# Leon Cupra PTE 6262 build



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Mods:

*PRECISION* 6262 .63AR BB
*CUSTOM TUNE*
*BSH* Tubular manifold
*BSH* Stage 1 PCV Fix
*JE* Pistons 83mm CR 9.5:1
*INTEGRATED ENGINEERING* Rods
*GREDDY* Profec B Boost controller
*GREDDY* Remote Switch (2 Step)
*EGT* Gauge
*APR* HPFP (High Pressure Fuel Pump)
*USPMotorsports* Stage 3 Low pressure fuel System
 *PRECISION* Fron Mount Intercooler 600hp
*AUDI* RS4 Injectors
*TIAL* 38mm Wastegate
*TIAL* SS exhaust housing
*COOLINGMIST* meth kit 250psi pump dual nozzle
*NGK* BKR8 sparkplugs
*AEM* UEGO wideband
*FERREA* 1mm Oversized Valvetrain kit
*SHRICK* cams
*ARP* 2000 Head Bolt Kit
*HKS* SQV III BOV
*WAVETRAC* Limited slip diferential
*SPEC* Mini twin disc clutch
*N2MB* WOT BOX
*CUSTOM* SS dump tube
 *CUSTOM* Aluminum 2.5 Intercooler piping
 *CUSTOM* Aluminum TB plate
 *CUSTOM* 3" Intake
 *CUSTOM* SS 3" Downpipe
 *CUSTOM* 3" Exhaust

*ALL PICS CAN BE SEEN HERE:

**http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=477214&id=654855421&l=b64976aa4e*


----------



## jpiwko58 (Dec 25, 2008)

Serrari said:


> ]


Sick build.... except the clutch man... should of spent the extra $ and gotten a clutchmaster's twin disk 725... They're alot more expensive.. But you get what you pay for man. I know 2 peeps w/ spec (one on a vette and one on a sti) and both HATE them.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

custom tb plate? how so? thought people where saying that its all plastic and built into the housing?

looks sick man.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Car is almost done going to the dyno next week with a custom tune, lets hope for the best. I will be looking to break the 600whp barrier without auxiliary injectors, this will be my fuel setup:

APR HPFP
RS4 injectors
RS4 return [email protected]
Dual knozzle water/meth kit (not sure if using 100% water or 50/50 mix)
VP 116oct race gas
USPS Motorsports low pressure system


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Def 600+


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Looks nice
you better rev it out to 8500 to get the numbers you want. What kind of dyno will make all the difference whether you hit 6 or not.


----------



## weenerdog3443 (Jul 5, 2007)

pics dead


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

weenerdog3443 said:


> pics dead


+1


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)




----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

why black and white?

how is your engine looking on the inside? any wear on the cam or crank or bearings or anything?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Krieger said:


> why black and white?
> 
> how is your engine looking on the inside? any wear on the cam or crank or bearings or anything?


My mistake, didnt notice the camera was on black and white mode.

Cams where replaced, they had a lot of wear everything else was ok.


----------



## FuN:TuRBO (Sep 14, 2007)

Serrari said:


> My mistake, didnt notice the camera was on black and white mode.



hahahaha yeah right.. 

Ive heard in several threads of actual owners that dislike their Spec hardware.. 

whats up with that?


----------



## Aloa (Apr 7, 2010)

All things that are nice and expensive! 

but where the f** is Queretaro


----------



## akauf (Dec 14, 2009)

Different cars with different clutches. Its not as comparable as it may seem. I just put a spec mini twin in a gti so soon I'll see first hand how it functions. I personally would have went for the CM if it was available at the time this clutch was purchased, simply based off of reputation. I understand where your coming from but its unfair to draw such strong conclusions without direct experience.





jpiwko58 said:


> Sick build.... except the clutch man... should of spent the extra $ and gotten a clutchmaster's twin disk 725... They're alot more expensive.. But you get what you pay for man. I know 2 peeps w/ spec (one on a vette and one on a sti) and both HATE them.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

FuN:TuRBO said:


> hahahaha yeah right..
> 
> Ive heard in several threads of actual owners that dislike their Spec hardware..
> 
> whats up with that?


Spec clutch works fine, little noisy though.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Aloa said:


> All things that are nice and expensive!
> 
> but where the f** is Queretaro


Mexico. :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Engine going up:


----------



## WallyGTI (Dec 29, 2007)

I hope you delete that oil cap neck


----------



## marc1171 (Nov 19, 2008)

any numbers yet?


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Awesome work man!

Congrats!


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Engine is up:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Engine is up:


Leon Cupra - PTE 6262 Numbers soon!


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Everything running, tuning begins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiSJI1WT7hs


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Pump gas tune was made today:

92oct - 20psi
92oct + meth - 28psi

Next week will be race gas tune.

Raced a Camaro 2010 from a roll pulled 4-5 cars on 20psi and some bus lenght on 28psi.


----------



## Poko (Jan 29, 2010)

very nice build.
looking forward to the numbers.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Poko said:


> very nice build.
> looking forward to the numbers.


+1


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

I like the build, GL :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Intercooler upgrade, Garret core rated for 950hp:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

DAMN!

thats sexy.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> DAMN!
> 
> thats sexy.


+1


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

That core seems like overkill, wouldnt it have been more efficient to go wih a smaller core so you wouldnt have to pressurize as much space, especially if you are only planning on keeping the k04.

Not trying to knock your setup, just trying to understand your decision.

Either way I bet that massive core will look SICK on the front of the car


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> That core seems like overkill, wouldnt it have been more efficient to go wih a smaller core so you wouldnt have to pressurize as much space, especially if you are only planning on keeping the k04.
> 
> Not trying to knock your setup, just trying to understand your decision.
> 
> Either way I bet that massive core will look SICK on the front of the car


:sly:

I have a Precision 6262 turbo setup on this car.


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

:laugh:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> That core seems like overkill, wouldnt it have been more efficient to go wih a smaller core so you wouldnt have to pressurize as much space, especially if you are only planning on keeping the k04.
> 
> Not trying to knock your setup, just trying to understand your decision.
> 
> Either way I bet that massive core will look SICK on the front of the car


lmao, wat?? :what:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> :sly:
> 
> I have a Precision 6262 turbo setup on this car.


I think he means "keeping the K04 in your garage..." :laugh::laugh:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Serrari said:


> :sly:
> 
> I have a Precision 6262 turbo setup on this car.





Krieger said:


> lmao, wat?? :what:


 
Derp, sorry brainfart. :banghead:
I actually read another build thread of a Leon Cupra and that owner had a k04

carry on


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

My BSH manifold cracked so I decided to have one custom made from GCTech and change the position of the turbo. I also got some 26" slicks to try and run some 10s at the track:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

that is ****ing awesome! 

doesnt suprise me that the BSH manifold cracked. 

how has your car been running otherwise?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

Very cool setup i can't wait to see the end result, why 26" slicks though? What kind of power do you plan to make? 

I always found anything under 600hp runs best all around on the track on 24.5's but looks like you might make more than enough power to push the 26's. :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> that is ****ing awesome!
> 
> doesnt suprise me that the BSH manifold cracked.
> 
> how has your car been running otherwise?


 Thanks, has been running really good. I am taking it to the dyno and track again in a few weeks. :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Very cool setup i can't wait to see the end result, why 26" slicks though? What kind of power do you plan to make?
> 
> I always found anything under 600hp runs best all around on the track on 24.5's but looks like you might make more than enough power to push the 26's. :thumbup:


 I was crossing the 1/4 [email protected] at 5th gear with the 24.5 slicks, I hope I can get there on 4th with the 26 and dont have to make that lazy change of gear from 4th to 5th.

