there is a new middle ground. I think we will see a new group of folks who will be happy with 250whp, but is only willing to spend $3000 or so. The F25 (without SRI) becomes the perfect solution. Even without the 3" exhaust, I would think the F25 still makes 250whp. Heck, if I was joining the game now, that's what I would do. 250whp on a daily is PLENTY.

$1500 or so for the turbo and manifold, $200 set aside for the intercooler, $300 for injectors, $700 for tune, $50 for ebay catchcan, and that leaves $250 for misc piping and such. Assuming the kit will have a downpipe that mates to the stock exhaust, that's a $3000 turbo kit making 250whp reliably.


But the reality is that we didn't have this option, so most of us who are after power bought the SRI already. We're just begging Doug to at least consider us when refining the spec on the turbo. We sure don't want the turbo to run out of breath at 6800rpm. That would totally defeat the purpose of having the SRI.




Peter


PS: i had a B7 A4 2.0t before, and was VERY envious of the 1.8t guys running Frankenturbo. For a long while, I contemplated trading the car for a 1.8t Avant, or an Allroad. So I got really familiar with the name Frankenturbo. When I saw the name pop up on the 2.5 technical forum a few months ago, i was THRILLED. I will do everything I can to support Doug in improving the platform.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> Very true, but that was up to this point. There was no other way to make serious power for under $3k before(c2 stage 2 is a $4000 kit, making 250whp). Now that [email protected] is working on the f25, there is a new middle ground. I think we will see a new group of folks who will be happy with 250whp, but is only willing to spend $3000 or so. The F25 (without SRI) becomes the perfect solution. Even without the 3" exhaust, I would think the F25 still makes 250whp. Heck, if I was joining the game now, that's what I would do. 250whp on a daily is PLENTY.
> 
> $1500 or so for the turbo and manifold, $200 set aside for the intercooler, $300 for injectors, $700 for tune, $50 for ebay catchcan, and that leaves $250 for misc piping and such. Assuming the kit will have a downpipe that mates to the stock exhaust, that's a $3000 turbo kit making 250whp reliably.
> 
> ...


Just one thing to consider --a TTRS has a factory SRI, and it's factory redline is 6850. If I make 350 at the crank at 6850 and the turbo runs out if steam at that same power level and RPM, I'm not sure if have anything to complain about.

350BHP wouldn't be huge power, but it'd feel really, really, REALLY good  --I drove a Focus RS500 this last summer, and that's EXACTLY what I want from my car.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Just one thing to consider --a TTRS has a factory SRI, and it's factory redline is 6850. If I make 350 at the crank at 6850 and the turbo runs out if steam at that same power level and RPM, I'm not sure if have anything to complain about.
> 
> 350BHP wouldn't be huge power, but it'd feel really, really, REALLY good  --I drove a Focus RS500 this last summer, and that's EXACTLY what I want from my car.


Yah, i wouldn't complaint about 350 crank hp either. And now that i re-read the dyno of the franken tt-rs, its hp peaked at 5250. So if the SRI allows it to breath and continue making power until 6800rpm, that's already in the 380 crank hp range. From my conversation with other vendors and tuners before, 330whp is about the max on the stock pump and/or fuel rail. If that's still true, then the engine probably won't make much more power after 6800rpm anyways. 

Regardless, hoping the stock manifold is the limiting factor on the franken tt-rs, and not the turbo itself.



Peter


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> Yah, i wouldn't complaint about 350 crank hp either. And now that i re-read the dyno of the franken tt-rs, its hp peaked at 5250. So if the SRI allows it to breath and continue making power until 6800rpm, that's already in the 380 crank hp range. From my conversation with other vendors and tuners before, 330whp is about the max on the stock pump and/or fuel rail. If that's still true, then the engine probably won't make much more power after 6800rpm anyways.
> 
> Regardless, hoping the stock manifold is the limiting factor on the franken tt-rs, and not the turbo itself.
> 
> ...


If it's really base around the TTRS turbo, then we're looking at TTRS power levels easily.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> If it's really base around the TTRS turbo, then we're looking at TTRS power levels easily.


If the TT RS has a 2.5 turbo, would any of the parts be transferable?


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> If the TT RS has a 2.5 turbo, would any of the parts be transferable?


Nope all they share have in common is 2.5 and 5cyl. Pretty much entirely different motors.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Damn.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

vwluger22 said:


> Nope all they share have in common is 2.5 and 5cyl. Pretty much entirely different motors.


Dude, the bottom end casting is the same --all the major differences are in the head.

There's more than one 2.5L with a TTRS crank and TTRS internals. Also, the valve springs and valves are the same as pretty much every other current VW 4 banger and 5cyl.

You CAN move a lot if TTRS parts over, but I'd only do the suspension and the crank. Everything else can be bested aftermarket.


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Dude, the bottom end casting is the same --all the major differences are in the head.
> 
> There's more than one 2.5L with a TTRS crank and TTRS internals. Also, the valve springs and valves are the same as pretty much every other current VW 4 banger and 5cyl.
> 
> You CAN move a lot if TTRS parts over, but I'd only do the suspension and the crank. Everything else can be bested aftermarket.



Sorry, I stand corrected I was meaning nothing that would be a "bolt on" type deal that I believe he was looking for.:beer:


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

vwluger22 said:


> Sorry, I stand corrected I was meaning nothing that would be a "bolt on" type deal that I believe he was looking for.:beer:


The factory K16 turbo would need an adapter plate like what Issam is working on. Not worth the cost IMHO --Doug's F25 should perform as well or better than a K16 for less money.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

vwluger22 said:


> Sorry, I stand corrected I was meaning nothing that would be a "bolt on" type deal that I believe he was looking for.


No offense taken. 

I'm not just looking for quick installs. If it helps in the long run, whether durability or performance, it's nothing a weekend install can't fix.  But sending my ecu off for a tune would take longer than that.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> No offense taken.
> 
> I'm not just looking for quick installs. If it helps in the long run, whether durability or performance, it's nothing a weekend install can't fix.  But sending my ecu off for a tune would take longer than that.


Can you do a crank in a weekend? I sure as **** can't.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Confucius say: many hands make light work. Not to mention access to the right tools.  If I don't have the tools, I can order them. 

VW employee. 
It would take the entire weekend, but it could be done.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

I'm not saying I could do it myself. But with a few friends, the right tools, and lift from work, it wouldn't be impossible.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

Tools are not the issue there. It is a pita to get to the crank with the engine in the car. would be a lot easier to pull the motor and do it on an engine stand.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Hence the lift. 
This is where working at a dealership pays off.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Not trying to be rude, but let's try to quit cluttering this thread up, guys. We've got the "what did you do to your 2.5L today" thread if we all want to keep chit-chatting.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Not trying to be a dick, but telling us to not clutter it up, is cluttering it up. 



My bad! Couldn't help myself. :laugh:


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Once theres a car to test this on..what kind of timeline are we looking at here?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> 350BHP wouldn't be huge power, but it'd feel really, really, REALLY good  --I drove a Focus RS500 this last summer, and that's EXACTLY what I want from my car.


numbers well under 350bhp are plenty of oomph. The FrankenTT is certainly under that figure now, and part throttle with it is a little unnerving. I feel the "Stage2F" power level is a really good one. Stock intake manifold, simple intercooler, inexpensive 550s. This should be marketable.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Just curious, what is the max boost without having a new christmas ornament that is possible on a stock block 2.5?


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> numbers well under 350bhp are plenty of oomph. The FrankenTT is certainly under that figure now, and part throttle with it is a little unnerving. I feel the "Stage2F" power level is a really good one. Stock intake manifold, simple intercooler, inexpensive 550s. This should be marketable.


how much does the frankenTT weight? The RS500 weights close to 3500lbs, while our golf is just under 3000. The 500lbs will make a different. The RS500 also has LSD, while many of the golf drivers will not.


And yes, Doug, very marketable, but for those of us already with SRI, we need something too. It would be a shame if the FrankenTurbo end up not benefiting from the SRI (whether due to flow limit, rev limit, or whatever else). 


Peter


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

In for this :beer:

All this SRI talk! I wouldn't worry - and here's why:

1. C2 makes a SRI
2. C2 has a turbo kit
3. C2 has tunes for both SRI and turbo engines
4. C2 is the tuner that FT is going with

Simple logic: it'd be surprising if they don't have a SRI tune for the FT setup. They already have a foundation on the tweaks that need to be made and will just need to apply that to their FT tune. It shouldn't take LOADS of R&D.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

suffocatemymind said:


> In for this :beer:
> 
> All this SRI talk! I wouldn't worry - and here's why:
> 
> ...


Not so much worried about tuning (or physically fitting them). More concerned about the efficiency/flow curve of the turbo that Doug decides on. If the turbo is on the small side, targeted for low end power, but runs out of breath at 6800rpm, then a good part of the advantage of the SRI will be lost. In fact, the SRI cars may perform worse than the non-SRI cars, because the stock intake manifold is tuned for low end torque, which the SRIs tend to sacrifice that a little for top end hp. And if that top end HP advantage is lost due to the spec of the turbo, then it becomes a "SRI or FrankenTurbo, pick one" scenario. And I would hate to see that.


Peter


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> how much does the frankenTT weight? The RS500 weights close to 3500lbs, while our golf is just under 3000. The 500lbs will make a different. The RS500 also has LSD, while many of the golf drivers will not.
> 
> 
> And yes, Doug, very marketable, but for those of us already with SRI, we need something too. It would be a shame if the FrankenTurbo end up not benefiting from the SRI (whether due to flow limit, rev limit, or whatever else).
> ...


Peter, Doug has been saying from the get go the turbo should be "400HP capable" on paper. If that's the case, we'll be looking at a turbo that'll at least rev us out to the TTRS redline of 6850 and make 350BHP with an SRI.

That'll be RS500 power as well --and I'm sure most of us pushing an F25 near it's limits will be swapping gearboxes and installing upgraded diffs and shift forks in those 6MTs. Hell, I'll be getting Recaro Sportster CS seats eventually out of some Audi somewhere and going wider --because rallyX


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Peter, I understand your logic, but the 1.8t opened my eyes a bit on intake manifold theory. With my old 8v, your logic was what I adhered to and for good reason - a more direct flow path will almost always yield higher HP at the expense of low end TQ.

This all becomes relatively insignificant with a responsive boosted engine. For example, 1.8ts came with "SRI" manis from the factory. Why would VW incorporate a "low end torque robbing" part in a small displacement sub 10:1 compression motor? Better hose routing and engine bay fitment - most definitely - but they knew the quick-spooling baby turbo would more or less negate the "losses" in low end torque opportunity achieved with a longer-runner'd manifold. 

Additionally, properly designed IMs, even with much more plenum volume, will NOT hurt response. The 1.8t SEM manifold exemplifies this perfectly, with gains everywhere in the powerband, even on the STOCK turbo. That said, a boosted 2.5 engine may respond better with a SRI over the stock manifold.

So what's my point? Yes, a SRI on a N/A 2.5 brings down low end torque, but that is not to say it will with a very responsive turbo. Power losses in this region, in the worst case scenario, could always be remedied by ramping the boost higher down low (even though I don't think it'll surmount to that).

The stock 2.5 mani falls on it's face after 4.5k and you can clearly see that in Doug's dyno. It's definitely not ONLY a function of the turbo. And even though the FT is not a top end screamer, I'd be willing to bet that the torque curve would be longer and flatter = more linear pull and higher HP. Two very nice things to have in a street machine :thumbup:


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

If it is similar to the k16 that is used in the ttrs we can actually assume that the turbo should at least be able to continue on until 7100 rpms. as compared with an APR stage 1 ttrs


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> how much does the frankenTT weight? The RS500 weights close to 3500lbs, while our golf is just under 3000. The 500lbs will make a different. The RS500 also has LSD, while many of the golf drivers will not.
> 
> 
> And yes, Doug, very marketable, but for those of us already with SRI, we need something too. It would be a shame if the FrankenTurbo end up not benefiting from the SRI (whether due to flow limit, rev limit, or whatever else).
> Peter


Peter -- the Audi TT225 weighs about 3200lbs, or in between those other cars. Plus it has really short gearing, so the "seat of the pants" experience is going to be altogether different. 

I have had people contacting me who are under the impression that the choice of short-runner intake manifold determines whether the F25 (or any turbo for that matter) will work. And that's simply not correct. The intake manifold spec is completely wide open for anyone considering this product. The bigger question -- the _MUCH BIGGER_ question -- is whether a thousand dollar intake manifold can "earn it's keep." From my somewhat stilted perspective, turbo ≥ intake manifold. Can you blame me?



suffocatemymind said:


> Peter, I understand your logic, but the 1.8t opened my eyes a bit on intake manifold theory. With my old 8v, your logic was what I adhered to and for good reason - a more direct flow path will almost always yield higher HP at the expense of low end TQ.
> 
> This all becomes relatively insignificant with a responsive boosted engine. For example, 1.8ts came with "SRI" manis from the factory. Why would VW incorporate a "low end torque robbing" part in a small displacement sub 10:1 compression motor? Better hose routing and engine bay fitment - most definitely - but they knew the quick-spooling baby turbo would more or less negate the "losses" in low end torque opportunity achieved with a longer-runner'd manifold.
> 
> ...


suffocate -- good to see you outside the venerable 1.8T forum. Folks like you could offer a huge amount of insight to us in the gang here in the 2.5L community. One important note on the "falling on its face" bit: this dynamic is the result of a "flat-line", Manual-Boost-Controlled turbo. As with stock 1.8Ts running bigger turbos, the maximum safe boost at peak torque is all you can use at any point in the rev range. That's the drawback of a "dumb" MBC. But with a more sophisticated boost control system, one which can ramp up boost as engine speeds increase, will deliver a much better power curve. I need to cover all this with a mega-post upon our return from holiday next week. It's really interesting stuff.



jaidajoker said:


> If it is similar to the k16 that is used in the ttrs we can actually assume that the turbo should at least be able to continue on until 7100 rpms. as compared with an APR stage 1 ttrs


The F25 is definitely meant to be comparable to the K16. Its compressor wheel design is very similar (although size-wise it's a touch bigger) and the turbine rotor is a match for one used in other K16 & K24 turbos. The turbine housing "area ratio" is also very close to that used in the TTRS K16. This was by design. It's ugly, there's no getting around that, but it should be a great all-around performer. Just as the K16 is on those pricey Audis.
[HR].[/HR]
One last note/question: I need to decide whether to design the "hot parts" kit to have an adapter for connection to the stock downpipe or to dispense with the adapter and simply include a full downpipe for connection to the stock exhaust system. This consideration is complicated by emissions: if we offer a downpipe, it'll have to feature an emissions-compliant catalytic converter. No "test pipe" version would be offered.

So the question is, how many of our potential customers will have already invested in a stock-fitment downpipe upgrade? Because if it's a big number, there will be resistance to using ours. Feedback is encouraged.

Thx


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

I for one already have a high flow cat.


----------



## patrwng (Jun 12, 2013)

Me too


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

I would think the cheapest option for everyone would be to go with the adapter to OEM downpipe. That way those that need the cat have it and those that don't can go custom or buy a test pipe. My 2¢


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

I still have the stock downpipe and cat..I'd go with the adapter.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Definitely gonna go with an adapter.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

perhaps i have misrepresented my concerns. I have no doubt that the F25 > SRI performance wise. My main concern is whether there will be enough gains when you add the SRI to the F25. If the addition of SRI only gets you minimal gains, meaning I wasted $1500 because i was not patient enough, that's going to significantly affect my decision on purchasing the F25 (well, not mine, by the wife's willingness to approve the budget).

Anyways, will see how things are after the f25 actually gets released. 




Peter


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

gugu1981 said:


> perhaps i have misrepresented my concerns. I have no doubt that the F25 > SRI performance wise. My main concern is whether there will be enough gains when you add the SRI to the F25. If the addition of SRI only gets you minimal gains, meaning I wasted $1500 because i was not patient enough, that's going to significantly affect my decision on purchasing the F25 (well, not mine, by the wife's willingness to approve the budget).
> 
> Anyways, will see how things are after the f25 actually gets released.
> 
> ...


I am sure you can unload it quick with a small discount, then put that money toward the turbo kit. Check with UM to see if they can give you a good rate to step up to the turbo tune. You will defiantly have more fun with the turbo; if you still have the desire you can continue to build from there. I think the goal of the f25 is to make big gains with out the need to run an sri, which is great for mkvi owners with hydraulic steering. If they are able to do it, you may have enough hp that you may not be looking for more. Something else to take into account is the build car has hydraulic steering, so your concern may not be addressed empirically until beta testing. Whatever you decide I hope it works out for the best.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> perhaps i have misrepresented my concerns. I have no doubt that the F25 > SRI performance wise. My main concern is whether there will be enough gains when you add the SRI to the F25. If the addition of SRI only gets you minimal gains, meaning I wasted $1500 because i was not patient enough, that's going to significantly affect my decision on purchasing the F25 (well, not mine, by the wife's willingness to approve the budget).
> 
> Anyways, will see how things are after the f25 actually gets released.
> 
> ...


The performance isn't why I even own an SRI --the Texas heat cracked my intake manifold. No way I was messing with another piece of plastic.

Also Doug has routinely said that with a dummy MBC you've got to tube for max safe torque --sacrificing low end torque means we'll be running more boost.

...and just like we do NA, we'll have better traction that non-SRI'd cars. The torque rush spins a lot of tires --I personally don't want that. I'd rather give up a little torque to stick to the road with just an LSD.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> The performance isn't why I even own an SRI --the Texas heat cracked my intake manifold. No way I was messing with another piece of plastic.
> 
> Also Doug has routinely said that with a dummy MBC you've got to tube for max safe torque --sacrificing low end torque means we'll be running more boost.
> 
> ...and just like we do NA, we'll have better traction that non-SRI'd cars. The torque rush spins a lot of tires --I personally don't want that. I'd rather give up a little torque to stick to the road with just an LSD.


That's nearly the same reason I started the mods on my Mustang. Intake manifold cracked. Took it as a sign to start upgrading it. I'm not going to wait for that with my Rabbit, though. When my CPO warranty expires, that's when I'll start getting on it.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> The performance isn't why I even own an SRI --the Texas heat cracked my intake manifold. No way I was messing with another piece of plastic.
> 
> Also Doug has routinely said that with a dummy MBC you've got to tube for max safe torque --sacrificing low end torque means we'll be running more boost.
> 
> ...and just like we do NA, we'll have better traction that non-SRI'd cars. The torque rush spins a lot of tires --I personally don't want that. I'd rather give up a little torque to stick to the road with just an LSD.


I remember your post about the broken manifold. Such a bummer.

I am running 235/45/17's so i'm going to be in much better shape than the average joe when it comes to traction.



Peter


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> I remember your post about the broken manifold. Such a bummer.
> 
> I am running 235/45/17's so i'm going to be in much better shape than the average joe when it comes to traction.
> 
> ...


I can chirp my 245/40r17s with just an SRI. With a snail, it'll be even crazier.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

I'm keeping my 195/65/15s on it, so I'm not looking for too much power. I'm probably looking for around 230ish hp.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

I can chirp 2ns gear every time with my 16 Magnys haha. Got some bigger, wider wheels that need to go on soon.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> 350BHP wouldn't be huge power, but it'd feel really, really, REALLY good  --I drove a Focus RS500 this last summer, and that's EXACTLY what I want from my car.





gugu1981 said:


> how much does the frankenTT weight? The RS500 weights close to 3500lbs, while our golf is just under 3000. The 500lbs will make a different. The RS500 also has LSD, while many of the golf drivers will not.


350bhp would be great to have, especially when my car weighs south of 3k lbs. With me in it, it's probably closer to 3150-3200 lbs. If someone had that much power in that light a car, it would still be pretty damn quick.

EDIT

With my keeping the stock steelies, that's gonna be way too much for those little patches of rubber to handle. Like I mentioned before, I'm aiming for somewhere around 230whp with comparable torque.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

@doug i understood the f25 being similarily designed to the ttrs k16. with the knowledge that you released i thought it would be safe to assume that us SRI owners shouldnt worry about the f25 falling on its face. if anything we should be able to produce similar torque numbers with a flatter curve.
on a side note i also would go for downpipe adapter for previously stated reasons


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm going to "up" this thread with a reminder that we're still looking for a test bed car to fit the turbo/manifold to. You give us the car, we'll give you a turbo, manifold, downpipe attachment & oil lines.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

but still at FFE only, right?


Peter


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

I'd be willing to let my car be used, but I've still got a few things to get before I'm ready for a turbo.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I'm going to "up" this thread with a reminder that we're still looking for a test bed car to fit the turbo/manifold to. You give us the car, we'll give you a turbo, manifold, downpipe attachment & oil lines.


Doug, when are you going to just let me ship you an SRI'd car?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> I'd be willing to let my car be used, but I've still got a few things to get before I'm ready for a turbo.


If you get the turbo for free --get the rest of it later.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> If you get the turbo for free --get the rest of it later.


I've spoken with them about this. I got the air intake taken care of, and they told me I also need to get a tune that supports forced induction for my car. Given my car's status as the bastard child of the 2.5 series, it won't be easy.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> I've spoken with them about this. I got the air intake taken care of, and they told me I also need to get a tune that supports forced induction for my car. Given my car's status as the bastard child of the 2.5 series, it won't be easy.


You have an 09, right? There are a few 09 turbo cars. 

Here is one:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5630629-Update-on-my-09-Turbo!

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6933346-FS-2009-VW-Rabbit-2-5T

And then:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5344536-Greyt-09-6spd-build-thread-(long-overdue)

Both are awesome cars. 

Also if you go turbo, you would not reuse a a CAI or short ram intake


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> I've spoken with them about this. I got the air intake taken care of, and they told me I also need to get a tune that supports forced induction for my car. Given my car's status as the bastard child of the 2.5 series, it won't be easy.


There's 09 turbo software. UM has already told me it's available.

As for the rest of the hardware, I'm sure FFE can source it --and there's no way you'll be reusing the NA intake, dude.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> There's 09 turbo software. UM has already told me it's available.
> 
> As for the rest of the hardware, I'm sure FFE can source it --and there's no way you'll be reusing the NA intake, dude.


Is that software for the MAFless 09? I still haven't heard back from UM about that yet. 

We've been discussing the hardware needed to support the F25 add on, and I agree with you there. :beer:

Wouldn't the fitment of my N/A intake depend on the tubing leading to the turbo?


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> Is that software for the MAFless 09? I still haven't heard back from UM about that yet.
> 
> We've been discussing the hardware needed to support the F25 add on, and I agree with you there. :beer:
> 
> Wouldn't the fitment of my N/A intake depend on the tubing leading to the turbo?


Both the cars I posted are 09 MAFless, tuned by UM.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> Is that software for the MAFless 09? I still haven't heard back from UM about that yet.
> 
> We've been discussing the hardware needed to support the F25 add on, and I agree with you there. :beer:
> 
> Wouldn't the fitment of my N/A intake depend on the tubing leading to the turbo?


