# RS4 Fuel return valve



## CupraK1 (Aug 15, 2009)

Any one else tried this? 
The RS4 valve can cope with up to 150bar of pressure requests
a must for stage 2+ cars with flat spots at 5k where more fuel is requested


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

*Re: RS4 Fuel return valve (CupraK1)*

AFAIK, the RS4 valve has a limit of 136 bar...


----------



## CupraK1 (Aug 15, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hendrik* »_AFAIK, the RS4 valve has a limit of 136 bar...


The RS4 fuel return valve replaces the OEM one. The OEM one opens a return valve at 130bar and allows pressure to drop to as low as 127bar before building pressure back up again. On the RS4 valve the pressure is designed to go to 136 bar and then the return valve opens, but closes again at 130bar. All depending on requested rail pressure.
REVO Stage 2+ requests 130bar and then higher in the rev range 132.5bar around the mythical 5krpm mark.
Before I had the valve, my actual rail pressure never managed to meet requested pressure apart from the point where I let off WOT. This POSSIBLY could point to a performance dip if the ECU detects the inability to meet requested pressure and then back off the power.


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

How difficult is it to get to the valve? I was thinking about upgrading as I am a few bar lower than requested in upper RPM.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (staulkor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *staulkor* »_How difficult is it to get to the valve? I was thinking about upgrading as I am a few bar lower than requested in upper RPM.

ECS and world impex or whatever it's called carries it. It's 100 bucks shipped. 
I'm running one. I get well over the Revo requested fuel pressure amount. My LPFP duty % valve went down drastically.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

PN is 079130757


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

How come this hasn't come up before? You think this will help flow a little more to the RS4's on a LPFP maxed out big turbo seup.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote »_The RS4 valve can cope with up to 150bar of pressure requests

As others have said, it's actually 136bar, not 150bar.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

Putting this on will give an extra 73ish psi. My math isn't the greatest off the top of my head. Lol. 
Running a 630cc injector at 3 bar is completely different at 4bar. 
I'll be getting on the dyno shortly to see if it has effected my power curve. The car feels much more responsive with it.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

so our fuel rail is for 130bar, the rs4 is for 136bar, doesn't seem like it should make a huge difference... other options anyone? arin?


----------



## jonnyc23 (Oct 5, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

An extra 6 bar of fuel pressure is pretty significant I would say.. Wish I had tried this, lots of people are reporting good things with this mod..


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_so our fuel rail is for 130bar, the rs4 is for 136bar, doesn't seem like it should make a huge difference... other options anyone? arin?

most folks average 120-127bar on the stock valve. Even if the request is 129.99.
With the rs4 valve Im well over the requsted amount


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
As others have said, it's actually 136bar, not 150bar. 

huge thumbs up to APR for making an awesome HPFP. 
A friend of mine and I did the same RS4 valve upgrade and he seized his HPFP at 132bar. He unfortunately was not running the APR unit. However, one is on the way.







.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_so our fuel rail is for 130bar, the rs4 is for 136bar, doesn't seem like it should make a huge difference... other options anyone? arin?

It depends how far you are pushing everything but I think you may find you'll run out of high pressure fueling, essentially maxing out the hpfp. Adding the 136 may not really help as you may not even be able to achieve above 130 depending on how much fuel you are using.


----------



## CupraK1 (Aug 15, 2009)

*FV-QR*

well i only need this as the revo stage 2+ file with my autotech HPFP feels like its holding back a lot at about 5.2k then it picks back up again... (no revo bashing pls)


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*

i'd like to see more info on this especially from people who are actually running the valve. Any downsides to running the valve? Increased stress on HPFP? Are there noticeable gains to be had if you aren't currently experiencing problems? Are people with problems masking their real problem with this? This seems to be a mod that hasn't really been talked about much when it appears to have a plausible worthwhile advantage.


----------



## CupraK1 (Aug 15, 2009)

*FV-QR*

There is also a by-product of fitting the RS4 valve and this is that it alters the pressure in the in-tank low pressure pump. The OEM low pressure fuel pump before the valve was fitted started off at 4.5bar pressure, but gradually dropped to around 3.4bar pressure at higher revs when WOT. After the RS4 valve was fitted the in-tank pressure stabilised at between 4.1-3.9 bar across the entire run whilst WOT. This too could point to where you would get a drop in power around 5krpm as the in-tank low pressure fuel pump drops below 3.5bar around those revs, which is outside normal parameters and MAY cause fuel cuts or the ECU to back off the power.
The RS4 valve can cope with up to 150bar of pressure requests (GIAC Extreme Beta file testing), which is the limit of the high pressure fuel pumps anyway.
I must stress that all this is from readings taken from live logging on my car, but the diagnosis is subjective although compelling in the logic.
The valve costs under £50, but is a pig to fit as it is located under the intake manifold and at an awkward angle to reach with spanners. I for one think it was worth it, just for peace of mind that it eliminated another variable from the "power dip syndrome"


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (CupraK1)*

Were you able to change the valve out without removing the intake manifold? I might have to run some logs to see what kind of values i'm getting right now and then just try this valve to see what happens afterwards. I'm not really convinced yet that i NEED it or would benefit from it though.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_Were you able to change the valve out without removing the intake manifold? I might have to run some logs to see what kind of values i'm getting right now and then just try this valve to see what happens afterwards. I'm not really convinced yet that i NEED it or would benefit from it though.

Pretty damn hard to remove it when the intake manifold is on the block. It's soooooo much easier with the manifold off.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_
Pretty damn hard to remove it when the intake manifold is on the block. It's soooooo much easier with the manifold off. 

When you say it's hard to do it do you mean it's in a tough place but if you can manage to reach it it comes out easy or do you mean it will take me longer to change it that way than remove the whole manifold? I personally thought it was pretty easy to remove my intake manifold but it wasn't a 30 min job. How are you liking your rs4 valve? Would you recommend it?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (CupraK1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CupraK1* »_The RS4 valve can cope with up to 150bar of pressure requests 

I know people were going nuts over stage 2+ requesting 130 bar instead of 110 bar with concerns for the cam shaft. Now we are discussing 150 bar?
Discuss...


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

It's a special order part on ECS as well as world impex. It'll take about a week or two to get. 
I'll take a pic of where it's on the manifold. I have my car in pieces as of last night. Lol


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*









with the mani on.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

mani off


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

this is interesting.... my car has had a slight issue with fueling as I go through the gears.. I wonder if this would help. Changing the valve on the pump, changing fuel filter, and swapping lpfps have done nothing. First I need to run more logs.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_this is interesting.... my car has had a slight issue with fueling as I go through the gears.. I wonder if this would help. Changing the valve on the pump, changing fuel filter, and swapping lpfps have done nothing. First I need to run more logs. 

i had the same issues.
arin schooled me to the possible rail valve issue.
i remember him telling me that the A4s were having the same issues. since he mentioned A4s i completely ignored it. but i then found a very old thread where he posted up something about it and i decided to take the dive. car has been running like a savage since. i am now able to break third loose.
this valve is really for individuals that are running software that require 127+ bar. otherwise the regular valve works for software that requests 122-125(uni).


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

thanks, my stage 3 sometimes has the power in the 3rd to let loose, but more times than not... I am a little flat on power. I will order this tomorrow and give it a shot. I will report back in a few weeks or less.


----------



## yvrnycracer (Apr 17, 2007)

*FV-QR*

can someone toss out the PN for the rs4 fuel rail pressure valve?
would be interested in seeing some results here...


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_PN is 079130757


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (yvrnycracer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yvrnycracer* »_can someone toss out the PN for the rs4 fuel rail pressure valve?
would be interested in seeing some results here... 


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_PN is 079130757


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (yvrnycracer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yvrnycracer* »_can someone toss out the PN for the rs4 fuel rail pressure valve?
would be interested in seeing some results here... 

sent pm.


----------



## yvrnycracer (Apr 17, 2007)

*FV-QR*

i think i am totally a dumb ass








but am i talking about one in the same here?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_this is interesting.... my car has had a slight issue with fueling as I go through the gears.. I wonder if this would help. Changing the valve on the pump, changing fuel filter, and swapping lpfps have done nothing. First I need to run more logs. 

Rich Funny thing is im on a stock intank pump and i have no issues maybe your APR upgraded intake pump is spiking above and popping your stock valve open hence the fuel pressure drop ?







Bob.G


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*

I swapped out my APR pump and went back to the stock one.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (yvrnycracer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yvrnycracer* »_i think i am totally a dumb ass








but am i talking about one in the same here?









http://www.worldimpex.com/part....html
doesn't get easier than this


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_I swapped out my APR pump and went back to the stock one. 
 
Willing to part with that APR LPFP?
If so, PM me.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_I swapped out my APR pump and went back to the stock one. 

mmmm well I may swap this RS4 valve in when I check my cam follower and intake valves next time i have the manifold off just for future LPFP option it can't hurt IMO







Bob.G


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

genuinevwaudiparts.com has the valve for $70.20 + shipping.


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (staulkor)*

sweet! tx staulkor


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

does anyone know what bar uni big turbo file runs?


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (staulkor)*

Now that's a bargain. Make sure it's not the A version.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

Low 120s


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*

just ordered my new valve.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*

got one coming too. We'll see what happens. Not expecting big things but not expecting anything bad to come of it either. Worst case, i'll have another round of intake valve pics to post


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*

Does anyone see any reason to run this valve with software that only request 122 bar? My Giac request that and in 4th gear at 7200rpm it sometimes dips to 119.xx. Ive seen my low side pressure down to about 3.7 bar. Seems different people have different opinions about minimum low side fp.


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

sub'd


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *loudgli* »_Does anyone see any reason to run this valve with software that only request 122 bar? My Giac request that and in 4th gear at 7200rpm it sometimes dips to 119.xx. Ive seen my low side pressure down to about 3.7 bar. Seems different people have different opinions about minimum low side fp.










This
but more along the lines of a unitronic big turbo car on RS4 injectors that could use more fuel to run high boost at a nice AFR. If i upgraded the in-tank pump and added the RS4 valve i wonder how much more it would flow to the rs4 injectors.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

Call me crazy for even thinking of a theory:
Arin informed me of this issue many many moons ago when I first got my APR HPFP. I thought there was something wrong with my HPFP. Anywho, it just so happens that the highest HP FSI was an APR tuned car. Riddle me this batman, could this be one of the so called "secret parts" that USP was using to yeild such high HP?
If so, prepare to see many many many more high HP dyno figures as this mod becomes
more popular. 
I bet uni will custom tune to 135 bar shortly.
500whp on pump gas FSIs will soon be the norm. 


