# gtx2867r spool



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

i posted this video awhile back

http://s809.beta.photobucket.com/user/vrsick13/media/VID_20120330_125425.mp4.html

and i got mixed reviews saying it was spooling late. Well i took this video to show you the spool of a gtx2867r in 4th gear

http://s809.beta.photobucket.com/user/vrsick13/media/spool.mp4.html

I love this turbo, it is responsive with a lot of torque. i can spin 4th with ease if the car is cold.. I had a GT3071r on before this GTX2867r and i would take the 2867r anyday.

What do you think?


----------



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

I also have a boost leak. I have my W/M hose right before the TB and the bung that the hose is in is plastic. I have a hole cut out in my stock TB hose and the bung goes in there. Well the boost pressure is so high it tends to leak out of that area. What could i do to fix that problem?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i love the gtx3071..it hits 20+psi at 4 k if you have solid timing,etc..but it is waaayyy more turbo than a 3076.

couple buddies went BT and i told them to go gtx2867/71. they are singing the same praise. awesome spool, huge torqueband like a 3071 and plenty of power.

the gtx line REALLY shines at 30+psi migh ti add.:beer::beer:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

fix the boost leak, it will spool sooner. my PPT billet 3071 sees [email protected], you should be there or lower.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

the gt3071(blue) has more topend, but with a billet wheel makes even more power and better spool. but yes, the gtx2867 is pretty rad.


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

garret released a new turbo at SEMA this year gtx3067


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

Honestly I dont find the GTX2867R that impressive. Its almost like a GT3071R. 
But if you like it, that's great and that's what counts. 


Vegeta Gti said:


> i love the gtx3071..it hits 20+psi at 4 k if you have solid timing,etc..but it is waaayyy more turbo than a 3076r


 GTX3071R 30psi @ 4200 RPM's here with stock head and displacement


----------



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

Gonzzz said:


> Honestly I dont find the GTX2867R that impressive. Its almost like a GT3071R.
> But if you like it, that's great and that's what counts.
> 
> GTX3071R 30psi @ 4200 RPM's here with stock head and displacement


 
So, what exacally is it that you dont like about the 2867r? Im almost posative you have never been in a car with one, and if you see my first video the car is effin fast. That is with me shifting slow and at 6500rpm. This turbo blows the 3071r out of the water, the 71 might flow alittle more up top, but the 2867r is twice as fast as my 3071r was. The early onset of torque with the 2867r doesnt even compare to the 3071r. I will go on a limb here and say the 2867r is the perfect turbo for the 1.8t


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

I'm not saying I don't like it. I'm just saying that the spool is not that impressive. 
I've been in all types of cars and setups and the few people I trust (read: tuners that I personally know and trust) concur with me that its not as impressive as people make it out to be. 

Like I said: if you like it, great for you man. Go have some fun :thumbup:


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

VRsick13 said:


> I will go on a limb here and say the 2867r is the perfect turbo for the 1.8t


 Perfect for what? Autocross, drag, DD? 
Not everyone is looking for the same thing. There is no such thing as 'perfect' because different people have different needs.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gonzzz said:


> *Perfect for what? Autocross, drag, DD?*Not everyone is looking for the same thing. There is no such thing as 'perfect' because different people have different needs.


 I think he means perfect *street turbo/daily driver*. I just upgraded from the GT28R at 1.8L to GTX2867R at 2.1L (ALH crank). The GTX2867R will obviously spool a little sooner on my setup (116% per 1000 RPMs) as compared to OP. This combination spools about the same as the GT28R at 1.8L, but is a little flatter from 3000 to 3500 RPMs. At that RPM range, the GT28R is usually losing traction in 2nd gear (and sometimes 3rd gear) but flattens out after 5000 RPMs. Whereas the GTX2867R continues to pull strong through that RPM range all the way to redline. 

Looking at the compressor map, the GTX2867R has a wider RPM band as compared to the GT3071R (especially above P2/P1=2.5 about 22 psi). Notice how top, left section of the GT3071R above P2/P1=2.5 is cut off. At P2/P1=2.5, the GTX2867R has about a 4200 RPM band as compared to 3800 RPMs for the GT3071R. Above this point, the difference in RPM band is even greater. 

With the GTX2867R, you gain about 400 RPMs over the GT3071R in the lower RPM range according to the compressor maps (i.e.: spools 400 RPMs sooner above P2/P1=2.5). You would have to rev. the GT3071R past 7500 RPMs to have any advantage over the GTX2867R at stock displacement. However, you only gain about 15 HP max. 

I am currently running my setup at low boost (probably below 20 psi... I don't have boost gauge) due to the fact that I have serious knock issues with MBC turned up. I plan on running some combination of either ethanol or methanol and gas in the future. In the meantime, I ordered Torco Accelerator to play around with higher boost. 

Has anyone used Torco Accelerator? I heard it works as advertised. 

http://torcoracefuel.net/pro-accelerator.html


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i love the gtx3071..it hits 20+psi at 4 k if you have solid timing,etc..*but it is waaayyy more turbo than a 3076*.
> 
> couple buddies went BT and i told them to go gtx2867/71. they are singing the same praise. awesome spool, huge torqueband like a 3071 and plenty of power.
> 
> the gtx line REALLY shines at 30+psi migh ti add.:beer::beer:


 You got that right! Better spool up, a lot more up top (GTX3071R is in red). 










EDIT: The GTX3071R shoud definately obsolete the GT30R (GT3076R) sorry to say


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

mainstayinc said:


> I am currently running my setup at low boost (probably below 20 psi... I don't have boost gauge) due to the fact that I have serious knock issues with MBC turned up. I plan on running some combination of either ethanol or methanol and gas in the future. In the meantime, I ordered Torco Accelerator to play around with higher boost.
> 
> Has anyone used Torco Accelerator? I heard it works as advertised.
> 
> http://torcoracefuel.net/pro-accelerator.html


 The leaded version works as advertised. The unleaded one, not so much. 
I wouldn't be getting race gas just because you are having knock issues, though.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gonzzz said:


> The leaded version works as advertised. The unleaded one, not so much.
> *I wouldn't be getting race gas just because you are having knock issues, though.*


 What's the best way to resolve? I have Unitronics 630cc (not MAFless). I turned down the MBC which keeps things in check. Is there any way to run higher boost in my application without having to turn MBC down?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Thanks for the info on the GTX 2867. I’m playing with some ideas for the future that may involve a GTX2867, or a HTA2868/71, or a PPT 71 billet wheel. This feedback is helpful. 

Are you experiencing real knock or just timing pull? My guess is that with the better compressor performance in your mid-range, the basic Uni tune with a MBC isn’t going to cut it. I suspect you need to do a lot of logging/tweeking to find the sweet spot in the middle of the fuel, timing and boost curves. Maestro may be where you have to go to get there. 

Also your boost leak is part of the problem. Gotta be fixed or you’ll be chasing your tail.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks for the info on the GTX 2867. I’m playing with some ideas for the future that may involve a GTX2867, or a HTA2868/71, or a PPG 71 billet wheel.


 PPT's 71 billet wheel is great: 

22psi:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Gulfstream said:


> PPT's 71 billet wheel is great:


 Is this with PPT's new 71 billet wheel or the older version?


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Atomic Ed said:


> Is this with PPT's new 71 billet wheel or the older version?


 it's the first billet version. Apparently v2 is some 10% better.... ?


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

Gulfstream said:


> PPT's 71 billet wheel is great:
> 
> 22psi:


 :beer:


----------



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

You still have to keep in mind that that i have a boost leak which is affecting spool. Which brings me to this question. Does anybody have an idea how i can fix the earlier explained boost leak i have. where does everyone else mount their W/M nossle?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

VRsick13 said:


> You still have to keep in mind that that i have a boost leak which is affecting spool. Which brings me to this question. Does anybody have an idea how i can fix the earlier explained boost leak i have. where does everyone else mount their W/M nossle?


 Get a TB plate that mounts the nozzle behind the TB. USRT, IE, INA make TB spacer plates that will fix this issue. It will also reduce the risk of water getting into the electronics of the TB.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks for the info on the GTX 2867. I’m playing with some ideas for the future that may involve a GTX2867, or a HTA2868/71, or a PPT 71 billet wheel. This feedback is helpful.
> 
> *Are you experiencing real knock or just timing pull? *


 I think you are addressing my post. If so, yes the engine audibly knocks (pings) upon hard acceleration. 



Atomic Ed said:


> My guess is that with the better compressor performance in your mid-range, *the basic Uni tune with a MBC isn’t going to cut it.* I suspect you need to do a lot of logging/tweeking to find the sweet spot in the middle of the fuel, timing and boost curves. Maestro may be where you have to go to get there.


 I have Unitronics 630cc Big Turbo File. It works great with the GT28R since that turbo can only reach 22psi. The GTX2867R can produce almost twice that boost. I'll have to do some logging as per your suggestion to find out what is going on. BTW compression ratio with ALH crank and 83mm pistons is 9.5:1. 

For anyone interested, here is how the GTX2867R compares to the 50 Trim...


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Gonzzz said:


> Honestly I dont find the GTX2867R that impressive. Its almost like a GT3071R.
> But if you like it, that's great and that's what counts.
> 
> GTX3071R 30psi @ 4200 RPM's here with stock head and displacement


 yeah stock head..420 i'm sure its 25+ on my buddies car..but it has big cams and an AEB. it fukn rips though.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

and as far as gtx2867 vs my billet...i see [email protected] is sick and it holds power to 8300rpm...if i turn it up to 30+it will crest 30psiby 3500rpm..it just shoots up. love my PPT billet 3071, especially after driving it non billet for years. 

that 3067..sounds fun as ****..


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Neat. There's almost too many options for street turbos meow!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Vegeta Gti said:


> and as far as gtx2867 vs my billet...i see [email protected] is sick and it holds power to 8300rpm...if i turn it up to 30+it will crest 30psiby 3500rpm..it just shoots up. love my PPT billet 3071, especially after driving it non billet for years.
> 
> that 3067..sounds fun as ****..


 I'm waiting on Al/PPT to post up the spool graph of the v2 of the 71 billet wheel on a GT2871 setup. (He's working on it.) It may change my mind on going with a HTA2868-GTX2867 compressor setup if the PPT 71 wheel spoolup is decent for a DD.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

VRsick13 said:


> where does everyone else mount their W/M nossle?


 Typical dual nozzle set-up is one nozzle right after the intercooler and on nozzle in a plate right after the throttle body. The nozzle after the intercooler lowers the air intake temps and the nozzle after the t-body assist in cylinder cooling, raises the octane level and reduces knock.:thumbup:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i will mos def swap to the V2 in the future:beer: 
10% can be huge with a solid setup


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Atomic Ed said:


> I'm waiting on Al/PPT to post up the spool graph of the v2 of the 71 billet wheel on a GT2871 setup. (He's working on it.) *It may change my mind on going with a HTA2868-GTX2867 compressor setup if the PPT 71 wheel spoolup is decent for a DD.*


 For comparison, here is the original (non-billet) version of the GT2871R (56 Trim) V GTX2867R. The smaller 67mm GTX wheel is better overall (better surge line and top end). This should obsolete the GT2871R IMO. 

The PPT billet version of the GT2871R probably has improved blade aerodynamics which would tend to shift the efficiency range to the right. However, you don't want to sacrifice too much surge line (left side of graph) as this will effect spoolup. 










Here is an interesting article about cast v. billet compressor wheels: 

http://www.enginebasics.com/Advanced Engine Tuning/Billet vs Cast Wheels.html 



Engine Basics said:


> *The Truth Behind the BILLET WHEEL CRAZE!*
> People can’t stop talking about billet compressor wheel turbochargers. Every other article or ad is filled with how amazing they are. The question is, does it really give you TONS of horsepower itself by the fact that its billet instead of cast? Lets take a closer look at billet wheel technology and see for ourselves if it’s just hype or are these wheels made of billet instead of cast aluminum actually going to be a game changer.





Engine Basics said:


> Garrett Had this to say:
> The Garrett® GT5533R and GT5541R turbochargers are the only members of the GT family of turbos to feature fully-machined compressor wheels. Fully machined wheels are commonly referred to as "billet." Why use a fully-machined wheel? Higher Flowrates, Horsepower or Efficiency? No. Garrett® compressor wheels are designed from the ground up to optimize performance. *The blade shape and wheel diameter are the most critical factors to optimize to achieve high performance.* Garrett® fully-machined (billet) wheels take their blade designs from Garrett® cast wheels. Regardless of the wheel manufacturing process, dedicated aerodynamic engineers spend countless hours using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and finite element analysis (FEA) to design compressor blades. To test this, our engineers ran identically-designed compressor wheels on our gas stands. We removed as many confounding variables as possible; there were no vehicles, no engines, just a test cell and a turbo. The only difference between the wheels tested was the manufacturing process used to create them. One was a fully machined wheel (the red map) and the other was the standard, high-quality cast wheel (the blue map).


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Atomic Ed said:


> I'm waiting on Al/PPT to post up the spool graph of the v2 of the 71 billet wheel on a GT2871 setup. (He's working on it.) *It may change my mind on going with a HTA2868-GTX2867 compressor setup if the PPT 71 wheel spoolup is decent for a DD.*


 You may also want to consider the BW EFR6758 which is also a 67mm compressor wheel. Note that this turbo has a similar surge line as the GT3071R above P2/P1=2.5 (slopes to the far right). Ignore the black vertical lines past the 8000 RPM range as this is not a usable area for most applications.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

mainstayinc said:


> For comparison, here is the original (non-billet) version of the GT2871R (56 Trim) V GTX2867R. The smaller 67mm GTX wheel is better overall (better surge line and top end). This should obsolete the GT2871R IMO.
> 
> The PPT billet version of the GT2871R probably has improved blade aerodynamics which would tend to shift the efficiency range to the right. However, you don't want to sacrifice too much surge line (left side of graph) as this will effect spoolup.


 Thanks for the graphs! To fill you in, next winter I plan to “play” with my old ATP 2871 eliminator for my TT225...before everyone jumps in to tell me they are a “piece of junk”, etc., the eliminator for the TT225 is a very different design than the rest of the eliminators. ( I made a laggy 328 fwhp on s stock engine) The turbine housing is a straight flow design and has been proven on the longitudinal 1.8s in the A4s. 

I’ve solved the TT225 eliminator's two biggest shortfalls, a restrictive exhaust manifold and TIP. The exhaust flanges have been opened up to flow about 85-90% of a T25 flange. The engine is now a 2.1L stroker with IE CV2 cams, so it should be able to handle the any of the compressor options. 

So, I’m trying to decide which compressor to go with. I’m leaning towards either a GTX2867 or a HTA2868 compressor side. Some input I’ve received suggests that the two level of blades, like on the HTA wheels, have a small advantage on spool-up compared to the single level blade design, such as what’s on the GTX2867. 

I agree that the PPT 71 wheel may be too much for what I planning on doing, but I want to keep an open mind and see some graphs. It's a DD, so spool-up and power under the curve is more important than peak power. 

Any data/opinion on these thoughts?


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

I wouldn't recommend using the HTA2868 compressor. Numerous users have suffered surging operation from their HTA2868 turbos. I would imagine that the surge issue would be exacerbated when the HTA2868 compressor is mated with an eliminator hot side. 

The GTX compressor with anti-surge compressor housing will be more forgiving.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

I could tell you that ive driven both the gtx2867 and our 71bb-v2 wheel. Not just driven them but built both vehicles. The reason why I decided to go with the 67 on one car is because it participates in auto-x and my initial impressions was that spool would be slightly improved over our larger wheel. Wasn't really the case. At least not by initial impressions. What was obvious to me is that the 71 does hit harder when it does. I will log a pull on the street soon. Have to get my dyno up...


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Nateness said:


> I wouldn't recommend using the HTA2868 compressor. Numerous users have suffered surging operation from their HTA2868 turbos. I would imagine that the surge issue would be exacerbated when the HTA2868 compressor is mated with an eliminator hot side.
> 
> The GTX compressor with anti-surge compressor housing will be more forgiving.


 That is what my reasearch has found also. 

However, you can now get the GTX auti-surge compressor housing separately for about $150. So, one could use the GTX housing with the HTA2868 compressor wheel and have it machined to fit....if you go this way. 

With the same anti-surge housing, I still wonder which one, GTX or HTA has the spool and/or power curve advantage over the other with the different blade designs. BTW, they are both rated at 47lbs/min., so it's a fair fight.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I could tell you that ive driven both the gtx2867 and our 71bb-v2 wheel. Not just driven them but built both vehicles. The reason why I decided to go with the 67 on one car is because it participates in auto-x and my initial impressions was that spool would be slightly improved over our larger wheel. Wasn't really the case. At least not by initial impressions. What was obvious to me is that the 71 does hit harder when it does. I will log a pull on the street soon. Have to get my dyno up...


 In my mind, your 71bb wheel would be the ultimate set-up. But, given that my hot-side is a wallowed out eliminator (5mm overbore on both the eliminator inlet and the exhaust manifold outlet, giving me about 85-90% of a T25 flange area), I’m concerned that the high flow on your wheel would be a miss-match for my home brew hot-side. I suspect surging would be an issue.(?) 

But, again, the engine is now a 2.1L with IE cams and 9.3CR. This should help with the surging issue. 

Would you be able to machine out a GTX2867/63 anti-surge compressor housing to fit your wheel? If so, and if the street spool is useable for a daily driver (with my poor-man’s hot-side), this combination would be the best combo for a daily driver with little change to my current set-up. 

I’m in no real hurry on this Al…..well, that’s not really true. I’m excited about this idea! I think this would be a great experiment on pushing the envelope on the eliminator housing


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

Atomic Ed said:


> But, again, the engine is now a 2.1L with IE cams and 9.3CR. This should help with the surging issue.


 You might find the opposite actually. Surge is a function of flow vs. pressure. The 2.1L will certainly flow more than a 1.8L at the same RPM, given then same head is used on both, but the 2.1L will also spin up the turbine at a faster rate. It's still very possible that you could still encounter surge with the eliminator hot side. 