Your naturally aspirated intake physically cannot be alterd to work with a turbo. A charge pipe attaches to the throttle body itself as opposed to an intake. The intake pipe connects to the turbocharger inlet.

Just sell the darn intake when you get the turbo installed. It's just that simple.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Your naturally aspirated intake physically cannot be altered to work with a turbo. A charge pipe attaches to the throttle body itself as opposed to an intake. The intake pipe connects to the turbocharger inlet.
> 
> Just sell the darn intake when you get the turbo installed. It's just that simple.


I get that the turbo has seperate tubing that connects from the turbo to the throttle body, and intake tubing with an air filter on it going to the inlet. I can deal with having to replace the intake. My big issue is having the correct tune for my engine. APR, C2, and various others have told me that they don't have a tune for me. UM has one for my engine, but I still haven't heard back if it supports F/I and what I'd have to do/pay to have my ECU flashed with it.


----------



## Golf_Gr (Mar 30, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'm going to "up" this thread with a reminder that we're still looking for a test bed car to fit the turbo/manifold to. You give us the car, we'll give you a turbo, manifold, downpipe attachment & oil lines.


PM'd


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

killerbunny said:


> Both the cars I posted are 09 MAFless, tuned by UM.


So UM does have a tune to support F/I?


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> So UM does have a tune to support F/I?


There are numerous people running turbos on 09s. Scott (youngblood7868) also had an 09 with a JDL kit. I would still call UM directly to be a 100% sure, they are pretty good about responding. I have an 08 with a promaf so I personally know more about that year. Just wanted to let you that there is hope.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

killerbunny said:


> There are numerous people running turbos on 09s. Scott (youngblood7868) also had an 09 with a JDL kit. I would still call UM directly to be a 100% sure, they are pretty good about responding. I have an 08 with a promaf so I personally know more about that year. Just wanted to let you that there is hope.


Awesome. There's a dealer way out west of me. I'd probably need to make it happen on a weekend, so I've got the time for them to do what they need to. Do you know if it's the Stage 1+tune for F/I? I've called and emailed, but they still haven't gotten back to me yet. Been a few weeks now. I'm set on getting the SRI through that UM dealer, now I just need to know if it's the tune I'm looking for.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> Awesome. There's a dealer way out west of me. I'd probably need to make it happen on a weekend, so I've got the time for them to do what they need to. Do you know if it's the Stage 1+tune for F/I? I've called and emailed, but they still haven't gotten back to me yet. Been a few weeks now. I'm set on getting the SRI through that UM dealer, now I just need to know if it's the tune I'm looking for.


Not sure what the tune "stage" would be for MAP only cars, sorry. I believe for your car there is only one stage for 550cc injectors, then another for 1200cc. Personally have never had an issue getting in contact, if they don't pick up I leave a message and they call back.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

killerbunny said:


> Not sure what the tune "stage" would be for MAP only cars, sorry. I believe for your car there is only one stage for 550cc injectors, then another for 1200cc. Personally have never had an issue getting in contact, if they don't pick up I leave a message and they call back.


550cc is exactly what I'm looking for. I appreciate your help here.

Yeah, the first time I called it was picked up by the third ring. I'm guessing they're either busy as hell, or something. I know I'm going to them for the work, so it's not like they're losing my business. It's just a few questions I need answers to.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

We'll be bundling Bosch 550s for $200 including the harness adapters. That's a good value, so I think the fueling is covered.

Can somebody clarify this business about the "intake" not being compatible with a turbocharger? It sounds like you're referring to the intake manifold, to which the throttle body is mounted with screws.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

We're taking about the air intake. Specifically, the neuspeed pflo I have.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> We'll be bundling Bosch 550s for $200 including the harness adapters. That's a good value, so I think the fueling is covered.
> 
> Can somebody clarify this business about the "intake" not being compatible with a turbocharger? It sounds like you're referring to the intake manifold, to which the throttle body is mounted with screws.


Any chance you would want an already turboed car to test the system on? I do have an SRI though. If not, would you sell just the turbo when the full system is available?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Test what system? If you already have a turbo, what are you looking to change/upgrade?


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

The turbo itself. Have been thinking about running a smaller turbo for better response. When you finalize everything will you sell just turbo too? Or only the kit?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I want to post some technical information that would serve as background for this proposal. A forced induction setup serves a simple purpose: increase airmass going through the engine. But to fairly claim an "increase" it'd be helpful to have an idea of what's possible on a naturally-aspirated motor. There's a good mathematical tool for doing this: it's called "volumetric efficiency". Otherwise known as "VE", this value is a percentage of an optimum airflow possible with any given displacement of motor. An engine flowing at 100% VE, for example, is flowing the theoretical maximum amount of air possible for its displacement. And in fact, there are instances of motors being so efficient, they can actually flow above that 100% value. But in the case of the 2.5L, let's have a look at a graph representing the theoretical flows through that displacement.











As you can see, the rate of airflow is perfectly linear. It's a simple multiplier of the engine speed. And the total possible flow on a 2.5L motor appears to be about 175 grams/second. That's pretty good, if it can be done.

Here is a look at the maths that went into that graph:











The values at the bottom really clarify what we're calculating here: with .006 grams per revolution, these are the airflows possible through the rev range. 

So let's have a look at "real world" airflows through a VW 2.5L engine. This next graph is a comparison of theoretical 100% VE versus data logs of a car running a short-runner intake manifold:











What we see here is a pretty good illustration of how well the VW 2.5L can flow on its own. The actual values are virtually a mirror image of the theoretical maximum. So that's our starting point. Any claim of "improvement" has to be compared to these two lines.

Next I want to cover the big pitfall of forced induction: boost versus the knock limit.

dh


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should just stay N/A for now. Roughly calculated, my car has about 140hp to the wheels. With the F25, it'd be double that. I've been running 93 octane since my second fill up with it, and it's got a new intake now, so it might be a little more, but I still don't think a jump in power like that would be a good idea. Lets' face it, I'd be way to tempted to "test" it. :laugh: With still needing a few things before being ready for F/I, I'm gonna focus on getting them done plus a little more, and see where I stand on power afterwards. I did the same thing with my Mustang, and it worked out pretty well for me. (Still ended up with F/I, though.) I'd love to do this, but I don't think it'd be the right move for right now.


----------



## Thebuilder17 (Jun 20, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I'm going to "up" this thread with a reminder that we're still looking for a test bed car to fit the turbo/manifold to. You give us the car, we'll give you a turbo, manifold, downpipe attachment & oil lines.


Come pick my car up in Vancouver BC :laugh: got the money to get this rolling :thumbup:


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

I'm about to be @ 11.5:1 compression with a mild overbore and a built IE P&P head.

We'll see just what a truly built NA motor can do 

...still buying a snail fo sho --high comp is for spooling faster.


----------



## Streetliight (Sep 5, 2011)

To whoever was asking about 09 MAP-based cars being turbo'd, yes you can do it. My 09 is turbo'd running UM software. I called them up, told them what mods I had planned, and shipped them my ECU. I got it back in a little over a week (I live in Alaska), and that was that. I don't know anything about "stages" when it comes to the turbo tunes. I'm just running a JDL kit, 550cc injectors (stock pump), and an SRI, among other mods. 

Don't worry about the jump in power being too extreme. You get used to it pretty quickly.


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

What kind of pressure relief is recommended for this? Blowoff or diverter valve?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Teknojnky said:


> What kind of pressure relief is recommended for this? Blowoff or diverter valve?


Without getting into response/respool time, MAF'd cars should always reroute the charge back into the intake after the MAF. This air has already been metered and calculated by the MAF and an atmospheric blow off will throw off the calculations, causing a sudden (but short-lived) rich condition when coming back onto the throttle.

Some cars do not experience this bad enough to make a difference, so while this is very true in theory, it should be treated as a rule of thumb.

With more sophisticated ECUs and electronics, the use of a DV (or rerouted BOV) should be more heavily considered in modern cars IMO. Rerouting the charge doesn't hurt performance either.

Cliff notes:
MAF = DV
No MAF = Either DV or BOV


----------



## patrwng (Jun 12, 2013)

Please share your na build! I'm very excited to see someone go high comp. Na route. Want to do the same.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

patrwng said:


> Please share your na build! I'm very excited to see someone go high comp. Na route. Want to do the same.


Dude, I'm doing a high comp turbo build. It'll only be high comp NA until I get together the funds for a snail.


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

suffocatemymind said:


> Without getting into response/respool time, MAF'd cars should always reroute the charge back into the intake after the MAF. This air has already been metered and calculated by the MAF and an atmospheric blow off will throw off the calculations, causing a sudden (but short-lived) rich condition when coming back onto the throttle.
> 
> Some cars do not experience this bad enough to make a difference, so while this is very true in theory, it should be treated as a rule of thumb.
> 
> ...


Coming from 1.8t land, what you say makes a lot of sense.


----------



## patrwng (Jun 12, 2013)

Still would love to see the numbers before the snail.....that's if your going to tune and drive on that awhile before the turbo.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

patrwng said:


> Still would love to see the numbers before the snail.....that's if your going to tune and drive on that awhile before the turbo.


I'd settle for simply seeing some N/A data logs. The only ones I have are those I graphed here. Who can share?


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Yeah same here


Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I'd settle for simply seeing some N/A data logs. The only ones I have are those I graphed here. Who can share?


Pete at IE might be a source. He's super cool, but he can be a little guarded about their work at times. He's usually pretty open --it's understandable when he's not forthcoming. It's because size has something cool in the works.


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> I'd settle for simply seeing some N/A data logs. The only ones I have are those I graphed here. Who can share?


I have a stock 2008 rabbit and a vagcom. Is that enough?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Teknojnky said:


> I have a stock 2008 rabbit and a vagcom. Is that enough?


Yup. Just log block 002 in 3rd gear from 1500-6500rpms. No shifts, no throttle lifts.


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Yup. Just log block 002 in 3rd gear from 1500-6500rpms. No shifts, no throttle lifts.


Right on I'll get on that. The only mod I have is a paper cone filter on the maf. Pm me your email so I can send you the logs.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Teknojnky said:


> Right on I'll get on that. The only mod I have is a paper cone filter on the maf. Pm me your email so I can send you the logs.


His email is his screen name. :laugh:


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> His email is his screen name. :laugh:


Lol major fail on my part.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Teknojnky said:


> Lol major fail on my part.


Well, these logs are a major win. Not that they offer anything surprising, but they confirm what everybody already knew: stock, these motors don't flow much:











Using the standard formula of g/s divided by 0.8 works out to 155bhp.

So with that out of the way, we did a bit of data logging and testing of our own last night, on FFE's dyno. I'll have results, logs, video shortly. Get ready for 300whp.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Get ready for 300whp.


Stop teasing me


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Boost wasn't holding at the 16psi that it could do on the street. Nevertheless good power for 14psi, ramped upward from 10 at onset:


----------



## dhenry (Feb 10, 2009)

sick results :beer::beer:

any better shots of the dyno chart? looks like some drop off in the higher rpms. but has good low end...im curious how the f25 will do with a short runner intake mani


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Actually, past 5000rpms the engine started to struggle. We're working with C2 to figure out why that is. But I'm pleased to have the power onset where it should be... 300whtq by 3000rpms is a good place to be.


----------



## lessthanalex (Oct 12, 2009)

Hey Doug are you going to be at h2o? Would be awesome to meet you. I'm sure the other 2.5L guys that are gonna be there would share this feeling. 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

lessthanalex said:


> Hey Doug are you going to be at h2o? Would be awesome to meet you. I'm sure the other 2.5L guys that are gonna be there would share this feeling.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


Met Doug the other day. Very friendly, nice guy. Absolutely a pleasure to deal with. After I get my ej exhaust, I'll be heading back to ffe for a tune.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Actually, past 5000rpms the engine started to struggle. We're working with C2 to figure out why that is. But I'm pleased to have the power onset where it should be... 300whtq by 3000rpms is a good place to be.


:thumbup:


----------



## Teknojnky (Jun 1, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Actually, past 5000rpms the engine started to struggle. We're working with C2 to figure out why that is. But I'm pleased to have the power onset where it should be... 300whtq by 3000rpms is a good place to be.


300wtq at 3000rpm can't be good for the rods. Right?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Teknojnky said:


> 300wtq at 3000rpm can't be good for the rods. Right?


Torque is torque. A given value is the same amount of force on the components no matter the engine speed. But detonation at that torque level is a real concern. This leads me to a topic I wanted to cover, which is the relationship between boost and actual compression ratio. When researching for this motor I came across this interesting web page discussing the question. Forced induction pumps more air into the limited volume of the cylinders. So when that larger airmass gets compressed, the pressure rises above what the motor is rated for. The resulting compression ratio is termed "Effective Compression Ratio", and it is this value that's occurring in your forced-induction motor. With raised compression, the chances of engine knock and detonation increase. And that's a bad thing. Here is what Garrett turbo has to say:



Garrett Turbo Systems said:


> Before discussing compression ratio and boost, it is important to understand engine knock, also known as detonation. Knock is a dangerous condition caused by uncontrolled combustion of the air/fuel mixture. This abnormal combustion causes rapid spikes in cylinder pressure which can result in engine damage.
> 
> Three primary factors that influence engine knock are:
> Knock resistance characteristics (knock limit) of the engine: Since every engine is vastly different when it comes to knock resistance, there is no single answer to "how much." Design features such as combustion chamber geometry, spark plug location, bore size and compression ratio all affect the knock characteristics of an engine.
> ...


So what kind of real-world compression are we looking at with forced induction? Well, here's a chart taken from this web-page:



> FINAL COMPRESSION RATIO CHART​
> This chart shows the final compression ratio in your engine by combining the static compression ratio read down the left side and the amount of boost applied to the engine across the top. Use this chart shown below as a guideline to determine the proper amount of maximum boost level for a specific application.
> 
> Final compression ratios above 12.4 to 1 are not recommended for use with "premium pump gasoline." The higher the final compression ratio the higher the octane rating of the gasoline must be in order to help prevent detonation and serious engine damage.
> ...


If you look along the 9.5:1 compression ratio row for the 2.5L, things look pretty scary. Even at just 14psi, the calculation shows an effective compression ratio of 18.5:1. So that's a lot of pressure. And that's going to lead to detonation if the tuning and fuel aren't up to snuff. 

But on the good side of things look at the comparisons of (theoretical) airflow values for naturally aspirated, Stage1 & Stage2:


```
ENGINE SPECIFICATION							
	Liters	2.48						
	VE	100						
	Pressure Ratio	1	0	psi				
								
								
	RPM	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	7500
	CFM	88	131	175	219	263	307	329
	LB/MIN	6	9	12	15	18	21	23
	GRAMS/SEC AIRFLOW	46	70	93	116	139	162	174
	GR/cycle	0.006	0.006	0.006	0.006	0.006	0.006	0.006
								
								
	ENGINE SPECIFICATION							
	Liters	2.48						
	VE	100						
Stage2	Pressure Ratio	1.62	bar	8.99	psi			
								
								
	RPM	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	7500
	CFM	142	213	284	355	426	497	532
	LB/MIN	10	15	20	25	30	35	37
	GR/SEC	75	113	150	188	226	263	282
	GR/cycle	0.0094	0.0094	0.0094	0.0094	0.0094	0.0094	0.0094
								
								
	ENGINE SPECIFICATION							
	Liters	2.48						
	VE	100						
Stage3	Pressure Ratio	1.96	bar	13.92	psi			
								
								
	RPM	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	7500
	CFM	172	258	344	429	515	601	644
	LB/MIN	12	18	24	30	36	42	45
	GR/SEC	91	136	182	227	273	318	341
	GR/cycle	0.0114	0.0114	0.0114	0.0114	0.0114	0.0114	0.0114
```

It's important to remember that these calculations are just that: calculations. And a chart showing effective compression ratios for a theoretically 100% efficient motor are not really applicable to any forced induction motor. They just can't flow air that efficiently. But I wanted to highlight the concerns. And maybe offer up some fodder for discussion. 

Thx


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Your grams / second test guy- at sea level? 

All motor, obviously this matters. We are at 4500 feet and density is usually 10-13% short here, so logs are ~useless without applying an SAE correction / best guess.


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

Torque is basically efficient low rpm cylinder filling. The problem with a lot of low end torque isn't the cylinder pressure per se. The piston speeds at lower rpm's means the rod dwell and rod loading while compressing the charge takes longer, we're talking a few milliseconds here. At higher rpm's the same force is applied to the connecting rod at a given cylinder pressure, it just happens in half the time. The problem isn't in the cylinder pressure itself, it's the amount of time the rod spends at an unfavorable angle with that much load applied. Lower rpm's also means that your not pumping the oil volume and pressure that you do at higher rpm. So less oil to cushion the shock load in the upper and lower rod journals and increased time the rod sees fully loaded is what bends rods. 

Short version: it's not the actual "torque" that bends rods it's the increased dwell time and cylinder pressure at an unfavorable rod/crank angle that bends the rods.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

slowgti said:


> At higher rpm's the same force is applied to the connecting rod at a given cylinder pressure, it just happens in half the time. The problem isn't in the cylinder pressure itself, it's the amount of time the rod spends at an unfavorable angle with that much load applied.
> Short version: it's not the actual "torque" that bends rods it's the increased dwell time and cylinder pressure at an unfavorable rod/crank angle that bends the rods.


Let's look at this from another angle: A given torque value being applied 5000 times per minute is considerably more wearing than that same value applied at 3000 times. Yes, the "dwell time" at higher rpms is reduced, but logic tells me that component damage is just as likely in higher rpms as lower, if not more so. Here's my analogy: which is worse, getting punched in the face 3000 times or 5000 times?

Of course, I'm no engineer. So I'm working off my own hunch here.


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Let's look at this from another angle: A given torque value being applied 5000 times per minute is considerably more wearing than that same value applied at 3000 times. Yes, the "dwell time" at higher rpms is reduced, but logic tells me that component damage is just as likely in higher rpms as lower, if not more so. Here's my analogy: which is worse, getting punched in the face 3000 times or 5000 times?
> 
> Of course, I'm no engineer. So I'm working off my own hunch here.



The higher pressure oil 'wedge' that the rod and main bearings actually ride on is much more effective at higher rpm. It's not so much like getting punched in the face, it's more like getting shoved against a padded wall. The more padding you have with higher rpm and more oil pressure and flow is better. It's the difference between getting punched bare fisted at lower rpm and having a pillow wrapped around the fist at higher rpm. 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that there is more than just cylinder pressure to account for when talking about bending rods. We need cams for this engine really badly. Bleed off some cylinder pressure at lower rpm and actually be able to run some real timing at boost onset at lower rpm.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

slowgti said:


> Torque is basically efficient low rpm cylinder filling. The problem with a lot of low end torque isn't the cylinder pressure per se. The piston speeds at lower rpm's means the rod dwell and rod loading while compressing the charge takes longer, we're talking a few milliseconds here. At higher rpm's the same force is applied to the connecting rod at a given cylinder pressure, it just happens in half the time. The problem isn't in the cylinder pressure itself, it's the amount of time the rod spends at an unfavorable angle with that much load applied. Lower rpm's also means that your not pumping the oil volume and pressure that you do at higher rpm. So less oil to cushion the shock load in the upper and lower rod journals and increased time the rod sees fully loaded is what bends rods.
> 
> Short version: it's not the actual "torque" that bends rods it's the increased dwell time and cylinder pressure at an unfavorable rod/crank angle that bends the rods.


I, too, am no engineer, but I think this is the best explanation I've seen yet for thrashed rods due to loads of low RPM torque. This actually makes sense. None of that "torque spike" verbiage being tossed around. Thank you.

I am with Doug on the RPMs though - more RPMs yield more wear, no question about it. I believe Corkey Bell discusses this in the very first chapter of Maximum Boost. Not these exact figures since I'm going off memory here (and it's been awhile), but a car on 8 psi @ 6000 RPMs has less engine stress than the same car, N/A, @ 8000 RPMs. Or something like that.

This is inline with my experience with small high performance two stroke engines. An engine with a high power exhaust pipe supercharges the cylinder at 6000 RPMs and quits at 13000. The same engine with a lower RPM exhaust pipe supercharges the cylinder quickly down low and totally quits at 9000...will not even lick a rev higher. I've built both engines...wanna take a wild guess which one burns through rings/pistons/connecting rods?


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

suffocatemymind said:


> I, too, am no engineer, but I think this is the best explanation I've seen yet for thrashed rods due to loads of low RPM torque. This actually makes sense. None of that "torque spike" verbiage being tossed around. Thank you.
> 
> I am with Doug on the RPMs though - more RPMs yield more wear, no question about it. I believe Corkey Bell discusses this in the very first chapter of Maximum Boost. Not these exact figures since I'm going off memory here (and it's been awhile), but a car on 8 psi @ 6000 RPMs has less engine stress than the same car, N/A, @ 8000 RPMs. Or something like that.
> 
> This is inline with my experience with small high performance two stroke engines. An engine with a high power exhaust pipe supercharges the cylinder at 6000 RPMs and quits at 13000. The same engine with a lower RPM exhaust pipe supercharges the cylinder quickly down low and totally quits at 9000...will not even lick a rev higher. I've built both engines...wanna take a wild guess which one burns through rings/pistons/connecting rods?



I too enjoy smokers, I picked up an '84 rz350 last year, they are a little different though. The needle bearings and lack of conventional oiling system are a whole different world. The bearings on a two stroke are lubed as my dad says "by luck or by chance"

I'm not saying that high rpm doesn't kill parts, I'm saying that the connecting rods have a much better chance of surviving a "torque spike" at 7500 rpm than they do at 2500 rpm.


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

Looks like I hit a road block in tuning my 2012 Jetta SE, United Motorsports was unable to access the ECU. Guess it is a problem with 2012+ ECU's.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> ...I think this is the best explanation I've seen yet for thrashed rods due to loads of low RPM torque. This actually makes sense. None of that "torque spike" verbiage being tossed around. Thank you.


I agree. Its a frustration to be told of your engine's potential doom owing to "low end torque spike". It's a red herring. Or at least an oversimplification. Anyway, I operate with this strategy: whatever torque level is safe at low engine speeds is safe at any engine speed. While it's tempting to tell my customers they should shoot for "x"-value of torque at 3000 but they're allowed to see "x-plus-50" at 6000, I worry that's baseless thinking.

I do appreciate the technical reasoning behind these posts, though. So let's get back to the question that needed answering: is 300wh torque too much?


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't believe 300 ft/lbs at say 3500 rpm would be all that destructive. That being said, anybody can break anything if they try hard enough.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

OR8187 said:


> Looks like I hit a road block in tuning my 2012 Jetta SE, United Motorsports was unable to access the ECU. Guess it is a problem with 2012+ ECU's.