I made [email protected] with no nitrous on a 18* timing tune. I am planning to hit 700whp with 25* timing without nitrous.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

ok that makes more sense, i didn't realize you had that type of mph.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

The question i have is why? We have room back there so why the added lag? Dont get me wrong i love sidewinders. I have one on my friends k20 but usually people laugh when they see them when theres no need. I hate having to work on the turbo in the back of our motors so i hoping you can give me some ammo so i can justify making mine lol 

I can almost guarantee that the mani cracked from the heat wrap that was applied. I know most dont agree but i know that afi uses t304 scdl 40 for their manis. T304 doesnt like heat as much as t316. The industry standard is 304 but for the amount of boost we push, we MAY want to do to 316. Why hasent afi sent you a knew mani? they should warranty it even with the heat wrap. Btw afi used a full 1.25 design instead of 1.5. Did you go for a more standard 1.5 on the new one? 

How does it feel to throw away a 5500 dollar turbo kit  
I want to see how the exhaust will run. Do you plan on going out the fender? theres more room down by the dampner now so you could probably still get it back to the tunnel if you wanted.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

IMAN973 said:


> The question i have is why? We have room back there so why the added lag? Dont get me wrong i love sidewinders. I have one on my friends k20 but usually people laugh when they see them when theres no need. I hate having to work on the turbo in the back of our motors so i hoping you can give me some ammo so i can justify making mine lol
> 
> I can almost guarantee that the mani cracked from the heat wrap that was applied. I know most dont agree but i know that afi uses t304 scdl 40 for their manis. T304 doesnt like heat as much as t316. The industry standard is 304 but for the amount of boost we push, we MAY want to do to 316. Why hasent afi sent you a knew mani? they should warranty it even with the heat wrap. Btw afi used a full 1.25 design instead of 1.5. Did you go for a more standard 1.5 on the new one?
> 
> ...


 I was having really high EGTs on the bsh manifold, I had to put out fire twice on my engine bay because of the huge amount of heat the manifold was creating. I removed the header wrap way before the manifold cracked and had the same issues. The new manifold is 1.5". :thumbup:

I didnt threw away the turbo kit, I had the manifold fixxed and sell it to a friend.

Exhaust will be located below the engine, not really long on a 45 degree position aiming to the floor.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Nice. My FFE mani is 1.5. Really helps keep the EGTs low even on a .63 turbine housing. I may switch to a .82 like you have to lower the EGTs even more, even though lag will be increased a bit.


----------



## george-S101 (Sep 26, 2010)

Oh my God!! :thumbup: 
Are you still using the stock ECU? 

Who is your programmer...? :what:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

youre going to need a set of these to get into the 10s 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5131944-anyone-else-not-happy-with-their-VF-mounts 

i have an extra set. PM me if youre interested.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

george-S101 said:


> Oh my God!! :thumbup:
> Are you still using the stock ECU?
> 
> How is your programmer...? :what:


 Stock ECU, custom tune from a guy from Greece.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> youre going to need a set of these to get into the 10s
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5131944-anyone-else-not-happy-with-their-VF-mounts
> 
> i have an extra set. PM me if youre interested.


 I have all the bsh mounts, how are these diferent? Do you think they are a better option?


----------



## george-S101 (Sep 26, 2010)

Insane tune mate!!! 

Show us more photos!! opcorn:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

:thumbup::thumbup: For you Serrari! 

I like that you're always moving on with your setups trying to reach for more power and better times in the 1/4 Mile! 

Have a good one and keep us informed about all your tunes! 

Have a good one, 

Beto


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

holy crap! 
in for video clips of the new setup!


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

wow those runners must be really really long lol.. i know your people over there know what they're doing and i'm sure it will come out nicely but did you not just consider a sidewinder and putting the turbo where the battery is located?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

LEWXCORE said:


> wow those runners must be really really long lol.. i know your people over there know what they're doing and i'm sure it will come out nicely but did you not just consider a sidewinder and putting the turbo where the battery is located?


Yeah we thought about that, but the brake booster was a problem.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

The VVT and HPFP housing gets in the way as well. I wanted a sidewinder set up. 

I can't wait to see this thing running again.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> I can't wait to see this thing running again.


+1, Looks sick!


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> The VVT and HPFP housing gets in the way as well. I wanted a sidewinder set up.
> 
> I can't wait to see this thing running again.


Dont say it cant be done because you will make me do it 

The booster is always an issue with sidewinders. Just bring it up high enough and leave as much room as possible and it will be fine. I cant give measurements because i dont have a motor set up right now but from looking at pictures of my old set up, it looks doable, tight but doable.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Here are some pics of the new turbo kit almost done:

Collector big runner









Dump tube and downpipe









Turbo header equal lenght









Complete Kit









Traction bars


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Looking good. You should be able to get sub 10.99 with all your new toys. 

Have you gown solid motor mount inserts a thought?


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)




----------



## StuMacLean (Aug 9, 2003)

esto es impresionante

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

With what he is doing its not really that big of a shocker. The manifold was designed to be brutal in the 450 range and support higher, but this is outside of what it can really do long term. He needed to go to 1.5" runners for his goals or heat, as seen, would of been killer. :thumbup: As the market and output of this platform evolves, we will look into the marketability of a bigger tube header on a production scale.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

StuMacLean said:


> esto es impresionante
> 
> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


+1, Bloody Sick man!


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> Looking good. You should be able to get sub 10.99 with all your new toys.
> 
> Have you gown solid motor mount inserts a thought?


Yeah, I think Ill get the car running with the actual mounts get some times and then compare with the solid ones.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> With what he is doing its not really that big of a shocker. The manifold was designed to be brutal in the 450 range and support higher, but this is outside of what it can really do long term. He needed to go to 1.5" runners for his goals or heat, as seen, would of been killer. :thumbup: As the market and output of this platform evolves, we will look into the marketability of a bigger tube header on a production scale.


Yes, I think your manifold works great in the 450-500hp range.


----------



## jkallhoff (May 9, 2010)

paying attention to this:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## kimhemm (Aug 8, 2008)

Amazing project, really nice to see somebody going all in


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

Serrari said:


> Yes, I think your manifold works great in the 450-500hp range.


Thank you. 

You are one of few with the cahones to really go big like this. We wish you the best of luck on your project :thumbup::beer:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

The kit was finished and was installed today. Hopefully Ill get some videos on the weekend.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

damn


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

more pics of the traction bar and where it mounts.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> more pics of the traction bar and where it mounts.


Looks like it mounts onto two studs that come down from the frame on both sides. Right behind where the front bumper support bolts into.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

pssssshhhhh, looks slow.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

crew219 said:


> Looks like it mounts onto two studs that come down from the frame on both sides. Right behind where the front bumper support bolts into.


I can see that! If that's the only place it mounted it wouldn't be much of a traction bar. 

I meant where does it mount under the vehicle. Does it mount to the tranny housing? Did he create special mounting points that are much stronger than the ****ty aluminum tranny housing?

Sergio, I love the new exhaust mani. Brilliant use of the AC mount as a support bracket. Get a vid of this thing running already.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Traction bars don't attach to the engine. They should be from the frame rails to the control arms. The main thing is boxing in the control arm and also not allow the bars to bind the suspension. Don't forget they should also be adjustable.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

The traction bars are adjustable, here are some pics I took:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Will GTech be making more of these traction bars?

If so, how much for one shipped to NY 11713?


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

I like it. 
I wasn't saying yours isn't adjustable. I was just describing the general info with any traction bar. 
I realy see no issues with this setup. Enjoy it. :snowcool:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> The traction bars are adjustable, here are some pics I took:


Looks sweet! Congrats!

Beto


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 28, 2009)

We have discussed building traction bar setups for the Mark 5 / 6 Platform numerous times in the past. Looks good


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 20, 2011)

Nice setup.


----------



## ZGTIBT (Oct 4, 2010)

Hands Down :thumbup: great project dude :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

More pics:


















































Low quality video taken with my cell phone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJygf7jaqzM


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

sick. now get it on the track.

hope you run better than a 10.99.