There is a thread on Audizine where a guy placed a GTX compressor housing over an HTA2868 impeller. The housing fit over the impeller, but a small gap was observed. The GTX2867R was observed to have a slightly larger impeller inducer diameter despite the naming convention of 67 vs 68.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Nateness said:


> You might find the opposite actually. Surge is a function of flow vs. pressure. The 2.1L will certainly flow more than a 1.8L at the same RPM, given then same head is used on both, but the 2.1L will also spin up the turbine at a faster rate. It's still very possible that you could still encounter surge with the eliminator hot side.
> 
> There is a thread on Audizine where a guy placed a GTX compressor housing over an HTA2868 impeller. The housing fit over the impeller, but a small gap was observed. The GTX2867R was observed to have a slightly larger impeller inducer diameter despite the naming convention of 67 vs 68.


 I've been following that thread very closely, since he is going to do a comparison between the two. To get correct fit with the HTA wheel, you'll have to start with the GTX2863 housing and machine it to the right size and taper. Force Performance does this as part of their wheel install and conversion. There is also another thread on Audizine about someone using an HTA 2868 in an eliminator, but he's running a stock block and low boost. Not a good comparison. 

You're comment on engine size vs. housing vs. surge vs. flow is right on target with my concern. That's why I'm trying to gather as much information as I can before I move on this idea. While I like the idea of the quickest spool-up I can get (i.e. 2867/2868 wheel), maybe going to the PTT 71 wheel may actually work the best due to slighlty slower spool-up.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Atomic Ed said:


> So, I’m trying to decide which compressor to go with. I’m leaning towards either a GTX2867 or a HTA2868 compressor side. *Some input I’ve received suggests that the two level of blades, like on the HTA wheels, have a small advantage on spool-up compared to the single level blade design, such as what’s on the GTX2867.*


 The older Garrett GT wheels have the two-level blade design and are replaced by the more efficient GTX single blade design. However, I don't think it matters so much whether the compressor wheel has a single or double blade. As stated in the link I posted earlier: 



Engine Basics said:


> Garrett Had this to say:
> Garrett® compressor wheels are designed from the ground up to optimize performance. *The blade shape and wheel diameter are the most critical factors to optimize to achieve high performance...*


 Whatever shape the wheel takes is a result of long hours of research and design: 



Engine Basics said:


> Garrett Had this to say:
> Garrett® fully-machined (billet) wheels take their blade designs from Garrett® cast wheels. Regardless of the wheel manufacturing process, *dedicated aerodynamic engineers spend countless hours using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and finite element analysis (FEA) to design compressor blades.*


 Therefore, the only way to make an objective comparison is to look at the published compressor maps which will give you the efficiency range of the compressor wheel. This will clue you into, among other things, how well the compressor will spool up. Unfortunately I don't think that PPT publishes compressor maps for their billet wheels IIRC. 

BTW, I have no turbo lag whatsoever on my setup (2.1L + GTX2867R). There is torque available from 1600 RPMs all the way to redline. With my previous setup (1.8L + GT28R), I could climb a steep hill in fifth gear with cruise control set to 40 mph (tachometer reading just below 1800 RPMs IIRC). However, the engine would struggle a little and lose 2 to 3 mph up the hill. With 2.1L and GTX2867R, I drove up the same hill with speedometer pegged on 35 mph (tachometer in the 1700 RPM range), and the engine muscled through without hesitation. Of course, the longer stroke of the ALH cranks helps out tremendously at low RPMs (not to mention spools turbo quicker). 

The power band with this combination is very linear. Of course the boost builds exponentially above 2500 RPMs but doesn't hit as hard as the GT28R and then taper off. The GT28R on 1.8L has good torque (about the same as stock K03) below 3000 RPMs, gets very angry from 3000 RPMs to 5000 RPMs, and then tapers off to redline (I have T31 exhaust manifold). 

With 2.1L and GTX2867R, there is more torque below 2000 RPMs and power builds stronger and flatter until redline as compared to other setup. Keep in mind, however, that I am only running sub-20 psi. It will probably act a lot differently with boost turned up. 



Atomic Ed said:


> I agree that the PPT 71 wheel may be too much for what I planning on doing, but I want to keep an open mind and see some graphs. *It's a DD, so spool-up and power under the curve is more important than peak power*.
> 
> Any data/opinion on these thoughts?


 The longer stroke of 2.1L will take care of torque below 2000 RPMs and make daily driving a total pleasure. Any 67mm to 71mm compressor wheel will give you great peak power. 

Here is a comparison of the GTX 67mm v 71mm wheels (graph set to 2.1L). This might help you get some idea of how the PPT 71mm billet wheel compares to GTX2867R. However, I don't think the PPT wheel will be as good up top.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm sure that the GT30 turbine wheels have a lot to do with it but the V1 71BB wheels have documented 489whp on a 1.8L on 30+psi and e85 and 462whp on an FSI on 25psi and w/m on various states of tune. Metric Racing has just completed a campaign or full season of racing on our V1 Billet, and outpaced the entire field (this is including v8 vettes and porsches he runs against) in the GT2 class. I am awaiting on a graph where it made damn near 400whp on 24psi on pump/meth on a T25 .64ar housing. I question whether the GTX2867 can get to those levels


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

tru dat!! 

:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I'm sure that the GT30 turbine wheels have a lot to do with it but the V1 71BB wheels have documented 489whp on a 1.8L on 30+psi and e85 and 462whp on an FSI on 25psi and w/m on various states of tune. Metric Racing has just completed a campaign or full season of racing on our V1 Billet, and outpaced the entire field (this is including v8 vettes and porsches he runs against) in the GT2 class. I am awaiting on a graph where it made damn near 400whp on 24psi on pump/meth on a T25 .64ar housing. *I question whether the GTX2867 can get to those levels*


 408 AWHP on a B7 A4 + GTX2867R (93 Octane + W/M): 



I heard of another guy making 415 WHP. 

With E85 multiple by 1.20 = 480 to 495 WHP range.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Seems laggy and I noticed that it was with an .86ar housing. All of the power figures I showed was with a .63/.64ar in T3 and T25 housings. I am sure that with an .8x AR, those power figures would be much higher with lag. Anyhow, when I have my dyno set up I will do a back to back. I dont dislike the 2867, its a good unit and I wouldnt hesitate to use it but on the street, it doesnt feel as powerful. No bias..


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I'm sure that the GT30 turbine wheels have a lot to do with it but the V1 71BB wheels have documented 489whp on a 1.8L on 30+psi and e85


 My 1.8L 486whp @ 32psi run with your V1 71BB wheel was with pump gas + WMI: 

 

Now with 2L and E85 at 22psi, same wheel:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Oh right... forgot that 486whp was on pump/meth. If the proposed reasoning of 120% applies, then you'd be making 580whp lol... but we know that this is not the way things work


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

488whp for me on same wheel as gulfstream, but i have cams(3651) and less octane fuel(91 american) and 50/50 meth/[email protected] 
our setups are very similar, minus the fuel and i have cams and run less boost.:beer::beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gulfstream said:


> My 1.8L 486whp @ 32psi run with your V1 71BB wheel was with pump gas + WMI:


 Those are very impressive results! There is no doubt that the PPT billet 71mm is a good option. I wonder how that would compare to the 57 lbs./minute GTX3071R. 



[email protected] said:


> *Seems laggy and I noticed that it was with an .86ar housing.* All of the power figures I showed was with a .63/.64ar in T3 and T25 housings. I am sure that with an .8x AR, those power figures would be much higher with lag. Anyhow, when I have my dyno set up I will do a back to back. I dont dislike the 2867, its a good unit and I wouldnt hesitate to use it but on the street, it doesnt feel as powerful. No bias..


 There will probably be some lag with 1.8L + .86 A/R housing but not as much compared to GT3071R since the latter uses larger GT30 series (56.5mm or 60mm) compressor wheel. The GTX2867R uses smaller GT28 series (53.8mm wheel) same as GT28RS disco potato. 

I chose 0.48 A/R T31 housing (equivelant to 0.64 T25 housing) with GTX2867R same as previous GT28R. But on previous setup, I bored out exhaust housing to 44mm. 

As stated before, there is absolutely no turbo lag with 2.1L and 0.48 A/R. I imgine that at 2.1L with larger A/R there wouldn't be any noticable lag either due to larger displacement. 



Vegeta Gti said:


> 488whp for me on same wheel as gulfstream, but i have cams(3651) and less octane fuel(91 american) and 50/50 meth/[email protected]
> our setups are very similar, minus the fuel and i have cams and run less boost.


 That's definately GTX3071R territory. 

EDIT: Would need compressor map for PPT 71mm to make acurate comparison.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

One thing I learned to do in my over two decades of doing this is to avoid the .86ar housing on anything over a 28rs on a 4 cyl motor and of course not even should be a consideration on motors with more cylinders. Its a horrible housing in terms of overall driveability as it is a considerable mismatch on the NS111 wheel and doesnt have the velocity to effectively drive a 30 wheel. It will make it feel worse then a 35r without the hit. The .48ar is a choke-y housing but probably a very good match with the NS111 wheel as far as overall driveability. This is one reason why I have a .72ar/10cm housing available in vband form so the transition to full boost isnt as extreme while delivering a bit more up top then the .63. Its monstrous up top, especially with a somewhat responsive turbo which can give up a couple of hundred rpm's :thumbup: 

I would love to make comp maps of my wheels. I design them via FD software section by section. Its a painstaking process where a hair here and a hair there makes for an unusable wheel. One day, i'll build a gas rig with the algorithms to make comp maps a reality. Its just extremely costly and difficult to set up.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Oh right... forgot that 486whp was on pump/meth. If the proposed reasoning of 120% applies, then you'd be making 580whp lol... *but we know that this is not the way things work*


 True. It depends on how much W/M was used to make the 486 WHP. The way I calculate things, I first take the maximum flow rate of the compressor. In this case, the GTX2867R can produce a little over 47 lbs. per minute. I multiple by 10 to get crank HP. So, 47 x 10 = 470 HP. I then divide by 1.15 for drivetrain loss to get WHP. So, 470 HP / 1.15 = about 408 WHP. From there, a good E85 setup can produce 1.20 times more than the base WHP. So, multiply 408 WHP x 1.20 = 490 WHP or 564 crank HP. 

With W/M injection, you are replacing some of your fuel with Methanol which can produce great power (oxigen carrying fuel). The best way to estimate how much E85 HP you can produce in this case is to eliminate the Methanol in W/M injection and run straight water for knock resistance only. That number can then be multiplied by the 1.20 to get projected E85 HP. Or, you can simply run E85 and dyno the car.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> One thing I learned to do in my over two decades of doing this *is to avoid the .86ar housing on anything over a 28rs on a 4 cyl motor *and of course not even should be a consideration on motors with more cylinders. Its a horrible housing in terms of overall driveability as it is a considerable mismatch on the NS111 wheel and doesnt have the velocity to effectively drive a 30 wheel. It will make it feel worse then a 35r without the hit. The .48ar is a choke-y housing but probably a very good match with the NS111 wheel as far as overall driveability. This is one reason why I have a .72ar/10cm housing available in vband form so the transition to full boost isnt as extreme while delivering a bit more up top then the .63. Its monstrous up top, especially with a somewhat responsive turbo which can give up a couple of hundred rpm's :thumbup:


 I suddenly feel a lot better about choosing the smaller 0.48 A/R with my 2.1L stroker. 



[email protected] said:


> I would love to make comp maps of my wheels. I design them via FD software section by section. Its a painstaking process where a hair here and a hair there makes for an unusable wheel. One day, i'll build a gas rig with the algorithms to make comp maps a reality. Its just extremely costly and difficult to set up.


 I would love to see those compressor maps some day. A lot of people swear by your billet wheels for sure. I can only imagine how difficult it is to design a super efficient compressor wheel. 

EDIT: :thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Just to add some prospective to this discussion (and, perhaps, some comic relief). 

*Scaring the crap out of my wife:* 


Makes you want to buy a big block!


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

You evil man :vampire:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You evil man :vampire:


 No. I would never do that (that is, buy a big block). I love super efficient setups for sure.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> No. I would never do that (that is, buy a big block). I love super efficient setups for sure.


 Ha, its always funny watching ppl react to blood being rushed to the back of their bodies. I thought it was cool to do it to my own right up to the bruising of my right arm and tinnitus of my right ear. Then it wasnt so much fun


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> *Ha, its always funny watching ppl react to blood being rushed to the back of their bodies. *I thought it was cool to do it to my own right up to the bruising of my right arm and tinnitus of my right ear. Then it wasnt so much fun


 That's for sure! I have a 2.5 in. exhaust dump from QTP (Quick Time Performanc) which works wonders on the ears (mine and others). I got good results from my previous GT28R setup with Unitronics BT 630 software. I hope to do more with the IE ALH stroker kit and upgraded turbo. However, there's always the problem of traction.:banghead: 

Is there a good gear-based system that varies boost with gear selected? There was some discussion about this 3 or 4 years ago on vwvortex. I know Meastro has some capabilities but I am very unfamilar with that software.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> That's for sure! I have a 2.5 in. exhaust dump from QTP (Quick Time Performanc) which works wonders on the ears (mine and others). I got good results from my previous GT28R setup with Unitronics BT 630 software. I hope to do more with the IE ALH stroker kit and upgraded turbo. However, there's always the problem of traction.:banghead:
> 
> Is there a good gear-based system that varies boost with gear selected? There was some discussion about this 3 or 4 years ago on vwvortex. I know Meastro has some capabilities but I am very unfamilar with that software.


 turbosmart E-Boost2 with microswitches. I suppose you can set it up via individual solenoids but the eboost is fully set up for it.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> turbosmart E-Boost2 with microswitches. I suppose you can set it up via individual solenoids but the eboost is fully set up for it.


 Fantastic. Thanks!:thumbup: 

EDIT: 

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Anyone have experience with this?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i have to say i probably make less power now as i am running less meth and less timing and more water for safety, plus with a downsized heat exchanger and i'm out of injector bigtime lol 


the gtx3071 spools later but makes more power, guys are making 550+whp on them across europe on stroked 1.8t's with the gtx3071. i think 500 is the really the most efficient the ppt3071 can do on the 20v safely...i was dancing the knifes edge to get that on pump. 

the turbos are always rated for less power than they actually make, so the arguement is kinda funny since everyone can make more than said top power by the manafacturer, etc


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

plus i think a gtx2863 would be sick on a 2.0l 20v:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> plus i think a gtx2863 would be sick on a 2.0l 20v:beer:


 Yeah that would be sick. You would have a great surge line and spool up would be as good as (or better) than stock K03S. According to my calculations, the sweet spot for maximum power with this setup would be at 6000 RPMs and about 23 psi producing about 435 HP or about 378 WHP (see graph below). 










EDIT: Add E85 and your at 1.20 x 378 = 453 WHP OR 521 crank HP.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

yeah, but E85 is just skipping all the good **** man. cams, AEB, intake manifold, 1000cc, solid tune...can be done on pump with meth...not everyone has the money to convert or even has E85 in their area. 


but i agree, the 2863 is pretty awesome.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Comp maps are all well and good but you cant ignore what the compressor is attached to. The 28 series ns111 wheel will struggle to make 400+whp. With a high flowing comp, there will be a mismatch which will induce surge. Especially as the intake air becomes denser.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> *yeah, but E85 is just skipping all the good **** man*. cams, AEB, intake manifold, 1000cc, solid tune...can be done on pump with meth...not everyone has the money to convert or even has E85 in their area.
> 
> 
> but i agree, the 2863 is pretty awesome.


 I'm kind of a cheap bastard when it comes to cams, intake mani and AEB head. My current setup is IE stroker kit + 83mm JE pistons + ARP Bolts + Unitronics 630 BT + GTX2867R + Peloquin LSD + Clutchmaster FX200 + stock intake man + stock IC + stock exhaust with 2.5 in. QTP cutout. I also have throttle plate for W/M Injection and 5.5 Euro fluid container. I never setup W/M injection system because I don't like controllers. The logic behind inefficient stock IC is to keep temps hotter for better evaporation of water/methanol post-throttle body. Better evaporation equals more surface area for the fuel to find oxygen molecules in the combustion chamber. Otherwise, you just sprayin' liquid droplets into engine. After all, isn't that the whole idea behind the Genesis II injectors? Better atomization of fuel? Also, I like to keep sleeper look on car without FMIC. 

I calculated that I can get most of the benefits of E85 by running E50. E50 is a lot less fuel to have to dump into the engine. Less fuel means smaller injectors and less fuel pressure (and, therefore, less modification to fuel system). You can also control with stock ECU which can precisely meter fuel rather than rely of secondary injection system with few sensors. Taking that idea to the next step would be converting to M25 or methanol and gas. Methanol cools much better than ethanol and has good power. I figure I can run an AFR of 11 to 12.5 with M25 with my existing (mostly unmodified) fuel system and still get most of benefits that you would get from E85. 

Converting to E85 I don't think would be very costly anyway if one chooses to go that root. You just have to upgrade your fuel pump, perhaps get an adjustable FPR and do tweeks with Unisettings or whatever you have. But, as you point out, there are not a lot of E85 stations in certain regions of country. Here in the NE, there are a few. There is one about 20 minutes north of here.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> *Comp maps are all well and good but you cant ignore what the compressor is attached to. The 28 series ns111 wheel will struggle to make 400+whp. *With a high flowing comp, there will be a mismatch which will induce surge. Especially as the intake air becomes denser.


 I agree. That's why the NS111 wheel is a great match for the 47 lbs. per minute 67mm compressor wheel of the GTX2867R. With pump gas and the right modifications, it can produce just over 400 WHP. Any more air flow would definately not work. I am sure Garrett figured that out when they matched the 67mm compressor wheel with the NS111 turbine wheel. 

That is also why Garrett used the larger GT30R turbine wheel for the next step up (GTX3071R) due to 71mm higher flowing compressor wheel. 

When you are talking about increased HP using alcohol fuels, you are not adding any more air into the system (outside of cooling effect). You are adding more oxygen through the fuels and also adding knock resistance which case you can also increase boost and timing. Increased boost does not necessarily mean increased corrected air flow.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Gents, 

I've harvested a ton of great thoughts and info from this thread. I will using this thread as a reference in the future when it comes to upgrading my eliminator with the hogged out flanges....It will be an interesting experiment. 