Dude --IE is having zero problems with ME17s. Why would UM?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

slowgti said:


> I too enjoy smokers, I picked up an '84 rz350 last year, they are a little different though. The needle bearings and lack of conventional oiling system are a whole different world. The bearings on a two stroke are lubed as my dad says "by luck or by chance"


Nice bike :thumbup: Try Belray H1R or Motul 800 Double Ester...you might reconsider your lube experience! Premix only, though. 

Back to the topic - Doug, how does the car feel on the road? How does it compare to the F23 Frankenstroker setup? Has C2 had to make any "big" revisions for you?


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Dude --IE is having zero problems with ME17s. Why would UM?


Hey I am as surprised as you are, the original email said they would be able to do it. Paying to have it overnighted back so I have a working vehicle when I get back tonight. There talking about trying the previous version ecu in my vehicle, but haven't decided if I want to do that.


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Dude --IE is having zero problems with ME17s. Why would UM?


What are ME17s by the way?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

OR8187 said:


> What are ME17s by the way?


The particular ECU you have. 



OR8187 said:


> Hey I am as surprised as you are, the original email said they would be able to do it. Paying to have it overnighted back so I have a working vehicle when I get back tonight. There talking about trying the previous version ecu in my vehicle, but haven't decided if I want to do that.


Don't. Just PM [email protected] and ask him if he'll do it.


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> The particular ECU you have.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't. Just PM [email protected] and ask him if he'll do it.


They can do a turbo tune at IE ?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

OR8187 said:


> They can do a turbo tune at IE ?


Pete is a pretty impressive tuner from what I've seen. I don't see why not...


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Hehe. Hold your horses. Before anybody drops their keys in Ed Woolsey's hands, it's a good idea to go over all the "little" extra costs that any forced induction project would entail. Anybody want to help with the list? Here's what I can say is necessary for a 300whtq/280whp conversion:
> 
> 
> FrankenTurbo with oil lines
> ...


I want this!!!!


Sent from my substandard communications device


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> Back to the topic - Doug, how does the car feel on the road? How does it compare to the F23 Frankenstroker setup? Has C2 had to make any "big" revisions for you?


I sorted out a confusing problem with the car yesterday. The turbo wasn't boosting with much enthusiasm while on the dyno over the weekend. We were pushing it with 90% boost duty cycles in the BoostManager settings and all it would muster was 15psi up top. Really alarming. But I did some testing of the N75 valve used in the car. It's a 1.8T unit. And what I found is that it sucked. When boost signal was feeding through, it wouldn't properly divert it away from the actuator. Even when testing it at 100% duty, signal pressure was blasting out the nipple that leads to the turbo. So that's why the turbo was so lazy.

The solution was to swap in an N75 unit from our F23T&F23L products. It's an OEM Pierburg unit -- the company who supplies BorgWarner -- and less expensive than its 1.8T counterpart as well. Here they are side-by-side:











So with the 2.0T spec DV plumbed in, boost and boost duty are like this now:











Even with the new boost management I'm unconvinced that this turbo's hot side and T3 flange are the right thing. Boost onset really doesn't feel like a FrankenTurbo to me. 10psi at 3000rpms is pretty unremarkable. So I need to make a decision on that.

Thx


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

So what would you be doing other than a T3!


----------



## define your self (May 23, 2009)

Definitely something id be lookin into. Still need a test car?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> So what would you be doing other than a T3!


First quick-and-dirty exploration will be an adapter plate that'll go between the flanges. Sort of like a restrictor plate, it'll knock down the T3 opening at the manifold to T25. This will speed up the flow to the turbine volute quite a lot. And there's certainly precedent for 400+bhp engines running T25 manifold flanges.

If that doesn't work satisfactorily, the entire turbine housing will be replaced with another I have as a backup. And the C2Motorsports exhaust manifold will get dropped.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Boost wasn't holding at the 16psi that it could do on the street. Nevertheless good power for 14psi, ramped upward from 10 at onset:


My body is ready. 
Doug if you need a data log of a rabbit with a sri i can do that for you as well


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> First quick-and-dirty exploration will be an adapter plate that'll go between the flanges. Sort of like a governor plate, it'll knock down the T3 opening at the manifold to T25. This will speed up the flow to the turbine volute quite a lot. And there's certainly precedent for 400+bhp engines running T25 manifold flanges.
> 
> If that doesn't work satisfactorily, the entire turbine housing will be replaced with another I have as a backup. And the C2Motorsports exhaust manifold will get dropped.


This sounds like a great decision as there are 2.0l engines pulling ~380-400whp on t2 flanged turbos.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Just how strong are the stock connecting rods?*

Can anyone tell me if there's a substantial difference between the connecting rods in the 2.5L and those in the turbocharged 1.8T? They sure look to be the same basic design:

1.8T










2.5L


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Can anyone tell me if there's a substantial difference between the connecting rods in the 2.5L and those in the turbocharged 1.8T? They sure look to be the same basic design:
> 
> 1.8T
> 
> ...


The 2.5L stock rods crap out at 400 horses or so. Then you should get IE Tuscan rods or TTRS internals. I'd have gone with Tuscsn rods if I were actually buying them new instead of secondhand.


----------



## stef 4x4 (Jan 8, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Can anyone tell me if there's a substantial difference between the connecting rods in the 2.5L and those in the turbocharged 1.8T? They sure look to be the same basic design:
> 
> 1.8T
> 
> ...


The big end from the 4 cylinder connecting rods is a bit thicker, 25 mm. The 2.5 rods have 22 mm.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Pete is a pretty impressive tuner from what I've seen. I don't see why not...


It's good to see increasing tuning support for the platform. Here's an interesting graphic laying out their argument for N/A power. That hp figure they're quoting is pretty darned good:











This is a good standard against which to apply any forced induction efforts. 210+ is already possible without doing a turbo. So whatever we do has to be a lot better than that.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> It's good to see increasing tuning support for the platform. Here's an interesting graphic laying out their argument for N/A power. That hp figure they're quoting is pretty darned good:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've got that kind if power coming out of my car now --it's fun, but high compression and tighter gear ratios are necessary to get the car really moving NA if you ask me.

A good torquey turbo would be more bang for the buck for a DD. My high comp high revving close ratio setup is going to be at least $6K.

...and I'm still going to turbo it LOL. 11.5:1 --insta-spool!


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> I've got that kind if power coming out of my car now --it's fun, but high compression and tighter gear ratios are necessary to get the car really moving NA if you ask me.
> 
> A good torquey turbo would be more bang for the buck for a DD. My high comp high revving close ratio setup is going to be at least $6K.
> 
> ...and I'm still going to turbo it LOL. 11.5:1 --insta-spool!


You're my hero.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> I've got that kind if power coming out of my car now --it's fun, but high compression and tighter gear ratios are necessary to get the car really moving NA if you ask me.
> 
> A good torquey turbo would be more bang for the buck for a DD. My high comp high revving close ratio setup is going to be at least $6K.
> 
> ...and I'm still going to turbo it LOL. 11.5:1 --insta-spool!


not to call anyone out... but when do you plan on starting to modify the car?

i have yet to see you purchasing anything big, but you do talk with big plans.

Honestly, just do it. show us what can be done. it will be fun.


----------



## WASCALLY_09WABBIT (Jul 22, 2014)

thygreyt said:


> not to call anyone out... but when do you plan on starting to modify the car?
> 
> i have yet to see you purchasing anything big, but you do talk with big plans.
> 
> Honestly, just do it. show us what can be done. it will be fun.


Not trying to make you seem like a dick, but why does he need to build or buy something to impress you? Keep the comments on topic, and let's see where this can go without the judgment.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

thygreyt said:


> not to call anyone out... but when do you plan on starting to modify the car?
> 
> i have yet to see you purchasing anything big, but you do talk with big plans.
> 
> Honestly, just do it. show us what can be done. it will be fun.


Fred, haven't you seen the pics I've been posting? :beer:

I really need to post them all in the build thread...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*moving to a new air metering strategy*

It's time for some experimentation. For some time I've wondered what kind of impact a change of airflow scaling has on these ME7.1 type ECUs. So, with C2's leave, I have changed the MAF sensor configuration. Stock, the Mk5 2.5L cars come with a conventional MAF sensor setup. Basically they have the Mk4 wide-band sensor fitted to a 70mm housing. The 70mm housing was used in the higher performance TT225, and so basically the entire unit is interchangeable with the one used in the later-model BEA-engine TT225. Here is the sensor:










The -047 type mass airflow sensor is a common part. It was the sensor of choice for VAG when they moved to wideband fuel mixture monitoring. And the 70mm housing spec is also a usual suspect for them. Here's how it looks on the 2.5L motor:











So off it comes. In its place we'll move to a housing that's ~18% larger, the 76mm unit used in the R32 VW and 6-cyl Audi TT.











In the case of the FrankenTT-RS test car, this new housing gets fitted to the velocity stack air filter assembly here:











And here's the finished product in the engine bay:











So what's the purpose of this experiment? Well, the current output of the turbo was pushing the boundaries of the stock air meter. So by installing the sensor in a larger housing we have scaled upwards the amount of airflow that's readable by the sensor. The tricky aspect of this modification is that the ECU doesn't "know" about this change. So it's now reading artificially low airflow values. And this presents two problems: the ECU will not properly calculate how much "on time" to give the fuel injectors & it will also raise ignition advance to make up for the perceived loss of airflow through the motor.

So all this boils down to a "don't try this at home" dynamic. At least not until you see the resulting engine performance from this hack.

More later.


----------



## stef 4x4 (Jan 8, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> It's time for some experimentation. For some time I've wondered what kind of impact a change of airflow scaling has on these ME7.1 type ECUs. So, with C2's leave, I have changed the MAF sensor configuration. Stock, the Mk5 2.5L cars come with a conventional MAF sensor setup. Basically they have the Mk4 wide-band sensor fitted to a 70mm housing. The 70mm housing was used in the higher performance TT225, and so basically the entire unit is interchangeable with the one used in the later-model BEA-engine TT225. Here is the sensor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doug, I am using the R32 airflow sensor in my car, also in combination with ME 7.1
When I build my car the firm who should do the mapping asked me to install this sensor.
As you know it works well.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Looking good Doug :thumbup:


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

That should be good to 400-450 Doug?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

slowgti said:


> That should be good to 400-450 Doug?


Not sure of the maximum power this MAF configuration will support, but it's certainly able to meter for more air than is possible in a stock 70mm housing. Here are the measurement gamuts compared:











You'll note that the values for the R32 are "estimated". But we've compared the signal outputs of the two sensors and found there's a reliable 18-22% differential between the two. The dovetail increases evenly through the rev range.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Subscribed...

Surprised I went so long without stumbling on this thread. Nice work Doug!


----------



## slowgti (Jul 15, 2003)

That's a really nice, linear curve on the 07K maf reading. Good job on the intake :thumbup:


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Not sure of the maximum power this MAF configuration will support, but it's certainly able to meter for more air than is possible in a stock 70mm housing. Here are the measurement gamuts compared:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm absurdly curious as to what you're getting out of the stock internals and stock intake manifold on this car. You' appear to think you'll be killing the rods soon enough, and then I'd like to see if you go TTRS guts or IE guts.

I've got IE guys ready to go into my car :beer:


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

WASCALLY_09WABBIT said:


> You're my hero.


This^


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

This is some pretty wonky stuff I'm posting here, but I want to show how the changed flowmeter (MAF) housing effects what the ECU "sees" and how to correct for it.

When the larger housing was put in, the airflows through it move more slowly, causing the ECU to mis-read the actual flow. The voltage signal from the sensor is lower, which makes the ECU think airflows are down. Here's what happens:











With a little tinkering in Excel, I was able to generate a graph that shows the differential in readings:











The airflows are about 18-22% low with the new configuration. So the way to correct for that is by adding more fuel in that value, either by raising the fuel pressure, installing larger fuel injectors or changing the fuel duty maps in software. We chose to do the latter, so the 550s are still flowing at a stock 4bar pressure. Here is one last graph to show the new airflow values corrected for that 18-22% of differential:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Wow, that's quite the improvement!


----------



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

IE dyno numbers....at crank.
stock dyno at wheels do not get 170+/- they get about 138-142.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> IE dyno numbers....at crank.
> stock dyno at wheels do not get 170+/- they get about 138-142.


Is there still a stock high octane map like GTIs have and early Bunnies had? I remember just running 93 increased timing on earlier 2.5Ls.


----------



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

150/170 cars. didn't matter. stock dynos never broke 150WHEEL.....


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Yep, wheel horsepower numbers are not so purdy for these things.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Wonder what mine is right now...

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

Cherb32 said:


> Wonder what mine is right now...
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


Not enough is the correct answer.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

killerbunny said:


> Not enough is the correct answer.


I second this!! Lol

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> Wonder what mine is right now...
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


SRI, headers, crank pulley --I'd venture 200+ near sea level. Up here at 4000+ feet, and youd lose a few.


----------



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

sri, GOOD (evo)header, exhaust, test pipe, pulley, tune. 198-204whp is ave.....


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Cool..my setup is SRI, lightweight pulley, eurojet catback, evo header and tune...nice to be in that range...but I want more!!

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> ...GOOD (evo)header...


What's that?


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> What's that?


Evolution Tuning Header. So far from what Ive heard is the only header on the market to make the most power

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> Evolution Tuning Header. So far from what Ive heard is the only header on the market to make the most power
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


with the amount of money you spent why didnt you go turbo ?
i have sri, but i got a great deal, your parts list on the hand puts you around 3-4k?


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

jaidajoker said:


> with the amount of money you spent why didnt you go turbo ?
> i have sri, but i got a great deal, your parts list on the hand puts you around 3-4k?


Wanted to see what the car can do NA. Everyone looks to boost by default these days so I looked in the opposite direction. Also I can keep 80% of the stuff that I bought if I did decide to boost. Id only have to sell the header (which I got for half the price) and keep everything else. If I started with boost, the parts I have now would have still been bought (minus the header).

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> Wanted to see what the car can do NA. Everyone looks to boost by default these days so I looked in the opposite direction. Also I can keep 80% of the stuff that I bought if I did decide to boost. Id only have to sell the header (which I got for half the price) and keep everything else. If I started with boost, the parts I have now would have still been bought (minus the header).
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


That header is MINE when you get an F25 --I'm going to need it to see what an all motor build can do before I pressurize it.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> That header is MINE when you get an F25 --I'm going to need it to see what an all motor build can do before I pressurize it.


You got first dibs 👍👍

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Car went onto the dyno today, mostly to test the Haldex rear drivetrain function, but we were also logging and grabbing hp/torque. First the logs:





























...and here is the dyno result:











The hardware on the car is still 550s running at the stock 4bar fuel pressure, stock intake manifold, 93oct. Software remains C2Motorsports.

If you look at the boost duty cycles, you can see that the BoostManager is asking for maximum effort from the turbo from 6000rpms. Yet it can only manage 17-ish psi. So the turbo needs some tweaking. We're working on a new prototype that has a stronger wastegate this week. Hopefully we can have it installed this month. With that in place we can do some final testing on this turbo configuration. My guess is that there'll be yet another step with a completely different turbine housing. Testing for that would happen late in the fall.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> Wanted to see what the car can do NA. Everyone looks to boost by default these days so I looked in the opposite direction. Also I can keep 80% of the stuff that I bought if I did decide to boost. Id only have to sell the header (which I got for half the price) and keep everything else. If I started with boost, the parts I have now would have still been bought (minus the header).
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


****, if i couldve gotten an evo header half price i wouldve done the same thing. i always extract as much na as possible before going boost as long as my na build wont be detrimental to my boost build.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Car went onto the dyno today, mostly to test the Haldex rear drivetrain function, but we were also logging and grabbing hp/torque. First the logs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great numbers! by testing later this fall do you mean late october- early november? I'm extremely excited for the turbo's release. Also are you still thinking about going t2 flange instead of t3?


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

jaidajoker said:


> ****, if i couldve gotten an evo header half price i wouldve done the same thing. i always extract as much na as possible before going boost as long as my na build wont be detrimental to my boost build.


Yeah I was incredibly lucky. Found it for sale in the 2.5L classifieds. The original owner had totaled his car before he could install it, so I jumped on it. I hear theres been a revision and the new one comes with a downpipe due to the header being longer. Im sure the price is through the roof for that setup

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> Yeah I was incredibly lucky. Found it for sale in the 2.5L classifieds. The original owner had totaled his car before he could install it, so I jumped on it. I hear theres been a revision and the new one comes with a downpipe due to the header being longer. Im sure the price is through the roof for that setup
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


Hot damn. For the price of a new Evo header and the cost of putting a cat into that mid pipe you say it comes with, you could buy an F25.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Hot damn. For the price of a new Evo header and the cost of putting a cat into that mid pipe you say it comes with, you could buy an F25.


Yep. I think the style I have is discontinued...in which I like. But yeah that pricing doesnt make sence at all. Smh. I doubt people are gonna buy that. 

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

A few seconds of video of the car while on the dyno. This pull was good for only a touch over 310whp, but with a few adjustments to the boost mapping in BoostManager we got a few more out of it:







On the topic of the BoostManager, we're re-configuring it to directly monitor voltage of the mass air meter's signal. This will allow for verification of the airflow values being reported over OBD and recorded in VAGCOM. Why do this? Because the VAGCOM airflows don't square with the actual power being put down. Somehow, the numbers just don't seem right. More on that in a bit, but here's a picture of the signal tap on the wiring harness. In the left background you can see the N75 valve, which the BoostManager is driving to control boost.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Its underscaled doug. All motor ecu cannot have high load %.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Its underscaled doug. All motor ecu cannot have high load %.


Yes. That's understood. C2Motorsports has explained that. But the challenge of compensating for that "in-software" under-scaling, compounded by the hardware under-scaling caused by the larger MAF... it's too much of a stretch. So by tapping the car's MAF sensor signal and feeding that "unfiltered" data to the BoostManager logger I can determine true airflows more accurately. I have only one layer of re-calibration to do rather than two. I'll post those findings shortly.


----------



## stef 4x4 (Jan 8, 2012)

Hey Doug

I am still following your project and in my opinion you do a great job.
It's nice to see the way this project develops everytime a bit into a higher level.
I am curious where it will end.
Wish you all the best in this.

Stef.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Today C2Motorsports provided me with the "primer" of voltage-to-airflows mapping for the R32 MAF setup being run in the car. To review, the changed MAF configuration is simply a larger housing from the V6 R32 motors. That engine shares the sensor itself with the 07K 2.5L engine. Only the housings differ. So the stock sensor in a larger R32 MAF housing measures like this:











I'd imagine a number of folks who are following this thread are asking themselves, "do I need to know what this weird scale means?" And the answer is NO. You don't. The only reason I'm posting such arcane background info is just to "show my work", so to speak. And this work is what allows a direct measurement of the airflows through the motor. The voltage straight off the sensor works out to exactly this airflow:











If you skip over the back-pressures measurement, you'll see it: roughly 270 grams/second of airflow. That's pretty darned good for a stock motor breathing through the restrictive, stock, plastic intake manifold. To give you a sense of how good, this is better than any FSI engine running a BorgWarner K04 can do. It's not HUGELY better. But it's better enough. 

So here's how I frame the current state of performance with our good ole F25 prototype:

You can do better than a Mk5 GTI. Heck, you can do better than a Mk5 Golf R. And you can do it running inexpensive 550cc Bosch injectors. Those GTI guys have to spend $600+ on the S3 injectors required by standard K04 software. Next, you can reach this power level on the stock intake manifold. So you can spend your money on a good intercooler instead. And you get all the low-end responsiveness of a bigger 5cyl motor.

So it boils down to this: you can do your fueling cheaper than the FSI crowd. You can do your intercooling for the same money as those folks. And with an F25 turbo kit, you can spank them at either end of the power curve. 

Are you guys starting to pick up what I'm putting down?


----------



## A1an (Mar 22, 2007)

I like where this is going.


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

Beta test. Please! 


Sent from my substandard communications device


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Dingo8mibaby said:


> Beta test. Please!
> 
> 
> Sent from my substandard communications device


I second this


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Are you guys starting to pick up what I'm putting down?


Like the old Pontiac Grand Prix ad said, Wider is Better?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

HollisJoy said:


> Like the old Pontiac Grand Prix ad said, Wider is Better?


Except that car was SUCH a POS, Sam. Don't insult Doug


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

HollisJoy said:


> Like the old Pontiac Grand Prix ad said, Wider is Better?


When Pontiac ran that ad campaign I happened to be working at an ad agency. Like car people, ad people all have very strong opinions about other companies' work. And boy did we think that ad campaign stunk. Wider is better? Really, that's it?


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> When Pontiac ran that ad campaign I happened to be working at an ad agency. Like car people, ad people all have very strong opinions about other companies' work. And boy did we think that ad campaign stunk. Wider is better? Really, that's it?


truth in advertising regulations had them pigeon holed


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> When Pontiac ran that ad campaign I happened to be working at an ad agency. Like car people, ad people all have very strong opinions about other companies' work. And boy did we think that ad campaign stunk. Wider is better? Really, that's it?


 E Aho Laula :laugh:


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

HollisJoy said:


> truth in advertising regulations had them pigeon holed


Only because before Pontiac became the U.S. Vauxhall Pontiac sucked massive King Kong sized monkey balls.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

HollisJoy said:


> truth in advertising regulations had them pigeon holed


I am going to pick up on this, even though I know you're mentioning the concept of "truth in advertising" in fun. But I really should address statements being made about me and my company elsewhere. An individual on another forum has for some time been critical of me and my business practices ever since we introduced a product for the B7-series longitudinal FSI engines. This criticism increased to the point where he created multiple YouTube videos to accuse me of lying about our products. The videos have been around for a while now, and up until recently most people dismissed them as the just the work of an angry hater. But then I started hearing from reasonable, supportive people who raised some pretty smart questions about our published compressor maps. After a bit of public discussion, I realized the way we presented those maps was flawed and needed to be corrected. I published my decision in the forums where people buy the affected products as well as to the general public on our FaceBook page. 

The controversy about our compressor maps is not directly pertinent to our F25 turbo for the 2.5L engine. We have never published any tech specs on this turbo's compressor wheel, so there's no compressor map to dispute. But I think it's fair that I notify this community anyway. Here's what I had to say:

I have a statement to make about our compressor maps and the larger questions of our marketing communications. 

The point of contention is pretty clear cut: Is our F23 compressor map a fake or isn't it? My response up until now has been to simply say the map is accurate, and we have documentation to verify that. But the ongoing questions about the map's origins uncover a problem. The testing we did which resulted in that map was not the same type of testing used to create the comparative maps also listed on our site. And so while our test data were accurate and truthful, it was a mistake to publish that map in the context of others which were tested using different methods. How the map was generated, whether in Photoshop or something else isn't the issue. I also now see that stubbornly standing by the accuracy of our test results isn't addressing this. It is that the research methods we used do not meet the standard for a publishable compressor map.

