# FrankenTurbo F23 + Motoza F23 Software - For the Stock Block



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

*Update (7/15/2014):* Done with the car, being parted out: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?7000530-Part-Out-2004-Jetta-GLI-103K-Miles-6-Speed

*Update (5/19/2014):* Clutch slipping, replaced it plus some other stuff: FX300, new F23, chinafold, front end suspension refresh, etc etc...didn't expect to pull the engine again, but made everything much easier:


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view











__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










*Update (3/18/2014):* No more updates are foreseen. It's been fun!

*Update (1/3/2014):* Some maintenance items have come up and I've got a newer F23 on the way. Items to take care of this month:

-Newest F23
-FT Chinafold manifold
-Clutch (leaning to CM fx350)
-Main shaft shim
-Front suspension refresh

*Update (7/21/2013):* USRT pump didn't work out; APR now installed. Until the revised file is done, I've upped my timing by 1.5* across the board showing a little timing pull past 5K. Awaiting for a newer F23 unit and a JBS manifold and then back on the dyno. Quick run-down of where my hardware is at now:

F23 (purchased mid-2011)
FT tube mani
Motoza software
Inline pump + stock in-tank
550cc seeing ~80% IDC
Treadstone IC
Autotech cam
93oct

Log (August 2013): https://www.dropbox.com/s/9w5ujlv97hoc4v5/Aug2013.xls

*Update (6/2/2013):* New parts: Treadstone FMIC and a USRT fuel pump. IATs are much better and now looks like I have some headroom to get a little more out of it and possibly achieve our original goal of 270whp/250tq, reliability and consistently.

New IC seems to work a hell of a lot better than the previous generic core:

Generic core:

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










TS core:

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










*Update (5/7/2013):* Previous dyno runs showing low numbers out of nowhere determined to be caused by the correction factor not being consistent with the baseline run. Corrected this factor and it looks like our best run was last October showing 257whp/246ftlbs. I'm satisfied with this and think I'm done touching this engine.


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










*Update (1/9/2013)* Dyno is back up and running. Should have new numbers in a couple weeks.

*Update (12/24/2012)* Just waiting around for the dyno. Shop has moved it into the corner as they are overwhelmed. Should get it strapped down early January.
*
Update (10/12/2012)* No progress with regards to power. Digging deeper to look for contributing issues/problems.

*Update (9/6/2012)* We are back on track and should have some improved numbers in the near future.

*Update (5/16/2012)* Baseline run - Just seein' where we're at:

*256WHP/235WTQ* Goal: 270WHP/250WTQ

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










This all started last year when I contact Doug @ FT for a replacement turbo for my 1.8t. I originally wanted a drop-in F4 as I don't plan to do a whole lot with this car (daily driver), but figured I would be more happy with the F23 for the money. 

Car:
2004 Jetta
O2M trans
AWP head
Stock block

All said and done, I ended up with:

F23 turbo
FT exhaust manifold
550CC injectors
Revo stage 3 s/w
In-line FP
Already had: TS SMIC, 3" exhaust + other random stuff


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










FYI: For people that plan to run the FT exhaust manifold. Unless a revision has occurred, some shaving might be needed and converting 2 of the exhaust studs to bolts make it much easier to install. Here are some pictures indicating where to shave:

Interference points on the mani to the head:


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










And after grinding down the head:


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view











__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










Also converted these two studs (removed in pic) to Allen-head bolts (M8 x 1.25 30mm):


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










I ran this setup for 10K miles or so and was completely content on keeping it. I then decided to pull the engine to tie up some loose ends with the initial install and just regular maintenance.


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










Somewhere along the line I was back in contact with Doug and he wanted me to try out a newer version of the F23, but with software other than Revo. The pieces kind of fell together and now Dave @ Motoza is involved with helping create F23 software *specifically for people with stock blocks.*

That brings us to the present. I am currently still waiting for some hardware to arrive before we start utilizing the new software, but I do have the initial F23 file in hand. This also arrived in between all of this:

AutoTech 195*

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










The plan is to ultimately create a file for the F23, for people that don't plan to upgrade their block. During this process we will also compare the Revo software along with dyno runs. I'll try to keep this updated as much as I can.

:beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks for starting this thread, Chris. I appreciate disclosure of both the good and the bad. The issues with manifold clearance is especially valuable. I'll keep an eye on this question with all the units coming through here.

As for the "testing a new..." part, this turbo will have a modified actuator that has a wider adjustment gamut. This means F23s can go out set up with a preload identical to the (very weak setting) OEM K04 turbos. The question for testing: how's it do at the top end? Just as good? Here's a pic of the actuator in question.


----------



## GTIRACER2.0t (Aug 23, 2000)

Watching eagerly... Busy life has put my f23 on hold but Im about to have some time to finish up.
Ill have to check on the head clearance with the mani as I installed it and it seemed to go fine on my AWW. But im going to take a closer look now. I also didnt modify any of the studs but did modify some tools which snapped shortly there after


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I didn't really notice the interference issue until the engine was pulled. It didn't appear to leak because of this, but I didn't want it sitting up against the head like that. 