Thanks:thumbup:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

mainstayinc said:


> I'm kind of a cheap bastard when it comes to cams, intake mani and AEB head. My current setup is IE stroker kit + 83mm JE pistons + ARP Bolts + Unitronics 630 BT + GTX2867R + Peloquin LSD + Clutchmaster FX200 + stock intake man + stock IC + stock exhaust with 2.5 in. QTP cutout. I also have throttle plate for W/M Injection and 5.5 Euro fluid container. I never setup W/M injection system because I don't like controllers. The logic behind inefficient stock IC is to keep temps hotter for better evaporation of water/methanol post-throttle body. Better evaporation equals more surface area for the fuel to find oxygen molecules in the combustion chamber. Otherwise, you just sprayin' liquid droplets into engine. After all, isn't that the whole idea behind the Genesis II injectors? Better atomization of fuel? Also, I like to keep sleeper look on car without FMIC.
> 
> I calculated that I can get most of the benefits of E85 by running E50. E50 is a lot less fuel to have to dump into the engine. Less fuel means smaller injectors and less fuel pressure (and, therefore, less modification to fuel system). You can also control with stock ECU which can precisely meter fuel rather than rely of secondary injection system with few sensors. Taking that idea to the next step would be converting to M25 or methanol and gas. Methanol cools much better than ethanol and has good power. I figure I can run an AFR of 11 to 12.5 with M25 with my existing (mostly unmodified) fuel system and still get most of benefits that you would get from E85.
> 
> Converting to E85 I don't think would be very costly anyway if one chooses to go that root. You just have to upgrade your fuel pump, perhaps get an adjustable FPR and do tweeks with Unisettings or whatever you have. But, as you point out, there are not a lot of E85 stations in certain regions of country. Here in the NE, there are a few. There is one about 20 minutes north of here.


 I still think you should be running a upgraded sidemount:laugh:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Twopnt016v said:


> I still think you should be running a upgraded sidemount:laugh:


 I've definately looked into this in the past. Another reason against upgraded IC is that it would increase volume of boosted air inside the intake track. This would effect transient response to some extent. I originally pieced together my own turbo kit back in 2008/2009 based on APR's Stage 3 design which has the inlet on the passenger's side and compressor outlet shooting down towards the pancake pipe. This is a very short path to the IC and intake manifold. Matched with the relatively small 0.48 A/R 60mm GT28R turbo provides very good response and torque. Of course I upgraded the pancake pipe which was the common wisdom on vwvortex at the time and also the silicone hose leading to throttle body. This reminds me that I should do the fender-liner upgrade before I consider upgrading SMIC. 

The other problem with upgrading SMIC is that upgraded units are usually deeper than stock unit. It takes more air pressure in front of IC to push air through deeper unit to provide cooling benefits. Therefore, upgraded unit wont be as efficient at slower speeds. Also you are putting a larger IC in an already tight space with poor airflow. This is not a recipe for efficient cooling. 

With W/M injection you basically have a secondary (chemical) cooling system in addition to an intercooler. Chemical intercooling is a lot more effective than air-to-air or water-to-air or whaterver-to-air heat exchanger you might have since the W/M acts directly on the heated air. You also avoid problem of heat soaking the IC which case you actually are ADDING heat to the intake track in some circumstances. Not good. 

NOTE: I will add some new charts later tonight of GTX3071R and GTX3076R if anyone is interested.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

gtx3076 is like a 3082, sluggish as hell them huge burst of power up top, for stuff under 2.5l it isn't that great.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> *gtx3076 is like a 3082*, sluggish as hell them huge burst of power up top, for stuff under 2.5l it isn't that great.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 Again, you got that right!. In fact, the GTX3076R and GT3582R line almost exactly up with the GTX3076R having a slight advantage in surge line below P2/P1=1 (about 15 psi) and above P2/P1=2.3 (about 19psi). See graph below adjusted to 2008 CCs. 










For comparison, I adjusted graph to 2480 CCs of the Golf 2.5L. Notice how there is more usuable area of the map within the 2.5L's RMP range. Maximum efficiecy for GTX3076R ranges in the 4500 to 5200 RPM range.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> *gtx3076 is like a 3082*, sluggish as hell them huge burst of power up top, for stuff under 2.5l it isn't that great.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


 Here is a side-by-side comparison of the GTX2867R, GTX3071R and GTX3076R on 2008 CCs. At P2/P1=2.5 (about 22 psi), the surge lines are as follows: 

GTX2867R: 2250 RPMs 
GTX3071R: 2900 RPMs (+650 RPMs) 
GTX3076R: 3560 RPMs (+660 RPMs) 

That doesn't mean to say you will reach full boost at that point. It just means that you will begin to operate within the compressors efficiency range. 

I also marked each turbo's maximum operating point within its efficiency range, which is as follows: 

GTX2867R: 47 lbs./min at 23.15 psi at 6475 RPMs 
GTX3071R: 56 lbs./min at 22.85 psi at 7640 RPMs 
GTX3076R: 65 lbs./min at 33.35 psi at 6925 RPMs 

*These should be your approximate boost and RPM targets for maximum (peak) power at this displacement.*** 

NOTE: For Garrett turbos, the Choke Point (farthest efficiency line to the right) is always at 58% maximum efficiency. 
NOTE: For other displacements, psi stays the same. Calculate RPMs by multiplying above RPM targes by following formula: 2008.4/MY_DISPLACEMENT. For example, for GTX3071R on 1.8L: 

7640 x (2008.4/1780.9) = 8615 RPMs. 
Upgraded valve train is necessary at 1.8L but not 2.0L with GTX3071R to achieve maximum power. 

Example 2. For GTX3076R on 1.8L: 

6925 x (2008.4/1780.9) = 7810 RPMs. 
Upgraded valve train may not be necessary at 1.8L with GTX3076R to achieve maximum power (if you don't mind reving stock head to 7800 RPMs). However, you should lower your compression ratio and run either race gas or alcohol to achieve 33.35 psi. 










**Maximum Peak Power is not the same as maximum power underneath the curve. For that, you can alway run a higher psi before maximum peak RPM to increase power under the curve.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

thank you for apply the detailed tech info that i am unable to type out due to insanity and lack of intelligence lol. 


i really like the gtx3071 on a 2008, the gtx76 would be great on a 2.5l, it works well on STi's and such. 

i would go with a 2863 over a 2867 though as i would be going for spool and lower rpm powerband not so much topend. 


great info man!!:thumbup::thumbup::beer::beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> thank you for apply the detailed tech info that i am unable to type out due to insanity and lack of intelligence lol.
> 
> 
> i really like the gtx3071 on a 2008, the gtx76 would be great on a 2.5l, it works well on STi's and such.
> ...


 Glad I can help.:thumbup:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

mainstayinc said:


> I've definately looked into this in the past. Another reason against upgraded IC is that it would increase volume of boosted air inside the intake track. This would effect transient response to some extent. I originally pieced together my own turbo kit back in 2008/2009 based on APR's Stage 3 design which has the inlet on the passenger's side and compressor outlet shooting down towards the pancake pipe. This is a very short path to the IC and intake manifold. Matched with the relatively small 0.48 A/R 60mm GT28R turbo provides very good response and torque. Of course I upgraded the pancake pipe which was the common wisdom on vwvortex at the time and also the silicone hose leading to throttle body. This reminds me that I should do the fender-liner upgrade before I consider upgrading SMIC.
> 
> The other problem with upgrading SMIC is that upgraded units are usually deeper than stock unit. It takes more air pressure in front of IC to push air through deeper unit to provide cooling benefits. Therefore, upgraded unit wont be as efficient at slower speeds. Also you are putting a larger IC in an already tight space with poor airflow. This is not a recipe for efficient cooling.
> 
> ...


 I understand your theories on all of this but I think you are taking it a little far. Upgraded sidemounts do work. I'm in the same boat as you as I don't want to go fmic. I run a upgraded smic and chemical intercooling. I also run a smaller frame turbo and they tend to push hotter air than bigger turbos. Have you run logs and looked at your IAT's and timing pull? I'm also a little confused because it sounded like you never set up your WMI kit? Even with a upgraded smic the air will be plenty hot enough to consume the meth being sprayed after the IC. Your also not going to loose much boost pressure at all doing a upgraded smic. This is just my .02...:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Twopnt016v said:


> I understand your theories on all of this but I think you are taking it a little far. Upgraded sidemounts do work. I'm in the same boat as you as I don't want to go fmic. I run a upgraded smic and chemical intercooling. I also run a smaller frame turbo and they tend to push hotter air than bigger turbos. *Have you run logs and looked at your IAT's and timing pull? (A) *I'm also a little confused because *it sounded like you never set up your WMI kit? (B)* Even with a upgraded smic the air will be plenty hot enough to consume the meth being sprayed after the IC. *Your also not going to loose much boost pressure at all doing a upgraded smic. This is just my (C)* .02...:beer:


 (A) No. I haven't run any logs. I never had any issues with stock SMIC + GT28R + Unitronics 630 BT. It always ran very hard without issues on stock SMIC. 

(B) That is why I never setup W/M Kit. I installed throttle plate and Euro 5.5 Fluid container with intention to add W/M injection in future. However, this was not necessary. Now that I have a different setup (2.1L + GTX2867R) I will have to control detonation. I will probably run an alcohol mix in the gas tank and just spray water through throttle plate if that becomes necessary. 

(C) I'm sure upgraded SMICs work. Your points are well taken. The issue with increase intake track volume and transient response is probably very minor (that is why is said, "...to some extent" in previous post). I am more concerned about airflow in that tight space which doesn't have good airflow. Fender-liner modification makes a lot of sense.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

I opted for the "City Jetta" vented liner - nice OEM upgrade… 

http://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Jetta_IV_GLI--1.8T/Search/Fender_Liner/ES251342/ 

Al @ PPT is working on a stock location AWIC for the MKIV's, any reason you're not considering this or something similar over a traditional intercooler? 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...50134096.55363.208800062530365&type=1&theater


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> I opted for the "City Jetta" vented liner - nice OEM upgrade…
> 
> http://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Jetta_IV_GLI--1.8T/Search/Fender_Liner/ES251342/


 BAM! That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.:thumbup: Cheap too. 



ECS Tuning said:


> *Decrease intercooler temperatures with a vented liner for your stock side mount intercooler*.
> The Citi Jetta come with a right side fender liner that is vented for better air flow through the stock intercooler on your standard Golf or Jetta. This simply bolt on will increase air movement thought the intercooler which will increase HP due to lower temperatures while still performing it's necessary function of a fender liner.














All_Euro said:


> Al @ PPT is working on a stock location AWIC for the MKIV's, any reason you're not considering this or something similar over a traditional intercooler?
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...50134096.55363.208800062530365&type=1&theater


 This is something I have been thinking about myself (water-to-air heat exchanger in stock location). It's nice to know that someone offers AWIC off-the-shelf for MKIV in stock location. 

I will definately consider this option if running methanol and gas (in tank) and water injection (throttle plate) don't work or if I go another direction. In that case, it will come down to price and whether added weight of system is worth it.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

All_Euro said:


> I opted for the "City Jetta" vented liner - nice OEM upgrade…
> 
> http://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Jetta_IV_GLI--1.8T/Search/Fender_Liner/ES251342/
> 
> ...


 Thanks for posting the above AWIC link. I hadn't heard about that....looks very promising...


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> Fantastic. Thanks!:thumbup:
> 
> That's exactly what I'm looking for. Anyone have experience with this?


 I use a eboost2 with micro switches on the trans shifter. 

Its not pretty but it works. 1st and 2nd gear are dependent of each other, then 3-6 use the same boost profile.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

loudgli said:


> I use a eboost2 with micro switches on the trans shifter.
> 
> Its not pretty but it works. 1st and 2nd gear are dependent of each other, then 3-6 use the same boost profile.


 That's extremely helpful. Thanks for the picture.:thumbup: It looks like you had to make some custom brackets to get the micro switches to work. That's exactly what I had in mind for my setup: First and Second gear with seperate boost profile, then Third thru Fifth with same profile. 

What's nice about the eboost2 is that it can also control W/M Injection or N2O Injection. I am seriously considering buying this unit. My MBC works great but is difficult to change from one setting to another. Too bad that the eboost2 can't display fuel pressure and act as a universal display dial (fuel pressure, boost pressure, AITs etc.).


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

loudgli said:


> I use a eboost2 with micro switches on the trans shifter.
> 
> Its not pretty but it works. 1st and 2nd gear are dependent of each other, then 3-6 use the same boost profile.


 more info on this please. i have wanted to do an eboost2 as well, and do boost by gear..but i'm in a MKI so this micro switch setup would work for me BIG TIME.:beer:


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

loudgli said:


> I use a eboost2 with micro switches on the trans shifter.
> 
> Its not pretty but it works. 1st and 2nd gear are dependent of each other, then 3-6 use the same boost profile.


 I love this! Nice work, I'm impressed by the outside the box approach!!


----------



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

Vegeta Gti said:


> thank you for apply the detailed tech info that i am unable to type out due to insanity and lack of intelligence lol.
> 
> 
> i really like the gtx3071 on a 2008, the gtx76 would be great on a 2.5l, it works well on STi's and such.
> ...


 
If I knew about the 2863 I probably would of gone that route... I did the 2867 because at the time no 1.8t was running one and I wanted to be different. I was actually going to go with a BW EFR, but it was taking to long for the shop to receive the turbo and I wanted my car back.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> BAM! That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.:thumbup: Cheap too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't know the details of Vegeta's AWIC setup but check it out… 













Twopnt016v said:


> Thanks for posting the above AWIC link. I hadn't heard about that....looks very promising...


 Happy to help - plus we know the quality will be top notch :beer:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i have zero boost loss suprisingly. and it cools me fine..minus the fact i am currently running far too small of a heat exchanger. but the meth takes over anyway.:beer: 

i have just over 3" less piping length than a stock 1.8t but i am 2.5 so it balances out:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> I don't know the details of Vegeta's AWIC setup but check it out…


 Holy crap. That's a tight setup. It doesn't look like that would weigh too much either. I don't know much about AWIC. Is there a seperate cooling fan for the Water part of AWIC or does it use stock coolant system? 



Vegeta Gti said:


> i have zero boost loss suprisingly. and it cools me fine..minus the fact i am currently running far too small of a heat exchanger. but the meth takes over anyway.
> 
> *i have just over 3" less piping length than a stock 1.8t but i am 2.5 so it balances out*


 :thumbup:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> Holy crap. That's a tight setup. It doesn't look like that would weigh too much either. I don't know much about AWIC. Is there a seperate cooling fan for the Water part of AWIC or does it use stock coolant system?
> 
> 
> :thumbup:


 No doubt, glad you like. 

Ya, there's a separate heat exchanger like you would use on an oil or tranny cooler - which can be mounted by a vented fender liner for example  Check the frozenboost link above as their kits give a breakdown of the components.


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> That's extremely helpful. Thanks for the picture.:thumbup: It looks like you had to make some custom brackets to get the micro switches to work. That's exactly what I had in mind for my setup: First and Second gear with seperate boost profile, then Third thru Fifth with same profile.
> 
> What's nice about the eboost2 is that it can also control W/M Injection or N2O Injection. I am seriously considering buying this unit. My MBC works great but is difficult to change from one setting to another. Too bad that the eboost2 can't display fuel pressure and act as a universal display dial (fuel pressure, boost pressure, AITs etc.).


 yeah i just fab'd up a couple of small brackets To mount the switches. what you basically have to do is figure out where the shifter is when it's in first and only in first. Then for second. I initially wanted something inside by the actual shifter but the parts don't move far enough between shifts if that makes any sense. 

Id have to look up and c what options there are on the Eboost2 for controlling aux stuff. I already had a labonte controller for meth so i don't need it for that. 

I wouldn't want to add any more complexity to this thing with extra displays. It takes a bit of getting used to navigating all the screens, but overall i wouldn't trade it for anything. 




Vegeta Gti said:


> more info on this please. i have wanted to do an eboost2 as well, and do boost by gear..but i'm in a MKI so this micro switch setup would work for me BIG TIME.:beer:


 Hopefully the info above helps. If you have specific questions feel free to pm me. 




sabbySC said:


> I love this! Nice work, I'm impressed by the outside the box approach!!


 Thanks

I'm surprised more guys aren't doing something similar. I am still working on getting things dialed in. I have a ~15lb wg spring so i can't run the boost as low as I'd like in first. Smaller springs seem to cause creep on my setup. But at least it helps me from blowing the tires off in second.

Another pic











Sent from my Galaxy Nexus


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

loudgli said:


> yeah i just fab'd up a couple of small brackets
> To mount the switches. what you basically have to do is figure out where the shifter is when it's in first and only in first. Then for second. *I initially wanted something inside by the actual shifter but the parts don't move far enough between shifts if that makes any sense.*


 This is giving me a lot of ideas. Thanks for info.:thumbup:


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

Boost by gear can be done with the stock ECU... Just saying. 
There is a map that comes from factory that can reduce the load based on gear. I can even name it for anyone that's interested. 

Also you can do custom code to change N75 duty cycles and load on a per gear basis and have full control of the boost parameters. This comes in handy for BT.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

well i'm 02J so it's a bit different 


main: my heat exchanger is in the front grille. my system is closed loop, though i need to expand my capacity, which helps with cooling. i'm using a 24v vr6 after run pump for a pump. super simple. my map sensor is on my AWIC as well. this is a frozen boost 400hp core, i have a 600hp core i am contemplating using..but i would have to cut and re-fab all of my brackets,etc...


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Gonzzz said:


> Boost by gear can be done with the stock ECU... Just saying.
> There is a map that comes from factory that can reduce the load based on gear. I can even name it for anyone that's interested.
> 
> Also you can do custom code to change N75 duty cycles and load on a per gear basis and have full control of the boost parameters. This comes in handy for BT.


 Any chance this is accessible in Maestro?


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

l88m22vette said:


> Any chance this is accessible in Maestro?


 Ask Chris Tapp.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

that would only apply to MKIV guys, and a very very few select swapped cars that used the cluster and such. 

i had to get rear wheel speed sensors for my disc conversion and then use hte inner CV bolts for a front wheel sensor source, fab brackets. still dialing it in...but boost by gear would be sick for me, as i have 6 options fo traction control and two are programable, and my launch control/antilag is much more detailed than using the OEM ECU


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gonzzz said:


> Boost by gear can be done with the stock ECU... Just saying.
> There is a map that comes from factory that can reduce the load based on gear. I can even name it for anyone that's interested.
> 
> Also you can do custom code to change N75 duty cycles and load on a per gear basis and have full control of the boost parameters. This comes in handy for BT.


 Is that for automatic transmission or manual? If manual, how does ECU know what gear is selected?


