# FrankenTurbo F23 Project: FrankenTT is go!



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

NEW VORTEX LINK FOR ORIGINAL THREAD (per [email protected]) 

Original Thread: http://www.vwvortex.com/FrankenTT/page1.htm

[Anthony, 12/22/12]


_thank you!_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

All -- as you can see, I have re-created the FrankenTT thread and have every intention of restoring the old along with inflicting the new. Mistakes happen, and while the loss of the original thread was a disappointment, I have a lot of confidence that everyone's posts and input can be restored to this forum. 

My love for this 1.8T tech forum is strong. This week's headaches do little to impact that. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, cheered, joked and sniped. You have enriched my advertiser experience greatly.

Yours

Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

At the close of 2012, here is how the car is configured (in more-or-less chronological order)

Eurodyne Maestro
Eurodyne Boost Manager WMI and fuel pump control
FrankenPump in-line fuel pump
PumpTec 113C high-pressure WMI pump
42 Draft Designs open-element intake
42 Draft Designs 3" turbo-back exhaust
Vertical flow front-mount intercooler
235/35/19 tires front -- 265/30/19 tires rear
PowerWheels Pro replica wheels
Audi S4 MAF (3" ID measurement)
FrankenTurbo F23 hybrid K04
Relentless V3 exhaust manifold
SEM intake manifold
INA 3" throttle body
USRT Genesis2 500cc injectors
Eurospec adjustable fuel pump (set to 4bar)
Mk6 coil packs
42 Draft Designs catch can
Haldex Blue controller
ClutchMasters FX400 clutch
OEM dual mass flywheel
Prototype 2.0L "drop in" stroker engine
Prototype RS4-inspired camshafts
External 60-2 crankshaft speed sensor
AEB head with Supertech valve train
Supreme Technology Engineering Performance Parameters Display (PPD)

That's a pretty comprehensive list. And documenting all those mods took up close to 40 pages (for a look at that, click HERE). But there's still much to tinker with. Firstly is performance on straight pump gas. How much loss will there be in power? How much gain in EGTs? Those are questions I'll have an answer for shortly.

:beer:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

If it helps any, Doug: Backup


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

Glad to hear you were able to resurrect parts of the old thread Doug :thumbup:


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Not gonna lie, that cache is impressive, quite a bit is there :thumbup:


----------



## flamtastix (Mar 8, 2011)

Mad props for handling this whole situation like a pro, and not loosing your cool! Maybe it would be a good time to make a "mod list" of where the TT currently sits...I know I was getting a bit confused with the constant flow of parts and ideas.

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:For a great contribution to the community and a great product!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Picking up from where we left off, the car received its new rear "shoes" today. Out with the 235/35/19 Goodyears, in with the 265/30/19 Sumitomos. The tires were a very tight squeeze onto the 9" rims, but the guys at my local Mavis were persistent and got them mounted.











John at 42Draft Designs came through with perfect 15mm spacer/adapters for the 112mm-bolt-pattern rims.











The tires are approximately an inch wider, and to keep them from extending beyond the wheel wells, the offset was reduced by 10mm. But even tucked in an inch or so, the rubber still clears the interior.











And the outside appearance is still fairly "stockish", which is what I wanted.




















With that done, the car can go about trying plain pump gas. It's been re-flashed to Eurodyne's off-the-shelf F21 file and logging is already underway. Will post a few pulls as boost is carefully ramped up.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

thats one hideous shock absorber.

sweet wheels doug. :thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Glad to see you're somewhat back on track. Perhaps post screenshots of the old thread?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

User STOICH has some good ideas for restoring the entirety of that thread. If you click his link above he's already been able to post the whole thing on his own server. I'll work with Anthony about getting the document hosted in such a way that it's searchable here.

As for the shock: I know, I know. This spring I will modify the car to Audi's "sport suspension" form, which will do away with the old parts and lower the car an inch or so. No more than that!!


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

I agree with flamstix, Definitly should put a MOD list in while were still on the first page of this new thread.


----------



## crazybohunk (May 24, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> User STOICH has some good ideas for restoring the entirety of that thread. If you click his link above he's already been able to post the whole thing on his own server. I'll work with Anthony about getting the document hosted in such a way that it's searchable here.
> 
> As for the shock: I know, I know. This spring I will modify the car to Audi's "sport suspension" form, which will do away with the old parts and lower the car an inch or so. No more than that!!


Hi Doug,

Hmm that shock absorber looks very familiar.

I think this has to go on the upgrade list as well.

I am real happy that the Franken TT thread lives on.

opcorn::thumbup:


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

:beer:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

What happen?? I've been out of the country for a while.


----------



## corocco (Jul 29, 2001)

Gotta love that Northeast rust


----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

nice TT's are okay with a dirty side to them :laugh:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Very curious to see how those new tires help with traction...also excited to see this thread semi-back up and running :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*first logs (ever) for FrankenTT without WMI*

So with the PumpTec WMI pump out for warranty replacement, I've been experiencing "how the other half lives" on a plain ole 93oct car. And so far, I gotta say...I like it!

Here are the logs taken as I gingerly raise boost levels. I'm being especially cautious between 3200-4200 where knock always seems to emerge. 










Even though boosting only around 18psi, the engine is flowing over 270 grams/second. That's a pretty big surprise. And contrary to my earlier belief that the power drops off above 260, the Time-To-Speed shows a much stronger finish.











See how the 90% duty cycle line runs out of steam up top? Well, now it's not doing that. So why? Isn't that right where the WMI-enhanced timing advance should be strutting its stuff? Or is the WMI simply clogging up the (smallish) turbine housing?

Very interesting. One other note: the exhaust sounds different. It's raw and angry. And a bit louder. In a word: badass.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

It's about time you tune this thing to its potential ON PUMP, how most will use it. :beer:


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

Rod Ratio said:


> It's about time you tune this thing to its potential ON PUMP, how most will use it. :beer:


THIS. I personally am not interested in what people are doing with Race Fuels, W/M, E85, NOS, etc.... 93 octane pump is where it's @ :thumbup:


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

You guys must hate us brits with 99 octane and 102 on the continent


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

superkarl said:


> You guys must hate us brits with 99 octane and 102 on the continent


no hate... your gas prices are not pretty


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

superkarl said:


> You guys must hate us brits with 99 octane and 102 on the continent


It's to my understanding that your octane ratings are different than ours; hence the higher numbers. Your 102 is like our 94, etc


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Rod Ratio said:


> It's to my understanding that your octane ratings are different than ours; hence the higher numbers. Your 102 is like our 94, etc


im not entirely sure how it works, but something like that yes, ours are a tad higher though. 
I know that if you take a european car over there like my S3 it wouldnt run very well. 


To doug, is this the car you tested the N/A cams in?


----------



## StaceyS3 (Sep 22, 2012)

superkarl said:


> You guys must hate us brits with 99 octane and 102 on the continent


Fancy seeing you on here 

As said above their octane ratings are different to ours

Yes I believe it was the same car (frankenTT) that tested all the different cams


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Alright stacey!

Yeh ive just read that your fuels are 4-5 points lower for the same fuel. 
Ours are measured in RON, US are measured as an average if RON + MON/2


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rod Ratio said:


> It's about time you tune this thing to its potential ON PUMP, how most will use it. :beer:





Big_Tom said:


> THIS. I personally am not interested in what people are doing with Race Fuels, W/M, E85, NOS, etc.... 93 octane pump is where it's @ :thumbup:



I completely agree. I cannot figure out why i didn't do this earlier. And I know it's not "technical" to say, but the car feels like...it is happier somehow.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Not really scientific either, but straight 93 is pure, and let's your engine/tune do its job. Any kind of "additive" (aside from specific gasoline octane) gives the engine something else to work on. I mean, if you think about it, at a given boost/RPM combustion will use a specific amount of intake air/fuel mixture - with w/m you can only have that present at the expense of a certain, very small amount of fuel; again at a specific combustion chamber volume. You're gaining a lot with w/m which should offset any theoretical issues you might have but still, less fuel with something else being burned. Yes you will make more power with w/m and really pushing the turbo, but at that point of modification the engine is nearing the bleeding edge of what it can really do on a given setup, and it might simply _feel _like that. You tune for it and it gives better numbers but sometimes small things make a big difference...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

I like diesel fuel personally.. Feels/smells manly:thumbup:


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

Glad to see this guy is back... in for results.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Gwinnett Beat the Heat's Jetta GLI received its martindale cams courtesy of Doug Thursday and next week the V3 Manifold should be in as well from Rich over at XS Power. Props to them for helping out an awesome cause!! I will be starting to tear down the motor next week and get everything installed and hopefully in about a month or so I can start tuning it with my Injector Dynamics 725cc injectors and water meth setup. 

Doug I can't wait to start shooting you numbers and time slips once I start racing!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*93oct testing continues*

The weather here in the NYC area has been pleasantly cool for the last few days. So when the roads are dry enough, the FrankenTT has been getting the boost ramped up.

Here's a look at what the PPD is seeing from the manifold plenum:











And here are the other parameters for the 93octane setup:











So the intake temperatures are clearly a point of concern. But that can be remedied by the Garrett core which Ed at ForceFed has standing by for the car. So otherwise the data all look pretty good. even the Lambda is on the money despite ~90% duty cycles on the 500cc Genesis2 injectors. These newfangled injectors are touted for their high duty cycle flow accuracy, and given the logs I'd have to credit them for that. But what about that 280g/s airflow? Time was, I made the pronouncement that anything over ~260 would bottle up the hot side, hampering top end horsepower. So let's have a look at the ole Time-to-Speed graphs. Here is the latest revision, with higher boost, versus previous.











Uh, oh. It looks as though the top end is starting to suffer a bit. The added 10g/s with this latest file is HURTING, not helping.

For another comparison, here is what the top end at lower boost/airflow looks like:











This configuration of stroked motor, Relentless V3 exhaust manifold, & cams is just not helped by airflows above a critical value. Why? While obviously good (and a screamer under the hood), maybe the manifold just isn't sufficient above that airmass. Regardless, the midrange feels terrific. So I'll duck the top-end boost duty down to 65% or so and focus on the middle part of the power band.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

What rail pressure are you running on the 500 cc genesis II's?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

(only) 4bar. When the car dynoed ~320whp early this year, they were running 5bar pressure.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

i cant see pics or graphs at the mo, but im assuming cranking the boost up the egts are getting silly. Which they must be on a stroker nevermind a 1.8. 

I think saying the limit is the manifold is wrong though, the ko4 hotside is gay, always has been, on all the hybrid builds across the pond. 

I personally think tht on a hybrid the airflows dont always equate to hp. Nick at r-tech and bill get there power through careful mapping and ****e loads of timing rather than boost. Afaik 22-23psi is as much as they'l stretch before the hotside starts to look like the centre of the earth, subsequently making the mani light up more than you'd deem safe. 

Ditch the airflow goals and live map/play on the dyno and see what happens. 
I also think that with ko4s, and hybrids, its not just top end figures that shiuld be sought after, its there quick spool and area under the curve that makes the hybrids great, and the reason i wanted one and followed builds with such interest.

Obv im not so much experienced in this, like you, but ive followed everything there is.
And somewhat might regret not going hybrid one day. Oh well


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

HELL
YEAH​


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> (only) 4bar. When the car dynoed ~320whp early this year, they were running 5bar pressure.


Interesting.. I've always 'thought' that running a smaller injector at a higher rail pressure would yield a finer, better atomized spray..

Do you agree with my train of thought?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I agree. But the G2 injectors don't yet have documentation to show they can handle 5bar of rail pressure plus another ~40psi of manifold pressure, which at one time the car was running. Naturally, this burned out a turbo, and so I lowered the pressure on both systems.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I agree. But the G2 injectors don't yet have documentation to show they can handle 5bar of rail pressure plus another ~40psi of manifold pressure, which at one time the car was running. Naturally, this burned out a turbo, and so I lowered the pressure on both systems.


Why lower the rail pressure though? 

The manifold pressure makes sense to me, but why cut the rail pressure; as it certainly wasn't contributing anything negative to the equation??


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Rod Ratio said:


> Why lower the rail pressure though?
> 
> The manifold pressure makes sense to me, but why cut the rail pressure; as it certainly wasn't contributing anything negative to the equation??


It boils down to my unease at seeing 100psi recorded at the fuel rail under boost. But the data DID show a marginal benefit when running the more-common EV14 550s.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Why is 100 psi of rail pressure such a big deal? My power washer puts out 3500 psi!

Serious question


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Because Scott at USRT couldn't guarantee the injectors would tolerate over 6bar at the rail. It's a moot point, I think. This was back in January. Since that time USRT has enough research on the injectors for them to okay 5bar of base rail pressure. But I'd suggest checking with them to discuss what you intend to do.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here are some more comprehensive logging graphs to show the car's progress on straight 93 octane.

Because we're into winter now, IATs -- at least before boost hits -- are very turbo friendly. But the inadequate intercooler quickly shows its colors, and charge temps are often above 40˚C. 

~270g/s airflows are where they should be, despite modest boost at the top end:











Before engine modifications, it would require over 25psi at redline to achieve these kinds of airflows. With the turbo working less hard, EGTs are greatly improved. Chalk up a win for the Martindales. Let's take a look at how the stats shape up for the current engine versus just before modification:


Airflows:











IATs:











....and finally...EGTs!











That's 100˚C reduction of exhaust gast temperatures. On pump gas versus a 50/50 WMI solution setup. Like I said, chalk one up for the Martindales. But what about powah, you ask? EGT improvements send you straight to sleep, eh? Fine. So first off, here's a comparo of the ignition timing maps for before/after:











Timing at boost onset is now more conservative, which keeps knock at bay, but surprisingly the 93oct fuel is now able to tolerate MORE timing than a WMI-enhanced mixture did beforehand. Fascinating. Is it the AEB head? The cams? The lower EGTs? Or "everything above"? Whatever the explanation, that advantage in timing advance up top completely nullifies the higher airflows posted by the stock motor. So where does this all net out on the test track? Here are the two motors, graphed by Time-to-Speed:











Obviously that stroker motor, with its big-leverage crankshaft, gets off to a rollicking start. So by 3000rpms, it's already over. But let's have a reset of the timespan. If the two pulls are lined up at 4500rpms, right in the range to illustrate peak horsepower, here is how they compare.











It's still the stroker motor -- by a whisker! But that's not to bad for 93 octane and only 16psi of boost at the top end. Now I wonder how it'd compare if the VVT timing was adjusted a bit. Or the fuel rail pressure was upped to 5bar as it was on the stock engine. The FrankenTT might be able to break that 3.00 FATs barrier yet. :thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

So basically, time to remove the WMI? :laugh: :wave:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Stupid question alert...do you know for sure that the WMI pump was working at the time of the data taken above? I ask that because it seems you weren't sure how long the pump had been inop for. What was the final WMI set-up you were running as far as nozzle size and placement goes?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Twopnt016v said:


> ...do you know for sure that the WMI pump was working at the time of the data taken above?


Not a stupid question. Because I don't really know when the PumpTec failed. But those logs for the 1.8T motor were taken way back in last February, when the then-installed Eurodyne pump was working fine.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

I've never used wmi, but if I did I'm not sure that I'd set my tune around it.

If I incorporated it into a build; I would utilize it as a safeguard for extended wide open throttle, flat footed highway blasts, etc. 

End random thought/


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Not a stupid question. Because I don't really know when the PumpTec failed. But those logs for the 1.8T motor were taken way back in last February, when the then-installed Eurodyne pump was working fine.


Gotcha:thumbup:
Sidenote....I picked up the Aquamist DDS3 v10 failsafe and flow monitoring system and it works really great. It shows you the flow rate and has over-range and under range potentiometers that will show if you have blockage in the lines or a leak at a solenoid etc. Plus it does all kinds of other cool safeguard stuff. :thumbup::beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

For the heck of it, I decided to keep increasing boost in the midrange. My hope was to grab a few ticks on the stopwatch and come in under 3.0 FATs. So I upped the N75 duty and ran some logs. Boost:










So boost is plenty up there. ~35psi at the turbo outlet according to the BoostManager sensor. Interestingly, the pressure at the plenum is quite a bit lower. I need to double-check the BoostManager's calibration, and will adjust it if it's off.

Speaking of the BoostManager, here is another graph, showing how fuel pressure keeps up with boost and flow:










The BoostManager has newly introduced the ability to monitor a secondary 0-5v input. It's even able to output the 5v source signal to the sensor, so all you need is a transducer (e.g. pressure or temperature) and plug it right into the BoostManager. In my case, I have opted to re-route the fuel pressure sensor into the BoostManager. I reasoned that the BM was responsible for the fuel pump, so why not have it monitoring the pressures it produces?

Anyway, with boost set so high that I can't even keep the hoses clamped to the piping, here is the airflow.











This graph shows how strong the airflow can be through the range where compressor surge was hellacious on a stock motor. That's a big enhancement in the engine's capacity. Exciting, right? This bad-boy must be ripping in the midrange! Uh...not as much as you'd expect. Look really hard for it in the graph.










Yes, the latest revision is still clobbering the stock motor, but its advantage over a file running 3-4psi less is virtually nil. This is no justification for all the headaches which come from all that boost pressure. So I think Rev167 is the winnah. I'll begin fiddling with VVT and fuel pressure levels off that file.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Excellent results as always! I'm sure once you revisit the intercooler you will get below 3seconds!:beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I decided to take a walk down memory lane to have a look at the car's performance with the Martindale cams versus stock. Originally I was simply interested in compressor surge. I'd remembered it was _improved_ by the enlarged displacement, but not altogether gone. But, when reviewing the old logs I was surprised to see how pronounced it was. Here's a sampling of what the car was doing last March versus now:










Not withstanding the irregularities, it looked as though the airflows through that critical zone were still quite strong. How did the car's Time-To-Speed graphs compare?











Well, well, well. So compressor surge is more than just a turbo-damaging-annoying-sound-under-the-hood. It also trips up the performance. And, I gotta say it: way to go, Martindales. :beer:


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

How much power are you making with this setup?
Have you run it on a track? 1/4 mile times? 

I'd like to see how the 0-60mph / 1/4mile times have improved over stock more than just HP/Tq but both would be interesting. 

This was a HUGE thread without anything but part swapping to alleviate problems that were run into along the way (surge and whatnot)... Is this ever going to become a performance thread?

I'm not trying to be a dick, so don't take this the wrong way. This just seems like a bunch of fluff and marketing for other peoples parts as well as your own (which is totally understandable no fault there). 

Pretty pictures and graphs are just that... pictures and graphs. Let's start seeing some real world performance. I'm sure it would help your cause just as much for people to see the car run a good 1/4mile:wave:


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Aren't you the guy with a multi-page 'build' thread that only has some pretty pictures, an airflow log and some half-assed dyno snapshot?


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

STOICH said:


> Aren't you the guy with a multi-page 'build' thread that only has some pretty pictures, an airflow log and some half-assed dyno snapshot?


 

Really Dick?

Where did you miss the point of my post? 

I'm not comparing mine to his. I'm asking when we are going to see what the outcome of all of this is. This is a guy with a build of his product, all I want to see is how it performs in real life.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

If doug is anything like myself, he is doing what he wants to do and presenting data along the way. In fact, I believe he's stated this before. If you want additional information, simple ask. Don't go into paragraphs about how you're not trying to be a dick, because you typically will end up coming off as one.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

I put that in there so people wouldn't misconstrue what I said as hostile, yet you twisted it. He's given a lot of interesting info, I give him that. I would just like to see after all of this work what it's accomplished.

I care more about what the improvements over stock it's made. stock 0-60mph & 1/4mile more than dyno personally. IF anything the info I'd like to see would only help him.

Also, I LIKE Doug. I've spoken with him many times over the years so I have no malicious intent towards him.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Matt -- don't feel out of line for highlighting the marketing purpose in this thread. Because it definitely has one. Yet I like to think there's also a good amount of worthwhile content for just about anyone planning their build or trying to understand how their car works. But if you're looking for a conclusion, some kind of _TAH-DAHH! we're done!_, well that's contrary to the promotional intent of the thread. Plus, much more relevantly, when is _anyone's_ build done? Honestly, that's an occasion to fear, to dread. Who wants to be left with that? What would we do with ourselves then?


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

I will have alot of performance minded stats in a couple months when I start to drag race my GLI. I told Doug I will be doing dyno tests w/o meth and with. Quarter mile times w/o meth and with. I have started the tear down to install everything for the race season last week. Any logs, dyno or quarter mile times I have, will be forwarded to Doug and posted for everyones reading pleasure.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

If you have to put that in your posts so people don't misconstrue a simply question, that says more about you than anything else.

Let's put that aside. FATs seem to be a decent calc for showing crude improvements along with time to speed. I just don't think Doug is currently all that interested track time until he gets through his curiosity of what works and what doesn't. The info doug is providing vs what you are looking for are on somewhat different playing fields at the moment, which might explain why he hasn't already done it.

This is just my interpretation of his thread and how it's transpired. But it doesn't deserve to be labeled as non-real world results or fluff or marketing; there's plenty of hard data. He's just in another spectrum of 'performance' which doesn't really entail track times. Though, not to say I too wouldn't be interested in track times...


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

STOICH said:


> If you have to put that in your posts so people don't misconstrue a simply question, that says more about you than anything else.
> 
> Let's put that aside. FATs seem to be a decent calc for showing crude improvements along with time to speed. I just don't think Doug is currently all that interested track time until he gets through his curiosity of what works and what doesn't. The info doug is providing vs what you are looking for are on somewhat different playing fields at the moment, which might explain why he hasn't already done it.
> 
> This is just my interpretation of his thread and how it's transpired. But it doesn't deserve to be labeled as non-real world results or fluff or marketing; there's plenty of hard data. He's just in another spectrum of 'performance' which doesn't really entail track times. Though, not to say I too wouldn't be interested in track times...


If you want to know what it says about me it's that I can be very abrasive, I don't sugar coat things and even when I try to be nice it is taken wrong a lot of the time. :wave:


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Another thing that I think Doug is doing is getting his hardware calibrated to get the most *efficient* performing motor as opposed to all out Drag Times while slapping the motor around.

it seems Doug is also building for not only power but for a harmonious combination more than just that variable.:thumbup:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> Another thing that I think Doug is doing is getting his hardware calibrated to get the most *efficient* performing motor as opposed to all out Drag Times while slapping the motor around.
> 
> it seems Doug is also building for not only power but for a harmonious combination more than just that variable.:thumbup:


I agree with you however, it does seem like masturbation without the payoff at times. Information for the sake of information, etc. 

"Mental masturbation" if you will..


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Doug is showing what's what and what gets the most out of a particular setup. 

if someone was going it for 50 trim setups and common garrett setups you'd be all over it.
Doug is doing hardwork and testing for people so they dont have to. For you guys to know what works and what doesnt you have to go balls deep and buy products based on a companies marketing speel and hearsay from other forum users who 9/10 prob no nothing about such items and just spit out what rumour has been created. 

If only all companies did this. Imagine if ppt had a 3071 setup for example, testing and testing and testing to see what will get the most out of your setups, it would be awesome


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

superkarl said:


> Doug is showing what's what and what gets the most out of a particular setup.
> 
> if someone was going it for 50 trim setups and common garrett setups you'd be all over it.
> Doug is doing hardwork and testing for people so they dont have to. For you guys to know what works and what doesnt you have to go balls deep and buy products based on a companies marketing speel and hearsay from other forum users who 9/10 prob no nothing about such items and just spit out what rumour has been created.
> ...


We are all over it and have been since day 1. Don't confuse the request for other information with something else.:wave:


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

DMVDUB said:


> We are all over it and have been since day 1. Don't confuse the request for other information with something else.:wave:


the misinterpretation of your original post has chanfed the direction of the thread.

So moving on....

I would like performance figures too. Just sayin


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

superkarl said:


> Doug is showing what's what and what gets the most out of a particular setup.
> 
> if someone was going it for 50 trim setups and common garrett setups you'd be all over it.


No, no I wouldn't be all over it; regardless of the setup.

For the record, I have chimed in many times on the original thread praising Doug for his 'outside the box' approach; so take your uninformed interpretation of my view of this project, and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Trying new things, extensive experimentation, and exhaustive logging are great. But at the end of the day all of it is 100% pointless without trap speeds, and/or dyno pulls after said changes. Without any verification of progress (ie power/torque gains, movement of the powerband, etc) as he navigates this process; we're all essentially watching nothing here.

Have we all learned something? You bet. Do we know the practical ramifications of all of this theory, and experimentation? Nope..

Mad Max himself has criticized some of the 'change for the sake of change', as well..

Bottom line..

After all of this documented experimentation; does anyone REALLY know how he arrived at where he is, what specific changes have added power, and efficiency, and what hasn't? 

Nope.. Just a ton of mental masturbation, without ever shooting the figurative 'load' B=====D-- - --- -- -


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> Another thing that I think Doug is doing is getting his hardware calibrated to get the most *efficient* performing motor as opposed to all out Drag Times while slapping the motor around.
> 
> it seems Doug is also building for not only power but for a harmonious combination more than just that variable.:thumbup:


Most efficient at what? Dollar/hp?
You throw the word "efficiency" but you give no definition of it.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Rod Ratio said:


> No, no I wouldn't be all over it; regardless of the setup.
> 
> For the record, I have chimed in many times on the original thread praising Doug for his 'outside the box' approach; so take your uninformed interpretation of my view of this project, and stick it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> ...



I see it differently. 

Doug has put forward a lot of “what ifs” that has been on my mind and has saved me many hours of tinkering. What is the most helpful, to me, is his honesty on reporting what doesn’t work and his best theory on why it didn’t. I frequently refer to his old thread to get a perspective on an issue and how his results apply to my project. Lots of time, energy and money have gone into his “mental” work on this thread. Rarely does someone take this kind of time to demonstrate what they are up to.

I get the impression that there is an expectation from some folks that Doug’s thread is a place where they can request a test and he’ll comply. These folks want the information they want in the form they want. When the information isn’t produced, the thread is a failure. This is too high of an expectation. I see his thread as simply another guy doing a build, trying some things out, and reporting on it. I take away what I can from this thread and glad to learn something new.

As for performance measurement, his time-to-speed graphs do tell a story. I’ll admit it took me a while to wrap my head around the idea because, like everyone else, I’m use to trap speeds or dyno charts. But for us daily drivers, the time-to-speed is real life numbers and is a good representation of what we’ll see on the street. Yes, dynos and trap speeds are an easy comparison that we are all use to, but like time-to-speed, they have their own set of errors. 

Besides, one could take his graph, vehicle weight, and a couple of other parameters (tire diameter?) and calculate AWHP and torque. I can’t remember the formulas right now, but a search would bring them up.

So many thanks Doug. 

Someday you will grow tired of feeding this thread. I for one will do not want to see that anytime soon.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Well, speaking of pretty graphs n' pictures, here are some that cover experimentation with the variable valve timing system. In Maestro I locked the VVT solenoid into normal or advanced positions, then ran logs. Here are the resulting boost curves (taken with the BoostManager MAP sensor)











I was amazed to see that advancing the Martindale intake cam did absolutely nothing for boost onset. With that cam rolled into 22˚ of advance throughout the rev range, boost was higher up top, largely due to exhaust gas reversion from the excessive overlap.

Here is an overlay of the airflows. You can see that conditions were virtually identical (IATs), and the airflows closely match as well. It is only at the highest engine speeds that reversion starts hampering air intake.











Lastly, is the venerable Time-to-Speed graph. Just as you'd expect, the top end flags. But it's pretty surprising to see power onset at parity. 