_Modified by CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi at 7:25 AM 3-26-2010_


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

I don´t understand, why everybody is so surprised now...the topic was already discussed some months ago and just a few were intereseted








I hope for new injector testings due to flow rate and spray pattern of the rs4´s. Everybody remembers the picture from AWE tuning and first view lower flow rates of RS4 injectors compared to S3 ones.
Maybe also the black smoke problem can be solved or improved with our sperical dish design pistons and RS4 injectors under higher pressure!
...for my project, the FP Valve lays at home since november..


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (Hendrik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hendrik* »_I don´t understand, why everybody is so surprised now...the topic was already discussed some months ago and just a few were intereseted








I hope for new injector testings due to flow rate and spray pattern of the rs4´s. Everybody remembers the picture from AWE tuning and first view lower flow rates of RS4 injectors compared to S3 ones.
Maybe also the black smoke problem can be solved or improved with our sperical dish design pistons and RS4 injectors under higher pressure!
...for my project, the FP Valve lays at home since november..









The flow tests are not done at full pressure, they are done at only about 100psi if i recall correctly from speaking with the company who makes the machine.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The flow tests are not done at full pressure, they are done at only about 100psi if i recall correctly from speaking with the company who makes the machine. 

exactly. 
So the flow/spray pattern @ 135bar (1958.00946psi) is completely different that those documents showing 100psi flow/spray pattern. 
The stock valve on it's best day only provides 1885.49059 psi of pressure which most don't even get to see. 
With the RS4 valve the minimum psi seen is the maximum of the stock GTi one.


----------



## julito04 (Sep 4, 2007)

From the looks of it, this is really only beneficial for BT cars, or at least vehicles equipped with anything but a K03. Is that right? Would this be a beneficial mod for someone running stage 2+ on stock K03? Excuse my noobness lol.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (julito04)*


_Quote, originally posted by *julito04* »_From the looks of it, this is really only beneficial for BT cars, or at least vehicles equipped with anything but a K03. Is that right? Would this be a beneficial mod for someone running stage 2+ on stock K03? Excuse my noobness lol. 

no. It's beneficial for anyone running a HPFP with the software requesting 127+ bar of fuel rail pressure. 
I believe uni is the only tuner requesting under 127bar.


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (julito04)*


_Quote, originally posted by *julito04* »_From the looks of it, this is really only beneficial for BT cars, or at least vehicles equipped with anything but a K03. Is that right? Would this be a beneficial mod for someone running stage 2+ on stock K03? Excuse my noobness lol. 

might not be the case.... towards the end of my cars stage2 life.. it appeared that my car was lacking a little bit of power... we never really looked into it so maybe I was hitting the valves max capacity even with stage 2. who knows... only way to find out is to test it yourself. Run logs ripping through 2nd 3rd, 4th, and 5th and see how low your values go for actual fuel pressure.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*

My new valve should arrive early next week. Any requests for before and after comparison logs? Tell me which blocks you want to see and under which kind of driving conditions.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_My new valve should arrive early next week. Any requests for before and after comparison logs? Tell me which blocks you want to see and under which kind of driving conditions.

Hmmm, i'd like you to log intake temps and oil level while doing a 180 turn going backwards...
Yeah...that should do it !!!!


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_My new valve should arrive early next week. Any requests for before and after comparison logs? Tell me which blocks you want to see and under which kind of driving conditions.

goapr.com
then go to support and log what they consider round 1 and round 4.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Hmmm, i'd like you to log intake temps and oil level while doing a 180 turn going backwards...
Yeah...that should do it !!!!









hmm, i think a video would better capture that moment


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_s
more popular. 
I bet uni will custom tune to 135 bar shortly.


Why stop there? 
If im not mistaking the 1.4TSI twin charged thats used in Europe runs up to 150 bar .
So just as long as the pump can put it out and the fuel system can support it im sure the tuners can get more fueling out of those rs4 injectors and then will need the limiting valve from the 1.4TSI







Bob.G


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (rracerguy717)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rracerguy717* »_
Why stop there? 
If im not mistaking the 1.4TSI twin charged thats used in Europe runs up to 150 bar .
So just as long as the pump can put it out and the fuel system can support it im sure the tuners can get more fueling out of those rs4 injectors and then will need the limiting valve from the 1.4TSI







Bob.G

IIRC the 2.0TSI also uses a 150bar limiting valve.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
IIRC the 2.0TSI also uses a 150bar limiting valve.

Good too know Dave thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Is it a plug and play swap in the FSI fuel rail? 
That would be nice !!!!!







Bob.G


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (rracerguy717)*

150bar? May not be a good idea. Doesn't anyone remember this from back in the day?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_150bar? May not be a good idea. Doesn't anyone remember this from back in the day?










 
Prob failed because the mechanical limits of the flat tappet follower setup in the FSI 
It would have to follow basically how the HPFP system on the TSI engine with some type of roller follower IMO.







Bob.G


----------



## bokiNY (Nov 26, 2008)

*Re: (staulkor)*

Staulkor, did you use the part number mentioned earlier (079130757) on genuinevwaudiparts.com and under what Audi model did you search because I found only A6, Q5, R8 and S6. And somebody mentioned revision A - are there a couple of revisions and which one is the right one? Thanks.


_Modified by bokiNY at 6:23 PM 3-29-2010_


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_150bar? May not be a good idea. Doesn't anyone remember this from back in the day?











well what fuel pump was he using and i wonder if his follower had alot of wear before he started that 150 bar stuff


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (bokiNY)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bokiNY* »_Staulkor, did you use the part number mentioned earlier (079130757) on genuinevwaudiparts.com and under what Audi model did you search because I found only A6, Q5, R8 and S6. And somebody mentioned revision A - are there a couple of revisions and which one is the right one? Thanks.

_Modified by bokiNY at 11:41 AM 3-28-2010_

I went to the Audi stealership prior to purchasing te correct valve online. The one you speak of is the A version meant for the models you speak of. The 079130757 is RS4 specific.


----------



## bokiNY (Nov 26, 2008)

So how do we order one from genuinevwaudiparts.com if there's no RS4 option when searching and you can't search for 079130757?
Thanks


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
IIRC the 2.0TSI also uses a 150bar limiting valve.

If i am not mistaken the limiting valve on a TSI does not screw into the fuel rail it is built internal to the hpfp.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
If i am not mistaken the limiting valve on a TSI does not screw into the fuel rail it is built internal to the hpfp.

You're right . . . I just checked and the pump can produce a maximum of 150bar but the pressure limiting valve which is internal to the pump opens at 200 bar. Lol. 
Dave


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (bokiNY)*

Google it. 
It comes up on ecs site and worldimpex


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

What is the current best price for the RS4 valve? If i can get a few people together i can do $74 plus shipping...not sure how that comes in the market though.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I got mine for 100 shipped 








I knew I houldve let you get it for me through your Audi connect. 
Unfortunately, I was in a rush. 
I'm going to PM you for some other parts.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *staulkor* »_genuinevwaudiparts.com has the valve for $70.20 + shipping.


it would be in the market somewhere between genuinevwaudiparts and worldimpex.


----------



## bokiNY (Nov 26, 2008)

So the TSI cars don't need one? If so, great news! More money for other mods...


----------



## bokiNY (Nov 26, 2008)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

Thanks CoNGLo, I did find it on ecs site and worldimpex but I was more interested in Staulkor's post where he was able to get it for $70 from genuinevwaudiparts.com - I couldn't find it there. Anyways, if TSI cars don't need one, great, I'll stop looking!


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

Just go to genuinevwaudiparts.com, right in the middle on the left "Search by Part Number or Keyword". Paste in "079130757" and select Audi and search. It is right there, lol.


----------



## bokiNY (Nov 26, 2008)

Thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by bokiNY at 11:44 AM 3-30-2010_


----------



## blackcruiser (Nov 1, 2005)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*

When you did remove the manifold, did you replace your injectors gasket kit as well?


----------



## 2pt0tee (Apr 28, 2008)

*Re: (blackcruiser)*


_Quote, originally posted by *blackcruiser* »_When you did remove the manifold, did you replace your injectors gasket kit as well?

In Rich's case... short answer no, long answer yes... LOL


_Modified by 2pt0tee at 3:37 AM 4-1-2010_


----------



## Joeydabomb (May 1, 2009)

So I take it that there is no way of installing this without removing the manifold?
I cringe at the thought of removing it again.


----------



## acespizee (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: (Joeydabomb)*

Can easily be done without removing manifold but you will have to bend fuel rail slightly and undo clips holding it in place, just be carefull not to break anything and a second pair of hands will definetly help. I paid no more than £35-£40 pounds for the RS4 Valve from TPS volkswagen. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ilie.vw.tech (Dec 31, 2008)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

have you installed rs4 valve in your car yet?


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (ilie.vw.tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ilie.vw.tech* »_have you installed rs4 valve in your car yet?

Who are you asking? I think conglomerate has been running the valve for a while now. I just installed mine over the weekend.
For those interested, i honestly don't see how you could replace this valve either correctly or easily without removing the whole intake manifold assembly. It's a lot of work to r&r that manifold so believe me i would've loved to have found a way to swap the valve out without going through all that trouble. I just don't see a way; at least not without some special slim profile wrench or some other special tool which i don't own.
I was a little disappointed to see how much buildup had re-accumulated on my valves since the last cleaning i gave them but i attribute that mostly to the fact that my driving has changed almost to 100% city stop & go driving now with usually not enough time for the engine to get up to temp during my daily commute. I might post some pics later if anyone's interested.
As far as results...my 'before' logs show that my software is requesting 129.99 bar rail pressure but never meeting that, only getting as close as 127 in most cases and as high as 128.02 in one case. I've yet to do a set of 'after' logs because of all the rain so far. I will say the car feels much better now (even my wife noticed it) but that could be because of the valve cleaning more than anything else.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (ilie.vw.tech)*

what he said. ^^^^

_Quote, originally posted by *ilie.vw.tech* »_have you installed rs4 valve in your car yet?

I too will have logs once I get the car running upto my standards.


----------



## ilie.vw.tech (Dec 31, 2008)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*

so its a direct fit from the rail no modification need? (from rs4 to gti fsi)


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
For those interested, i honestly don't see how you could replace this valve either correctly or easily without removing the whole intake manifold assembly. 


Remove the line going to the pump
remove t30 torx holding line to of manifold and one on the bottom right.
14mm crows foot to remove the line
17mm crows foot to remove the valve itself.
Install is reverse of removal








Can be done in about 10 minutes this way.