And I can only imagine what your tool had to look like to work with the OE studs. :laugh:


----------



## Krispee_Atticus (Feb 28, 2012)

In for the long haul of this.

I saw the previous thread, where the f23 put down ~ 275 lbs/275 hp w/ a solid curve at 16 psi. Now throw in the potential for turbo/stock bottom end specific software, hopefully we will see a beautiful result.

:beer::beer: :thumbup::thumbup: to Doug @ Frankenturbo and Dave @ Motoza for continuing the pursuit on making our aging platform better.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

I think its cool that there is development for stock block tune but on the other hand whats so hard about rods? If your limiting your TQ curve there is no reason to go bigger than the regular franken IMO.

They aren't expensive, they arne't hard to do your pretty much pulling the head anyways to do the manifold or atleast its makes life a billion times easier.

Its insane cheap insurance considering the cost of all the parts when you window a block.

I will be getting a F23 soon and doing rods hopefully to push this baby to its limits.


----------



## toby lawrence (Dec 12, 2011)

I can't wait until Madmax gets a hold of an F23. If he's pushing 300awhp now with a stock K04.... I can only imagine with he'll do with the F23. :laugh:


----------



## Krispee_Atticus (Feb 28, 2012)

ejg3855 said:


> I think its cool that there is development for stock block tune but on the other hand whats so hard about rods? If your limiting your TQ curve there is no reason to go bigger than the regular franken IMO.
> 
> They aren't expensive, they arne't hard to do your pretty much pulling the head anyways to do the manifold or atleast its makes life a billion times easier.
> 
> ...


The main reason of interest is the limited torque steer along with the increased top end on a small turbo. Rods aren't the big deal, The lack of an LSD is. FWD, 280tq/280hp, linear curve, top end power, all without stressing a turbo to its max, allowing longer life span. Seems like a win win. I would love to run it BALLS OUT....but a stock block dialed down version wouldn't be bad for Dailys or limited budgets.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Krispee_Atticus said:


> :beer::beer: :thumbup::thumbup: to Doug @ Frankenturbo and *Dave *@ Motoza for continuing the pursuit on making our aging platform better.


Just a name correction  My name is Chris, but I'm not with either company.

As far as the rods goes, I think Krispee covered it pretty well. And Doug may be able to give you his perspective as a business, but some people simply don't want to open their block. They just don't want to take the project that far. Whether it be for simplicity, money savings, no ability, whatever, there is a line that seems to be drawn when looking for turbo upgrades/replacements. And that line is whether or not to do rods. Offer the F23 in both flavors of software and you have solutions for a wider audience.

On that note, I will be doing rods once the 'safe' tune is ironed out. Because at this point, I might as well.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

I guess I forgot about the TQ steer problems as my application will be for haldex car, and that I will be tuning it myself so its not like I need to reach out for a solution thats good for all setups but i can dial it into mine. 


I agree on the marketability stand point.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Decided to do some basic logs of the current base file. New hardware has not been installed yet. Seems pretty conservative right now.

Stock cams
Original F23 version
Ambient Temp: 14*C
All 3rd gear pulls


----------



## GTIRACER2.0t (Aug 23, 2000)

STOICH said:


> Just a name correction  My name is Chris, but I'm not with either company.
> 
> As far as the rods goes, I think Krispee covered it pretty well. And Doug may be able to give you his perspective as a business, but some people simply don't want to open their block. They just don't want to take the project that far. Whether it be for simplicity, money savings, no ability, whatever, there is a line that seems to be drawn when looking for turbo upgrades/replacements. And that line is whether or not to do rods. Offer the F23 in both flavors of software and you have solutions for a wider audience.
> 
> On that note, I will be doing rods once the 'safe' tune is ironed out. Because at this point, I might as well.


This is where I agree. In the past i have done plenty of projects but life right now is too busy. I was going for the F4t to replace my k04-001 but it essentially had the same power band which I hated. I like the torque but Im not drag racing and I like a longer pull to redline when I do use the power say to get on the freeway so I can get up to safe traffic flow speed:laugh:

I loved the potential of the f23 but right now I dont need it to go that far and dont have time to have my motor torn apart to do rods,rings ect. So a tune limiting some torque sounds perfect:thumbup:


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for starting this thread, Chris. I appreciate disclosure of both the good and the bad. The issues with manifold clearance is especially valuable. I'll keep an eye on this question with all the units coming through here.
> 
> As for the "testing a new..." part, this turbo will have a modified actuator that has a wider adjustment gamut. This means F23s can go out set up with a preload identical to the (very weak setting) OEM K04 turbos. The question for testing: how's it do at the top end? Just as good? Here's a pic of the actuator in question.


interesting! lookin good Doug :beer:opcorn:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Put the Autotech cam in on Sunday and ran a couple logs today just out of curiosity. 