These results really challenge the notion of VVT imbuing performance benefits -- at least on a small turbo on a cammed motor.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

In which gear are these graphs done?
Do you have mph/time? 
Airflow at time of the Rpm/time graphs?

Pleezzzz:wave:


----------



## A55hole (Jan 17, 2013)

Rod Ratio said:


> Nope.. Just a ton of mental masturbation, without ever shooting the figurative 'load' B=====D-- - --- -- -


Agreed.

FATS is a good measurement for when you are road tuning but if you are going to document every little hardware and tune change you do, you might as well dyno it.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

my god. are you sure about that user name...?


----------



## A55hole (Jan 17, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> my god. are you sure about that user name...?


Yes. I'm pretty sure.

The A stands for automatic. I love slushboxes and the 55 stands for 55MPH which is my favorite cruising speed. 

I'm not too sure where I got the hole part from, though.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> In which gear are these graphs done?
> Do you have mph/time?
> Airflow at time of the Rpm/time graphs?
> 
> Pleezzzz:wave:


Have you got an 02M transmission with which to compare? These pulls are ALWAYS done in 3rd gear. That's the standard for FATs.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Have you got an 02M transmission with which to compare? These pulls are ALWAYS done in 3rd gear. That's the standard for FATs.


I don't want to compare mine to yours I'm trying to deduce an average HP number from them. That's all. I also think it'll help me get an idea for an estimate of 1/4mile time as well.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

You want a graph showing time to mph? The PPD logger captures that info. In the meantime, here's a better comparison of the impact of various VVT settings.











NIL


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> You want a graph showing time to mph? The PPD logger captures that info. In the meantime, here's a better comparison of the impact of various VVT settings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes pleez 

I'm just interested in seeing some other numbers, I'd like to see what this setup compares to in stock form (i.e. TT-RS) Its just something I like to know, if you can build a TT with X+X+X and get better performance than a $60K TT-RS or whatever I think it's a pretty cool aspect. Car A cost $15K vs car B that cost $60K and performance compares how?

Understand what I'm getting at? 

I'm not being malicious Doug, I'm probably asking questions others would like to know but just don't.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> Yes pleez
> 
> ... if you can build a TT with X+X+X and get better performance than a $60K TT-RS or whatever I think it's a pretty cool aspect. Car A cost $15K vs car B that cost $60K and performance compares how?
> 
> Understand what I'm getting at?


You bet I do. I've considered that very same cost/benefit scenario. The TTRS has a big K16 turbo and an additional cylinder, though. So I'd rather you guys compare your (imaginary) F23'd Mk4 against the fancy-pants in his new Golf-R.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> You bet I do. I've considered that very same cost/benefit scenario. The TTRS has a big K16 turbo and an additional cylinder, though. So I'd rather you guys compare your (imaginary) F23'd Mk4 against the fancy-pants in his new Golf-R.


That's a better scenario, but I was trying to make a point. Obviously you got the point


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

For the scenario comparing the TTRS, later this year the FrankenTT will be getting a whole 'nother motor. And a cracker-jack big new FrankenTurbo to go along with. 

Who says all the Mk5 & Mk6 guys should be the only ones with 5 cylinders? And who says you can't have TTRS performance on a budget?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> For the scenario comparing the TTRS, later this year the FrankenTT will be getting a whole 'nother motor. And a cracker-jack big new FrankenTurbo to go along with.
> 
> Who says all the Mk5 & Mk6 guys should be the only ones with 5 cylinders? And who says you can't have TTRS performance on a budget?


Oh boy. Somethings up your sleeve and its gonna kill me not knowing.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

I am right there with you. Lol


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

I figured hed follow up an update to the F23 as the F21 did with the F4...


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> For the scenario comparing the TTRS, later this year the FrankenTT will be getting a whole 'nother motor. And a cracker-jack big new FrankenTurbo to go along with.
> 
> Who says all the Mk5 & Mk6 guys should be the only ones with 5 cylinders? And who says you can't have TTRS performance on a budget?


So, my my idea of a F26 Frankenturbo is coming to life?  I've always thought a K16 turbo could become a K16+ (say, around 42-44 lbs/min flow) and shoehorned into a housing that would fit the k04-2x coldside and hotside. 

This would be a great package for those of us that have stroker engines!!


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

That would definately have my attention.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> So, my my idea of a F26 Frankenturbo is coming to life?  I've always thought a K16 turbo could become a K16+ (say, around 42-44 lbs/min flow) and shoehorned into a housing that would fit the k04-2x coldside and hotside.
> 
> This would be a great package for those of us that have stroker engines!!


The F23 is actually already optimized for the 2.0L displacement. And that's why the Mk5 and Mk6 guys are currently testing it for their cars. You see, the "refresh" to the F21 was actually an echo of what we'd done when finalizing the F23: make the wheel bigger and a unique size.

So, no, this K04-02x-based F23 isn't going anywhere but into 1.8T and stroker projects. As for "bigger", I thought my vagueness was nevertheless clear: 2.5 motor. Turbocharged by FrankenTurbo. That's the FrankenTT's next big assignment.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Awesome!! Sounds like some nice power coming their way.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

whaddaya mean, "their"?


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Nevermind. lol It has been a long day here at work.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> The F23 is actually already optimized for the 2.0L displacement. And that's why the Mk5 and Mk6 guys are currently testing it for their cars. You see, the "refresh" to the F21 was actually an echo of what we'd done when finalizing the F23: make the wheel bigger and a unique size.
> 
> So, no, this K04-02x-based F23 isn't going anywhere but into 1.8T and stroker projects. As for "bigger", I thought my vagueness was nevertheless clear: 2.5 motor. Turbocharged by FrankenTurbo. That's the FrankenTT's next big assignment.


Got it! Thanks for the clairification. I do remember the v1 verses the v2 on the F23 now.

Should be an interesting move to the 2.5 with an F23 on board!


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

hows the V3 manifold holding up?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The car continues to do well on the Relentless V3. Well enough, in fact, that we're now offering it as a same-price substitution for our own manifold. Power and performance are definitely there with the V3. The only questions are heat radiation and longevity. For the former, I'd recommend some kind of simple, inexpensive heat shield. For the latter, the car will continue to heat cycle it and generally punish it to expose any manufacturing flaw. Lately, the punishment has come while testing the benefits of increased fuel rail pressures. So the car went through a battery of test runs at an upped fuel rail pressure of 5bar. 

As with the VVT system modifications, I couldn't get the needle to move meaningfully at all: 











This is strange, because the ECU would tolerate increased timing. Here is a comparison of the before/after timing curves with the IATs showing consistent conditions. 











But even though the performance curve hasn't really changed any -- and certainly not to any degree you can feel -- the car has made a certain milestone: 











Can't complain about that. :heart:


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Will the Manifold come with the Ceramic Coating like the FT mani as well? I think this is a HUGE benefit for you doug as you can focus on what FT is really about, Turbos/Cams! haha  

Looking forward for more updates!:wave:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The Relentless V3 is an exact substitute for our ceramic unit. If anyone wants ceramic on the V3, that'd be a $100 extra. But I'd dedicate that money to a heat shield personally.


----------



## 1.8T_Guy (Feb 8, 2011)

Doug, how well has the v3 been holding up?


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

1.8T_Guy said:


> Doug, how well has the v3 been holding up?


 look at 2 posts before you


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

1.8T_Guy said:


> Doug, how well has the v3 been holding up?


 look at 2 posts before you


----------



## 1.8T_Guy (Feb 8, 2011)

jedge1.8t said:


> look at 2 posts before you


 My bad. Thanks.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Catch cans and their use*

FrankenFriend spartiati forwarded this interesting paper to me today. It thoroughly covers the crankcase ventilation system and how catch cans should be properly used. Worth a look for just about anyone modding their cars. 

:thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> FrankenFriend spartiati forwarded this interesting paper to me today. It thoroughly covers the crankcase ventilation system and how catch cans should be properly used. Worth a look for just about anyone modding their cars.
> 
> :thumbup:


 Its a great read. Makes you wonder why our valve covers always leak.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

What's your thoughts on using a exhaust venturi?


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Looks like I will be making some modifications to my catch can setup.


----------



## icarusMK4golf (Sep 30, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> You bet I do. I've considered that very same cost/benefit scenario. The TTRS has a big K16 turbo and an additional cylinder, though. So I'd rather you guys compare your (imaginary) F23'd Mk4 against the fancy-pants in his new Golf-R.


 THIS is what im interested in. can i take my used mk4 gti and ut in some new parts and go faster than a golf-R with out spending as much money on a new car. ( not actually looking or an answer, it was rhetorical) but to me thats the point of upgrading parts and adding something like a FT23. spend less money on a car and end up with better performance than a car that cost 2x as much.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

You will not make a mk4 out perform a golf r no matter what turbo you use. Maybe 1/4 mile with BT but you need a better platform such as a B5 or TT


----------



## icarusMK4golf (Sep 30, 2010)

DMVDUB said:


> You will not make a mk4 out perform a golf r no matter what turbo you use. Maybe 1/4 mile with BT but you need a better platform such as a B5 or TT


 well yea, my point was making a cheaper car compete with a pricier car. and i think a mk4 GTI could if they were awd. the fwd is really the thing holding it back. otherwise you can achieve a similar or better tq/hp to weight ratio. its like what HPA does with R32's( except their R32's are not exactly cheap, but they do keep up with "better" cars)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*FrankenStroker gets the dyno treatment at ForceFed Racing*

Some eye candy for you all: 





 









OK, so another FrankenTurbo dyno in the low 300s. Whatever, right? Well, despite the predictable numbers, there's still some interesting details. First, this is the first time the car has dynoed on plain pump gas. The meth pump is still out of the car. So this gives an interesting opportunity to compare the 2.0L stroker on 93octane versus the stock displacement when on WMI. Here is the latest performance versus two prior dyno sessions with the original 1.8T. 




















So torque onset is faster on the stroked motor -- as you'd expect -- but the top end is no better. The lack of ignition timing possible on WMI is certainly a factor, but even more noticeable is the terrible intake air temperatures while on the rollers: 











So even with lowered turbo duty than previously, IATs are really poor. So if this car is going to be running above 300whp, it needs a better intercooler pronto! 

One other observation about this dyno versus those previously. Taking the Eurodyne Maestro data logs collected while on the rollers, here are the Time-to-Speed comparisons: 











And yet, here are the Times-to-Speed for the car on the street, collected just ahead of each dyno: 











Plenty curious to see how differently things go "in the real world", eh?


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Nice video, the manifold gives off good mood lighting!  Still, is it me or is there wicked DV flutter?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

BadgerBill asked the same question. There is definitely a rapid-paced, staccato sound under boost. But I don't believe it's the DV. It might be a slight leak at the turbo/manifold flange, where there is no gasket. The leak must not impact performance, which seems very good overall.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Sounds like compressor surge to me. Where is your DV ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Gulfstream said:


> Sounds like compressor surge to me. Where is your DV ?


 Airflows are too stable for compressor surge to be occurring. The Maestro high refresh-rate logger would show instability if that were so.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Airflows are too stable for compressor surge to be occurring. The Maestro high refresh-rate logger would show instability if that were so.


 Not my car:


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> Still, is it me or is there wicked DV flutter?


 I actually noted/asked about this earlier in the original thread and was ignored due to all of the other activity/reports going on with the project:screwy:Im also interested to see whats going on :thumbup:opcorn: 

My FrankenDV did the same thing. Swapped it with a different oversize DV and all is well :thumbup:


----------



## corocco (Jul 29, 2001)

That's not compressor surge Gulfstream but your car yelling "I need some gasoline". :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

corocco said:


> That's not compressor surge Gulfstream but your car yelling "I need some gasoline". :laugh:


 All too familiar with compressor surge here. When it's happening, it's audible, as this video from last year illustrates. 





 

But it's also detectable in data logging. Here is a strong example of how it appears in the logs:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

The "surge" that people are referring to (I think) is the flutter dump of the DV when trying to bypass the charge air...and it doesn't sound like it's succeeding :/ ----you might want to check the vac connection to the DV and/or the piston lube.

On another note - the cherry glow of the V3 looks wicked!


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> BadgerBill asked the same question. There is definitely a rapid-paced, staccato sound under boost. But I don't believe it's the DV. It might be a slight leak at the turbo/manifold flange, where there is no gasket. The leak must not impact performance, which seems very good overall.


the chirps on lift off was the noise I was refering to btw..
airflows you posty dont show surge instability you would see with surge,,, "flutter dump" as the other guy said is the noise.. DV not opening, or not opening fast or fully enough..

You do work it very hard boost wise..
no wonder AITs go so high.
We dont run our k04 hybrids that high... 18-22psi max, else they make less power from timing pull, egt's climb, and they dont take timing well.
Yours is a mutant.. lol.. hehe


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

corocco said:


> That's not compressor surge Gulfstream but your car yelling "I need some gasoline". :laugh:


Not my car.

I placed a supersized Forge DV as close as possible to the compressor to avoid this problem. I guess the correct terminology is compressor flutter? DV not opening fast enough/not big enough so you get pressure waves back and forth from TB and compressor outlet. Compressor surge I believe is flow reversal across the compressor. Don't quote me on that...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Well, any day I get to invoke the word "FlutterDump" is a good one, but I'm pretty sure that's not happening in the car. Here's an up-close-and-personal video of the _Diverterinator_.


----------



## Audiguy84 (Nov 14, 2006)

Ummm did no one notice the sparking near the air filter during the first pull???? Whats up with that?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

There's a difference in these videos. Your dyno video (@ the lower timing advance part, with the low-load shifts) definitely shows DV flutter, where as your older video does not (well, not nearly as bad).

I had this problem, and it was solved by: (1) using an independent vac source for the DV and (2) replacing the DV as it was later found to be faulty. 

Not trying to jack your thread here or suggest that you don't know what you're talking about (because that's obviously not true), but your DV is acting up...end of story.

FLUTTER DUMP! :heart:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Doug those are great numbers for the tapering boost, no water meth, pump gas, and insufficient intercooler. Next time you are heading to dyno lmk and I'll tag along.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

suffocatemymind said:


> FLUTTER DUMP! :heart:


I think it boils down to not being troubled by that sound. If this car were a "daily driver" rather than simply a test mule, I'd tinker with the DVs spring preload and re-lubricate it. I'm guessing that's why it sounds different than it did in the video from last year.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Is it a diaphram valve or piston type?

And how big is the intercooler?? 
You need a wellycooler in your life


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

superkarl said:


> Is it a diaphram valve or piston type?
> 
> And how big is the intercooler??
> You need a wellycooler in your life


It's a piston type valve.


----------



## 96AAAjetta (Jul 7, 2008)

Audiguy84 said:


> Ummm did no one notice the sparking near the air filter during the first pull???? Whats up with that?


^ Really curious about this myself.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Audiguy84 said:


> Ummm did no one notice the sparking near the air filter during the first pull???? Whats up with that?


It was the catch can making contact with the positive battery terminal. We bolted the can down better for the second run.



superkarl said:


> Is it a diaphram valve or piston type?
> 
> And how big is the intercooler??
> You need a wellycooler in your life


FFE has a Garrett 400bhp core standing by for the car.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Looking nice Doug. I am going to be adding a second catch can to my setup once I get the battery out and relocated to the trunk. The writeup spartiati posted put me into thinking mode. I can't wait to see what mine will do on ID725's at 4bar.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I think it boils down to not being troubled by that sound. If this car were a "daily driver" rather than simply a test mule, I'd tinker with the DVs spring preload and re-lubricate it. I'm guessing that's why it sounds different than it did in the video from last year.


I tried every preload possible and relived my divwrtinator valve that fluttered and it still did it after endless tinkering so I'm not sure how much better yours will get.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Doug,

Added this thread to my 20v builds thread.

I'll let you handle these answers so they are most accurate:

* Chassis: TT225
* Turbo: 
* Displacement: 
* Software: 
* Injectors: 
* Exhaust Manifold:
* Intake Manifold: 
* Cams: 
* Purpose: 

Thanks,

Greg


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

groggory said:


> Doug,
> 
> Added this thread to my 20v builds thread.
> 
> ...




TT225
F23
1968cc
Eurodyne Maestro and BoostManager
380cc (stock) / 500cc (Genesis2) / 550cc (EV14)
FrankenTurbo / OEM / Relentless V3
SEM
RS4-profile (Martindales)
CASH


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Gulfstream said:


> Not my car.
> 
> I placed a supersized Forge DV as close as possible to the compressor to avoid this problem. I guess the correct terminology is compressor flutter? DV not opening fast enough/not big enough so you get pressure waves back and forth from TB and compressor outlet.


So does that mean a cold side as-close-to-the-TB-as-possible DV is bad? Hot pipe is best? That goes against what I had often heard, where you get better response, colder recirc air, and longer DV life...makes sense considering the length of travel through the piping and intercooler, just not what I'm used to hearing.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

l88m22vette said:


> So does that mean a cold side as-close-to-the-TB-as-possible DV is bad? Hot pipe is best? That goes against what I had often heard, where you get better response, colder recirc air, and longer DV life...makes sense considering the length of travel through the piping and intercooler, just not what I'm used to hearing.


Yeah I have always heard the same thing but it makes you wonder if hot side isn't better. I know a complaint with a lot of those DV coldside relocation kits is a flutter noise. So it may not be better...VW but it closer to the turbo too....


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Twopnt016v said:


> Yeah I have always heard the same thing but it makes you wonder if hot side isn't better. I know a complaint with a lot of those DV coldside relocation kits is a flutter noise. So it may not be better...VW but it closer to the turbo too....


I've had my dv about 12" from the TB for a while and never had any issues


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*1 year of FrankenStroker -- time to check things out*

So we're almost exactly one year since the FrankenStroker parts went into the car, which struck me as a good time to fully inspect the motor and parts. The risqué crank angles on this bad boy will certainly be cause for second guessing here, so I figured "why speculate?" Let's see how the cylinder walls, rings and pistons have held up. That means, well, the motor's gotta come out.

Thar she blows:





























With the BEA engine block out, the car is obviously going nowhere. So Fabian suggested simply grabbing a spare block and pistons out of their used inventory. And I said, "Yeaahhh...and we'll fire in a 9.5:1 ratio AWP with it! So Fabian found a good candidate, and broke it down for incorporation of the FrankenStroker elements. Here's an interesting comparison of the 8.9:1 BEA pistons alongside the 9.5 ones from the AWP. 











Believe it or not, the junky-looking piston on the LEFT is the one going IN the motor. Ever seen something like that on a stroker build? Hehe. But looking past that, it's interesting to see the difference between the two crowns. The lower compression piston definitely has a deeper "dish", which is what accounts for the reduced compression in the TT225 motor.

Fabian has now set about prepping the parts for re-assembly. Here is his work area for the "before" and "after" bottom end parts:











And here is the new crank standing beside the old. Note the crank position sensor trigger wheel has been attached -- and this time welded. No flying off like its predecessor did last summer. The used crank will go off to FFE's machinist to check for warpage or any other fault owing to a year's abuse.




















Lastly, the AEB head with Martindale cams will be restored on top of the AWP block. Fabian tells me that we can plan to turn the key on a 9.5:1 compression FrankenTT this Friday. Very interested to test the change in performance/behavior.

:beer:


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

IMO you probably won't see a performance benefit with a higher CR.
Being that your motor is a stroker is making the turbo more inefficient up top trying to hold all that boost. High IAT's support this fact. Higher IAT's + Higher CR = no performance gain (or maybe even less power).

I have tuned too many of these damn cars so that's my theory based on my experience.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Up all night with Ed and Fabian of FFE. Literally. All night. Drove the car back to FrankenTurbo HQ at day's first light. Car runs and sounds beautifully. Thanks so much to these guys for their diligence and passion. I couldn't recommend a shop more highly. :thumbup:


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Up all night with Ed and Fabian of FFE. Literally. All night. Drove the car back to FrankenTurbo HQ at day's first light. Car runs and sounds beautifully. Thanks so much to these guys for their diligence and passion. I couldn't recommend a shop more highly. :thumbup:


 
Soooo Doug, hows the car, had a chance to log it yet?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

JohnnyLlama said:


> IMO you probably won't see a performance benefit with a higher CR.
> Being that your motor is a stroker is making the turbo more inefficient up top trying to hold all that boost. High IAT's support this fact. Higher IAT's + Higher CR = no performance gain (or maybe even less power).
> 
> I have tuned too many of these damn cars so that's my theory based on my experience.


interesting you say that........
I find quite the opposite

:thumbup:


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

badger5 said:


> interesting you say that........
> I find quite the opposite
> 
> :thumbup:


Do you run massive amounts of boost on K04 hybrids?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

RobbieRolex said:


> Soooo Doug, hows the car, had a chance to log it yet?


It needs a re-think to the crank speed sensor arrangement. With the new crank we restored the internal (OEM-style) system. But it drops signal above 6000rmps. The car will swing back to FFE later this week to re-attach the external wheel. Otherwise, the car sounds terrific. And there's no hint of problems with the raised compression. Here's a look at that:











...and boost at the turbo outlet...











In the graphs you can see where the G28 sensor loses track of the trigger wheel. That's easily solved, though.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> It needs a re-think to the crank speed sensor arrangement. With the new crank we restored the internal (OEM-style) system. But it drops signal above 6000rmps. The car will swing back to FFE later this week to re-attach the external wheel. Otherwise, the car sounds terrific. And there's no hint of problems with the raised compression. Here's a look at that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wonder what the crank trigger wheel issue is? Is it a 1.8t added to that crank or one which would be on the crank normally?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

yeah, it's a puzzler. I tried swapping in a new sensor, which improved things but didn't completely resolve it. I put a boroscope in the sensor hole and started the motor (yes, it starts). The wheel has a bit of run-out, but not excessive.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> yeah, it's a puzzler. I tried swapping in a new sensor, which improved things but didn't completely resolve it. I put a boroscope in the sensor hole and started the motor (yes, it starts). The wheel has a bit of run-out, but not excessive.


anything RF generating running by your crank sensor wires?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

the fuel pump is right there, actually.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The AWP-engined FrankenTT has had a few bugs to work out lately. It lost the Haldex flex joint for the driveshaft, then the ignition coil wiring harness developed a short, and just yesterday the alternator konked out. All three of these problems were easily remedied, but it's just taken time away from road-testing the new motor. 

The alternator swap was surprisingly easy -- even fun. I referred to this DIY before tackling it. 





























In picture #2 you can see the slick method VW/Audi came up with to lock the tensioner out of the way. That combined with the self-adjusting bushings on the alternator bracket made for a very doable project. Once all together, the BoostManager display shows a healthy 14.7 volts. Good stuff.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Ed at ForceFed Engineering has patiently waited for me to allow him to fabricate a proper intercooler to the car. For over a year, we've tinkered with unusual -- and sometimes oddball -- designs. Here are some highlights: 
























































That's a lot of fiddling, eh? So I'll bet you're thinking, "Jeez, does he treat his pets that way too? Always dressing them up in different outfits?" Well, the answer is yes. My cat, Captain Crinkles, is currently an adorable feline take on Toulouse Latrec. So thank you for asking. 

Irrespective of my outside interests, I reasoned it was time to remove a persistent question mark for the build: is the car ever going to get a proper intercooler? And answer is now at hand. Here are some work-in-progress pix of Ed's progress using a Garrett 510hp core: 


OUT, you!! 










New bumper bar 




















Test fit of the core 




















Fabrication of the end tanks 




























































































Machining the inlets 





























Ed also has designed a kind of diffuser for the inlet-side end-tank, which will aid in evenly distributing airflow throughout the 10" high core. I'll post those pix when he sends them.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

"Doug"

Swapping intercoolers FIVE TIMES.....














So you don't have to


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Looking good Doug!!! I cannot wait to see the finished design on this.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Nice! Ed is getting busy! I love fabrication flix. Sidenote...the 14.7 volts is good but really its all about the amperage, not the voltage...


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Thats some interesting setups there Doug.

Larger coolers sometimes have a runner put in on the hotside as you mentioned, here is the Forge big race runner for reference.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)




----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

That is nice!!! When can I order mine? lol


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

Thats some nice welding, what are the dimension of this cooler? and any reason you always seem to favor bar & plate type IC's??

looking good though :beer:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Twopnt016v said:


> Nice! Ed is getting busy! I love fabrication flix. Sidenote...the 14.7 volts is good but really its all about the amperage, not the voltage...


I disagree. You need to be able to push the amps, but higher voltage will do wonders for things like electric pumps


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

groggory said:


> I disagree. You need to be able to push the amps, but higher voltage will do wonders for things like electric pumps


You're kinda coming out of left field with the fuel pump comment. Doug was having alternator problems and was also showing he had a nifty display that showed battery voltage. My comment was in reference to those two things. Showing you have 14.7 volts proves absolutely nothing when it comes to the state of the health of the alternator or the vehicles charging system. More times than not the alternator will put out voltage but will fail to put out proper amperage especially when loaded. Its nice to have a volt meter present to monitor voltage but when it comes to testing a failing alternator you are typically looking at amperage. Sure you can do a quick test with a voltmeter but you really need and amp clamp to get to the bread and butter and do a proper diagnosis. This is exactly why autozone always tells people there alternator is ok when its really not. They normally just look at voltage not amperage and they rarely load test anything...properly.:beer:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Cheers! I am behind on this thread.

I agree with you 100%.

Just sayin, assuming you can support the current, more voltage to the pump is a good thing.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)




----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

how do i get one of these? ........ .......... Ive been checking the eurodyne site regularly for it to be added.










cars looking great, i really dig the hand turned boost tube ends.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

That setup looks real nice Doug. I am sure it will perform as good as it looks. :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

FX350 clutch and flywheel goes in now as well. This is their newfangled design which is supposed to eradicate chatter. We shall see...





























And we're going to test a new manifold -- I call it a "China-fold" for self-explanatory reasons:






































From the factory it has a smallish outlet dimension and really bulky dividers for flow direction. Ed and I hated them and we're machining them out.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Hopefully that setup works out better then the other one you had. The exhaust manifold looks chinesish.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

It's Asian man. Lets be politically correct here! :laugh:

Doug, everything is looking very nice sir!:beer:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

doug.. have you also opened up runner #4?
Seen also how much its obstructed vs what it could be opened up to?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> doug.. have you also opened up runner #4?
> Seen also how much its obstructed vs what it could be opened up to?


I don't follow you. Runners #3 & #4 merge upstream of the collector. Are you talking about the inlet side of the manifold?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I don't follow you. Runners #3 & #4 merge upstream of the collector. Are you talking about the inlet side of the manifold?


I think he is talking about inside the collector. It looks like the "Y" diverter wasn't cut down enough to unshroud the runner(s).


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Rod Ratio said:


> It's Asian man. Lets be politically correct here! :laugh:


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

Is that the "Asian" made JBS knockoff? Im very interested!


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I don't follow you. Runners #3 & #4 merge upstream of the collector. Are you talking about the inlet side of the manifold?


no dude.. runner #4 is box side
Its very obstructed if you look at the lump of cast viewed thru the collector.
runners #1,#2 share, which is why #2 misfires as std supplied form... way too much flow/backpressure for the available exit in the stock collector.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> no dude.. runner #4 is box side
> Its very obstructed if you look at the lump of cast viewed thru the collector.
> runners #1,#2 share, which is why #2 misfires as std supplied form



Before











After











...and don't call me "Dude".


----------



## Three3Se7en (Jul 2, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> ...and don't call me "Dude".


:laugh:

Are the intercooler pipes threaded? Genius.