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

Vegeta Gti said:


> that would only apply to MKIV guys, and a very very few select swapped cars that used the cluster and such.
> 
> i had to get rear wheel speed sensors for my disc conversion and then use hte inner CV bolts for a front wheel sensor source, fab brackets. still dialing it in...but boost by gear would be sick for me, as i have 6 options fo traction control and two are programable, and my launch control/antilag is much more detailed than using the OEM ECU


 I was actually comtemplating using rear wheel speed sensor for boost control on the stock ECU. 

Also my code for antilag contains a LOT of variables (deltas for ignition cut, timing retard, launch speed, multiple stages, etc) on the stock ECU. So really anything is possibel on the stock ECU. 


mainstayinc said:


> Is that for automatic transmission or manual? If manual, how does ECU know what gear is selected?


 VSS vs RPM for manual. TCU tells ECU what gear on automatics.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> main: my heat exchanger is in the front grille. my system is closed loop, though i need to expand my capacity, which helps with cooling. i'm using a 24v vr6 after run pump for a pump. super simple. my map sensor is on my AWIC as well. this is a frozen boost 400hp core, i have a 600hp core i am contemplating using..but i would have to cut and re-fab all of my brackets,etc...


 That's a nice well thought-out setup. I also like the properly-routed air intake on the passenger side that looks like it's heat wrapped. Mine is just sucking air from under hood.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i don't have a VSS. using a cable for my speedo currently, i have a VSS patch from uni tha works amazingly. but my software is a few years old. 

but i'm swtiching to a GPS based cluster:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gonzzz said:


> I was actually comtemplating using rear wheel speed sensor for boost control on the stock ECU.
> 
> Also my code for antilag contains a LOT of variables (deltas for ignition cut, timing retard, launch speed, multiple stages, etc) on the stock ECU. So really anything is possibel on the stock ECU.
> 
> *VSS vs RPM for manual*. TCU tells ECU what gear on automatics.


 (VSS = Speed Sensor I think) That makes perfect sense! Thanks.


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

mainstayinc said:


> (VSS = Speed Sensor I think) That makes perfect sense! Thanks.


 Yes sir :thumbup:


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

Gonzzz said:


> Boost by gear can be done with the stock ECU... Just saying.
> There is a map that comes from factory that can reduce the load based on gear. I can even name it for anyone that's interested.
> 
> Also you can do custom code to change N75 duty cycles and load on a per gear basis and have full control of the boost parameters. This comes in handy for BT.


 I knew there was the options for certain applications. I was thinking it was mkiv guy's only though. Ive not seen anyone doing it with FSI. Im on maestro and prefer to use my own boost control anyway. So it only made sense to go this route.


----------



## turbo2.24.1990 (Jun 2, 2008)

referencing this thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...a-vs-300-whp-on-boost-..-what-s-quicker/page1

Which turbo, ar on the 2008cc would you think would give the most area under the power curve as pete suggested? gtx2863 or gtx2867, and .63 or .48ar?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

turbo2.24.1990 said:


> referencing this thread:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...a-vs-300-whp-on-boost-..-what-s-quicker/page1
> 
> *Which turbo, ar on the 2008cc would you think would give the most area under the power curve as pete suggested? gtx2863 or gtx2867, and .63 or .48ar?*


The GTX2867R will give you about 50 HP more up top and have very good boost response with 2008 CCs. Both turbos will spool up about the same above 19 PSI according to published data. Below 19 PSI the GTX2863R will spool up sooner and have better transient response as compared to the GTX2867R. However, you will only notice this effect below 2200 RPMs. Besides, the longer stroke of the 92.8 mm crank will more than make up for any difference in transient response.

Looking at the compressor maps for each turbo, the GTX2867R has a wider efficiency range  (more usable area) as compared to the GTX2863R. The result is a broader powerband and more "area under the power curve" with the right setup. At 2008 CCs, the GTX2867R will produce good airflow until about 6625 RPMs before it hits the choke line (


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

l88m22vette said:


> Any chance this is accessible in Maestro?


I use gear based boost maps here in uk, specific to my requirements.. the bosch software are been modified to give me n75 control maps rpm based for gear based boost control. Very suited to high power front wheel drive cars I find.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

If you already have an EBC like say Greddy and are running 2 different boost levels (most people run the same boost in 1 and 2 and then a different in 3-6. You can just have a high low switch like this:












not to mention that you can make your own switch: http://www.toyotagtturbo.com/forums...-LO-boost-switch-for-Greddy-boost-controllers


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> *I use gear based boost maps here in uk*, specific to my requirements.. the bosch software are been modified to give me n75 control maps rpm based for gear based boost control. Very suited to high power front wheel drive cars I find.


Is this available for sale or is this a one-off custom tune? More information, please.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

18T_BT said:


> If you already have an EBC like say Greddy and are running 2 different boost levels (most people run the same boost in 1 and 2 and then a different in 3-6. You can just have a high low switch like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yea we have a customer 1.8t mk2 golf with gt3071 using one of these.. Works well, handy being on the steering wheel too.

:thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Is this available for sale or is this a one-off custom tune? More information, please.


Its specific code embedded in currently specific ecu #
It could be for sale, but EU cars vs USA I would'nt like to say what differences this would mean.
drop me an email if interested to discuss more.
[email protected]

cheers


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> Its specific code embedded in currently specific ecu #
> It could be for sale, but EU cars vs USA I would'nt like to say what differences this would mean.
> drop me an email if interested to discuss more.
> [email protected]
> cheers


Thanks for the response. I will email you to discuss further once I do a little more research on this issue.


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Gonzo offers boost by gear as an option as well:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> Gonzo offers boost by gear as an option as well:thumbup:


Thanks. This discussion came up before (boost by gear) and no one mentioned the fact that Gonzo offers this feature. Well, if someone did mention it, I didn't get the memo. Anyways, I will contact gonzo or super-gonzo or I'm-not-sure-his-real-name to get more information. For sure, boost by gear is a game changer IMO.

I'm not jumping on the Gonzo wagon yet. I would be hard pressed to give up my UNI BT 630 SW (with MAF) since it has performed flawlessly for me.










Anyone have any experience with Gonzo's boost by gear?


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Meh, I'd never expect anyone to jump on any bandwagon sight unseen. All I know is that I've driven them all, and made it a point to bash the guy all over this forum until I drove a car tuned by him.

I've since eaten my words after essentially driving gonzo off this forum with big Tom. To say that I feel like an ass now is an understatement.

Do what you want, but driving is believing.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Rod Ratio said:


> Meh, I'd never expect anyone to jump on any bandwagon sight unseen. All I know is that I've driven them all, and made it a point to bash the guy all over this forum until I drove a car tuned by him.
> 
> I've since eaten my words after essentially driving gonzo off this forum with big Tom. To say that I feel like an ass now is an understatement.
> 
> Do what you want, but driving is believing.


Yeah. His tunes must be good considering how highly people speak about them once they drive gonzo-tuned cars. Stupid question: can the N75 control an external wastegate?

EDIT: OK. I answered my own question by doing a quick search. It can be done.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...5-Race-valve&highlight=n75+external+wastegate


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

why don'y you email him and ask him.

his files blow my uni stuff away. i'm glad i swtiched. and now i'm going 1000cc and he will tune that.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> *why don'y you email him and ask him*.
> 
> his files blow my uni stuff away. i'm glad i swtiched. and now i'm going 1000cc and he will tune that.


Yes, will email.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Response to PM from 

Referencing this thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5801210-pressure-in-exhaust-manifold-before-turbine

Yeah, I've been following that thread too. I plan on making 400 WHP on my GTX2867R + 2.1L. I will have to dyno my setup with the 0.48 A/R to see how close I am to my goal. At 2.1L, I can probably switch to the larger 0.63 A/R without too much loss of spool but better top end. However, this may not be necessary. According to my calculations, I should get to 400 WHP just below 6500 RPMs. I have already run my setup to over 7000 RPMs and the power just continues to climb. The 0.48 A/R hotside doesn't seem to be choking off at higher RPMs. However, I won't know for sure until I dyno and get a good boost meter.

I might get an 0.63 turbine housing just to compare results. I didn't plan on running a pressure gauge on my hotside to check exhaust back pressure. However, if I'm way off on my power goals with 0.48 A/R housing, then this might be necessary. I'll definately share results.


----------



## riskyroller (Jan 16, 2003)

i just put on the GTX2867r (with 14lb wastgate) on my 2.0l 20v, and it is awesome. it replaced a 2871r and blows it out of the water. im running 24psi and i get all of it by 3200 rpm. not only that, but at 2000 rpms i can get 14 psi, which gives daily driving a stock like feel. this is a perfect match for a 2.0l 20v. i haven't put it on the dyno yet, but i feels really fast. pulls like a train. you can get more power out of a bigger turbo, but you wont have a power band usefull for anything besides drag racing. im on the road course all the time and this is a perfect combo.


----------



## turbo2.24.1990 (Jun 2, 2008)

What ar?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

dyno that ****!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

Fukn sweet!


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

:thumbup::thumbup:opcorn:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

riskyroller said:


> i just put on the GTX2867r (with 14lb wastgate) on my 2.0l 20v, and it is awesome. it replaced a 2871r and blows it out of the water. im running 24psi and i get all of it by 3200 rpm. not only that, but at 2000 rpms i can get 14 psi, which gives daily driving a stock like feel. this is a perfect match for a 2.0l 20v. i haven't put it on the dyno yet, but i feels really fast. pulls like a train. you can get more power out of a bigger turbo, but you wont have a power band usefull for anything besides drag racing. *im on the road course all the time and this is a perfect combo*.


:thumbup: I agree. What exhaust manifold? Also, do you have FMIC or SMIC?


----------



## riskyroller (Jan 16, 2003)

im running apr's inconel manifold and also have a audi tt apr front mount. im on the .64 ar turbine housing.

its a 4 motion gti so most of the plumbing is similar to an audi tt. 

im also running an IE intake manifold.


sweet combo. tons of power up top too...


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

^^^:thumbup:


----------



## Fale (Apr 5, 2008)

subscribed. lots of good info here. im on the fence about 3070r and gtx2867r. had a 3076 and it was too laggy and loved to fry my tires once spooled. it was fun, but i want something with a usable powerband(on a mostly stock motor). i think you guys have talked me in to the gtx. :beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Fale said:


> subscribed. lots of good info here. im on the fence about 3070r and gtx2867r. had a 3076 and it was too laggy and loved to fry my tires once spooled. it was fun, but i want something with a usable powerband(on a mostly stock motor). i think you guys have talked me in to the gtx. :beer:


 The GTX2867R is about the same as the GT3071R but will spool a few hundred quicker due to smaller GT28 exhaust wheel. The wider powerband will give you some nice torque down low.


----------



## Fale (Apr 5, 2008)

Exactly what I've been looking for. I've just read allot of mixed reviews on the gtx not being able to perform up to par. Lots of good info in this thread and if its not pinned, it should be.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> ...I plan on making 400 WHP on my GTX2867R + 2.1L. I will have to dyno my setup with the 0.48 A/R to see how close I am to my goal...


 Can't wait to see the results… you're not holding out on us... are you


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> The GTX2867R is about the same as the GT3071R but will spool a few hundred quicker due to smaller GT28 exhaust wheel. The wider powerband will give you some nice torque down low.


 Leaving the turbine out of the equation... While the NS111 wheel has its merits, it doesnt have the steam of the 30 series turbine. The 2867 is quite nice though. I just finished downsizing a 71R to a billet GTX2860. Very tasty spool on a 1.8t. Very very responsive It actually pulls alot of 1st and 2nd gear :thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> Can't wait to see the results… you're not holding out on us... are you


 Ha Ha. Not holding out. I just got the car back from APTuning several weeks ago after not having it for 3 months. I am still playing around with new transmission. Love the whining sound. I can top out 2nd gear at 80 MPH around 7000 RPMs with 3.389 final drive. I Just finished breaking in new kevlar clutch (500 miles). 

I want to install R32 TB, Passenger-side SEM and upgraded SMIC before I dyno the car. My stock fuel pump and lack of chemical intercooling are not ideal for the kind of power I want to produce with GTX2867R.


----------



## ncsumecheng (Nov 1, 2005)

I bet it's fast, that's a lot of pressure in that first video. 

I'm afraid to think what that pressure would do to my engine/trans on a 62mm.


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

Excited for you brother .. 

My next turbo will def be gtx28 :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

BR_337 said:


> Excited for you brother ..
> 
> My next turbo will def be gtx28 :thumbup::thumbup:


 :beer:


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

Sorry to bust in on this thread but it is the best gt2871 gtx2867 hta2868 etc thread I have found anywhere as far as knowledge goes. I have an Audi AAN 20v turbo 2.23L car and am running the Gt2871 (.63AR) turbo package and tuning software from 034Motorsports. 

http://www.034motorsport.com/034efi...hip-tuning-package-gt2871r-stage-p-17600.html 

The package runs 26psi and tapers to redline at 21psi but feels laggy to me with little throttle response below 4krpm. Would a gtx2867 package or the 71bb from PPG improve my lag? How many rpm can I expect to drop? What will I lose up top?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

QuantumRallySport said:


> Sorry to bust in on this thread but it is the best gt2871 gtx2867 hta2868 etc thread I have found anywhere as far as knowledge goes. I have an Audi AAN 20v turbo 2.23L car and am running the Gt2871 (.63AR) turbo package and tuning software from 034Motorsports.
> 
> http://www.034motorsport.com/034efi...hip-tuning-package-gt2871r-stage-p-17600.html
> 
> The package runs 26psi and tapers to redline at 21psi but feels laggy to me with little throttle response below 4krpm. Would a gtx2867 package or the 71bb from PPG improve my lag? How many rpm can I expect to drop? What will I lose up top?


 That definately looks laggy to me for 2.23L engine. My GTX2867R has no noticeable lag for 2.1L. Both GTX2867R and GT2871R share same exhaust wheel with the GTX2867R spooling slighly earlier having a smaller compressor wheel and improved blade design. I assume you have FMIC. Perhaps your IC piping is slowing spoolup? 

EDIT: I get great transient response with my setup below 2000 RPMs with 0.48 A/R T31 exhaust housing. If your 0.63 A/R refers to T31 housing, then you might want to consider smaller 0.48 A/R.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> That definately looks laggy to me for 2.23L engine. My GTX2867R has no noticeable lag for 2.1L. Both GTX2867R and GT2871R share same exhaust wheel with the GTX2867R spooling slighly earlier having a smaller compressor wheel and improved blade design. I assume you have FMIC. Perhaps your IC piping is slowing spoolup?
> 
> EDIT: I get great transient response with my setup below 2000 RPMs with 0.48 A/R T31 exhaust housing. If your 0.63 A/R refers to T31 housing, then you might want to consider smaller 0.48 A/R.


 my v1 PPY 3071 billet on a 9.5:1 AWP 1.8l spool the same as that nearly([email protected]) lol, so i agree with main, something is killing your spool...tune...piping too large....crappy fmic.... 

find out and reap the benefits!:beer:


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> my v1 PPY 3071 billet on a 9.5:1 AWP 1.8l spool the same as that nearly([email protected]) lol, so i agree with main, something is killing your spool...tune...piping too large....crappy fmic....
> 
> find out and reap the benefits!:beer:


 Just an FYI, that is not my dyno chart, that is the one from 034's development -- and it STILL shows the lag that I feel driving this thing. 

I have the stock SMIC... The 034 plot is with a FMIC but based on the lag I experience, I am sure the curves look the same. 

As for the tune, 034 tunes these kits with the 440cc green-top injectors and 91 octane fuel so the map is not very aggressive. 


*EDIT--- *Forgot to add that the exhaust manifold to turbo flange on an AAN is a KKK-style not a T3


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

QuantumRallySport said:


> Just an FYI, that is not my dyno chart, that is the one from 034's development -- and it STILL shows the lag that I feel driving this thing.
> 
> I have the stock SMIC... The 034 plot is with a FMIC but based on the lag I experience, I am sure the curves look the same.
> 
> ...


 Sounds like your exhaust manifold is limiting performance of GT2871R. 

http://www.034motorsport.com/034efi...hip-tuning-package-gt2871r-stage-p-17600.html 

EDIT: I just read the link to 034's website you provided earlier. This is a rod-safe tune which limits torque below 3500 RPMs. You'd have to get a more agressive tune (and possibly upgrade rods) for better performance.


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

mainstayinc said:


> Sounds like your exhaust manifold is limiting performance of GT2871R.
> 
> http://www.034motorsport.com/034efi...hip-tuning-package-gt2871r-stage-p-17600.html
> 
> EDIT: I just read the link to 034's website you provided earlier. This is a rod-safe tune which limits torque below 3500 RPMs. You'd have to get a more agressive tune (and possibly upgrade rods) for better performance.


 
I see that the setup does not require upgraded rods but don't see where it says that torque is limited below 3500 to keep it safe for stock rods. 

Aren't upgraded rods usually needed to deal with increased RPM and not necessarily torque?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

QuantumRallySport said:


> I see that the setup does not require upgraded rods but don't see where it says that torque is limited below 3500 to keep it safe for stock rods.
> 
> *Aren't upgraded rods usually needed to deal with increased RPM and not necessarily torque?*


 No, upgraded rods are necessary for increased torque. As far as 034 tune, it's a Stage 1 tune which is designed to optimize GT2871R with Stage 1-type upgrades. It does not necessarily maximize performance of GT2871R. At 2.23L, you should have little turbo lag with NS111 (GT28 series) exhaust wheel along with supporting mods and a good tune. GT2871R + 2.23L should be a torque monster.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

oh man, totally forgot this thread existed. 

No real hard data to contribute now, but Ive been on my gtx2867r at 16psi on my PPT kit since april and absolutely love it! 

No disappointment whatsoever coming from a F23 on 18psi. Just need the new USRT pump to come out to turn it up!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> oh man, totally forgot this thread existed.
> 
> *No real hard data to contribute now, but Ive been on my gtx2867r at 16psi on my PPT kit since april and absolutely love it!*
> 
> No disappointment whatsoever coming from a F23 on 18psi. Just need the new USRT pump to come out to turn it up!


 :beer:


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

Just doing some desk-work reading compressor maps.