Tune hasn't changed on these comparison logs. Current is limited to around 18-19PSI. 

Overall Timing: 










Airflow:


----------



## GTIRACER2.0t (Aug 23, 2000)

am i reading it wrong or is that a loss in performance?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Just some comparison logs between the base file and first update.

I'm now on the second updated file with fueling being pretty much worked out. We'll be moving on to dialing in boost and response here shortly. And hopefully in the near future it will be to the point where I can get some dyno numbers as we work towards a safe power level.


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

[No message]


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I agree that the wastegate looks a little too 'rigged' for me; I even emailed Doug and questioned this. I don't think Doug is sending those new wastegate acutators out with purchases...at least it seemed like it was simply in testing. And if that's the case, I really don't care what it looks like since it's not a final product. In fact, I was going to fab a bracket once I got the newer turbo in hand.

As for the manifold, I should have been clearer. I purchased that last year for a discount because I was going to test fit it. I just happened to notice the clearance issue when I pulled the engine not so long ago. Not sure if I'm the only one that encountered this or not, though.


----------



## rains (May 30, 2008)

can't see any pictures here at work ... but a F23 + software for stock block is something I'd be very interested in :beer:


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

STOICH said:


> I agree that the wastegate looks a little too 'rigged' for me; I even emailed Doug and questioned this. I don't think Doug is sending those new wastegate acutators out with purchases...at least it seemed like it was simply in testing. And if that's the case, I really don't care what it looks like since it's not a final product. In fact, I was going to fab a bracket once I got the newer turbo in hand.
> 
> As for the manifold, I should have been clearer. I purchased that last year for a discount because I was going to test fit it. I just happened to notice the clearance issue when I pulled the engine not so long ago. Not sure if I'm the only one that encountered this or not, though.



Word, I'm highly interested in their setup for my B6. I'll take it to PMs, no reason to put them on blast like this.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Haven't forgot about this thread, just no substantial updates as of yet. Ran into some minor issues with the logger/flasher and my laptop so we've been ironing that the last few days.

I really hope to hit the dyno here in a couple weeks to see where it currently stands and what kind of room we have to work with.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Boost has been smoothed out quite a bit since the base file (both part throttle and WOT). Still going to try to get it to settle a bit sooner. 










There are still some restrictions still in place on the low end which will be lifted here shortly and we are going to tie up the ignition and boost profile just before hitting the dyno to see where we stand. 

We are sitting at about 62% DC on the N75 at red line.


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

looking really good, opcorn: in for more progress... 

f23 FTW!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Chris -- can you give us a WOT pull in third from way down low? I mean really in the hole. Like 1500rpms. I want to get a solid basis of comparison for boost onset. 

:thumbup:


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

im looking for a turbo that can hold its breath until about 7500 rpms if the f23 can do that ill be all over it


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Chris -- can you give us a WOT pull in third from way down low? I mean really in the hole. Like 1500rpms. I want to get a solid basis of comparison for boost onset.
> 
> :thumbup:


 Sure - I'll get you that here early this afternoon. :thumbup:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Here is a pull starting at ~1500RPM. To note: There are still caps in place in the lower RPM, so spool is a bit slow.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Little update: Started adjusting the boost profile a bit. Unfortunately, this update came with a little surging in the higher gears. So, that will be fixed in the next update.

Going to start tweaking the ignition a bit and we should be ready for a base dyno run. I've got that penciled at the shop for the 26th of this month.


----------



## rains (May 30, 2008)

Bump!

still excitedly watching this thread :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

That's some really solid boost control. :thumbup: to Motoza


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Just for fun:


----------



## spazzvdub (Mar 24, 2011)

STOICH said:


> I agree that the wastegate looks a little too 'rigged' for me; I even emailed Doug and questioned this. I don't think Doug is sending those new wastegate acutators out with purchases...at least it seemed like it was simply in testing. And if that's the case, I really don't care what it looks like since it's not a final product. In fact, I was going to fab a bracket once I got the newer turbo in hand.
> 
> As for the manifold, I should have been clearer. I purchased that last year for a discount because I was going to test fit it. I just happened to notice the clearance issue when I pulled the engine not so long ago. Not sure if I'm the only one that encountered this or not, though.


 the new actuators were sent out with new f23. i had to wait on mine to be upgraded and as for the mani, it fits perfect!!!!!! my car is still at the shop ironing out some software issues and i hope to be on the road next week. im running GIAC so the guys out in cali are having "fun" with this. hahaha.....Having to run GIAC gt28r software. i will have some numbers next week.......also running bosch ev-14 550"s and a s4 maf!!! we will c......


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

^^^Good to hear :beer: 

No major updates. We've been smoothing out the minor surging under high-load, but at the same time I ended up with a couple leaks which might of contributed. So, I've pretty much got the car back to being leak free and we will continue on. Unfortunately, the dyno was canceled for this week due to working about the above issues.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

*Current file overlay of 3 consecutive pulls:* 


















* 
Comparison of where we started vs now:* 

Boost 









Airflow 









Overall Timing


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

1st dyno was done today. By no means anything astounding, but a good start. 