GL

:beer:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Made some runs at 40psi today, yes 40psi. 

Hope to get some videos tomorrow, I just got one of the after runs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrOYnF6B9x0


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Serrari said:


> Made some runs at 40psi today, yes 40psi.
> 
> Hope to get some videos tomorrow, I just got one of the after runs:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrOYnF6B9x0


 Idle sounds great !!!!  Bob G


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

awesome!


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

NICE!


----------



## jpiwko58 (Dec 25, 2008)

That thing is a monster man love it


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

needs pre-turbo meth! Id bet you could pick up a few more PSI no problem if you had it spraying from ~3 in front of the turbo, aimed at the fins. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaKpzgL4b9o 

my next project. seen it in action on some local diesels and man does it help.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Some runs with low boost setting and pump gas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQrJwtOrO6o


----------



## ZGTIBT (Oct 4, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Some runs with low boost setting and pump gas:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQrJwtOrO6o


 Holy crap low boost and it's fast dude


----------



## GertiBPY (Nov 17, 2010)

One word - Baaadaaasss!


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Some pics of the car:


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

like!


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

what size wheel and tires are you running?


----------



## george-S101 (Sep 26, 2010)

:what: Holy [email protected] :what: 

How much power do you expect from this?


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

george-S101 said:


> :what: Holy [email protected] :what:
> 
> How much power do you expect from this?


 We are going for 750fwhp bro


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

you guys still running that walbro off of a hobb switch as an intank? 

does your LPFP logs go under 4bar? 

who is this dude from greece doing your tuning? 

ive got a bunch of thing i need special tuning for.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> what size wheel and tires are you running?


 They are 18" with 235/40 Nitto NT05 tire.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

I forgot to mention I am reving to 8500rpms with no issues.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

No HPFP float?


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Some pics of the car:


 Holy sleeper Batman! 

Nice ride man!


----------



## george-S101 (Sep 26, 2010)

Gctech Industries said:


> We are going for 750fwhp bro


 ...with my best wishes mate to achive it !! :thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> No HPFP float?


 Not at all.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Wow! 

I always figured revving to 8000+ would be nearly impossible due to float. This make building the head much more appealing. this gives me a completely different outlook on these platforms.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

he has the APR hpfp, witch has a stiffer spring, and works well up to almost 9000 rpm. 

the only problem at 8500 rpm is that the injectors have a smaller amount of time to spray, so you will limit yourself, without aditional fuel. 

in his case, injecting 100% ethanol is a solution to rev up to 8500 rpm. 


good luck with your build, very nice


----------



## George Dimitriadis (Mar 19, 2008)

Serrari said:


> Stock ECU, *custom tune from a guy from Greece*.


 

who is this guy??? i have a friend who might intersted!!! pm me if you dont want to write it here!!! i also added you on facebook. big fun of your car mate!!!!


----------



## George Dimitriadis (Mar 19, 2008)

George Dimitriadis said:


> who is this guy??? i have a friend who might intersted!!! pm me if you dont want to write it here!!! i also added you on facebook. big fun of your car mate!!!!




noboby??????


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

I am in for some high boost tach vids  :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Racing a Camaro 2010 with Procharger and 100hp shot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3th8K_-u_w


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

DAAMMMNNNN!

get that thing back on the dyno


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

getting some missfires or something?

great pull, but be careful out there on public roads. take it to a track and do some time trial runs or something.


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

let's see some video from the track!


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

MFZERO said:


> let's see some video from the track!


+1


----------



## 2DR16VT (Mar 16, 2006)

Serrari said:


> I forgot to mention I am reving to 8500rpms with no issues.


Thats Great....Are you running the Ferrea lifter shims as well ? Have you ever reved to 9000rpm ?


----------



## dava2 (Jan 3, 2011)

3 questions 

1.rev limit?? 
2.is the gearbox stock?? 
3.any plans for haldex??


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

2DR16VT said:


> Thats Great....Are you running the Ferrea lifter shims as well ? Have you ever reved to 9000rpm ?


 Yes and no.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

dava2 said:


> 3 questions
> 
> 1.rev limit??
> 2.is the gearbox stock??
> 3.any plans for haldex??


 


8500rpms

Stock tranny.

No.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Here is a video messing around with street tires:


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

Holy @!#$ .....


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Here is a video messing around with street tires:


 That's f..ing crazy man! :thumbup::thumbup: for you the guys at your workshop!


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Just got installed a tachometer and an oil gauge, both are Autometer Cobalt series here is a video:


----------



## Andreinen (Nov 3, 2010)

Incredible!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

sick!


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> sick!


 
+1, now you can have again a complete read of your RPM! The Oil Pressure Gauge is pretty helpful! 

:thumbup::thumbup: 


Have a good one! 

Beto


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Does your new Tachometer indicates with that led light when you need to do a shift? Is it kind of an alert to shift gear (you program at which RPM you want to shift)? 

Have a good one, 

Beto


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

BETOGLI said:


> Does your new Tachometer indicates with that led light when you need to do a shift? Is it kind of an alert to shift gear (you program at which RPM you want to shift)?
> 
> Have a good one,
> 
> Beto


 Yeah, the shift light will turn on when you need to shift, you program it according to your car.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Yeah, the shift light will turn on when you need to shift, you program it according to your car.


 Great, this is pretty awesome! :thumbup::thumbup: 

Have a great weekend! 

Regards, 

Beto


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

do you have some logs regarding the boost pressure , that you can share with us ? 
i am very curious when you have full boost with this setup  

what timing are you running on pump gas, at over 30 psi of boost. ? without w/m, 

what is you MAX EGT now, and what was with the BSH manifold ? 

thx :beer::beer:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

A video going from 70-140mph in 8sec, 29psi + meth:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> A video going from 70-140mph in 8sec, 29psi + meth:


 Pretty awesome! :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

MORE OF THIS!!!!! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

whats with the CEL?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> whats with the CEL?


 My file is for maf but I dont use it, might get a mafless tune this week.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

go mafless. i have it on my car and my GFs car. its great. it basically makes the MAP obsolete as well. i wouldnt recommend it to folks that were not serious about making power. it is a bit drastic and controversial with many tuners.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> go mafless. i have it on my car and my GFs car. its great. it basically makes the MAP obsolete as well. i wouldnt recommend it to folks that were not serious about making power. it is a bit drastic and controversial with many tuners.


Is that from unitronics? I need an update from them. I had GCtech make me a throttle body and because of an increase in surface area in the TB my idle has gone bad. Revs 1200 at idle and lopes up and down. Also I put my car on the dyno today and the powerband my setup has makes me want to increase the rev limit. I've heard from alot of guys that reving the car to 7800 on stock everything is super safe


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

LEWXCORE said:


> Is that from unitronics? I need an update from them. I had GCtech make me a throttle body and because of an increase in surface area in the TB my idle has gone bad. Revs 1200 at idle and lopes up and down. Also I put my car on the dyno today and the powerband my setup has makes me want to increase the rev limit. I've heard from alot of guys that reving the car to 7800 on stock everything is super safe


I have a ECU with Eurodyne for sale, if you are interested send me a PM and I can have your VIN written in the ECU so when it arrives it will be plug and play.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

LEWXCORE said:


> Is that from unitronics? I need an update from them. I had GCtech make me a throttle body and because of an increase in surface area in the TB my idle has gone bad. Revs 1200 at idle and lopes up and down. Also I put my car on the dyno today and the powerband my setup has makes me want to increase the rev limit. I've heard from alot of guys that reving the car to 7800 on stock everything is super safe


yes UNI. i rev both of my stock heads to 7800.

package 1 had REVOs stage 4, which has a redline of 7800. 

package two car runs a custom uni file w/ a redline of 7800. 

the new uni update is awesome. even more awesome for the mafless guys. it eliminates the black puff of smoke at WOT, its DD much better as well, and is capable of more power.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> yes UNI. i rev both of my stock heads to 7800.
> 
> package 1 had REVOs stage 4, which has a redline of 7800.
> 
> ...