I currently have the GT2871 setup from 034 and reading the compressor maps, it is becoming apparent why the tune they have for it feels slow to spool. If I am reading these compressor maps right and doing my calculations (2.2L, assumed VE of 90). granted the compressor map is for AR of 60 rather than 64....

--The 2871 surge line dictates that when trying to achieve 26psi target boost you WILL experience surge below about 3900-4000 rpm
--The map also shows that above 6000rpm, the turbo is operating well outside its efficiency and thus the tapering boost to about 20-21psi at redline.

Looking at the compressor map for the GTX2867, things look a lot better: 
--Turbo operates just inside the surge threshold to 26psi
--Spool is possible to full 26psi below 3500rpm
--Likely to gain 25-30hp most everywhere between 6000rpm and 7000rpm


Looking for an HTA compressor map to do the same analysis with but it seems they do not exist....


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

Recently a friend with a similar setup upgraded his GT28RS to the GTX 2867R but he noticed his car spools around 500rpm later...

Well a dahlback intake, bigger ic piping etc were also upgraded so I was wondering whether that's the reason for that or the GTX will spool later than the RS in any case.

My current setup is

PPT T3 manifold,
GT28RS with T3 exhaust housing (no wg)
Tial mvs, Unitronic stage 3 630cc SD etc etc.

around 4000 rpm on my small port intake engine (stock valvetrain too) I get full boost

28RS .63A/R T3 

My plan is to upgrade the RS with the GTX, so the turbine housing will remain the same, exhaust 3" will also remain the same, only fuelling will be upgraded (in line walbro along with my APR in tank) and a retune.

Should I be expecting a slower spool @ a higher rev range or not?

I know they have the same turbine wheel, and the GTX is advertised to have the same spool as the RS as far as I know, but is this the whole truth?


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

GTX2860 or GTX2863 might spool as fast as the GT2860RS, but the GTX2867R will not. IMHO, a small price to pay in delayed spool for significantly greater airflow capacity.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

The larger intakes will always effect spool. You generally cannot increase spool and top end power without getting into the engine. Most add ons that add volume to the entire charge system will effect response but greatly effect top end power exponentially so.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

ok so the 67R will delay a little bit my spool.

Any idea on approx engine revs?

an extra 400 ? 500? 300?

Rough estimate...

At the end of the day for my setup, only by ugrading the RS to the 2867R, is it really worth it?

Is the extra top end power worth the extra bucks needed for such an upgrade? Obviously not from a value for money point of view . Only if that extra flow (7500rpm limiter) is noticeable and gives you a bigger smile.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Around 400rpm's. Is it worth it? Depends. Its much more powerful up top. It'll shine with a better housing then the Garrett T25 internally gated setup. I'm actually working on that but in vbanded form only.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

I have done a GTX2867/0.86 this week.

red is T25 GTX2867/0.86, beige is T3 GT3071/0.63, green is T25 GT3071/0.64


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

The difference in T25 vs T3 spool is surprising, as is the overall difference in pressure...I'd love to see a T3 .48 thrown in there :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Nice graph. The 30R UHP turbine vs the 28R NS111 will skew the comparison though. The 30R wheel is pretty awful in the T25 housing and the 28 series wheel in a T3 scroll is somewhat over-energized by the smallish exducer and will nose dive up top as back pressure spikes. Anyhow, its a nice glimpse of what is going on here :thumbup:


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

T25 .86 should be removed from the options. The lag on the gtx28 is awful. Im guessing the 28 wheel is tiny in such a big scroll?

Al, how would a 28 wheel fair in a .63 t3 or tial? Would the lag be similar to the .86 T25. 

Im hoping my T25 .64 GTX28 will at least spool like the T25 GT30. 
A T3 or Tial housing is also an option for me in the distant future IF its worth it and will realise the potential of the 67 billet compressor.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Nice graph. The 30R UHP turbine vs the 28R NS111 will skew the comparison though. The 30R wheel is pretty awful in the T25 housing and the 28 series wheel in a T3 scroll is somewhat over-energized by the smallish exducer and will nose dive up top as back pressure spikes. Anyhow, its a nice glimpse of what is going on here :thumbup:


the green GT30/T25 plot was 56.5mm turbine, the beige GT30/T3 plot is 60mm turbine to further add details on differences.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> the green GT30/T25 plot was 56.5mm turbine, the beige GT30/T3 plot is 60mm turbine to further add details on differences.


I hope you don't mind, I overlayed the OP's (VRsick13) GTX2867R setup for comparison from the video he posted on page one (ORANGE).










27psi at 4500 RPMs










32psi at 4700 RPMs










35psi at 5000 RPMs










37psi to 39psi spike past 5000 RPMs and then holds 35psi past redline. This was also with a boost leak. 

My T31 0.48 A/R GTX2867R 2.1L stroker setup is completely different compared to the ones above. You can feel boost starting to ramp up at 1800 RPMs, is producing nice boost by 2000 RPMs, is a torque-monster between 2000 and 3000 RPMs, and feels fully spooled by 3000 RPMs. Past 3000 RPMs the power continues to build past redline. I have free version of VAGCOM. Not sure if I can record boost on free version. I don't have boost gauge installed. I would like to make objective comparison between different setups.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> I hope you don't mind, I overlayed the OP's (VRsick13) GTX2867R setup for comparison from the video he posted on page one (ORANGE).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hell thats some boost being poured in on this one..
It could run more boost at 4500rpm than I am allowing it, but the car pulls timing like a mofo..
what also effects spool is applied load, so dyno vs the gear/car will influence it a little. Higher load earlier spool.. but I was dynoing it during mapping not loading the hell out of it in the example. Smaller a/r will help this local car I'm convinced


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> hell *thats some boost being poured in on this one..*It could run more boost at 4500rpm than I am allowing it, but the car pulls timing like a mofo..
> what also effects spool is applied load, so dyno vs the gear/car will influence it a little. Higher load earlier spool.. but I was dynoing it during mapping not loading the hell out of it in the example. Smaller a/r will help this local car I'm convinced


I think OP was running W/M in the 35psi video.


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

Great info here ! :thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

VRsick13 said:


> i posted this video awhile back
> 
> http://s809.beta.photobucket.com/user/vrsick13/media/VID_20120330_125425.mp4.html
> 
> ...



whats your engine displacement and turbo hotside A/R?


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

One thing to note... You cannot judge power by how much boost you're holding. In fact, if one is holding that kind of boost up high, I would be suspicious of the engine/flow component's ability to ingest boost and you're just going to run the risk of overspinning the shaft up at high rpm's while generating elevated boost temps that will rob power instead of building it. The engine's ability to ingest boost is sometimes measured by boost dropping up high unless you have a very large turbo.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

superkarl said:


> T25 .86 should be removed from the options. The lag on the gtx28 is awful. Im guessing the 28 wheel is tiny in such a big scroll?
> 
> Al, how would a 28 wheel fair in a .63 t3 or tial? Would the lag be similar to the .86 T25.
> 
> ...


I'd go w/ the .64ar tial. Its a nicer scroll without the needless bumps and offset geometries of the Garrett internally gated housing. Also, the internally gated housing is prone to crackage in a specific spot. I've never taken a housing off w/o crackage so avoid them at all costs. I will have an internally gated vbanded housing for these pretty shortly with optimized flow geometries.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> One thing to note... You cannot judge power by how much boost you're holding. In fact, if one is holding that kind of boost up high, I would be suspicious of the engine/flow component's ability to ingest boost and you're just going to run the risk of overspinning the shaft up at high rpm's while generating elevated boost temps that will rob power instead of building it. *The engine's ability to ingest boost is sometimes measured by boost dropping up high unless you have a very large turbo*.


In this case, the OP held about 35psi just fine using W/M injection past redline on the GTX2867R (see below).












[email protected] said:


> One thing to note... You cannot judge power by how much boost you're holding. In fact, if one is holding that kind of boost up high, I would be suspicious of the engine/flow component's ability to ingest boost and you're just going to run the risk of overspinning the shaft up at high rpm's *while generating elevated boost temps that will rob power instead of building it*. The engine's ability to ingest boost is sometimes measured by boost dropping up high unless you have a very large turbo.


35psi is well within the efficiency range of the GTX2867R. If you look at map on page 1 (post #18 or #25), you will notice a maximum pressure ratio of greater than 3.75. Subtract 1 and multiply by 14.7 equals (3.75-1) x 14.7 = 40+ psi boost capable. What interests me is the fact that the map predicts a drop in boost pressure to P2/P1 = 2.8 at 6500 RPMs or about 26psi along the choke line whereas the OP held about 35psi past redline. This can only be explained by the use of W/M injection.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

What Al was trying to get across is that running 35psi or anything considered high isnt always a good thing or an indication of how good a tune/engine/turbo is, which too many people think.
The fact one sees 35psi at the manifold or anywhere in the boost pipe system is because the engine cannot ingest it. This point comes when an engine stops making power after a certain boost level and no matter how much more you put in it gives nothing but heat. 
w/m obv raises that threshold, but in a way masks otherwise not ideal conditions


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> What Al was trying to get across is that *running 35psi or anything considered high isnt always a good thing or an indication of how good a tune/engine/turbo is,* which too many people think. The fact one sees 35psi at the manifold or anywhere in the boost pipe system is because the engine cannot ingest it. This point comes when an engine stops making power after a certain boost level and no matter how much more you put in it gives nothing but heat.
> w/m obv raises that threshold, but in a way masks otherwise not ideal conditions


I agree that it's not about boost but corrected air flow (x-axis) if viewing a compressor map. 



superkarl said:


> What Al was trying to get across is that running 35psi or anything considered high isnt always a good thing or an indication of how good a tune/engine/turbo is, which too many people think. The fact one sees 35psi at the manifold or anywhere in the boost pipe system is because the engine cannot ingest it. *This point comes when an engine stops making power after a certain boost level and no matter how much more you put in it gives nothing but heat.*
> w/m obv raises that threshold, but in a way masks otherwise not ideal conditions


An engine will stop making power even at the same boost level when turbo is outside its efficiency range.



superkarl said:


> What Al was trying to get across is that running 35psi or anything considered high isnt always a good thing or an indication of how good a tune/engine/turbo is, which too many people think. The fact one sees 35psi at the manifold or anywhere in the boost pipe system is because the engine cannot ingest it. This point comes when an engine stops making power after a certain boost level and no matter how much more you put in it gives nothing but heat.
> w/m obv raises that threshold, *but in a way masks otherwise not ideal conditions*


I agree. W/M injection can do a lot to improve a less-than-ideal setup.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> I agree that it's not about boost but corrected air flow (x-axis) if viewing a compressor map.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ALL true, and actual power & torque delivery can be seen when dyno'd....
Just because it has all the boost does not mean that incoming airflow turned into expect bhp....
seems very high to me..
egt's would be interesting to log on the setup. see how hot, hot is.


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

awesome information in this thread . :thumbup:

following


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Yes, compressor charge is one bit of the equation. Also, an engine doesnt stop making power just because it runs out of turbo at any given boost pressure. Its because you've run out of engine VE's for whatever reason (one scenario being the turbo creating too much backpressure due to higher turbine pressure ratios). One reason you are seeing the dip in pressure is because maps have corrected pressure ratios due to static, ambient and variable pressures which can differ test to test so given maps are not always completely accurate. You must use some correction factors by gather other forms of data like temperature. W/M can be a factor, but so can piping diameter, cam phasing, etc etc. :thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Yes, compressor charge is one bit of the equation. Also, an engine doesnt stop making power just because it runs out of turbo at any given boost pressure. *Its because you've run out of engine VE's for whatever reason (one scenario being the turbo creating too much backpressure due to higher turbine pressure ratios). * One reason you are seeing the dip in pressure is because maps have corrected pressure ratios due to static, ambient and variable pressures which can differ test to test so given maps are not always completely accurate. You must use some correction factors by gather other forms of data like temperature. W/M can be a factor, but so can piping diameter, cam phasing, etc etc. :thumbup:


Volumetric Efficiency is a measure of how well engine traps air inside cylinder.



Wikipedia said:


> Volumetric efficiency in the internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of the quantity of air that is trapped by the cylinder during induction over the swept volume of the cylinder under static conditions. VE can be improved in a number of ways, *most effectively this can be achieved by compressing the induction charge *or by aggressive cam phasing in Normally Aspirated engines as seen in racing applications. In either case VE can exceed 100%.


By definition, the VE of forced induction engine is greater than 100%. Whereas the VE of a normally aspirated engine is mostly effected by intake valve size, engine speed, valve timing etc. in a forced induction engine, turbo plays an over-riding factor (i.e.: "compressor charge") because you're forcing air inside cylinder. That is why turbo-charged engine can produce 4 to 5 times (or more!) power as compared to NA counterpart.

In a well-matched turbo/engine combination, maximum engine VE corresponds closely with the maximum efficiency range of turbo (center islands on a compressor map). Below, I have highlighted the center of the maximum efficiency islands of the GTX2867R at 2008CCs in BLUE.










At P2/P1=2.5 or 22 psi, the compressor map indicates maximum efficiency corresponding to 4900 RPMs and 35 lbs. of air per minute or about 350 HP. 

One can compare an actual dynograph of the engine/turbo combination with the compressor map. *Dyno should show maximum engine torque (which is where maximum engine VE occurs) at around 4900 RPMs for this setup.*



[email protected] said:


> Yes, compressor charge is one bit of the equation. Also, an engine doesnt stop making power just because it runs out of turbo at any given boost pressure. Its because you've run out of engine VE's for whatever reason (one scenario being the turbo creating too much backpressure due to higher turbine pressure ratios). One reason you are seeing the dip in pressure is because maps have corrected pressure ratios due to static, *ambient and variable pressures which can differ test to test so given maps are not always completely accurate*. You must use some correction factors by gather other forms of data like temperature. W/M can be a factor, but so can piping diameter, cam phasing, etc etc. :thumbup:


Compressor maps are always corrected to standard temperature and pressure. That's why they can be compared with each other.

EDIT: :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

You're very set on compressor maps as an end all be all to power output while ignoring many other factors which are much harder to quantify. I have many maps that i plotted out on various garrett wheels years ago and on my old username (passatg60) that you can find on here if you search on 1.8L and 2.0L displacement. VE is the engine's ability to flow. That is the simple answer. Turbochargers make 100+% VE's possible along with very efficient NA engines as well. But there are factors like turbine housing A/R's that play into this. On the same engine and turbo, you can effectively raise VE's by going to a larger A/R which reduces PR's in the turbine which will allow the engine to ingest more. There are other factors such as charge velocities and air mass in relation to temp and ambient pressure that come to play and are harder to quantify because its so dynamic. A compressor map is just part of the story.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You're very set on compressor maps as an end all be all to power output while ignoring many other factors which are much harder to quantify. I have many maps that i plotted out on various garrett wheels years ago and on my old username (passatg60) that you can find on here if you search on 1.8L and 2.0L displacement. VE is the engine's ability to flow. That is the simple answer. Turbochargers make 100+% VE's possible along with very efficient NA engines as well. But there are factors like turbine housing A/R's that play into this. On the same engine and turbo, you can effectively raise VE's by going to a larger A/R which reduces PR's in the turbine which will allow the engine to ingest more. *There are other factors such as charge velocities and air mass in relation to temp and ambient pressure that come to play and are harder to quantify because its so dynamic. A compressor map is just part of the story*.


Of course! Actual setup will be different from the numbers predicted by the compressor map. Choice of turbine housing etc. will effect results. I'm not very set on compressor maps, but you can get a lot of useful information from them and make comparisons between different turbos. That's extremely useful information.

You obviously have a lot more hands on experience than I do with engines and turbos. I don't take anything away from you on that point. I like theory and graphs which are useful in predicting results. Probably comes from Economics background, working as bond broker on wall street for a few years etc. Compressor map provides useful model to follow and cannot be ignored in turbo selection. That's why all the major turbocharger manufacturers provide them.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> Of course! Actual setup will be different from the numbers predicted by the compressor map. Choice of turbine housing etc. will effect results. I'm not very set on compressor maps, but you can get a lot of useful information from them and make comparisons between different turbos. That's extremely useful information.
> 
> You obviously have a lot more hands on experience than I do with engines and turbos. I don't take anything away from you on that point. I like theory and graphs which are useful in predicting results. Probably comes from Economics background, working as bond broker on wall street for a few years etc. Compressor map provides useful model to follow and cannot be ignored in turbo selection. That's why all the major turbocharger manufacturers provide them.


Not trying to take anything away from you as well. The problem with turbine maps is that they rely on very dynamic values. There's not much you can do with provided data until you fill in those variables, namely engine VE. Comp maps are very useful. They give you a general idea of what to expect but you'll be a minority in developing results that follows provided models because of unknowns. Its a base line however and all we have to really go on without getting into some serious data acquisition. I look at a 2.1L engine @ redline and keeping charge pressure in the mid 30's w/o much drop and I have to question what is actually going through that tiny 28 exducer and turbine housing which may be aiding in keeping charge pressures high without actually making any power. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong but after putting together a couple of setups w/ these alongside 30 series billet setups, I have a general idea of where the limits lie and its not necessarily the compressor :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Also, for those that like to throw boost at your motor w/ stock pistons/pins. Here are some long term effects that we've discovered. Sometimes, you'll have no symptoms while the engine is running, sometimes a faint tick like a bad lifter, sometimes even a rod knock from a pounded bearing. I think some high strength components are in order here as the below pins also started wallowing out the pin bushing on the bottom from compressive load...

Center is a straight CP pin and the two alongside are 20mm AEB pins that actually held up admirably to 30+psi on w/m..


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Not trying to take anything away from you as well. The problem with turbine maps is that they rely on very dynamic values. There's not much you can do with provided data until you fill in those variables, namely engine VE. Comp maps are very useful. They give you a general idea of what to expect but you'll be a minority in developing results that follows provided models because of unknowns. Its a base line however and all we have to really go on without getting into some serious data acquisition. I look at a 2.1L engine @ redline and keeping charge pressure in the mid 30's w/o much drop and I have to question what is actually going through that tiny 28 exducer and turbine housing which may be aiding in keeping charge pressures high without actually making any power. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong but after putting together a couple of setups w/ these alongside 30 series billet setups, I have a general idea of where the limits lie and its not necessarily the compressor :thumbup:


You are much more expert on turbine side than I am. I actually have no idea how to interpret a turbine map, let alone have experience with different hotsides. I alway stuck w 0.48 T3 externally wastegated turbine housing, which has worked very well for me (formerly GT28R, now GTX2867R). I could be reaching my limit with this turbine housing on the GTX2867R. Not sure without dyno-ing setup.