----------



## 08 passat turbo (Mar 29, 2008)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
As far as results...my 'before' logs show that my software is requesting 129.99 bar rail pressure but never meeting that, only getting as close as 127 in most cases and as high as 128.02 in one case. I've yet to do a set of 'after' logs because of all the rain so far. I will say the car feels much better now (even my wife noticed it) but that could be because of the valve cleaning more than anything else.

im assuming your stage 2+...i believe a variance or 1-2 bar is acceptable for ur fuel rail pressure


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (08 passat turbo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *08 passat turbo* »_
im assuming your stage 2+...i believe a variance or 1-2 bar is acceptable for ur fuel rail pressure

no, i'm running a k04 with rs4 injectors. A few bars lower could very well still be acceptable. I wasn't having any problems with my car before but i decided to install this valve anyways to see if it would make a difference or not. So far, the car feels a lot better but i'll see what my logs have to say before i draw any conclusions.
This valve is a direct fit on FSIs with no modifications needed.
That's good info from Chris. Chris, you could've posted that a few days earlier but better late than never. All i know is it wasn't possible to do the install with any of my standard wrenches. Anyways, no regrets.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_

That's good info from Chris. Chris, you could've posted that a few days earlier but better late than never. All i know is it wasn't possible to do the install with any of my standard wrenches. Anyways, no regrets.

No problem, I hadn't thought of it before to post it even though I have done them this way.
No way I can think of to do it with normal wrenches but crows feet you can do it with the manifold on.


----------



## ilie.vw.tech (Dec 31, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

so it is a direct fitment? no mods needed.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No problem, I hadn't thought of it before to post it even though I have done them this way.
No way I can think of to do it with normal wrenches but crows feet you can do it with the manifold on. 

Yes you can do it with normal wrenches and without removing the manifold
Although i must admit i had no idea a "crow's foot" tool ever existed..LOL..


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Yes you can do it with normal wrenches and without removing the manifold
Although i must admit i had no idea a "crow's foot" tool ever existed..LOL..

















Yeah i guess there are ways to get some tools in there. It just see it taking a really really long time only having that short of an area to turn it in. Maybe from the bottom if you get the crankcase line out of the way and have a stubby.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (ilie.vw.tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ilie.vw.tech* »_so it is a direct fitment? no mods needed.


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_This valve is a direct fit on FSIs with no modifications needed.

umm, yep.


----------



## ilie.vw.tech (Dec 31, 2008)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*

thanks


----------



## ilie.vw.tech (Dec 31, 2008)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*

does anybody have a picture of the two valves and compare it to each other


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (ilie.vw.tech)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ilie.vw.tech* »_does anybody have a picture of the two valves and compare it to each other

Nothing to compare.
They are externally IDENTICAL...


----------



## blackcruiser (Nov 1, 2005)

For those who have installed the rs4 valves, have you got a issue with petrol leakage before you retighten them? I had this issue initially and it's a bitch to get a modified wretch to tighten them without removing the manifold. But I guess it's all worth it after I drove it.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (blackcruiser)*

thats why i decided to remove my intake mani.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

ok, it's been a full week since i've installed the new valve. Here are some before and after logs for those interested. The car feels a lot smoother and there was definitely a noticeable improvement after the install. Rail pressure now easily goes beyond 127. I cleaned the intake valves at the same time so it's possible that that added to the improvement. However, really there wasn't enough buildup in my opinion to make a noticeable difference in performance yet so i largely think the RS4 valve made the biggest difference in this case. The sample rate's not that great w/o turbo mode but i think the difference is still clearly visible.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*FV-QR*

Well looking at your logs, and also considering you are not using an aftermarket HPFP, i'd have to say there is ZERO difference as far as logs/numbers go.
I'd say what you are feeling is more of a placebo effect rather than actual gains from the valve...
Hell...it's cheap though right ?Why not install it anyways...
Yeah...


----------



## Joeydabomb (May 1, 2009)

^ Zero differences in his logs? I'm seeing a 5 bar gain in his fuel pressure, that's pretty substantial IMO


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_Well looking at your logs, and also considering you are not using an aftermarket HPFP, i'd have to say there is ZERO difference as far as logs/numbers go.
I'd say what you are feeling is more of a placebo effect rather than actual gains from the valve...
Hell...it's cheap though right ?Why not install it anyways...
Yeah...


LOL this is awesome logic.. i'm about to order one up too, but i want someone to show me that it's bringing a .5bar gain in low pressure fueling with logs.

_Quote, originally posted by *CupraK1* »_There is also a by-product of fitting the RS4 valve and this is that it alters the pressure in the in-tank low pressure pump. The OEM low pressure fuel pump before the valve was fitted started off at 4.5bar pressure, but gradually dropped to around 3.4bar pressure at higher revs when WOT. After the RS4 valve was fitted the in-tank pressure stabilised at between 4.1-3.9 bar across the entire run whilst WOT. This too could point to where you would get a drop in power around 5krpm as the in-tank low pressure fuel pump drops below 3.5bar around those revs, which is outside normal parameters and MAY cause fuel cuts or the ECU to back off the power.
I must stress that all this is from readings taken from live logging on my car, but the diagnosis is subjective although compelling in the logic.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_Well looking at your logs, and also considering you are not using an aftermarket HPFP, i'd have to say there is ZERO difference as far as logs/numbers go.
I'd say what you are feeling is more of a placebo effect rather than actual gains from the valve...
Hell...it's cheap though right ?Why not install it anyways...
Yeah...

lol. Where are people getting my list of mods from?? I'm running an upgraded HPFP as well as RS4 injectors and a K04. If it's too hard for you to believe the RS4 valve caused any improvement i'm willing to aknowledge the gains could also be from cleaning the valves or possibly from fixing some unknown issue beforehand but i have a lot of logs from beforehand showing no pre-existing issues at all. So i'm going to stick with what i said before that this valve made a noticeable improvement. No placebo effect involved. I call things how they are.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_
LOL this is awesome logic.. i'm about to order one up too, but i want someone to show me that it's bringing a .5bar gain in low pressure fueling with logs.


There was no noteable difference in my low pressure fueling from before installing the valve to after installing it. It never dipped below 4bar.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
lol. Where are people getting my list of mods from?? I'm running an upgraded HPFP as well as RS4 injectors and a K04. If it's too hard for you to believe the RS4 valve caused any improvement i'm willing to aknowledge the gains could also be from cleaning the valves or possibly from fixing some unknown issue beforehand but i have a lot of logs from beforehand showing no pre-existing issues at all. So i'm going to stick with what i said before that this valve made a noticeable improvement. No placebo effect involved. I call things how they are.

Are you serious ??








That's like even more stupid than installing a valve you don't know how or what it does...
So yeah, you are using an aftermarket HPFP running *90 bar of rail pressure* in the high torque/fuel demand area, AND also using RS4 injectors....oh i forgot...that's with a....Garrett.....oh sorry a K04 ?? LOL
Oh i'm pretty sure you saw a HUUUGE difference with the RS4 valve...NOOOOT....








Definitely placebo effect.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (Joeydabomb)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Joeydabomb* »_^ Zero differences in his logs? I'm seeing a 5 bar gain in his fuel pressure, that's pretty substantial IMO

Well if you look at his logs again, you'll notice he is running 90 bar of rail pressure IN THE HIGH TORQUE AREA, which is really stupid, since you don't install a "valve" to get more fuel, when you HAVEN'T EVEN MAXED what your injectors or AFTERMARKET pump can do.
Do you seriously think considering his fueling setup, that the valve gave him the necessary fuel he was "missing" by giving him WHAT...5 bar ??Like how ?Made him go from 90 to 95 bar in the high torque area ??
Ahahaha....emmmm...O.K....


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Are you serious ??








That's like even more stupid than installing a valve you don't know how or what it does...
So yeah, you are using an aftermarket HPFP running *90 bar of rail pressure* in the high torque/fuel demand area, AND also using RS4 injectors....oh i forgot...that's with a....Garrett.....oh sorry a K04 ?? LOL
Oh i'm pretty sure you saw a HUUUGE difference with the RS4 valve...NOOOOT....








Definitely placebo effect.

the stock valve is not the limiting factor in the high torque area so i'm not sure why you're fixating on that part of the power band. The RS4 valve only helps when the software is requesting 129.99 bar and is only getting 127bar. You'll see that with the RS4 valve installed i can now meet or exceed the requested pressure when it's at 129.99 bar so that equals problem solved for me in my book. This valve obviously cannot take the place of a fuel pump or larger injectors and will not supply more fuel than those components can on their own so you'd be dumb to expect "huge" gains or to interpret this as a solution for more fuel in big turbo setups. The whole point of me taking the time to install this valve was to see if i could get an improvement where the software is requesting near 130 bar and not able to get it. Guess what, it now gets what it's asking for so not sure what your argument is here. You can pretend all you want that i'm a 16 yr old doing my first car mod ever and claiming my new air filter just gave me a 20hp gain, but i'm not claiming magic here. I have a baseline and an improvement over that baseline substantiated by data. The car is undeniably smoother. That can be attributed to one of the things i mentioned in my previous post. Since the RS4 valve was the largest change i made i will continue to logically attribute the gains to that until it can be proven otherwise. I think you're trying too hard on this


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
the stock valve is not the limiting factor in the high torque area so i'm not sure why you're fixating on that part of the power band. The RS4 valve only helps when the software is requesting 129.99 bar and is only getting 127bar. You'll see that with the RS4 valve installed i can now meet or exceed the requested pressure when it's at 129.99 bar so that equals problem solved for me in my book. This valve obviously cannot take the place of a fuel pump or larger injectors and will not supply more fuel than those components can on their own so you'd be dumb to expect "huge" gains or to interpret this as a solution for more fuel in big turbo setups. The whole point of me taking the time to install this valve was to see if i could get an improvement where the software is requesting near 130 bar and not able to get it. Guess what, it now gets what it's asking for so not sure what your argument is here. You can pretend all you want that i'm a 16 yr old doing my first car mod ever and claiming my new air filter just gave me a 20hp gain, but i'm not claiming magic here. I have a baseline and an improvement over that baseline substantiated by data. The car is undeniably smoother. That can be attributed to one of the things i mentioned in my previous post. Since the RS4 valve was the largest change i made i will continue to logically attribute the gains to that until it can be proven otherwise. I think you're trying too hard on this









Well since you are not a "16 year old" as you say and also you clain to have done your homework, you should know the OEM fuel pump with RS4 injectors supports WAAAY more than your current turbo setup, and has even allowed you to run a rail pressure of 90 bar in the CRITICAL area, and the reason aftermarket HPFP's where developed in the first place.So (in your case at least) the RS4 valve is useless in the low-mid revs, but its also useless in the top of the powerband, where EVEN A STOCK OEM PUMP AND "SMALLER" S3 injectors are able to cover all the necessary fueling requirements without a hiccup (let along your setup, and you are not even running STOCK RAIL PRESSURE NUMBERS..