bro unitronic denied me to get a 7800 rpm tune cause they said it's not safe. How can i get them to raise the limit? I just got an update from uni, mike said it is a newer tune then the mafless file that alot of people got. I think MKV john and sciblades had that file. It does use a maf reading though. I have no more black smoke with this newer tune and I think that making 450 on around 25 psi is pretty good considering i made 468 at 29psi on the 3071 and I think USP's dyno was alot happier. I'm certain I'll be able to make 500 on 30psi.. just gotta gap lower around .21-.22 cause it was breaking up when i tried cranking the boost to 28 for another run.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

LEWXCORE said:


> Is that from unitronics? I need an update from them. I had GCtech make me a throttle body and because of an increase in surface area in the TB my idle has gone bad. Revs 1200 at idle and lopes up and down. Also I put my car on the dyno today and the powerband my setup has makes me want to increase the rev limit. I've heard from alot of guys that reving the car to 7800 on stock everything is super safe





CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> yes UNI. i rev both of my stock heads to 7800.
> 
> package 1 had REVOs stage 4, which has a redline of 7800.
> 
> ...





LEWXCORE said:


> bro unitronic denied me to get a 7800 rpm tune cause they said it's not safe. How can i get them to raise the limit? I just got an update from uni, mike said it is a newer tune then the mafless file that alot of people got. I think MKV john and sciblades had that file. It does use a maf reading though. I have no more black smoke with this newer tune and I think that making 450 on around 25 psi is pretty good considering i made 468 at 29psi on the 3071 and I think USP's dyno was alot happier. I'm certain I'll be able to make 500 on 30psi.. just gotta gap lower around .21-.22 cause it was breaking up when i tried cranking the boost to 28 for another run.



Thats not UNI, it was chipped by www.sporttune.com

UNI chip blew like 4 or 5 sergio´s motors and did also denied to raise the rev limiter. They dont know how to properly do it, thats the true.


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Turbo freak said:


> Thats not UNI, it was chipped by www.sporttune.com
> 
> UNI chip blew like 4 or 5 sergio´s motors and did also denied to raise the rev limiter. They dont know how to properly do it, thats the true.


Really man? UNITRONIC Doesn't know how to do this properly?


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

BETOGLI said:


> Really man? UNITRONIC Doesn't know how to do this properly?


That´s right.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

Turbo freak said:


> Thats not UNI, it was chipped by www.sporttune.com
> 
> UNI chip blew like 4 or 5 sergio´s motors and did also denied to raise the rev limiter. They dont know how to properly do it, thats the true.


How do you blow 4 or 5 motors that have as many safeguards as the fsi? I've had coolant explosions, ran with low oil pressure/levels, ran with no fans, etc and my motor is still in good shape.

Unitronic is a crock of chet company with absolutely no customer support. I paid for an off-the-shelf big turbo tune that was seriously unacceptable. Then in order to get an update that was acceptable for daily driving i had to pay 175 to unitronic and a dealer fee on top of that. THIS was AFTER at least 6 months of calling and emailing them and asking over and over for an update that would be acceptable for me as a paying customer who got less than what I expected the first time around. All i heard was "oh we're so swamped with this and that, oh we gotta get ready for this event and that event" until they finally they were like "oh we made this file, it should help, just pay us" The sad part is that they fit the profile perfectly of a company that takes your money and runs. You pay for sh!t and then they take your money. You demand to get what you paid for and they run away until they tell you they can do something more for you if you pay an additional sum of money. It's a shame that this is what we have to work with here. All the eurodyne guys and revo guys are safely reving to 7800-8000 on stock heads. A stage 1 tune revs to 7200 like unitronic's BT tunes for christ sakes. WTF am i going to do if damage is done to my head anyways? SUE unitronic? that's a joke? I take full responsibility for my vehicle. My SOUTHBEND clutch malfunctioned and caused thousands of dollars of damage. Did I even contact southbend clutch? nope I just switched to a different clutch kit and had my transmission overhauled.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

Too much timing for a pump gas tune and i think they screwed the knock sensor sensitivity.

For the other part, i totally agree with you: UNITRONIC SUCKS!


----------



## danielescobarg (Jan 14, 2009)

First congratulation on the build, certainly taking it to the next level.

I have one question though, were was the car dynode and what correction factor did it have? Mexico is mostly above 5000Ft and FI cars dynoed using SAE correction at high altitude tend to post higher numbers. Not taking any credit away from you, just curious on the altitude and correction where the car was dynoed.

Bogota is at 8500Ft and Dynojet using SAE uses a anything from 1.35 to 1.46 Correction most of the times. So any car we run on the dyno using SAE shows above average results.

Thanks!


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

It was with a dynojet that is at about 1800 meters above sea level, not in Mexico city but in Guadalajara. Anyway it has SAE correction that include all the factors like altitude (barometric pressure), humidity, temperature, etc. So there is no trick there. SAE must know 

I dont think SAE corrections benefits a turbo car at high altitude as it does not compensate for lag increase especially with a 6262. At sea level it must show higher torque numbers for sure.


----------



## danielescobarg (Jan 14, 2009)

Turbo freak said:


> It was with a dynojet that is at about 1800 meters above sea level, not in Mexico city but in Guadalajara. Anyway it has SAE correction that include all the factors like altitude (barometric pressure), humidity, temperature, etc. So there is no trick there. SAE must know
> 
> I dont think SAE corrections benefits a turbo car at high altitude as it does not compensate for lag increase especially with a 6262. At sea level it must show higher torque numbers for sure.


I am not saying that there is a trick, just saying that do to the extreme atmospheric conditions above 6000Ft, SAE correction should not be used on turbo cars. You will actually see a bump in power, from what it actually is.

Reed some example here:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-engine-turbo-drivetrain/187741-altitude-dyno-comparison.html

Look at one example from us:

Leon Cupra 2.0T
Stage 2 APR
Full Exhaust
APR HPFP
Forge IC

Dynojet @ 8500Ft (SAE Correction)









Dynojet @ 8500Ft (No Correction)









See, almost 100WHP difference just by using SAE. Obviously 350 WHP with just K04 is very unlikely, specially at 8500Ft and only 18PSI (at 8500Ft air is to thin for the K04 to successfully spool beyond 20PSI)

The dyno is correcting power by 37%, obviously an exaggerated figure for FI cars, that DON’T lose 37% at 8500Ft, NA car may, just not FI cars.

250WHP is actually what the car is putting down to the ground, good numbers taking into account that air is almost 25% thinner than what it is at sea level

I would love to see what power does the car shows if you use no correction, correction should be between 1.15-1.20 guessing by your altitude. I bet is won’t break into the 600s using no correction factor. 

Not bashing, just clarifying the differences.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

Here you have the dyno plots with and without correction. 1.19 factor correction gave us 100 whp nothing exagerated for being at 1570 meters or 5150 feet above sea level. I have the winpep files BTW!

SAE corrected:











Without correction:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Turbo freak said:


> Here you have the dyno plots with and without correction. 1.19 factor correction gave us 100 whp nothing exagerated for being at 1570 meters or 5150 feet above sea level. I have the winpep files BTW!
> 
> SAE corrected:
> 
> ...


:thumbup::thumbup::beer:


----------



## danielescobarg (Jan 14, 2009)

Turbo freak said:


> Here you have the dyno plots with and without correction. 1.19 factor correction gave us 100 whp nothing exagerated for being at 1570 meters or 5150 feet above sea level. I have the winpep files BTW!
> 
> Without correction:


WOW, 550WHP is insane above 5000Ft.

However, you DO NOT have 650 WHP, 650 WHP is what you “should” have at sea level by adjusting the conditions and compensating you for that. However, you are NOT at Sea level. You are at 5000Ft.
650 is just a theoretical figure. 