Hitting 18-19PSI off the bat, after 4K RPM pushing to 22-23PSI. 

:thumbup: to Jason at Mobile One for getting me in so quickly :thumbup:


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## rodgertherabit (Apr 16, 2009)

Oh man you're in IL?!?! 

Jason is a cool dude! I didnt know they had a dyno there:thumbup:


----------



## pgk2004 (Nov 4, 2005)

STOICH said:


> 1st dyno was done today. By no means anything astounding, but a good start.
> 
> Hitting 18-19PSI off the bat, after 4K RPM pushing to 22-23PSI.
> 
> ...


dude, those are so crazy numbers. :laugh::beer:


----------



## VWBugman00 (Mar 17, 2009)

Wow, that boost is nice and flat. That power is pretty good for the amount of boost you're pushing, and the size of the turbo. Frankenturbo continues to impress me with this F23.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

I think you might see better numbers with a little more boost.

Just for kicks, log g/sec now and then log g/sec in higher boost. Let me know if you see any more flow


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

STOICH said:


> Hitting 18-19PSI off the bat, after 4K RPM pushing to 22-23PSI.


This is almost chapter and verse for the boost curve spartiati has set up for mk4jetta's stock engine car. Although some people on the sidelines might think this is too conservative, the overall power delivery feels pretty good, I'd imagine. I'm particularly happy with how well Dave manages the torque onset. :beer:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

rodgertherabit said:


> Oh man you're in IL?!?!
> 
> Jason is a cool dude! I didnt know they had a dyno there:thumbup:


Yeah - their dyno is usually pushed into the corner a lot of the time do the the volume of cars vs. space.



pgk2004 said:


> dude, those are so crazy numbers. :laugh::beer:


:beer: Although, next run we need to add more variety to the beer. Too much Summer Shandy laying around in people's fridges. :laugh:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

While we start working our way towards our goal (~270/250 on the DD), I've been messing around with the logger a bit, so figured I would share.

Some of the views:




























Sample Rate: ~20/sec
Total Simultaneously Logged Channels : 40


----------



## GTIPie (Jan 21, 2012)

Damn that's a bit sharper than VagCom. My GTI gets 3.8 samples/sec with one measuring block selected, 3 blocks is the max it lets you select and then its just barely over 1 sample a second.

How are the graphics in real time? Are the gauges and graph jumpy or do they look pretty good?


----------



## forcefedjetta (Aug 14, 2003)

spazzvdub said:


> the new actuators were sent out with new f23. i had to wait on mine to be upgraded and as for the mani, it fits perfect!!!!!! my car is still at the shop ironing out some software issues and i hope to be on the road next week. im running GIAC so the guys out in cali are having "fun" with this. hahaha.....Having to run GIAC gt28r software. i will have some numbers next week.......also running bosch ev-14 550"s and a s4 maf!!! we will c......


I'm not the only one to think of the giac 28r delrio tune can't wait to hear from Austin


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

GTIPie said:


> Damn that's a bit sharper than VagCom. My GTI gets 3.8 samples/sec with one measuring block selected, 3 blocks is the max it lets you select and then its just barely over 1 sample a second.
> 
> How are the graphics in real time? Are the gauges and graph jumpy or do they look pretty good?


I should mention, the logger screenshots I posted are more of a work-in-progress.

That said, the line style is fairly good, no complaints. The gauge view is a bit jumpy on a couple gauges, such as the ignition gauge. But, for a 'beta' I can't complain.


----------



## Prawn (Jun 21, 2006)

I like this thread very much, a tune specific to the stock block is something we could do with in the UK!

I'm running a UK equivalent of the F23 on my stock AGU lump, and I'm absolutely loving it. Making near identical figures to you as well, 258whp currently with an 18psi spike low down, holding 16psi and dropping to 14psi at the redline.

my tuner dropped the boost at the top end, and reduced the rev limit to 7100rpm to keep the power below 300 crank hp due to the age / mileage of my block.

I notice from your logs and dynos you don't seem to rev the car that high, is that just a personal thing or does your F23 not flow so well above 6k? Other logs I've seen from the F23 suggest it's good for 20psi+ beyond 7k.

Keep up the good work, makes for great reading


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Well, the dyno didn't show any gains past ~6500, so we didn't feel the need to run it up anymore. It's been ran to 7K plenty of times, but I guess it was more of a causal limit for when I did logs. 

But, you are correct, it has no problem holding ~22PSI all the way to 7K without issue.

Thanks for the kind words 

I received an update yesterday and it looks like boost was moved up in the 3K-redline area a hair, timing was adjusted a bit and some fuel/MAF changes after 5500. Probably pretty close to hitting the dyno again soon.