I also have to question the OPs 35psi to redline video. That's definately not what the compressor map predicts for his setup. It is apparent that W/M injection has the effect of extending the choke line farther to the right and gives more usuable area under the curve. However, if you were to plot 34psi at 6700 RPMs, you would be way way to the right of the choke line. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless W/M injectin is THAT GOOD. Obviously, the OP could dyno his setup or, at minimum, check AIT temps at 35psi. I think OP's setup was at stock displacement.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

I've been enjoying this discussion between you two! :thumbup::thumbup:

I have many times puzzled myself (and perhaps others) with the true real-life significance of surge lines, choke lines and efficiency islands on a compressor map. As Arnold has mentioned, I've learned trough experience that these points on a compressor map are only there to give an idea, and are part of the whole equation.

I see that mainstay is giving a lot of weight (way too much IMO) to the choke line that, in theory, should limit the turbo output in that video. For example, if these plotted imaginary lines were really limiting factors in practice, homologated production rally cars would make no power, and my stock turbo would stop dead in its track. I have followed the rally philosophy of making power on turbo cars, and what I've learned through the years is that points on a compressor map only give you an idea of ideal or recommended cold side operating range and conditions... nothing more. If one were to plot where I operate my K04 on its compressor map, you'd see that I'm off the map entirely whenever I'm on boost - but that doesn't stop me from making good, usable power (probably more than anyone ever made on this particular K04 configuration). So, my point is that things that are true and make perfect sense on paper, don't necessarily translate to, or 100% applicable the practice. :beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I've been enjoying this discussion between you two! :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> I have many times puzzled myself (and perhaps others) with the true real-life significance of surge lines, choke lines and efficiency islands on a compressor map. As Arnold has mentioned, I've learned trough experience that these points on a compressor map are only there to give an idea, and are part of the whole equation.
> 
> I see that mainstay is giving a lot of weight (way too much IMO) to the choke line that, in theory, should limit the turbo output in that video. For example, if these plotted imaginary lines were really limiting factors in practice, homologated production rally cars would make no power, and my stock turbo would stop dead in its track. I have followed the rally philosophy of making power on turbo cars, and what I've learned through the years is that points on a compressor map only give you an idea of ideal or recommended cold side operating range and conditions... nothing more. If one were to plot where I operate my K04 on its compressor map, you'd see that I'm off the map entirely whenever I'm on boost - but that doesn't stop me from making good, usable power (probably more than anyone ever made on this particular K04 configuration). So, my point is that things that are true and make perfect sense on paper, don't necessarily translate to, or 100% applicable the practice. :beer:


Interesting points. The choke line is the point where compressor efficiency drops below some percentage and the compressed charge gets too hot to be useful. It's a definate point and can be measured. You could certainly operate turbo past that point but would need better cooling of charge. In that case, you could operate past the set choke line on a compressor map and produce more power than is indicated on the compressor map. That appears to be the case in the OPs video.

In the case of K04, I assume that you are using N75 to control wastegate. That's a good way to prevent excessive back pressure in turbine and allows you to run smaller turbo at higher RPMs. It essentially shifts your RPM lines to the left if looking at compressor map. However, in that case, total corrected air flow will still be limited by maximum efficiency of turbo.

I have MBC that got melted on my downpipe due to my engine builder not mounting MBC into engine compartment correctly when he did my 2.1L stroker build and GTX2867R upgrade. So, I currently have no control over how much boost I run because MBC is fused into its current setting


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Manufacturers know what speeds their compressors are doing at what pressures and at what rpm. You cant ignore excessive shaft speeds. 
If you are exceeding the choke line you are only doing this by using wmi, this by no means all of a sudden moves the choke lines, it just extends the pressures at which you boost to whilst still making power...heat management. 
People are STILL, despite what their boost gauge tells them, despite what egs tell them, and despite what dynos tell them...still exceeding less than 60% efficiency and/or exceeding advised shaft speeds. 
Both no good for your setup. Both only masked by wmi. 

Plus, people can exceed comp maps mass air flow figures, only through making power from other things. 
You are not performing beyond what it tells you in terms of airflow. Those limits cant be moved, the physics of a compressor wheels capabilities cant be altered.


----------



## Fale (Apr 5, 2008)

Probably one of the smartest posts in here.




superkarl said:


> Manufacturers know what speeds their compressors are doing at what pressures and at what rpm. You cant ignore excessive shaft speeds.
> If you are exceeding the choke line you are only doing this by using wmi, this by no means all of a sudden moves the choke lines, it just extends the pressures at which you boost to whilst still making power...heat management.
> People are STILL, despite what their boost gauge tells them, despite what egs tell them, and despite what dynos tell them...still exceeding less than 60% efficiency and/or exceeding advised shaft speeds.
> Both no good for your setup. Both only masked by wmi.
> ...


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> Manufacturers know what speeds their compressors are doing at what pressures and at what rpm. You cant ignore excessive shaft speeds.
> If you are exceeding the choke line you are only doing this by using wmi, *this by no means all of a sudden moves the choke lines*, it just extends the pressures at which you boost to whilst still making power...heat management.


I agree. Choke line is fixed. I changed previous post (#164) from "extends the choke line farther to the right" to "has the effect of extending the choke line farther to the right". Since W/M injection happens post-turbo, it cannot effect efficiency range of compressor map.



superkarl said:


> Plus, people can exceed comp maps mass air flow figures, only through making power from other things.
> *You are not performing beyond what it tells you in terms of airflow*. Those limits cant be moved, *the physics of a compressor wheels capabilities cant be altered.*


That's the whole basis of my analyses.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

superkarl said:


> Manufacturers know what speeds their compressors are doing at what pressures and at what rpm. You cant ignore excessive shaft speeds.
> If you are exceeding the choke line you are only doing this by using wmi, this by no means all of a sudden moves the choke lines, it just extends the pressures at which you boost to whilst still making power...heat management.
> People are STILL, despite what their boost gauge tells them, despite what egs tell them, and despite what dynos tell them...still exceeding less than 60% efficiency and/or exceeding advised shaft speeds.
> Both no good for your setup. Both only masked by wmi.
> ...



Let's get real for a second, isn't this a performance-oriented forum and a performance-oriented thread discussed by performance-oriented enthusiasts? Yes, manufacturers publish compressor maps, give advised shaft speeds, set choke lines, recommend ideal efficiency islands etc., but does that doesn't mean they can't be exceeded to make power (and still do so safely). Manufacturers also know what RPM their engine components can handle, how much boost they can take, how much timing they can tolerate, but does that mean that these manufacturer limits should never be exceeded? No, not at all, if it was the case, we'd all be driving stock cars, with stock boost on stock tunes. The same manufacturers that set these limits when longevity, warranty, self-protection against recalls etc. are in play, blow past them when they are going for performance competition against other manufacturers in homologated rally. Did they somehow forgot about choke lines, physics of a compressor map, shaft speed all of the sudden? 

I'll touch on some of these points for you in a performance-oriented manner. People get hung up with volumetric flow rate just because it is good practice when making IDEAL turbo selection. It is not the all-end-all of how to make power on turbo cars (ask me how I know). Choke lines on compressor maps are set to show an imaginary line where compressor efficiency drops below a certain point (usually 60% of efficiency). It doesn't mean that anyone is changing the physics involved if going past that point. What it simply shows is that you're operating at a lower efficiency range in order to make more power. With all else equal, and on the same turbo, compressing 40 psi at 55% compressor efficiency (which exceeds any choke line) is a lot more useful than compressing 20 psi at 70% compressor efficiency. The compressor map don't take into consideration the system's charge cooling capacity, it only tells how much of the compression process is actually compressing air vs creating heat. Ability to cool whatever psi compressed by the turbo, at whatever temperature, is a *variable*, not a constant.

Using that 40 psi at 55% compressor efficiency, will amount to a lot more power than 20 psi at "ideal" 70% efficiency to the one capable of lowering that charge to usable level for the fuel used (each fuel has its knock threshold which add another variable to the mix). I don't know how or where you get the idea that chemical charge cooling or any other form of cooling is masking the dynamics of what's going on. How would a choke line set for a charge air cooled by anemic factory SMIC be applicable to a guy like me that's using AWIC, direct port water injection, pre-cooler injection, pre-turbo injection, and E85? There is no masking or alteration of anything, just better charge cooling to allow me to effectively use the compressor at lower than ideal efficiency range. 

People who don't look at things outside of the box will always make power set by the limit of the box they put around themselves. I was told that it's impossible, wouldn't last long, and all kind of other BS when I shared my goals for my stock turbo a few years ago. 400+ AWTQ and 300+ AWHP later and a lots of track abuse, my 13 years old turbo is as strong as ever, and the status quo is still stuck in making pathetic power using the same hardware because they can't break free from that box.:wave:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

comp gas rigs used to make maps normally spit out a few results which are plotted along an axis. Believe it or not, much of the map is interpolated so much of it is based on a starting point and 'theoretical'


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> People who don't look at things outside of the box will always make power set by the limit of the box they put around themselves. I was told that it's impossible, wouldn't last long, and all kind of other BS when I shared my goals for my stock turbo a few years ago. 400+ AWTQ and 300+ AWHP later and a lots of track abuse, my 13 years old turbo is as strong as ever, and the status quo is still stuck in making pathetic power using the same hardware because they can't break free from that box.:wave:



Just because you do these extreme things outside the box max, doesn't make it ideal. I applaud you for trying different things, but your car is set up for a specific autoX class and those are the rules you are stuck playing by, tell me you wouldn't honestly prefer a more optimal set up? If you want to be 'real' as you call it, your tq spike is exactly that, I doubt it really helps keep your tires planted. If you had a more ideal tune/set up you would taper the spike to something better and adjust duty cycle to make it flatter. Reaching 400wtq for 400rpm at best, is cool, but is it ideal? That's where I think most of these conversations in this thread stem from. (Not to mention before e85 made it's way into daily life, what you have done wouldn't be attainable)


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> Just because you do these extreme things outside the box max, doesn't make it ideal. I applaud you for trying different things, but your car is set up for a specific autoX class and those are the rules you are stuck playing by, tell me you wouldn't honestly prefer a more optimal set up? If you want to be 'real' as you call it, your tq spike is exactly that, I doubt it really helps keep your tires planted. If you had a more ideal tune/set up you would taper the spike to something better and adjust duty cycle to make it flatter. Reaching 400wtq for 400rpm at best, is cool, but is it ideal? That's where I think most of these conversations in this thread stem from. (Not to mention before e85 made it's way into daily life, what you have done wouldn't be attainable)


Well Val, you just spelled out one of the two ways of seeing things. Ideal is never equal to extracting the most power out of a turbo setup. What you're failing to understand (most box-thinkers do) is that using the ideal operation range is not how you get the most out of a specific setup. Nobody ever said my setup was better than a bigger, and more flowing hardware combination - but for that specific turbo, the approach is the one that yields the most usable power. Agree? Because if not I'm all ears for different ways to get squeeze more out of this specific combo.

You say that I would want a more " optimal" setup, you're wrong! If I ever decided to run a bigger turbo in a different class, I'd make it sing and scream the same exact way, and redefine what's possible on that hardware to the box-thinkers (btw, the class chosen isn't because I'm stuck, but a calculated choice done to place the car where it will be the most competitive at the National stage). 

See, what's 'real' is that box-thinking will see how shortly 400 AWTQ is sustained, but completely miss how long 300+ WTQ is made and sustained (and that's on that same setup, and where it's really needed to get a car moving out of a corner). I'm not expecting everyone here in the 1.8t world to accept or understand the point made, if it was the case, we'd all be breaking new grounds, pushing the envelope of what's possible, and finally catching up to other comparable but more evolved platforms (in terms of making power). The discussion is about understanding that limits set by, as Arnold eloquently put it, theoretical maps, isn't the only thing that defines how and the amount of power made by a turbo. As far as what helps to keep tires planted on an AWD car with 315 r-comps, and a sorted suspension just because of the TQ spike available down low, you clearly don't know about the dynamics involved in that environment. And BTW, before converting to E85, I competed with the car for two seasons and made more power than it was ever thought possible reliably on the stock turbo. 

People will not like when they're told that their safe way of viewing thing is not the only way. The trend here, as we can all agree, has been to run something like a 3071 snail at moderate boost levels for that specific hardware, and be happy with making 400'ish WHP. Guess what, it's safe and 'ideal' but unfortunately not anywhere near what could be achieved with the hardware in question. Some will always kick and scream when someone challenges the status quo, and the establishment way of modding cars; but if we listened to them, we'd still be riding horses instead of extracting them out of our engines. :thumbup:


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Thread is way off topic now, talking about one person taking their stock turbo to a whole new limit. Its beyond the compressor maps safety margins, which cannot be denied, power has been realised througg other means other than airflow, which of course is possible on ANY setup, i certainly wouldnt argue that the max airflow on comp maps is the be all and end all. 
moving on. 

The thread is for the gtx2867r, which is relatively new and often overlooked because its just a 'gt28'. 
Our points were in regards to the op's turbo producing 35psi at redline, which is out of the safety zone of the turbos shaft speeds, masked with wmi to make it appear a viable thing to do. 

What we all (gtx28 owners, running and not yet running) is more logs, dynos, boost plots, and exactly how ar this turbo can go safely. 
I for one hope to one day realise ita theoretical airflow, so want to hear back from people running this turbo on a external wastegate setup. Id like 450hp+ one day out of mine, for now 400 or close will do.

So far ive come to realise that it is fairly laggy, esp in a large housing where it can shine. Im after 3krpm where it is on song, not the kind of boost plots that Bill posted. 
Hopefully in the not too distant future i can contribute my own results through Bills handy work, and can see what does and does not work for this turbo. 
Be good to see more abiut this new housing [email protected] is developing


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

The GTX2867 is a little odd to me. Garrett kept it small, overall, to keep the comp/turbine balance within reason. They opted to reduce the size of the inducer for some reason and reduce trim. This should, theoretically, increase spool but not sure if the 10 blade is aerodynamic enough to cut into air while keeping spool because all of their billet variations arent exactly spool-tastic.


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> *People get hung up with volumetric flow rate *just because it is good practice when making IDEAL turbo selection. It is not the all-end-all of how to make power on turbo cars (ask me how I know).
> 
> * Using that 40 psi at 55% compressor efficiency, will amount to a lot more power than 20 psi at "ideal" 70% efficiency* to the one capable of lowering that charge to usable level for the fuel used (each fuel has its knock threshold which add another variable to the mix). I don't know how or where you get the idea that chemical charge cooling or any other form of cooling is masking the dynamics of what's going on.
> 
> *There is no masking or alteration of anything*, just better charge cooling to allow me to effectively use the compressor at lower than ideal efficiency range.


/thread

I was waiting for you to come in and chime in. Just because efficiency is lower does NOT mean you are not making more power. You are just making it at a lower efficiency level (*HEAT*)

Now back to the thread.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> The GTX2867 is a little odd to me. Garrett kept it small, overall, to keep the comp/turbine balance within reason. They opted to reduce the size of the inducer for some reason and reduce trim. This should, theoretically, increase spool but not sure if the 10 blade is aerodynamic enough to cut into air while keeping spool because all of their billet variations arent exactly spool-tastic.


not really the message I got from you not to long ago... 

With the tial housing and external gate, my spool was a little more sluggish than I expected, but I wouldnt say its laggy. Especally on a tune that still needs work with just a touch of timing advance and coming from a F23.

Im hoping for it to pep up better after a aeb and some cams, and of course some tuning time (been too busy)


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Yes, I had very little time behind this turbo at the time as it was new (comp map is misleading).. I have since had more. Its responsive, dont get me wrong. Its just not quite what I expected after tuning it out more. Mid range is great. Top end is quite good but it has certain limits set by the rear NS111 wheel in that area. I dont think its head and shoulders above the 71 cast wheel however. I'll be testing it against my wheel sooner or later... I'll also be adding a ported head. Cams were added as well as an intake. Really woke it up some but not spool as is consistent w/ cams and an intake.

Ultimately, we have to view this unit as a bonafide 'big turbo'. Doesnt take much to hit 360+whp on 93oct, boost in the low to mid 20's and can probably touch 400whp w/ the right supporting mods w/ a splash of meth and a touch more boost.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Yes, compressor charge is one bit of the equation. Also, an engine doesnt stop making power just because it runs out of turbo at any given boost pressure. Its because you've run out of engine VE's for whatever reason (one scenario being the turbo creating too much backpressure due to higher turbine pressure ratios). One reason you are seeing the dip in pressure is *because maps have corrected pressure ratios due to static, ambient and variable pressures which can differ test to test so given maps are not always completely accurate*. You must use some correction factors by gather other forms of data like temperature. W/M can be a factor, but so can piping diameter, cam phasing, etc etc. :thumbup:


While researching turbine maps, I came across the following link:

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/2366/Turbo-Tech-Compressor-and-Turbine-Map-Details.aspx

Here are some interesting quotes:



MotoIQ said:


> The basic compressor map plots air flow and pressure ratio for a given compressor speed. On the vertical axis is pressure ratio which is the compressor outlet pressure divided by the compressor inlet pressure. We have mentioned this before, but what we neglected to mention was the type of pressure being measured; for compressor maps, we need to compare total pressures at the inlet and outlet of the compressor housing. The total pressure of a flow is segregated into ambient, static and dynamic pressures. We need to measure the total pressure due to different size piping changing velocities and therefore the dynamic and static pressures... *The pressure ratio calculated on compressor maps is generally a total-to-total pressure taking into account the ambient, static, and dynamic pressures.*


So, compressor maps are generally based on total pressure, taking into account differences in ambient, static, and dynamic pressures.



MotoIQ said:


> Compressor maps also show a corrected mass flow and corrected compressor speed. While the maps are generated in a controlled environment, the conditions will not be exactly the same every time. Therefore, the mass flow rates and compressor speeds are corrected based on the environmental ambient pressure and temperature during testing.
> 
> Mass flow rate (Q) is corrected to reference values of temperature and pressure, much like how many chemistry calculations are done at STP(standard temperature and pressure). *By correcting every test to the same reference temperature and pressure allows the maps to be confidently compared.* The speed of the compressor (N) also needs to be corrected.