I acknowledge that our compressor map needs to be withdrawn. For people to have faith in my products, they should rightly expect information from us that's clear-cut and unequivocal. So going forward we will not publish this or any other compressor map, and will instead restrict ourselves to the data and test results we've collected over the F23's years of service.

I apologize for the controversy this has caused. I especially hate knowing that my mistake has shaken the tremendous support given me by this community. If anyone would like to have more information/explanation, I will do my best to deliver it.​

Thanks

Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*time-to-speed measurements*

I took a look through some old data logs of the TT from when it was running a 1.8T and our F23 turbo. Using that data, I was able to overlay the current performance to that of the car in the smaller displacement.











It's a pretty striking change. No question this motor's got some oomph down low.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I took a look through some old data logs of the TT from when it was running a 1.8T and our F23 turbo. Using that data, I was able to overlay the current performance to that of the car in the smaller displacement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's an impressive change on the stock manifold but I want to see how much you lose down low with an SRI when you can finally test that.


----------



## Wolfsburg007 (Apr 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Our next step is to determine the possibility of an adapter from the turbo that would allow the stock downpipe to be retained. We'll need a test car for that. Anyone local to the NYC area should contact us. Turbo and installation by FFE in Deer Park NY would be free in exchange for use of the car. However, there would be costs for supporting parts such as the intake, intercooling & PCV system. But hey, free turbo.
> 
> Anybody interested should contact us here: [email protected]
> 
> Thx


im in upstate ny. kingston about a hr and a half from nyc. you need a test mule. my cars never been tuned. as well as it is meticulously maintained. pm me if interested.i have a nuespeed intake thats it. just did full suspension new hubs and brakes and tires.as well as full ignition tuneup new coils and plugs.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

There are still a couple of design changes I want to explore before inviting testers. First I want to try a slightly different turbine rotor combined with a more aggressive wastegate actuator assembly. After that, we'll be experimenting with an alternate turbine housing. THEN, we'll start gearing up for beta testing.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> There are still a couple of design changes I want to explore before inviting testers. First I want to try a slightly different turbine rotor combined with a more aggressive wastegate actuator assembly. After that, we'll be experimenting with an alternate turbine housing. THEN, we'll start gearing up for beta testing.


@doug Any time frame on that?


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

Sub'd, Liked, and Following.


----------



## Wolfsburg007 (Apr 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> There are still a couple of design changes I want to explore before inviting testers. First I want to try a slightly different turbine rotor combined with a more aggressive wastegate actuator assembly. After that, we'll be experimenting with an alternate turbine housing. THEN, we'll start gearing up for beta testing.


Let me know. I do hvac. In NY it's getting cold. I'll be working long hrs and making some good cash. Wouldn't mind some fast for a daily. 

Sent from my 0x1 Note 3...... I love tep


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> @doug Any time frame on that?


The new rotor/actuator assembly should be on its way here this week. We'll slug that into the car and see how the changes perform. Next we'll be auditioning a different, smaller turbine housing. Odds are this will happen around the holidays. So hopefully I'll have the basic design decided by year's end. Also hopefully by that time the car will have received a proper intake manifold. Work on that is happening as well.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Also hopefully by that time the car will have received a proper intake manifold. Work on that is happening as well.


You just dropped a massive bomb there, Doug. Who is making an SRI for a Fluidic power steering car??


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> You just dropped a massive bomb there, Doug. Who is making an SRI for a Fluidic power steering car??


You're right. I did do that just then. But I'm not going to speak out of school about something still under development... other than to say we're NOT the ones making it, and that my impression is it WILL be a mass-produced item.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You're right. I did do that just then. But I'm not going to speak out of school about something still under development... other than to say we're NOT the ones making it, and that my impression is it WILL be a mass-produced item.


*cough*IE*cough*

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Cherb32 said:


> *cough*IE*cough*
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


Hank has been hinting at that for a while lol.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

The Hype is real!


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Hank has been hinting at that for a while lol.


I know right!? Lol just say it and stop teasing!!! 😆

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolfsburg007 (Apr 21, 2011)

This post makes me so happy to have a 2.5

Sent from my 0x1 Note 3...... I love tep


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

I'll be that guy. You say this project is to offer a cheap yet effective turbo kit, but what's the price. No matter how you cut it going from a N/A setup to turbo you're looking at $3500-$5k depending on if things are used or new. There's no cheap way to go about it, unless everythingIis knock off. Why use a F25 when you're already fronting ~$4k plus labor for a kit yielding what 280whp when you can budget in another $500 for a larger turbo? I love your stuff, I've driven multiple mk4 1.8t's using your turbo tuned on Eurodyne and was thoroughly impressed.

However if a full kit was $2999 MSRP and you do the work yourself to save $1000 in labor this is a hell of a deal.

Btw FST offers a VR6 clutch and pressure plate for under $400 that will definitely hold the power.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

kevin splits said:


> I'll be that guy. You say this project is to offer a cheap yet effective turbo kit, but what's the price. No matter how you cut it going from a N/A setup to turbo you're looking at $3500-$5k depending on if things are used or new. There's no cheap way to go about it, unless everythingIis knock off. Why use a F25 when you're already fronting ~$4k plus labor for a kit yielding what 280whp when you can budget in another $500 for a larger turbo? I love your stuff, I've driven multiple mk4 1.8t's using your turbo tuned on Eurodyne and was thoroughly impressed.
> 
> However if a full kit was $2999 MSRP and you do the work yourself to save $1000 in labor this is a hell of a deal.
> 
> Btw FST offers a VR6 clutch and pressure plate for under $400 that will definitely hold the power.


I think you're missing the point of what Doug is going for with the final F25 product. He's wanting to optimize spool time --which IMHO isn't a bad idea at all and there's a market for a smaller turbo that'll spool faster than existing kits.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

kevin splits said:


> I'll be that guy ...There's no cheap way to go about it, unless everythingIis knock off. Why use a F25 when you're already fronting ~$4k plus labor for a kit yielding what 280whp when you can budget in another $500 for a larger turbo?





Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> I think you're missing the point of what Doug is going for with the final F25 product. He's wanting to optimize spool time --which IMHO isn't a bad idea at all and there's a market for a smaller turbo that'll spool faster than existing kits.


As far as I'm concerned, the market is made up of folks who think like _"that guy"_. And I agree there's no market for a $4000 turbo kit directed to a car that's worth only a little more than that amount. So product development for the F25 _HAS_ to be 2/3 marketing smarts and 1/3 performance results. And I still believe there is traction for a product which can deliver ~400whp on a 2.5L for less cost than the same power on a 2.0L. Granted that power level isn't hellacious. There's a good number of forced-induction 07K motors that are well over that. But that number at the right price should find some success here. Or else it won't... and we'll port the product to the 1.8T etc.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the market is made up of folks who think like _"that guy"_. And I agree there's no market for a $4000 turbo kit directed to a car that's worth only a little more than that amount. So product development for the F25 _HAS_ to be 2/3 marketing smarts and 1/3 performance results. And I still believe there is traction for a product which can deliver ~400whp on a 2.5L for less cost than the same power on a 2.0L. Granted that power level isn't hellacious. There's a good number of forced-induction 07K motors that are well over that. But that number at the right price should find some success here. *Or else it won't... and we'll port the product to the 1.8T etc*.


I hope you see what I was saying, I mean zero disrespect. I however don't understand what you're meaning is saying there has to be a cheaper way to make 400whp on a 2.5l vs a 2.0t, it's all relative... Both motors will need the same supporting parts to use your manifold and turbo, only thing that will save funds is the fact the 2.0t needs a built HPFP as well as injectors whereas the 2.5 will only need injectors which is a $350 savings, though the 2.5 should holdup better at 400whp than a 2.0t which at 400whp you're flirting with the need for forged rods. I just don't see how a reliable, no corners cut, full turbo kit can be feasible for sub $4k. Now this turbo on a 1.8t would be amazing :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

kevin splits said:


> I just don't see how a reliable, no corners cut, full turbo kit can be feasible for sub $4k. Now this turbo on a 1.8t would be amazing :beer:


When you factor the intercooler, the intake manifold, the clutch, the tires, the LSD, the exhaust system, the brakes, and all the other items down the list, the number gets up there. So the only rationale for offering a 2.5L turbo solution is if the market sees its value. I threw out 400whp earlier somewhat arbitrarily. But it's a good, round number and a target which is not cheap to accomplish on any VW engine. By and large, the kinds of cars which get heavy DIY modifications are going to be a bit older. The price of entry is lower. For anyone wanting a reasonably new car that leaves 2.5L Mk5s and FSI 2.0L Mk5s. And the more cost-effective route to 400+whp is on the 2.5L platform. Granted, you can't get there from a stock car for super cheap. But the comparative value is there. 

Yesterday I indulged myself with a drive in the TT that had no testing purpose. It was a beautiful fall day and I simply wanted to experience the car. And that experience reinforced for me that the F25 has a place under the hood with an 07K motor. It's a lot of fun.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

I totally agree. If things go to plan we'll have a 2013 2.5l JSW. It's a auto which sucks, however I think about my srt4 with its stock 16g and how fun it was at 13# and that was what only 250whp, 280tq on 93? That's what I'd want on a family daily, and the stock auto should hold that. So this F25 peeks my interest, but the only thing I can see being entry level into FI is the power. I guess you can run it un-intercooled, if you did figure out a way to utilize the stock down pipe and exhaust, then you have your sub $3k kit and i would be very interested especially if it all worked together for a clean install.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

kevin splits said:


> I guess you can run it un-intercooled, if you did figure out a way to utilize the stock down pipe and exhaust, then you have your sub $3k kit and i would be very interested especially if it all worked together for a clean install.


It's got to be intercooled. And it's got to mate with the stock downpipe. And it's got to be a less expensive path to power than trading to a GTI. I have all those types of things on the checklist. But first, I need a turbocharger. Because that's my product. So testing on that needs to be completed, then we'll move to the nitty gritty of packaging it for the market.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

any updates doug?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> any updates doug?


You sort of read my mind. It occurred to me that I haven't been posting on the turbo lately. The reason for that is we're waiting on production of an alternate turbine housing to pair with a different turbine rotor. And progress on that has been tripped up by development work we've been doing on the smaller F21 and F23 series turbos. The good news of that outside development is that the tech we're exploring -- if it's everything it's cracked up to be -- will go right into the F25 as well.

I'm not dithering. The current turbo is great and I have been lucky to need the car for travel to ForceFed Engineering (who I lean heavily on for advice and knowledge). I'd have no reservations "green lighting" this configuration. But I have too many good alternatives available. And I want to be the guinea pig rather than asking a customer to do that.

I hope to have more news in December.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> You sort of read my mind. It occurred to me that I haven't been posting on the turbo lately. The reason for that is we're waiting on production of an alternate turbine housing to pair with a different turbine rotor. And progress on that has been tripped up by development work we've been doing on the smaller F21 and F23 series turbos. The good news of that outside development is that the tech we're exploring -- if it's everything it's cracked up to be -- will go right into the F25 as well.
> 
> I'm not dithering. The current turbo is great and I have been lucky to need the car for travel to ForceFed Engineering (who I lean heavily on for advice and knowledge). I'd have no reservations "green lighting" this configuration. But I have too many good alternatives available. And I want to be the guinea pig rather than asking a customer to do that.
> 
> I hope to have more news in December.


How does FrankenTTRS drive? It sounds like a monster, but does it drive like a backroad barnstormer?


----------



## Matti von Kessing (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm definitely interested in a very streetable, quick-spooling 280-300 hp. From the little bit that I've read in this thread, it sounds like an interesting proposition.

Sub'd for updates.


----------



## Mr_Long (Dec 9, 2003)

In for updates


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> How does FrankenTTRS drive? It sounds like a monster, but does it drive like a backroad barnstormer?


It drives a lot like I'd imagine some high-priced sports cars do. It gets up and goes sharply. Boost is always there and the power delivery is strong without being obnoxious. Curving on-ramps get a little hairy even with Haldex and at part throttle. To my mind, 300-ish wheel torque is plenty. Beyond that and I don't see it being very affordable to get the power down to the pavement. I'm looking forward to trying the next turbine housing/manifold combination for comparison. I'd really like to see the F25 making 15+psi at 3000rpms. Right now, it's good for 12psi at best.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

any updates doug?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

we're overhauling the designs for both the turbo and manifold. the compressor wheel is being prototyped in billet. the turbine housing is getting changed for a smaller one with a much smaller inlet. and the manifold is getting re-thought as well. oh, and the turbine rotor is also being changed out for a slightly smaller one as well.

we'll have everything but the billet compressor wheel ready to start fitment right after the new year. my hope is that the new design spools faster and sits in a better position for connection to the stock 2.5L downpipe.

so we're working, that's for sure.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

itching for more power~! need a test car on the west coast??


Peter


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

We just got a prototype turbine casting today. I'm happy with it! So the next steps are fabrication of newly-designed compressor and turbine wheels. That process will take a couple of weeks. With that done, we're going to jury rig an installation of the new turbo onto the existing T3-flanged manifold. The new design has a considerably smaller turbine inlet, so that T3 flange on the manifold will need modification. Here it is test-fitted to a manifold for the 1.8T motor (where we'll also be marketing this turbo).


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

F25 on the 1.8T?! That's awesome! It looks like you're going with the K04-2x manifold fitment, which you've demonstrated to have pretty good flow with on the Chinafold.

Four questions:
1) Are you looking to have F23-like fitment and spool for 1.8T engines?

2) Will this replace the F23 (especially if the above is true)?

3) Are you at all concerned about back pressures/EGTs having a relatively small setup on the larger 2.5 engines?

4) Will there be different actuators/housing ARs for each engine? Example: larger AR/more conservative WGA for 2.5 and vice-versa for 1.8T?

I love the sound of this.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Patiently waiting for release.
What are you guys looking at for price of kit?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> Four questions:
> 1) Are you looking to have F23-like fitment and spool for 1.8T engines?


F23 fitment, yes. But it's too much to hope for F23 spool. This is a considerably bigger turbo.



suffocatemymind said:


> 2) Will this replace the F23 (especially if the above is true)?


The F23 will remain our stock-fitment K04 turbo for TT225 and S3 cars. But its future as a Mk4 product is TBD.



suffocatemymind said:


> 3) Are you at all concerned about back pressures/EGTs having a relatively small setup on the larger 2.5 engines?


I'm not concerned, but am going to monitor that. Keep in mind that Subarus with 2.5L engines have run "small" turbos to great effect for years.



suffocatemymind said:


> 4) Will there be different actuators/housing ARs for each engine? Example: larger AR/more conservative WGA for 2.5 and vice-versa for 1.8T?


Probably not. I have a fairly narrow point-of-view about turbo design and I strive to do only one thing: offer products that have been curated down to what I think is best.


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

No more 1.8 questions, let the evil genius concentrate :laugh:


----------



## Matti von Kessing (Jan 17, 2011)

Lets all go over to Youtube and start watching all the 2.5T videos. Listen to those sweet exhaust notes.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

ourlee said:


> No more 1.8 questions, let the evil genius concentrate :laugh:


I know, I know (sorry!), but they are legitimate questions for the 2.5 as well. If it is anything like (or unlike) the F23, you'll have a better idea of what to expect.

You now know that it'll likely share a 1.8T k04-2x style fitment (assuming he's keeping as many things the same as he can between the 1.8T and 2.5 for simplicity/cost-effectiveness). This includes a bottom mount/BW 3 bolt outlet/cast manifold with an extra runner, and perhaps a downpipe option that'll mirror transverse FWD 1.8T vehicles (with the cast turndown as the most common route---something he already provides). For those of you who don't know, 3" performance 1.8T downpipes can be really cheap (China) and really effective. Some may prefer (myself included) quality, hassle-free (in terms of fitment) USA-made exhaust parts, but they introduce cost premiums that don't align with the kit's overall cost structure while also not adding any worthy (if any) power gains. So far...I don't know...seems pretty realistic to me.

You also know that it will spool later than the F23 but quicker than the current TTRS/T3-esque prototype (remember: general spool time between two turbos isn't necessarily engine-dependent, i.e. a GT28RS will spool to 18psi quicker than a GT40 will on the same engine). Considering the F23 can easily flow over 300whp, my imagined F25 on a 2.5 engine sounds pretty exciting - especially if a lot of the hardware is derived from/designed around its "tried and true little brother." That means affordable, practical power for those looking to waken up their affordable and practical vehicles.

This is all speculation, though, so Doug I'm interested to hear where you're going with it and your thoughts on what I've said.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> my imagined F25 on a 2.5 engine sounds pretty exciting - especially if a lot of the hardware is derived from/designed around its "tried and true little brother." That means affordable, practical power for those looking to waken up their affordable and practical vehicles.
> 
> This is all speculation, though, so Doug I'm interested to hear where you're going with it and your thoughts on what I've said.


You're right about the shifting plans for the connection between turbo and manifold. We're taking it down from the big T3 shape to a circular 47-48mm, which is the exact dimension we have on the F23 for 1.8T. The turbine housing A/R is going down from 0.68 to 0.57 as well.

On another note, I'd sure like to get an intake manifold on the motor, but am getting nowhere with outside vendors on that score. Too bad, with a readership above 20,000, this thread would offer good exposure to anyone who wants to step up.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> You're right about the shifting plans for the connection between turbo and manifold. We're taking it down from the big T3 shape to a circular 47-48mm, which is the exact dimension we have on the F23 for 1.8T. The turbine housing A/R is going down from 0.68 to 0.57 as well.
> 
> On another note, I'd sure like to get an intake manifold on the motor, but am getting nowhere with outside vendors on that score. Too bad, with a readership above 20,000, this thread would offer good exposure to anyone who wants to step up.


my car with UM sri is still available at your disposal on the west coast. just sayin'


Peter


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

I sure am glad this thread popped up. I have a '14 sportwagen with the 2.5 and I just started researching turbo setups for it. I have a CAI, Cat back exhaust and lightweight crank pulley but it's just not enough. I was planning on going the SRI route but I know i'd be looking for more power shortly after. If you can produce a kit that comes in around $3-3500 and easily makes 250-275hp/twq then i'd be all for it. I'm going to follow this thread for sure.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

theroccoman said:


> I have a '14 sportwagen with the 2.5 and I just started researching turbo setups for it. I have a CAI, Cat back exhaust and lightweight crank pulley but it's just not enough. I was planning on going the SRI route...


Your late-model 2.5 has a pulley-driven power steering pump, rather than the electrical style used in some of the prior years. That new pump makes the engine incompatible with the currently-offered intake manifolds.


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Your late-model 2.5 has a pulley-driven power steering pump, rather than the electrical style used in some of the prior years. That new pump makes the engine incompatible with the currently-offered intake manifolds.


That's what i thought too but after searching high and low i have found no power steering reservoir nor anything that looks like a pump for it. Either way i'd like to turbo it. :thumbup:


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Your late-model 2.5 has a pulley-driven power steering pump, rather than the electrical style used in some of the prior years. That new pump makes the engine incompatible with the currently-offered intake manifolds.


Negative Ghostrider. He's got a JSW which is electro-mechanical and not fluidic. It's a Golf based product, not really a Jetta based product.



theroccoman said:


> I sure am glad this thread popped up. I have a '14 sportwagen with the 2.5 and I just started researching turbo setups for it. I have a CAI, Cat back exhaust and lightweight crank pulley but it's just not enough. I was planning on going the SRI route but I know i'd be looking for more power shortly after. If you can produce a kit that comes in around $3-3500 and easily makes 250-275hp/twq then i'd be all for it. I'm going to follow this thread for sure.


Having driven an SRI'd late model JSW --the extra weight demands a turbo any way you slice it. If you live somewhere that the plastic manifold will survive --just turbo first and then if you want more power later, go SRI.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Negative Ghostrider. He's got a JSW which is electro-mechanical and not fluidic. It's a Golf based product, not really a Jetta based product.


Well I'm sure glad VW kept things so simple. :facepalm:




Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Having driven an SRI'd late model JSW --the extra weight demands a turbo any way you slice it. If you live somewhere that the plastic manifold will survive --just turbo first and then if you want more power later, go SRI.


It's handled 16-18psi without breaking. But I can't say the airflows through the motor at that manifold pressure are very impressive. Since any hope for a simplified intake manifold is dim, I am going to put a pressure sensor at the fuel injector location. Let's see how much pressure loss there is through that contorted plastic shape.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Nice performance on a cool day:


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Negative Ghostrider. He's got a JSW which is electro-mechanical and not fluidic. It's a Golf based product, not really a Jetta based product.
> 
> 
> 
> Having driven an SRI'd late model JSW --the extra weight demands a turbo any way you slice it. If you live somewhere that the plastic manifold will survive --just turbo first and then if you want more power later, go SRI.


Can you shed some light on the 2012 + Beetle configuration? I'd like to Franken T a Beetle.
Thanks, Rick


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

ourlee said:


> Can you shed some light on the 2012 + Beetle configuration? I'd like to Franken T a Beetle.
> Thanks, Rick


2012+ Beetles are fluidic, but that will soon be a non-issue. IE is working on an SRI that will work with fluidic power steering cars.

Since people want to know:

*HERE is what's fluidic:*

EVERY 2011+ 2.5L vehicle except MK6 Golfs and MK6 "Golf-variants' (Jetta Sportwagon) are fluidic.
2012+ Beetles
2012+ Passats
2011+ (MK6) Jettas EXCEPT for MK6 Jetta Sportwagons (which are not Jettas at all but really Golf variants so if you think about it that way it makes sense)
There are apparently SOME MK5 Jettas with fluidic power steering --I have never seen one but I have heard of them on the net.

ALSO the older MK4 based Beetles are fluidic.

*HERE is what's electromechanical:*

MK5 Rabbits
MOST MK5 Jettas (once again there are apparently SOME MK5 Jettas with fluidic power steering --I have never seen one but I have heard of them on the net.)
MK5 JSWs/Golf Variants
MK6 Golfs
MK6 JSWs/Golf Variants


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

Thank you very much.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

ourlee said:


> Thank you very much.


Boy, I'll say.


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

the F25 looks very promising. and with the output shown i'd be getting more than i want. ideally i'd be happy with 240-260 hp to the wheels. imo that'd be enough get up and go for this engine.


----------



## yeyox (Mar 17, 2009)

can't wait for this product!

subscribed


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

GoForBroke said:


> the F25 looks very promising. and with the output shown i'd be getting more than i want. ideally i'd be happy with 240-260 hp to the wheels. imo that'd be enough get up and go for this engine.


I agree. The F25 test car is running close to 20psi of boost right now and even with Haldex AWD the acceleration is squirrelly. When the next prototype turbo gets fitted my first ambition will be to refine an actuator setting that delivers 250-275whp on just spring pressure. No MBC, no control valve of any kind. Cheap and simple.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I agree. The F25 test car is running close to 20psi of boost right now and even with Haldex AWD the acceleration is squirrelly. When the next prototype turbo gets fitted my first ambition will be to refine an actuator setting that delivers 250-275whp on just spring pressure. No MBC, no control valve of any kind. Cheap and simple.