I do have an FMIC that is getting installed here shortly, so hopefully that is completed by dyno time too.

:beer:


----------



## Prawn (Jun 21, 2006)

Interesting that you didn't see any gains, although I'm guessing you are still on a small port head and intake, as well as the uprated SMIC you mentioned earlier. mine's also running an equal length tubular manifold, so I guess that'll alter delivery a fair bit as well!

Looking forward to seeing where you end up with this, and how you get on with it in the long term on a stock block.

it's also nice to know that in future, if you DO get bored, you can very easily throw some rods in there, and get a more aggressive tune and have a whole different animal!


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Yep - AWP (small port) head, stock intake mani, no alt fuels, and the Tyrol SMIC. We are starting to see AITs and timing correction show it's colors in the upper RPMs, so that isn't helping things much.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

No real updates yet. Determined I had a weak airflow sensor after we started seeing some weird fuel and boost issues in the upper RPMs. So, we've back-tracked a little to make sure we don't work against ourselves.

Since the first dyno an FMIC was installed (thanks again, Doug!). It's a Z-style, 20" x 8" x 3". Seems to be dealing well for the turbo and warmer weather we've had.

Again, no big updates, but haven't forgotten about this.


----------



## BoostedGLS0218 (Dec 10, 2011)

Good to hear this is still in the works.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Well, Dave @ Motoza has dropped the ball. Shortly after the dyno, he just stopped communicating with me. Whatever the reason be, it's unprofessional. 

I was planning to drop in rods and call the car a good daily, but at this point that would require a completely different tuner/company to even take advantage of the rods. So, I think my train stops here with this engine. It's solid, the tune is 'fine' for what it is, and it makes a bit under 300hp; not bad.

EDIT: I do want to say, Doug @ Frankenturbo has been nothing but awesome in all regards. So, keep up the good work, Doug. You have something going for your business :thumbup:


----------



## rodgertherabit (Apr 16, 2009)

Doug is the man. Eurodyne has been nothing but great for me and there's plenty of people/tuners with copious knowledge. 

My base file has been great. Even just a stage 2 was. Comparable to uni and maestro is unlimited!


----------



## 1FlyGuyInaGLi (Mar 25, 2007)

Ive seen higher TQ numbers with K03s all the blots ons and a 4bar. Am I missign something, shouldnt the new F23 turbo outperform the stocker K03? Even with the revo tune? :screwy:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Well, it's a half-baked file (in relation to the end goal), so I wouldn't start comparing it to anything that has solid software behind it. This thing hit the dyno once before coming to a stand-still, so I would encourage people not to use this as accuracy for what the F23 can do. There is plenty of power left to be had in my setup. Whether or not I want that power is still open-ended.


----------



## EBG 1.8T (Jul 1, 2001)

I have a feeling from my last e-mail from Motoza that they may have gotten too big too quick. They are not able to handle everything. Unfortunately servicing people that already paid doesn't keep the light on.


----------



## GTIRACER2.0t (Aug 23, 2000)

1FlyGuyInaGLi said:


> Ive seen higher TQ numbers with K03s all the blots ons and a 4bar. Am I missign something, shouldnt the new F23 turbo outperform the stocker K03? Even with the revo tune? :screwy:



A k03 with tons of tricks might spike a high torque number but its over very quick and the power falls way off towards redline. 

Im currently running the f23 on my mk4 using the Maestro base file. So there is lots of power left on the table but this pulls all the way to redline. a k04-001 wont do that much less a k03s. 

Any turbo needs a good tune. The magic is not in the hardware alone:thumbup:


----------



## 1FlyGuyInaGLi (Mar 25, 2007)

GTIRACER2.0t said:


> Any turbo needs a good tune. The magic is not in the hardware alone:thumbup:


Very true sir.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I kind of wondered if they simply just couldn't handle the work load.

Doug did mention that he spoke with Dave, so maybe he'll get in gear.


----------



## RaraK69 (Jan 16, 2001)

STOICH said:


> I kind of wondered if they simply just couldn't handle the work load.
> 
> Doug did mention that he spoke with Dave, so maybe he'll get in gear.


Would not surprise me. I have a hard time handling anything over working 3 cars at once doing custom work, its a lot of time sometimes. If its a one man show...then very possible.


----------



## rodgertherabit (Apr 16, 2009)

Heard that! 

Best thing is patience. But good contact is more important, even of things are delayed :beer:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I believe we are back on. Hopefully a new, improved dyno # soon. :thumbup:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Update: I had some fuel supply issues. So, now that a new pump and regulator are in, we are ready to hit the dyno. I've schedule to get some numbers next Thursday. 

Aside from numbers and data, the car drives wonderfully. The boost control during part-throttle is well sorted, WOT is quite consistent all the way through and I can't complain about the gas mileage. Took a trip over labor day and did 390-400 miles to the tank doing between 70-80MPH with sprints here and there. 

More to come next week.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Now that's a nice boost curve. Way to go for both of you guys.