Again not bashing, just stating the facts. 

Insane power, don’t know if its till world record……


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

if you would be at sea level, will you still have enought fuel for those 650 whp ? 

just a point


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

danielescobarg said:


> WOW, 550WHP is insane above 5000Ft.
> 
> However, you DO NOT have 650 WHP, 650 WHP is what you “should” have at sea level by adjusting the conditions and compensating you for that. However, you are NOT at Sea level. You are at 5000Ft.
> 650 is just a theoretical figure.
> ...




Yes IT HAS 650 WHP. The only thing to convert the theory to fact is to bring the car to sea level, nothing more (with a lot less lag BTW). SAE engineers "should" know how to do that correction.

Everyone who dyno a car use the SAE correction and i think it is still a world record. The car has some hardware changes now that we think it has more than 700 WHP. We are going to test it soon.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

ghita.silviu said:


> if you would be at sea level, will you still have enought fuel for those 650 whp ?
> 
> just a point



Yes, it has plenty.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

Turbo freak said:


> Yes, it has plenty.



last time i saw something like;
_
s3 injectors + 100% duty cicle to the ethanol injection._

are there any other updates on the fueling sistem ? 

thx


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

That doesnt mean S3 injectors running at 100% duty cycle, isnt it?


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

Turbo freak said:


> That doesnt mean S3 injectors running at 100% duty cycle, isnt it?


oky, then what is you currently injection timing on the s3 injectors ? 


- won't be a better ideea of running 4 small aditional injectors at 100% duty cycle, connected to a hobs switch, and let the ECU compensate for the rest ? + watermeth.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

ghita.silviu said:


> oky, then what is you currently injection timing on the s3 injectors ?
> 
> 
> - won't be a better ideea of running 4 small aditional injectors at 100% duty cycle, connected to a hobs switch, and let the ECU compensate for the rest ? + watermeth.


I dont think thats a good idea, better would be to connect those additional injectors to a programable injector control but we dont need it as the S3 injectors + meth injection are doing the work properly.

Injection timing is 5.1 ms at 8000 rpm at 30 psi of boost lambda .80 so we are totally cool about that:

(5.1ms * 8000)/1200= 34% duty cycle

The fuel system is not stock, of course!!!!


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

Turbo freak said:


> I dont think thats a good idea, better would be to connect those additional injectors to a programable injector control but we dont need it as the S3 injectors + meth injection are doing the work properly.
> 
> Injection timing is 5.1 ms at 8000 rpm at 30 psi of boost lambda .80 so we are totally cool about that:
> 
> ...



5.1ms at 30 psi, is a very nice load, that water-meth, really compensate a lot 


about the ideea of running 4 aditional injectors at 100% duty cycle, is almost the same thing as running 4 port water-meth, in therms of fueling.

and have the advantage that you rich the mixture with gas witch has the same lambda.



if you run ehanol and compensate that much with it, your 0.8 lambda is almost (you have to calculate) 0.86 in reality. 



anyway, your solution works for you, and that is a good think.

i will test the 4 injectors @100% DTC solution on my setup, and see how it reacts 



currently at 27 psi boost, rs4 injectors at 130 BAR pressure @ 7000 rpm, are showing around 8 ms, 0.85 lambda


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

danielescobarg said:


> WOW, 550WHP is insane above 5000Ft.
> 
> However, you DO NOT have 650 WHP, 650 WHP is what you “should” have at sea level by adjusting the conditions and compensating you for that. However, you are NOT at Sea level. You are at 5000Ft.
> 650 is just a theoretical figure.
> ...


I think they use the same correction factor at sea level. Take a look at all dyno sheets and all of them have SAE correction of 1.18. So why would they use a correction if they are already at sea level?


----------



## danielescobarg (Jan 14, 2009)

Serrari said:


> I think they use the same correction factor at sea level. Take a look at all dyno sheets and all of them have SAE correction of 1.18. So why would they use a correction if they are already at sea level?


Everybody uses SAE, all I’m saying is that SAE does NOT Works properly at high altitude, SAE does NOT care if your car is FI or not, so you will not “loose” so much power as SAE thinks you will. Do you honestly think that you have lost 20% of power? Some lag maybe, but not 20% of you power.

Also, SAE correction at sea level is NEVER 1.16, if it’s 1.16, it has to be 200f and humid as hell. 

Check this website to calculates SAE correction factors.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm


Here are few I calculated, just to demonstrate what I am saying:

Sea Level Northern hemisphere (Typical summer day)
•	83F
•	67% Humidity (.76 In Hg)
•	29.92 In Hg ( atmospheric pressure)
o	Correction Factor: 1.01 (1% correction)

Sea Level Northern hemisphere (HELL day) Worst case scenario at sea level
•	105F
•	90% Humidity (1.99 In Hg)
•	29.92 In Hg ( atmospheric pressure)
o	Correction Factor: 1.087 (8.7% correction)

Mild altitude Northern hemisphere (Summer Day with same conditions as sea level, except of air density)
•	83F
•	67% Humidity (.76 In Hg)
•	2000 Ft (27.82 In Hg)
o	Correction Factor: 1.102 (10% correction)

Medium Altitude (Your case) Tool weather conditions form Sporttune, where you dynoed you car.
•	77F
•	34% Humidity (.29 In Hg)
•	5000Ft (25.2 In Hg)
o	Correction Factor: 1.202 (You sheet shows 1.19, very close)

High Altitude, e.g (Bogota, Colombia)
•	65F
•	65% Humidity (.30 In Hg)
•	8500Ft (21.81 In Hg)
o	Correction Factor: 1.39 (Similar to the dyno sheet y posted)

All I’m trying to say is that you should not use SAE correction on FI cars when you start going up in altitude, anything from 3000Ft upwards, the correction factor will actually give you more power, since the rate at which you are losing power due to altitude is much lower that what SAE recons.

In your case, if you went to Mexico city, which is similar in elevation as Bogota, you would actually gain power, since correction is almost double as where you dynoed your car. you don’t think that you will lose another 20% just by going another 3000Ft?

See the corrections for sea level, under normal conditions, no SAE correction will go above 5%, but when you add a little altitude, correction goes to the roof. Most people use SAE because most of the time with or without SAE, HP figures will be very, very close, maybe gain 10HPS at max, since most of the states are at very low altitude. In our cases, higher elevation, SAE does not works properly, which is why I always use uncorrected figures for my numbers and leads me to the point I am trying to make for stating that you DO NOT have 650WHP, but 550 @ 5000Ft, which is a great feat. Whenever you go down to sea level and dyno you car under “normal” ideal conditions and not “hypothetical” conditions, you may claim your HP figures, either way using SAE or uncorrected, because the variance will be insignificant. Contrary to your case, where you are gaining 100WHP just from correction alone.

As always nothing agonist you or your car, just trying to clarify what I have learned from running countless cars at high elevation and comparing figures with sea level counterparts.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

I dont see anything weird about a 6262 (62mm turbo) making +600whp with +30psi and a good tune. Thats what EVO guys make, I think the record holder of a 6262 turbo is at 780awhp.

Stock cars have been tested on the same Dynojet and numbers are accurate if we compare them with another Dynojet at sea level. We have stock SRT4s making from 210whp to 230whp, stock FSI cars make around 170-190whp.

We dont manipulate numbers in any way, we just receive a sheet and file with the numbers from the owner of the shop. He uses the dyno that way and I think that is the way supposed to be used, not all cities are at sea level.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

At high altitude, a naturally aspirated vehicle will see less ambient pressure than it would at sea level. Because of this, SAE correction is designed to estimate the difference between altitudes to drive a possible corrected HP figure. 

On a turbocharged engine with a large enough turbocharger, the turbo simply works harder to make up for the difference in boost pressure. At 5000 feet above sea level this is roughly just under 2.5 PSI, which is easily made up by running the turbo slightly harder. 