An SRI might help by reducing torque?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> An SRI might help by reducing torque?


An SRI manifold may reduce torque off boost. On boost however it should provide more torque and power to redline.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I agree. The F25 test car is running close to 20psi of boost right now...













Wheee.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

spartiati said:


> An SRI manifold may reduce torque off boost. On boost however it should provide more torque and power to redline.


x2


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

Whats your best guess on the price of this future +'12 SRI from IE?


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

Since this thread exists here abiut this turbo and not anywhere else I can find, any idea if this turbo will be eventually adapted to the mk7 GTI? I hear the turbo is mounted directly to the head but, I haven't been able to see it with my own eyes.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

kevin splits said:


> Since this thread exists here abiut this turbo and not anywhere else I can find, any idea if this turbo will be eventually adapted to the mk7 GTI? I hear the turbo is mounted directly to the head but, I haven't been able to see it with my own eyes.


I think the only thing that will ever happen for MK7s will be a hybrid upgrade using the factory housing.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> I think the only thing that will ever happen for MK7s will be a hybrid upgrade using the factory housing.


That is a very strong prediction. I don't know how many of you keep tabs on the affairs of those Mk7 guys, but a considerable number are having turbo failures related to their rotating assemblies. I'm sure companies are looking very hard at ways to offer a "drop in" cartridge that's more robust and has a higher output.

As of now, though, the F25 is slated only for the 07k motor and the 1.8T platforms.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> That is a very strong prediction. I don't know how many of you keep tabs on the affairs of those Mk7 guys, but a considerable number are having turbo failures related to their rotating assemblies. I'm sure companies are looking very hard at ways to offer a "drop in" cartridge that's more robust and has a higher output.
> 
> As of now, though, the F25 is slated only for the 07k motor and the 1.8T platforms.


If you figure out a way to solve the nightmare of that integrated hosted manifold --more power to you. I've seen more than one teardown of that IHI snail, and it's flat out wacky to the point I won't be considering a MK7 when I get to the EU in May.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

While at ForceFed Engineering last week to dyno-test our newly-designed MixedFlow rotor F21T, I decided to put the 2.5L car on the rollers as well. The F25 turbo car ran fine, but we experienced significant wheel slip during the session. Since my main interest was to find out whether torque was too high, the mis-read by the dyno was worrisome. So I'm going to post up some pix from that flawed session, largely to warn potential customers against the false comfort of a low reading. So here's the sheet:











That torque curve looks really safe. But during the pulls you could hear the irregular-sounding run-up of power. You could see it in the data logs too. So we looked more closely at the DynoJet's report. When we added a graph to show engine revs by speed, the slippage was obvious:











So the dyno wasn't capturing the motor's true output. I decided to turn to previous data for some clues. A couple of years ago this car was running our smaller F23 turbo on a 20v 1.8T displacement. At its best the car was seeing over 300whtq. And at that time, its airflow rates compare to the F25 like this:

Red is the 1.8T
Black is the 07K 2.5L











Two comparisons are being graphed here: mass airflow per second and mass airflow per engine revolution. As you can see, the 2.5L is pumping more air before boost kicks in, but gets overtaken when the F23 went into boost (30psi of it). But towards the top end the F25 catches up and overpasses the 1.8T's flow. And the dyno sheets pretty much reflect that. Here are the two setups:











My guess is the F25 is running a peak torque value about where the 1.8T was. But it's not so easy to tell if the tires break traction. Which raises a question for me: what's the point of all that torque if your front tires can't handle it?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

:thumbup:


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Which raises a question for me: what's the point of all that torque if your front tires can't handle it?


wide fenders plus 285 fronts :laugh:


Peter


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

Don't spare the whip, dig them spurs in deep, and Hold On!
Yeehaw!


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

All I hear is that FrankenTTRS needs a rear LSD, fatter tires and a fender pull. When the axels start breaking then we'll cheer.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

It's quattro! And still look at this!


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> It's quattro! And still look at this!


They make rear LSDs for that East-West Haldex 4mo --and there are advantages of an open front diff w/ a limited slip rear (I'm still of the opinion the only REAL Quattro of the North-South variety  )


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Just wondering, how much longer before we see this into production? Wanting boost and money is burning a hole in my pocket right now lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> Just wondering, how much longer before we see this into production? Wanting boost and money is burning a hole in my pocket right now lol


The F25 v2 turbo will be arriving here today, actually. My guess is tuning and testing of it will be much faster than the months' long process for the v1. We've learned a lot, dialed in a good 18-20psi C2Motorsports file... if I'm happy with the responsiveness of the new turbo, we'll get to work on a manifold design and up-pipe adapter for the stock Mk5 exhaust system.

Pix of the new turbo shortly...


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> The F25 v2 turbo will be arriving here today, actually. My guess is tuning and testing of it will be much faster than the months' long process for the v1. We've learned a lot, dialed in a good 18-20psi C2Motorsports file... if I'm happy with the responsiveness of the new turbo, we'll get to work on a manifold design and up-pipe adapter for the stock Mk5 exhaust system.
> 
> Pix of the new turbo shortly...


This excites me, thanks for the quick reply doug


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> we'll get to work on a manifold design and up-pipe adapter for the stock Mk5 exhaust system.


Nice, exactly what I suspected in one of my recent posts. Very interested to see everything come to life.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The DHL man stiffed me today on F25 goodies. Nothing but parts for F21-series turbos. But today's shipment did signal something: it was our first delivery of MixedFlow turbos, named for the modern turbine rotor shape we are incorporating into our entire product line. I'll be having a lot to say about this -- and how it relates to our development of the F25 -- in the coming days.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> That is a very strong prediction. I don't know how many of you keep tabs on the affairs of those Mk7 guys, but a considerable number are having turbo failures related to their rotating assemblies. I'm sure companies are looking very hard at ways to offer a "drop in" cartridge that's more robust and has a higher output.
> 
> As of now, though, the F25 is slated only for the 07k motor and the 1.8T platforms.


:beer: One thing I know for certain, is the first company with a IHI replacement or larger turbo is gonna make big bucks. AFAIK VW has switched turbo manufactures and the newest batch that will go out as a TSB are problem free, and that most of these turbo failures are in the UK and only a few of the Launch edition GTI S in the US have turbos from the bad batch.

IDK this turbo looks promising though :beer:


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

any updates? 

i'm like a crack whore and need a fix!!



Peter


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> any updates?
> 
> i'm like a crack whore and need a fix!!
> 
> ...


Yes indeed-ey! We just got the new, re-wheeled F25 prototype in. It features our newfangled MixedFlow turbine rotor shape and a bigger, billet compressor wheel. In other words, we're _bringing back the sexy_ folks!
















































Some of these pix show the turbo fitted to a 1.8T manifold. And I want to explore a similar shape on the manifold we'll need for the 2.5L. But first this prototype goes into the FrankenTT-RS for some shade-down tests.


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

:snowcool:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Vband! Looks great Doug...are you going to fit the turbo to your existing turbine housing, at least for now, for testing?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Oh hell YES!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> Vband! Looks great Doug...are you going to fit the turbo to your existing turbine housing, at least for now, for testing?


A v-band outlet flange isn't really enough, in my opinion. I hope to develop an "Up-Pipe" that can adapt from the turbo to the stock exhaust. As for this prototype, we'll figure out some kind of jury-rigged connection to the existing T3-flanged exhaust manifold. Separately we'll work up an exhaust manifold that orients the turbo favorably for that Up-Pipe to work in a production unit.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah I was simply commenting on the vband, just the fact that you're looking to incorporate one at all regardless of the presence of an up pipe or not. Very sweet, very excited to see what you make of it.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Every time i come back to this thread the rabbit smiles and awaits its presents. i hope to be one of the few pioneers when you guys get this ready for release.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

We've assembled the new wheels to our selected bearing housing, so I'm posting a picture of that. This housing has fins in the casting to aid with air-cooling. It's the one we've been testing on the V1 of the F25 turbo, and it's held up well during the process.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

So pretty much MKVI Jettas 11+ are out...sigh, I just spent an hr reading this thread, you played with my emotions. Went from ️️ to 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

elppe said:


> So pretty much MKVI Jettas 11+ are out...sigh, I just spent an hr reading this thread, you played with my emotions. Went from ️️ to
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


from what i've seen the 2.5 cars from 2006-2010 aren't that expensive these days. get one for fun weekends. :thumbup:


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

I would but I've put enough into my car. Guess it will be just looks and then next one will have to be a GLI or something with power already


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

GoForBroke said:


> from what i've seen the 2.5 cars from 2006-2010 aren't that expensive these days. get one for fun weekends. :thumbup:


Just saw that there's a tune from UM for 09+ 2.5 now my car is auto so we'll see if that will even work for the car. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

elppe said:


> I would but I've put enough into my car. Guess it will be just looks and then next one will have to be a GLI or something with power already
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


meh. i like buying cars that don't have stock power but have the potential. something i can waste time on. although i'm seriously giving the Focus RS a lot of consideration.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

*FrankenTurbo F25 Prototyping &amp; Testing*

Yea, the problem is VW discounted our 2.5 so why waste money. To each their own. If I'd known the 2.5 wouldnt be available when I bought it back in 2010 then I would have not gotten it lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

elppe said:


> So pretty much MKVI Jettas 11+ are out...sigh, I just spent an hr reading this thread, you played with my emotions. Went from ️️ to
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Is this a software availability problem? Because certainly the Mk6 can be fitted with a turbo just as the Mk5 can be...


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

*FrankenTurbo F25 Prototyping &amp; Testing*



[email protected] said:


> Is this a software availability problem? Because certainly the Mk6 can be fitted with a turbo just as the Mk5 can be...


Doug, I am patiently waiting to fit your turbo to my 2011 mk6, the only potential issue is the SRI fitment for the engines with hydraulic steering. You can have my money! BTW there is no software issues tuning these Ecus; United and Malone can and have provided tunes for these cars; I currently have a "Stage 1" tune from a Malone dealer on my car.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

So if the Mk6 is essentially a external make-over, then wouldn't the old elec-steering racks bolt up the same? Someone else is thinking this too http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5717583-Upgrade-to-electric-power-steering&mode=hybrid I've seen plenty of Mk5's in the $2500-$4500 range with over 200k. I have only heard of one showing up in a local junk yard...to go about it the right way on the vehicles with the power steering is to snatch up one of these high mileage cars and snag the ind. rear. suspension to replace your straight beams and the steering rack plus whatever else is necessary...then go to IE for their built head and SRI...or just take a non-rust-belt '07-'08 Mk5 and do a complete show car build. Their motors don't have all the carbon build up issues, and minimal rust issues.


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

i'm just waiting on the prototype testing for the stock cat adapter. doug, my offer still stands to let you use my Rabbit as you need to figure it out and fit it. :beer: anything i can do to help get this into production just ask.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Is this a software availability problem? Because certainly the Mk6 can be fitted with a turbo just as the Mk5 can be...


No it's the fitment of the SRI with the power steering pump, for these models 2011 Jettas+ that's the problem.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

Dingo8mibaby said:


> Doug, I am patiently waiting to fit your turbo to my 2011 mk6, the only potential issue is the SRI fitment for the engines with hydraulic steering. You can have my money! BTW there is no software issues tuning these Ecus; United and Malone can and have provided tunes for these cars; I currently have a "Stage 1" tune from a Malone dealer on my car.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What made you choose Malone over United? PM for more details I'm thinking of doing this soon enough


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

elppe said:


> No it's the fitment of the SRI with the power steering pump, for these models 2011 Jettas+ that's the problem.


turbo goes on the other end of the cylinder head. 

The hydraulic steering wont hamper a turbo. It will hamper however a intake manifold. (but that will eventually be solved)

You sir, dont have a fitment problem


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

Maybe I stop reading before hand but I thought he was looking into this set up with the SRI included? Maybe I'm wrong I stop reading bc I got sad ha


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

elppe said:


> Maybe I stop reading before hand but I thought he was looking into this set up with the SRI included? Maybe I'm wrong I stop reading bc I got sad ha


the TT-RS currently does not have an SRI, but Doug is trying to get his hands on one to see if he can push it further.

Rumor has it that IE is working on an SRI that works with the hydraulic power steering anyways, so this problem may be resolved soon.


Peter


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

gugu1981 said:


> the TT-RS currently does not have an SRI, but Doug is trying to get his hands on one to see if he can push it further.
> 
> Rumor has it that IE is working on an SRI that works with the hydraulic power steering anyways, so this problem may be resolved soon.
> 
> ...


  soon pls! Lol


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

MK5CNY said:


> So if the Mk6 is essentially a external make-over, then wouldn't the old elec-steering racks bolt up the same? Someone else is thinking this too http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5717583-Upgrade-to-electric-power-steering&mode=hybrid I've seen plenty of Mk5's in the $2500-$4500 range with over 200k. I have only heard of one showing up in a local junk yard...to go about it the right way on the vehicles with the power steering is to snatch up one of these high mileage cars and snag the ind. rear. suspension to replace your straight beams and the steering rack plus whatever else is necessary...then go to IE for their built head and SRI...or just take a non-rust-belt '07-'08 Mk5 and do a complete show car build. Their motors don't have all the carbon build up issues, and minimal rust issues.


I have thought about this; however, adding another $3000.00 to a project that would cost about the same isn't going to fit in my budget.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

gugu1981 said:


> the TT-RS currently does not have an SRI, but Doug is trying to get his hands on one to see if he can push it further.
> 
> Rumor has it that IE is working on an SRI that works with the hydraulic power steering anyways, so this problem may be resolved soon.
> 
> ...


I will buy this as soon as it is available!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Dingo8mibaby said:


> I have thought about this; however, adding another $3000.00 to a project that would cost about the same isn't going to fit in my budget.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have a TTRS rack in my Golf --wasn't that expensive. $1200.


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> I have a TTRS rack in my Golf --wasn't that expensive. $1200.


I think the gentleman was referring to the purchase of an entire car. Did you convert from hydraulic to electric? If so, do you have a DIY? Don't you also have the TTRS subframe as well? Sorry to bombard you with questions, Lol!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

Yeah I don't think the mk6 jetta is a simple as and external makeover. It really doesn't seem to have much in common with the mkv chassis. So swapping parts might not be a straight forward. However the mk6 golf is a mkv makeover. 

I hope someone comes out with a mk6 jetta solution for you guys.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Dingo8mibaby said:


> I think the gentleman was referring to the purchase of an entire car. Did you convert from hydraulic to electric? If so, do you have a DIY? Don't you also have the TTRS subframe as well? Sorry to bombard you with questions, Lol!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I didn't need a TTRS subframe and I went electric to electric. I have Spulen LCAs and Passat Knuckles on all four corners.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> the TT-RS currently does not have an SRI, but Doug is trying to get his hands on one to see if he can push it further.
> 
> Rumor has it that IE is working on an SRI that works with the hydraulic power steering anyways, so this problem may be resolved soon.
> 
> ...


My hopes for a proper intake manifold on the hydraulic-pump style engines are dwindling. My calls and emails go unreturned. But I also am pretty confident that the 350whp capability we've demonstrated without even going to the expense of an intake is.... attractive. So my main focus is to test the MixedFlow design and make a decision between the two turbos. Then I'll get to work on the hot-side parts.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

vwluger22 said:


> Yeah I don't think the mk6 jetta is a simple as and external makeover. It really doesn't seem to have much in common with the mkv chassis. So swapping parts might not be a straight forward. However the mk6 golf is a mkv makeover.
> 
> I hope someone comes out with a mk6 jetta solution for you guys.


Is an A3 sedan MBQ or A6 based?


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Is an A3 sedan MBQ or A6 based?


The new A3 generation I'm pretty sure is MQB


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

I sure am glad my wagon doesn't have hydro steering so i can still get an SRI. Any Idea how far out a full kit is? If you're still looking for a test car when the weather warms up i may be able to help.


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> My hopes for a proper intake manifold on the hydraulic-pump style engines are dwindling. My calls and emails go unreturned. But I also am pretty confident that the 350whp capability we've demonstrated without even going to the expense of an intake is.... attractive. So my main focus is to test the MixedFlow design and make a decision between the two turbos. Then I'll get to work on the hot-side parts.


:thumbs up:



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

*FrankenTurbo F25 Prototyping &amp; Testing*



[email protected] said:


> My hopes for a proper intake manifold on the hydraulic-pump style engines are dwindling. My calls and emails go unreturned. But I also am pretty confident that the 350whp capability we've demonstrated without even going to the expense of an intake is.... attractive. So my main focus is to test the MixedFlow design and make a decision between the two turbos. Then I'll get to work on the hot-side parts.


Word! Let's get this done. I'll volunteer my car. 2011 2.5, APR CAI, USP Test pipe, and 2.5" magnaflow exhaust, & lightweight pulley 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*MixedFlow F25 prototype*

The new turbo is installed, the one with the new MixedFlow rotor. So far it's been run only on "spring pressure" with a 12psi actuator preload. Here's a look:











Tomorrow we'll raise that preload to 14psi and see how level the boost curve is. With some luck, we'll get a touch of boost "creep". Ordinarily thought of as a bad thing, the right degree of boost creep up towards redline will actually help hold the torque curve more level. A faster-spinning motor needs more boost to ingest the same amount of air per revolution as it did when spinning slower. So the 14psi preload experiment might net some interesting data.

dh


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

I need this in my life


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

When you're adjusting the preload, are you just cranking down the WGA rod or are you replacing the spring? If not the latter, doesn't that limit the articulation of the WG flap (which yields higher EGTs)?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here is the boost curve with the actuator set to 14psi. No boost creep, which surprised me a little. This is a more aggressive wastegate design on the new turbo, with a re-specced actuator arm for better leverage. Nevertheless, the configuration works properly at this preload. And this boost level is very suitable for a "spring pressure" controlled forced-induction setup. Nothing wrong with the power delivery at this pressure. In third gear it spun the front tires briefly at peak torque.














suffocatemymind said:


> When you're adjusting the preload, are you just cranking down the WGA rod or are you replacing the spring? If not the latter, doesn't that limit the articulation of the WG flap (which yields higher EGTs)?


These refinements are being done simply by making use of the actuator design. It has adjustment nuts just like any other turbo. And any time you are forcing more work from the turbine you will see an increase in EGTs. It makes no difference whether the flap opens less or requires more force to open the same amount, the result is more work from the turbine rotor. The key is to monitor exhaust back-pressures and EGTs, which we always do closely:


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Here is the boost curve with the actuator set to 14psi. No boost creep, which surprised me a little. This is a more aggressive wastegate design on the new turbo, with a re-specced actuator arm for better leverage. Nevertheless, the configuration works properly at this preload. And this boost level is very suitable for a "spring pressure" controlled forced-induction setup. Nothing wrong with the power delivery at this pressure. In third gear it spun the front tires briefly at peak torque.


i'm curious to know what width tire you recommend for those of us with Rabbits/Golfs that want to do this when it's ready. stock, it's a 195/65/15 which will definitely be inadequate. i'm currently running 225/50/16's and would like to know if this will be good enough for keeping the power planted.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

i run a 255/40/17 i am much happier with these over the 225/45/17s that i used to run. Although there isn't any more room under the fenders i would go wider if i was turboed. With the the sri and tune i found the 225s just weren't keeping up.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i run 245s and i can spin them in any gear if i really wanted to. But driving while being mindful also helps.

Additionally, the torque delivery will be determining traction anyways. On my 5457 .63 i could barely get any tracction on 225s if i wanted to accelerate like mad. the .82 5858 is much more of a "refined gentleman"


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

GoForBroke said:


> i'm curious to know what width tire you recommend for those of us with Rabbits/Golfs that want to do this when it's ready. stock, it's a 195/65/15 which will definitely be inadequate. i'm currently running 225/50/16's and would like to know if this will be good enough for keeping the power planted.


245/35ZR-19 Sumitomo HTR Z III XL tires on the car now. The short sidewall hurts grip. I'd still say a 255 width is the minimum. Why take chances?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> 245/35ZR-19 Sumitomo HTR Z III XL tires on the car now. The short sidewall hurts grip. I'd still say a 255 width is the minimum. Why take chances?


Worth noting a couple things about super fat tires. 255s require a roll on all Bunnies and Golfs even with a good offset if you run anything lower than DG springs. I rocked them lifted and wound up preferring a 235s for everything but autoX. I spin tires a bit more but I can actually induce a slide again and that helps me on track days.


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

Sorry for asking but will I be able to use this on a 2013 Passat AT?


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Another day passes. Another day i have dreams of having this turbo installed. Doug, how much longer before my dreams come true?


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

I must say, as a broke college student i clearly have my priorities straight. New textbooks or frankenturbo lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> Another day passes. Another day i have dreams of having this turbo installed. Doug, how much longer before my dreams come true?





jaidajoker said:


> I must say, as a broke college student i clearly have my priorities straight.



Well, I'm approaching this product with my eyes open. The fact is that most of you 2.5L car owners don't have spare money to indulge in an unnecessary turbo conversion. But what helps a lot is our move to create a whole line of F25-series turbos, not just for the 2.5L but also for the 1.8T and 2.7T. So the development costs can be recouped by a larger market. In fact, the first vehicle outside of our "FrankenTT" to get an F25 will in fact be a 1.8T. We hope to fit an "F25L" to a longitudinal-engine Audi A4 within a week or so. And so long as it performs as I expect it to, we have an approved design for all platforms.

The v2 MixedFlow turbo is performing well in the test car. I think it's marketable. So I want to get working on exploring fitment in the 07K engine bay. To do that, we need more turbos. And as of two days ago, they're now in production. :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

ourlee said:


> Sorry for asking but will I be able to use this on a 2013 Passat AT?


No need to apologize for taking an interest in our product! I'd actually like to think the turbo at its proposed 14psi preload might be a great fit for component-safe, moderate power. But I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of your transmission. Would it be able to hold 300tq to the flywheel?


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> No need to apologize for taking an interest in our product! I'd actually like to think the turbo at its proposed 14psi preload might be a great fit for component-safe, moderate power. But I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of your transmission. Would it be able to hold 300tq to the flywheel?


There are a few turboed 2.5Ls with autos but I'm not sure how much power any of them made.


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> So I want to get working on exploring fitment in the 07K engine bay. To do that, we need more turbos. And as of two days ago, they're now in production. :beer:


This is good news, Doug. I'll be interested in how much power this sucker shows down in the real world --and how much more power it makes than your existing 1.8T products on an older MK4.