Knock 'em dead at the dyno! opcorn:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Wish I could post some more positive results, but it doesn't look like we've increased power since the last dyno.

Yesterdays results:
233whp
225tq

Overlay of the first dyno (Blue) vs the new one (Red):










Possible contributing factor: FMIC was installed and it was noted that lower numbers could be expected because of this (in comparison the the TS side mount I was running last time). Looking at some logs, overall timing appears to be quite jumpy...more than usual accordingly to the shop that ran the dyno. Something is amiss.

That said, the time it takes from RPM (a) to RPM (b) is the same as the previous dyno and road logs. 

Bottom line: We haven't gain any power since the last dyno. And my car may just be a dog. :laugh:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Turns out the torque model influence was playing a role and causing inconsistent/jumpy timing advance - my curve was all over the place, especially when loading up. So, we turned that off and the curve smoothed out nicely.

Just tweaking boost and timing a bit. Then getting the boost based on IAT squared away and hope for the best.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

In the meantime, I've been playing with a new feature in the software: Dyno Simulation. With the same update revision comparing the newest dyno numbers to the dyno simulation numbers, I was quite surprised at the accuracy for peak numbers. The curve/tracing seems off and will probably need more work, but for a beta, I was impressed.

Obviously not a replacement to a real dyno, but it will help gauge large or numerous changes in a given update.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

That is freaking cool! I need to talk to Dave at Motoza to get my mitts on it.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Since we turned off the torque influence deal, there is more power all around. Pretty sure it was playing a big part in holding back power. Another dyno coming up soon to confirm.

And if the dyno simulator is of any accuracy, it seems to agree also:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Is this a simulation for 2wd horsepower? Or bhp?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm honestly not 100% sure on that. Based on how he explained the calculations to me and having the peak numbers fairly close to the actual dyno results, I just presumed WHP. I'll see if I can get that clarified.

Update (12/24/2012) Just waiting around for the dyno. Shop has moved it into the corner as they are overwhelmed. Should get it strapped down early January.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

To anyone still following: the dyno is back up and running. Should get some new numbers in the next couple weeks. All things are looking good for seeing an improvement; namely timing being in check.

The file is basically complete. Maybe some ignition tweaks once we start seeing below zero F temps. Otherwise, the tune is pretty damn solid and I've enjoyed it the last couple months now that timing is in check. Makes for a decent little daily around town. 

This should be the last dyno pull. Haven't decided if I want to drop in rods. Definitely don't need more power in this type of car...


----------



## Pisko (Jan 14, 2006)

This is on the smaller F21 turbo and in my B6 a4 quattro :beer:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Nice - have you compared to any dyno numbers? I'm still trying to gauge the accuracy, but one thing is for sure: it consistently spits out numbers in the same ball-park which is pretty impressive.

Out of curiosity I did a dyno sim today:










And I don't think I will be dropping in rods. Hopefully I'll do another run at the dyno for some final numbers and call it good. I've decided to move onto an aircooled 912.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

STOICH said:


> Nice - have you compared to any dyno numbers? I'm still trying to gauge the accuracy, but one thing is for sure: it consistently spits out numbers in the same ball-park which is pretty impressive.
> 
> Out of curiosity I did a dyno sim today:


Is this simulating wheel horsepower/torque?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Yes, wheel power.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I had hoped to have new numbers by now, but the shop has basically ignored me for the past month with regards to scheduling a run. If I happen to get some numbers in the future, I'll try and remember to post an update, but for now my focus has shifted to getting a subaru engine hooked into this:


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

Any update dyno numbers? And what about that boxer install?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

No new numbers. I keep going back and forth with the shop on getting in there, but they've been short-handed and overbooked on mechanical work, so no dyno space. 

Nothing too serious is happening with the pcar at the moment as I've decided to tear up and lay down a new floor in the garage early spring. Until then, just prepping to weld in a couple repair patches, new body&window seals, redo trim work and ordering small parts. Fun stuff will begin once the garage is back in order.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

After seeing more low numbers, it turns out the correction factor was incorrect for the dynos following the initial baseline. Here is the corrected from october last year: 


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










These are the best and probably final numbers unless I upgrade the IC.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

How much boost are you running? 

Why not forego the IC for WM? You'd have intercooling and "Premium Plus" octane all the time.


----------



## theasianguy (Feb 26, 2013)

Just read through the whole thread, very valuable informatin. :thumbup: 
I was also thinking about going with an F23, but at the same time I wanted to keep my stock rods so this is definitely beneficial.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

This whole project was somewhat a snowball effect and didn't really intend on even going this far (cam, dynos, logging, trying different parts, pulling the engine, etc). I originally just wanted a stock replacement, but then Doug came into the mix and the snowball effect started. 

This cars purpose isn't to make power, it's to be reliable and peppy. A w/m system would just be another thing to keep on top of and that goes against the reliability aspect. If anything I will upgrade the IC core and upgrade the intank pump in order to remove the inline pump. 