----------



## nomomk3 (Jun 9, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> ...and don't call me "Dude".


dang sh*t just got real. lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

they're not threaded, but machined with annular serrations so the clamps have a lot of grip. Here is the machining work Ed did to create the pieces:











He machined a good 12" length of it at once, then cut it up to create several individual sections, which he then welded onto the piping ends.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> ...and don't call me "Dude".





nomomk3 said:


> dang sh*t just got real. lol



Sure. And I'll bet Bill is sitting at his computer, going "Ohhhhhhh, SNAP!"


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

A couple more shots of the FFE intercooler:


Looking inside the inlet at the vanes for flow diffusion:




















Mounted on the car and prepping the charge piping:


----------



## mk4boost (Jul 31, 2010)

really nice intercooler setup, not something the tt is set up for from the factory (as you know already!)


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> ...and don't call me "Dude".


Seriously?? :screwy:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


>


The area I was referring to was at the 2 o'clock area on runner #4


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Would it be beneficial to have a vane at the outlet side as well? Just curious. I've never seen that...love the idea of it.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Sure. And I'll bet Bill is sitting at his computer, going "Ohhhhhhh, SNAP!"


you lost me Doug..
this translation of english thing has some bugs me thinks??


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

suffocatemymind said:


> Would it be beneficial to have a vane at the outlet side as well? Just curious. I've never seen that...love the idea of it.


Its some I've employed since 2002 on my intercooler.. Helps even up the end tank flow distribution.. is the idea behind it. Worked for mine. Nice touch.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

badger5 said:


> you lost me Doug..
> this translation of english thing has some bugs me thinks??


Doug was referencing an old VW commercial with a German Scientist that says , " oh snap."


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> The area I was referring to was at the 2 o'clock area on runner #4


I get it now. The #3 & #4 runners merge and then let out into a single cell in that chambered collector. In this picture their outlet is the one at 7 o'clock. 











That's counterintuitive. Why don't they get the biggest chamber? Well, I am going to punch an EGT probe right into that worrisome spot and we'll see if there's a problem.

One early good sign: I logged the car up to the 270's (g/s) without any hint of misfire or complaint. But the real test is to see if power is upped when crossing the 260g/s "sweet spot" of the earlier manifolds. Speaking of earlier manifolds, here's the Relentless. Battle-scarred but still intact.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

groggory said:


> Doug was referencing an old VW commercial with a German Scientist that says , " oh snap."


lol.

missed than one haha :thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I get it now. The #3 & #4 runners merge and then let out into a single cell in that chambered collector. In this picture their outlet is the one at 7 o'clock.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that relentless looks a bit "cooked" - lol

I have same jbs manifold here which is what I am comparing to. As supplied it caused misfires on cyl #2, on 2 cars... both hybrids, both breaking up with cyl misfires at high rpms

Sounds promising yours is not doing that at least with your v.good airflows.

Its runners which share are cyl #1,#2 tho Doug.. not #3,#4 as you refer to it. #1 @ cambelt end


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> As supplied it caused misfires on cyl #2, on 2 cars... both hybrids, both breaking up with cyl misfires at high rpms


So with a firing order like this: 1-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1* ....

I wonder why it's #2 that's having backpressure problems. I'd expect #1 to be the one getting backed up.


----------



## Audiguy84 (Nov 14, 2006)

I suspect its b/c after 4 has fired and the runner is longer that when 2 is firing its merging with 4. No??


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> So with a firing order like this: 1-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1*-3-4-*2-1* ....
> 
> I wonder why it's #2 that's having backpressure problems. I'd expect #1 to be the one getting backed up.


to me its the firing order and cylinders on adjacent strokes..... It happens at high rpms this break up in my experience... so the event timing at these high revs is just miliseconds... Imagine how slow to react a pressurised hot gas system will be where cyl 1 and 2 exhaust events are getting closer and closer together time wise as revs rise, and factor in both cylinders will be getting more back pressure thru the overly small exit into the collector area, cyl 2 is the shorter of the 2 runners in the merge, so the exhaust gases which are trying to get out, cannot, and misfires occur..


----------



## leonardodecappiccuno (Oct 17, 2008)

Some good pointers in this thread guys

Regards Lenny


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here's a pic of the new, upper charge pipe from the turbo.











...and another that Ed posted to his Instragram.











Also, while the front end was off, we upgraded the radiator and swapped in a replacement for a broken fan.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

How come you didnt wrap the charge pipe down and around the block out of view? Same amount of fab work..


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> How come you didnt wrap the charge pipe down and around the block out of view? Same amount of fab work..


I think the dp would prevent you from routing the pipe that way.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

how much for the FMIC if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

18T_BT said:


> how much for the FMIC if you don't mind me asking?


I don't have a good handle on that, actually. This was a one-off undertaking for Ed (which he specializes in) but he didn't give me an "true" price for the work. I asked him about it -- anticipating questions like yours -- but didn't get a firm estimate. ForceFed Engineering's fabrication work is really high-end quality. So you need to understand that comes at a cost.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I totally understand Doug. I know Ed from years ago and his fabrication skills are excellent. I was merely curious. Even if you make a jig for FMIC's to produce more than one of, it's still costly due to time and effort.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

looking good doug.
Is your charge pipe 63mm or 70mm now?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> Is your charge pipe 63mm or 70mm now?


It's 2.5" throughout. Which kind of makes the 3" throttle body a bit irrelevant. Perhaps the enlarged orifice still brings something to the party, but I doubt it does much.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> It's 2.5" throughout. Which kind of makes the 3" throttle body a bit irrelevant. Perhaps the enlarged orifice still brings something to the party, but I doubt it does much.


I disagree. 3" tb is still a win.

However, you could taper your 2.5" to 3" if you wanted the smoothest transition.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I don't understand this hoopla about TB's?

Most have been dyno proven to show sub 5hp gains for the TB alone. So, if you make 420hp and now you have 415 or 425, is that really a huge difference? 


I have seen plenty of power being made on stock 65mm TB's. For instance, most b-series TB stock were 60mm IIRC, they upgraded to 65mm only to match IC piping size, the difference in HP was reasonably negligible.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

18T_BT said:


> I don't understand this hoopla about TB's?
> 
> Most have been dyno proven to show sub 5hp gains for the TB alone. So, if you make 420hp and now you have 415 or 425, is that really a huge difference?
> 
> ...


I thought Issam's TB test thread from a couple years ago settled this stuff pretty nicely.


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

There is not much to gain by switching to very large TB. The pressure drop, or "restriction," through a wide-open butterfly valve at 2.5" diameter isn't much different than the dP through a 3" diameter pipe. We're talking about a section of the charge system that is less than 6" in length, so the marginal reduction in friction loss is negligible. The Cv, or major "loss coefficient," on a wide-open butterfly valve is almost naught.

Oversized TBs yield very little gain for the cost and effort. Essentially, you want to port-match the TB diameter to whatever piping diameter you are using.

On the other hand, you may actually notice a loss in flow if you have a rapid transition from a smaller diameter charge pipe because the loss from the transition fitting will likely more than offset the marginal reduction in loss from a larger TB.



18T_BT said:


> I don't understand this hoopla about TB's?
> 
> Most have been dyno proven to show sub 5hp gains for the TB alone. So, if you make 420hp and now you have 415 or 425, is that really a huge difference?
> 
> ...


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Nateness said:


> There is not much to gain by switching to very large TB. The pressure drop, or "restriction," through a wide-open butterfly valve at 2.5" diameter isn't much different than the dP through a 3" diameter pipe. We're talking about a section of the charge system that is less than 6" in length, so the marginal reduction in friction loss is negligible. The Cv, or major "loss coefficient," on a wide-open butterfly valve is almost naught.
> 
> Oversized TBs yield very little gain for the cost and effort. Essentially, you want to port-match the TB diameter to whatever piping diameter you are using.
> 
> On the other hand, you may actually notice a loss in flow if you have a rapid transition from a smaller diameter charge pipe because the loss from the transition fitting will likely more than offset the marginal reduction in loss from a larger TB.


Makes sense...but what about this?

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4690902-TECH-TEST-1-OF-3-Throttle-Body-Sizing


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

groggory said:


> Makes sense...but what about this?
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4690902-TECH-TEST-1-OF-3-Throttle-Body-Sizing



Like everything I take it with a grain of salt, how can HP fall by 9hp from a 60 to 65mm TB? He says the 65mm creates a choke @ 7,000rpm BUT then says the 60mm at 6900rpm it was like hitting a brick wall? But somehow the 60mm throttle body makes 9 more HP?

That exercise was nice and all, but from watching real world experience and many other makes beside VW make plenty of power on 65mm throttle bodies, I attribute these inconsistencies to the reducer/spacers used in these tests and whatever adjustments that may have been made to the ECU's.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

18T_BT said:


> Like everything I take it with a grain of salt, how can HP fall by 9hp from a 60 to 65mm TB? He says the 65mm creates a choke @ 7,000rpm BUT then says the 60mm at 6900rpm it was like hitting a brick wall? But somehow the 60mm throttle body makes 9 more HP?
> 
> That exercise was nice and all, but from watching real world experience and many other makes beside VW make plenty of power on 65mm throttle bodies, I attribute these inconsistencies to the reducer/spacers used in these tests and whatever adjustments that may have been made to the ECU's.


So you're saying only the biggest, baddest, meanest builds should think about throttle bodies larger than 65mm. You honestly make a good point and your logic is sound.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

groggory said:


> So you're saying only the biggest, baddest, meanest builds should think about throttle bodies larger than 65mm. You honestly make a good point and your logic is sound.


I am saying that it should be optimized for IC/piping size to TB size. If your intercooler and piping are 70mm then so should your TB. If all is 65mm then do that. For 500hp and lower 65mm is plenty. Consider how much more flow other makes have like Honda/Evo etc. They somehow run 65mm TB making lots of good power. Let's not re-create the wheel and spend money other places. We already have to make 'custom' parts since our aftermarket isn't that big. I mean, look at this thread. Doug is doing a great job and sorry if I am de-railing your thread, I'll stop now.


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

Well said. I also agree with your comments regarding the data presented in the TB comparison thread. The fundamentals of larger TB = more flow = more power are sound. However, to your point, the magnitude of the potential gain is quite small. I say "potential" gain because this assumes that the piping and fittings of the larger TB are conducive to reduced resistance to flow. The piping/air transport system must be evaluated holistically, which I believe Doug has done a great job of in his progress thus far.



18T_BT said:


> I am saying that it should be optimized for IC/piping size to TB size. If your intercooler and piping are 70mm then so should your TB. If all is 65mm then do that. For 500hp and lower 65mm is plenty. Consider how much more flow other makes have like Honda/Evo etc. They somehow run 65mm TB making lots of good power. Let's not re-create the wheel and spend money other places. We already have to make 'custom' parts since our aftermarket isn't that big. I mean, look at this thread. Doug is doing a great job and sorry if I am de-railing your thread, I'll stop now.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

groggory said:


> I thought Issam's TB test thread from a couple years ago settled this stuff pretty nicely.


I remember this...great thread :thumbup:


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

groggory said:


> I thought Issam's TB test thread from a couple years ago settled this stuff pretty nicely.


:thumbup:
Focusing on throttle response and area under the curve is much more rewarding that peak HP numbers. When Volkswagen designs motors , they design them as systems to cover all aspects of what the end user wants in a vehicle. By doing what we (we as in the 0.0001% of people in the world that modify these motors) do , we change that system. Adding turbocharger that flow double what the OEM one does , adding a few degrees of timing etc. 
You show me a 1.8T making 400hp on a stock 60mm throttle body and I will find you one making 500hp on a 40mm throttle body (Skoda WRC). When you compare a 400hp 1.8T w/60mm throttle body to a 400hp 1.8T w/70mm throttle body , the power curve w/ the engine that has the larger throttle body is just healthier. 
This has been beaten to death though.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

I sold the 80mm Hemi I got with the SEM for an S4 70mm, actually made money :laugh: Issam's thread was the reason as well, if I was going over a 2867 I would have kept it...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

18T_BT said:


> ... sorry if I am de-railing your thread, I'll stop now.





INA said:


> ...the power curve w/ the engine that has the larger throttle body is just healthier.
> This has been beaten to death though.



For a good number of people reading these forums nowadays, this subject is a new one. Certainly there's a fair number of people who believe an enormous Dodge Hemi throttle body is something appropriate for a moderate build. But these people would find good company in the crowd of people for whom throttle body mods are an intimidating novelty. After a year of running an RS4-spec 75mm one courtesy of INA, I'm still learning how to take advantage of it. But I'm glad to have it.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

INA said:


> :thumbup:
> Focusing on throttle response and area under the curve is much more rewarding that peak HP numbers. When Volkswagen designs motors , they design them as systems to cover all aspects of what the end user wants in a vehicle. By doing what we (we as in the 0.0001% of people in the world that modify these motors) do , we change that system. Adding turbocharger that flow double what the OEM one does , adding a few degrees of timing etc.
> You show me a 1.8T making 400hp on a stock 60mm throttle body and I will find you one making 500hp on a 40mm throttle body (Skoda WRC). When you compare a 400hp 1.8T w/60mm throttle body to a 400hp 1.8T w/70mm throttle body , the power curve w/ the engine that has the larger throttle body is just healthier.
> This has been beaten to death though.



All pretty Moot point..... given how me7.5 controls throttle angle vs torque request
Your presumption is wot and part throttle are on dbc and not dbw on me7.5 which does not have 1:1 pedal:throttle

WOT for WOT fair comparison.. Area under the curve on part throttle etc etc... Not a relevant comparison when on me7.5


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)




----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

badger5 said:


> All pretty Moot point..... given how me7.5 controls throttle angle vs torque request


Which is a moot point considering we are focusing on surface area across the throttle plate not throttle angle and at WOT the throttle plate is cracked almost 80% open.
80% of 3318 mm2 > 80% of 2827 mm2 

To see these posts some 3.5 years later after the test was done get torn down publically on vwvortex is a bit dishearting since the test was not free by any means and was to only benefit the community. 

What did INA gain? The ability to manufacture adapter plates (like other vendors) for the community to use various sized throttle bodies. Anyone with a CNC mill and autocad could do the same.It just helps that we stock various sized DBW throttle bodies. 

I have told numerous people that if they think the results are in anyway biased , feel free to collect your own throttle bodies and produce your own data. The test was done in DECEMBER 2009. We are in April 2013 and no one has come forward with there own independent data.I guess it is easier to discredit a legitimate test than to actually produce the relevant data.


[email protected] said:


> After a year of running an RS4-spec 75mm one courtesy of INA, I'm still learning how to take advantage of it. But I'm glad to have it.


Glad you could make use of it.:thumbup:
My apologies for the thread derail. Carry on:beer:


----------



## ausredliner (Oct 20, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> For a good number of people reading these forums nowadays, this subject is a new one.


That applies to me.
Recently bought a VW and have been following this thread in detail. Dougs development has influenced my build, f23. 
Learning heaps from these discussions, particularly picking the correct components to maximise the build. Keep up the good work Doug.

p.s. Why did you try a different manifold to the Relentless?


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

He has used the Relentless manifold on the TT. Good results too. It flowed nicely. That is the exhaust manifold that I am going to be using with my setup, but I have been contemplating something neat for next year. A compund F21/F23 setup with the Relentless. I have read INA's TB thread numerous times and it has helped me with the decision on what I wanted to run and how I wanted to run it.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> ...we are focusing on surface area across the throttle plate not throttle angle and at WOT the throttle plate is cracked almost 80% open.
> 80% of 3318 mm2 > 80% of 2827 mm2
> 
> My apologies for the thread derail. Carry on:beer:



Again, not a thread derail by any stretch. So about this 80%: are you saying that these throttle bodies at WOT have a 20% restriction? In the case of the FrankenTT, which is running your 75mm unit:











The inside dimension of the throttle housing is 70mm. That makes it 3848mm of surface area. But is the functional maximum 20% less than that? If so, this is a major consideration for sizing the TB against the charge piping feeding it.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Again, not a thread derail by any stretch. So about this 80%: are you saying that these throttle bodies at WOT have a 20% restriction? In the case of the FrankenTT, which is running your 75mm unit:
> 
> The inside dimension of the throttle housing is 70mm. That makes it 3848mm of surface area. But is the functional maximum 20% less than that? If so, this is a major consideration for sizing the TB against the charge piping feeding it.


Doug that is the 70mm unit (go based on the throttle plate diameter , not the OD). I am saying that @ WOT the throttle plate is not 100% cracked open to the point where the throttle plate is perpendicular to the throttle body housing so yes this is a major consideration when considering charge pipe feeding.
Most charge pipes are 2 to 2.5" OD. 
2.50" 16g (0.0598" wall thickness) Aluminum piping = 60.5mm
2.75" 16g Aluminum piping = 67mm
3.00" 16g Aluminum piping = 73mm

What I would love to see is some back to back testing between a 2.5" OD charge pipe with a 2.5" to 3" silicone couple vs a 2.5" to 3" aluminum transition followed by approx 2" of 3" straight followed by a 3" silicone coupler attached to that throttle body or even 2.75" in that same configuration. That would be something I am interested in.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Issam Abed said:


> Which is a moot point considering we are focusing on surface area across the throttle plate not throttle angle and at WOT the throttle plate is cracked almost 80% open.
> 80% of 3318 mm2 > 80% of 2827 mm2


Let me quote YOUR own words back at you below so My Comment Makes Sense to you.



> Focusing on throttle response and area under the curve is much more rewarding that peak HP numbers


That is the point of 'Moot point'.... and Me7.5 throttle control is Very relevant to this statement.
WOT vs WOT is simple surface area difference.. and repeatable.

Understanding how me7 manages the throttle is significant to the throttle response/area under the curve statement.... Thats my point in case that was not 100% clear.

No discrediting of anything so wind your neck in Issam


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> What I would love to see is some back to back testing between a 2.5" OD charge pipe with a 2.5" to 3" silicone couple vs a 2.5" to 3" aluminum transition followed by approx 2" of 3" straight followed by a 3" silicone coupler...


Well, up to now the FrankenTT has had a lengthy section of 3" piping feeding that throttle body. Here's what Ed fabricated:











At actuator pressure, I recorded this pressure drop between MAP sensors on either side of that 70mm throttle:











With the piping now sized at 2.5" straight into the TB, I can measure to see if there's a difference.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> At actuator pressure, I recorded this pressure drop between MAP sensors on either side of that 70mm throttle:


That was on your old setup right?

The data with your new pipe is still to come right?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm an idiot. No. That graph is taken from the setup with the new FFE intercooler and the BoostManager sensor getting signal from the same location as the OEM MAP sensor. I'll need to compare the BM sensor's accuracy versus the car's own one to see if they agree.

My recollection from previous logging was a ~2psi pressure drop between those two locations. I've always thought that to be oddly high, but it must be owing to performance characteristics of the sensors or other factors. I can't believe the throttle body would be causing it.


----------



## VW indahouse (Feb 25, 2012)

Issam Abed said:


> Doug that is the 70mm unit (go based on the throttle plate diameter , not the OD). I am saying that @ WOT the throttle plate is not 100% cracked open to the point where the throttle plate is perpendicular to the throttle body housing so yes this is a major consideration when considering charge pipe feeding.
> Most charge pipes are 2 to 2.5" OD.
> 2.50" 16g (0.0598" wall thickness) Aluminum piping = 60.5mm
> 2.75" 16g Aluminum piping = 67mm
> ...


Is anyone going to take up Issam's testing challenge for the sake of moving the 1.8t community forward?


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

VW indahouse said:


> Is anyone going to take up Issam's testing challenge for the sake of moving the 1.8t community forward?


Noone will..

Issam took a lot of time, money, and effort to do that test. I highly doubt that anyone else will put their money where their keyboard is, and step up to the plate..


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I thought the research done in '09 was pretty persuasive. That combined with the common-sense idea that the throttle body's restrictive nature mandates "up-sizing" was enough for my testing purposes.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I thought the research done in '09 was pretty persuasive. That combined with the common-sense idea that the throttle body's restrictive nature mandates "up-sizing" was enough for my testing purposes.


:beer:


----------



## VW indahouse (Feb 25, 2012)

Absolutely was, and I applaud Issam for that but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about different intercooling pipe diameters mated to the different diameter TB's. 

Exactly as Issam posted 

"What I would love to see is some back to back testing between a 2.5" OD charge pipe with a 2.5" to 3" silicone couple vs a 2.5" to 3" aluminum transition followed by approx 2" of 3" straight followed by a 3" silicone coupler attached to that throttle body or even 2.75" in that same configuration. That would be something I am interested in."


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

VW indahouse said:


> Absolutely was, and I applaud Issam for that but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about different intercooling pipe diameters mated to the different diameter TB's.
> 
> Exactly as Issam posted
> 
> "What I would love to see is some back to back testing between a 2.5" OD charge pipe with a 2.5" to 3" silicone couple vs a 2.5" to 3" aluminum transition followed by approx 2" of 3" straight followed by a 3" silicone coupler attached to that throttle body or even 2.75" in that same configuration. That would be something I am interested in."


Soooo, you're proposing a test using 3x the variables that issam used..

Sounds legit. Got a few grand to blow buddy?


----------



## VW indahouse (Feb 25, 2012)

Ease up Rod, no ones asking you to measure you **** to forehead ratio.

I'm just a consumer not a tuner, workshop, manufacturer or vendor. And if passionate people like Bill, Issam and Doug never conducted any tests like this we wouldn't have modified cars now would we. 

I follow Bill on facebook and he's always running dyno proven tests on just about everything he gets his hands on and being a good bloke that he is he passes on that info for the betterment of the community. Just look at the great stuff in this thread from Doug.

Just saying I also would like to see the tests Issam has proposed because the topic just came up with my tuner here in OZ.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

VW indahouse said:


> I'm talking about different intercooling pipe diameters mated to the different diameter TB's.


The FrankenTT has been set up in a number of different ways, including both layouts Issam defined. I'd just have to figure out a way to compare data. But I still like the notion of speccing a TB that's one size bigger than the pipe feeding it.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

VW indahouse said:


> Ease up Rod, no ones asking you to measure you **** to forehead ratio.
> 
> I'm just a consumer not a tuner, workshop, manufacturer or vendor. And if passionate people like Bill, Issam and Doug never conducted any tests like this we wouldn't have modified cars now would we.
> 
> ...




Issam wasn't proposing a damn thing. He basically said "put up or shut up chump; I've already dumped a ton of time, money, and effort into what was already done"..

YOU are the one begging for others to spend tons of time, cash, etc to further test something for your BS curiosity on some Internet forum. YOU insulted issam's extensive testing, and now have the nerve to try to turn it around on me!?

Look in the mirror n00b


----------



## VW indahouse (Feb 25, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> The FrankenTT has been set up in a number of different ways, including both layouts Issam defined. I'd just have to figure out a way to compare data. But I still like the notion of speccing a TB that's one size bigger than the pipe feeding it.


Thanks mate, I hope you find a way and keep up the good work! 

I'm off to go self harm in the shame I only have a fraction of big Rod's total posts.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

VW indahouse said:


> I'm off to go self harm in the shame I only have a fraction of big Rod's total posts.


Pretty sad; considering my old username had over 15k posts


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The FrankenTT has been set up in a number of different ways, including both layouts Issam defined. I'd just have to figure out a way to compare data. But I still like the notion of speccing a TB that's one size bigger than the pipe feeding it.


Next time I rejig our little lupo 1.8t I'll add a pipe pre TB to measure pressure before/after the body for curiosity. We have a 70mm body around here to compare to std.. I wont likely be playing with feed pipes as the 63mm it already has is adequate for its hybrid K0x turbos it runs


----------



## joshp912 (Dec 17, 2005)

Can the audi 225 20mm rods handle the f23? I found a good deal on some


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

if you are gonna put rods in, might as well do it right the 1st time and go with something proven strong. Plus $499 for Brand New IE rifle drilled rods is worth it in the long run:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Sorry to not be posting into the thread lately. We've been pretty distracted by the launch of our F23 variant for the 2.0 engines. But I'm not selling out!! The FrankenTT has plenty to do yet, and I hope to be littering this board with updates soon. 

Also: forget TT225 rods. They're no better than what you've got now.


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Yea, go with a nice forged set like DM Forged. Thats what I a using with my Mahle Power-Pak pistons. I hope to be littering the forum with tests and results soon too.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

subd


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*new intercooler, new testing*











Haven't seen much of this guy around these parts, lately, eh? Well nevertheless we've been busy enough with testing. Last month Ed Woolsey at FFE fabricated and installed a proper front mount intercooler. Sporting a Garrett core, it's 100% American-made (Eee-gads!!). Here's a second look at that work-in-progress:











So what's the use of an expensive new intercooling system if you can't test it and graph the results? Well, zero obviously. So luckily the good folks at Supreme Technology Engineering have supplied us with some new functionality for their PPD display/logger gizmo. All's that was required was a reflash of the unit's firmware:





























The new and improved PPD can now be configured for temperature measurements on any scale. The parameter gets labeled "EGTs" but the temperature gamut can be set to whatever suits your data source. In this case, we wanted some info on charge air temperatures at the turbo outlet. So the good ole Auber gauges we've been using throughout this process can now feed analog data right to the PPD's inputs. Configuration of the Auber gauge for degrees celcius was a simple matter of setting it to the same 250 = 5v value as in the PPD's software:




















With everything buttoned back up, here's a look at the in-dash display of this new data.











Pretty much spot-on; so with the calibration process done we can move on to seeing how effective this new intercooler is (and to answer your inevitable questions now, I _am_ available for hand-modeling work; but mind you: I don't get out of bed for less than $40/week)


The first impression of this new charge air system: holy cow does it allow some terrific responsiveness! The car -- even with its 95.5mm stroker -- has never before spooled like this. Here's an early log while dialing in boost control:











By 2500rpms, the boost is bang on at 10psi. So from a roll the car feels strong already. But what does 10psi at 2500rpms really compare to? Well, if you were to graph the airflows of this engine at a steady 10psi of boost against, say, a 3.2L displacement, you'd get something like this:










So the vaunted low-end torque of an R32 engine isn't really _all that_. Sure, it pulls away at the top end -- that 32v-fueled volumetric efficiency has to do some good -- but the 10psi of forced induction nevertheless keeps things competitive.

Irrespective of boost onset, let's get down to the nitty gritty: does the new intercooler, well, _cool_? With sensors at the turbo outlet and in the intake manifold, here's the scorecard:











With the turbo running a healthy 20-25psi of boost, there's an obvious temperature penalty at the turbo outlet. But how does that intercooler handle it? Nicely! So even though the new system flows better, it nevertheless cools very, very well. I guess FFE and Garrett kind of know what they're doing!

So with this testing done, next up is evaluating the exhaust system's back-pressure performance. More on that shortly.

:beer:


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

Looking good Doug!! Keep up the awesome work!!!


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Fantastic results! I may need to look into a better core and piping in the future.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Steve you dawg! Get the heck outta here! You should be having fun abroad! :laugh:

Glad to see some updates doug! Really intrigued about the new hardware you are developing:thumbup:


----------



## Beat the Heat (Apr 4, 2005)

I am really looking forward to see how my core and piping works out with the Garrett 500hp and custom piping from Pag Parts. This makes me smile just thinking about it.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

My IAT goes down at boost... without meth... Why yours go up???


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> My IAT goes down at boost... without meth... Why yours go up???


What IC set-up are you running?

edit...nevermind, i see your sig..


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

DMVDUB said:


> My IAT goes down at boost... without meth... Why yours go up???


That GTT spits out ice?!


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

suffocatemymind said:


> That GTT spits out ice?!


 Lol! I don't get it maybe my check valve is bed???


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

DMVDUB said:


> My IAT goes down at boost... without meth... Why yours go up???