Have to say, you using this as a budget 2.5L kit and a rather slick entry into significantly larger snails for the four bangers is kind of brilliant. You've got a solid head on those shoulders man. Pretty good thinking.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Well, I'm approaching this product with my eyes open. The fact is that most of you 2.5L car owners don't have spare money to indulge in an unnecessary turbo conversion. But what helps a lot is our move to create a whole line of F25-series turbos, not just for the 2.5L but also for the 1.8T and 2.7T. So the development costs can be recouped by a larger market. In fact, the first vehicle outside of our "FrankenTT" to get an F25 will in fact be a 1.8T. We hope to fit an "F25L" to a longitudinal-engine Audi A4 within a week or so. And so long as it performs as I expect it to, we have an approved design for all platforms.
> 
> The v2 MixedFlow turbo is performing well in the test car. I think it's marketable. So I want to get working on exploring fitment in the 07K engine bay. To do that, we need more turbos. And as of two days ago, they're now in production. :beer:


This is great doug, i've driven a few cars with a frankenturbo and have always loved the power delivery of the turbo. And you're right, not everyone with a 2.5 will want to indulge. But hats off to you for putting the r&d not only for the 2.5 but the other platforms as well.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> This is good news, Doug. I'll be interested in how much power this sucker shows down in the real world --and how much more power it makes than your existing 1.8T products on an older MK4.
> 
> Have to say, you using this as a budget 2.5L kit and a rather slick entry into significantly larger snails for the four bangers is kind of brilliant. You've got a solid head on those shoulders man. Pretty good thinking.


I agree!


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Curious, with the v2 F25, are you sacrificing a little power for quicker spool?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> Curious, with the v2 F25, are you sacrificing a little power for quicker spool?


Based on the logging runs I did this afternoon, I really don't feel there's much sacrifice in the equation. As you guys know, I have _this thing_ for small turbos. But the new MixedFlow design doesn't feel undersized at all. Take a look at some graphs:











That's an aggressive boost profile. And because the fueling system isn't receiving boost feedback as in most "returning" fuel systems, we're seeing the ECU struggle to meet air/fuel mixtures correctly. But that can be sorted out pretty easily in software I think. And despite the mixture tending towards lean, the EGTs are still in the low-to-mid 900's Celsius. That's a good result.

Here are the data from the Eurodyne BoostManager's logger:











The mass air meter is getting "soaked" just shy of 300 grams/second. I've considered that value to be a kind of Holy Grail for this turbo. A nice round number, it's also about the amount the Subie guys are getting on their 2.5L STIs with aftermarket turbos. I'm impressed by how solid the valve train on this motor seems. If you look at the backpressure values behind the cylinder head's exhaust valves, they're holding well against nearly 60psi of pressure. That's every bit as good as what a 20v 1.8T cylinder head can support.











The downside is too much engine knock. These values are really hurting ignition advance. So if you're looking for a limiter, there it is. What it's not is:


Stock intake manifold
Stock cylinder head
Stock pistons
Stock connecting rods

And that's impressive for a "cheap" motor that never was supposed to see forced air injection. It makes me comfortable saying, "Let's Do This".


Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Based on the logging runs I did this afternoon, I really don't feel there's much sacrifice in the equation. As you guys know, I have _this thing_ for small turbos. But the new MixedFlow design doesn't feel undersized at all. Take a look at some graphs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I know I'll be ready to do this once it becomes available to the public!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Doesn't an SRI reduce engine knock on these motors? Naturally aspirated an SRI'd 2.5L can't even be forced to knock.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Very curious to see 1.8T F25 performance opcorn:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Naturally aspirated an SRI'd 2.5L can't even be forced to knock.


The sub 10:1 CR definitely helps


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

love the charts/info.

looks like the turbo is going to have an awesome response!

For comparisons to people
This is my 5858 .82 (went WOT at ~2k, which accounts for some of the lag seen, maybe ~300 RPM)










And this results in ubber smooth acceleation
[third gear run, from ~1500 rpm to redline]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> This is my 5858 .82 (went WOT at ~2k, which accounts for some of the lag seen, maybe ~300 RPM)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you running a MAF sensor on this build?


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

its an 09. 

Map sensor on UM software


----------



## stevemkv (Mar 10, 2014)

well if you can make a complete kit for under 5 grand you will win my business away from jdl.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

Hell under 2800 and youd take business away from C2 as well


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Cherb32 said:


> Hell under 2800 and youd take business away from C2 as well


C2 is tuning the car. They've hung in there for over two dozen revisions. I think they know there's money in this kit for them as well.

Speaking of C2, Ryan Potter there suggests we restore boost signal to the fuel pressure regulator. This will change the fuel pressure system from a static 4bar to a "rising rate" configuration. The boost coming from the signal line is added to the regulator's 4bar setting, ensuring the fuel injectors always have 4bar of pressure ABOVE manifold pressure. We'll see how the fueling corrections respond to that.


----------



## GoHomeBroke (Nov 15, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> 245/35ZR-19 Sumitomo HTR Z III XL tires on the car now. The short sidewall hurts grip. I'd still say a 255 width is the minimum. Why take chances?


well ****. if that's the case, i'll have to get the 17" wheels i've been eye****ing for the past few months. and at least a 245/45/17 tire. the new ExtremeContact DWS comes in this size. :thumbup:



Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Worth noting a couple things about super fat tires. 255s require a roll on all Bunnies and Golfs even with a good offset if you run anything lower than DG springs. I rocked them lifted and wound up preferring a 235s for everything but autoX. I spin tires a bit more but I can actually induce a slide again and that helps me on track days.


mine is still at stock height, so i should be good on the bigger and wider wheels. plus side is it'll look a little better in it's stance. (not the stance brah kind.)


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

I'm not a big fan of running a 245/45 even with tires with stiffer sidewalls i much prefer the 255/40. i know it doesn't sound like much of a difference but i notice it. could just be that the 255's sit on a 9 inch wheel better though. 255s at stock height wont be an issue for sure. i ran them at stock height for a while and it was fine. I'm fairly low now and i didn't need to do much work to get them to fit. very minor roll on the front and a bit of camber on the back.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

DerekH said:


> I'm not a big fan of running a 245/45 even with tires with stiffer sidewalls i much prefer the 255/40. i know it doesn't sound like much of a difference but i notice it. could just be that the 255's sit on a 9 inch wheel better though. 255s at stock height wont be an issue for sure. i ran them at stock height for a while and it was fine. I'm fairly low now and i didn't need to do much work to get them to fit. very minor roll on the front and a bit of camber on the back.


What is the offset on the 9" wheels you are running, I am assuming these are 17" wheels. I run 245/40 on a 8" wide wheel, but I feel like that is too narrow a wheel for the tire, a 255 on a 9 inch would be better, but I didn't know it would fit.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

yeah, 17x9 et45. like i said, it fits quite well. 3 mil spacers on the front to keep the tires from hitting the strut. I'm running hankook rs3 they have a wider track width than most. probably wouldn't need the spacers with other tires. You'll want an 8.5 to get to use the whole contact patch of a 245.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

DerekH said:


> yeah, 17x9 et45. like i said, it fits quite well. 3 mil spacers on the front to keep the tires from hitting the strut. I'm running hankook rs3 they have a wider track width than most. probably wouldn't need the spacers with other tires. You'll want an 8.5 to get to use the whole contact patch of a 245.


What wheels are they? I want to switch tires and might also get a new set of wheels. I have been thinking of something like a federal 595rsr, rs3 or similar.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

I'm running RPF1s. I am very happy with the performance of the RS3s.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

Keep the thread relevant Pls.


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

elppe said:


> Keep the thread relevant Pls.


Right, sorry Doug. I get carried away when talking about wheels and tires sometimes.

Killerbunny if you have any more questions or want to chat more feel free to PM me.


----------



## Cherb32 (Jun 18, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> C2 is tuning the car. They've hung in there for over two dozen revisions. I think they know there's money in this kit for them as well.
> 
> Speaking of C2, Ryan Potter there suggests we restore boost signal to the fuel pressure regulator. This will change the fuel pressure system from a static 4bar to a "rising rate" configuration. The boost coming from the signal line is added to the regulator's 4bar setting, ensuring the fuel injectors always have 4bar of pressure ABOVE manifold pressure. We'll see how the fueling corrections respond to that.


Interesting! So will there be multiple stages of these kits (kits that will offer pistons etc...) or is that something that will come at a later time based on demand?


----------



## Bora Jon (May 31, 2007)

Hi Doug, 
Nice to see your determination and frankenbrain outside of the 1.8T forums. I'm new to the 2.5 world and I have to say the idea of having these motors turbo makes me even happier to be able to have my wagon sound like an old audi rally car.
These are promising figures and graphs. Are you working on a new manifold like you did for the 1.8T setups or are you still working with an adapter plate on a T3 opening?
If the power delivery is similar to what you developed for the 1.8T that my friend had in his TT you'll sell boat loads of these. It's very impressive what you've been able to do for the community as a developer. Your passion and dedication really shows through.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Cherb32 said:


> Interesting! So will there be multiple stages of these kits (kits that will offer pistons etc...) or is that something that will come at a later time based on demand?


FrankenTurbo is probably going to stick to a pretty narrow focus with this. Only the turbo and the immediately related parts. But there's no shortage of suppliers for the ancillary supporting parts. Upgraded intake manifolds, engine internals, etc.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The FrankenTT has been laid low for the last week or so by a buggy clutch. Somewhere there was a leak in the hydraulics but the only fix was to replace everything from the clutch pedal to the clutch plate. With that done, we're next going to tinker around with water methanol! The hardware is pretty unconventional -- it runs at 1000psi -- and we're going to test out a newfangled throttle body-located injection plate that USRT is sending us. I'm hoping to clear 20˚ timing advance at over 20psi.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> The FrankenTT has been laid low for the last week or so by a buggy clutch. Somewhere there was a leak in the pneumatics but the only fix was to replace everything from the clutch pedal to the clutch plate. With that done, we're next going to tinker around with water methanol! The hardware is pretty unconventional -- it runs at 1000psi -- and we're going to test out a newfangled throttle body-located injection plate that USRT is sending us. I'm hoping to clear 20˚ timing advance at over 20psi.


i love meth... makes such a significant difference, one thats even greatly magnified when done properly.

I currently run a flanged port injected 50-50 mix of M1-destilled water. Based on my own experience of 2-3 years running the set up i cant help but to ask and suggest:

Why not go straight to port injected meth? as in: 5 injectors, one per port? then make an accomodating tune for the set up. 
Hell, maybe even 6 injection locations: 1 per cylinder and 1 after the intercooler. The port injection would work to give the detonation prevention, octane boost and timing advance, and the one on the post IC pipe would cool the air giving it more density...


I understand that the whole point of the car is also to test in a similar condition to what the customers are likely to do, but at the same time: why not? Why dont you max out the set up and see what it capable of doing?

Anyhow, just me rambling and talking about the thnigs i would love to see someone do, since i cant/wont


----------



## Rabbid Rally Rabbit (May 5, 2013)

Trannies and meth. Car talk is so dirty...


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

Rabbid Rally Rabbit said:


> Trannies and meth. Car talk is so dirty...


I used a lot of lube on mine, no meth or trannies were involved. LiquiMoly made my 2.5L SO freaking quiet!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> Why not go straight to port injected meth? as in: 5 injectors, one per port? then make an accomodating tune for the set up.
> Hell, maybe even 6 injection locations: 1 per cylinder and 1 after the intercooler. The port injection would work to give the detonation prevention, octane boost and timing advance, and the one on the post IC pipe would cool the air giving it more density...
> 
> I understand that the whole point of the car is also to test in a similar condition to what the customers are likely to do, but at the same time: why not? Why dont you max out the set up and see what it capable of doing?


These kinds of questions draw some attention to the elephant in the room: we're testing this turbo in the wrong type of car. Up to now, that problem has been counterbalanced by the TT's long list of supporting mods and its extensive data logging capacity (three separate logging systems). And the quattro has been helpful as well.

But the TT is nearing the end of its usefulness, which means we're planning to sell it and move to a new test bed car. A Mk5 or Mk6 Rabbit would make very good sense for our next vehicle.

Back to your questions, I have been exchanging emails with Scott Williams of Usually Sideways Rally Team. His company is the most prominent and involved water meth vendor on this site. And I put this challenge to him: figure out a way to CHEMICALLY cool airflows without even bothering with plumbing an intercooler. Just WMI and conventional piping. And I think that's what thegreyt is thinking as well. A really well-designed WMI system will serve two purposes: cool the charge air and raise the octane. It could be an extraordinarily good option for the "Stage2F" FrankenTurbo. 14psi of boost. No intercooler needed.

Here is an example of just how effective chemical cooling can be. This was a test run in the FrankenTT on a smaller turbo running more than double the boost we're contemplating here. The three gauges in the shot are:

Boost at the compressor outlet
Temps celsius at the compressor outlet
Temps celsius downstream of two WMI nozzles


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

If you do end up going the no intercooler route this system will be even more responsive. Water meth is great and should make for a sweet setup.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I took advantage of a beautiful spring day to do some hands-on tinkering with the WMI kit. Here are some pix of the USRT throttle-body spacer and the related parts. This spacer has a CNC-machined "block" that accepts the WMI feed and then directs it to twin ports that straddle the throttle valve hinge. Interesting design.






































In these pictures I have nozzles fitted that combine for 300ml/min of flow. That's short of ideal for a 400+bhp setup, so I am ordering in larger nozzles.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Today we plumbed in the pressure transducer, which feeds signal into the gauge cluster for display. This system will be running right around 1000psi, pretty up there for pressure. But the resulting atomization nets super fast evaporation in the intake manifold plenum. a couple pix of that progress:


----------



## CollegeVDUBSTER (Dec 6, 2013)

Hey guys not on here much but i stumbled across this thread and had a few questions. Will this application work with a 2011 MK6 Jetta sedan? And if so what are the projected costs of installs and parts. I am actually on the island not far from your shop. I am very interested in this build and would really like to see this happened for my car. Since i bought the car i have wanted it boosted. Currently the car is bone stock but i would like to get onto this turbo kit as soon as it is available. I am curious and weary of fitment issues as the MK6 jetta 2.5 has gotten virtually no love from the aftermarket community. I love what you guys are doing and would really like to be in the beta! Something to consider lol. But seriously awesome work awesome stuff can't wait to see it all come together!!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

This 7 + 7 blade compressor wheel just showed up from our manufacturer. Let's put it in and see what's what.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

I drooled a little


----------



## Bora Jon (May 31, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> This 7 + 7 blade compressor wheel just showed up from our manufacturer. Let's put it in and see what's what.


That is BEAUTIFUL! I'll bet it will make some serious spool differences.


----------



## SocoJoe (Jul 4, 2009)

If only these were being made for SRI cars, maybe just maybe I'd change my mind from going with JDL. Have a few friends with Frankenturbos and they love them. 

Sent from my phone


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

SocoJoe said:


> If only these were being made for SRI cars, maybe just maybe I'd change my mind from going with JDL. Have a few friends with Frankenturbos and they love them.
> 
> Sent from my phone



There is nothing inherent in this turbo that would prevent you from running it in a car that has an SRI. Think the goal is to also provide people that cant get an SRI with the ability to run this turbo and still get good numbers. SRI cars can run the same max boost levels of a non SRI cars, but you cant go the other way. Hence the turbo is made for both types of vehicles, so you can make your decisions based on other factors. JDL does have a nice kit.


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't know very much about meth injection but 300 ml of flow seems like a lot from a fluid usage perspective. Been a few years since I have frequently purchased 55 gal drums of industrial methanol but if I recall correctly it was somewhere in that $4 a gallon region. Assuming a 50:50 water meth ratio that is 9L of methanol per hour (2.38 gallons). Assuming $4 (and the ability to get one's hands on bulk MeOH), that is $9.52 an hour. Accounting for an extremely modest 5 hours of driving a week on a daily driver that is $95 dollars every two weeks in extra fuel cost, and the hassle of continuous fill ups, or hauling extra weight with a larger tank. One's cost per year would be $2470+$70 for drum deposit excluding delivery charges. Double one's millage double the cost. It seems plausible for a track car but for a daily an intercooler is much more reasonable. If someone is spending that kind of cash on MeOH, they should think about buying a built full racing motor from IE. Maybe I am missing something from the flow rates provided and am extremely off the mark I hope. 

Why I am on the topic (I have wanted to say this for a while) it seems like this project has drifted from its original intention of providing a cheap setup that provides decent safe power/torque, (oem style) ~270 HP <280 wt, for the weekend enthusiast without having to worry about built motors, shredding transmissions, LSD, racing clutch, upgraded braking system, wide tires, reinforced crank etc. When you start moving into the 400HP regime you are competing with the proven Precision 5858 that will spool a little slower and deliver the power later in rev range (refined daily driver), or the explosive BorgWarner EFR (500HP) 6758 or (600HP) 7163 where even the latter can hit 420HP @ 4K rpm. I was very excited at the beginning, and I still am, but the progression makes me wonder should I bother (making all the upgrades etc. that would now be necessary), and if so should I just go high end if I am going to spend all the money. This was hard for me to write because I really respect your company and all that you are trying to do for a highly neglected platform. Maybe you can put your thought processes into prospective for me.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

In regards to water meth, you are only spraying it when you are actually in boost. If you are in boost for an hour straight, and are not on a racetrack, then there is another issue at hand. I have a 1 gallon reservoir in my MKIV 1.8t and if I daily driving the car with an occasional blast here or there, I can easily make it 1-2 fillups. That's with me spraying about 450cc. The amount sprayed is usually based on a % of fuel injected, or simply 1cc/HP. There is some flexibility in terms of how much to spray. 

Water meth is there to cool the air charge and increase octane. You can mix your own, or run the -20 blue washer fluid. It comes out to $2 a gallon and about a 65/35 split between water and methanol respectively.

Doug is always looking to provide a nice upgrade at a reasonable cost. A Precision setup would make more power, but it will cost almost twice as much. Specifically to this F25 setup, Doug is looking to capitalize on the components one may already have, while adding in his kit to complement the setup.

This is essentially R&D for Frankenturbo. Testing the limits of components, as well as how everything works together.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

as mentioned, most meth spray systems are based on different parameters. Mine is a progressive spray based on boost levels. So that it sprays a minimum amount at 1psi of boost, and a maximum (350cc or around there) at 14 psi.

Most turbo set ups only produce boost under certain loads. For example, my car will only go in "boost mode" (gauge pressure above ambient) at certain loads, so that i am still able to drive it at 5k RPMs and no boost.
Doug's set up will likely be like this. You DONT want to ALWAYS have to be in boost, otherwise the fuel spending would be insane.

Ideally you want an NA car with a LOT of power on tap. Thats how the great daily set ups work.


----------



## OR8187 (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks for the info guys. I was unaware of that, I thought you were always on partial boost at cruising speeds, though it makes scene that you wouldn’t be engulfing 350 or 450 ml per min. I agree drivability with power on tap is likely the setup that the majority of people would want.

Also, are yall running intercoolers in conjunction with your meth setups or just relying purely on water/meth for cooling. Ultimately what are the economics of the independent systems including setup and running on yearly basis? I do see the benefit in the meth system as far as timing and pre detonation, I wonder if this will be a requirement for the Franken to get good numbers safely.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

OR8187 said:


> Thanks for the info guys. I was unaware of that, I thought you were always on partial boost at cruising speeds, though it makes scene that you wouldn’t be engulfing 350 or 450 ml per min. I agree drivability with power on tap is likely the setup that the majority of people would want.
> 
> Also, are yall running intercoolers in conjunction with your meth setups or just relying purely on water/meth for cooling. Ultimately what are the economics of the independent systems including setup and running on yearly basis? I do see the benefit in the meth system as far as timing and pre detonation, I wonder if this will be a requirement for the Franken to get good numbers safely.


i do have an intercooler + meth. Part of me wants to re do the pipes, and run a meth only set up... it would be so much more fun and responsive.. but then the financials tell me not to do it.

Anyhow, i dont have anything to do with Franketurbo (Doug) but i am ~100 percent sure that meth WILL NOT be a requirement for the kit.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

OR8187 said:


> I thought you were always on partial boost at cruising speeds, though it makes scene that you wouldn’t be engulfing 350 or 450 ml per min.


The interesting "fun fact" about turbocharging is that if you were to take a census of MAP levels at highway cruise among ALL turbos in use, then you'd see that the norm is for the system to be in boost. Why? Because the vast majority of automotive turbochargers are fitted to over-the-road diesel tractor trailers. And those engines are constantly in boost while cruising. So in my research it's been interesting to see what the long-haulers do when experimenting with WMI: they have HUGE reservoirs of fluid.

But on petrol engines, it's a different story. Because gas-powered engines have throttles, creating vacuum, it's only rarely that driver input takes the system into boost. And in those occasional instances -- accelerating to pass or enter traffic -- the WMI system is operating. The rest of the time it's idle.

Water methanol injection is not really a mainstream product. I think this poster's misunderstanding of how it works illustrates that WMI isn't for most people. So for that reason, I definitely don't want to create the impression our turbo products require water methanol. Or, for that matter, an upgraded short runner intake manifold... or a built bottom end... or a standalone ECU system.

It's got to be cheap and simple. I get that.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

It's time to cover the topic of connecting rods. For the last year we've been pushing the 07K motor to greater and greater torque outputs. But where is the limit for a stock motor? There's almost no authoritative data on this. So lacking that, how do the connecting rods compare to those on the 1.8T, for which the prevailing consensus is a 300whtq limit? Answer: they compare really closely. Have a look:





























These are all pretty high-resolution pictures, so I encourage you to "right-click" them for a full view. And the bottom line is that the 07K connecting rods are virtually identical to those in the 06A engines. The only difference is the cross-sectional width at the crankshaft bearing. In other words, the spot most vulnerable to failure -- the "neck" between the two bearings -- is exactly the same. So we're basically looking at 1.8T internals. But with 5 connecting rods instead of just 4. That's good news for anybody looking to Forced Induction their 2.5L engine. The 07K has a bottom end just as stout as the one found in a Mk4 1.8T.

So given that, where is the weak link? The connecting rods? Or the pistons?


----------



## DerekH (Sep 4, 2010)

Would the fact that the load is spread among 5 rods vs the 4 in a 1.8 mean that it can hold 25% more power or 375 wheel torque or is there flawed math in there? I feel like there are quite a few boosted guys that are running 400+ ft/lbs on stock internals.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

DerekH said:


> Would the fact that the load is spread among 5 rods vs the 4 in a 1.8 mean that it can hold 25% more power or 375 wheel torque or is there flawed math in there? I feel like there are quite a few boosted guys that are running 400+ ft/lbs on stock internals.


I don't believe that is a flawed way of thinking. VR6 guys run upwards of 450hp safely with only ARP main and headbolts (and a head gasket obviously). The connecting rods are also similar (if not the same) as the 1.8t. Its still something that I would be more conservative with.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DerekH said:


> Would the fact that the load is spread among 5 rods vs the 4 in a 1.8 mean that it can hold 25% more power or 375 wheel torque or is there flawed math in there? I feel like there are quite a few boosted guys that are running 400+ ft/lbs on stock internals.