Using SAE correction at these high altitudes on a turbocharged vehicle will wildly correct the numbers upward, completely throwing off the results. Turbo Freaks post shows a prime example of this. 

Point being, SAE Correction on a turbocharged vehicle at high altitude will give wildly higher numbers compared to the same vehicle at sea level. Also keep in mind SAE requires that the corrections be less than ± 7% or else the correction is not considered valid.


Serrari, 

Get the dyno files from the dyno operator and load them into Winpep 7. Post up the uncorrected results. 

-Arin


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

I undertsand what you are trying to say here, but dont you think that people who make dynos thought of a correction factor for higher altitude cities? They would only sell dynos to shops that are at sea level because if not numbers will be screwed and this is not the case.

We still have some numbers to compare from sea level to a higher altitude. A SRT4 was built and tuned at Houston where he put down [email protected] Later this car came to Mexico and was taken to the dyno at a higher altitude, also a Dynojet and made [email protected] I mean the numbers are not exactly the same but are VERY similar. This proves that they have a pretty precise correction factor to calculate whp even at higher altitudes. I will say it again, it would be ridiculous that with a 62mm turbo and +30psi you couldnt make more than 550whp.

Video of SRT4 at Guadalajara, Mexico Dynojet:






Torque was off because a wire disconnected.


----------



## angryone (Sep 9, 2007)

The car's trap speed of 138 mph in the 1/4 mile supports the whp claim, assuming there wasn't significant weight reduction done. :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Serrari said:


> I undertsand what you are trying to say here, but dont you think that people who make dynos thought of a correction factor for higher altitude cities?


Actually, no. 

SAE or the Society of Automotive Engineers, created SAE J1349 as a method for manufacturers to certify power ratings. These standards have a limited range of use based around variables such as altitude, temperature, and humidity. If you are outside of these specification and if the formula correct more than a specified percentage, the correction is no longer considered valid.


One big question I always had was how these correction factors could possibly account for knock. Depending on intake air temperature your ECU can pull out ignition timing. This is calibrated by your calibrator and is different between every calibrator out there. Some may pull only a little, some may pull a lot, some may not pull any at all which could results in some knock pulling out more than the other guy. I started digging around for an answer to this and I found it interesting that FORD Racing actually discussed this exact topic!



Ford Racing said:


> Despite these correction factors, atmospheric conditions can play an additional role in terms of ignition timing. The correction factors account only for the change in the density of the air due to atmospheric conditions and cannot account for things like engine borderline spark sensitivity. As inlet air temperature increases, the PCM will generally retard spark to prevent detonation using the particular octane of fuel for which it was calibrated. Correction factors cannot account for this because different engine designs can have different spark sensitivity and different DYNAMOMETER TESTING AND FORD RACING CALIBRATIONS sensitivity of torque relative to ignition timing. Basically this means that the closer the actual conditions are to the SAE J1349 standard (77 deg F inlet air, 29.31 inHg barometric pressure), the more comparable the results are to those quoted by the manufacturer.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Serrari;71122 I will say it again said:


> I ran 41.5 psi on my hta3076 so what. Boost doesn't mean anything if timing is pulled.
> 
> Im no dyno expert so I can't say anything about the numbers but you can't just talk like honda guys and say I got this on this boost level so I must be making power. Why not just go to the track like usp did and prove the dyno isn't fishy?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Are any of the high boosting cars out there ever running on 93 only (no water/meth)? What sort of timing advance are you seeing towards redline (6500 RPM's +)


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

IMAN973 said:


> I ran 41.5 psi on my hta3076 so what. Boost doesn't mean anything if timing is pulled.
> 
> Im no dyno expert so I can't say anything about the numbers but you can't just talk like honda guys and say I got this on this boost level so I must be making power. Why not just go to the track like usp did and prove the dyno isn't fishy?


38psi, 25 timing advance, 0 timing pull.

I have a dyno sheet and a 138mph trap speed to back up things.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Serrari said:


> 38psi, 25 timing advance, 0 timing pull.
> 
> I have a dyno sheet and a 138mph trap speed to back up things.


+25?

What type of fuel? Do you have any vag-com logs of this?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> +25?
> 
> What type of fuel? Do you have any vag-com logs of this?


C16 + Ethanol.

Yes I have logs of this.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Serrari said:


> C16 + Ethanol.
> 
> Yes I have logs of this.


Not needed. 

I thought you were on 93 + w/m.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Some thursday night runs:


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Serrari said:


> Some thursday night runs:


Pretty sick man! :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

ghita.silviu said:


> 5.1ms at 30 psi, is a very nice load, that water-meth, really compensate a lot
> 
> 
> about the ideea of running 4 aditional injectors at 100% duty cycle, is almost the same thing as running 4 port water-meth, in therms of fueling.
> ...



Lambda numbers are the same for any fuel from diesel to methanol, if you are running lambda 1 means stoich with any fuel. Please do some homework, no offense just to clear things up.


----------



## Turbo freak (May 9, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Serrari,
> 
> Get the dyno files from the dyno operator and load them into Winpep 7. Post up the uncorrected results.
> 
> -Arin


Uncorrected results already posted by me from the winpep files of the cupra dyno run, look a little back 550 whp uncorrected...

The dyno and the drag track are at the same place (Gudalajara, Mexico), that car made 11.8 with a little wet slippery track with trap speeds of 138 mph, OMG!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Turbo freak said:


> Uncorrected results already posted by me from the winpep files of the cupra dyno run, look a little back 550 whp uncorrected...
> 
> The dyno and the drag track are at the same place (Gudalajara, Mexico), that car made 11.8 with a little wet slippery track with trap speeds of 138 mph, OMG!


Got it! that's what I expected to see. Thank you!


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)




----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

I am parting out my car, prices dont include shipping, only paypal accepted:

GCTech intake manifold with 56mm TB - $750.00
HPFP APR - $700.00
Inyectors Audi S3 - $350.00
Inyectors Audi RS4 - $299.00
Turbo header GCTech frontal turbo - $850.00
Turbo Precision 6262 T3 .82ar - $1,150.00
BSH mounts - $350.00
Exhaust Schrick camshaft - $600.00
ECU 2.0T FSI with custom tune Sporttune for BT - $1099.00
Turbo timer Greddy - $100.00
MSD window swicth - $150.00
Harness 2.0T FSI - $650.00
USP Motorsports Stage low pressure fuel system - $350.00


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)




----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

man, does something happend to the engine ? :-s


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

What happened?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

I think he said in the Ferrea thread that he had a cylinder head failure and lots of
bent valves...

Dunno how much he ended up spending on the car, but i'm sure it would be worth it to
rebuild it....


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

did it say what the failure in the head was?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> did it say what the failure in the head was?


Well it would seem the springs were not strong enough to hold the 
valves with him revving at 9000+ and valves were bend/cut...

He most probably lost interest in rebuilding the engine after that....


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

interesting..


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> What happened?


X2. WTF happened?! 

What's up with the traction bars? Any modifications needed to run the intake manifold?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> X2. WTF happened?!
> 
> What's up with the traction bars? Any modifications needed to run the intake manifold?


Come on people it's not that hard to find the pics...:facepalm:




























The rest are in the Ferrea thread by INA.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)




----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

I am swaping to a 2.5T engine. For what I read its a 2.0FSI with 1 more cylinder, pistons, rods and tranny fit the engine. I think even the valvetrain fits the head, just going to buy the extra things I need. Here is the new engine:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Ouch,

you gotta do a lot of work to that 2.5 to make it anywhere near what you can get out of the 2.0T. I think most guys with big turbo 2.5's put down around chipped 2.0T numbers.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Ouch,
> 
> you gotta do a lot of work to that 2.5 to make it anywhere near what you can get out of the 2.0T. I think most guys with big turbo 2.5's put down around chipped 2.0T numbers.


Hmmm...What a sec....

Is that the N/A 2.5 lt or the new 2.5 from the TTRS ?