This is because you've likely been riding around town slow and heat has built up in the IC. When you do your first pull it will decrease iat drastically. Consecutive pulls will show less of a temp decrease and more likely a temp increase.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> My IAT goes down at boost... without meth... Why yours go up???


Look to the blue line for air temperatures at the intake plenum. The trend-line with escalating temps is for the turbo outlet.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

spartiati said:


> This is because you've likely been riding around town slow and heat has built up in the IC. When you do your first pull it will decrease iat drastically. Consecutive pulls will show less of a temp decrease and more likely a temp increase.


Makes sense  Spartiati for the win again :beer:

Thanks for the explanation Doug, I was all WTF!?! my snail is doing something impossible or my check valve is busted.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

So as I promised earlier, the FrankenTT has been pressed into the service of exhaust back-pressure testing. Taking some pointers from turbo-diesel guys, I identified the unused (shhhhh!) rear O2 bung as a good place for a sensor. So I jury-rigged a sensor port by machining out a block-off plug with NPT threads. To that, I'd attach a stainless braided line to act as a standoff for the heat-sensitive MAP sensor:











Then I took the assembly under the car for fitment:




















With the sensor in, I turned to the Eurodyne BoostManager for monitoring and logging. Chris Tapp at Eurodyne has recently updated their hardware, so he sent me the latest model. Here is new with the original (at right).











The BoostManager software needed to be reconfigured as well. Typically it is monitoring fuel pressure, which employs a 10bar sensor. But the exhaust sensor is an absolute-pressure 7bar unit, so BoostManager's settings had to be changed to suit:











With the software set up, the MAP sensor's signal is now presented in the BoostManager's gauge cluster. You can see the value under "AUX" while at idle. The pressure reading is just a hair above 14.5 ambient pressure. 











So with that done, testing can begin. Results to follow.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Neat!


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> With the software set up, the MAP sensor's signal is now presented in the BoostManager's gauge cluster. You can see the value under "AUX" while at idle. The pressure reading is just a hair above 14.5 ambient pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cool :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*42 Draft Designs 3" turbo-back back pressure testing*

So after a Memorial Day holiday break, here is a look at the data collected with the logger. First, here are the airflows while testing:











...and here is the exhaust system backpressure versus boost at the intake plenum:











So basically, the 42Draft Designs 3" system -- with its "Camaro-style" dual outlet Magnaflow muffler -- is really really efficient. Back pressures are only ~2psi. Practically nothing. And this is with two resonators (but no cat). Clearly the FrankenTT's exhaust system is over-specced, if anything. Nice going 42DD!


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> So after a Memorial Day holiday break, here is a look at the data collected with the logger. First, here are the airflows while testing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Try using the EGT probe bung in the turbine housing to run the same test?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

04VDubGLI said:


> Try using the EGT probe bung in the turbine housing to run the same test?


x2 or a plenum vs. exhaust manifold pressure differential test.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

04VDubGLI said:


> Try using the EGT probe bung in the turbine housing to run the same test?





suffocatemymind said:


> x2 or a plenum vs. exhaust manifold pressure differential test.


Yes to both. But the first test was to ensure nothing was at fault downstream of the turbo itself.


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

Pretty interesting data. It would be neat if you had a flow-oriface section of pipe that was characterized for flow vs. DP, then you could also measure flow.

Why not sample the pressure immediately after the turbine for your exhaust system loss test? It seems like you may not be accounting for some of the upstream losses in your test.

It would be interesting to overlay a plot of exhaust manifold pressure vs. exhaust system pressure and see the % that the turbine uses.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> So after a Memorial Day holiday break, here is a look at the data collected with the logger. First, here are the airflows while testing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doug, 
I know you're using Maestro as well, why is your boost & g/s so jumpy looking? (I know it's 2 different turbos but I don't think that has anything to do with it) Mine is a nice smooth line throughout my whole boost / airflow range. Is it something to do with your boost settings? What's going on there? I did spend a good amount of time tuning mine to be of the smoothest onset possible. 

Your thread is helping me tune my hybrid so I hope you don't mind the questions. eace:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> Doug,
> ...why is your boost & g/s so jumpy looking? Mine is a nice smooth line throughout my whole boost / airflow range.


Hmm, ordinarily I'd chalk it up to the fast sample rate of the Maestro logger. But that's what you're using as well. Post your boost and airflows here. Maybe that'd help explain it.

Speaking of posting logs, I decided to make use of the ~100˚F temps we had today for some acid testing of the FFE intercooler. Without further ado, here's how it shakes out:










Any complaints out there? Because there are none here. This was while running a brief peak boost of 26psi.


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

Well, I'd say that core is handling it just fine. :thumbup:


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Here's an example of my boost. It's not perfectly smooth but it's not as jumpy. I'm wondering if I have mine reading at a slower speed if that's possible. The rpms on this were ~2000 - ~5500 Excel wasn't cooperating, but it should give the point. Yours looks like it reads completely different.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

DMVDUB said:


> Here's an example of my boost. It's not perfectly smooth but it's not as jumpy. I'm wondering if I have mine reading at a slower speed if that's possible. The rpms on this were ~2000 - ~5500 Excel wasn't cooperating, but it should give the point. Yours looks like it reads completely different.


Just throwing it out there but different graph scaling can influence how data looks. Doug's got a pretty narrow scale so you can get accurate readings. Your graph doesn't have the X-axis labeled so its hard to judge. Doug's graph can look much smoother with the same data if he were to change the y axis around. 



Doug that looks great! Were you utilizing any wmi or was that purely what the core was capable of doing on its own?


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

spartiati said:


> Just throwing it out there but different graph scaling can influence how data looks. Doug's got a pretty narrow scale so you can get accurate readings. Your graph doesn't have the X-axis labeled so its hard to judge. Doug's graph can look much smoother with the same data if he were to change the y axis around.
> 
> 
> 
> Doug that looks great! Were you utilizing any wmi or was that purely what the core was capable of doing on its own?


I screwed it up on excel but I tried to recreate it as closely as possible. I couldn't get my Rpm ticks to show properly so I just gave the best I could. I'm not doing or asking as a competition, just simple curiosity so I'm trying to recreate his graph as closely as possible from my logs, by finding the boos at full load through the same rpm range. 
My car's in the body shop and I only had a few logs saved. It's essentially 120points or so of info, I guess they're only comparable if there's the same EXACT amount of data points. I totally get what you're saying. Mine just never gets that jumpy though, a little rough, but not that much. I 'm thinking it's a difference in how the logger is logging or how he's set his boost / MAF profiles. Not saying good or bad, just different. 

I also didn't know if it's because I've tried to tune my setup to be as linear as possible and Doug is going for a big push of power up front and as much as possible to redline?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

DMVDUB said:


> I also didn't know if it's because I've tried to tune my setup to be as linear as possible and Doug is going for a big push of power up front and as much as possible to redline?


That's probably a part of the reason for the FrankenTT's irregular data points: the turbo is blowing as hard as I can get away with. So we're literally on the "ragged edge" of the compressor map for a portion of the midrange. But the purpose with this is to find the limits, so things will look less than perfect. Despite appearances, though, there's no indication of surge or other problems within the car. 

As for the IATs, that's WITHOUT chemical cooling of any kind. The WMI system is still sitting in pieces on the bench.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Hmm, ordinarily I'd chalk it up to the fast sample rate of the Maestro logger. But that's what you're using as well. Post your boost and airflows here. Maybe that'd help explain it.
> 
> Speaking of posting logs, I decided to make use of the ~100˚F temps we had today for some acid testing of the FFE intercooler. Without further ado, here's how it shakes out:
> 
> ...



I have to be honest, something about that doesn't look correct... though if it is correct, sign me up for an FFE IC tomorrow.

Your turbo outlet temps went from somewhere in the 180*F range up to 252*F - roughly 72*F increase at the outlet - figure a 40% increase in relative outlet temp. 

Your IATs, according to your scaling, increased 0*. In fact, it looks like they stayed flat at 109*F for your entire pull - that would suggest approximately a 90% efficient intercooler that also has the ability to increase in effective efficiency as inlet temps rise.

Is there any chance you could run a multiple gear pull? Even though with a single gear I would still expect some change in IATs, if something doesn't show over two/three gears then your system has an issue.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

04VDubGLI said:


> I have to be honest, something about that doesn't look correct... though if it is correct, sign me up for an FFE IC tomorrow.
> 
> Your turbo outlet temps went from somewhere in the 180*F range up to 252*F - roughly 72*F increase at the outlet - figure a 40% increase in relative outlet temp.
> 
> ...


Also don't forget that as his turbo temps go up, he's at a higher RPM, and thus, at a faster speed, and thus, more and more air going through the IC


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

04VDubGLI said:


> I have to be honest, something about that doesn't look correct...


I don't blame you. I'd call "baloney" too. I'll re-run the test again and double-check the IAT readings via the Eurodyne logger. The graphed IATs above are captured by the PPD logger. Regardless, there's no magic at work here. It's a Garrett core with a well-designed piping system. No more than that.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


>


If this can be repeated with similar results...wow. That's a damn good intercooler you have Doug haha sign me up!


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> So after a Memorial Day holiday break, here is a look at the data collected with the logger. First, here are the airflows while testing:


Whats occuring just around the 3krpm area Doug?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> Whats occuring just around the 3krpm area Doug?


The wastegate gets opened right there, which probably causes instability in the airflow. But it might be a touch of compressor surge as well. The temperatures are so high that the surge line might be getting crossed.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Two passes. Back to back.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

One last bit of testing with the new Garrett/FFE intercooler system. This time we're looking at pressure loss data. With three sensors hooked up at different points in the charge piping, here's the overlay of the corresponding pressures: 











Obviously the stock MAP sensor is soaked at 22.6psi (resulting in that flat line), but it's still able to measure at boost onset and at the run's end. The PPD unit's sensor at the turbo outlet is only negligibly higher than that shown by the BoostManager's pickup within the intake manifold. So the system is working well all around.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Great results Doug! Good flow and cooling are key. Any potential dyno's (other big projects) coming up in the near future?


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Hell yeah Doug:thumbup: After all those IC's you finally found a bangin set-up! Kudos to Ed:thumbup::beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

One last graph of intercooler performance. I think this set of data better represents how the charged air is being conditioned by the Garrett core. Pressure drop is there, but certainly modest. And on a fairly warm-weather day (30˚c / 86˚F) the cooling effect is good. 











Next, the PPD unit's EGT parameter is going to get hooked up. I'm curious to see how the test-unit China-fold is handling those exhaust flows.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Egt would be interesting to see. Any plans on testing collector pressure of that particular manifold?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Any plans on testing collector pressure of that particular manifold?


 Yes. 100%. I want to probe the individual chambers inside the collector. My hunch is that the chamber which handles runners from both cylinders 1 & 2 is quite a bit "hotter" than the much bigger one that handles only one runner.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

your "hunch" is supported by logic it seems.  I guess it was only a matter of time the JBS-type manifold hit the market. Glad to see you're putting it thru its paces doug! :thumbup:


----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

great work man! i cant believe eurodyne upgraded the boost manager+ already, i haven't even opened the box for mine yet since Ive been busy as hell recently.......... :banghead:


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

carsluTT said:


> great work man! i cant believe eurodyne upgraded the boost manager+ already, i haven't even opened the box for mine yet since Ive been busy as hell recently.......... :banghead:


 If it's unopened ask if they will exchange it for the new model if they are the same price  It's worth a shot... Worst thing they can say is no.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

carsluTT said:


> great work man! i cant believe eurodyne upgraded the boost manager+ already, i haven't even opened the box for mine yet since Ive been busy as hell recently.......... :banghead:


 I'm pretty sure the change is purely aesthetic. The hardware inside is unchanged. But nobody here seemed to notice their slick new gauge...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The China-fold's collector box is now tapped for sensors. Here is a look at how the manifold was modified to handle the two 1/8" NPT thread fittings:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I am super interested in these results! 

Can I make a small request Doug? When you log the manifold pressure can you do it at different boost settings? Maybe wastegate, 15, 20, 25psi?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Over the weekend, the FrankenTT saw a lot of testing with its newly-installed sensors. Out of the gate, we compared the back-pressures in the China-fold's runners. As noted here and elsewhere, the runners for cylinders 1 & 2 merge into one small chamber (or "ventricle" as I like to call it) in the manifold collector. For a refresher, here is what that collector looks like in the test manifold: 











The dividers inside, while narrowed down, are still certainly there. So here's the pressures we found in the respective ventricles: 











So the confluence of gases from cyls 1 & 2 has an impact, but not a terrible one. Back-pressures are only slightly higher than those seen in the larger ventricle that services only one cylinder. So here is a look at the relationship between back-pressure and boost with this manifold and turbo. 











Having established that, the manifold was fitted with an EGT sensor, monitored via the PPD unit. Here's a look at the handy heads-up display possible with PPD.: 










The temps would be measured at the slightly hotter runner for cyls 1 & 2, while the single runner ventricle retained the pressure signal tap running to the BoostManager's MAP sensor. Very quickly, a problem emerged: heat. With back-pressures above 50psi, EGTs are simply too high. 










But another thing also was apparent. The fuel mixture is quite lean. Might it be possible to douse some of that scorching heat with a bit more un-burned fuel? A quick change to the Power Enrichment table in Maestro netted a big change in the air-fuel. 

Here is a look at the "go big or go home" approach we took to adding fuel: 











The wideband sensor readings with the PPD aren't limited to only 0.73 like with the car's OEM one, so you can really see how much we're dumping. In the driver's seat, the car felt good. No hint of hesitation or misfire. Surprisingly, though, manifold back-pressures weren't really changed much: 











EGT numbers were helped a bit, but not drastically. However, there was one parameter that definitely changed: timing pull. Whereas with previous files the car was seeing an average of 6˚ pull across all cylinders, this richer mixture completely washed those incidents away. So I reckoned we had another means for reducing backpressures and temps. Here is a look at the modified timing curve possible with the richer fuel mixture: 











The increased ignition advance surprisingly had no impact on back-pressures recorded in the manifold: 











But on the EGT scale, there's no missing the benefits of added fuel and timing: 











Quite a lot better. And the car feels better as well. As for measurable gains, I'll have some Time-to-Speed charts up in a bit. 

:beer:


----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

great work pushing data collection to another level. 

i also noticed the updated eurodyne display........ just wish i could buy one


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Solid work doug. What boost levels were those back pressures recorded at?


----------



## WizzoMKV (Jul 5, 2010)

Will the f23 never be released for the longitudinal AEB engines? Ive searched and have not found anyone that has installed one..


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

OK. So I've waited all day for some reasonable skeptic to call baloney on this. Look again: 




















How is timing advance like this possible on just pump gas? How is the car even running at 0.70 Lambda? Doesn't anybody else share my incredulity?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

That is a decent amount of timing. Didn't pay attention to that. 

The only thing I can imagine is being that you are a using a stroker with a longer crank, the increased VE is helping to increase the engines capacity for more timing. 

Also the 10.2:1 afr is rich but I've seen really big powergrand nationals and mustangs run those kinds of numbers.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> OK. So I've waited all day for some reasonable skeptic to call baloney on this. Look again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I have played with afr's a lot on hybrids... k03 and k04... and as part of combating the inevitable egt's and their effect on timing pull, richer most certainly helps without sacrificing the power.. I run it richer than you from the get go, so cyl temps remain cooled, and no "additional" fuel dump is required unless proper beating on it, and it drops into BTS map from the LAMFA request.. I have adjusted the setpoints for protection on our test lupo to balance the fueling actual to my request. Less egt's less timing pull. Backpressure is Flow related, so for me what you have logged makes perfect sense. Run more timing, with your wmi working again, and as you knnow egts will drop further. 

the runner pressures are higher than I would have expected... Much higher than the k03 hybrid I tested on your manifold. I only measured in the collector on that one tho.. 47psi ex for 22psi inlet on that one. 

Some truely superb information there you have shared Doug, Thankyou. 
My version of chinafold is was way bigger ported than yours and what will be tested on our lupo shortly. It cant hurt being my crude theory - lol 

One question Doug.. The pressure points you have tapped into the top of the collector are the ones you are measuring the port runner pressures or are there tappings further down the runners not shown in the picture? thx 

Top Job Doug 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

badger5 said:


> Top Job Doug
> 
> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


Couldn't have said it better myself :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

With the lessons learned with fuel mixture, and with the summertime temps rising, I felt it was a good idea to take a second pass at WMI injection. The PumpTec pump failed last year because it lacked a proper return system to guard against over-driving the pump. This time, the manufacturer provided me with an adjustable bypass valve, which allows complete control over the unit's static pressure. Here is a quick video of the system being tested on the bench (or picnic table, whichever you prefer). The brass bypass valve is also shown in the thumbnail here:







Even when pushed by 900psi, the smallest AeroMist nozzle (a .006 orifice) tested to have a 42cc/minute flow rate. That's small enough to support a direct-port system or even a pre-compressor setup. Here is a very high resolution scan to show a variety of sizes and their flowrates. Open it in a separate window for the best image size.











That CoolingMist nozzle at the right is the smallest purpose-built WMI nozzle I know of. Clearly, on size alone, these others offer an interesting alternative. As for benefits, that'll require a bit of testing.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> With the lessons learned with fuel mixture, and with the summertime temps rising, I felt it was a good idea to take a second pass at WMI injection. The PumpTec pump failed last year because it lacked a proper return system to guard against over-driving the pump. This time, the manufacturer provided me with an adjustable bypass valve, which allows complete control over the unit's static pressure. Here is a quick video of the system being tested on the bench (or picnic table, whichever you prefer). The brass bypass valve is also shown in the thumbnail here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doug,

I feel like I'm always giving you a hard time... I promise it's only for the sake of being devil's advocate haha

Speaking of devils, wouldn't the DO075 be the smallest flowing WMI nozzle available? I saw you had a test comparison of that nozzle and the Snow #1. It looked like the DO075 was a better pattern, had better atomization, and clearly is very low volume. It's rated at 47.25 ml/min. I'm not sure if the 200 you're stating above for the CoolingMist nozzle was measured at 900psi or if that's the company's stated flow rate? I would expect the flow rates to diminish with increased pressures - obviously where you're going to see atomization increase though. 

For the sake of testing, is there any chance you would do tests at 150-250psi since that is where the industry standard is? Most pumps are going to be .8-1.5 GPM and 150-250psi pumps with any of the kits. Some outliers may run 300psi pumps... Also, I think it's worth noting the flow capacity at the higher pressures. I'm not sure how your pump is rated, but many will taper quite hard when run at/near full pressure capacity. This may stand true for any nozzle flow you're seeing. EDIT: Quick search leads me to believe the pump you're running is between .2-.3GPM? That will greatly vary your results versus everyone else who is using a "kit" setup. Could you please confirm your pump specs?

For what it's worth there are plenty of people running small turbos with direct port setups - I had a buddy with a Passat 1.8T running a direct port setup on a bolt-on k04 a few years ago. There's no reason that 100-150cc nozzles wouldn't work for that style setup - and consider when going direct port you're going to be looking at a different mix of water to meth as well given the proximity. The same concept seems to apply to pre-turbo. Plenty of guys are using as much as 250-300cc nozzles pre-turbo on small to medium sized setups. I would tend to think given the heat of running a small turbo out of efficiency ranges that 150-200cc nozzle would be sized correctly. Atomization is the only real concern pre-turbo (and making sure you have a hard shut off). I've already been working on a pre-centi S/C setup for the past month (just haven't had it in the car) - which should be pretty much identical in concept except my centi S/C setup is for much larger displacement and a much bigger comp wheel haha.

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I certainly appreciate all of your research and therefore all of the information you're adding to the community.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Anyone know why the "Frankenturbo actuator testing" thread was locked?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6081255-Frankenturbo-actuator-testing


----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

"Having established that, the manifold was fitted with an EGT sensor, monitored via the PPD unit. Here's a look at the handy heads-up display possible with PPD.:"

what is this "PPD" you speak of? i dig the idea of getting more info out of the stock display.

the WM testing is great! thanks for putting up all the info


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

abacorrado said:


> Anyone know why the "Frankenturbo actuator testing" thread was locked?
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6081255-Frankenturbo-actuator-testing


Why the Frack (I did that for you Steve :heart do you think?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

carsluTT said:


> "Having established that, the manifold was fitted with an EGT sensor, monitored via the PPD unit. Here's a look at the handy heads-up display possible with PPD.:"
> 
> what is this "PPD" you speak of? i dig the idea of getting more info out of the stock display.
> 
> the WM testing is great! thanks for putting up all the info


Here's the ppd setup. Wish they brought it over to the VW guys.

http://www.audiforums.com/forum/b5-...solution-review-installation-write-up-189395/


As for the other thread being closed I'm sure it was from the cursing and name calling. Lets please keep this thread clean please.



Any updates Doug?


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

abacorrado said:


> Anyone know why the "Frankenturbo actuator testing" thread was locked?
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6081255-Frankenturbo-actuator-testing


because the op couldnt/wouldnt divulge simple info to his customers, and it pissed them off.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

All this summertime heat has given me reason to explore a question that I've seen raised in various places: can a reduction in engine temperatures net a power increase? Given the popularity of radiator-choking front mount intercoolers, I chose this list of mods to try:



Upgraded Valeo radiator
Standalone oil cooler
Low temperature fan switch


As covered earlier in the thread, the new radiator has already been installed. So that left the switch and oil cooler. First, the switch. Because this unit has a differently-shaped plug than the stock unit, we needed to figure out a way to adapt it to the harness:











For that, Fabian went to the ForceFed Engineering bag of tricks to assemble a pig-tail adapter.











Meanwhile, FFE's shiny new tech Elvys, drained the coolant:











Fabian holding the finished pig-tail:











Switch installed to the radiator:











Pig-tail attached to the harness:











Pig-tail ready for hookup. To the right you can see the oil cooler already roughed-in.











Wiring being completed and oil cooler location.











With the fan switch complete, we turned our attention to the oil cooler. 1.8T engines come stock from the factory with a heat-exchanger for oil cooling. This design leverages the coolant system to carry away heat from the oil system. A simple design, but it also adds duty to the coolant circuit to keep overall temps down. Here is a look at the oil cooler / heat exchanger (at left):











To the right is the sandwich plate for incorporating added plumbing to the oil cooler. Typically, the sandwich plate is placed beneath the oil cooler to create the plumbing for the added oil cooler plumbing. This is a look at such an assembly.

Sandwich plate attached to the OEM oil cooler:











Oil filter attached to the combined sandwich and cooler:











But while this approach will work fine, it still burdens the coolant system to "pre-cool" the oil. So if we're really looking to maximize the system's efficiency, we decided to create an entirely separate oil cooling circuit. So the OEM heat exchanger was eliminated... 












...leaving this assembly:











Original oil cooler with the new sandwich plate and hoses:











Here is a look at the oil cooler -- a 16x9 row type -- installed and plumbed. Looming in the background is Ed Woolsey's 1200hp drag car. It scoffs at the FrankenTT's puny output.











So with the car buttoned back up, what's the benefit of this work? Well, I'd say the fan switch is a bust. Rated for engagement at lower temps, it nevertheless will not turn on the fans until coolant temps reach 95˚c. But the "division of labor" scheme with the oil cooler seems to be paying off nicely. 











There's nothing to complain about oil temps lower than coolant. Even on the hottest days. As for whether this work really nets added power, that's a question the summer will surely assist with finding an answer.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

The OEM cooling fan setup can be a nightmare. Are your fans only working in high speed mode? Are both fans firing up just fine? If no then your fan control module may be shot. 

Looks cool! Pun intended!


----------



## RobbieRolex (Sep 5, 2011)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> Pro tip: Stop running piss rich
> 
> Do back to back runs on the dyno running piss rich and then running an adequate AFR. Just because you get more timing in does NOT mean you are getting more power.
> 
> Not only do you waste fuel, but changing the AFR changes the flame speed, making it so you need more time to burn the fuel in the combustion chamber. *Excessive* amounts of unburnt fuel will not help you with EGT's.


 
What do you consider piss rich?


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> 0.7x is piss rich
> 
> That's straight up wasting $


Them's are E85 AFR's :sly:

10:1-11:1 Afr... No Bueno. If you made 300something at that AFR just think if you had it ~12:5.1-13.5:1


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> Lambda doesn't change when you change fuels. AFR does.


Therefore lambda does


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> Lambda doesn't change when you change fuels. AFR does.


Please elaborate.

I always knew lambda (specifically lambda X 14.7) = AFR. 

Ex:
1.0 = 14.7:1
.80 = 11.76:1


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> Lambda doesn't change when you change fuels. AFR does.


Incorrect.

Stoich for E85 (85% Ethanol) is approximately 9.76:1. Hence it taking approximately 30-33% more fuel to run E85.

However, the wideband in a car (i.e. aftermarket one) will read it just the same as regular 93 octane. It will still tell you whenever you have a 14.7:1 AFR, but it will take 30-33% more fuel to achieve that on E85 versus 93 octane. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 --- some of the citations have better info than Wiki does.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Here's an AFR/Lambda chart that Max posted in another thread :thumbup:

*Edit:* Ah… Johnny beat me to it - you're quick son


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I understand the charts. They are saying the same thing I was. 

What I am trying to grasp is your statement. 

If lambda stays the same how does AFR change? My question is in regards to one type of fuel. Not between e85 and 93 octane.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Ahh... So when I'm at 9.5:1 on E85 my logger will still say .98 Lambda

I don't like conversions....:banghead:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> Oh I was talking to DMVDUB because he mentioned E85.
> Sorry if I sounded cryptic. I have trouble communicating my thoughts clearly sometimes.
> 
> AFR's should stay constant as long as your not mixing fuels (e.g. mixing Gasoline and E85).
> If you do mix fuels, the gauge will still show gasoline equivalent AFR's, but that's not correct (because you are actually injecting more fuel to stay at that lambda), and your fuel trims/O2 sensor corrections will change.


Gotcha. Now that makes sense.


----------



## 4ceFed4 (Apr 3, 2002)

DMVDUB said:


> Ahh... So when I'm at 9.5:1 on E85 my logger will still say .98 Lambda
> 
> I don't like conversions....:banghead:


I have my Innovate set to the E85 scale and it just confuses people usually, including myself. Last weekend I saw Fabian at ForceFed staring at it while i was on the dyno, and finally he asked me if it was displaying lambda with the decimal point 1 spot off :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I got to try my hand at Auto-Cross at this weekend's classes held during waterfest. While this wasn't competition, it was 100% fun. I sure would love to see more people taking advantage of these classes. They're excellent. Here's some footage of FrankenFriend Spartiati and one of the class' instructors showing me how it's done:


----------



## 4ceFed4 (Apr 3, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> I got to try my hand at Auto-Cross at this weekend's classes held during waterfest. While this wasn't competition, it was 100% fun. I sure would love to see more people taking advantage of these classes. They're excellent. Here's some footage of FrankenFriend Spartiati and one of the class' instructors showing me how it's done:


The guys from the North New Jersey Region of the SCCA always put on a fantastic school and main event. Watercross is a lot of drivers first experience with the sport of autocross, and they inject a lot of good instruction and fun into the event. Even the PA announcer calling the main event puts the quarter mile guy to shame :laugh:

I was stuck on the other side of the track on Saturday, but glad to hear you had a good time and are an advocate for the sport :thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I absolutely love the autocross at waterfest! You get a ridiculous amount of runs and have minimal wait time between runs. I do the school every year for that very reason. I had a family emergency and couldn't make it to the competition on Sunday. Next year I will most certainly be there! 