I've wondered that exact question myself. Exactly how much can we extrapolate the 1.8T's reported maximum? For one thing, what dyno was used to arrive at that 300whtq figure for the 06A motor? And what dyno are YOU using for a safety check? I'll tell you this much, it better not be a low-reading Mustang. Once we get the new turbo onto the FrankenTT we'll hook it up to FFE's DynoJet. I want to keep the measured torque value at 350 or lower. That's about the safe limit for a turbocharged 4cyl TSI engine. Seems a reasonable one for a motor intended for nothing more than natural aspiration.


----------



## stef 4x4 (Jan 8, 2012)

DerekH said:


> Would the fact that the load is spread among 5 rods vs the 4 in a 1.8 mean that it can hold 25% more power or 375 wheel torque or is there flawed math in there? I feel like there are quite a few boosted guys that are running 400+ ft/lbs on stock internals.


The way of thinking is pretty correct I suppose. Considering the max. power a engine could handle you should look to the max. power one cylinder could handle, the crankshaft left out of consideration.
The BGQ engine I have has been on the dyno last week and the power peaked at 418 hp and over 500 Nm. 550 Nm and 440 hp should be possible with the set up I have they thought but I asked them to stop.
The motor is still alive but I do'nt think every 2.5 engine could survive such a torture.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i'm pushing ~300 w tq and about 350 whp safely... well, kinda.

for the daily drive i only do ~270 whp (8 psi) and if i want to have fun i push 10 psi. i rarely go to 12 or 14 psi.

IMO, ~280 whp and about the same in tq should be plenty for most drivers.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> i'm pushing ~300 w tq and about 350 whp safely... well, kinda.
> 
> for the daily drive i only do ~270 whp (8 psi) and if i want to have fun i push 10 psi. i rarely go to 12 or 14 psi.
> 
> IMO, ~280 whp and about the same in tq should be plenty for most drivers.



Torque is the principal value that matters when considering component safety. Unfortunately, for most people "torque" is a vague concept and the jargon for what's safe falls to the less pertinent horsepower value. But torque is the measurement of force, pure and simple. And too much force breaks things. I am now of a mind that 300 wheel torque, when measured on an honest system like a DynoJet, really ought to be safe on the stock 07K motor. That value is generally considered acceptable on only 4 cylinders. Spread across five, it certainly should work. However, we always need to be mindful that no engine is safe if detonation or knock is occurring.


----------



## MkIII2ohslow (Aug 12, 2011)

Sooo just came across this thread. Will be watching VERY closely from now on lol. 

A safe and reliable 280whp/300wtq with a setup that "feels" OEM is more than worth looking into.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*FrankenTurbo MixedFlow F25 billet prototype CHRA*

This isn't the best of pictures, but it was taken by one of our suppliers for inspection/balancing and it nicely shows off the MixedFlow turbine rotor profile. This CHRA gets fitted shortly, and we'll be testing to see if the 7+7 blade design produces measurable differences from the 6+6 we're replacing.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

:thumbup:


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> This isn't the best of pictures, but it was taken by one of our suppliers for inspection/balancing and it nicely shows off the MixedFlow turbine rotor profile. This CHRA gets fitted shortly, and we'll be testing to see if the 7+7 blade design produces measurable differences from the 6+6 we're replacing.


any updates doug?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> any updates doug?


It's been too difficult to carve out the time for testing the new turbo's legs. The car is sitting and watching while box after box of turbo kits go out for 1.8T, 2.7T, 2.0T customers. I greatly appreciate the strong sales we've had this spring, so my focus has been there.

The FrankenTT is nevertheless going to be running the new turbo along with that WMI system quite soon. It will be interesting to see how the new turbo compressor compares to the previous. Only difference is in the blade count. Otherwise they're interchangeable.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> It's been too difficult to carve out the time for testing the new turbo's legs. The car is sitting and watching while box after box of turbo kits go out for 1.8T, 2.7T, 2.0T customers. I greatly appreciate the strong sales we've had this spring, so my focus has been there.
> 
> The FrankenTT is nevertheless going to be running the new turbo along with that WMI system quite soon. It will be interesting to see how the new turbo compressor compares to the previous. Only difference is in the blade count. Otherwise they're interchangeable.


ok, sounds great. i know you mentioned before the possibility of wmi or intercooler, but are you also going to do testing with both?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

jaidajoker said:


> ok, sounds great. i know you mentioned before the possibility of wmi or intercooler, but are you also going to do testing with both?


Well, we've certainly tested the intercooler option already. Our test car has always had one. But the water meth idea is one we are just about to explore.

Here are some logs from a pull we did today. This is on the 7+7 compressor wheel MixedFlow design, which we're calling "v3".






























I am really surprised to see the stock valve-train tolerating over 60psi of exhaust manifold back-pressures. Clearly the stock exhaust valve springs are every bit as stout as those used on turbocharged motors.
The airflow values are terrific. So good that I've double-checked the logger's 0-5v accuaracy. But, really, the power isn't what it's cracked up to be.
The MAF readings shown here are actually offset by 0.25v, so the actual readings were that amount higher. The R32 3.25" MAF is soaked at 5.0v.
We've moved to a fuel pressure regulation system that has boost signal input. So the 550s are now supported by 4bar of rail pressure PLUS boost. If we didn't do that, the injectors would fall behind causing a poor fuel mixture.
The Time-To_RPMs graph really illustrates the power falloff after 5000rpms. I've been told this motor starts to stumble after that speed. I don't know why that would be, but the logs are starting to point at a confirmation.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Looking good Doug. The stock intake manifold is your power robber. TQ takes a pretty serious dive after ~4500


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> Looking good Doug. The stock intake manifold is your power robber. TQ takes a pretty serious dive after ~4500


Well I'd surely be interested to know how 350 grams/second of airflow through an aftermarket intake manifold is any better than 350 grams/second through the stock unit. While I'm prepared to accept a different intake might slightly improve fuel atomization and turbine work-load, I could use an education on whatever dynamics are relevant.

Let's hear from somebody.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i guess this works as a good illustration:

From C2's website:









car is making ~220 whp and 230 wtq at 6 psi. (stock intake manifold)

A friend of mine (TeamZleep) Ted W. had a 2.5T with a stage 2 c2 kit. He made 240 whp at 12 psi.

This is my car at 9 psi (with UM intake manifold)
285 whp @6700 RPM 
256 wtq @ 5600 RPM









Sure, im not comparing apples to apples (two different cars, dynoed in the same state (florida), but different turbo set ups)
Regardless, the results are staggering.
------------

Now correct me if i am wrong, 



the MAF is seeing a flow of 350 grams per second. Therefore the exhaust must see all the inlet air going out, eventually. (mass in must equal mass out if no leaks due to conservation of mass). 

Now, the manifold is nothing more than the distributor of the fluid. Meaning: it must take all 350 and send it as fast as possible to each different cylinder. 

If we were to assume lab/ideal conditions, then each cylinder should be seeing 70 grams/ second of air. That would mean that the manifold is ideal (no added drag and air being evenly distributed)
Real world doesnt just work like that, sadly.

What i happens is that instead of having one channel for all the air (piping and plenum) you will have one channel for each cylinder (runners). Therefore you will have more friction due to the increased surface area in contact, this will inevitably slow down the airflow. This creates some internal pressure on the intake manifold, but its ok... not only is it temporary but its also transient (air is moving, only a small part is getting built up)

basic fluid mechanics say that if fluid is NOT being compressed (can be assumed INSIDE THE MANIFOLD), and height is not changing either (another small assumption), then as pressure increases, the velocity decreases, and vice versa.

i forgot my point... lol. at work...
Will elaborate some more when i get out. (~5 hours?)

anyhow this is fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, etc.

key things to remember: Geometry/ design of the manifold and its side effects
-efficiency of the manifold
-air velocity and delivery (consequent pressure)
----

i am a bit distracted as i write this, i'll revise it and add/modify things later. Will also check the books when i get home to make sure im not pulling stuff out of my ass
Forgive any mistakes, but feel free to point them out.

background: mech engineer with minors on Internal combustion engines, and Aerospace.


----------



## killerbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

The stock intake manifold is an air flow restriction at higher rpms, boost can compensate for this a bit. The pressure and airflow graph shows this. The higher boost up top helps compensate for the restrictions in the system. 

Adding boost has its own issues, namely higher intake temps, and diminishing returns at some point. So it would be interesting to see a graph of that. If you can reach 350 g/s it is still the same flow rate. With a SRI you should be able to reach the same airflow rates at higher RPMs with less boost, which can be positive. There are other areas of restriction to look at, overall the better you can let the motor breath the less PSI you would need to reach your airflow goals. Turbo size also plays into this, restrictions can be caused by this. The back pressure graph shows the data related to that.

Edit: Read The duty cycle graph incorrectly. So needed to change most of it.


----------



## stef 4x4 (Jan 8, 2012)

This is a very interesting discussion. 
In my opinion the factor boost makes the difference. For example: 350 gr. airflow at 6 psi boost or 350 gr. at 10 psi boost. The lower the boost with the same airflow rate, the higher the efficiency. More efficiency means more engine power.
The engine I have, a BGQ one, is doing 405 hp and the max. boost is 1 bar, 14.5 psi.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Well I'd surely be interested to know how 350 grams/second of airflow through an aftermarket intake manifold is any better than 350 grams/second through the stock unit. While I'm prepared to accept a different intake might slightly improve fuel atomization and turbine work-load, I could use an education on whatever dynamics are relevant.
> 
> Let's hear from somebody.


Doug:

http://www.performancebyie.com/integrated-engineering-2-5l-5-cylinder-intake-manifold

While this only illustrates IE's IM, it gives a good idea of how the stock IM compares to a quality aftermarket one. Dynos of other cars with other upgraded IMs show very similar deltas, validating IE's results. Torque just tanks past ~4500 RPMs, which is mainly due to the IM (very much unlike the 1.8T).

There's a fair amount of information about the function and limitations of the stock IM out there. Needless to say, I'm a little surprised you didn't already know this (being the ambitious/logical/comprehensive person you are).

Perhaps IE can chime in?


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

could anyone put a maf on the ehxaust?

I would be VERY interesting to plot: intake maf (Grams over seconds) and super impose exhaust MAF readings as well. 

Over time the total mass will be the same, but at an instant it just might not be. There would be where you clearly see the intake manifold's greatest difference (oem vs aftermarket)


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

66psi exhaust pressure for 22psi intake pressure 

Also, backpressure increasing while boost pressure remains constant isn't a great sign either, probably maxed out the turbine.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

stef 4x4 said:


> This is a very interesting discussion.
> In my opinion the factor boost makes the difference. For example: 350 gr. airflow at 6 psi boost or 350 gr. at 10 psi boost. The lower the boost with the same airflow rate, the higher the efficiency. More efficiency means more engine power.
> The engine I have, a BGQ one, is doing 405 hp and the max. boost is 1 bar, 14.5 psi.


I would love to see your airflow values at that 1bar of boost. I don't suppose you're running a MAF sensor, are you?



suffocatemymind said:


> Doug:
> 
> http://www.performancebyie.com/integrated-engineering-2-5l-5-cylinder-intake-manifold
> 
> ...


We're not the ones attempting to market an intake manifold upgrade. But for the products we do market -- turbos -- I like to see a lot of data. And a dyno sheet just isn't enough. That's why we have sensors monitoring airflows, EGTs, back-pressures, boost, temperatures at the turbo inlet, etc.

As I said, the volumetric efficiencies of an upgraded intake can only do so much when the airflows are at parity. Air mass is air mass. So while I've seen plenty of discussion about the harmonic advantages of short runner intakes, about their superior air-handling capabilities, it all boils down largely to the amount of air entering the combustion chamber. Or at least that's what I so far have seen demonstrated.



Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> 66psi exhaust pressure for 22psi intake pressure
> 
> Also, backpressure increasing while boost pressure remains constant isn't a great sign either, probably maxed out the turbine.


Yes, we've documented the back-pressures are high. But you're comparing them to the wrong metric. Airflows rise linearly. This requires a linear increase in work from the rotor. 

EGTs are within limits, the exhaust valves are holding seal. There's no evidence of anything in the induction system being "maxed out". The data, especially the boost duty cycles going to the control solenoid, point to the contrary.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> There's a fair amount of information about the function and limitations of the stock IM out there. Needless to say, I'm a little surprised you didn't already know this (being the ambitious/logical/comprehensive person you are).
> 
> Perhaps IE can chime in?


I want to be clear: I'm not here to dispute the power claims documented by our fellow vendors. I acknowledge the "what" of these manifolds' capabilities. What I am looking for is the "why". The "how". And I'm looking for those answers in the narrow context of equal airflows through the motor.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

I understand what you're saying. I also understand the scope of your business (not sure why you brought that up as you've made very clear over the years). The fact is, you asked the question of why this engine "starts to stumble" at ~5000. The answer is the intake manifold. It doesn't matter which aftermarket one you look at because they all demonstrate the same thing: power magically extending 2500 RPMs...by basically slapping on an upgraded aftermarket intake manifold. That is HUGE...nearly a 50% gain in the power "spread". Dynos just make it easier to see.

Boosting a motor simply amplifies it's ability to ingest air. V3 seems to show this perfectly (boost profile graph and perceived diminishing returns).

No need to market any manifold, just don't ignore the limitations of the stock one - especially if you're marketing the kit as a realistic alternative to the existing power adders.

Seriously though, keep up the good work. Your experiments/findings are always a good read!


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm writing up the thing, what i think is going on. But before i posted, which wil way later, i will reseach and make some calls to make sure that i'm not just inventing things.

Some pictures that may aid the discussion, and that i will refer to later.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Well I'd surely be interested to know how 350 grams/second of airflow through an aftermarket intake manifold is any better than 350 grams/second through the stock unit. While I'm prepared to accept a different intake might slightly improve fuel atomization and turbine work-load, I could use an education on whatever dynamics are relevant.


As i understand it the question is: is 350g/s on a stock manifold, the same as on an aftermarket manifold?
In short, the empirical answer is NO. This has been proven, and shown time and again. But then again the question asks: Why is it so?

This is what i understand:
Look at this drawing, it depicts an inlet pipe with a MAF, then an intake manifold, then the ICE (internal combustion engine), then it all exits to the exhaust manifold, and exhaust. For illustrative purposes i added a turbo. This may or may not be there (for the case of all 2.5L NA cars out there)

First things first, based on conservation of mass, Mass-in HAS to be the same as MASS OUT as long as there are no leaks. 
Does it means that if flowrate in is 350 g/s, must exhaust fklow be 350g/s? Not necesarily. What it means is that if you suck 1 Kg of air ( 2.85 seconds at 350g/s), then you will have 1kg of exhaust gases.
Based on the formula for mass flow rate (in the motor drawing), and to re iterate: Mass flow rate is the product of the cross sectional area of the duct, the density of the fluid, and the *VELOCITY*. Then, if the exhaust flow velocity is LOWER, then while we will see the 1kg of air, it will just take longer to get out, and the flow rate will consequently be lower as well. 
Both: flow rate and fluid velocity are directly proportional (as one changes, so does the other in the same fashion, and if all else is equal, so will their relative magnitudes)

I’ll continue later, but this should shed some light i’d think.


----------



## Blaze413 (May 19, 2015)

New to the party here.. And yes I have skimmed through most of the thread but than started getting confused with some of the technical jarggin being thrown around. 

I have a few questions, being fairly new to VW and completely upgrading from NA to turbo.. Sorry for asking things that I'm sure google can answer but everyone here seems pretty chill so why not wing it right?

Since that was a question here is #2: I hear horror stories of people putting turbos in cars and running into a ton of headaches down the road. That being taken into consideration, if I run a really modest boost like 6psi or something would that alleviate future problems. Granted I understand nothing can run perfect forever..

#3 : How close to shipping complete settups for the F25 are you? Don't need to be specific, just ballpark. (I know its been asked a ton, and I read that the spring has you busy.. I'm just trying to plot out a time frame for my car, sorry)

#4 : On the frankenturbo Facebook page there seems like a lot of support, and satisfied customers.. How big of a company are you guys? How long have you been doing what you do?

#5 : Being someone that has owned 3 boosted cars, and only upgraded / modded setup would you recommend trying to take this project on or am I in over my head? I mean that from a financial viewpoint as well..

Either way sorry for asking repeat questions and thanks for the amount of energy and resources your putting into making the 2.5 reach its true potential..


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> I'm writing up the thing, what i think is going on....


Holy cow. Thank you for such a thoughtful post. And not withstanding the pithy information, what penmanship! I mean seriously, who can write that neatly in these days and times?

On a less glib note, I spent the bulk of the day today assembling, packing and shipping to customers. And this kind of work allows for a lot of thought. My overriding concern is that I've somehow botched the airflow measurements and that in fact the values are far lower. If this were true, I'd have the answer: our stock manifold is simply a bottleneck. But I've triple-checked the voltage readings on the data-logger and I can't keep second-guessing the recorded values. I have to accept their accuracy, so I still think the questions I've raised are valid.

To greyt's tech info, why aren't you also factoring the mass of the waste byproduct of the combustion in your airflow calcs? From my research into E85 fuel and its properties, here is a bit of tech stuff I came across:

"The chemical formula for perfect combustion of ethanol is:

C2H6O + 3 O2 = 2 CO2 + 3 H2O

For a straight chain hydrocarbon of 8 carbon length (octane) you get:

2(C8H10) + 21(O2) = 16 CO2 + 10 H2O

Matching the formulas for identical oxygen available:

2(C8H10) + 21(O2) = 16 CO2 + 10 H2O
7(C2H6O) + 21(O2) = 14 CO2 + 21 H2O

As you can see you generate 16/14 = 1.14286 x the CO2
and 21/10 = 2.1x the water vapor when you burn up the same mass of oxygen with ethanol than if you burned it up with a gasoline like hydrocarbon such as octane.

So yes there is definitely more volume of exhaust gas for a given amount of intake air flow burning fuels rich in ethanol content. In a real engine you will also get partial combustion products like carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides etc. and their fraction will depend on how perfect the combustion is. At rich full power mixtures their fraction goes up so the actual volume of exhaust gas produced with imperfect combustion of a rich mixture is actually larger than prefect combustion.

The actual volume depends on the temperature, pressure and number of moles of gas produced (Avogadro's law).

I will leave it to one of the chemistry wizards to figure out the actual moles of gas produced by burning air with gasoline and ethanol. But there is no doubt that for a given amount of airflow into an engine you get more exhaust gas out if you are burning an alcohol fuel than if you are burning a simple hydrocarbon."​
Hopefully by adding this to the conversation I don't cause the subject to drift. But I do see how the backpressures created by the turbine's work might play a role in evaluating the benefits of improved induction.


----------



## Blaze413 (May 19, 2015)

Chiming in again.. It seems like this started off as a really simple, affordable and PNP type mod but reading all this technical stuff as the thread progresses is making me think maybe this is getting more and more complicated


----------



## mk6matt (Jan 26, 2013)

Blaze413 said:


> Chiming in again.. It seems like this started off as a really simple, affordable and PNP type mod but reading all this technical stuff as the thread progresses is making me think maybe this is getting more and more complicated


The end result will likely be bolt on. However what you are seeing is the design process, researching questions, testing and iterating. Design can be complex and is not often shown, but well thought out design makes for the best end product.

I'd like to say as well that I appreciate Doug sharing the process on here. It's very interesting to follow and read the technical info. It's definitely something I wish we saw more of. :thumbup:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

Blaze413 said:


> Chiming in again.. It seems like this started off as a really simple, affordable and PNP type mod but reading all this technical stuff as the thread progresses is making me think maybe this is getting more and more complicated


Its still the same "simple thing" its always been.

The technical stuff? its just the manufacturer talking and discussing with the common folk about all the technicalities. Do they affect the final product in any way shape or form? Yes, it makes a better final product.

at the end of the day what most will see is: "click here to buy now" sort of link, and then the install instructions.


----------



## Blaze413 (May 19, 2015)

Thanks for putting things into perspective.. As I said before ive only upgraded turbos, not complete NA to boost.. I'm not familiar with the jargan, slang, and terms so I assumed something I shouldn't of.. 

Thanks dougbro and really looking forward to seeing where this goes..


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

This is more or less what you will see in the engine in terms of moles ratio when the engine is at WOT and running at 11.5 :1 AFR which i think its not too far off.










Do we care to calculate the temps and such? 

I've been a bit busy lately which is why i havent had the time to hit the books...
----

Sidenote: As per the penmanship comment: i do all of my things in pen and paper... Computers are only to TRANSLATE what i do in paper. I'm old school that way. I like to draw and scribble.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Here's my thoughts on the matter:
In the situation you guys are disusing, you can ignore the ideal gas law. *BLASPHEMY*, I know, but hear me out. The results are virtually negligible when mass flow is held constant.

Mass flow is a function of (displacement*volumetric efficiency) vs pressure. Period. If you decrease intake restriction via changing the intake manifold, you increase volumetric efficiency. As such, you will see a decrease in pressure. Temperature change is going to be negligible here. If you increase VE and pressure and displacement are constant, mass flow increases.

Now if you're trying to figure how much mass flow you should see given certain parameters, then yes, you need to take in to consideration turbo rpm, intake temperatures, etc.

Identical mass flows with unequal VE will have the almost the same torque product if (manifold) IAT and RPM are constant. (the act of forcing air through restriction inherently causes a heat gain and until you can get at thermocouple to survive inside a cylinder, I don't think we'll ever get a measurement on it)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> Identical mass flows with unequal VE will have the almost the same torque product if (manifold) IAT and RPM are constant.


And THAT is exactly the kernel of what I'm getting at. I know the last week has brought a bunch of terrific tech stuff to this thread, but I'm also mindful that many potential customers are asking, "Do I really gotta learn all this stuff?" And that question can be answered in two parts:


No. Because these questions are simply the product of an ongoing design process. But when that process is complete, and a turbo is offered, the questions will have been answered.
No. You're the customer. And I definitely recognize most potential customers want simplicity and value. It's not your job to understand every little minutia of what's going on under the hood. It's just your job to enjoy it.

 
Next week I hope to demonstrate the turbo's power with a dyno test. This time the turbo will be running in a very simple actuator-pressure configuration. Nothing but the turbo controlling itself by the strength of its own actuator spring. In this low-tech, inexpensive guise the turbo will demonstrate itself in a build environment most of you would be doing. Just the turbo, software bundle & intercooling. For a sneak peek of the performance delivered by the turbo in such a moderate setup, here are the airflows and boost levels.











And for a little perspective on what these graphs mean, take a look at how they compare to logs from a strong Stage2 2.7T twin turbo Audi S4:











Bottom line, we're looking at the same horsepower at the top end as possible on a twin-turbo 6cyl Audi. Not bad.


----------



## vdubbinn8611 (Apr 14, 2008)

In for this out! Sounds like some awesome research and testing. I'd love to turbo my 2.5 ... Any idea when you will try to sell it as a kit?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The design is cemented. It'll be the 7+7 billet compressor wheel teamed to our biggest MixedFlow rotor. I'm very comfortable with these wheels' performance running at a simple 14psi actuator pressure. The turbo completely transforms an 07K 2.5L engine at that boost level. So next step is the rest of the hot parts and figuring out an intake setup. I sure hope we can do this quickly and cheaply. Quality Triangle be damned.