).
You should also know fuel pressure rises naturally as revs go up, and "exceeding" specified rail pressure means NOTHING if you are not experiencing fuel issues.And yet you are stating you installed the valve just to see a few numbers (that are not always constant btw..) in a log... AND...??BIG DEAL !!!Does that do anything for your setup ?No.And it never will, cause as i've said you have 2 other MAJOR factors in fuel delivery LEFT UNTUNED and that is fuel flow (injectors) and fuel pressure (pump).
So as i said...Placebo effect...Nothing more, nothing less...


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Well since you are not a "16 year old" as you say and also you clain to have done your homework, you should know the OEM fuel pump with RS4 injectors supports WAAAY more than your current turbo setup, and has even allowed you to run a rail pressure of 90 bar in the CRITICAL area, and the reason aftermarket HPFP's where developed in the first place.So (in your case at least) the RS4 valve is useless in the low-mid revs, but its also useless in the top of the powerband, where EVEN A STOCK OEM PUMP AND "SMALLER" S3 injectors are able to cover all the necessary fueling requirements without a hiccup (let along your setup, and you are not even running STOCK RAIL PRESSURE NUMBERS..







).
You should also know fuel pressure rises naturally as revs go up, and "exceeding" specified rail pressure means NOTHING if you are not experiencing fuel issues.And yet you are stating you installed the valve just to see a few numbers (that are not always constant btw..) in a log... AND...??BIG DEAL !!!Does that do anything for your setup ?No.And it never will, cause as i've said you have 2 other MAJOR factors in fuel delivery LEFT UNTUNED and that is fuel flow (injectors) and fuel pressure (pump).
So as i said...Placebo effect...Nothing more, nothing less...

just when i thought you were starting to get it







. Well, at least you're about half way there now...
You've got to manage your expectations. Again, this valve won't magically add fuel where there wouldn't be fuel before. As you said, the stock fuel pump and RS4 injectors are more than able to keep up with what my software is requesting and what my humble turbo needs at the top. BUT, what isn't able to keep up is the stock fuel pressure valve as it would release rail pressure before the rail pressure could meet what was being requested (i.e. 129.99 bar). Now, back to your expectations...
Compared to the stock valve, this valve isn't designed to give you more fuel until more than 127 bar is requested. Don't expect miracles from nothing. Simple fact is that where the stock valve fell short the RS4 one picks up the slack. This is a fact, it's documented and can be clearly seen in my results.
Your argument that these numbers are not constant is a fallacy. In all my logs i have not seen my rail pressure get above 127 and occasionally 128bar before installing this valve. Not once.
I will not get into a pissing match with you over a valve that i don't receive a kickback for selling or have any interest in promoting other than providing free information for those interested. It does what i have said it does and i have first hand experience with it's performance. Nough said.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*

why the big drop off in rail pressure after the rs4, the one where is is way above requested and them just drops?


_Modified by Uber-A3 at 6:07 PM 4/12/2010_


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (Uber-A3)*

5 BAR (72PSI) is nothing to scoff at.
even more so when we have no fueling solutions. every bit we can get helps a lot in the search for affordable reliable power.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_why the big drop off in rail pressure after the rs4, the one where is is way above requested and them just drops?

_Modified by Uber-A3 at 6:07 PM 4/12/2010_

I let off the throttle. Keep in mind the sample rate is pretty bad and the graph is merely connecting one dot to another with a line. So it looks like it's dipping down however, there're only two data points recorded which are 134 bar and then straight to 124 bar. I probably could've cut that last point out but i used it in the other graphs so i left it in there. My other two runs from the same session stay at 129 & 130 bar till the end.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
I let off the throttle. Keep in mind the sample rate is pretty bad and the graph is merely connecting one dot to another with a line. So it looks like it's dipping down however, there're only two data points recorded which are 134 bar and then straight to 124 bar. I probably could've cut that last point out but i used it in the other graphs so i left it in there. My other two runs from the same session stay at 129 & 130 bar till the end.


when you let off throttle and stay in gear fuel delivery cuts off completely


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_
when you let off throttle and stay in gear fuel delivery cuts off completely

only if you let off the throttle completely. Accelerator pedal position goes from 99.6% to 73.3%.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
just when i thought you were starting to get it







. Well, at least you're about half way there now...
You've got to manage your expectations. Again, this valve won't magically add fuel where there wouldn't be fuel before. As you said, the stock fuel pump and RS4 injectors are more than able to keep up with what my software is requesting and what my humble turbo needs at the top. BUT, what isn't able to keep up is the stock fuel pressure valve as it would release rail pressure before the rail pressure could meet what was being requested (i.e. 129.99 bar). Now, back to your expectations...

Well as i said fuel requirements at least for the K04 are highest in the high torque area and this valve does nothing to that, especially with your setup.There are cases with the GTI valve that i have seen actual EXCEED requested (it has even reached 133+ bar up top, and others can also confirm this) and as i said this is not something constant because the next pull you might get 2 or 3 bar LESS in the exact same rev spot.Your theory about keeping requested and actual the same is just that, a theory, since it has no effect on final fuel delivery, once again, in your setup.The only place i would find this valve "useful" would be in a K04 setup WITHOUT a HPFP, and with STOCK injectors.Then...maybe yes, "maybe" it would help, but than again i highly doubt it, seeing the fuel requirements for the K04's torque peak.Maybe someone can try it and report back.Not willing to bet on it though..









_Quote »_Compared to the stock valve, this valve isn't designed to give you more fuel until more than 127 bar is requested. Don't expect miracles from nothing. Simple fact is that where the stock valve fell short the RS4 one picks up the slack. This is a fact, it's documented and can be clearly seen in my results.

Your argument that these numbers are not constant is a fallacy. In all my logs i have not seen my rail pressure get above 127 and occasionally 128bar before installing this valve. Not once.


Well than maybe you should check your fueling system, cause mine goes well beyond 127 easily, and i betting other people's does too.Using a "bandage" to cover a hole is not the way to solve problems...
During my discussion with Revo's programmer i asked him why doesn't Revo support a 135 bar fuel pressure software request now that the RS4 valve has been..."found", he said "we much rather have a constant pressure than trying to catch up to the highest that might be achieved..".
Now i find that pretty logical...don't you ??And if as you say things are that.."constant"..that wouldn't be an issue...but IT IS...Once again, YOUR stock valve could have been bad from the start, and replacing it with the RS4 could just have been..."good maintenance".


_Quote »_I will not get into a pissing match with you over a valve that i don't receive a kickback for selling or have any interest in promoting other than providing free information for those interested. It does what i have said it does and i have first hand experience with it's performance. Nough said.

Right...but to tell you the truth, all this time in the forums i've learned one lesson VERY WELL...50%+ of the stuff in here is neither necessary nor required to make good horsepower.We just like to spend money...thats all...So "testing" a part and making it look good when it makes no difference might sound.."heroic" to you, but all it does is put people in a useless procedure that has no meaning...
Ever thought of that ??


_Modified by GolfRS at 2:26 PM 4-13-2010_


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*

I've gone as high as 154 bar with this RS4 valve. Doesn't mean I hold 154bar. Which means those gti valves don't hold 133 either. 
I needed to meet my fuel request because I am running stock engine management. (all stock ecu safety equipment is intact. DV,N75, etc). I easily hit that good ol 134 bar with the GTi valve and a split second later it would go down to 122bar my waste gate would open immeadiately and bam no frigging boost. With this RS4 valve in place the pressure doesn't drop below 129bar at WOT and I meet requested boost. 
Stop being condesending. If anyone's butt dyno makes them feel faster and happier let them live.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_I've gone as high as 154 bar with this RS4 valve. Doesn't mean I hold 154bar. Which means those gti valves don't hold 133 either. 

A peak value only means nothing.The target is holding requested fuel pressure to keep the fuel supply also constant.With PROPER ECU tuning, injection timing should handle fuel needs PROVIDED the hardware it was coded for is in good working condition.If it's not...THERE lies your problem.Not the peak rail pressure...

_Quote »_I needed to meet my fuel request because I am running stock engine management. (all stock ecu safety equipment is intact. DV,N75, etc). I easily hit that good ol 134 bar with the GTi valve and a split second later it would go down to 122bar my waste gate would open immeadiately and bam no frigging boost. With this RS4 valve in place the pressure doesn't drop below 129bar at WOT and I meet requested boost.

That's exactly what i wrote above.If you are not using the right software/hardware combination, a "trick" to make up for it simply isn't the way to do it.There are TONS of cars making much more than K04 power with zero issues.There is no sufficient evidence this does anything for any one.

_Quote »_Stop being condesending. If anyone's butt dyno makes them feel faster and happier let them live. 


I'm not actually.I just feel there are many people browsing these forums, and not all of them know some things come at a cost.Did anyone mention that by upping your rail pressure you are also putting more strain on the pump/cam ?What if one of those..."converted" to the RS4 craze happen to crack a pump or a cam, after installation?Is he gonna blame his luck ?Or is he gonna blame the valve (and all of you that recommended it) ?But then again, you guys are at home behind the screen, and of course, no one put a gun to his head...right ??
Yeah..right...no one did...


----------



## mkvgtiblk06 (Mar 2, 2007)

I am looking to buy this valve. But when i go to the website and type in this part number i dont know if i choose the top or bottom one. Please help me?
070401532 PN RS4 VALVE http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407
Which one do i buy is it the top or bottom one?


----------



## acespizee (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
the stock valve is not the limiting factor in the high torque area so i'm not sure why you're fixating on that part of the power band. The RS4 valve only helps when the software is requesting 129.99 bar and is only getting 127bar. You'll see that with the RS4 valve installed i can now meet or exceed the requested pressure when it's at 129.99 bar so that equals problem solved for me in my book. This valve obviously cannot take the place of a fuel pump or larger injectors and will not supply more fuel than those components can on their own so you'd be dumb to expect "huge" gains or to interpret this as a solution for more fuel in big turbo setups. The whole point of me taking the time to install this valve was to see if i could get an improvement where the software is requesting near 130 bar and not able to get it. Guess what, it now gets what it's asking for so not sure what your argument is here. You can pretend all you want that i'm a 16 yr old doing my first car mod ever and claiming my new air filter just gave me a 20hp gain, but i'm not claiming magic here. I have a baseline and an improvement over that baseline substantiated by data. The car is undeniably smoother. That can be attributed to one of the things i mentioned in my previous post. Since the RS4 valve was the largest change i made i will continue to logically attribute the gains to that until it can be proven otherwise. I think you're trying too hard on this









Very well said. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_
Stop being condesending. 


http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by acespizee at 9:40 AM 4-13-2010_


_Modified by acespizee at 9:41 AM 4-13-2010_


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Well as i said fuel requirements at least for the K04 are highest in the high torque area and this valve does nothing to that, especially with your setup.