The FrankenTT was very well composed around the track! I've told Doug this via email already. I am very tempted to buy a TT and swap my setup into it after tossing his through the corners.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

For several months now this car has been treated to a succession of camshaft configurations and exhaust manifolds -- all in the pursuit of making more power out of the grams/second possible with the F23 turbo. Airflows have always been there. 260, 270, 280 grams and above. But the added airflows haven't brought with them the horsepower you'd expect. After measuring the exhaust manifold pressures and temps it's pretty likely that we're just hitting a hardware limit with the turbo itself. But there is still one experiment to try: a radical adjustment to the camshafts' overlap.

As we've seen earlier, this small turbo's hot-side gets very crowded once the airflows exceed 250 grams/second. That amount of burnt fuel and air simply produces a lot of mass out the exhaust ports, resulting in pre-turbine pressures in excess of 50psi. So the traditional rules governing camshaft overlap are simply thrown out the window here. There's no "scavenging" happening when the cylinders' exiting gases hit a 50psi wall.

Another consideration is the VVT system available on this car (and most later 20v engines). In most documented cases, the ability to advance the cam 22˚ via the VVT solenoid is being leveraged to push the cam far earlier in the stroke cycle to "kick start" boost for larger turbos. But the F23 has no problems with boost onset. So perhaps we can gaze through the VVT looking-glass the other way: why not have it switch to _retard_ the cam once back-pressures have skyrocketed?

Before I continue, I'd like to reprint some camshaft principals that I found on the company website for Crane Camshafts. Here are a couple of passages worth reading:


What is Camshaft Lobe Separation and how does it affect the engine?

Lobe separation is the distance (in camshaft degrees) that the intake and exhaust lobe centerlines (for a given cylinder) are spread apart. Lobe separation is a physical characteristic of the camshaft and cannot be changed without regrinding the lobes.

This separation determines where peak torque will occur within the engine's power range. Tight lobe separations (such as 106?) cause the peak torque to build early in basic RPM range of the cam. The torque will be concentrated, build quickly and peak out. Broader lobe separations (such as 112?) allow the torque to be spread over a broader portion of the basic RPM range and shows better power through the upper RPM.


How does Advancing or Retarding the camshaft's position in the engine affect performance?

Advancing the cam will shift the basic RPM range downward. Four degrees of advance (from the original position) will cause the power range to start approximately 200 RPM sooner. Retarding it this same amount will move the power upward approximately 200 RPM. This can be helpful for tuning the power range to match your situation. If the correct cam has been selected for a particular application, installing it in the normal "straight up" position (per the opening and closing events at .050" lifter rise on the spec card) is the best starting point.​

Having considered this info, I undertook a modification to our "Martindale" camshaft design. To do this, I turned to Delta Camshaft in Tacoma. Scott there has helped out in the past when I was looking for "cam card" measurements, but they're a full machine shop and can easily handle the task. Here are some phone-camera pix of the process.

Original position of the keyway/cog









Pressing off the cog






























New keyway/cog alignment (1/2 tooth change = 8.5 camshaft degrees)










This was a big modification. We have "re-degreed" that cam by a half-tooth on its cog. That works out to 17˚ degrees of crankshaft angle of retard. This is a LOT. For a graphic representation, take a look here:











As you can see, the "normal" timing of the cam is going to be dropped back significantly; so much so that the cam is basically not even opening until the piston is already traveling well down the cylinder. But remember that the VVT system, when activated, can completely negate this huge alteration. The 17˚ of retard is counteracted by the VVT's 22˚ of advance, allowing the cam to still achieve 5˚ of advance from its original "normal" position. Confused? Here's a look at what I'm talking about:











So with these two positions available, the "advanced" position is the new normal, with the "normal" position now being retarded. For virtually all driving, the solenoid will be advanced. But under high load, when the turbine back-pressures get crazy high, we now have a lobe separation angle that ensures no reversion or cross-contamination from that exhaust system. Whether this accomplishes anything at all is something which needs to be tested. Look for news on that in the coming week.:beer:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

It will be interesting to see the results. 

I am skeptical how happy the vvt will be if you plan to run it always on except for full throttle runs.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

JohnnyLlama. said:


> From my testing, the chain tensioner DOES not like being actuated for long continuous periods of time.
> *Especially* at idle.
> 
> If your timing chain starts to rattle, your tensioner is gone.



so dont activate it on low load low rpms around idle  lol

Seriously tho, vvt on k04 is active a lot of the time in case folks dont realise that.









Std K04 vvt active when -4 shown ^^^^


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> For several months now this car has been treated to a succession of camshaft configurations and exhaust manifolds -- all in the pursuit of making more power out of the grams/second possible with the F23 turbo. Airflows have always been there. 260, 270, 280 grams and above. But the added airflows haven't brought with them the horsepower you'd expect. After measuring the exhaust manifold pressures and temps it's pretty likely that we're just hitting a hardware limit with the turbo itself. But there is still one experiment to try: a radical adjustment to the camshafts' overlap.
> 
> As we've seen earlier, this small turbo's hot-side gets very crowded once the airflows exceed 250 grams/second. That amount of burnt fuel and air simply produces a lot of mass out the exhaust ports, resulting in pre-turbine pressures in excess of 50psi. So the traditional rules governing camshaft overlap are simply thrown out the window here. There's no "scavenging" happening when the cylinders' exiting gases hit a 50psi wall.
> 
> ...



It's been a while since I posted information on this camshaft notion, and while my findings tend to mirror what the others have determined elsewhere, maybe a description of the process is worth the kilobytes.

As I've covered in this thread as well as its predecessor, I've done a bit of testing on cam profiles which I dubbed "Martindales". Basically identical to the N/A cams used in overseas markets, they delivered a distinct improvement in EGTs. This is a valuable thing when paired to a small, hottish hybrid turbo. But the power gains -- the sexy -- weren't there. Still, rather than give up, I gave some thought to a concept expressed to me elsewhere:

_The whole point of turbo cams is to have less or even no overlap. N/a on the other hand have more over lap to help with delays in air flow. Surely the only thing an a/n cam would be good for is if as mentioned it had more lift? This would then have to be offset by the loses of the increased overlap. I can't think that extra overlap the n/a would give you would increase performance, valve lift, yes I think that would good. I would say stock turbo cams but with increased lift would be the idea option​_

So cut to a bit later, when we had a cam re-degreed to eliminate that overlap; it was time to drop it into the engine.

The keyway is just to the left -- or retarded -- of its registration mark.











Here's the messy engine bay of our FrankenTT test car. Note the JBS-style Chinese manifold plumbed for EGTs and backpressures.











Here, a look in the other direction, where you can see a CatCams adjustable cam gear, also newly installed.











So with all that done, how does the car run? Firstly, a wide lobe separation angle should net some really great vacuum at idle, yes? Well, no. it was unchanged. So how about performance? EGTs? Also, uninspiring. To be more accurate, they were completely unchanged. Have a looksee at the comparative times to speed:











Unwilling to give up, I tried experimenting with the adjustable cam gear. First, I tried retarding both cams even more. And the car ran terribly. Then I tried advancing them both by 10 crank degrees, nullifying half of the change made to the intake. Here's what that got me:











Plus, this new cam angle caused fueling issues, resulting in persistent CELs for lean conditions. All in all, a complete bust. 

But...there's a silver lining: while work was being done with the cylinder head, ForceFed Engineering's Ed Woolsey was looking over my back-pressure readings. Seeing numbers in excess of 50psi pre-turbine, he wondered aloud:
"I wonder if all that pressure is causing your valves to float."
"Huh?" I said. "What's valve float"?

The answer to that question is an interesting one. I'll get onto that shortly.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Exhaust back-pressures versus the cylinder head valve springs. Interesting findings.*

Over the last year-and-a-half, we've been testing a prototype stroker design. Dubbed _Murray_, it is based on a big-stroke crank from the ALH diesel engine. Others have used this crank in stroker conversions as well, but nobody (that I know of) had taken the approach of fitting shortened connecting rods to compensate for the changed throw of the crank. The thinking behind this unusual approach was marketing-based: I wanted FrankenTurbo to offer a "drop-in displacement" parts kit. Customers could keep their original pistons and entirely skip the engine pull and machine shop work associated with displacement increases. The new crank -- combined with the specially-made connecting rods -- married right to the other components, resulting in a 1968cc displacement... all while the engine never left its mounts.

Test fitment of this engine design was performed by ForceFed Engineering, who also served as technical support during the design phase. It was performed on our own FrankenTT test car in March of last year, and in the time since we've been putting it through its paces. This post is to explain some of the data we collected.

Firstly, I should say that we will not be marketing a _Murray_-type engine. After hundreds of hours testing and troubleshooting, I have decided that the concept doesn't meet its critical requirement: value. The problem is that despite the lowered installation costs, this design has quite a few issues that need to be worked around by the customer. The piston skirts drop so low at BDC that they hit the oil squirters. So those have to come out. Then they hit the crank speed sensor trigger wheel, so that has to be relocated to the outside of the engine. But most importantly, the engine just doesn't make a whole lot of top end power. And that's simply a function of the weird crank angle from such a short rod attached to a long-stroke crank. The energy produced by the motor is just wasted on the inefficient geometries. So all these things considered, I have closed the book on the _Murray_ prototype, and given up on the idea of offering a "FrankenStroker" product, much as I liked the name and marketing appeal.

But that's not to say this project was a waste of time. Not in the slightest. Because the body of information and data collected during the protracted testing is really impressive. I have learned a ton. And not just about stroked engines, but also about the challenges of running an admittedly small F23 turbocharger at the limits. One such area of interest involves exhaust back-pressures. Here is a bit of info on what we encountered and how we resolved it.

Almost immediately after installation, the car was having a strange issue in the top end. Power would mysteriously fall off, despite strong boost and good airflow values. And in extreme cases, the car would hit a virtual wall at around 6000rpms, causing it to run poorly and misfire. So while down-low torque was terrific, the upper ranges were dismal. Here is a comparative graph for the new motor versus the car in its stock form:











The logs also showed an issue. The boost levels would weirdly spike at the same point:




















So what was causing this? Nothing like this happened on the old motor. It could boost merrily at 25psi all the way through the rev range. it was seeing 280g/s at the MAF. But with the new motor, things would go to hell at no more than 260. In an attempt to solve this we tried altering the wmi mixture, re-gapping the plugs & installing TSI coil packs. No improvement. So then we took more extreme steps: we removed the AEB cylinder head and restored the small-port BEA one. We tried bigger, naturally-aspirated engine camshafts. We tried a number of manifolds and even tinkered with the turbo itself. Nothing worked. Finally, after some prompting by BadgerBill, I decided to attach a data logger to the exhaust manifold collector. Was there something screwy happening pre-turbine? Here's what we uncovered:











So we had a direct correlation of the anomaly between back-pressures and boost. But which of the two was the troublemaker? Or was it simply a case of contamination from the exhaust getting into the intake? To answer that I had some cams re-degreed, completely eliminating the overlap between the intake and exhaust. Now THAT ought to put an end to any reversion happening! But again, no improvement. And that was when I finally caught a break: FFE's Ed Woolsey, looking at the data logs, had an insight: maybe all that exhaust back-pressure was "floating the valves". Well, that concept was a new one on me, but he quickly explained that since the valves open inward towards the cylinders, that insufficiently sprung valves can be pushed open by the exhaust back-pressures. So if his theory was correct, 50psi at the exhaust manifold would appear to be the breaking point.

I contacted SuperTech Performance to ask them if Ed's theory made any sense. Sure enough, they said. The valves in this cylinder head might not have enough seat pressure to resist the riotously high exhaust back-pressures caused by this oddball motor. They suggested a higher-rated set, one which was good for 50% more. And here they are, next to the ones they replaced:











On the right is the upgraded exhaust valve spring assembly. Though there's not much difference visibly from this angle, from overhead you can see one:











The inner, secondary spring in the uprated ones is full-height. The standard SuperTech variants do not have this. Here's a look at the differences with the spring assemblies separated:











The uprated types are again at the right. And you'll also note the shim they provided, just to add a bit of insurance against back-pressure reversion/contamination.

So in they went:






































With that done, were we finally going to see the engine tolerating back-pressures in excess of 50psi? Cautiously we raised boost until the manifold reached that troublesome level:











Things so far look very nominal. And here's how that compares to behavior on the original springs:











Well, so far, it's keeping it together. but what if we push things a bit:

60psi...











Alright! Still holding. So what about...


65psi?











Yes!! Still looking good. But let's not stop there! What about...SEVENTY PSI?











Fantastic! Absolutely no sign of valve float, all the way up to a hellacious 70psi of back-pressures. And the corresponding performance parameters for everything else look great as well:











So EGTs are nominal at even this level of boost and back-pressures _while running pump gas_. And at THIS level of airflow:











...and with this kind of timing advance:











I seriously doubt anybody here seen that trifecta on a stock-frame turbo before. That much air, with that kind of timing advance, at such EGTs? I myself have not. Which makes me think that all the tribulations of the Murray testing might have uncovered a hundred-buck mod that completely changes the rules for hybrid turbocharger tuning: beef up your exhaust springs.

...Regardless, this is the end of the line for Murray and the Martindales. Who knows. Maybe someone here will make another go at these ideas at some point, but I've gotten what I needed from the process.


For further reading on the topics discussed in this post I recommend these links:

https://www.highpowermedia.com/blog/3332/the-effect-of-con-rod-length
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?18040-How-do-you-know-if-your-valves-are-floating
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4548398-Cam-comparison-dynos/page8
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/cam_lobe_centerline_angle_tech/
http://www.torqsoft.net/piston-position.html
http://forum.vwsport.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=25730&start=45&view=print


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*One last thing to test*

As a kind of Swan Song for the Murray motor, I am going to post some final testing info from work done last summer. It involves the WMI system fitted to the FrankenTT. This system was a bit experimental to begin with -- it incorporates a 900psi-capable pump sourced from the agriculture industry. We used PumpTec model 113, which pulls close to 10 amps and is capable of 0.16 gallon/minute of open flow. Considering our needs for only a bit more than a third that amount, the low flow/high pressure pump is a good fit for this power level. Here it sits in the engine bay:











Here's a quick video showing the pump on the bench as it powers a very small nozzle.







The flow in that video is 50ml/minute, remarkably low at such pressure. This is owing to the tiny 0.008mm orifice of the Aeromist nozzle. Looking at that wispy, highly atomized spray, I began to doubt that the standard methods of nozzle placement would be suitable. It occurred to me that when sprayed from a conventional bung such billowy cloud of droplets would be slammed along the side of the intercooler piping. So our beautifully atomized WMI fluid would just end up condensed on the piping walls. It struck me that a better way to do it would be to flow the droplets in-line with the airflow and introduced well clear of any potential contact surfaces. So the nozzles needed to be smack in the middle of the airflow piping.

I passed this idea by Ed Woolsey of ForceFed Engineering. I asked him if we could repurpose a throttle body adapter to also mount a kind of fluid-carrying "rail" that bridged the opening exactly in line downstream of the throttle's axis hinge. I showed him the nozzles I wanted to use and sourced a couple of throttle body adapters from SEM Motorsports. Ed liked the experiment enough that he immediately set about creating our prototype. Here are some pix from him in the shop:






































Now that we had a working prototype, it was time to give it a name. I decided on _"methRAIL"_ as a good choice. But now it was time to see if the gadget worked. First we fitted it with a pair of 0.012mm orifice Aeromist nozzles, and hooked it up to our pump.







These twin nozzles are generating a combined flow of 180ml, not a huge amount for a 300+bhp engine but a good starting point for testing. So the next step was to fit the thing between throttle body and intake manifold. For reference to the throttle body we're using, it is the 75mm unit sold by INA Engineering. Here is a picture which shows its dimensions and also the valve axle downstream of which the _methRAIL_ will sit:











So the INA throttle body has an inside dimension of 70mm. This is how it compares to the _methRAIL's_ 75mm ID:











One last important technical spec for the testing: the FrankenTT has 2.5" charge piping with a 2mm wall thickness. So the net inside dimension of the intercooler piping feeding the 70mm throttle orifice is a hair under 60mm.


That's the setup for testing. I welcome comments before posting our results.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Very neat...I guess a good question would be "how is this better than a direct port system?" The only benefit that I can think of is that it *may* be cheaper (less nozzles)? Also, why couldn't one just angle the ports towards the runners on the TB spacer so that they're not perpendicular to the airflow? This is very cool, but I feel like there are more effective ways to achieve what you're trying to accomplish...but please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> So the INA throttle body has an inside dimension of 70mm. This is how it compares to the _methRAIL's_ 75mm ID:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doug,

I really enjoy this concept... so you have two nozzles mounted within a throttle body spacer that both direct flow parallel to incoming airflow. The "neat" part is that you're feeding these two nozzles from the exterior of the spacer through one inlet hole - so you can control everything from the exterior... very unique idea.

As someone else has mentioned, while unique and original, I'm not certain about the "benefit" of this setup over a traditional throttle body spacer setup mounted perpendicular. I have some reservations about adding the "post" required to mount the nozzles (from a flow perspective) as well as the potential for catastrophe should one of the nozzles become dislodged from its home.

I'll be interested to see how the results play out. Either way, I think that's one of the coolest methods to do a TB spacer style delivery of WMI. Props to you on originality. 

-Trevor


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The first question to answer about the methRAIL is whether its placement in the airstream will hamper airflows or otherwise negatively impact the forced induction system's performance. So to test that, we turned off the WMI system and ran back-to-back tests of the car with and without the rail installed onto the INA throttle body. Here are the data we found. Again, no WMI was used during the tests. The methRAIL was not operating and the car was running solely on 93oct fuel.

Firstly a comparison of the intake air conditions and timing advance between runs:











Next we have the fueling behavior between runs:











And -- most critically -- here are the boost and airflow data:











Lastly, here is one additional look at boost, via the 5bar MAP sensor on the STE Performance Parameters Display unit fitted to the car.











These data show that the added "rail" directly behind the throttle body has no impact on performance. So the next question is _how does it work?_ I'll have info on that soon.

dh


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

suffocatemymind said:


> Very neat...I guess a good question would be "how is this better than a direct port system?" The only benefit that I can think of is that it *may* be cheaper (less nozzles)? Also, why couldn't one just angle the ports towards the runners on the TB spacer so that they're not perpendicular to the airflow? This is very cool, but I feel like there are more effective ways to achieve what you're trying to accomplish...but please correct me if I'm wrong.


Still doesn't answer this question.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

suffocatemymind said:


> Still doesn't answer this question.


The answer is, it's one more hair brained idea from the FT camp to pull customers away from actual proven systems like the direct port modular USRT system. Anyone dumb enough to hang that in their intake tract deserves what happens when it fails. opcorn:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

The meth rail was built to test nozzles that would flow very small amounts at very high pressures. The nozzles used do not have the typical npt thread in front and back so only have one way to be mounted. The nozzles would obstruct the runners if mounted internally per runner so this was the next viable option. It may not be ideal in terms of airflow:wave: but for testing purposes why not....


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

spartiati said:


> The meth rail was built to test nozzles that would flow very small amounts at very high pressures. The nozzles used do not have the typical npt thread in front and back so only have one way to be mounted. The nozzles would obstruct the runners if mounted internally per runner so this was the next viable option. It may not be ideal in terms of airflow:wave: but for testing purposes why not....


Obstruction seems insignificant. I just don't agree with putting a multi piece part inside the intake tract. Especially when said piece is going to be subject to high airflows, internal fluid pressure, and changing heat cycles (sure they're lower in the intake tract, but they're still present). 

It just seems to be an absolutely ridiculous risk to the motor when there's much better options. 

I don't see how this would work any better than me having one nozzle in my throttle body and one nozzle in a TB spacer. Each nozzle opposites sides of each other. I personally wouldn't bother with that either because my setup works great as is without the TB spacer. 

Seems like a stupid risk and could potentially have some affect on airflow (though, airflow isn't my concern). 

I don't care what kind of thread is on them, EVERYTHING has a failure point. Also if this is going to be made by FT I would most definitely be worried about QC since they would undoubtedly be made in china. 

*I'm not trying to Troll FT, or be a dick. It's just a ridiculous and un-needed design. This goes up there with the Frankencooler. This just seems unnecessary and too much of a potential risk. Here's a question, IF this thing fails and a piece of metal goes into someones motor is FT going to replace the motor? If so, then never mind ...
*
How about stopping the whole try and reinvent the wheel all the time schtick and get that FrankenTT up to the Task of racing me this year? I'm leaving all of my animosity aside and I'm not pushing any products here, I just want Doug to put up. He's got far more invested than I do so why is he so afraid to race me? I've been pushing this for what 2 years now? Why are you so afraid to race me Doug? I have no company affiliation, this has to do with YOU and ME. You treated me with no respect, so I'm doing the proper thing here and calling you out on the track. My car is tuned by me, built by me, and paid for by me. Your car is built by [email protected], paid for by donated high end parts, and tuned by whoever.


----------



## CupraR Carl (Jul 28, 2013)

Great to see you keeping this thread alive Doug its an invaluable source of info. Liking what your doing with the meth install although I was a little concerned that the meth rail may impact on flow but your logging has put that concern to bed. It hard work when using the like of the SEM intakes to fit an after throttle body wmi nozzle in the adapter plate because the nozzle threads are only a few mm long but the depth of material requiring tapping is more in the region of 15mm. Popcorn at the ready for the results. How do you think your nozzles would fair at only 300 psi pump pressure say.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

spartiati said:


> The meth rail was built to test nozzles that would flow very small amounts at very high pressures. The nozzles used do not have the typical npt thread in front and back so only have one way to be mounted. The nozzles would obstruct the runners if mounted internally per runner so this was the next viable option. It may not be ideal in terms of airflow:wave: but for testing purposes why not....


Thank you for that explanation :thumbup: it makes a little more sense now (new nozzles=too clunky for DPI).


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

suffocatemymind said:


> Thank you for that explanation :thumbup: it makes a little more sense now (new nozzles=too clunky for DPI).


NP buddy ...


----------



## FlyboyS4 (Jun 20, 2006)

DMVDUB said:


> How about stopping the whole try and reinvent the wheel all the time schtick and get that FrankenTT up to the Task of racing me this year?


I'd like to see FT continue trying different ideas rather than bother wasting time racing somebody.


----------



## AmIdYfReAk (Nov 8, 2006)

FlyboyS4 said:


> Iwasting time racing somebody.


Well put.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

A follow up to my previous post is overdue... but it's for good reason: thanks to the support of this community, along with those running different platforms, last month we had the strongest sales figures in our history. I deeply appreciate the continued enthusiasm for our turbos and am happy to say we're still committed to this forum. So, while we're on a short backorder for most of our 1.8T products, I can put up some data.

Where we left off, the methRAIL was installed in the charge piping, but hadn't yet been fed any water methanol. At that time the FrankenTT was running the beautiful (but flawed) Relentess V4 prototype exhaust manifold. We've of course since moved to our own "ChinaFold" but that's a separate discussion. For the purposes of this post, here are some comparisons of the FrankenTT's data with and without WMI flowing:


Firstly, here are a pair of runs run with the methRAIL in place but inactive:











And here are a corresponding pair of runs with the methRAIL running twin 0.020" orifice nozzles at 900psi:











Boost values are down, consistent with the advanced ignition timing WMI provides. And, speaking of which, here is a look at the ignition timing values both with and without:











Obviously the car accepts a more aggressive timing map. And the ignition timing correction values are also much better. Here are two graphs showing without/with WMI active.




















So far, the data are showing the methRAIL injection is doing what it's supposed to. Same is true for the exhaust back-pressure values:











And last, but totally NOT least, EGTs:











So. On paper the methRAIL seems to work well. Especially when you consider the total flow we used in this testing. The twin 0.020" nozzles produce a combined 233ml/min. That's a very modest flow compared to the 90% duty the 550cc injectors are working at 4bar fuel rail pressure. Think otherwise? Here's a helpful calculator. So even at a flow that's basically HALF of what it could be for this fuel system, the methRAIL makes great strides.

Kind of.

So here's the other part: time to speed comparisons. The grim reality is that even with the better ignition timing, the more efficient airflows and the lowered EGTs, the car just doesn't go any faster. Here's the bitter pill:











So what went wrong? How can all those pretty data logs add up to nothing? Well, I suspect the entire system was being gummed up by a poorly-designed manifold. And here's my reasoning for why. We ditched the tubular manifold and put a ported ChinaFold in its place. And, ta-dahhh….











So, which modification do I recommend for the F23? methRAIL or ChinaFold? Well, they are both winners as far as catchy names go. But the proof's in the pudding otherwise: ChinaFold by a mile.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

Chinafold = cast piece with ported collector

Relentless V4 = tubular piece w/4 into 2 into 1 style

Is this accurate? It'd be much more helpful if everyone could understand all of your shorthand on these items - pics go miles IMO.


----------



## CupraR Carl (Jul 28, 2013)

Great info Doug, incredible to see the improvement between tubular and china fold. Will you be offering the methrail to your customers.:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here is a round of data taken from the FrankenTT while running the wmi and ported ChinaFold. These data count as a kind of swan song for the lengthy F23 turbo test project. Between the stroked motor and the methRAIL (not to mention the numerous intercoolers, fueling setups & engine mods) we're pretty much at the end of the road. But here's one last complement of data for the record:

Your usual suspect data logs:











As I've said before, problematic or not the FrankenStroker liked being fed timing advance. But it wasn't immune from a bit of compressor surge at boost onset.


The boost curve on the increased displacement was not a simple matter of "boost early and hard". While the turbo could certainly produce more top-end airflows, they were not accompanied by more power. No, the best tradeoff of boost and volumetric efficiency ended up looking like this:











What was the basis for deciding on such a steep decline in boost at the top end? Well, the times-to-speed told one part of the story…











…but more importantly, the exhaust back-pressures we measured -- and their associated exhaust gas temperatures -- were ultimately the budget we had to live within. Here is a look at the extraordinary back-pressures this turbo/manifold worked under along with the EGTs. 80psi of peak back-pressures, yet EGTs are holding right at the limit.











Because we recognize that EGTs present a significant challenge to development of a successful small-frame turbo, we have collected a lot of testing data. Here is a set of "hot-lap" runs done in rapid succession, showing the incremental rise in EGTs.











Even in repeated high-load service, this combination of F23 and ChinaFold really shows its mettle. Spool is excellent, boost capacity is terrific & engine volumetric efficiency is very good. And most importantly, we've documented this is possible within the safety limits of EGTs.

So where does that leave the FrankenTT? Well, it's not exactly done just yet. But its next phase will be with a wholly different motor. It's getting another cylinder, in fact. Here's a look:











But fear ye not. Because while the FrankenTT is moving on to test a different turbo, that doesn't mean our F23 turbocharger is getting put out to pasture. No way! For starters, there's an awful lot of good info we uncovered in the past couple years that deserves a fresh look. So whether you might call it it a "Greatest Hits" or a "rehash", those older posts that got, ahem, "lost" from the vortex forum still merit a look. So from time to time, I'll re-visit those posts here.

In the meantime, though, thanks to everybody for reading and contributing. This was a worthwhile project on a lot of levels. I've really appreciated the opportunity to share it here.

dh


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

That Methrail is the dumbest thing I've ever seen... There's zero gain versus the traditional setup. Besides that, you've got two fittings inside the intake tract with pressure going to them... ever thought about what happens when one breaks loose and destroys a motor? :sly:

If you had any idea about motorsports you'd know that this design is horrid! :facepalm:

If you try and compare it to a NOS plate, well... let me show you the difference:


















Notice there's no parts to find there way into a motor?? 

The fact you think this is a good idea, and that you have customers who think you have any idea what you're doing that will buy that thing is scary! Are you willing to compensate them after it destroys their motor??