Since compressor maps are corrected to reference values, they are always accurate and can be confidently compared.

Back on topic. I finally decided to buy license for VCDS-Lite (VAG COM) so I can log RPM vs Boost on my setup. I should get license key on Monday from Ross-Tech, which, by the way, is in Lansdale, PA about 10 minutes from me. I will post results here and compare spoolup to other setups.

After seeing OPs video and Badger5's plots, which spool way different than my setup, I started to think that maybe atpturbo sent me a GTX2863R instead of GTX2867R. That would explain why I get such great transient response from turbo.

However, I dug up a picture that Bill Schimmel, my engine builder sent to me during most recent build.



















You'll notice in the first photo the 10-blade compressor design. According to turbobygarret.com, the GTX2863R is an 11-blade design.

http://turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/turbocharger

While the GTX2867R is a 10-blade compressor design. So, I have a genuine GTX2867R Phew! The other reason for my doubts is that atpturbo sent me the wrong turbo on my first GT28R build (internal WG instead of external WG). Don't have a lot of confidence in them.

You'll also notice in the first photo the GT28R-style compact compressor housing that does not have anti-surge option. This allowed my to retain all of the plumbing from the GT28R build. This limits my intake piping to 2.5 inches but seems to work very well on my setup. Badger5 will probably disagree with me on that point.:beer:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Page 3 of link I posted above from MotoIQ on turbine maps gets into a parameter called Blade Speed Ratio (U/Co) which allows you to calculate ideal compresssor wheel size to turbine housing A/R. It is a must read for anyone who wants to understand this issue:

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArtic...-Tech-Compressor-and-Turbine-Map-Details.aspx

It also goes through example of why GTX3071R is a much more efficient setup (compressor wheel size vs turbine houseing) as compared to older GT3076R. I will reproduce that part of article here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this knowledge of the relationship between compressor wheel sizing and turbine efficiency, we can examine the case of the GTX3071 versus the GT3076.












The maps above show the 71mm diameter compressor wheel of the GTX3071 flowing about the same as the 76mm compressor wheel of the older GT3076. As mentioned earlier, the smaller diameter wheel must spin faster to achieve the same mass flow rate and pressure ratio. At the point of 50 lbs/min and 2.5 PR, the 71mm wheel spins about 125,000rpm versus about 120,000rpm for the 76mm wheel. 

*Though the GTX3071 compressor flows about the same as the regular GT3076, it requires a higher compressor speed to do so. In general, many turbos have a value of U/Co that is lower than the ideal 0.7. In this case, replacing the 76mm compressor wheel with the equal flowing 71mm GTX wheel increases the turbine tip speed. The increased turbine speed increases the U in Blade Speed Ratio, U/Co, bringing it closer to the ideal and improving turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency combined with the lower mass and inertia 71mm GTX wheel makes the GTX3071 more responsive than the regular GT3076.*

Compressor and turbine maps have many details that go into them. They have to use corrected values in order to be comparable much like how engine dyno results are all corrected to a SAE standard. A full turbine map shows very important information relating turbine mass flow rate, pressure ratio, and efficiency to each speed line of the compressor. These three characteristics of a turbine can be affected by a number of variables with turbine housing A/R sizing being the primary variable that an end-user can alter; different A/R sizes can be tested to find the best combination of power and drivability for a particular application. The other parameter that a user can decide on is the compressor to turbine wheel sizing. Altering the size of the compressor wheel versus the turbine wheel alters the blade speed ratio affecting turbine efficiency and responsiveness of the turbocharger. All this information from turbine maps really aids the selection of the proper turbocharger for an application. Hopefully, the turbine map is now a bit less mysterious and the concepts of A/R size selection and wheel matching is clearer.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

What that link doesnt tell you is that acquired data is based on very controlled environments in which data is limited across the speed lines. Results are somewhat estimated across much of the map region. This is why I said its not COMPLETELY accurate. Its a very expensive, arduous and time consuming process, which is why only the bigger companies produce them. I do agree that its like a 'turbo dyno' which is contingent on many different conditions to arrive at certain results. Looking at the article on Motoiq, they seem to imply that its easy. I remember trying to build a test rig in school some decades ago... haha, it was a valiant effort... I may try to give it a shot again one of these days. One thing that I did learn first hand is that the most minute changes, such as increasing shaft speed and blade instability can really throw the data off (partly due to my crude attempt at temp control)


----------



## VRsick13 (May 28, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> I hope you don't mind, I overlayed the OP's (VRsick13) GTX2867R setup for comparison from the video he posted on page one (ORANGE).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Come to find out I had more issues with my car then expected when that video was shot. Now that these are corrected the car is completely different. Now I'm defently not in full boost at 3000 rpm, but I'm in the teens. I will say full boost hits around 4k.. Lol I don't really look, I'm to busy starring of whats in front of me, plus i barley hit full boost.. I still say this turbo set-up would of smoked my 3071r set-up. When that video was shot it was only dynoed at 315 whp. I have yet to put it on the Dyno again and really don't care about numbers as it is a fast enough street car to hold its own with pretty much anything out there


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> What that link doesnt tell you is that acquired data is based on very controlled environments in which data is limited across the speed lines. Results are somewhat estimated across much of the map region. This is why I said its not COMPLETELY accurate. Its a very expensive, arduous and time consuming process, which is why only the bigger companies produce them. I do agree that its like a 'turbo dyno' which is contingent on many different conditions to arrive at certain results. Looking at the article on Motoiq, they seem to imply that its easy. I remember trying to build a test rig in school some decades ago... haha, it was a valiant effort... I may try to give it a shot again one of these days. One thing that I did learn first hand is that the most minute changes, such as increasing shaft speed and blade instability can really throw the data off (partly due to my crude attempt at temp control)


:thumbup:Respect.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Ha, respect nothing. It was embarrassing 

Also, go to Garrett's website. I've learned not to take their comp maps too seriously. You'll see that they give you the same comp maps for the GT3071R w/ the full sized 60mm wheel and their T25 cutdown 71r version... Both with the same hp estimates...


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Ha, respect nothing. It was embarrassing
> 
> Also, go to Garrett's website. I've learned not to take their comp maps too seriously. You'll see that they give you the same comp maps for the GT3071R w/ the full sized 60mm wheel and their T25 cutdown 71r version... Both with the same hp estimates...


That's a good point. Same problem with the GTX3067R and GTX2867R. Same map.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

I thought the comp maps were exclusive to comp wheels and didnt take into account the turbine wheel?
So in the case of the 3071 and its t25 varient, whilst both have a capability of xxx horsepower, the 56.5mm turbine varient will obv not reach that potential. Whereas the full fat 60mm prob will.

This makes me wonder, garrett supply turbine maps aswell as comp maps, but they are pretty much never discussed. Id like to know how the can relate to eachother and when combjned what that can tell us. Be good if mainstay could ellaborate on his latest post and bring both turbine maps and comp maps together, you are rather good at the theory of all this. 

And finally, just how well matched is the 67mm billet wheel to the gt28 turbine wheel, in terms of the boost speed ratio etc

Garrett shouldve redisgned their gt28 turbine wheel when they launched the billet series. Its so old now, and the billet compressors are so current.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> I thought the comp maps were exclusive to comp wheels and didnt take into account the turbine wheel?
> So in the case of the 3071 and its t25 varient, whilst both have a capability of xxx horsepower, the 56.5mm turbine varient will obv not reach that potential. Whereas the full fat 60mm prob will.
> 
> This makes me wonder, garrett supply turbine maps aswell as comp maps, but they are pretty much never discussed. Id like to know how the can relate to eachother and when combjned what that can tell us. *Be good if mainstay could ellaborate on his latest post and bring both turbine maps and comp maps together*, you are rather good at the theory of all this.
> ...


BAM! That's exactly it. How the turbine and compressor maps relate. I'm in process of sorting that out now. Will have to readup more. The MotoID article was very helpful. Maybe others can shed some light on this subject too.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

This is why comp maps should be used as a baseline. The engineers understand that its a bit exhaustive to come up with a map for every possible scenario. It probably costs tens of thousands coming up with one map. Back in the day, I've heard as much as 100k. I think you'll see the most disparity by the surge and choke lines. Some comp/turbine combos are more surge prone then, let's say, using the same comp with a different turbine and/or housing. Comp maps will also differ changing comp housings.


----------



## Nateness (Jun 25, 2010)

Shaft speed and power is what relates the two maps. The compressor will always spin at the same speed as the turbine. The compressor power (not to be confused with engine power) is the turbine work minus transmission losses through the CHRA.

Turbine and compressor work are both a function of pressure ratio, turbine and compressor efficiency, and flow.



mainstayinc said:


> BAM! That's exactly it. How the turbine and compressor maps relate. I'm in process of sorting that out now. Will have to readup more. The MotoID article was very helpful. Maybe others can shed some light on this subject too.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I finally got VCDS License Key this afternoon and did a couple of logs. Here is an overlay of my boost (ORANGE) plotted over stock boost from Groggory's FAQ section:










I get 11 psi by 2000 RPMs and 1 bar by 2750 RPMs. Transient response is definately better than stock turbo. I wonder how my setup compares to K04 or frankenturbo?

Here is an overlay of Badger5's graph. My setup is in bright orange:










Notice that I am limited to 22.5 psi with stock intercooler.

EDIT: I can't wait to upgrade intercooler system/add chemical intercooling and turn up the boost (required replacing melted MBC!).

EDIT [CORRECTION]: I get 5 psi by 2000 RPMs and 1 bar by 2750 RPMs.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> While researching turbine maps, I came across the following link:
> 
> http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/2366/Turbo-Tech-Compressor-and-Turbine-Map-Details.aspx
> 
> ...


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> I finally got VCDS License Key this afternoon and did a couple of logs. Here is an overlay of my boost (ORANGE) plotted over stock boost from Groggory's FAQ section:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The logged spool is influenced by the applied load remember...
in your case gear used during log, in my case the 'fixed' rpm/sec acceleration rate I allow the rollers to accelerate to.. 4th gear run on 5spd and 5th gear run on 6spd, run times sit on these plots at 12-14secs for 2krpm to limiter pull as a reference.

If I load the dyno more, slow the run, those boost plots will shift to the left a little. (also gets the engines very hot which is why I rarely load them up that hard for normal dyno runs.)


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> The logged spool is influenced by the applied load remember...
> in your case gear used during log, in my case the 'fixed' rpm/sec acceleration rate I allow the rollers to accelerate to.. 4th gear run on 5spd and 5th gear run on 6spd, run times sit on these plots at 12-14secs for 2krpm to limiter pull as a reference.
> 
> If I load the dyno more, slow the run, those boost plots will shift to the left a little. (also gets the engines very hot which is why I rarely load them up that hard for normal dyno runs.)


Mine was in 5th gear with my longer 3.389 final drive. However, I did do a 4th gear pull and it was essentially the same, not as smooth though. All of the highway runs were very consistent even with my exhaust dump wide open.

Also, I have 2.1L which helps turbo spool sooner. What I like about the results is that I get 11 psi at 2000 RPMs, which is 700 RPMs sooner than stock turbo at peak boost (about 11 psi at 2700 RPMs) at stock displacement. Car is a pleasure to drive because of good torque down low. A real different feel than when I had stock and when I had GT28R. Hopefully, GTX2867R will shine up top as well with 0.48 A/R T31 exhaust turbine.

EDIT: See correction above (#198)


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Itd be good if you could get some dyno pulls under your belt.
Id be interested in where power peaks and tapers off with that size hotside. 
If its good, and makes good power it would be a good option for people on 1.8 displacement. 
I think the .63 might just be as laggy as the .86 t25. And need revving out to something crazy to make it worthwhile


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

mainstayinc said:


> Also, I have 2.1L which helps turbo spool sooner. What I like about the results is that I get 11 psi at 2000 RPMs, which is 700 RPMs sooner than stock turbo at peak boost (about 11 psi at 2700 RPMs) at stock displacement.


A lot of K04 hybrids actually suffer from surge from too much boost too soon.

Just because you have 11psi doesn't mean you are actually outflowing a K04 at that engine speed.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I think you are having such good spool success with your set up is the .48a/r housing with the added displacement. I have a feeling when you crank the boost up, the exhaust housing will start to become a restriction in the upper RPM's.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

JohnnyAlpaca said:


> A lot of K04 hybrids actually suffer from surge from too much boost too soon.
> 
> Just because you have 11psi doesn't mean you are actually outflowing a K04 at that engine speed.


of course it will flow more. It would prob flow more than a ko4 at half the boost. 
Youre right about the surge tho, they tend to be pegged at


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> *of course it will flow more. It would prob flow more than a ko4 at half the boost.*
> Youre right about the surge tho, they tend to be pegged at


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> *I think you are having such good spool success with your set up is the .48a/r housing with the added displacement.* I have a feeling when you crank the boost up, the exhaust housing will start to become a restriction in the upper RPM's.


Or, it could be my cheap ATP-clone exhaust manifold (LOL). In all seriousness, the 0.48 A/R T31 is suppose to be equivalent to 0.64 A/R T28 so it shouldn't be any more of a restruction up top. But who knows. According to my calculations, this setup should continue to produce power to 6500 RPMs without any drop off. Dyno will be very interesting.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> ...When I go E85, I will add inline pump and probably upgrade fuel lines at that point. I don' like noise of inline pump running all the time.


Why not install the two pump version… http://www.epiceurotuning.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=STG2PUMP


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> Why not install the two pump version… http://www.epiceurotuning.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=STG2PUMP


I thought about the two-pump version. The single pump is rated for 550 HP with stock fuel lines. That should be plenty to supply GTX2867R which is rated for 475 HP (400+ WHP) on pump fuel. The two-pump version would be more than enough when I upgrade to E85. However, it's $449.00 and is a little more than I want to spend right now. I just spent over $3,500 on a buit transission (not to mention $1,600 on new clutch and install). I can afford two-pump version but can't justify expense right now.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> I thought about the two-pump version. The single pump is rated for 550 HP with stock fuel lines. That should be plenty to supply GTX2867R which is rated for 475 HP (400+ WHP) on pump fuel. The two-pump version would be more than enough when I upgrade to E85. However, it's $449.00 and is a little more than I want to spend right now. I just spent over $3,500 on a buit transission (not to mention $1,600 on new clutch and install). I can afford two-pump version but can't justify expense right now.



Fair enough… wonder if you can get the two bump version with just one pump - then add the extra pump later. That should be cheaper and quieter than adding an in-line.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

If your in the market for a new pump, consider Arnold's Intank surge with a Walbro E85 450lph pump 





There is a check valve on the bottom so once the tank fills it doesnt drain out the bottom. Return line dumps into the can as well.

Works pretty good, you have to be really low on fuel before it starts to cut out


----------



## Gonzzz (Apr 27, 2010)

superkarl said:


> of course it will flow more. It would prob flow more than a ko4 at half the boost


I'm talking about lower RPM's.

Ofc it will outflow a K04 hybrid after 3500RPM's


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> Fair enough… wonder if you can get the two bump version with just one pump - then add the extra pump later. That should be cheaper and quieter than adding an in-line.


That's a great idea. I'd hate to spend the $299 on the single pump and then realize that I should have gotten the double-pump when I upgrade to E85. It's worth looking into at this stage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: How many lph do I need to make 475 HP on pump gas?

(HP X BSFC)/weight of fuel/gal = gph x liters/gal

For pump gas:
(475 x .6)/6.25 x 3.785412 = 172.6 lph

How many lph do I need to make 570 HP (475 x 1.20) on E85?

For E85:
570 x .85/6.55 x 3.785412 = 280 lph

Stock fuel pump is only able to flow 52.37 lph at 65 psi (22psi boost + base fuel pressure). See Groggory's Fuel FAQ:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4946130-REFERENCE-1.8t-Fuel-Lines-Fueling-FAQ

I want to run 2 bar turbo setup (29 psi). Therefore, I need 43.5 psi base fuel pressure + 29 psi boost + 5 psi to account for pumping losses = 77.5 psi.

Pump must be able to deliver 172.6 lph at 77.5 psi for pump gas and 280 lph at 77.5 psi for E85.










Walboro 255, Aeromotive 340, Bosch 044 and DW300 are good for pump gas but not E85.

I will need a double in-tank pump or upgraded single in-tank + inline pump to run E85.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> That's a great idea. I'd hate to spend the $299 on the single pump and then realize that I should have gotten the double-pump when I upgrade to E85. It's worth looking into at this stage.


Not to argue, but I dont believe those pumps are made for E85, so longevity will suffer.

I think they are rebadged Aeromotive pumps


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> Not to argue, but I dont believe those pumps are made for E85, so longevity will suffer.
> 
> *I think they are rebadged Aeromotive pumps*


Yes. Rebadged Aeromotive 340. E85 compatible. Aeromotive recommends periodic replacement of fuel filter due to hygroscopic nature of ethanol. Water accumulation in filter causes pump to work harder. But that would be the same for any fuel pump.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Mine was in 5th gear with my longer 3.389 final drive. However, I did do a 4th gear pull and it was essentially the same, not as smooth though. All of the highway runs were very consistent even with my exhaust dump wide open.
> 
> Also, I have 2.1L which helps turbo spool sooner. What I like about the results is that I get 11 psi at 2000 RPMs, which is 700 RPMs sooner than stock turbo at peak boost (about 11 psi at 2700 RPMs) at stock displacement. Car is a pleasure to drive because of good torque down low. A real different feel than when I had stock and when I had GT28R. Hopefully, GTX2867R will shine up top as well with 0.48 A/R T31 exhaust turbine.


your larger displacement sure works, but also kinda reduces the relevance for those on 1781cc still on these units..


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

get that thing on the dyno already man! we're dying here :laugh:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

BR_337 said:


> get that thing on the dyno already man! we're dying here :laugh:


Ha Ha. I wish there was more time in the day to work on car. I've been tied up with running business (hiring new employee) and with renovation projects wife wants me to do around the house. I just replaced roof on the back of house, poured 60 feet of sidewalk etc etc. Wife is also in second trimester with second child and expects me to work all the time. I need to get the upgraded intank pump in the car. It doesn't look too hard. Just have to figure out how to remove back seat on passenger side to access fuel pump.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> your larger displacement sure works, but also kinda reduces the relevance for those on 1781cc still on these units..


One can always calculate this setup on stock displacement using following formula:

2067/1781 x RPMs

So, if I produce 11 psi at 2000 RPMs, stock will product same result at (2067/1781) x 2000 = 2321 RPMs. That's still 375 RPMs better than stock K03s.