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> The design is cemented. It'll be the 7+7 billet compressor wheel teamed to our biggest MixedFlow rotor. I'm very comfortable with these wheels' performance running at a simple 14psi actuator pressure. The turbo completely transforms an 07K 2.5L engine at that boost level. So next step is the rest of the hot parts and figuring out an intake setup. I sure hope we can do this quickly and cheaply. Quality Triangle be damned.


This is the best news i've heard all week! I can't wait to feel the difference of this engine with a turbo.


----------



## vdubbinn8611 (Apr 14, 2008)

:thumbup: what he said!! ^^


----------



## yeyox (Mar 17, 2009)

this is awesome! i hope you do shipping!


----------



## dub_life91 (May 8, 2013)

Highly interested in this..looks like things are coming together for you guys!! Can't wait to see when you guys start shipping the final product!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I took advantage of a beautiful spring day to do some hands-on tinkering with the WMI kit. Here are some pix of the USRT throttle-body spacer and the related parts. This spacer has a CNC-machined "block" that accepts the WMI feed and then directs it to twin ports that straddle the throttle valve hinge. Interesting design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So after a bit of delay, I can now report some data from the car running wmi. The system is a bit unconventional (and with Slappy Dunbar at the helm, why would it be anything otherwise?), with a 1000psi-capable pump from these guys. This pump is geared very low, which means the high pressures come at the loss of volume. So the system is slow to build pressure. But when it gets going, there's no doubt about the oomph. Here are a bunch of logs for you faithful to gaze over:











That ~500psi or so of WMI flow moves the ignition timing values up a notch from what we saw earlier...











Here are the duty cycles for the pump as well as the solenoid valve that controls the flow into the air stream. Until the solenoid opens fully (100% duty), the pressurized fluid gets recirculated by a a relief valve on the pump. 











So the red line is the pump getting geared up, and when the solenoid opens (blue line) the 500+psi of pressurized fluid makes its way to those little nozzles (green line). Seems to work nicely.


----------



## mk6matt (Jan 26, 2013)

Just out of curiosity, isn't cylinder 3 and 5 still pulling a bunch of timing out? Any idea what might be the cause/remedy?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

mk6matt said:


> Just out of curiosity, isn't cylinder 3 and 5 still pulling a bunch of timing out? Any idea what might be the cause/remedy?


I wouldn't call it a _BUNCH_, but it is enough to be concerned about it. And that's because I'm mindful of the relatively low tolerance the 07K engine's pistons have for knock or detonation. The connecting rods are on par with those in the turbocharged 1.8T, but the pistons are not. To tackle the issue, we've re-worked the WMI system's plumbing to shorten the run between the control valves and the nozzles themselves. Set up as it is now, the control solenoid valve literally sits on top of the throttle body, putting the run from valve to nozzles at only a couple of inches. Here's a look at what I'm talking about:











We're expecting an up-tick in temperatures for the next few days. So the conditions are right for re-testing the WMI's benefits.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

gugu1981 said:


> We're just begging Doug to at least consider us when refining the spec on the turbo. We sure don't want the turbo to run out of breath at 6800rpm. That would totally defeat the purpose of having the SRI.







[email protected] said:


> Secondly because the F25 is a fairly small turbo, which makes it suited to an engine oriented more to the engine range below 6000rpms.





[email protected] said:


> a turbo designer whose products live for 2500-5500rpms.


http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...o-a-Mkl-TT&p=87858410&viewfull=1#post87858410


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

before you make a decision wait for the final release. 

Also, the SRI does WONDERS for the turbo applications ALL OVER the pwoer curve, not just on the top. its a matter of timing, air delivery and a net result of POWAH.

Dont be discouraged just yet.


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

gugu1981 said:


>


You can always piece together your own kit. 
My mechanic is hell bent to turbo my car, all I have to do is give him the parts.
There are other people building kits, C2, BlueWater, 034, & JDL. 
I have the IE SRI & I hardly ever hit 7200rpm


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

thygreyt said:


> before you make a decision wait for the final release.
> 
> Also, the SRI does WONDERS for the turbo applications ALL OVER the pwoer curve, not just on the top. its a matter of timing, air delivery and a net result of POWAH.
> 
> Dont be discouraged just yet.


i know, the area under the curve will definitely look better with the SRI, but how much better is the question.... i haven't given up yet, still waiting to see the final design/tune.


Peter


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

HollisJoy said:


> You can always piece together your own kit.
> My mechanic is hell bent to turbo my car, all I have to do is give him the parts.
> There are other people building kits, C2, BlueWater, 034, & JDL.
> I have the IE SRI & I hardly ever hit 7200rpm



i have UM and pretty frequently find myself north of 7000rpm, but with a turbo and RPM rising faster, i'll probably tend to shift a tad bit early.

BW400 kit seems to have been discontinued, at least it's not on the website anymore. JDL kit is still in production, and great quality, but a bit more than what i'd like to spend on the car. C2 is meh........ and still yet to see full details on the 034 kit.


----------



## gugu1981 (Jul 25, 2011)

gugu1981 said:


> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...o-a-Mkl-TT&p=87858410&viewfull=1#post87858410







i guess it still depends on the power difference between sri equipped cars and non-sri cars. I'm not willing to admit to the wife (and myself) that i spent $1500 on a part that will end up providing little benefits in the long run. If that's the case, i'm going to go with a larger turbo that can fully take advantage of the higher rev range, and make more power.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

thygreyt said:


> before you make a decision wait for the final release.
> 
> Also, the SRI does WONDERS for the turbo applications ALL OVER the pwoer curve, not just on the top. its a matter of timing, air delivery and a net result of POWAH.
> 
> Dont be discouraged just yet.


:thumbup:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

gugu1981 said:


> i guess it still depends on the power difference between sri equipped cars and non-sri cars. I'm not willing to admit to the wife (and myself) that i spent $1500 on a part that will end up providing little benefits in the long run. If that's the case, i'm going to go with a larger turbo that can fully take advantage of the higher rev range, and make more power.


He's just testing it...

There is no way that this will be a requirement of the kit. Example: this very TT with the 1.8T/F23 had cams, a crazy WMI setup, SEM intake manifold, large port head, rods, and a stroker crank. Almost none of those things are required (rods are recommended for higher boost levels) to run that kit.

He's merely testing/showcasing the potential of the kit, from mild to wild, nothing more. And it's always a good read opcorn:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> i guess it still depends on the power difference between sri equipped cars and non-sri cars. I'm not willing to admit to the wife (and myself) that i spent $1500 on a part that will end up providing little benefits in the long run. If that's the case, i'm going to go with a larger turbo that can fully take advantage of the higher rev range, and make more power.


just to illustrate with numbers from a former C2 stage 2 owner... 
No, there is no dyno sheet, jsut the info as i remember it, so believe it if you want or dont. 

anyhow, he was making ~22x- 24x whp on the stage 2 at 10 or 12 psi, stock manifold.

With the original batch of UM manifolds the same car jumped to ~30x- 31x whp 

This was after a retune with the manifold of course.

dont quote me on the numbers cause this was a WHILE ago. 7 years if memory serves?

The point is not the numbers but the gains. The car gained a massive bump under the entire curve, a bump of +60 whp. (go figure that the bump is ~50 whp on the NA version).

So no, you didint waste the money


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

gugu1981 said:


> i guess it still depends on the power difference between sri equipped cars and non-sri cars. I'm not willing to admit to the wife (and myself) that i spent $1500 on a part that will end up providing little benefits in the long run. If that's the case, i'm going to go with a larger turbo that can fully take advantage of the higher rev range, and make more power.


I feel we've demonstrated more than any other party just how capable the stock intake manifold is. It withstands 25+psi of top end boost with flying colors. And the airflow values at that tuning state are not sucking at all. As of right now, the C2 intake has a lot to prove. Can it really open the door to power levels not yet seen with the stocker? 

I feel it's only fair to post a graph of the most accurate airflows we recorded. And let's throw in some NA engine data for "scale". Here you go:











Kind of helps put things in perspective, eh?


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Bump for updates


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The Audi TT test car is having a new motor installed. 10.5:1 FSI pistons paired to H-beam connecting rods, via INA Engineering. Short-runner intake manifold by C2Motorsports.










We're hopefully no more than a week away from beginning break-in.


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Lol that's absolutely beautiful. Especially since that's the same setup I have right now. What do you guys think about going with an even higher compression?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

Wait. Wut? I guess things have changed some. I remember doubling gaskets to reduce compression from 10.5 down to 7.5 to 8.7:1. That was 20 yrs ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

Yeah but with advances with tuning and ways to reduce knock we can run higher compression with boost. However with higher amounts of psi I still think it's safer to lower compression

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

Not to be a dick but bring this to market already DAMN!
If not soon the $5k is going to a MOTO-EAST 2.5 NC2 transplant. HURRY HURRY HURRY!!!


----------



## Dingo8mibaby (Jan 22, 2013)

ourlee said:


> Not to be a dick but bring this to market already DAMN!
> If not soon the $5k is going to a MOTO-EAST 2.5 NC2 transplant. HURRY HURRY HURRY!!!


Agreed. In my case I'm starting a new job with the ILA; I see an S3 in my future!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

ourlee said:


> Not to be a dick but bring this to market already DAMN!
> If not soon the $5k is going to a MOTO-EAST 2.5 NC2 transplant. HURRY HURRY HURRY!!!


Understood. I think we've sufficiently whetted peoples' appetites. So we're shortly going to begin laying out a manifold and up-pipe adapter for the stock exhaust. How will we be doing that? In collaboration with AUTuning in Huntington Beach CA. And they'll be doing the work on this little number we picked up a couple weeks ago:


----------



## ourlee (Jul 19, 2010)

MY BROTHER! I'm also patiently waiting for Goodwin Racing to bring their new 2.5 miata header to market. You two are racing each other and don't even know it!:beer:


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

*Hype builds*

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## jaidajoker (Jun 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Understood. I think we've sufficiently whetted peoples' appetites. So we're shortly going to begin laying out a manifold and up-pipe adapter for the stock exhaust. How will we be doing that? In collaboration with AUTuning in Huntington Beach CA. And they'll be doing the work on this little number we picked up a couple weeks ago:


hows the progress on that mani coming doug


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

What he said 🏼!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

It hasn't progressed much beyond a basic layout I want to explore. But I am very confident we can develop a manifold configuration which places the turbo favorably. And that means a "hot parts" kit which allows for the turbo to fit right onto a stock exhaust. But we first need to send the FrankenTT-RS off with a big dyno test. I really have to believe we can get ~400awhp from it. With a news-making result like that we'll focus our attention on the parts necessary to run our turbo on these cars.


----------



## elppe (Apr 16, 2011)

Cool, well I'm waiting. I'm waiting to see if I get a tune or if I keep waiting for the turbo


----------



## Crzyrio (Aug 14, 2013)

I have been following this thread to the best of my abilities and trying to fully understand what the final outcome is and whats the progress, however I was wondering if we could get a simple update? 

What is the final outcome of this?
My understanding if you are trying to make a simple/low cost/bolt on turbo for the 2.5L engine, that uses mostly existing parts. 

How far into the process are you?
Again my understanding is your almost at the end, where just verification, clean up of how things fit etc?

What kind of power do you expect out of this?
I am not sure about this, approximately what HP & Torque gain do you expect/are getting?
The first page states 280-300? But that seems like a lot for a low cost turbo?

What do you expect the price to be?
C2 has their turbo priced at about 4k for less HP & TQ, are you guys aiming for lower?


Thanks  I am super interested in this.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

Crzyrio said:


> I have been following this thread to the best of my abilities and trying to fully understand what the final outcome is and whats the progress, however I was wondering if we could get a simple update?
> 
> What is the final outcome of this?
> My understanding if you are trying to make a simple/low cost/bolt on turbo for the 2.5L engine, that uses mostly existing parts.
> ...


Imo the problem with creating those numbers will be exactly the fact of utilizing as much factory parts as possible. Adapting it to bolt up to the existing manifold, and downpipe if you want to call it that there is no way or you're going to have a very hard time making 280whp on the stock 2.25" exhaust. Then the other very restrictive area is the plastic intake manifold where you will be essentially forcing air through a straw.


----------



## Crzyrio (Aug 14, 2013)

kevin splits said:


> Imo the problem with creating those numbers will be exactly the fact of utilizing as much factory parts as possible. Adapting it to bolt up to the existing manifold, and downpipe if you want to call it that there is no way or you're going to have a very hard time making 280whp on the stock 2.25" exhaust. Then the other very restrictive area is the plastic intake manifold where you will be essentially forcing air through a straw.


Still if they can do a 4k turbo + parts that is easier to install and better documented than C2, that also puts out 280whp. I would definitely go for it.
If you install at a shop thats about 5k for 100 ish hp/tq boost.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Crzyrio said:


> I have been following this thread to the best of my abilities and trying to fully understand what the final outcome is and whats the progress, however I was wondering if we could get a simple update?


I know we've approached the marketing of our product development a bit unconventionally. It's been a lot of "R" with not very much "D". But that's largely owing to the fact that I wanted to explore more than one design approach, and I wanted to learn as much as possible. But where things stand are here: I am really comfortable with the MixedFlow F25. It's a good match to the 07K engine. So now we're focused on the ancillaries which will make up a kit.




Crzyrio said:


> How far into the process are you?
> Again my understanding is your almost at the end, where just verification, clean up of how things fit etc?


Very well into it. I have a strong sense of the kind of product i want to market and i feel that design is a good one for the marketplace. I know you're asking when you can expect a product, but my perspective is that a FrankenTurbo for the 2.5L has to be profitable. I need it to succeed. And it's taken a good bit of effort to identify the kind of turbo which I feel will be successful.



Crzyrio said:


> What kind of power do you expect out of this?
> I am not sure about this, approximately what HP & Torque gain do you expect/are getting?
> The first page states 280-300? But that seems like a lot for a low cost turbo?


I've made the sales pitch before but I'm not afraid to do it again: _ if you want ~300whp in a VW, the cheapest avenue to that is in a 2.5L car running our turbo_. No GTI can match the combination of cost and performance possible with an 07K engine. Not at the 300/300 level to the wheels.



Crzyrio said:


> What do you expect the price to be?


Less costly than anything ever offered for this market, with the exception of some outlier-type kits I've seen on Ebay. The price has GOT to make sense. Otherwise I've just developed a nifty paperweight.




Crzyrio said:


> C2 has their turbo priced at about 4k for less HP & TQ, are you guys aiming for lower?



The power is there on the 2.5L engine. You'll see the overwhelming proof of that in the pages of this thread. Looking back to where we were in testing around this time last year is a solid indicator of where I stand with this:


----------



## Crzyrio (Aug 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I know we've approached the marketing of our product development a bit unconventionally. It's been a lot of "R" with not very much "D". But that's largely owing to the fact that I wanted to explore more than one design approach, and I wanted to learn as much as possible. But where things stand are here: I am really comfortable with the MixedFlow F25. It's a good match to the 07K engine. So now we're focused on the ancillaries which will make up a kit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks 

Definitely looking forward to this. 

If you have it ready by next summer, ill be happy


----------



## RBT-Tuned (Dec 24, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Understood. I think we've sufficiently whetted peoples' appetites. So we're shortly going to begin laying out a manifold and up-pipe adapter for the stock exhaust. How will we be doing that? In collaboration with AUTuning in Huntington Beach CA. And they'll be doing the work on this little number we picked up a couple weeks ago


I'm not sure why you didn't reach out to our shop about helping with this process. We are located in Irvine, CA and are nearly finished with our Rabbit project car. We are already working with Evolution Tuning/Tyrolsport on additional 2.5 5-cyl products. ABD Racingwerks handles our custom work and they have done a top-notch job with future work planned. I hope that nobody else will launch a turbo kit before the Frankenturbo finally hits the market.

After recent posts about issues with the C2M Turbo Kit (fitment/etc) I'm not sure they would be the proper authority. However their feedback might help you avoid issues that plagued their development. Just want to make sure you have a solid product that stands out among current turbo offerings. Let me know if we can help with your process :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

RBT-Tuned said:


> I'm not sure why you didn't reach out to our shop about helping with this process. We are located in Irvine, CA and are nearly finished with our Rabbit project car. We are already working with Evolution Tuning/Tyrolsport on additional 2.5 5-cyl products. ABD Racingwerks handles our custom work and they have done a top-notch job with future work planned. ...
> 
> ...Let me know if we can help with your process :thumbup:


FrankenTurbo and AUTuning have had great success collaborating in the past, and when I mentioned to Dave Marsh that I was looking for a Rabbit to modify he found me one in less than 5 minutes. But I'd like to know more about your own Rabbit project. Please share what you can.


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

So it's been about 2 weeks since the last post, figured i'd bring it back. Any new info to keep us going?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

In those two weeks we've moved our business across the country to Portland Oregon. That's been a pretty big distraction. But we're up and running here on the West Coast now. The FrankenTT-RS is going in to a new shop for continuing refinements & the Rabbit testing will get underway next month. But there's another change in the works as well. We are at the end of our advertising agreement with vwvortex, which means continuing updates will have to happen through other channels. This wasn't an easy decision to make, but I've decided this is what's best for FrankenTurbo.

I hope to make a last post of some sort. And going forward we'll certainly have a presence here via our numerous dealers. ECS Tuning has expressed a strong interest in this kit, and so i'm sure they can use their advertiser muscle to post ongoing information.

Thx

Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## MK5CNY (Sep 4, 2007)

Oh yeah. My wife and I will come trick or treating. It's our first vacation out west. Looking to move there in the future. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tuga86 (Sep 13, 2013)

Doug please join the VW 2.5l Group on Facebook! It's free, easy and you can advertize as much as you want there. Is where most of 2.5 drivers hang now a days and we have a great bunch of enthusiasts, with out trolls!!!
I've been following this thread since the beginning and can't wait to see your turbo kit available. 
Keep up the good work:beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

What's the link to that Facebook group?


----------



## HollisJoy (Dec 26, 2011)

*FrankenTurbo F25 Prototyping &amp; Testing*

Here it is! 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/247446985360343/


----------



## dub_life91 (May 8, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> In those two weeks we've moved our business across the country to Portland Oregon. That's been a pretty big distraction. But we're up and running here on the West Coast now. The FrankenTT-RS is going in to a new shop for continuing refinements & the Rabbit testing will get underway next month. But there's another change in the works as well. We are at the end of our advertising agreement with vwvortex, which means continuing updates will have to happen through other channels. This wasn't an easy decision to make, but I've decided this is what's best for FrankenTurbo.
> 
> I hope to make a last post of some sort. And going forward we'll certainly have a presence here via our numerous dealers. ECS Tuning has expressed a strong interest in this kit, and so i'm sure they can use their advertiser muscle to post ongoing information.
> 
> ...


wow man thats crazy!! if you need a test car i only live up in seattle lol glad you guys are close to me as i will for sure come down and get some goodies from you when the 2.5 turbo kit is available! will you guys be doing installs at your shop for these kits just out of curiosity? also when you say ending your advertising here does that mean you will no longer be posting on here like in this thread? wishing you the best of luck starting on the west coast!:beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

dub_life91 said:


> wow man thats crazy!! when you say ending your advertising here does that mean you will no longer be posting on here like in this thread?


That's right. We're discontinuing our direct advertising as a manufacturer and shifting our communications to our dealers who advertise here.



HollisJoy said:


> Here it is!
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/247446985360343/


And it looks like Facebook is another place where we can get the news out about our 07K engine march towards achieving Total Turbo-osity!


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Total bummer. I loved the updates throughout the years...1.8T and 2.5 alike.

Does this mean that one is no longer able to go on your site and purchase the kits directly through you? Or even email you directly with questions? I guess I'm just curious on how much of the efforts you're outsourcing to dealers.


----------



## theroccoman (May 8, 2007)

Well it's good to hear you guys are still working on it but it sure is a bummer that you won't be on here anymore. I sure hope you join the facebook page and keep updates going on there. I'll be keeping a close eye on ECS for this kit to pop up.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

theroccoman said:


> Well it's good to hear you guys are still working on it but it sure is a bummer that you won't be on here anymore. I sure hope you join the facebook page and keep updates going on there. I'll be keeping a close eye on ECS for this kit to pop up.


:beer: I will most likely be picking this up too.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

theroccoman said:


> Well it's good to hear you guys are still working on it but it sure is a bummer that you won't be on here anymore. I sure hope you join the facebook page and keep updates going on there. I'll be keeping a close eye on ECS for this kit to pop up.


I'm pretty sure the "downgrade" in status will simply mean I can't keep adding to the existing Research & Development promotional threads I've created over the years. It's going to be a tough transition for me. I love posting to vortex. Especially when I've tried something hair-brained and want to share what I discovered. But I won't miss the more hard-sell posts. I never enjoyed writing those anyway.

I tried joining that facebook page but haven't heard anything back about it.


----------



## Bora Jon (May 31, 2007)

Hi Doug,
I just got accepted to the facebook page, it took a few days for it to come through. I remember your slappy dunbar days. It's nice to see how far things have come along for you, and that you continue to do hair brained things and share with us. I am particullarly excited for what happens to this project as I feel my 2.5 is too slow... besides, I miss having a hot wagon that nobody expects to be quick. Having driven your products for the 1.8T I have high hopes for what is to come.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I'm pretty sure the "downgrade" in status will simply mean I can't keep adding to the existing Research & Development promotional threads I've created over the years. It's going to be a tough transition for me. I love posting to vortex. Especially when I've tried something hair-brained and want to share what I discovered. But I won't miss the more hard-sell posts. I never enjoyed writing those anyway.
> 
> I tried joining that facebook page but haven't heard anything back about it.


You can still update this thread. As long as you are not posting product ads you are fine. Head over to the Mkv forum or Mkv classifieds and you will find a handful of guys that are dealers for brands and sell parts that are not paid advertisers. :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Bora Jon said:


> I feel my 2.5 is too slow... besides, I miss having a hot wagon that nobody expects to be quick.


I've been driving the Rabbit a little, just for errands. It's quite a nice car. And I by no means feel it screams "I need a turbo!" The low end is perfectly fine. And I like its handling, smoothness & size. It's going to be really interesting to begin data logging it to see what exactly it's doing for airflows and ignition advance. That will have to wait until the FrankenTT is back on its feet. 

I should mention the TT is now in the trusty hands of Double J Motorworks here in Portland. Joe Marstall there has welcomed the car to his shop and will start digging around in it next week.

It's tough to leave NY and FFE's Ed Woolsey behind. I had such good fortune to be able to partner up with ForceFed on numerous projects. But the food here in Portland already blows the doors off what we had in the NYC suburbs. It's great.


----------