Now that i think of it, i don't even think the turbo engine has reached the
States yet so....


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

Serrari said:


> I am swaping to a 2.5T engine. For what I read its a 2.0FSI with 1 more cylinder, pistons, rods and tranny fit the engine. I think even the valvetrain fits the head, just going to buy the extra things I need.


Is this the 2.5TFSI from the TT-RS/RS3, that looks a lot like the 2.5 5cyl found in the rabbit? Please post information about the swap process.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmm...What a sec....
> 
> Is that the N/A 2.5 lt or the new 2.5 from the TTRS ?
> 
> ...






GTI2Slow said:


> Is this the 2.5TFSI from the TT-RS/RS3? Please post information about the swap process.


Look at the photo. It has port injection and no turbo. It's the 2.5, port injected, naturally aspirated, 150-170hp motor sold in the states in the Jetta and golf.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

GolfRS said:


> Hmmm...What a sec....
> 
> Is that the N/A 2.5 lt or the new 2.5 from the TTRS ?
> 
> ...


Just look at the exhaust manifold and you can see that it's a 2.5L NA motor. No turbo on it . . . kinda obvious


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

Bummer :/ I never was able to look at either in detail, I got a little excited when it was referred to a a 2.5T.

A 2.5TFSI swap would be awesome.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

crew219 said:


> Just look at the exhaust manifold and you can see that it's a 2.5L NA motor. No turbo on it . . . kinda obvious


Oh...you are right...:banghead:

But then...why chose a N/A engine to turbo and not use a turbo engine from the start ??

I don't see how one cylinder is gonna make the difference against all the
hurdles one has to go over to reliably turbo this...

Curious to see where this is heading...


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Ouch,
> 
> you gotta do a lot of work to that 2.5 to make it anywhere near what you can get out of the 2.0T. I think most guys with big turbo 2.5's put down around chipped 2.0T numbers.


I would have to disagree with you on that one. You know what they say about displacement and from what I have seen the 2.5 its exactly the same as a 2.0T FSI but with an extra cylinder, they have the same bore, stroke and rod lenght, just as the engine found in the TT-RS. Well I think at the end of the build we will find out who was right.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Here is info on both engines the 2.5 found in the rabbit and the one in the TT-RS, I am not saying they are identical, but on bore, stroke and rod lenght they sure are. I think most of the diferences is the inyection and manifold design:

*2.5 R5 20v 110-125kW (EA855; Americas/Mid. East)*

This engine is only used in the North American, South American, and Middle Eastern markets, as the replacement for the inline-four naturally aspirated 2.0 litre 8v.
identificationparts code prefix: 07Kengine displacement & engine configuration2,480 cubic centimetres (151.3 cu in) inline five engine (R5/I5); bore x stroke: 82.5 by 92.8 millimetres (3.25 in × 3.65 in), stroke ratio: 0.89:1 - undersquare/long-stroke, 496.1 cc per cylindercylinder block & crankcaseGJL250 grey cast iron; two-part oil sump, die-forged steel crankshaft with six main bearings, water cooled oil coolercylinder head & valvetraincast aluminium alloy; four valves per cylinder, 20 valves total, low-friction roller finger cam followers with automatic hydraulic valve clearance compensation, chain-driven (relay method, using two simplex roller chains) double overhead camshaft (DOHC), variable intake valve timingaspirationcast aluminium intake manifold, single throttle body with electronically controlled 'drive by wire' throttle butterfly valvefuel systemcommon rail multi-point electronic sequential indirect fuel injection with five intake manifold-sited fuel injectorsignition system & engine managementfive individual direct-acting single spark coils with longlife spark plugs, Bosch Motronic engine control unit (ECU), secondary air injection during cold start phase to reduce emissions, single knock sensorexhaust systemone-piece cast iron 5-into-1 exhaust manifold, ceramic catalytic converter, two heated oxygen sensors (three when equipped with California emissions) for permanent lambda controlDIN-rated motive power & torque outputs, ID codes110 kilowatts (150 PS; 148 bhp) @ 5,000 rpm; 225 newton metres (166 ft·lbf) @ 3,750 rpm — January 2005 (BGP/BGQ/BPR/BPS)125 kilowatts (170 PS; 168 bhp) @ 5,700 rpm; 239 newton metres (176 ft·lbf) @ 4,250 rpm — from May 2007 (CBT/CBU)applicationsVW Rabbit (Golf Mk5), VW Jetta Mk5, Volkswagen New Beetle *[edit] 2.5 R5 20v TFSI 250kW-300kW (Audi TTRS, RS3 & quattro Concept)*

An all-new engine designed by AUDI AGs high performance subsidiary quattro GmbH, harking back to the original turbocharged five cylinder Audi engines in the _"Ur-"_ Audi Quattro of the 1980s. A world first for a petrol engine, its cylinder block is constructed from compacted vermicular graphite cast iron (GJV/CGI) - first used in Audis large displacement, high performance Turbocharged Direct Injection (TDI) diesel engines.
identificationparts code prefix/variant: 07K.3; ID code: CEPAengine displacement & engine configuration2,480 cubic centimetres (151.3 cu in) inline five engine (R5/I5); bore x stroke: 82.5 by 92.8 millimetres (3.25 in × 3.65 in), stroke ratio: 0.89:1 - undersquare/long-stroke, 496.1 cc per cylinder; 88 mm (3.46 in) cylinder spacing, 144 degree firing interval, firing order: 1-2-4-5-3, compression ratio: 10.0:1cylinder block & crankcaseGJV-450 compacted vermicular graphite cast iron (GJV/CGI); six main bearings, two-part cast aluminium alloy horizontal-baffled oil sump, simplex roller chain-driven oil pump, die-forged steel crankshaft, forged steel connecting rods, cast aluminium alloy pistons (weight, each, including rings and gudgeon pin: 492 grams (17.4 oz))cylinder head & valvetraincast high hot-strength aluminium alloy, modified inlet duct geometry for high tumble values providing superior knock resistance, four valves per cylinder (exhaust valves sodium filled for increased cooling), 20 valves total, low-friction roller finger cam followers with automatic hydraulic valve clearance compensation, simplex roller chain-driven (relay method) light-weight double overhead camshafts (DOHC), variable valve timing with continuous adjusting intake and exhaust camshaft timing of up to 42 degrees from the crankshaft, two-stage 'valvelift' variable lift control for inlet valves, siamesed inlet ports, Audi "RS" 'red' plastic cam coveraspirationhot-film air mass meter incorporated into air filter housing, cast alloy throttle body with electronically controlled 'drive by wire' throttle butterfly valve, two piece intake manifold with charge movement flaps adjusted by a continuous-action pilot motor, water cooled turbocharger incorporated in exhaust manifold with 64 mm (2.5 in) diameter outlet, generating up to 1.2 bars (17.4 psi) boost, separated central lower front-mounted intercooler (FMIC)fuel systemfully demand-controlled and returnless: fuel tank-mounted low pressure fuel lift pump; Fuel Stratified Injection (FSI): single-piston high-pressure injection pump supplying up to 120 bars (1,740 psi) fuel pressure in the stainless steel common rail fuel rail, five combustion chamber sited direct injection sequential solenoid-controlled fuel injectors, air-guided combustion process, multi-pulse injection with homogeneous mixing, stratified lean-burn operation with excess air at part load, ultra-low sulfur unleaded petrol (ULSP)ignition system & engine managementBeru longlife spark plugs centrally positioned in combustion chamber, mapped direct ignition with five individual direct-acting single spark coils; Bosch Motronic MED electronic engine control unit (ECU), cylinder-selective knock control via two knock sensors, permanent lambda controlexhaust systemsecondary air injection pump for direct injection into exhaust ports to assist cold start operation, cast iron exhaust manifold (with integrated turbocharger), two primary and two main high-flow sports catalytic converters, two heated oxygen sensors monitoring pre- and post-catalyst exhaust gasses, vacuum-operated map-controlled flap-valves mounted in rear exhaust silencer tail pipesdimensionslength: 494 millimetres (19.4 in), mass: 183 kilograms (403 lb)DIN-rated motive power & torque output250 kilowatts (340 PS; 335 bhp) @ 5,400-6,500 rpm (specific power of 100.8 kW (137.0 PS; 135.2 bhp) per litre); 450 newton metres (332 ft·lbf) @ 1,600-5,300 rpm; redline: 6,800 rpm300 kilowatts (408 PS; 402 bhp) @ 5,400-6,500 rpm; 480 newton metres (354 ft·lbf) @ 1,600-5,300 rpm; redline: 8,000 rpmapplicationAudi quattro concept (2010), Audi RS3, Audi TT RS (07/09->)references"Potent new Audi TT RS takes five in Geneva". _Audi.co.uk_. Audi UK. 3 March 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
"Audi TT RS World Debut in Geneva". _WorldCarFans.com_. AUDI AG. 3 March 2009. Retrieved 2 September 2009.
"Audi TT RS in Depth - priced at 55,800 euros". _WorldCarFans.com_. AUDI AG. 29 May 2009. Retrieved 2 September 2009.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Serrari said:


> I would have to disagree with you on that one. You know what they say about displacement and from what I have seen the 2.5 its exactly the same as a 2.0T FSI but with an extra cylinder, they have the same bore, stroke and rod lenght, just as the engine found in the TT-RS. Well I think at the end of the build we will find out who was right.


Bahbahbahbooooooooya!

Do it to it Sergio. I knew you had something up your sleeve.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Going from direct injection to plenum injection is like going back in time...

Oh well at least your valves will be clean... :laugh:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Going from direct injection to plenum injection is like going back in time...
> 
> Oh well at least your valves will be clean... :laugh:


Remember there are no options for big inyectors for the FSI engines. Even the Underground Racing TT Gallardos go from direct injection to plenum injection and make 1500awhp.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Sorry to hear about your motor. 

I was just starting to enjoy our rivalry. The 2.0t fsi lost one of the heavy hitters today 

Good luck in your next project.


----------



## StuMacLean (Aug 9, 2003)

Best of luck with the new project. It was fun reading your build thread, and watching your car toast some serious steel. 

Whenever you get some progress on the 2.5, post a link in this thread so we can all keep up on your car.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Ok, I think I found the cause of the valve failure. Just take a look at the head and the lifter shims are not installed. The head was put together by a 3rd party "specialized" business and seems they forgot to put the lifter shims...


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

I hate those dam things. I droped one and I've been waiting 2 months for a replacement.
btw anyone got a spare shim? I wont be at waterfest unless I get one asap.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

Scott @ Ferrea should have them in stock, if not ask shawn "fouthchirpin" I sold him a set for a 24V.. also I think billy mason lil8v had some.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Scott @ Ferrea should have them in stock, if not ask shawn "fouthchirpin" I sold him a set for a 24V.. also I think billy mason lil8v had some.


Thanks jeff


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

They forgot ?????? Hell...or did they just not know what these tiny shims are for??
Honestly...I talked with some serious engine builders when the valvetrain kit popped up (last year?) and nearly nobody heard about it. Or said "better pull the hydro stamp and set in a fixed hydro pin" I am very sure that "hydro stamp" and "hydro pin" are not the right words for it and nobody will understand  ...but I didn´t found a translation. Sorry...forgotten...to install the shims...unbelievable...

Nevertheless:
- Good luck with your new project Sergio!! All the best and keep us posted!


@ Issac...you quit writing PM´s to me he ?  If you have an update, may shoot a short message, if you like.:thumbup:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Sorry I've been crazy busy trying to get my car done for waterfest. Ijust finished my 10 pt cage last night now I need to dyno tune and get to the track before sat. I haven't even checked that account in weeks. If you have a specific question message me on iman

Sergio I just spoke with Scott @ferrea ans he said the shims would fail at those speeds without shims. You can run without them but not at high rpms


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Hmmmm...This got me thinking...

I have the same kit...How do i check if the shims are installed ?

Got any pics of how they should/should not look like ?? :what:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

IMAN973 said:


> Sorry I've been crazy busy trying to get my car done for waterfest. Ijust finished my 10 pt cage last night now I need to dyno tune and get to the track before sat. I haven't even checked that account in weeks. If you have a specific question message me on iman
> 
> Sergio I just spoke with Scott @ferrea ans he said the shims would fail at those speeds without shims. You can run without them but not at high rpms


Yeah I figure out that was the cause of the valve hitting the piston.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> Yeah I figure out that was the cause of the valve hitting the piston.


So what is the rev limit without them then ??

Am i getting nervous without a reason ?? :banghead:


----------



## Hendrik (Sep 13, 2008)

In general the limit of every hydraulic lash adjuster is approx. 7500. 
Going higher --> you´ll pump the lifter 

When I get it right, the shims are a way to simulate a mechanical valvetrain with hydraulic lifters.. thats why rev. becomes "safe"


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> So what is the rev limit without them then ??
> 
> Am i getting nervous without a reason ?? :banghead:


Lifter shims are for the lifters and are little black circles. Ferrea kit comes with them. Without them I wouldnt go past 7500rpms.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> Lifter shims are for the lifters and are little black circles. Ferrea kit comes with them. Without them I wouldnt go past 7500rpms.


Well i installed mine at a Ferrea dealer, but still after this and seeing that
you have put so much attention to detail only to be screwed by something like that
i can't help but wonder if i'm also in the same situation...

Is there a way of checking the shims short of removing the head ?
Are they visible when lifting the valve cover ?? (i don't have a clue)

EDIT:Wait a sec....above 7500 ??WTH then the springs aren't worth anything ?
All the juice is in the shims ??This kit costs an arm and a leg and you get a
head failure cause of a shim ??I mean ok you were reving above 9000 as you
say, but even stock valvetrain can make 7500....


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Well i installed mine at a Ferrea dealer, but still after this and seeing that
> you have put so much attention to detail only to be screwed by something like that
> i can't help but wonder if i'm also in the same situation...
> 
> ...


Its a very SAFE guess. I dont really know the answer to that question.


----------



## okswerve16 (Feb 28, 2010)

the shims go under the lifter so no you wouldnt be able to easily tell if they were installed


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Here is a link for the new build thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5356061-GCTech-Motorsports-6765-2.5L-Build-Thread


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Can someone tell me what are the dimensions of a lifter shim please.


----------



## Slowboat (Feb 12, 2003)

*Shim size*

Outside diameter: 10.2mm
Inside diameter: 6.35mm
Thickness: 1.09mm

I've measured it off from a used shim.

Good luck on your new project.
Love to see the capabilities on the 2.5 five cylinder.


----------



## .:MKV:. (Feb 6, 2008)

Serrari said:


> Here is a link for the new build thread:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5356061-GCTech-Motorsports-6765-2.5L-Build-Thread


Mean Bra Mean


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Ouch,
> 
> you gotta do a lot of work to that 2.5 to make it anywhere near what you can get out of the 2.0T. I think most guys with big turbo 2.5's put down around chipped 2.0T numbers.


 The 2.5L is basically a 2.0T with high compression pistons and an extra cylinder on the end. Once the software guys figure out the tuning, good luck with that theory.  

On race fuel the direct injection is not a big advantage in terms of power output. Fuel economy yes, even at full throttle- but most guys don't even think about that.


----------



## andrewdask (Jul 31, 2011)

*low press*



Serrari said:


> I am parting out my car, prices dont include shipping, only paypal accepted:
> GCTech intake manifold with 56mm TB - $750.00
> HPFP APR - $700.00
> Inyectors Audi S3 - $350.00
> ...


You still having the USP low pressure system.... if is it yes how much for that?
speek spanish too


----------