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

Doug, did you ever got that car on Dyno? I am really interested to see how much HP it has when I see all this work done on it and all this money spent.
:beer:


----------



## Beachbuggy (Jul 6, 2013)

Those egts on run 5 are crazy.. 900 degrees for 3500 rpm. Does that not scare you?


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

Beachbuggy said:


> Those egts on run 5 are crazy.. 900 degrees for 3500 rpm. Does that not scare you?


well if you look well it is 750*C on Run5 3500RPM, it hits 900*C on RPM 5k. I saw stock R MK6 with stage 2 hitting 950+*C at 5k rpm.


----------



## Beachbuggy (Jul 6, 2013)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> well if you look well it is 750*C on Run5 3500RPM, it hits 900*C on RPM 5k. I saw stock R MK6 with stage 2 hitting 950+*C at 5k rpm.


I meant for 3500 rpm. Ie from 4.5k to 7k. Most only ever peak at 900. This is sustsined


----------



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

Beachbuggy said:


> Those egts on run 5 are crazy.. 900 degrees for 3500 rpm. Does that not scare you?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] Performance said:


>


why the  smiley?

what do you know?


----------



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

badger5 said:


> why the  smiley?
> 
> what do you know?


Everyone on this forum seems to ignore the fact that EGT's and oil temps skyrocket pushing 25+psi on these things.

People just don't seem to care. Personally the oil temps I've seen scare the crap out of me. EGT's are way more tame while running E85.


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

[email protected] Performance said:


> and oil temps skyrocket pushing 25+psi on these things.


That they do...
and then guys go and "upgrade" to another heat exchanger from an Audi B5 S4.
Mocal air cooled core is what works best.


----------



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

For Rally/MotoX I recommend an extra cooler with a cooling fan. It really makes a tremendous difference.


----------



## 4ceFed4 (Apr 3, 2002)

[email protected] Performance said:


> For Rally/MotoX I recommend an extra cooler with a cooling fan. It really makes a tremendous difference.


I think you mean auto-x 

Out on the road course oil temps stayed very low, autocross and highway traffic are the killers.


----------



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

Herp derp. Sorry. I'm the MotoX fan. Freudian typo? lol


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Those egt's were on an experimental stroker motor. It certainly puts out more exhaust volume than your typical 1.8t. 

My car never sees above 1480* with no meth running @ 23psi.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] Performance said:


> For Rally/MotoX I recommend an extra cooler with a cooling fan. It really makes a tremendous difference.


anything track use an oil cooler is required... unless you dont have an oil temp gauge, where you are then operating on the "la la la" approach... "I cant see you" - lol


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Beachbuggy said:


> I meant for 3500 rpm. Ie from 4.5k to 7k. Most only ever peak at 900. This is sustsined


repeated back to back to back type runs will elevate temps without any recovery time tho...
during a sweep run on a dyno and repeating them back to back they will always climb from my experience.

Run times of the logs in question and time gaps between them are unknown, as they are for most of us unless we log stuff and review something like a race distance and see what happened whilst "in action"


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

badger5 said:


> anything track use an oil cooler is required... unless you dont have an oil temp gauge, where you are then operating on the *"la la la" approach... "I cant see you" - lol*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hilarious!! :laugh::thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Beachbuggy said:


> Those egts on run 5 are crazy.. 900 degrees for 3500 rpm. Does that not scare you?


Dan -- I know you have your own opinions for how to develop your competing hybrid turbochargers, but there's no basis for describing a temporary 950˚c EGT spike as "crazy". This is especially so in the context of hot-lapping, which were the conditions under which we did the test. But why take my word for it? I'm going to post a link to BorgWarner's own EGT ratings for K03-K04 series turbos. I consider their research to be the standard. Don't you think you should?

As for our other competitor's fatuous comment about how "nobody" seems to factor EGTs in their products design or testing: if you're going to post in our thread, then at least READ IT. Because from what I can tell, the extent of testing you've performed amounts to nothing more than a cool-guy emoticon. That and your girl-gang of angry friends.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

With the end of the FrankenTT 2.0L stroker project, the car is being transitioned to testing for a different motor (a 2.5L turbo conversion). But there is still a great deal of information for this thread, namely to restore the 50 pages or so of posts that were deleted from the forum early last year. Thanks to the help of some FrankenFriends, we were able to recover most of what was lost. So without further ado, let's jump in the Way Back Machine to the fall of 2011.

[HR][/HR]
[HR][/HR]

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74275398">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
So two years ago I had this idea for a turbo product: figure out a way to offer older, legacy cars a performance part that offered the best of what the new cars get. I made it inexpensive so it could be an option for a simple repair. And I made it perform a lot like OEM, only better.<br />
<br />
When it came to promoting these turbos, though, I knew it wouldn’t work for me to tout the performance gains without a bunch of independent users proving them. I mean, who’s going to believe product claims from some unknown guy named Slappy? No one! So I worked with several car owners – people who really know their stuff and have the respect of the community. And what do you know? These FrankenTurbos actually work pretty well. I know this because I have reams of data logs and have read the countless threads available on the ole interweb. But the whole time I was on the sidelines, riding the pine. And I can’t take it any more. I need to do a build of my own. <br />
<br />
That’s because I have a big pile of questions I want answered. Questions like: why can’t water meth be injected IN FRONT of the intercoolers? What about fuel injection? Anything new there I can try? And then there’s intake manifolds, and big-port heads, and Variable Valve Timing to play with. And single mass flywheel noise dampening. And displacement increases. Plus a whole lot more. These are the questions. I intend to get me some answers.<br />
<br />
So, without further ado, I present my new baby…and it’s definitely a boy.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/babypicture2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />





 <br />

So what's the first step? Maintenance! Get this baby shaped up for power! For that, I turned to Chris White at <a href="http://www.oeperftuning.com/Site/Welcome.html" target="_blank"><u>Oliver Enterprises</u></a> to give the car a full workup. The car's an '04 (so that means wideband! Woo hoo!) but he's got some miles. So here's the list of goodies it needed to get its game back:<br />
<br />
Timing Belt and Tensioner<br />
Water Pump<br />
EGT Sensor (the wideband TT225s have a sensor probe stuck into the side of the turbo)<br />
Ignition Coils and Overlay Harness<br />
MAF<br />
O2 Sensor<br />
Spark Plugs<br />​
Pretty mundane stuff, but it's all necessary if we don't want to be chasing gremlins while tuning.<br />
<br />
The more fun, sexy stuff came next: Eurodyne Maestro AND the brand spanking new Eurodyne Boost Manager. We all know about the former, but the latter? Hooo doggy is this thing cool. Check the<a href="http://www.eurodyne.ca/blog/index.php/2011/08/30/coming-soon-to-our-online-store/" target="_blank"> <u>link here</u></a>. How will this work in the FrankenTT? It's going to control both the water meth system as well as the secondary in-line <a href="http://frankenturbo.com/new/webimages/large/frankenpump-teaser.jpg" target="_blank"><u>FrankenPump</u></a>. Noisy no more! Now the pump duty cycles are completely under mappable ECU control! So what did Oliver Perfomance hand over to me? <br />
<br />
THIS!<br />
<br />






<br />
<br />
Next up: Chris does an on-camera walkthrough of his water-meth layout. Teaser: the nozzles are not where they're supposed to be.
[HR][/HR]

As promised, here's Chris White's on-camera explanation of his water meth install layout. You'll notice the nozzle placements are unconventional. Also, he gives a brief rundown on how Eurodyne's new BoostManager controls both pumps for w/m and fuel.<br />
<br />





[HR][/HR]
I've had a couple days' tinkering with the Maestro base file loaded at Oliver Performance. But before airing it out, I made sure to take advantage of the terrific kevlar timing belt manufactured by RAI Performance. Even though the motor will be cracked open again really soon, the sight of this...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/RAI_kevlar_timing_belt.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
...makes me feel a lot more comfortable when smashing the go pedal.<br />
<br />
<br />
So as i undertake first data collection of the setup delivered by Oliver Performance, here's a visual recap of the water-meth scheme:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/TT225_engine_diagram.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<u>Legend:</u><br />
<ul><li><ol class="decimal"><li>1 = Devil's Own #3 nozzle</li>
<li>2 = Devil's Own #3 nozzle</li>
<li>3 = Devil's Own #3 nozzle</li>
</ol></li>
</ul>All three are driven by a 200psi pump. The initial BoostManager duty cycle map for the meth pump maxes out at 50%, so we're running those three nozzles at well under 200psi. Here's a look at the IATs at the intake manifold. Ambient temps for these various runs were ~60˚F.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/BoostManager_Stage1_IATs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Not a bad result - especially since this is the base map for a new product that's untested on the 1.8T. I'd say Chris at Oliver did a good job roughing in an initial duty cycle profile; now I get to take a crack at refinement.<br />
<br />
I'll have complete logs posted to Google Docs shortly. The volume of data pouring out of the Maestro logger makes it impractical to post a screen grab.
[HR][/HR]
Now it's time to look ahead to some performance mods. Next up, this bad boy!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/42DD_3inch_fab1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/42DD_3inch_fab2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/42DD_3inch_fab3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
I can't wait to be rid of the lame stock exhaust system on this car. The stock K04 feels pretty wheezy up top and I'd like to think it can do at least over 200g/s with a top-notch intake and 3" turbo back exhaust from 42 Draft Designs. And tomorrow we'll know. The folks at <a href="http://www.icsperformance.com/" target="_blank">ICS Performance</a> are doing a baseline dyno, exhaust replacement, and re-dyno right on the spot. Same dyno, same day. Maestro tune-ability so we can dial in the boost curve then and there. <br />
<br />
Stay tuned!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_A continuation of the original thread..._

[HR]..[/HR]

<br />
Off to the dyno in a few. I did some last-ditch efforts to optimize the car as it sits now. The water-meth layout is working great. Recovery between pulls is sensational and the IATs never rise much above the temperature of the engine bay (where the tank lives).<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/StockIntercoolers-WM-SoakRecovery.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Timing values are challenged by the more-or-less stock mods. And by my own newbie tuning skills (not so great yet). Nevertheless, it ain't too shabby:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/NewbieMaestroTimingAdvance.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So here are my predictions for the dyno: sub 200 all wheel horsepower as it is now. Tack on 20 after the exhaust goes on. We'll know soon enough!


[HR]..[/HR]

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74275398">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
The FrankenTT had a terrific, productive day over at <a href="http://www.icsperformance.com/" target="_blank">ICS Performance</a> yesterday. We started out with the car on the rollers with an all-stock exhaust, grabbed baselines, and immediately set about putting in a beautiful 3" turbo back system. Here are some pix:<br />
<br />
OUT WITH THE OLD...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/StockExhaustOut1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/StockExhaustOut2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/StockExhaust-42ddExhaust.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
...AND IN WITH THE NEW<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/42ddExhaustIn1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/42ddExhaustIn2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
We fired it up for a listen:<br />
<br />






<br />
Then we put it on the rollers. The <b>ALL WHEEL DRIVE</b> dynojet. Here is a a comparison graph of the results<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/stock-exhaust-vs-42DD-3inch.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The torque improvement is terrific! And over 10 more all wheel horsepower is a strong improvement as well. And once the ECU has adapted, I'm sure the top end will come up a touch more.<br />
<br />
I have a good bit more video, taken from the dyno sessions. Our ventilation system was set up for "torture test" conditions, and the video shows exactly how. I'll have an edit of that done very soon.<br />
<br />
Again, thanks to Oliver Enterprises, ICS Performance, Eurodyne & 42 Draft Designs. The project is off to a really strong start.
</blockquote>
</div>

[HR]..[/HR]

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74286134">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I have to say that I've taken a long, satisfying drink of the water-meth Kool-ade and I'm sold. Look at the IAT curves from the two dyno sessions.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/ICS_Performance_baselineIATs-Timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <br />
<br />
<br />
And here's the kicker: here is the ridiculous ventalation system I asked ICS to give me.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/ICS_Performance_TortureTest.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
ONE wheezy window fan that dates to the Johnson Administration!
</blockquote>
</div>
Here's the video from our day at ICS Performance. Before and after on the same day. Don't miss the ventilation setup we arranged.<br />
<br />






[HR]..[/HR]

The FrankenTT is running Eurodyne's brand new BoostManager. I'm not in love with the name: it's too narrow in its emphasis. Because this thing is more accurately called a "Flow Manager". It has complete command of your fuel flow, w/m flow, and boost flow. <br />
<br />
Fuel flow from your secondary pump is controlled via duty cycles pre-defined in the software's maps<br />
W/M flow has TWO assigments: primary and secondary flow. Since each circuit has its own map, you can set it up so the post-throttle body nozzle is active only at the times you want. If you want it off when the others are on, you can do that. So slick<br />
Boost flow is metered by a 6bar sensor, so you can accurately dial in boost levels way over the VAG sensor limit. Tonight I was tinkering with load settings that put the peak boost at ~24psi. The Boost Manager returns high sample rate logs of the runs.<br />
<br />
Here are two graphs from logging I did just this evening:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/EurodyneRev15Boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/EurodyneRev15Timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Now of course I don't have hard empirical data yet...but it sure looks like something's working. <img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/biggrin_upper.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin Animated" class="inlineimg" />
</blockquote>
</div>

[HR]..[/HR]

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74307821">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I decided to overlay the airflows from the K04 onto performance graphs of other setups. This is what we get:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/airflows_comparo.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
The K04 is dynamite off the line. I've never seen such rapid onset of airflow. This shows you how well-engineered it is for the average customer: sensational "pep" when leaving a light or hitting the on-ramp.
</blockquote>
</div>

[HR]..[/HR]

<br />
OK. So I decided to stop by the "friendly confines" of ForceFed to see how my mad tooning skilz measure up. And...here we go:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/ForceFed_baselineK04dyno.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
THAT'S what I'm talking about! Putting up the big numbers. Yeah! Hey, I've got an idea, let's see how I compare to checkdalevel's F4T on that Uni Stage2+. Heck, that lame-o isn't even running water meth. Smackdown time!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/ForceFed_baselineK04-vs-F4Tdynos.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Figures. Even competing against myself I get nowhere. Oh well. It was fun seeing Ed and Fabian anyway...<img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/wave.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wave" class="inlineimg" />
</blockquote>
</div>

[HR][/HR]

_Note: the original thread contained several posts by others to discuss boost management with ECU control. For the sake of brevity, they're not included here. But they are available for review in these pages: PAGE 3, PAGE 4_

[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…continuing from the original (deleted) thread…._

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74494208">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">

A big question I have wanted to tackle with this project is the Variable Valve Timing system. Most folks simply call it “VVT”, and I want to know if the FrankenTT's ability to adjust the air intake cam might be handy for some bitchin power increases. So I started by rockin' the spectacles and doing a bit of reading on the subject. Two good sources of info on this are linked here:
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.vwforum.com/forums/f15/v-v-t-12044/" target="_blank">http://www.vwforum.com/forums/f15/v-v-t-12044/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.starracing.com/Cam%20Lobe%20Center%20Explained.htm" target="_blank">http://www.starracing.com/Cam%20Lobe...0Explained.htm</a></div><br />
Next, I put the question to Chris Tapp at Eurodyne and he told me that he had indeed explored Variable Valve Timing tuning– and furthermore had control maps in his Maestro program. He also told me that the VVT system on cars from the factory is already a lot more active than most people realize. He said, “go log the intake cam timing positions and you’ll see”. So I did just that, grabbing logs from Block 091.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/1.8Tstock_intake_cam_timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Whoa! The intake cam phase changes over the course of a 3rd gear pull! In the low and midrange it is altered 22 degrees for better volumetric efficiency, and then is restored to zero degrees for the upper power range. Makes sense, really. Just as explained in the links above, once the engine is moving rapidly, the intake valves can stay open later without having the induced air forced back out by the rising piston. So we’ve got a theory, and we’re seeing it in practice. But does it work?<br />
<br />
In Maestro’s maps are controls for setting the window for the shift between overlapped and zero position. As a test I temporarily flashed the car two ways: locked at 22 degrees and locked again at zero. Taking the resulting airflows recorded we are able to identify the FrankenTT's “sweet spot” for transitioning the position.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/Stage1_K04airflows(intake_cam_retardvszeroed.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
We can see that the 22 degree intake cam phase position is good for improving volumetric efficiency down low: even with the intake valve opening “overlapped” into the exhaust cycle, the earlier closure nets improvement in airflow. But only to a point. Past approx. 4800rpm the zero position is more effective.<br />
<br />
But what about boost? How does the VVT system impact turbo performance? Looking at the data from the same runs shows some interesting behavior:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/Stage1_K04boost(intake_cam_retardvszeroed.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Spool is better down low. So even with the intake valves opening early – and robbing the exhaust stream of pressure – the raised charge temperature and higher VE more than compensate. But what’s going on up top with the fully retarded map? Boost is higher…yet airflows are lower. The turbo is pushing air, but it’s not getting into the cylinders. Clearly, VE is really impaired by that 22 degree position at high engine speeds.<br />
<br />
So the stock programming I originally logged in block 091 looks to be a good match for a stock forced induction system. The ECU’s VVT maps were written for the little K04 currently in the car, and it looks like the VAG engineers hit it just about right.
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="content">
________________________________________________
<div id="post_message_74525949">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
ForceFed called me up to ask for an F4 kit ASAP. I figured, why not take an F23 along and get this show on the road? Ed, Fabian & Tony were their usual enthusiastic selves and said, let's do this!
So...<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23install1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23install2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
After a cautious drive home in the rain, I reflashed the ECU with a dialed-back base file. And by "dialed back" I mean hellaciously conservative. The guys at 42DD had already shown how risky it is to run this turbo on the wrong software (bye bye rods!) so I wasn't taking any chances.<br />
<br />
My first crack at the turbo control maps were pretty much a mess. PID control is sloppy and the boost requests are way out of square with the actuals. But the N75 duty cycles are actually not far off from what I'd wanted in the base file. I was shooting for turbo output in line with the old K04, and the airflows are actually very close. Take a look:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23rev19vsK04-airflow.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Spool is taking a hit. Nothing I can do to replicate that OEM unit's amazing low-end. But the new turbo is no slouch. 1bar of boost before 3000rpm is going to be just fine -- provided a healthy dose of improved top-end. And what are the prospects for that? Well, these airflows are the maximum of what the plain jane K04 can do. The <u><a href="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/OEM_K04_boost&duty.jpg" target="_blank">duty cycles I logged earlier</a></u> are clear evidence of that. So what's going on with the duty cycles on the new turbo? Any headroom for more boost? Well....<img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23rev19vsK04-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The F23 isn't even trying at this boost level! 16psi is cornball style for this bad boy!<br />
<br />
So, next up: get my PID duty cycles in order. I want the software asking for no more than 18psi at onset, with a gradual rise from there. No spike. Nada. I'll get on that today.
</blockquote>
</div>


_______________________________________________________

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74556805">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
FrankenFriend spartiati gave me a helpful pointer yesterday: when running the stock TT225 manifold, the F23 will not fully bolt up with the OEM flange bolts. The machining in the F23 is slightly shallower, so the bolts bottom out before the flange seals up completely. So I pulled the bolts -- which definitely felt improperly tightened -- and changed things so they were the correct length. Then I logged. <br />
<br />
Very happy to see the low-end is now on par with an OEM K04. <br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23rev24vsK04-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23rev24vsK04-airflow.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Plus it sounds a bit better now; the leaking exhaust was cluttering up the engine bay tones. Thanks, Steve!
</blockquote>
</div>

_____________________________________________________

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74571498">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
So if a newbie like me can do this....<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage1Rev35-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage1Rev35-airflow-N75.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...I feel pretty sure any real tuner can easily wrangle this beast. So, the car's 380 injectors are at 110% duty to keep the A/F at the .82 Lambda target. Who else thinks this is about it for the stock fueling?<br />
<br />
And who else thinks it's worth re-dynoing it like this?
</blockquote>
</div>

___________________________________________________

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74590486">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
<i>Want a Cliff's Notes version of this? <a href="http://frankenturbo.com/new/slappy_dunbar.html" target="_blank"><u>Click here</u></a> for a "comments free zone" on Slappy's weblog.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
I have a call in to ICS Performance to do an AWD dyno on the car with the OEM injectors. Hopefully that can happen as soon as tomorrow. In the meantime, I upped the low-end timing values in Maestro to see how boost onset is affected. Here's a look at the changed timing advance.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage1Rev40vsRev35-timing_advance.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
But I didn't get there without losing some spool. I'd had suspicions that aggressive timing down low hampers spool. So now I know it does -- not a lot, but there's an impact.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage1Rev40-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
</blockquote>
</div>
_________________________________________________

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74611011">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
So let's talk about today's dyno. For starters here's the usual graph to show how the turbo was doing:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23dyno_boost-N75_380cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Everything looks nominal. So now I ask you to look at the next two graphs -- <b>without jumping ahead to the dyno chart!</b> Look at the airflows compared between the two turbos while on the dyno. Then look at the timing advance between the two, also taken during their respective pulls. Uh, oh! It's a mismatch! So who wins the day? Brute force (airflow) or finesse (timing)...?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23vsK04_dyno-airflows_380cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23vsK04_dyno-timing-IATs_380cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
And here's the sheet overlaying the F23 (on 380s, mind you) vs. the stock K04...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23vsK04_dynos_380cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
You'd think I'd be interested in the hp gains. But I'm not. What interests me is the correlation of the timing curves to power. The F23, despite a 20g/s airflow advantage at 6000K and up, can't meaningfully better the OEM turbo. Not without timing in its corner. Nope. See where the F23 is kicking the most K04 fanny? It's when the timing curve is better. So all that extra airflow is going to waste at the top end. A lousy 12-14 degrees is chump change.<br />
<br />
Curse you timing advance!!!<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Thanks to <a href="http://www.icsperformance.com/contact.html" target="_blank">George at ICS</a> for making this research a possibility. The dyno there is a heckuva piece of equipment.</i>


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…continuing from the original (deleted) thread…._

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74494208">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">

Well, last night I went ahead and swapped out the injectors. Out with the old, in with the new:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Bosch_063vsBosch550cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The EV14 Bosch 550s are ridiculously easy to work with. They're dimensions are the same as our OEM units (so no fuel rail spacers necessary) and the USCAR-Jetronic plug adapters are literally a snap. Then I opened the "Injector Wizard" in Maestro. With a couple of clicks, the software was set for new injectors. And that's it. Reflashed the car and started it up. Purrs like a kitten. The FrankenTT is now Stage 3.<br />
Because the published "ratings" on these injectors are a mishmash. So I flow tested them. They came back at 540cc at 3bar. So I input 540cc in the Maestro "injector wizard" and reflashed. Drove the car out of the driveway and went straight out to log. Here's what the team-up of $35 injectors and Maestro can do right out of the box:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23_Maestro-380vs550_Lambdas.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23_Maestro-380vs550_duty_cycles.jpg" border="0" alt="" />

The o-rings on these looked to be a perfect match to the ones on the OEM injectors. I checked the fuel rail for leaks and found none. Everything works with these. They fit, the lock clips secure as they should. The wiring harness has no issue with the adapters.<br />
<br />
With Maestro configured for a 540cc flow estimate O2 corrections are next to nothing. C.Tapp did his homework as far as these EV14s go...<img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/thumbup.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Thumb Up" class="inlineimg" />
First, let me play a little catchup. Over the holiday week I started off tinkering with the new fueling, then moved to boost control. The EV14 injectors are working flawlessly. The car idles normally, and I never, ever, catch it hesitating or stumbling. They work extraordinarily well, which is noteworthy in light of their 6-nozzle spray pattern. They don't have that well-known "twin beam" like OEM units for multivalve VW/Audi. They probably produce more of a "mist" rather than a pair of streams.<br />
<br />
I talked with Scott at USRT about this. He admitted that, in theory, there's a tradeoff when using a less directed, unfocused flow. In cold start situations, for example, he cited the design advantage of a spray that shoots directly at the valves, rather than a mist which would (possibly) condense on cold surfaces in the manifold and head. But the research I did earlier in the thread makes me think the VVT system makes that advantage unimportant. The cam is repositioned to allow exhaust gases to mix with the air and fuel, raising the temperature and ensuring a cleaner burn. So if the VVT is helping along the "misty" spray when surfaces are cold, that leaves the majority of the time: a warmed-up engine. In those conditions the highly atomized output of these newfangled EV14s is more efficient. The combustion is more complete, lending power. Or at least that's my wordy explanation for why the car is running so well.<br />
<br />
Next came boost. And this is where I...well...bogged down. That's because I had real trouble figuring out what do in Maestro. I felt a little like an American boarding party on a German submarine. So many levers and valves! What do they all do? In my case, the mysteries were labeled "Target Filling" & "Boost PID" or "Boost Duty". Then there was also another one called "Maximum VE". Luckily I had <a href="http://www.eurodyne.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=996" target="_blank">this Eurodyne tutorial</a> to get me started. But first I wanted to see just how much work I could get from the turbo by staying within the "rules" of the OEM MAP sensor. That meant no more than 2540mbar of absolute pressure. By tinkering with only the Maximum VE and Boost PID maps I was able to get the ECU to duty cycle the turbo to the mid-70s. That kind of work netted me this:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev6_boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev6_airmass.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
I found it a bit frustrating that no matter how much load I specified in the Volumetric Efficiency tables, the ECU would request no more boost than the MAP sensor ceiling. And when the ECU saw requested boost being met, it backed off on the duty cycles. So that article is right: to get boost above that 22.5psi ceiling, you have to basically over-ride the ECUs decision-making. To do that, I went to the "Boost Duty" tables and spiked the numbers. When the PID controller wanted ~75 percent duty cycles, I altered the corresponding Boost Duty number to be higher. A lot higher. Finally, with the software basically hacked, I am seeing boost figures and duty cycles like I want. Here's where we are now:<br />
<br />
Boost (read from the Eurodyne BoostManager's 6bar MAP sensor:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev16_boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />

Airflows over a handful of revisions:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev23-25_airmass.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />


You see that small swale in the airflows between 3400-4000? That's owing to my attempts at solving this issue:<br />







Yeah, that's compressor surge. It's common with these hybrid K04s. They boost so fast to requests that it creates a tricky problem of finding just the right N75 duty cycles so this doesn't happen. But once safely past 4000, I'm free to let the turbo go. Here's a look at various N75 duty cycle rates in my quest for mid-range perfection<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev21-25_N75duty.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Still haven't gotten there yet. But I'm close enough that the car is probably ready to dyno again. Here's a look at timing, always important on the dyno:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev25_timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So now I'm left with what to do next. High-flow manifold or upgraded front-mount FrankenCooler? I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a potential customer. Would an F23 buyer already have swapped in better intercooling? And can the current hardware handle the heat that comes from boosting upwards of 28psi? Would the backpressure (boost) come down a bit if the manifold were upgraded? Lower pressure means less heat. Which means the intercooler isn't stressed so much. Hmmm...<br />
Oh, it's ON...
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_TestFit1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_TestFit2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_TestFit3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_TestFit4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_TestFit5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Thanks to Chris at Oliver Performance for the on-the-spot test fitting.</i> <br />

Today I'm working on welding in some bungs on the charge pipe. I'd planned on putting in temperature sensors.<br />
<br />
F23 tester spartiati has a MAP sensor at his turbo outlet. I don't know what kind of pressure delta he's seeing with his FrankenCooler prototype, though. 