Agreed. I never claimed it would deliver more fuel in any situation other than when more than 127bar was being requested. It's also my understanding that my software purposefully holds back in the high torque area to prevent engine damage so me installing this valve was never meant to address the high torque area of my powerband. I recognize this valve is not a replacement for a fuel pump nor do i even need or want more fuel in that area if it were possible.

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
The only place i would find this valve "useful" would be in a K04 setup WITHOUT a HPFP, and with STOCK injectors.


I disagree. The purpose of this valve is not to deliver more fuel down low. That's what an upgraded hpfp will do.

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
YOUR stock valve could have been bad from the start, and replacing it with the RS4 could just have been..."good maintenance".


I'm definitely willing to accept that as a possibility. I've never seen an instance where i got more than 128bar with my stock valve and you say you have. I can believe this as i know that not all parts are created equal. My stock valve was operating within the original mfr spec and as such never caused any problems, but it's very possible it could under perform when compared to another similar stock valve.

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Right...but to tell you the truth, all this time in the forums i've learned one lesson VERY WELL...50%+ of the stuff in here is neither necessary nor required to make good horsepower.We just like to spend money...thats all...So "testing" a part and making it look good when it makes no difference might sound.."heroic" to you, but all it does is put people in a useless procedure that has no meaning...
Ever thought of that ??


I wholeheartedly agree that many of the parts promoted here are unnecessary. I will even freely admit that this RS4 valve is far from what i would consider a 'necessary' mod in my book. Anyone considering doing this or any other mod should be willing to pay the price if something goes wrong. That said, i've so far found no disadvantages to installing this valve other than the $70 i spent, but i have found measureable advantages. I find nothing wrong with providing transparent information that can be used by others to make their own educated decisions. If anyone else decides to install this valve post up your findings, whether bad or good, and eventually there should be enough data to draw a meaningful conclusion.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *mkvgtiblk06* »_I am looking to buy this valve. But when i go to the website and type in this part number i dont know if i choose the top or bottom one. Please help me?
070401532 PN RS4 VALVE <a id="link_9" href="http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407" target="_blank">http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407</a>
Which one do i buy is it the top or bottom one?



I can't answer this... I'm looking to buy from genuinevwaudiparts too cause it's cheaper but I don't want to get stuck with the wrong part and have to turn it around back to them for the correct one. Any help, anyone actually order the correct part from this website?


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (mkvgtiblk06)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mkvgtiblk06* »_I am looking to buy this valve. But when i go to the website and type in this part number i dont know if i choose the top or bottom one. Please help me?
070401532 PN RS4 VALVE http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407
Which one do i buy is it the top or bottom one?


Hey guys, the correct part number is 079130757. There should only be one.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407
Mechanical Catalog
Item Number MSRP Core Price Price
079130757 $97.50 $0.00 $70.20
Fuel system - Fuel induction - Fuel injection - Fuel pressure regulator
Fuel pressure regulator, r8 2008
This is the part we are looking for?


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

correct


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
I disagree. The purpose of this valve is not to deliver more fuel down low. That's what an upgraded hpfp will do.


Emmm...actually no.The issue with stock injectors and K03 vs a K04 is not the mid/high torque area, but the top/maximum power.As with a K03, the K04 can be covered by a HPFP and stock injectors (of course you'd have to limit the torque to K03 levels, but that is not THAT far away from a K04 with "normal" peak boost requests.
On the other hand stock GTI injectors can only support up to ~300 crank HP till they run out, and since (if you haven't noticed you can check it out yourself also) max rail pressure is attained at the highest revs, the ECU has the ability to overcome the requested pressure by almost +5bar for a certain range if it sees issues with top rev fueling.
If someone has a different experience do come forth...


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*

Most dealerships will match the Genuineaudi price of 28% off list. You could always go and ask them to see what valve is correct or has a good part #.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Emmm...actually no.The issue with stock injectors and K03 vs a K04 is not the mid/high torque area, but the top/maximum power.As with a K03, the K04 can be covered by a HPFP and stock injectors (of course you'd have to limit the torque to K03 levels, but that is not THAT far away from a K04 with "normal" peak boost requests.
On the other hand stock GTI injectors can only support up to ~300 crank HP till they run out, and since (if you haven't noticed you can check it out yourself also) max rail pressure is attained at the highest revs, the ECU has the ability to overcome the requested pressure by almost +5bar for a certain range if it sees issues with top rev fueling.
If someone has a different experience do come forth...

you still sound a little confused. You've got to separate the injectors, hpfp, and pressure regulator valve into different categories and realize they all have different fueling limits at different parts in the poweband.
The stock injectors will not get maxed out till the top end when the hpfp is supplying plenty of fuel but the injectors can no longer flow any more. This is why an S3 will use the same stock hpfp as the A3 and GTI but need upgraded injectors.
The stock hpfp will first get maxed out in the low end (high torque area) when the engine is not reving fast enough to drive the fuel pump fast enough. The stock injectors are no where near being maxed out here.
The stock fuel pressure regulator valve maxes out at (in my case) ~127bar at the top end when enough fuel can be supplied by the hpfp and where the RS4 injectors can still keep up. So upgrading the valve prevents pressure dump while the other components are still capable of keeping up


----------



## mkvgtiblk06 (Mar 2, 2007)

http://www.genuinevwaudiparts....14407
Mechanical Catalog
Item Number MSRP Core Price Price
079130757 $97.50 $0.00 $70.20
Fuel system - Fuel induction - Fuel injection - Fuel pressure regulator
Fuel pressure regulator, r8 2008
This is the part we are looking for?
Is this the correct part to order from this website?


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

WTF, when trying to check out at genuinevwaudiparts.com, it says that the website has an unsecure security and I can't continue to checkout.


----------



## mkvgtiblk06 (Mar 2, 2007)

I had the same problem.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
you still sound a little confused. You've got to separate the injectors, hpfp, and pressure regulator valve into different categories and realize they all have different fueling limits at different parts in the poweband.

Oh believe me i am very well aware of what i am saying.Not the slightest bit confused.Injectors, and rail pressure are DIRECTLY related when it comes to fuel delivery.Pump is just the means to get them going.If our direct injected engines where not capable of such low end torque, the pump would be out of the picture as far as "aftermarket" goes.Rail pressure on the other hand along with injector flow is what makes the top end power.

_Quote »_
The stock injectors will not get maxed out till the top end when the hpfp is supplying plenty of fuel but the injectors can no longer flow any more. This is why an S3 will use the same stock hpfp as the A3 and GTI but need upgraded injectors.
The stock hpfp will first get maxed out in the low end (high torque area) when the engine is not reving fast enough to drive the fuel pump fast enough. The stock injectors are no where near being maxed out here.

Wait..are you just repeating what i wrote you above ?Or are you trying to make others understand better ?Weird...There must be an echo in here...









_Quote »_The stock fuel pressure regulator valve maxes out at (in my case) ~127bar at the top end when enough fuel can be supplied by the hpfp and where the RS4 injectors can still keep up. So upgrading the valve prevents pressure dump while the other components are still capable of keeping up

See this is what you are not getting...The stock Gti valve is good for 130 bar.NOTHING gets dumped until that limit is reached.That's why it is called a LIMITING VALVE.It LIMITS pressure to 130 bar.That means that since you are not even reaching 127 bar, your stock valve "SHOULD" be just fine...
I do believe however that if you were not using the RS4 injectors, you would be having other fueling problems as well, which are now "covered" by the higher flow injectors.
P.S.Btw, have you ever checked your cam/follower for wear ?


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*

You really are trying to make this more difficult than it is...

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Injectors, and rail pressure are DIRECTLY related when it comes to fuel delivery.


Yes. We're on the same page as far as this statement goes.

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Wait..are you just repeating what i wrote you above ?Or are you trying to make others understand better ?Weird...There must be an echo in here...










Every time i think i'm getting through to you, you turn around and surprise me so a little repetition to clarify the facts seems appropriate.


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
See this is what you are not getting...The stock Gti valve is good for 130 bar.NOTHING gets dumped until that limit is reached.That's why it is called a LIMITING VALVE.It LIMITS pressure to 130 bar.That means that since you are not even reaching 127 bar, your stock valve "SHOULD" be just fine...


See, this is what you are not getting. My stock valve (supposedly rated to 130bar as you mentioned) was NOT, i repeat NOT, making it to 130bar even though 130bar was being requested. Rail pressure was instead getting dumped at 127bar. This is where your best guesses on what is *supposed* to happen are trumped by my real world experience. Call it a defective valve or an acceptable tolerance level or whatever you want. Fact is it wasn't making it to the requested 130bar value. If your stock valve consistently is, i'm thrilled for you. Mine however was not. But with the RS4 valve it is now consistently, 100% of the time meeting or exeeding the requested 130bar value at the top end.

_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_P.S.Btw, have you ever checked your cam/follower for wear ?
 I have literally personally taken apart almost every (reasonable) part of my car over the time i have owned it. I'm starting to think you have a superiority complex going here on or are just accustomed to dealing with really incompetent people. The answer is yes. I'm very aware of what requesting more rail pressure means to other components.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
Every time i think i'm getting through to you, you turn around and surprise me so a little repetition to clarify the facts seems appropriate.

Wait...What ??









_Quote »_See, this is what you are not getting. My stock valve (supposedly rated to 130bar as you mentioned) was NOT, i repeat NOT, making it to 130bar even though 130bar was being requested. Rail pressure was instead getting dumped at 127bar. This is where your best guesses on what is *supposed* to happen are trumped by my real world experience. Call it a defective valve or an acceptable tolerance level or whatever you want. Fact is it wasn't making it to the requested 130bar value. If your stock valve consistently is, i'm thrilled for you. Mine however was not. But with the RS4 valve it is now consistently, 100% of the time meeting or exeeding the requested 130bar value at the top end.