As far as boost goes. It hits 15PSI as soon as it can, then is slowly ramped up to 20PSI by 4K and holds the rest of the way.


----------



## 03wolfy1.8t (Nov 2, 2010)

STOICH said:


> After seeing more low numbers, it turns out the correction factor was incorrect for the dynos following the initial baseline. Here is the corrected from october last year:
> 
> 
> __
> ...


There is a thread on here where a guy made just shy of 300hp with a ko3s
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?2901711-My-Stock-turbo-tuning-guide


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Not sure what youre getting at...

edit; took a quick look at that thread you posted and his direction and purpose is far different than mine. He's pushing that k03 to the limit with no restrictions in place, where n75 duty is being restricted on my app past 3K (only 60-70% duty). I'm making almost the same exact figure 257whp with extremely less work from the turbo. Then again, this is two different dynos, setups and locations, so I wouldn't read too much into peak numbers for comparison. I'd also say longevity would be quite different between both setups. Apples and oranges.


----------



## 03wolfy1.8t (Nov 2, 2010)

STOICH said:


> Not sure what youre getting at...
> 
> edit; took a quick look at that thread you posted and his direction and purpose is far different than mine. He's pushing that k03 to the limit with no restrictions in place, where n75 duty is being restricted on my app past 3K (only 60-70% duty). I'm making almost the same exact figure 257whp with extremely less work from the turbo. Then again, this is two different dynos, setups and locations, so I wouldn't read too much into peak numbers for comparison. I'd also say longevity would be quite different between both setups. Apples and oranges.


That was well thought out response what I'm getting at is why waste the money on all that and this when you can go bt


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

STOICH said:


> Not sure what youre getting at...
> 
> edit; took a quick look at that thread you posted and his direction and purpose is far different than mine. He's pushing that k03 to the limit with no restrictions in place, where n75 duty is being restricted on my app past 3K (only 60-70% duty). I'm making almost the same exact figure 257whp with extremely less work from the turbo. Then again, this is two different dynos, setups and locations, so I wouldn't read too much into peak numbers for comparison. I'd also say longevity would be quite different between both setups. Apples and oranges.


Dyno's are a tuning tool, no a tool meant to prove prick size. The dyno you've given shows that you're getting what you want out of it, and that's good. We all have different expectations, wants and needs from out setups. If you want moderate HP with low abuse then that's exactly what you've got. 

I currently have my GTT tuned i a similar manner where the boost comes on strong at 3k+ but my reasoning is because the toque down low makes first and second useless, even with a diff. I'm going for a similar expectation as yours but with a bit more abuse  

Albeit, I'd expect to see a bit higher numbers at 20psi. I'm guessing the Timing is very conservative given the low tq numbers as well. (just making a statement to what I see, not judging) 

As for the water meth, it's really no hassle at all and the benefits far outweigh having to fill up the tank once a month (on my setup), probably once every 2-3months for yours (especially f you did a trunk mount 3+ gallon cell). I wouldn't totally take WM off the table, it's a nice peace of mind thing and it keeps the IAT's low and the octane high.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

03wolfy1.8t said:


> That was well thought out response what I'm getting at is why waste the money on all that and this when you can go bt


It sounds like a lot of his project has been "sponsored"


----------



## 03wolfy1.8t (Nov 2, 2010)

DMVDUB said:


> It sounds like a lot of his project has been "sponsored"


I didn't read Into it that much but if that is the case , f it


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I simply don't need or want a bigger turbo, which was the reason I was looking at the f4 to begin with. Nothing to do with money...just not my goal and purpose for this car. It's a daily and meant to be reliable and somewhat quiet. And the F23 definitely seemed to fit the bill of giving a decent jump in power while sticking to basic bolt ons without decreasing reliability. More work than I planned, but it was worth it.

My dynos were meant to make sure we were well within safe bounds of the block and to set a personal goal. I don't mind people making comparisons as long as it's apples to apples. Figured I would explain how the comparison with that maxed k03 isn't really on the same level if he was comparing peak numbers.

My timing is conservative to keep knock down and it's largely due to the generic core I'm using. It works, but a better core would most likely allow for higher ign timing throughout. This is why an upgraded core may happen at some point, but on the back burner for now.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I was going back and forth on possibly selling the car for a larger, more quiet daily. Decided to keep it and quiet it down a bit, along with a new front mount core.

So, new parts installed. First is the Genesis in-tank pump, removing the in-line pump. 

Second, a treadstone tr18t IC










A hell of a lot better in design than the generic z-style core I was previously using. This should help my intake temps a bit better. 

I'll be getting back with Dave @ Motoza for some further tweaking to see about getting boost and/or timing up more and will probably put it back on the rollers.

--------

In case anyone is interested....