Like I'd said before, the stock units are sooo small. Like iPad small. Lookee.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall01.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Time to fix that. Picking up where Chris at Oliver Performance left off, we trimmed off material at either end of the bumper support<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall02.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall03.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Then Damien, ICS Performance fabrication whiz, set about laying out a support structure. He determined every angle by eye, and cut and bent by dead reckoning as well. At first, seeing his "process" I thought: <i>this is NOT going to go well.</i> But to my amazement, he got every mark, every cut, dead right. <br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall04.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall05.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall06.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall07.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
A look at the puny OEM cooler and its new replacement.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall08.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Roughed in...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall09.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The bumper standoff supports were a bit tricky to reconcile. But Damian sorted an exact orientation that'll allow the piping to snake by. We will be using 2.5" mild steel.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall10.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
If you look closely here, you will see the FrankenCooler's "secret ingredient": the cores are of differing density. The primary, lower core is a fairly conventional configuration. The upper, secondary core is more restricted. Both cores have double-row, overlapped fins on the interiors. This will be either GREAT for heat-sink behavior or SUCKY for pressure loss through the system. But that's why the testing is on my dime. At this point I just dunno what I've got here.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall11.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
A tight fit for everything behind the bumper fascia; but again, Damian had nothing crop up to make trouble.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall12.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So with everything "dry fit", let's have a look at how well this bad-boy gonna be positioned...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerInstall13.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Uh...Peek-a-boo? Not what I'd have wanted. At least not on the top. But I wasn't surprised: when designing the FrankenCooler I'd assumed the top half would be really compromised. Little disappointed to see it in the flesh, though. Fingers crossed that it works better, despite the ventilation handicap.<br />
<br />
Wrapping it up tomorrow. Then we'll know more. 

[HR][/HR][HR][/HR][/QUOTE]


----------



## Beachbuggy (Jul 6, 2013)

Doug,

I just saw the new YouTube clip u posted on the egt and f23.

Just shy of 1600F (870c) is that in the downpipe or at the manifold/turbo?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Beachbuggy said:


> Doug,
> 
> I just saw the new YouTube clip u posted on the egt and f23.
> 
> Just shy of 1600F (870c) is that in the downpipe or at the manifold/turbo?


If that was the video of my car then it was measured in the turbo


----------



## Mike Pauciullo (Jan 8, 2009)

Doug, are you bringing any cars out to compete in our pay out classes at waterfest?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Mike Pauciullo said:


> Doug, are you bringing any cars out to compete in our pay out classes at waterfest?


Not sure if I'll be able to make it this year. I've been to every waterfest for the last 8 years. My 3rd grad school semester starts on June 30th.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Beachbuggy said:


> Doug,
> 
> I just saw the new YouTube clip u posted on the egt and f23.
> 
> Just shy of 1600F (870c) is that in the downpipe or at the manifold/turbo?


Dan - that video, which can be seen HERE, is taken on spartiati's car with our F23 turbo and 93octane. The probe is in the stock turbine housing bung, just ahead of the rotor.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Mike Pauciullo said:


> Doug, are you bringing any cars out to compete in our pay out classes at waterfest?


Mike -- the FrankenTT will likely be there, sporting its 5cyl 2.5L motor and F25 turbo prototype. It's too early to tell if the car will be in any shape to horse around on the track, though. I'm sure your competition would be fun to be involved in.


----------



## Mike Pauciullo (Jan 8, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Mike -- the FrankenTT will likely be there, sporting its 5cyl 2.5L motor and F25 turbo prototype. It's too early to tell if the car will be in any shape to horse around on the track, though. I'm sure your competition would be fun to be involved in.


Doug can you message me a phone number that I can contact you at?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Mike Pauciullo said:


> Doug can you message me a phone number that I can contact you at?


Sure. But if Eddie W finds out he WILL karate chop me. Also, I wanted to put up this update on the car despite the high treason of running a 5cyl.




nothing-leaves-stock said:


> wires everywhere.... but its running, starts, shuts off, revs etc....
> have to figure out the cam solenoid still but almost there.
> 
> 
> [video]https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14159355209/[/video]


----------



## Mike Pauciullo (Jan 8, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Sure. But if Eddie W finds out he WILL karate chop me. Also, I wanted to put up this update on the car despite the high treason of running a 5cyl.


Does Fast Eddie really run your life? :screwy:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Ed is a good friend who I really admire. Nothing screwy about that.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…continued..._

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74785435">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
This first version of the FrankenCooler is just too big, too dense. Sure, it's great for heat exchange. But the pressure drop is unacceptable. So I'm re-working it to have completely different tube dimensions and have reduced the overall width as well. The new core is 20" across, versus the 26". I'll have it on the car in a couple of weeks.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I fixed the stupid placement of the license plate. Shaved the back of the "wart" so it was evenly flat and simply flipped it upside down. Now the bolt holes position is a good 3" higher, and out of the way of the intercooler inlet.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/front_license_mod1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/front_license_mod2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/front_license_mod3.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
</blockquote>
</div>



<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74824883">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Rather than sit on my hands while the next version of the FrankenCooler gets prepped, I decided to jury rig a fix. Inspired by Roadie's notes on running a solo side-mount, I rigged up something similar. Technically, it's a front mount. A puny, wheezy front mount. With a ton of piping. Doesn't sound too inspiring, but it allows me to preview the response behavior of that long piping circuit necessitated by the dual pass intercooler concept. It also sets a pretty good standard for pressure drop. One very small intercooler should have pretty decent drop -- at least no worse than the stockers.<br />
<br />
First, though, here are some pix of ICS Performance's piping:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerPiping1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerPiping2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerPiping3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FrankenCoolerPiping4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
You can see how the charge air goes quite a ways: down the passenger wheel well; across the OEM cross pipe to driver's side; wrapping forward to the bumper; crossing again to the passenger side in the intercooler, then U-turning in the intercooler to exit back again at the drivers side; finally up the driver's wheel well to the throttle body. Zounds! All that footage must KILL boost response, right?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/oldDV-vs-new-DV-airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Actually, boost response is completely unchanged -- at least when running a decent intercooler. Not so much when running the first-gen FrankenCooler. But these three lines demonstrate that the FrankenCooler's problems are not due to the plumbing configuration. The extra piping alone is a non-factor.<br />
<br />
This chart also highlights another significant finding: compressor "surge" is not occurring with the current setup. The tell-tale sawtooth pattern of airflow latency, visible in the green and red lines, isn't happening now. And take a look at the huge amount more boost being run now:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/revisedDV-boostlevels.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
And now compare these stats to the pressures run when compressor "surge" was a problem:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/OldDV-vs-NewDV_BoostManager.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So did the deletion of one intercooler net this improvement? Maybe. But if this new intercooler arrangement is so much better, how come peak airflow is still stuck at ~250g/s? How come boost onset is identical? Hmmm. These questions led me to something else: the DV. Ever since I first started hearing this "surge" I couldn't help noticing the sound was an awful lot like what I hear during throttle transitions. That "chuffing" noise was just too much like air blowing off into the recirculation system. Here it is again:






<br />
So I pulled the DV, and disassembled it. One spring. What if there were two? Something like this:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/DVmod1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
That'd certainly make that DV bear-trap tight. <br />
<br />
Well...done up this way and reinstalled... "surge" is gone. Completely gone. So it was never surge at all. It was the DV "burping" air into the intake system. Or at least that's what it looks like. In the next few days, I'm hoping to get some confirmation on this from a couple other cars running hybrids. If this bugaboo can be re-diagnosed as simple air leakage through the DV, then we're dealing with a far less worrisome problem than compressor surge. 
<br /><br />
_Edit: fun as this experiment was to do, it did not prove to eliminate the surge-like behavior in the car. That's because the behavior really was compressor surge. More on that later. --- dh_
<br />
On another note, ForceFed and I have been busy little bees... <br />
<br />
<i>...And now, heeeere's Manny!</i><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/manifold_install6.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<b>2wd dyno results tomorrow.</b>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74866963">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Fabian, Ed & Tony pitched in a couple of days ago to "throw in" the ceramic-coated tubular manifold. I'm not going to say it went quickly or easily, but Fabian was patient with the FrankenTT's cramped quarters and got it in.<br />
<br />
Fabian was wheel man on the first road feeler. First impression: never mind the power -- the SOUND! God, where did that mean, big-engine exhaust note come from? At first I wondered if something was wrong. Was VVT screwed up and overlapping the intake valves? But with a few more pulls we realized, hey, this manifold definitely brings something to the party: bad ass attitude.<br />
<br />
When we pulled into ForceFed I asked Ed to take the wheels and tell me what he thought. Ed blasted through 2, 3, 4 like lightning (yeah, this guy does a little bit of racing) and agreed with Fabian. We've never heard a 1.8T sound like this before. So score one for the manifold and the <a href="http://www.42draftdesigns.com/categories/exhaust.html" target="_blank"><u>42DD exhaust</u></a> team-up!<br />
<br />
But is the FrankenTT all show and no go? We pulled it onto the dyno to find out. Here's the result:<br />
<br />
<b>ALL NUMBERS ARE 2WD MEASUREMENTS</b><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenTurbo_F23_dyno-Run1-tubular_manifold.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
And here's how it stacks up with the car when still running the K04:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Run1-tubular_manifold-vs-380cc.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So the power band is up, obviously. But at the expense of low end. Not too happy about this. And it's easy to identify what's wrong: spool. It's lagging by a lot. Where the car used to be seeing 18psi by 3000 it's now around 14. Did the manifold really kill spool by that much? Or is it timing advance that's impacting things. Here's a look at the timing curves for these two dynos...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/K04dyno_vs_F23-timing_advance.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
I guess the only way to know is testing. Obviously, the timing advance is lousy up top now. I can probably iron that out. But the loss of spool is a disappointment. Hopefully I can improve upon that.
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74868841">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I've tinkered with the timing advance settings in Maestro. Because of the VVT system, the ECU has two timing maps: one for "normal" position, one for "overlapped" position. Here again is a graph from last month's experimentation with that system's settings.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/Stage1_K04boost(intake_cam_retardvszeroed.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The VVT system's cam position switchover is at about 4500rpm. So if I want to adjust timing, I work on "cam position #1" for engine speeds above 4500. For speeds below 4500, the map to work on is "cam position #2"<br />
<br />
In this graph, I show the effects of a 5 degree timing setting "across the board" on each of the two maps. By doing this, I was able to determine which map is active at which time. So for my purposes of improving spool, I need to focus on the 2500-3500 settings in the position #2 map.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/timing_advance-vs-spool.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Things are very rough here, but it's obvious that a 5degree preset for low end timing, definitely helps spool. It's basically right back to where it was before the manifold swap. Now to dial it in a bit more.<br />
<br />
...also, don't fail to miss the boost levels at redline. 28psi! Haha!
</blockquote>
</div>


</div>
</div>

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74869965">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
With intercooling like this...<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23-temporary_intercooler.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...you can be sure the w/m was on. WAAAAAY on.
</blockquote>
</div>


I pick up a USB boroscope to peer inside the intercoolers for w/m puddling. While I haven't done that yet, I was able to rig it up to keep an eye on the actuator's behavior over the course of a 30psi boost run. Here's the video, along with some nasty under-hood audio.<br />
<br />




<br />
It's clear to see how far open the wastegate is being pushed - and this is with the preload set to a stout 12psi. But despite this "loss" of turbine energy, the turbo is still boosting over 27psi past redline. And EGTs are also in check. The highest seen at the in-turbine probe was 900˚c. And that was at the end of a long 2, 3 , 4 pull with IATs of close to 50˚c.
</blockquote>
</div>
_Edit: the original thread featured a lively exchange among members about the principles of waste gate function and its relationship to turbine rotor efficiency. For those who wish to review that original conversation, you can find it here: Page9 --- dh_



[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…continuing from the original (deleted) thread…._



I've had a complete MAF from the Audi S4 standing by since this project got started. I'd always figured it might be better-suited to airflows in the 250-270 range, since that's about what a chipped S4 does. The airflows with the stock sensor were more or less stuck at 250g/s. Was it possible that the sensor was hitting the upper end of its voltage range? To find out, I pulled the <a href="http://www.42draftdesigns.com/categories/products/in_mk1tt_hfis.html" target="_blank">42 Draft Design unit</a> (which made me sad, because it's very cool) in favor of a MAF sensor and filter combo courtesy of FrankenFriends VAST Performance.<br />
<br />
Then I fired up Maestro and pulled up the "AirFlow Meter" selection table. After selecting "2000 Audi S4" from the presets, I flashed the car. Upon startup, the car idled fine, the O2 trims settled in after a few minutes, and seemed happy with the new metering system. On the road, here is the airflow reported:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev43_S4-MAF.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
On one level I was disappointed. Airflows are basically the same. So my hope that the OEM MAF was inadequate had no merit. But, on the other hand, the changed meter sure seems plenty accurate. Here is a comparison:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/S4-MAF_vs_OEM-TT225.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Top and bottom ends register nicely. So I think the bigger MAF is a keeper. Now I need to get my spiffy 42DD intake setup modded for it. My friendly-neighbohood machinist should be able to cover that off for me...<br />
<br />
Looking at the graphs, there's an obvious issue in the midrange. God, the airflows are all over the place. Is this compressor surge? Is it the DV? To find out, I sourced a new diverter valve to test out.<br />
<br />
I give you.... <i>The Diverterinator!!</i><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Yeah, it's big. And heavy. The housing is billet, the piston is brass. The spring adjustment is strong enough that the valve will not crack with 15psi applied to the piston. So this badboy seems a good tool for testing my diverter valve theories. That's going down today.


<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
This jury-rigged contraption I've been running is just not cutting it. I'm repeatedly pulling the bumper to restore popped connections. So while the next FrankenCooler is under fabrication, I'm penciling in something more suitable. An el cheapo FMIC. <br />
<br />
First: off with the mad-scientist rig. I was pleased to see virtually no evidence of "pooling". There was perhaps a couple of tablespoons of w/m inside.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
The replacement is smaller than the first FrankenCooler, so it allows more flow to the components behind it.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
With the bumper support attached:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
And the end result. Looks to be more appropriate than what was on the car. FrankenTT is all growz up!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Diverterinator6.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
I'll log the thing later today. First, though, I have to swap in (yet another) turbo flange gasket. These things are a headache.
</blockquote>
</div>
__________________________________________________ _________________

</div>

Over the weekend and today I've done some tinkering with the Diverterinator. Ultimately it doesn't do what I want it to: eliminate that chuffing noise. Is it surge? Is it because 30psi boost pressures necessitate a DV "relocation mod"? I'm pretty well stumped. But I know I don't like the sound. I don't like how the problem messes with the ECU's air/fuel management. So I'm dialing everything down to make it go away.<br />
<br />
Before I do that, I know what you guys want. You want a chart. And I'm here to deliver, baby! First up, here's a look at the BoostManager log of w/m duty cycles. Since putting in the junky Ebay FMIC I've decided to restore Chris Oliver's original map. My guess is he knew what he was doing, so why not stick with it?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/baselineBM_pump_duty.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
As for the mysterious surge-y problem, I decided to tackle it by reducing the wastegate preload. I know this change might impact spool and airflow, but C.Tapp's file is going into EGT protection mode at the top end, and rather than pick a fight with the ECU over acceptable temperatures I decided to concede the problem. Here's a look at the impact of that change.<br />
<br />
Boost:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/14psi_vs_10psi_preloads-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...and Airflows:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/14psi_vs_10psi_preloads-airflow.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
But here's something that can't be expressed on a chart: the car <i>feels better</i> this way. The exhaust note is angry, powerful, ass-kicking. 2nd gear is a character-builder, that's for sure. So I'm penciling in the 10psi preload. But that doesn't mean I've lost interest in what's going on. To learn more I punched a couple more holes in my charge piping so I can install additional sensors. Two bungs: one for charge pipe temps, the other for charge pipe pressure. I wonder what will come of this.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/charge_pipe_bungs1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/charge_pipe_bungs2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/charge_pipe_bungs3.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
</blockquote>
</div>


I have the MAP sensor installed into the charge pipe. I located it upstream of the w/m sensor to be certain there's no interference there. Here's the beautiful charge pipe <i>in situ</i>.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/charge_pipe-MAPsensor1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The MAP sensor is facing the camera, but you can also see the IAT sensor probe affixed as well. I'll tackle wiring that one later in the week. Also, don't miss the handsome bit of piping work I did to supply charge air to the Diverterinator. Ugly, eh? Well I'm workin' on it! Anyway, here are the logs taken from 4 runs taken in succession.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3rev45-12psi_preload-4runs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
It's interesting to see how the peak boost becomes inflated with the heat-soaked hardware. This effect has got to be due to temperatures upstream of the intercooler. Past that point, temps are very good. So the intercooler is doing its job as far as cooling goes. Here's a look at the 4 runs showing the upstream pressures -- from which we can derive "pressure drop"<br />





I'm the fellow on the left.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/OEM19mm_and_20mm.jpg" border="0" alt="" />

...for the next couple of weeks. Got something up my sleeve for after the holidays. <img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/cool.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Cool" class="inlineimg" />


Where I am with the hardware now is quite a bit different from what we had immediately after installing the manifold. Take a look at the improvement.<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev45_spool-vs-earlier.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />


How'd this happen? Fairy dust? No. But a change to the DV, the actuator preload, and -- most importantly -- the Maestro software settings all contributed. It was unrealistic to expect the manifold swap to simply transform the car without adaptations made elsewhere. Now that they have, I'm satisfied with the part's behavior.

Boost. On the tubular steel manifold<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev43-30psi.jpg" border="0" alt="" /

...and MORE IMPORTANTLY, here are the EGTs at that performance level.

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev45EGT.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Big and ugly it may be, but you will not find performance to compare with that anywhere. And believe me, I do my research.

In this video you can see:
<br />
On the gauges<ul><li>IATs immediately after turbo outlet</li>
<li>Boost pressure at turbo outlet</li>
</ul>
On the computer screen<ul><li>IATs at the manifold inlet</li>
<li>EGTs at the probe in the tubine housing</li>
</ul>





<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75071589">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Here's a "hard copy" of the logs being taken in the video.
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev47EGT.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<br />
<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75125716">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
The FrankenTT has been running a full complement of emissions and other control gadgets which are becoming inappropriate to the project. Last month, the test pipe went in, eliminating the rear O2 sensor. And with the cat gone, retaining the evap system, SAI and a bunch of other stuff makes little sense. So the car will get a full strip next week. For right now, I moved to take the N249 out of the picture.<br />
<br />
Bypassing the N249 -- keeping it in place and plugged in -- is very easy. You simply remove the vac line from it to the DV, cap the outlet on the valve, and run a new line from a vacuum source. I teed into the line supplying the fuel pressure regulator. If I weren't such a newbie, the whole thing would have taken 10 minutes. After topping off the w/m tank (AGAIN), it was off to our usual logging spot for some runs. Here's what the Eurodyne loggers recorded:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/N249_bypass-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Spool seemed about the same, and boost might be a bit higher up top. But I can't say there's a breathtaking improvement. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the airflows before/after.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/N249_bypass-Rev55_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Pretty similar, although airflows at onset show a bit more liveliness. But I wondered if that improvement could be due to a drop in timing advance through there. Here's that comparison:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/N249_bypass-Rev55_timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Huh. Timing is now actually a touch higher through that section. So the improved airflow down low looks to be thanks to the bypass. With a bit more massaging of the boost requests, this mod should make for a nice improvement. <br />
<br />
Last, but not least: a video showing the loggers recording alongside the external gauges.




<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75151952">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I spent a bit of time this week trying to figure out why the FrankenTT doesn't seem to want to rev past 6800 or so. In logging run after run, the car would hit a "wall" where it'd dump boost, misfire, and drop power. Looking at the data, nothing seemed wrong. Fueling was solid, timing pull was next to nil.<br />
<br />
I ran the question by C.Tapp and he quickly arrived at the suggestion of "upgrading" to a proper Stage 3 file. Within minutes I had a file in my in-box. After a quick tutorial from him on how to use the "QuickTune" functionality in the Maestro Flash program, I set about porting my settings into the new file. Maestro comes with the ability to export, and then re-import, all its individual maps. So I was able to reconcile the old and new software files within minutes. Groovy stuff.<br />
<br />
Changes I made: <br />
<ul><li>Alter the fuel injector ratings from the "usual suspect" 630cc size to my EV14 550cc rating</li>
<li>Select the pre-configured fuel injector battery compensation table</li>
<li>Modify the "target filling" so it stayed consistent with the small turbo parameters for a K04</li>
<li>Drop the timing a bit during boost onset. (Hey, it's my turbo; I'll do what I want here)</li>
<li>Raise the maximum VE table so it goes through the roof above 4500. Below that number I retained the original K04 baseline figures.</li>
</ul><br />
Last, and DEFINITELY not least, I did this:<br />
<ul><li>Retain the MAF correction values table from the original K04 flash. I overwrote the "off the shelf" table in the Stage 3 file with the table from the original base file Chris gave me.</li>
</ul><br />
This last change was a big one. Because without it, the MAF values were coming back way low. It took a bit of head scratching to figure out what was going on, but when I compared the new Stage 3 MAF table with the one I've been using these last weeks, I could see a big difference. So I dropped the old table into the new map, and my MAF figures were right back to where they belonged.<br />
<br />
Almost as big a change was the timing map. Suddenly the car is holding a whale of a lot more. And with virtually no timing pull present, I think there's room for more. I'm shooting for a solid 20˚ or more from 6000 on up. Water meth to the rescue!<br />
<br />
Logs of grams/sec and timing values to come tomorrow. Then, I think, it's time to book a new dyno.


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…rejoining the original thread in January 2012..._

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_74785435">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">

There's no better way to ring in the New Year than...with CHARTS! And, my friends, <i>Slappy is making it rain!!</i> Here we go:<br />
<br />
I spent the holiday weekend tinkering with my spiffy new Stage 3 Maestro file. On top of being able to rev the car over 6700rpm now, I also have been able to tinker with A/F, timing and...VVT. As a summary, here's a look at the boost levels (taken at the manifold)<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...and here are the intake air temps at those boost levels:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_IATs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
Not too shabby considering the pressures and temperatures at the turbo outlet. I'm recording peaks like this:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_charge-air_peaks.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
A combo of cooler weather (50-60˚ ambient for logging) and solid w/m is doing a great job for maintaining manifold temps. After logging the car, the charge pipe is too hot to touch, while the intake manifold is air temperature. I'm pretty happy with that, especially since the FrankenTT is running a cheapo Ebay FMIC.<br />
<br />
And the all-important EGT readings are good. <br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_EGTs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Granted, perhaps not ice cold. But they are sufficiently within spec that the ECU doesn't go into protection mode. Thanks to that, my fueling maps are being reproduced perfectly. I've made the mixture a wee bit lean (0.83) at peak power, and the car is happy with that. Here's a look at the Lambda.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_Lambda.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
So we've got aggressive boost and strong A/F mixtures. How does this impact timing? It looks to me as though the new Stage 3 is much better at delivering greater advance with minimal corrections. Here is a sampling from a couple of pulls:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Which gets us down to airflows. Anyone following this thread knows that "compressor surge" has been a bugaboo for this project. Here's a great example of how it looks on the data logs:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3_Rev6_airmass.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
That choppy airflow plays hell with air/fuel mixtures, and seems to throw timing advance out of whack as well. So with a bit of work, I was able to arrive at a boost duty cycle that keeps "surge" at bay.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_N75.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
But I also did something else: in Maestro, I altered the intake cam timing map so it switched the VVT system from "advanced" to "normal" much earlier. Typically, the cam is at 22˚ advance until after 4500rpms. I've moved the changeover to be much earlier. Here's the log from block 091 showing the new mapping:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/VVT3500.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
With the cam moving to the "power" position much earlier, I think some of the cavitation has been backed off. Granted, a better pressure drop ratio...or a proper high performance cam...or an AEB head would all do more for the issue. And those things are definitely in the plan. But for now, here are the airflows with the car set up as it is, versus what they were the day we installed the high flow manifold.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Stage3Rev21_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Definitely a bit of choppiness there. But also quite a lot better than before.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next up: a quick dyno session tomorrow to make sure the torque levels aren't dangerously high. If there's still room for improvement on the stock motor, then the car gets a better intercooler and a Badger5 turbo inlet pipe.

__________________________________________________ __________________

For tomorrow I'm headed up to ICS Performance in Stamford. Not convenient for a New Yorker. Anyway, I'll have them set up their DynoJet to 2wd so I can get a more accurate sense of the torque levels. Honestly, this is more of a "cover your rear" thing than it's a "Ta-DAH!!"<br />
<br />
I really want to put on the next variant of the FrankenCooler. Hopefully tomorrow's dyno shows the car still has room for more (on stock internals).

If there's one thing you can almost certainly expect when someone posts up about their dyno, it's a list of all the woes the car had to confront while on the rollers. You guys all know what I mean: "the clutch was slipping", "the engine was knocking", "the dyno fans sucked". Well, I'm going to commit that sin too:<br />
<br />
The FrankenTT was not a happy camper on the dyno today. Which is not its usual temperament. But, like performance-tuning-clockwork, things just didn't go so smoothly when time came to test. Not that the Maestro logs show an issue. On the first pull, here are the stats:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Jan3-AWDdyno-timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Jan3-AWDdyno-airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Jan3-AWDdyno-Lambda.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
George at ICS had the car on rollers front and back. He did this because I told him I wanted a real-world indication of whether torque levels were exceeding safe limits. He said the numbers would be a bit lower, but the added load of the second roller will be the better test. So with all four wheels spinning, and the car's "vital signs" looking good, what could be the problem, right?<br />
<br />
Misfire. Cylinder #1 would go haywire at ~6200, causing the ECU to cut boost, throw a code, and louse up the pull. Here's a video (and audio) of the best pull we could do. The engine went to 6700 but konked at that point.<br />





<br />
So the rest of the day was about trying the usual fixes: putting in new plugs, switching around the coil packs. We gapped the plugs down to .22. I richened up the A/F in software. But the car would stubbornly break up at 6200. What gives? I ran through the logs with FrankenFriend spartiati and he had quite a few strong insights (which I've asked him to share directly here). But I'm down to suspecting the fuel pumps or the ignition coils. If it's the latter, then it might mean I have to <a href="http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5280361-2.0T-Coilpacks-and-spark-plug-gap-trying-random-new-stuff./page15.htm" target="_blank"><u>eat a big fat slice of humble pie</u></a> and install some MkVI TFSI units.
__________________________________________________ ___

I logged the car again. On my current flash, with duty cycles over 90% at redline, Maestro returns this:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/4codes.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
If I flatline the N75 duty cycles to 75% and re-log I get no codes and the car revs freely to 7300+. Here's all the trouble codes I see with reduced boost.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/1code.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
If the car can run well at moderate boost (and by <i>moderate</i> we're still talking over 2540mbar absolute) in "lame-o" duty cycle mode, I no longer suspect coolant temps or a bad injector. So I'm going with colder plugs (thanks Robbie for the pointer). And I'm not being a mincer about it either. <a href="http://www.jegs.com/i/NGK+Spark+Plugs/739/BPR9EIX/10002/-1" target="_blank">9-series NGK</a>.	