Aahhh ok...Now i get it...You simply do not understand how the system works, and what this valve you changed ACTUALLY DOES...It is understandable then why you keep trying to convince me of something that is WRONG, simply because you understand it wrongly, and that doesn't make it right..That's where the problem lies...
Here it goes then, this is what you are confusing, and the reason why i already said above that people that have no knowledge of how the system works should not be installing parts in their car simply because they were TOLD TO, or encouraged to do so...
The valve that is present in the fuel rail in both the GTI and the RS4 is called a PRESSURE LIMITING VALVE (as i have already mentioned above) for a reason.It is NOT making or raising the pressure by ITSELF.And this is what you keep confusing, and the reason you have everything mixed up in your head.
According to the pressure the valve is RATED AT, it ALLOWS fuel to BLEED OFF the system/rail to avoid excessive pressure.BUT once again, it is not the one MAKING THAT PRESSURE.
To make it even more understandable to you (and others you have possibly confused) i'll give you an analogy.
Say you have a faucet and a hose that is attached to it, and that hose is capped at the other end (in our case non spraying injectors).If you turn on the faucet and leave it on (this represents the HPFP) pressure starts to build up in the hose.Now in this hose you have a pressure sensor (the sensor on the rail) that monitors the pressure in that hose.You want to keep the pressure stable in that hose (for many reasons, i won't get into this now) so you have a)the sensor for checking and b)A PRESSURE LIMITING VALVE (yes this is what we are talking about) acting as a "hole" in the hose, a hole that opens at 130 bar "HOSE PRESSURE".So when that sensor sees 130+ bar..pssssss fuel leaks out and pressure returns to sub 130 bar levels.Is that clear so far ?Do you get the DIFFERENCE with what you as saying and is in your mind ?
Now...what IF...you had a "bad" faucet (or a bad HPFP/cam/follower) which COULD NOT EVER MAKE 130 bar (in your case as you say 127).WHAT GOOD WOULD A 136 bar (RS4) or even 130 bar (GTI) make ??ZERO...NADA...And that is because due to the fault in the system PRESSURE WOULD NEVER HAVE TO BE RELEASED!!Does that make sense now ?Do you get it ?








Of course all of the above is a rather simplified analogy, simply because of the fact this is a dynamic system, with constant variations in fuel demand and delivery, but it serves well for you to get the big picture.I hope now you'll see where you were wrong and think the whole thing over....

_Quote »_I have literally personally taken apart almost every (reasonable) part of my car over the time i have owned it. I'm starting to think you have a superiority complex going here on or are just accustomed to dealing with really incompetent people. The answer is yes. I'm very aware of what requesting more rail pressure means to other components.

I'm not even gonna address the personal comments, i think i've answered those by taking the time to explain to you what you have understood wrong, and that is enough....
I am hoping others will benefit from it too.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

If you were never meeting the 129.9 requested how is this going to help do that? Your output was never enough that the gti valve was bleeding off, right?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_If you were never meeting the 129.9 requested how is this going to help do that? Your output was never enough that the gti valve was bleeding off, right?

There we go...
Now we are getting in the right path... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
It becomes obvious though he didn't really know what the valve he installed does, but i am guessing that also goes for many other people that might be rushing to spend good money on this.
But i guess this is how a forum works...









_Modified by GolfRS at 1:17 AM 4-14-2010_


_Modified by GolfRS at 1:17 AM 4-14-2010_


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: (GolfRS)*

another thing I just thought of and maybe it was mentioned before.. How can this valve help the "flat feeling" at about 5k if rail pressure is nowhere near 130 bar? Not saying it doesn't but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how it could be beneficial.


_Modified by Uber-A3 at 3:24 PM 4-13-2010_


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_another thing I just thought of and maybe it was mentioned before.. How can this valve help the "flat feeling" at about 5k if rail pressure is nowhere near 130 bar? Not saying it doesn't but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how it could be beneficial.

_Modified by Uber-A3 at 3:19 PM 4-13-2010_

As i said, placebo effect...
It happens to all of us, with everything, starting from a simple valve going to an intake etc etc.
We are just wishing it to work so that the money and effort doesn't go to waste...
I can't begin to remember all the stuff i have in the garage that were.."supposed to work", but...didn't...


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*

Seriously?? Have you read a single one of my responses thus far? You are regurgitating my own responses in order to pretend you're enlightening me. I have from the beginning been explaining to you that the valve in question here dumps pressure once it's rated limit is reached. This was stated from the beginning and the basis of all of my subsequent posts. Let's have some fun and do a quick review for those with reading comprehension problems...

_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
Again, this valve won't magically add fuel where there wouldn't be fuel before. As you said, the stock fuel pump and RS4 injectors are more than able to keep up with what my software is requesting and what my humble turbo needs at the top. BUT, what isn't able to keep up is the stock fuel pressure valve as it would release rail pressure before the rail pressure could meet what was being requested (i.e. 129.99 bar).



_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
The valve that is present in the fuel rail in both the GTI and the RS4 is called a PRESSURE LIMITING VALVE (as i have already mentioned above) for a reason.It is NOT making or raising the pressure by ITSELF.And this is what you keep confusing, and the reason you have everything mixed up in your head.
According to the pressure the valve is RATED AT, it ALLOWS fuel to BLEED OFF the system/rail to avoid excessive pressure.BUT once again, it is not the one MAKING THAT PRESSURE.


LMAO









_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Now...what IF...you had a "bad" faucet (or a bad HPFP/cam/follower) which COULD NOT EVER MAKE 130 bar (in your case as you say 127).WHAT GOOD WOULD A 136 bar (RS4) or even 130 bar (GTI) make ??ZERO...NADA...And that is because due to the fault in the system PRESSURE WOULD NEVER HAVE TO BE RELEASED!!Does that make sense now ?Do you get it ?



_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
My stock valve (supposedly rated to 130bar as you mentioned) was NOT, i repeat NOT, making it to 130bar even though 130bar was being requested. Rail pressure was instead getting dumped at 127bar. This is where your best guesses on what is *supposed* to happen are trumped by my real world experience. Call it a defective valve or an acceptable tolerance level or whatever you want. Fact is it wasn't making it to the requested 130bar value. If your stock valve consistently is, i'm thrilled for you. Mine however was not. But with the RS4 valve it is now consistently, 100% of the time meeting or exeeding the requested 130bar value at the top end.


You keep thinking that because the valve is rated at 130bar it is only going to dump pressure when it gets to 130bar. WRONG. Again, i have shown that my valve was prematurely dumping at 127bar. I have also shown that with no other variables changed other than installing the RS4 valve that pressure is now correctly getting bled off after meeting the value being requested. Your theories and best guesses are less than my proven real world results.
GolfRS, you seem like a nice guy but you are proving to be too stubborn to learn. I am no longer going to try to teach you. My answers are recorded here for all to read. If you'd like to continue this conversation feel free to IM me. I challenge you to actually do some real world testing and then try to prove me wrong. I have data proving my point. You have nothing but your "theories". What needed to be said has been said and i'm done with replying to the same questions over and over again.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_If you were never meeting the 129.9 requested how is this going to help do that? Your output was never enough that the gti valve was bleeding off, right?

You should first be asking WHY i wasn't meeting the 129.9bar request. My stock fuel regulator valve was dumping the pressure before it ever reached what it was supposed to. Just because the valve is rated to 130bar doesn't mean it actually is working at 130bar. Parts are not always perfect.
With nothing else changed other than installing the RS4 valve i am now able to easily meet and exceed 130bar. Not every once in a while, but 100% of the time. If you put two and two together it makes perfect sense.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_Seriously?? Have you read a single one of my responses thus far? You are regurgitating my own responses in order to pretend you're enlightening me. I have from the beginning been explaining to you that the valve in question here dumps pressure once it's rated limit is reached. This was stated from the beginning and the basis of all of my subsequent posts. Let's have some fun and do a quick review for those with reading comprehension problems...
LMAO








You keep thinking that because the valve is rated at 130bar it is only going to dump pressure when it gets to 130bar. WRONG. Again, i have shown that my valve was prematurely dumping at 127bar. I have also shown that with no other variables changed other than installing the RS4 valve that pressure is now correctly getting bled off after meeting the value being requested. Your theories and best guesses are less than my proven real world results.
GolfRS, you seem like a nice guy but you are proving to be too stubborn to learn. I am no longer going to try to teach you. My answers are recorded here for all to read. If you'd like to continue this conversation feel free to IM me. I challenge you to actually do some real world testing and then try to prove me wrong. I have data proving my point. You have nothing but your "theories". What needed to be said has been said and i'm done with replying to the same questions over and over again.


Oh dear God....








It so seems you are not only unwilling to learn, but you are also an ASS, cause instead of acknowledging you have this thing all wrong and trying to UNDERSTAND, you keep repeating your lack of knowledge "trying" to make it look like you actually HAVE A CLUE....
So you have a GTI valve rated a 130 bar but bleeds off at 127 (now it bleeds, before it wasn't... "making that pressure") and you installed a 136 bar release valve that "magically works" (only you and God know what it does exactly), in a very strange way since according to your graphs you only reach ~134 bar of rail pressure for like a MILLISECOND and then pressure drops right off, RIGHT WHEN RAIL PRESSURE SHOULD BE AT ITS HIGHEST, and that is the rev limit...How amazing...








You know i've really tried to maintain my calm through all this, but i don't think this is working.
One thing i don't appreciate is people that "think they know" not only trying to force their wrong "knowledge", but also refuse to acknowledge they were wrong in the first place..And that because those are the people that spread misinformation, and cause all sorts of problems to people that simply don't know but are looking to learn.
So yeah man, say whatever you want, and shape it any way you want to.The fact is you have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER, and there actually might be something wrong with your car that you simply refuse to accept, and deal with.
As to who people want to believe and accept, i simply leave it to the readers.I'm pretty confident i've explained things in a way those that want to learn will see through all the garbage you've posted, and truly understand what (if anything) this valve "may" or "may not" do...
Best of luck with your car...You'll need it if you keep thinking like that... http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
according to your graphs you only reach ~134 bar of rail pressure for like a MILLISECOND and then pressure drops right off, RIGHT WHEN RAIL PRESSURE SHOULD BE AT ITS HIGHEST, and that is the rev limit...How amazing...


Learn to read.

_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_
why the big drop off in rail pressure after the rs4, the one where is is way above requested and them just drops?



_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
I let off the throttle. Keep in mind the sample rate is pretty bad and the graph is merely connecting one dot to another with a line. So it looks like it's dipping down however, there're only two data points recorded which are 134 bar and then straight to 124 bar. I probably could've cut that last point out but i used it in the other graphs so i left it in there. My other two runs from the same session stay at 129 & 130 bar


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
Learn to read.


Yeah man, that right there proves you don't have a clue what the f*ck you are talking about...
When you..."lift off the throttle" as you say, your requested boost doesn't stay at 19 psi, (nor does you actual at 16 psi for that matter), your lambda value should have been offset and not stable at 0.8, and your requested rail pressure should have also fell along with your actual, cause you don't keep 130 bar requested rail pressure for 500 rpm...OFF THE THROTTLE.
So next time, cut the bull****, get some more knowledge and a few more posts under your belt, and THEN come back and tell me I CAN'T READ.
F*IN NOOB...


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
When you..."lift off the throttle" as you say, your requested boost doesn't stay at 19 psi, (nor does you actual at 16 psi for that matter), your lambda value should have been offset and not stable at 0.8, and your requested rail pressure should have also fell along with your actual, cause you don't keep 130 bar requested rail pressure for 500 rpm...OFF THE THROTTLE.
So next time, cut the bull****, get some more knowledge and a few more posts under your belt, and THEN come back and tell me I CAN'T READ.