Orange car is making progress, but due to a busted foot, I've had to stay out of the garage lately. But ej20 getting some work and rust repair on suspension pan and the nose in general. Gotta love the hack work you uncover once you cut in.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I got that intercooler a few months back when they had a group buy for $200 bucks. Works like a champ.

I used it with an ebay piping kit, and with a little cutting it fits good.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

That's good to hear. I didn't see much feedback or data floating around on it and I struggled with paying $100+ more for a garrett core plus the cost of end tanks and time welding.


----------



## VW indahouse (Feb 25, 2012)

STOICH said:


> I was going back and forth on possibly selling the car for a larger, more quiet daily. Decided to keep it and quiet it down a bit, along with a new front mount core.
> 
> So, new parts installed. First is the Genesis in-tank pump, removing the in-line pump. Works great and is very quiet.
> 
> ...


:beer::beer:

opcorn:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

The new core didn't seem to make any headroom which is a bit disappointing. 

Question for people: Does my overall timing look terribly low and jumpy for the kind of knock control and intake temps I'm seeing?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

That's a pretty nice flat IAT chart, actually. But I think Motoza can definitely add timing advance. Here's a look at timing with lousy IATs thanks to a junky intercooler.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

While the core seemed to help IATs stay more consistent during a pull, it did not seem to help in settling knock control....consistently 5-6* of correction on at least one cylinder in the upper RPMs (same as with the generic core). I struggle to think much timing advance could be had in its current state. 

And the timing being jumpy like that can't be good for power....is it really normal to have 4* jumps and drops all over the place? 

From all the F23 setups I've seen, mine is pretty lousy in the timing department. I mean, if you can achieve 20* of advance at red line with your IATs like that, I don't see how I'm struggling to get into the 'teens with a practically flat charge temp...and significant knock control to boot. 

edit; Here is a graph with the old core and around the same ambient temp. Looks to me that something else is causing possible issues with my overall timing and control. Any thoughts? 

edit2; full log with old core 
full log with new core 

edit3; And it looks like I'm using a lot of fuel for what it's putting out. 90% duty on 550cc @ 4bar...seems like a lot of fuel.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

To give an idea of how the Treadstone core is working out. First two pulls are back to back, last one was a couple minutes later. 85F ambient temp. It was definitely worth the purchase. 


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view










Looks a lot better than the prior core. Ambient temp roughly 55F: 


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Based on those graphs, I'd say your intercooler is working well. As to the timing advance, that jumpiness is actually normal. It is owing to some kind of "torque control" algorithm the ECU has. I know that Eurodyne can turn that off, netting very smooth, predictable values. My guess is that Matoza can as well.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

We had turned off tq control a while back when I first noticed it was all over the place during load up. Smoothed out during loading, but after is still moving around a bit. May be normal...just not sure. 

Noticed knock voltage is significantly higher on cylinder #2 and usually knock controller follows suit. Any reason this would be normal, aside from internal wear? This is on new knock sensors...old #1/2 did the same.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Turns out the new USRT pump I put in was weak and causing it to struggle for fuel, shown here:










For now, back to the stock pump until I can get with USRT on a replacement. All is looking good for making improvements with timing advance now that fuel and iat is under control; zero correction for now and a nicer looking timing curve:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Clutch started slipping...so...

The CM clutch seems great in this car! Easier pedal is great for daily driving; fulcrum shift.


__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view











__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

Did you do a NLS shim with that CM?


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

No slave shim on mine. But I did install a shaft shim on the rear...










I've helped a friend remove and reinstall his 02m due to clutch creep around 3 times and the NLS shim kit didn't solve the issue. He was running a south bend clutch stage 2 I think...


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Not surprised...










Turbo is in decent shape. I'll be sending it off for rebuild and keep it stocked as a back up.

The downpipe I originally made was made with bad mounts apparently, so I've gotta tweak the flange a bit as the angle is off as is.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

STOICH said:


> Not surprised...


For the record this is our original tubular mild steel manifold, which we discontinued a couple years ago. It is NOT a failed Relentless V3.


----------



## dblock (Feb 14, 2006)

Doug, Just curious, what do you set your wastegate preload to on the f23? Are these wastegates much more efficient than ones in the past? sorry to get off topic a little:beer:


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> For the record this is our original tubular mild steel manifold, which we discontinued a couple years ago. It is NOT a failed Relentless V3.


I'm running a V3 manifold...


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

The one I got just a month or so ago came with a 14psi crack pressure as the box indicated.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

STOICH said:


> The one I got just a month or so ago came with a 14psi crack pressure as the box indicated.


Your 14psi setting isn't the norm. We'll be working with Motoza tuning to see how that raised preload impacts performance and drivability. In the meantime all other F23 turbos have gone out and will continue to go out at 12psi.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

:thumbup:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Just ordered an OEM o2 sensor from amazon. At $50 bucks with prime shipping, it was a good deal. Considerably cheaper than most places.

http://www.amazon.com/Bosch-17014-O...00641147&sr=8-2&keywords=1.8t+bosch+o2+sensor


----------