I got in touch with C.Tapp to get his thoughts (and hopefully a .bin file) on use of the MkVI coils. He seemed interested, but then he asked, "Doug, are you sure it's not just because you're running too much meth?"<br />
<br />
Ohhh. Hadn't thought of that. Which made me realize that the BoostManager's water-meth maps were unchanged since I was running that jury-rigged single sidemount. And let's face it: the FrankenTT has been guzzling the meth. I have piles of empty jugs. To score "juice" I've been hitting a number of outlets...keeping it on the down low...so as not to arouse suspicion. <i>Hello, my name is Slappy and I'm a water-meth addict. </i><br />
<br />
So maybe I don't need 3 separate nozzles blasting at near full duty. In January. So I took a look at my BoostManager w/m profiles and changed the map. Jumped in the car and logged the changes:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev21vsRev26_watermethduty.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
OK, so the water meth injection is down. And how's the car like it? Well, it felt pretty good. And a check for codes brought up nada. Hmmm. So is the mis-fire possibly NOT due to junky coils? Could this issue have just been me pouring windshield washer into the cylinders? It looks a lot like Chris was right. Come to think of it, so was George at ICS. When the car was struggling on the dyno he kept saying it felt like an A/F issue. You can hear him in the background saying it at the end of this video:<br />





<br />
So the water-meth is backed off and the car's ignition cycle is happy. But what have I given away in terms of timing advance?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev25_timing.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Well, that's what I call some January timing advance! Nice!

__________________________________________________ _______________

I know you kids like the gritty shots of your cars. And what better tonality for <i>The Bride of FrankenCooler!</i><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/bride_of_FrankenCooler.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
It's not just ugly. It's big and ugly.<br />
<br />
And it's going on the car today.
<br />
a bit of <a href="http://oculoid.com/bizarre-stylish-steampunk-creations/" target="_blank">SteamPunk</a> style with the finely crafted <i>Bride o'</i> intercooler.<br />

<br />
The old...
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

The new...<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler7.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler8.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

While at it, I installed a bung for a temperature sensor. This way I can gather readings for the airflows before they enter the intercooler.<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/BrideOfFrankenCooler6.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

I went to my usual logging stomping grounds for some comparisons. I ran before/after logs within a couple of hours so the ambient temps were similar. For the most part, things are virtually unchanged.<br />

Here is boost onset from low revs (measured in Maestro from the car's MAP sensor)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_vs_Ebay-boost_onset.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

And here it is from the BoostManager 5bar sensor<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_vs_Ebay-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Here is another measurement, also taken with the BoostManager. This one was to show "spool" performance at higher engine speeds.<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_vs_Ebay-spool.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

So we're seeing only very slight differences, but at least it's the FrankenCooler which has the edge. I then grabbed data for intake air temperatures.<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler-WaterMeth_vs_IATs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Both of these graphed runs are of the FrankenCooler. I was interested to see the relationship of (heat) and water meth (cooling) to the IAT charts. You can see a blip in temperatures before the meth kicks in to douse them back down again. Seeing this dynamic makes me really curious to measure the air temps at that pre-intercooler probe. How much temperature drop does that pre-intercooler meth afford?<br />

Lastly, here's a look at airmass<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_vs_Ebay-airmass.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Now I'm finally seeing justification for this misbegotten-looking intercooler! The airflows through that dark valley of "surge" are a lot better. Not perfect still, but definitely better. So the thing flows! Much better than the first crack at this.<br />

So now I wonder what the <a href="http://www.fferacing.com/our_facility.html" target="_blank">high priestess of dyno numbers</a> will have to say tomorrow?

__________________________________________________ ______________

I wired up the second IAT probe to have a comparison of temps at the turbo outlet (ahead of water meth nozzles) to those at the intercooler inlet (after two nozzles have sprayed into the charged air path. Here's what happens.<br />




<br />
Top: boost at turbo outlet<br />
Middle: IATs at turbo outlet (before meth nozzle #1)<br />
Bottom: IATs at intercooler inlet (after meth nozzles #1 and #2)

__________________________________________________ ______________

The [_continuing compressor surge]_ issue isn't present at lower onset pressures. But I'd rather know if the instability is due to the turbo's compressor design or other factors. Issam at INA has a good deal of experience in this area, and he's sent me their 70mm TB kit. Here's what it looks like.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/INA-70mmTB_adapter_plate.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />



</blockquote>
</div>

_______________________________


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

<div class="content hasad_off">
<div id="post_message_75327187">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I've been slow to cull down the video from the recent dyno testing. But here we are.<br />
<br />
Thanks to ICS Performance and ForceFed Engineering.






<div class="posthead">

<span class="postdate old">


<h2 class="title icon">
70mm throttle body is live
</h2>

</span>
<span class="nodecontrols">

<span class="date">01-11-2012 <span class="time">09:02 PM</span></span>

<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75336613">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Rather than wait for fabrication of a matching-size charge pipe, I stopped in at Autozone for a necked-down adapter coupling. Annnnnd...on it goes!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/INA70mmTB1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The wide-band, late-model FrankenTT has kind of a wonky manifold inlet flange, so I couldn't easily recycle the OEM 6mm bolts like most do. They're too long. But a handful of washers to stand off the bolt heads and everything fastened just fine. It's helpful that the adapter flange is pre-bunged for water meth. Because water meth is important.<br />
<br />
After a BADLY needed <a href="http://www.eurodyne.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=191&sid=042e3cd8f8971afdf20d59ae56bc6572" target="_blank">throttle body alignment in Maestro</a>, the car started and ran just like stock. So off the car went to see how the airflows looked. Here are two graphs, with self-explanatory notations:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/60mmTB_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/70mmTB_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Interesting, eh? the overall "flow bands" have the same shapes. So the throttle body doesn't open the proverbial flood gates. But. Look at the stability of flows between the two. No question, the 70mm orifice is having impact. Not on the mid-range, granted. But on either side of that rough patch I'm seeing an improvement.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I hadn't expected anything at this stage. With an ill-designed charge pipe feeding the TB, only to have the air flowing slam into a chamfered bottleneck...? But somehow that throttle body is making the airmass flow more laminar. And this is before I re-examine the intercooler. Cool.
</blockquote>
</div>


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I've been slow to cull down the video from the recent dyno testing. But here we are.<br />
<br />
Thanks to ICS Performance and ForceFed Engineering.









70mm throttle body is live



Rather than wait for fabrication of a matching-size charge pipe, I stopped in at Autozone for a necked-down adapter coupling. Annnnnd...on it goes!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/INA70mmTB1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
The wide-band, late-model FrankenTT has kind of a wonky manifold inlet flange, so I couldn't easily recycle the OEM 6mm bolts like most do. They're too long. But a handful of washers to stand off the bolt heads and everything fastened just fine. It's helpful that the adapter flange is pre-bunged for water meth. Because water meth is important.<br />
<br />
After a BADLY needed <a href="http://www.eurodyne.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=191&sid=042e3cd8f8971afdf20d59ae56bc6572" target="_blank">throttle body alignment in Maestro</a>, the car started and ran just like stock. So off the car went to see how the airflows looked. Here are two graphs, with self-explanatory notations:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/60mmTB_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/70mmTB_airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Interesting, eh? the overall "flow bands" have the same shapes. So the throttle body doesn't open the proverbial flood gates. But. Look at the stability of flows between the two. No question, the 70mm orifice is having impact. Not on the mid-range, granted. But on either side of that rough patch I'm seeing an improvement.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I hadn't expected anything at this stage. With an ill-designed charge pipe feeding the TB, only to have the air flowing slam into a chamfered bottleneck...? But somehow that throttle body is making the airmass flow more laminar. And this is before I re-examine the intercooler. Cool.
</blockquote>
</div>


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…and we rejoin the original thread from a chilly January 2012…_

<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
A while back I decided to remove all the emissions hardware on the car. It has no cat, so there's now a lot of stuff under the hood which serves no purpose. First to go will be the PCV system. In it's place I'll put in a catch can, courtesy of 42Draft Designs. Since the car already has their intake, they were able to mock up an installation bracket by using one of their in-house cars for test-fitting. Here are some pix they sent me:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/catchcan2.JPG" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/catchcan3.JPG" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/catchcan4.JPG" border="0" alt="" />
</blockquote>
</div>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75418597">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
FrankenFriend spartiati stopped by our HQ over the weekend to look over the car and to take it for a test drive. Afterwards, he took me out for a terrorizing/humbling ride in his GTi. So that's what 320whp feels like -- in a fwd car. Prettttty different.<br />
<br />
Then he showed me a nifty trick in Maestro. You can import data logs into the various software maps and have Maestro analyze where the car is not hitting its targets. So in the case of fueling, after importing a 10-min log of mixed driving, Maestro was able to show in a "histogram" where the map needed adjustments. Here is a look:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/fuel_corrections-histogram.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
After the histogram has completed running, you simply click "apply changes" and the map is adapted for your car's actual behavior. I've done a couple of rounds of this, and the O2 trims have gotten pretty near perfect now. A very cool feature.
</blockquote>
</div>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75431298">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Everyone remember a discussion earlier where the Bride of FrankenCooler was being disparaged? That thing sucks! went the crowd. And to that I said, nonsense! My ideas are always awesome! Any "pressure drop" must be simply due to the temperature deltas between the two pressure sensors. Right?<br />
<br />
Hmmm. Not so much. Taking advantage of milder temps today, I transplanted the MAP sensor to the pre-intercooler location. That's the spot where temps are a full 100˚c cooler than the upstream point. So how did pressures look there? And how did they compare to pressures behind the intercooler? Here's the results:<br />
<br />
<br />
Peak pressure at pre-intercooler (run 1)<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run1_pre-intercooler-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at intake manifold (run 1)<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run1_BoostManager-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at pre-intercooler (run 2)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run2_pre-intercooler-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at intake manifold (run 2)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run2_BoostManager-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at pre-intercooler (run 3)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run3_pre-intercooler-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at intake manifold (run 3)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run3_BoostManager-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at pre-intercooler (run 4)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run4_pre-intercooler-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Peak pressure at intake manifold (run 4)<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/run4_BoostManager-peak.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

I'm thinking 4 to 4.5psi of pressure drop between these two locations is too much. Looks like the Bride is getting dumped. I call annulment!
</blockquote>
</div>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a graph buried here in the thread showing 30psi at the top end -- but it was the result of an experiment I was doing with the VVT system. So the car wasn't running "normally". Same could be true if I mucked around with the ignition timing or other settings. But I think 25-27psi is a better, more accurate figure to go with. You can see four examples of the boost curve only a couple of posts up from this one.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I've taken delivery of another intercooler (#6 configuration, for those who like to keep count). This one's a "vertical" style one. So we'll see soon enough if it's the superior design. Here's a pic.<br />
<br />
Out with the old, in with the new.<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FrankenCooler_VerticalCooler.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Yes, I know it looks big. And at 20x12x3, it is -- especially for a vertical unit. But this is the size my manufacturer had in stock, so on it goes. Test results tomorrow.
</blockquote>
</div>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<br />
So I've done a bit of roadwork. How's it feel? Great! But the car's felt "great" for a while now. So to really delve into the changes, we gotta hit the charts. First off, I did some boost measurements using the handy 5bar sensor in BoostManager. Here's a look at the differences.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Vertical_intercooler_versus-boost.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
So boost in the midrange looks a BIT better. But not earth-shakingly so. Next I compared spool versus the other options:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Vertical_intercooler_versus-spool.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Again, not too much difference. But it's definitely no worse. And this is the biggest core of the three. <br />
<br />
Hmmm....<br />
<br />
So the new intercooler kind of appeared to come up shy of the hype. But then I looked at the airflows. My highest priority indicator.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/verticalFMIC-airflows.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Now we're talking! Who cares if the boost doesn't appear higher? Who cares if it does nothing for spool! Look at that (gigantic, honking, awesome) <b>LACK</b> of compressor surge! Granted, this graph is the best of several runs, but I've NEVER seen such smooth airflow. And that's before I get a proper charge pipe connected to the 70mm throttle body! Looking very very promising to crack the surge question here!<br />
<br />
For tomorrow: let's have a looksee at the airflows with a nice, spacious 3" section of charge pipe leading to the throttle body. So out goes the cramped, kinked OEM charge hose. In comes a custom fabbed pipe section courtesy of Ed at ForceFed. And who knows? Maybe some other goodies are going in the car tomorrow as well.<br />
<br />
Don't touch that dial!
</blockquote>
</div>


----------



## Beachbuggy (Jul 6, 2013)

Interesting work

Is this still the F23 with the 2283 sized compressor or this another engine/turbo setup? 

I ask as surely fitting a better suiting compressor wheel to the F23 is a far better and easier option than trying to make make good with everything else...You want better and smotter airflows then ditch the original 2283 compressor !


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Beachbuggy said:


> Interesting work
> 
> Is this still the F23 with the 2283 sized compressor or this another engine/turbo setup?
> 
> I ask as surely fitting a better suiting compressor wheel to the F23 is a far better and easier option than trying to make make good with everything else...You want better and smotter airflows then ditch the original 2283 compressor !


Dan - even back in 2012 when these original tests were being done the F23 didn't have a 2283 compressor wheel. That BorgWarner wheel's susceptibility to compressor surge in a 1.8T was old news even then. the F23's compressor wheel has always been larger and had a trim that's better suited to the engine it's being used in. In fact, the 7075-series billet wheel we now offer has an even more advanced trim than any other F23 wheel we've produced. And we did that to defeat compressor surge.










Yes, it's shiny. Because that's what people want.
But it's also made of the proper raw material: 7075-series aluminum billet.
And it's designed with a specific purpose in mind: allowing higher boost without succumbing to compressor surge.

These design changes are the product of the research and testing documented in this thread and our customers' feedback. Could we have gone with simply a bigger wheel and aimed for a higher horsepower figure? Sure, but that would have come at the loss of our trademark spool and responsiveness. I won't make that trade.


----------



## Beachbuggy (Jul 6, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Dan - even back in 2012 when these original tests were being done the F23 didn't have a 2283 compressor wheel. That BorgWarner wheel's susceptibility to compressor surge in a 1.8T was old news even then. the F23's compressor wheel has always been larger and had a trim that's better suited to the engine it's being used in. In fact, the 7075-series billet wheel we now offer has an even more advanced trim than any other F23 wheel we've produced. And we did that to defeat compressor surge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahh that's cool... Nice to see a shiney wheel in there.. its the main difference between Uk and US markets, You guys look for more boost we look for more flow, in common though is the no surge, and it's funny how the only compressor I've found that surges on the K04 is the original BW 2283, you would have thought they could of got it right!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…here we go from page 18 on the original thread..._


<div class="content hasad_off">
<div id="post_message_75500525">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Believe it or not, there has been plenty more to do on this car. So I called the guys at <a href="http://www.forcefedengineering.com" target="_blank">FFE</a> to ask them for a "Field Day" under the hood. I told them that if I manned the camera, they could tackle the various items on my to-do list. So, courtesy of my iPhone, here is a pictorial journey of our big day:

This location in the corner of the engine bay is just way too congested. My temporary adapter for the new 70mm throttle body is pinching the charge pipe -- which is spindly enough already when it doesn't have a kink. The solution is removal of the bulky OEM battery and replacement with a more sensibly-sized one. That'll buy us room for a properly-routed (and sized) throttle-body feed-pipe. Since the throttle body flange is 3", I reasoned that 3" piping here made the most sense. So we definitely need to clear some room here.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day23.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
The engine bay with all battery-related components out<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day21.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
With the stock battery out, here's a look at the brush pile of hoses that needs a good brooming<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day16.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<br />
An hour's work "clearing brush" gets us a pretty decent pile of emissions discards<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day04.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
When the SAI system is pulled, it leaves a hole in the engine head. This is solved with a quickly fabbed blockoff plate.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day17.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Logging to date shows the OEM 3" MAF sensor is getting pretty close to maxxed-out. Thankfully, Maestro has a list of MAF calibrations to work with. So the car gets upgraded to the larger S4 unit. But to do this, I needed 42Draft's help in modifying their intake to fit. They overnighted a prototype part, which we were able to quickly modify to perfectly suit the bigger housing. All Ed had to do was stroll over to his machines and get to work.<br />
<br />
The MAF Adapter section getting bored out on the lathe<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Milling the Velocity Stack section<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day19.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Matching up the components for a good match. Both are now sized for a 3.25" S4 MAF housing.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day18.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
With the engine bay cleared out, Tony roughs in the 42 Draft Designs catch can. This one is a prototype for combination with their intake system. Also in the shot is the newly-installed S4 MAF fitted to my FrankenPhatty prototype TIP<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day14.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <br />
<br />
<br />
At the bending machine for fabbing the battery tray<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day13.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Incorporating legs for the tray -- so it clears the wiring beneath.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day12.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day11.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Finished product<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day10.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Here's a look at the modified 42DD velocity stack (I'm gonna call it <i>The Big Gulp</i>) and Ed's battery tray installed.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day09.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
When Ed saw my jury-rigged charge pipe setup, derived from the previous FrankenCooler, he just sighed and took it all off. Then he set about sizing everything up for a proper system.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day08.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Ed gets started on fabbing intercooler charge pipe out of 2.5" stock. <br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day05.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<s>Damien</s> Fabian shows up to inspect our goings-on. The re-worked 2.5" charge piping is visible here, as is the transition to 3" for the throttle-body feed segment.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day02.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
This 42DD catch can configuration is a prototype for incorporation with their intake system. Here you can see how it attaches to the intake heat shield<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day07.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
The threesome of battery, S4 MAF and 42DD catch can.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day06.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Ed wonders what kind of music he can get out of this trombone. Actually it's the 3" throttle body feed pipe. Looks big enough, eh?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day03.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
The "trombone" hooked up to Issam's 70mm throttle body. Big as it is, it slides easily past the new battery.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/FFE-fabrication_day01.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
So that was one big, productive day. The car's engine bay is now simplified, and the intercooler piping is now finally as it should be. I am dying to try out all the new toys, but when we were wrapped up it'd started snowing. No logging for a bit, I guess. <br />
<br />
Thanks again to Ed, Fabian & Tony. Every time I go there, I have a great experience. And learn a ton. <img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/thumbup.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Thumb Up" class="inlineimg" />
</blockquote>
</div>

___________________________________________________________________________________
<div class="content">
<div id="post_message_75546780">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
Dialed in now, here are the numbers reported by the S4 MAF sensor _*clarification: the original BEA-engine sensor was fitted to a 73mm ID housing from the B5-series Audi S4)_<br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23airflows-postDELETES.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
_(*another clarification: WHOA, that's some compressor surge. This is an excellent picture of that faulty behavior experienced in 2012)_<br />
<br />
So, just as I'd expected, airflows through the system are significantly up. So much so that we're back in "surge" territory. But I also reckon we're in "rod snapping" territory as well, so I need to lower the boost requests after initial onset. Also, the 550 injectors are pretty much at their limit while running at 3bar. So I'll install a 4bar regulator and adjust Maestro accordingly. Here is a graph showing injector duty alongside airflows:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23airflows_injector_duty-postDELETES.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
That jumpiness in airflow metering is having an impact on the car's ability to manage Lambda. You can see the ECU struggling through that point:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23Lambda-postDELETES.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Lastly, I decided to do a look back at how this setup compares to the car while tuned for an OEM K04 turbo. Just how laggy is the F23?<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/FrankenTT/F23airflows-postDELETESvsK04.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
So, concerned about lag with your aftermarket turbo upgrade? Nothing beats a FrankenTurbo. Not a chance. <img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/embeer.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Beer" class="inlineimg" />_(…of course, the current version of the F23 is even more unbeatable-er. I mean seriously, look at the surge we were getting out of that bad-boy!) _
</blockquote>
</div>


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

So what's it take to get a new page in this thread? I mean page 11 is epic. Just saying...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

_…continued from page 19 of the original thread_

While at ForceFed last week for <a href="http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5575075-Frankenturbo-F23-Maestro-Active-VVT" target="_blank">spartiati's dyno</a> I had Ed do some touch-ups to the prototype Diverternator. He welded a nice bead around the valve's inlet to ensure a good seal.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/diverternator2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Our inlet pipe for TT225 and S3 fitment now sports an extra-large DV bung to fit the Diverternator (or a MadMax unit for that matter), so we put in the modified TIP and DV. Here's the end result.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/diverternator1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
My guess is most people following this thread are also aware of spartiati's F23 build. But rather than succumb to petty jealousy I've decided to take a look back to see how the FrankenTT stacks up to where it started. After crunching some numbers in Excel, I was able to come up with an interesting acceleration graph to compare the current setup with its chipped K04 form.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/F23vsK04-timetospeed.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
So maybe the car isn't running mind-boggling timing advance like spartiati's (for now, that is; for now), it's still nice to see that the turbo itself can replicate the OEM unit's low-end. Because spool is important.

------------------------------

The Diverternator has a port to atmosphere (making is a "two stage" diverter), so you can actually see the piston inside the housing. Here's a look at the port:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/diverternator3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
I rigged up my boroscope to capture some video of the piston's action. Alongside of the boroscope is a microphone, so the audio is coming right from the diverter as well. This exercise netted some interesting footage:<br />







<br />
If you look closely, you can see bluish fluid seeping past the piston. That's water-meth, infiltrating from its nozzle source only a few inches upstream. For the purposes of this test, the fluid does an excellent job illustrating the piston's seal integrity (pretty good, I'd say), but it calls to question whether this is an appropriate spot for the DV. It might need to go to the cold side of the intercooler, where the airstream will have better atomization.

----------------------------

I've had some time with the car on the new diverter valve. With some refinements to the boost curve I'm approaching a good compromise of boost to airflow stability. As I noted earlier in the thread, the FFE intercooler piping caused the surge beast to rise up again to say "did ya miss me?" Not in the least, buddy. But I have Maestro in my corner, so I can adapt. Here's a look at where things now stand:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev14airflows-vs-aggressive.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Better, right? Not perfect, but better. And a minor accomplishment: that disconcerting "chuffing" sound is gone. So let's say the beast, though unvanquished, is in the hurt locker. And I got this done without losing airflows. Check where the car is now vs. before the 70mm TB and the new intercooler piping:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/airflows-pre-vs-post.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<br />
But what do all these graphs mean, you ask? Well, since I don't yet have my frequent-customer card at the local dyno facility, I use another way of tracking progress. Anybody ever heard of FATs? It's a measurement method I picked up from the 2.7T Audi S4 crowd. <u><a href="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/s4/ecux/fats/" target="_blank">Here's a link that explains it fully</a></u>, but basically it's a time-to-engine speed test. 3rd gear. 4200-6500. How long does that take? And so long as test conditions are controlled and consistent, it's a great way to track progress. After downloading the Excel template on that link, I applied FATs calculations to logs taken throughout the FrankenTurbo's build. Here's how things are shaping up:<br />
<br />
Eurodyne Stage1 chip (stock K04 turbo)<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FATs-Stage1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />


Stage3 with stock throttle body and full emissions<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FATs-60mmTB.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />


Stage3 with 70mm throttle body<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FATs-Rev11.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Stage3 with Diverternator and boost/timing improvements<br />

<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FATs-Rev14.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

Getting awful close to 3.0x on this bad boy! So the question is, can the car get there with tuning? Or do I need to throw more $$$ at it? I'd love to get the ignition timing past the lame 18˚ its doing now. My guess is 1 degree = .10 off the FATs time. Can I get timing up to 20˚? I'll keep tinkering to see what the setup will accept.

------------------------------------------------------ 

On the first page of this thread I indicated that I'd want to explore different fuel injection options. At that time, I knew about USRT's development of a new line of injectors, which they'll call "Genesis 2". Over a long conversation with Scott, he brought me up to speed on the fundamentals and the state of the art for 1.8T. Scott and I have something in common: an active interest in development for this aging 1.8T platform. So when he laid out his plans for a wholly new injector, targeted to the 1.8T, I asked if he could provide samples for use in this build project.<br />
<br />
What do these injectors offer? Well, a couple things. Firstly, they re-think the rules about spray pattern. Unlike the established designs, they are not "twin-beam". Their flow isn't directed at the valve diffusers. Instead, they are designed for a highly atomized "cloud" of fuel, which gets directed through the valve passageways by the airflow. This presents a compromise. This cloud is somewhat inefficient at cold startup. The fuel will tend to adhere to those cold metal surfaces. And if you care about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Vehicle" target="_blank">ULEV compliance</a>, as VAG did when they designed these motors, then this method is problematic. But if you're more concerned with optimal power delivery and combustion efficiency...well, the compromise might tip in your favor. Get what I'm saying?<br />
<br />
Secondly, this new design's emphasis on atomization create the opportunity for downsizing their rated flow and UPSIZING the pressure. So rather than the traditional 3bar, I can approach this mod at a minimum of 5bar. Up the pressure, and the injectors' already good atomization becomes even better. And they can run at a lower duty cycle, which fosters better, more accurate metering.<br />
<br />
5bar, you say? "That's nuts. Why run so high a pressure that requires a whole new pump?" Well, because if you want to run over 300whp, you are already looking at a pump upgrade. That's why I offer the FrankenPump. And once you've got that in the system, you have a huge overcapacity for fuel flow. I say let's explore what we can make of using that capacity.<br />
<br />
With the FrankenTT, I started out by pulling the stock fuel rail and replacing it with an <a href="http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_58&produ cts_id=353" target="_blank">inexpensive upgrade from USRT</a>. Installation of this unit was very simple, with only the minor issue of the TT225 charge pipe necessitating re-orientation for the fpr to be on the driver's side. <br />
<br />
G2 injectors installed. They're a pretty, pretty stainless steel!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/G2install3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Here is the new rail, nestled amongst my rat's nest of sensor wiring.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/G2install2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Because I want to explore various pressure options, I went with USRT's adjustable regulator. It's a very simple device, and installs identically to stock.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/G2install1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
In this picture you can also see the pressure sensor I've daisy-chained to the rail. Using that, I can easily dial in the pressure I want. I am going to start at 73psi rail pressure -- 5bar, basically -- with the option of going up a full 1bar additional (the adjustable fpr can support up to 90+psi rail pressure!). But can the FrankenPump hack it? Can it flow adequately at peak boost? That's a good 100psi of resistance. Well, why speculate? I'll monitor it. Here's the new gauge in the company of all the others this car's wired for.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/G2install4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
Next steps: confirm fuel flow is up to spec, then log for EGTs and timing advance to record the effects.<br />
<br />
<i>Thanks to Scott at USRT for having the patience to work with me on this. Hope it nets us all a new option for fueling.</i>

------------------------------------------------------

Testing of the fuel system shows it holding up. Pressure at the rail is able to stay a full 5bar above manifold pressures:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/FPRgauge_5bar.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...and so injector duty is nicely down into a comfortable range, especially since these G2s are rated to 90% IDC.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev23G2_5bar-injectorDC.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Given the improved combustion with these injectors I am starting out with Lambda fairly lean. I want to see how far I can push before EGTs get too hot. So far they don't exceed 890˚c (at the turbine inlet). Here's a look at the current Lambdas.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://frankenturbo.com/web-content/FrankenTT/Rev23G2_5bar-Lambda.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />
<br />
As to whether this mixture is going to impact top-end, I can't say. But a leaner mix surely makes the car feel responsive in town. The question for me now: how will this new fueling setup impact timing advance? I'll tinker with that.


----------



## Miguel_s# (Mar 28, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> A follow up to my previous post is overdue... but it's for good reason: thanks to the support of this community, along with those running different platforms, last month we had the strongest sales figures in our history. I deeply appreciate the continued enthusiasm for our turbos and am happy to say we're still committed to this forum. So, while we're on a short backorder for most of our 1.8T products, I can put up some data.
> 
> Where we left off, the methRAIL was installed in the charge piping, but hadn't yet been fed any water methanol. At that time the FrankenTT was running the beautiful (but flawed) Relentess V4 prototype exhaust manifold. We've of course since moved to our own "ChinaFold" but that's a separate discussion. For the purposes of this post, here are some comparisons of the FrankenTT's data with and without WMI flowing:
> 
> ...



do you have a dyno with methRail on and off?


----------