_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_
when you let off throttle and stay in gear fuel delivery cuts off completely



_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
only if you let off the throttle completely. Accelerator pedal position goes from 99.6% to 73.3%.


Maybe a different question but same answer.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
You should first be asking WHY i wasn't meeting the 129.9bar request. My stock fuel regulator valve was dumping the pressure before it ever reached what it was supposed to. Just because the valve is rated to 130bar doesn't mean it actually is working at 130bar. Parts are not always perfect.
With nothing else changed other than installing the RS4 valve i am now able to easily meet and exceed 130bar. Not every once in a while, but 100% of the time. If you put two and two together it makes perfect sense.

then your stock valve was bad and replacing with the gti valve would have netted the same results. Not by going over 129.9 but up to it at least. Unless the stock valve really isn't rated at the claimed 130 bar.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
Maybe a different question but same answer.


_Quote »_only if you let off the throttle completely. Accelerator pedal position goes from 99.6% to 73.3%.

FFS stop writing crap.
Have you tried lifting off the throttle even 10% while in full boost ?
Do you have ANY IDEA what happens to your boost ?
You can't maintain a smooth boost line ant 16 psi running PART THROTTLE...








You are full of it man.
Please stop it.You are making an ass of yourself.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

d00d this guy has senzerz in his feet that tell him how much thorrottle is applied, rounded to 1 decimal place. what a boss!
Can we get back on the topic of how to successfully order this for $70? Totally not working for me.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_
then your stock valve was bad and replacing with the gti valve would have netted the same results. Not by going over 129.9 but up to it at least. Unless the stock valve really isn't rated at the claimed 130 bar.

right. but i had the choice of replacing my stock valve with another stock one that might or might not have the same problem as my first one or go with the RS4 valve which probably costs the same and is rated higher. What would you choose?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (Uber-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Uber-A3* »_
then your stock valve was bad and replacing with the gti valve would have netted the same results. Not by going over 129.9 but up to it at least. Unless the stock valve really isn't rated at the claimed 130 bar.

Why are you trying to have a logical debate with this person ?
It is obvious he is talking out of his "other hole"...
Don't even try to reason with him, he doesn't have a clue FFS !!!


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
FFS stop writing crap.
Have you tried lifting off the throttle even 10% while in full boost ?
Do you have ANY IDEA what happens to your boost ?
You can't maintain a smooth boost line ant 16 psi running PART THROTTLE...








You are full of it man.
Please stop it.You are making an ass of yourself.










If you honestly think i am lying you are more than welcome to take this offline with me on IMs. Run the same logs using the same poor sample rate i'm stuck with and then report back.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*FV-QR*

Honestly, after reading all of this...I'm not convinced with the data provided...the sampling rate is too low to really determine how the rail pressure is really fluctuating (or sustaining) due to the new valve.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
If you honestly think i am lying you are more than welcome to take this offline with me on IMs. Run the same logs using the same poor sample rate i'm stuck with and then report back.

At this point i don't even care anymore dude.
I regret taking you seriously in the first place cause i thought you where just mixed up and
needed help to straighten your thoughts.
Now i can see you are completely clueless, and in a forum giving advice and making logs about something you know nothing about...
So yeah, i really have nothing more to say to you, i am just hoping people will benefit from this by actually not taking you or your supposed "findings" seriously, at least not as proof that.."it works".
Once again, i would suggest checking your car, cause valve or no valve, it doesn't look good...
End of story.


----------



## ndifadvokit (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_Honestly, after reading all of this...I'm not convinced with the data provided...the sampling rate is too low to really determine how the rail pressure is really fluctuating (or sustaining) due to the new valve.

guys, i respect everyone's opinion here. Yes, even yours GolfRS. I've gone out of my way to take the time to post actual data free of charge. Inevitably some people will disagree. To you i say... prove me wrong with cold hard data. I welcome it. If i'm wrong prove it and i'll accept it. But so far my data and first hand experience say otherwise. Eventually someone else will install this valve and we'll see how that plays out. Till then, i wish everyone well.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*FV-QR*

I'm not saying I don't believe you or taking any sides here. All I'm trying to relay is that the data provided isn't detailed enough to make a decision for or against. In my case...I really don't see a need as my stock valve seems to provide the specified rail pressure quite well...


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (ndifadvokit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ndifadvokit* »_
right. but i had the choice of replacing my stock valve with another stock one that might or might not have the same problem as my first one or go with the RS4 valve which probably costs the same and is rated higher. What would you choose?

my reasoning as well.


----------



## mkvgtiblk06 (Mar 2, 2007)

Anyone have a DIY on how to install the RS4 valve without taking off the mani?


----------



## acespizee (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

What i have gatherd from all of this is that ndifadvokit was not reaching requested before installing RS4 valve but now is, i was also not reaching requested, but now meet it better than i ever have and guess what yeah my car does feel smoother, much smoother. Could i be masking a potential problem, maybe, but i guess that problem would have to show its face again and when it does i will deal with it. My rail pressure logs have never looked better. It is as simple as that.
Everything else thats being discussed, has nothing to do with why the uprated valve was installed. This is not as complicated as its being made out to be.








Like what was said earlier the stock valve could have been playing up, i chose to stick the uprated valve on and have only seen good things. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

OK i figured out how to order on genuinevwaudiparts but looks like i'll be scammed LOL other choices?


----------



## DM_MKV (Jul 28, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_OK i figured out how to order on genuinevwaudiparts but looks like i'll be scammed LOL other choices?



Why is that? I order form there they are usually really good? I do not know about this part but other things have been good....$.02


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *DM_MKV* »_

Why is that? I order form there they are usually really good? I do not know about this part but other things have been good....$.02


was acting up with mozilla, I ordered off google chrome really easy and email support is there... now I can only hope they're sending me the rs4 and not the fsi because they look identical LOL.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (LEWXCORE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LEWXCORE* »_
was acting up with mozilla, I ordered off google chrome really easy and email support is there... now I can only hope they're sending me the rs4 and not the fsi because they look identical LOL.

Well if they sell parts at least they should know how to tell one part number from the other...
Hopefully..


----------



## blackcruiser (Nov 1, 2005)

You would be able to tell the difference once you compared both side by side. The RS4 valve head is smaller to the oem. 


_Modified by blackcruiser at 11:28 AM 4/18/2010_


----------



## kidovw (Apr 25, 2010)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Hi i'm here to ask for that kit tool ....... what price have and where i can find that . I modifyed to keys to change that presure valve without remove manidolf .


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: (kidovw)*

Update. So I ran some logs last night. Prior to installing this valve I was running 949 on my Revo software. With the new valve I'm able to bump the numbers to 969 and not have any retardation.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi* »_Update. So I ran some logs last night. Prior to installing this valve I was running 949 on my Revo software. With the new valve I'm able to bump the numbers to 969 and *not have any retardation.* 

Haha...you said retardation....


----------



## mmd (Apr 15, 2006)

*Hi CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi*



CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Update. So I ran some logs last night. Prior to installing this valve I was running 949 on my Revo software. With the new valve I'm able to bump the numbers to 969 and not have any retardation.


Hey man how r u doing  , I've an issue that the actual rail pressure never managed to meet the requested rail pressure, specially after installing GT3076R + RS4 injectors, do you think replacing the OEM return valve with the RS4 one would solve the problem,? or do I have another issue.. ?

Regards,


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

mmd said:


> Hey man how r u doing  , I've an issue that the actual rail pressure never managed to meet the requested rail pressure, specially after installing GT3076R + RS4 injectors, do you think replacing the OEM return valve with the RS4 one would solve the problem,? or do I have another issue.. ?
> 
> Regards,


What HPFP?
Whats your LPFP logs look like? ( log block 106)
IMO your custom tuned HPFP is requesting way to much Fuel pressure way to fast espec for 3076 that in its self causes problems with your return valve and other SW problems Bob.G


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

I bolted on the rs4 valve recently along with the APR in-tank fuel pump with no software changes and noticed I could run more boost and stay under a 12.0:1 air fuel ratio... Aside from that I never had time to log any of those blocks but the car seems to run better. As far as I know unitronics only requests 127bar so I'm guessing it's just making it able to match requested and hold it there the whole time under full load.


----------



## tautvydasv (Mar 13, 2007)

with rs4 valve I am seeing usually around 132-135, though I am requesting 129, this is with autotech pump.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

tautvydasv said:


> with rs4 valve I am seeing usually around 132-135, though I am requesting 129, this is with autotech pump.


Better watch out with that autotech fuel pump, mine seized up requesting 127bar after about a year of use. Hopefully it's one of the newer versions, I had version 2.


----------



## Uber-A3 (Feb 23, 2002)

My car with rs4 valve requests 129.9 and sees 131-133 at wot. This is with APR ed30 and APR hpfp


----------



## EL_3grab (Mar 25, 2006)

Uber-A3 said:


> My car with rs4 valve requests 129.9 and sees 131-133 at wot.


x2, but with APR Stg3 

:thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

rbradleymedmd said:


> I'm not saying I don't believe you or taking any sides here. All I'm trying to relay is that the data provided isn't detailed enough to make a decision for or against. In my case...I really don't see a need as my stock valve seems to provide the specified rail pressure quite well...


 
Try going +7000rpms.


----------



## skateboy918 (Apr 26, 2008)

Anyone else with more data for this mod?


----------



## tautvydasv (Mar 13, 2007)

I have used it for around 120 000 km. Still good


----------



## tautvydasv (Mar 13, 2007)

LEWXCORE said:


> Better watch out with that autotech fuel pump, mine seized up requesting 127bar after about a year of use. Hopefully it's one of the newer versions, I had version 2.


 Around 70 000 miles including 5 track days and running fine.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

tautvydasv said:


> Around 70 000 miles including 5 track days and running fine.


 :thumbup:some seem more fortunate. Just saying- it's well known that the failure rate is high on those.


----------



## Jimrobbington (Oct 7, 2011)

Hate to be a noob reviving a thread, but this had recently been found as a problem over on the Audi A4 2.0 platform. Any updates? 

I am running into fueling issues, but not fuel cuts. It seems very early 2.0 A4s (05.5-06) came installed with only a 116 bar fuel rail dump valve. Awesome. I am only REVO stage 2, but it seems this may be causing issues. 

It seems you guys are only aware of the OEM RS4 valve as a replacement, but there are better alternatives recently available. 

hpfpupgrade.com has a 142 bar valve for $100 and you can upgrade up to 150 bar for another $25. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Jimrobbington said:


> Hate to be a noob reviving a thread, but this had recently been found as a problem over on the Audi A4 2.0 platform. Any updates?
> 
> I am running into fueling issues, but not fuel cuts. It seems very early 2.0 A4s (05.5-06) came installed with only a 116 bar fuel rail dump valve. Awesome. I am only REVO stage 2, but it seems this may be causing issues.
> 
> ...


 Lol. 

It's not better when the programming doesn't ask for anything more than 130 bar.


----------



## Jimrobbington (Oct 7, 2011)

True, but if I dump at only 116 bar, there is much room for improvement. 

Anybody know what stage 2 REVO fueling 9 requests for fuel pressure? I wish I had a vag com.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Jimrobbington said:


> True, but if I dump at only 116 bar, there is much room for improvement.
> 
> Anybody know what stage 2 REVO fueling 9 requests for fuel pressure? I wish I had a vag com.


 129.9 bar


----------



## Jimrobbington (Oct 7, 2011)

GolfRS said:


> 129.9 bar


 If thats true, I'm missing out on close to 200 psi of fuel. Thats a pretty drastic difference, as long as my stock hpfp can handle the 130 bar.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Your stock pump cannot handle 129.9 bar especially at peak boost.

No matter what the software requests.

That is the reason for the aftermarket HPFP's existence...


----------



## shiro1745 (Jul 24, 2010)

crew219 said:


> Lol.
> 
> It's not better when the programming doesn't ask for anything more than 130 bar.


 Could you elaborate a bit? I'm in the market for a rail valve and not sure which one to get the rs4 136bar or the 142 bar from hpfpupgrade 

Are there any drawbacks by getting the 142bar valve if I'll stick with the stage 2+ ? 
I might go BT in the near future so if the 142bar would be better I would just get that one now instead the RS4 and replace it in let's say 1 yr


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

shiro1745 said:


> Could you elaborate a bit? I'm in the market for a rail valve and not sure which one to get the rs4 136bar or the 142 bar from hpfpupgrade
> 
> Are there any drawbacks by getting the 142bar valve if I'll stick with the stage 2+ ?
> I might go BT in the near future so if the 142bar would be better I would just get that one now instead the RS4 and replace it in let's say 1 yr


 What he means is if the program only asks for MAX 130 bar, the limit of the valve will never be reached
regardless.From my experience though that is not 100% correct.A have seen values of +5 bar from requested and not at throttle off...

On the other hand, raising or running higher pressures puts more strain on the cam follower and cam.
If you don't understand this or are not aware what the consequences are, it's better you stick to
stock valves....


----------



## shiro1745 (Jul 24, 2010)

GolfRS said:


> What he means is if the program only asks for MAX 130 bar, the limit of the valve will never be reached
> regardless.From my experience though that is not 100% correct.A have seen values of +5 bar from requested and not at throttle off...
> 
> On the other hand, raising or running higher pressures puts more strain on the cam follower and cam.
> ...


 I have to find out what APR 2+ is requesting, I'll probably get some logs tomorrow if I have time. I've heard people saying that A4 B7 05.5 & 06 have the old 116bar(i think) rail valve which would be my case. So my question is if I get the 142bar valve and only run APR stage 2+ would it do any harm? Basically why not get the better one just in case I decide to go BT soon and this would be a must. 

I must say that I'm not even close to be an expert but I'm willing to learn as much as I can. I've had the car for 3 years now and knew nothing about engines before, I've always liked cars though and I'm mechanically inclined. I have all the mods for stage 2+ which I installed myself. In the last couple years I've learned a lot compared to nothing  but I still consider myself a beginner. 
So my question now is what exactly do you mean by consequences? I understand the follower and cam lobe would wear faster but I've had my follower along with HPFP and cams replaced about 6k ago under warranty and I'm planing to check my follower every other oil change (3k miles). Was there anything else you meant there?


----------



## viziers (Jun 22, 2008)

shiro1745 said:


> I have to find out what APR 2+ is requesting, I'll probably get some logs tomorrow if I have time. I've heard people saying that A4 B7 05.5 & 06 have the old 116bar(i think) rail valve which would be my case. So my question is if I get the 142bar valve and only run APR stage 2+ would it do any harm? Basically why not get the better one just in case I decide to go BT soon and this would be a must.
> 
> I must say that I'm not even close to be an expert but I'm willing to learn as much as I can. I've had the car for 3 years now and knew nothing about engines before, I've always liked cars though and I'm mechanically inclined. I have all the mods for stage 2+ which I installed myself. In the last couple years I've learned a lot compared to nothing  but I still consider myself a beginner.
> So my question now is what exactly do you mean by consequences? I understand the follower and cam lobe would wear faster but I've had my follower along with HPFP and cams replaced about 6k ago under warranty and I'm planing to check my follower every other oil change (3k miles). Was there anything else you meant there?


 
What he means is that as of now the HPFP runs at say 120bar which results in applied pressure to the HPFP plunger down to the CF and to the cam.. Now add another 20bar and you are putting that much more pressure the the plunger,CF & cam resulting in faster wear on the critical components... But if you do the CF checks regularly theny ou should be ok.... 




vizi


----------



## BlueDevil504 (Jan 19, 2012)

Can anyone tell me what the torque spec is on the fuel return valve - thank you


----------



## eMiL-R (Jan 25, 2013)

Hey, Im bumbing this thread again! 

Does anyone have a DIY guide for this operation, or know where i could get one? 
Don't know if im going to try to change the valve without talking the manifold away or not..


----------



## Jimrobbington (Oct 7, 2011)

eMiL-R said:


> Hey, Im bumbing this thread again!
> 
> Does anyone have a DIY guide for this operation, or know where i could get one?
> Don't know if im going to try to change the valve without talking the manifold away or not..


 It really is possible without removing the manifold. I have done it twice. You just need some crows feet and a ratchet extension. I think its a 14mm and a 17mm. Should take around an hour. Hardest part is threading the new one on. You will need electrical tape and patience.


----------



## eMiL-R (Jan 25, 2013)

Jimrobbington said:


> It really is possible without removing the manifold. I have done it twice. You just need some crows feet and a ratchet extension. I think its a 14mm and a 17mm. Should take around an hour. Hardest part is threading the new one on. You will need electrical tape and patience.


 Thanks a lot for the answer! 
I think i will try to make it without removing the manifold. What's the electrical tape for? 
Patience is not really my strongest side but i'll give it a try! 

Will also try to make a DIY for this one.


----------



## Jimrobbington (Oct 7, 2011)

eMiL-R said:


> Thanks a lot for the answer!
> I think i will try to make it without removing the manifold. What's the electrical tape for?
> Patience is not really my strongest side but i'll give it a try!
> 
> Will also try to make a DIY for this one.


 You will have to tape the valve to the extension in order to get it threaded back on.


----------



## eMiL-R (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh is it that tight. This is going to be fun to try, wish me luck!


----------



## eMiL-R (Jan 25, 2013)

Jimrobbington said:


> You will have to tape the valve to the extension in order to get it threaded back on.


I think i need a better explanation on how to go about it haha. I pick off the fuel lines so I can push them to the side for better access. 
Is it supposed to keep the crows feet above through the small hole just above the valve or which way should i go?

Please give me some advices )

/ Emil


----------



## S3Power (Feb 7, 2013)

Hello people!

I have a problem with the fuel pressure (Revo Stage 1).

You may be putting RS4 valve is fixed?


With file V3 (Revo Stage 1) had these pressure drops.

V3 (127b):



Revo dealer remap my ECU with the latest version of Revo file (V11) and I still falls.

V11 (124b):



- I've checked the camfollower and well (I've changed for a new one).

- New fuel filter.

- Lobe Cam in perfect condition.

Car: Audi S3 (BHZ)

Regards.


----------



## bacillus (Apr 21, 2011)

What hpfp are you using?
Also have you logged your in-tank lpfp to see if it's keeping up the requested bar?


----------



## S3Power (Feb 7, 2013)

bacillus said:


> What hpfp are you using?
> Also have you logged your in-tank lpfp to see if it's keeping up the requested bar?


Hello.

HPFP is the stock. In theory a Stage 1 (Revo) is for stock cars.

I show a log of channel 231 (vagcom).



The car (Audi S3 BHZ) has 52,000 km and only is one month reprogrammed.

Thanks!


----------



## TURBO666 (May 29, 2011)

i just read over some of the posts my car wot in 3rd at 5,000rpm the car drops off i have the apr fuel pump im assuming its loseing fuel so i think i will try the rs4 cuz the stock one cant handle the 130 bar pressure


----------



## Spinozaman (Dec 23, 2012)

I'm still not convinced that this valve does anything performance wise. My rail pressure requests are very close to the actual. As long as that it being met, is there any reason to do this mod? 

Higher pressure is fine, but if it is not being used and is not necessity, then why have this thing, right??


----------



## A3Performance (Jul 22, 2006)

Spinozaman said:


> I'm still not convinced that this valve does anything performance wise. My rail pressure requests are very close to the actual. As long as that it being met, is there any reason to do this mod?
> 
> Higher pressure is fine, but if it is not being used and is not necessity, then why have this thing, right??


There is no reason for this mod unless your software is requesting more than 129.9 bar.


----------



## Spinozaman (Dec 23, 2012)

A3Performance said:


> There is no reason for this mod unless your software is requesting more than 129.9 bar.


That's what I thought. However, there are a bunch if guys down under and in Europe running this thing with both canned tunes and custom tunes.

If you did custom tune for it, I assume you'd reduce the injector timing to account for the increased pressure/flow otherwise your be running richer than expected - right? What's the benefit of a shorter fuel pulse if you did tune for it?


----------



## 805 (May 11, 2004)

A3Performance said:


> There is no reason for this mod unless your software is requesting more than 129.9 bar.


Sorry if this was covered in this thread but does anyone know if APR stage 2+ requests over 129.9 bar?
Thanks


----------



## Spinozaman (Dec 23, 2012)

805 said:


> Sorry if this was covered in this thread but does anyone know if APR stage 2+ requests over 129.9 bar?
> Thanks



Nope.


----------



## 805 (May 11, 2004)

Cool, thanks


----------



## flieger (Jun 28, 2000)

I wanted to pass along that that this valve can be had from Parts.com for $108. It is no longer just used on the RS4. It's also used stateside in the V10 5.2L and V8 4.2L R8.

Parts.com Audi Valve


----------



## 0-60Motorsports (Dec 27, 2009)

Guys would this be of any use on my ROW GOLF R DSG?>


----------



## NitrousOxide (Dec 5, 2017)

0-60Motorsports said:


> Guys would this be of any use on my ROW GOLF R DSG?>


Just in case, years later, you were still wondering...NO.

Stock for stock, your R, exceeds the peak requirements for the average modded GTI.


----------



## 0-60Motorsports (Dec 27, 2009)

NitrousOxide said:


> Just in case, years later, you were still wondering...NO.
> 
> Stock for stock, your R, exceeds the peak requirements for the average modded GTI.


Thank you for clarifying


----------