EDIT: Keep in mind that I have SMIC and short IC piping due to passenger-side compressor inlet. This helps keep any delay in transient response at a minimum.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

BR_337 said:


> get that thing on the dyno already man! we're dying here :laugh:


Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones:laugh:



mainstayinc said:


> Wife is also in second trimester with second child and expects me to work all the time.


Happy wide, happy life


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones:laugh:
> 
> Happy wide, happy life


You got that right. Wife is from Europe and doesn't take any crap. She saw APTuning bill for new transmission ($3,500) and used that to get a new bathtub ($2,300). Ha Ha. At least she's happy now.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> Ha Ha. I wish there was more time in the day to work on car. I've been tied up with running business (hiring new employee) and with renovation projects wife wants me to do around the house. I just replaced roof on the back of house, poured 60 feet of sidewalk etc etc. Wife is also in second trimester with second child and expects me to work all the time. I need to get the upgraded intank pump in the car. * It doesn't look too hard. Just have to figure out how to remove back seat on passenger side to access fuel pump.*



You only need to remove the bottom of the seat: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ons-thread&p=73477778&viewfull=1#post73477778


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> You only need to remove the bottom of the seat: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ons-thread&p=73477778&viewfull=1#post73477778


Thanks for link. That's exactly what I'm looking for.:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

mainstayinc said:


> Yes. Rebadged Aeromotive 340. E85 compatible. Aeromotive recommends periodic replacement of fuel filter due to hygroscopic nature of ethanol. Water accumulation in filter causes pump to work harder. But that would be the same for any fuel pump.


I called Aeromotive in Lenexa, KS and spoke with a tech engineer about the E85. Yes, it is compatible with E85 however, requires close monitoring of fuel filter based on their studies. Ethenal being a solvent will strip out fuel system and accumulate in fuel filter, also water and other biological debris will be accumulate in filter. A clogged fuel filter will cause 340 fuel pump to work harder (for example, at 20 amps) which will cause premature failure of motor brushes or whatever they're called. A larger fuel filter will give more room for error. Also, tech mentioned that a pressure gauge between the fuel pump and filter will help to monitor condition of filter. E85 can vary greatly between fillups. So, if you miss a periodic check of filter on a bad tank of E85, you could run risk of stressing fuel pump.

This same principle should apply to other fuel pumps so I don't think it's particularly unique to Aeromotive. I might be wrong. Maybe Aeromotive is trying to cover themselves in order to maintain reputation.


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

mainstayinc said:


> One can always calculate this setup on stock displacement using following formula:
> 
> 2067/1781 x RPMs
> 
> ...


Well, I am either running into some sort of surge issue or just a poor tune but I can only get about 5-7psi before 3000rpm (and pretty much nothing at 2000rpm---maybe 1-3psi max) in my 2230cc 5-cylinder AAN with:
--GT2871 setup 
-- AR .64 
-- Wagner HO exhaust manifold ---KKK flanged version
-- 0.5mm oversized valves
-- 3" exhaust, downpipe to tail
-- Stock SMIC and intake manifold ---long plumbing

Below about 3500, transient response is terrible but builds to 26psi nicely afterward. Granted, the old 5-cylinder 20v head does not flow nearly as well as the modern VW heads but that shouldn't matter too much at low throughput (i.e. low rpm)

I mention the possibility of surge above because the setup operates at or beyond the theoretical surge line below 3700rpm by my calculations. Applying throttle below 3500rpm or so, it sounds a little bit like a drummer using a brush to stir or roll on a cymbal. http://youtu.be/qyzFgzcGMXg I used to think this was from a loose heat shield but have not been able to track it down even after removing two of the heat shields to test.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

I've always wondered how the 56.5mm ex. wheel would fare in a 0.63 AR T3 housing. 

Also: has anyone used the 56.5 wheel with the new GTX2867 comp wheel?


----------



## QuantumRallySport (Feb 17, 2006)

FWIW, mine has the KKK flange (K24 and K26) not the T3 flange


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

the k26 flange is smaller and I am guessing you maybe having some issues with your set up as a 2.2 I5 motor should spool that turbo like nothing

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i412/StaceyS3/3b672719.jpg
http://www.audiclubsa.org.za/yabb25/Attachments/DSC01922.JPG
http://www.audiclubsa.org.za/yabb25/Attachments/DSC01961.JPG


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> One can always calculate this setup on stock displacement using following formula:
> 
> 2067/1781 x RPMs
> 
> ...


that would seem too simple surely?

so many other factors influence this


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Kinda related but Just saw that the MKVI APR stg3 kit for the Golf R and TTRS uses a gtx2867r. Maybe Im late to the party on that one...Looks like fun tho!:laugh::thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> that would seem too simple surely?
> 
> so many other factors influence this


Well, if you had the same setup as me but with stock displacement, then you just have to adjust for displacement. That will give you a fairly accurate idea of what to expect. However, different turbine housing, intercooler piping, IC, softare etc. will influence results.

I just re-read this entire thread last night and user=riskyroller claims 14psi by 2000 RPMs on 2.0L (page 4).

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5895838-gtx2867r-spool/page4



riskyroller said:


> i just put on the GTX2867r (with 14lb wastgate) on my 2.0l 20v, and it is awesome. it replaced a 2871r and blows it out of the water. im running 24psi and i get all of it by 3200 rpm. not only that, *but at 2000 rpms i can get 14 psi, which gives daily driving a stock like feel.* this is a perfect match for a 2.0l 20v. i haven't put it on the dyno yet, but i feels really fast. pulls like a train. you can get more power out of a bigger turbo, but you wont have a power band usefull for anything besides drag racing. im on the road course all the time and this is a perfect combo.


He would have to log boost to confirm results. Otherwise, it's just opinion. I assume he is using T28 exhaust housing since a lot of people don't use T3 external WG like I have. Those are good results on T28 if it can be confirmed.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> Kinda related but Just saw that the MKVI APR stg3 kit for the Golf R and TTRS uses a gtx2867r. Maybe Im late to the party on that one...Looks like fun tho!:laugh::thumbup:


0 to 60 in 3.7 secs.:thumbup:

EDIT: I wonder how my setup would compare to the 6-speed, which barely reaches 60 MPH at the top of 2nd gear. I can reach 80 MPH at the top of 2nd gear with longer 3.389 final drive in my built transmission.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Well, if you had the same setup as me but with stock displacement, then you just have to adjust for displacement. That will give you a fairly accurate idea of what to expect. However, different turbine housing, intercooler piping, IC, softare etc. will influence results.
> 
> I just re-read this entire thread last night and user=riskyroller claims 14psi by 2000 RPMs on 2.0L (page 4).
> 
> ...



well, the one which came here suk'd balls in comparison
shyte thing.. 0.86 hotside murdering it probably


----------



## discopotato03 (Feb 17, 2013)

To Al and mainstayinc I'm still interested to hear any thoughts about the GTX3067R . I agree that maps carried over between various compressors and turbine combinations can't be correct in the real world . 
The only thing I've seen said was a Garrett Sema comment that the GTX3067 should be good for a responsive 400-450 wheel Hp . My guess is that it's intended for engines that are slightly larger than 2L and or have more pots ie 5-6 cylinders . I'd say it's hard to merge six manifold primaries into a T28 flange and even if you have a T3 flanged GT28 turbine housing (HKS 0.64 AR) its a few too many putts to get through a 0.64 AR housing/NS111 76T turbine . Logically a T3/GT30 turbine housing and turbine (60mm 84T) is better with a 2.5L I6 huffing into it . 
I noted the link to the article on turbine/compressor vs turbine AR size and I think we'll agree that with a GT30 turbine the smaller 0.63 AR GT30 housing would be the one to drive that 67X compressor fast enough to work acceptably . That said in theory once a GTX3067 spins up the balance of pressure across an engine should be a bit better than a 2867 but the low down and transients may be a bit lazier on a single scroll 2Lish four cylinder . 

Thoughts ?

Cheers A .


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

discopotato03 said:


> To Al and mainstayinc I'm still interested to hear any thoughts about the GTX3067R . I agree that maps carried over between various compressors and turbine combinations can't be correct in the real world .
> The only thing I've seen said was a Garrett Sema comment that the GTX3067 should be good for a responsive 400-450 wheel Hp . My guess is that it's intended for engines that are slightly larger than 2L and or have more pots ie 5-6 cylinders . I'd say it's hard to merge six manifold primaries into a T28 flange and even if you have a T3 flanged GT28 turbine housing (HKS 0.64 AR) its a few too many putts to get through a 0.64 AR housing/NS111 76T turbine . Logically a T3/GT30 turbine housing and turbine (60mm 84T) is better with a 2.5L I6 huffing into it .
> I noted the link to the article on turbine/compressor vs turbine AR size and I think we'll agree that with a GT30 turbine the smaller 0.63 AR GT30 housing would be the one to drive that 67X compressor fast enough to work acceptably . That said in theory once a GTX3067 spins up the balance of pressure across an engine should be a bit better than a 2867 but the low down and transients may be a bit lazier on a single scroll 2Lish four cylinder .
> 
> ...


Al has more experience with the exhaust side of turbo and can probably offer a better answer. However, a GTX3067R would fall somewhere between a GTX2867R and a GT3071R in terms of spoolup. The latter is a good turbo for the 1.8T engine and spools between 3400 and 3800 RPMs from what I read. The GTX3067R would be a great turbo for the 1.8T IMO and should outflow the GT3071R based on my reading of the compressor maps.

If you compare the compressor maps for the GT2871R and GT3071R, the larger GT30 exhaust wheel allows the GT3071R to produce about 50 lbs. of air per minute (500 HP or about 435 WHP) as compared to 45 lbs. of air per minute for the GT2871R (450 HP or about 390 WHP). If you apply the same logic to the GTX2867R, you would expect about a 50 HP increase with the GTX3067R (475 HP + 50 = 525 HP or 456 WHP). Plus, you would have better spoolup and transient response with the smaller and more efficient 67mm compressor wheel.

No, you would not need larger displacement or more cylinders to effectively run the GTX3067R on the 1.8T IMO.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> Kinda related but Just saw that the MKVI APR stg3 kit for the Golf R and TTRS uses a gtx2867r. Maybe Im late to the party on that one...Looks like fun tho!:laugh::thumbup:


Watching the boost gauge, there is absolutely no discernable transient lag. Watching again so see if driver is no lift shifting. 
edit: looks like he is lifting. wow.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

mainstayinc said:


> Al has more experience with the exhaust side of turbo and can probably offer a better answer. However, a GTX3067R would fall somewhere between a GTX2867R and a GT3071R in terms of spoolup. The latter is a good turbo for the 1.8T engine and spools between 3400 and 3800 RPMs from what I read. The GTX3067R would be a great turbo for the 1.8T IMO and should outflow the GT3071R based on my reading of the compressor maps.
> 
> If you compare the compressor maps for the GT2871R and GT3071R, the larger GT30 exhaust wheel allows the GT3071R to produce about 50 lbs. of air per minute (500 HP or about 435 WHP) as compared to 45 lbs. of air per minute for the GT2871R (450 HP or about 390 WHP). If you apply the same logic to the GTX2867R, you would expect about a 50 HP increase with the GTX3067R (475 HP + 50 = 525 HP or 456 WHP). Plus, you would have better spoolup and transient response with the smaller and more efficient 67mm compressor wheel.
> 
> No, you would not need larger displacement or more cylinders to effectively run the GTX3067R on the 1.8T IMO.


That got me thinking....

GT28RS setup with PPT manifold, T3 .63 ar, rods, pistons but stock valvetrain and intake manifold + throttle body.

Need a bit more power than the RS can produce. Was looking at the GTX2867R which is after all a direct swap or should I be looking at the GTX3067R?

For the 2867 no need to modify the downpipe or Tip....for the 3067R I would need to redo all that. Is it worth it for that extra say 50Ps?

Would the spool be the same for both 28 and 3067 Gtx?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

brwmogazos said:


> That got me thinking....
> 
> GT28RS setup with PPT manifold, T3 .63 ar, rods, pistons but stock valvetrain and intake manifold + throttle body.
> 
> ...


If you only need a bit more power than a GT28RS than you might want to consider the GTX2863R, which is capable of 435 HP or 378 WHP. The GT28RS is only capable of 365 HP or about 315 WHP. I posted a comparison of these two in another thread.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6015466-Determining-BT-Setup/page2&highlight=GTX2863R

I will re-post compressor map comparison here:










You may also want to check out this thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5933731-Garret-gtx-options&highlight=GTX2863R

Of course, a GTX2867R is a nice option too for stock displacement. The GTX3067R would spool slighly later than GTX2867R (one would guess) because of larger GT30 exhaust wheel as stated above.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

I don't really think its worth spending that much for the 2863R performance.

However for a 2867R its around 100+ HP so it should be a noticeable difference without the need to modify the TIP and downpipe.

Also spool is quite important for me too. The 2867R will spool later than my current 28RS. I wouldn't like even more delayed spool by the 3067R.

Also I am using a 5speed gearbox. I believe extra torque would make my gearbox suffer over 7000rpm.

All of the 5speed non diesel gearboxes seem to struggle even with a GT28RS setup. So the 2867R will be pushing it.

I am using uprated engine mounts but still over 7000rpm its a struggle and sometimes shifting into gears is followed by a rather annoying scratching noise lol 

So 2867R should be better for my setup compared to the 3067R by the looks of things...


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

I dont think the 3067 would spool that much later to be honest then the 2867. Probably a couple hundred rpm's.You'll have a more linear, less peaky power delivery with more top end. And, also, if you have a T3 houisng, you'll not have to worry about swapping over if this is what is stopping you. Its a direct swap with the correct housing.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

Al I have already looked into that in the garrett website and I don't think I can fit the GTX3067 in my T3 turbine housing (Made by Garrett)

On their website for the GTX3067R says:

Interchangeable w/ GT2860RS & GTX28R models on compressor & GT/GTX30R models on turbine. Sold w/out turbine hsng.

So the compressor housing is the same but it will fit the GT30 series turbine housing... 

Otherwise yeah I would be looking at the GTX3067 if it has more linear power delivery as you describe!

I would prefer that so that my gearbox is tortured less from power delivery.

I seem to have full boost around 3800 rpm at the moment with my setup so another 400rpm for the gtx2867 and 600rpm for the 3067? should be expected?


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I dont think the 3067 would spool that much later to be honest then the 2867. Probably a couple hundred rpm's.You'll have a more linear, less peaky power delivery with more top end. And, also, if you have a T3 houisng, you'll not have to worry about swapping over if this is what is stopping you. Its a direct swap with the correct housing.


So then where would you put a gt3071r in the mix of the gtx2867 and gtx3076? If the 3076 is only "a few hundred RPM Later" where would the standard gt3071r be? how bout your billet version?

Ive never felt spool out of a 30series ...


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

Best thread I've read in eons opcorn:


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

Well maybe AL is right...

I checked another website for compatible turbine housings for the GTX3067R and the T3 4bolt flange .63ar, which I am currently using with my GT28RS, is compatible...

What am I missing? I thought turbine housings can accommodate only specific turbine wheel sizes. Not one housing fits "all"...

AL can you shed some more light over that?

(sorry for my bad English...)


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

Oh one more thing...

would an after market inlet camshaft, from the NA 20v or IE new series improve spool and top end power?

So upgrade the turbocharger and intake camshaft to sort of inprove top end without affecting spool.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

brwmogazos said:


> Well maybe AL is right...
> 
> I checked another website for compatible turbine housings for the GTX3067R and the T3 4bolt flange .63ar, which I am currently using with my GT28RS, is compatible...
> 
> ...


I went down the same path pretty much. Garrett's website apparently can't be trusted in this case. The housing is chosen according to the bolt pattern really, of course with the desired outlet in mind. Find a T3 housing with the right bolt pattern and it will fit.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

mmm...gtx3067 sounds fun...:beer::beer:


----------



## zandrew (Nov 1, 2012)

Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread but alot of this applies to my build and my curiosity. I am currently running a gt3071r with .86ar t25 housing. These are not true gt30 turbos since the turbine is slightly smaller. 56.5mm exducer opposed to 60mm exducer. I was running a gt2871r and I made the epic mistake of running a Comp 5552. The 2871r was ok but honestly the gt3071r I am running now is very similar in spool but holds better past peak psi. I am seeing 14psi by 3500 in 5th. 4200 in 3rd. I'm still on my stock aeb.

Anyway I'm wanting 350awhp with the best possible spool. I know the gt3071r will get me there and if I pushed the **** out of the 2871r it will too. The gtx2867r I got I bought in hopes it will give me better spool and the same hp potential but after looking at dyno's I'm not nearly as sure. I'm thinking the gtx3067r would have been the better option.

My built 1.8t 20v is about to go in. If I need to change it out I need to do so now. 

suggestions?


----------



## WiKKiDTT (Aug 13, 2009)

zandrew said:


> Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread but alot of this applies to my build and my curiosity. I am currently running a gt3071r with .86ar t25 housing. These are not true gt30 turbos since the turbine is slightly smaller. 56.5mm exducer opposed to 60mm exducer. I was running a gt2871r and I made the epic mistake of running a Comp 5552. The 2871r was ok but honestly the gt3071r I am running now is very similar in spool but holds better past peak psi. I am seeing 14psi by 3500 in 5th. 4200 in 3rd. I'm still on my stock aeb.
> 
> Anyway I'm wanting 350awhp with the best possible spool. I know the gt3071r will get me there and if I pushed the **** out of the 2871r it will too. The gtx2867r I got I bought in hopes it will give me better spool and the same hp potential but after looking at dyno's I'm not nearly as sure. I'm thinking the gtx3067r would have been the better option.
> 
> ...


I'm currently running a GTX2867r on my built amu with stock compression and bore. And I hit max boost by 3800 rpm and I am currently making 338 AWHP on 18 psi on a very safe tune. "WOT 11.3afr" I was out of injector so I couldn't push it more. I will have a new dyno in a week or two with my ID1000's at 26psi on pump should be 400 all day long


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I finally got my car to the shop to install my P_SEM, R32 TB, upgraded SMIC, upgraded intank fuel pump, upgraded -6AN fuel lines etc. As mentioned in another thread, I decided to order a second Aeromotive 340 to make my intank a double-pumper. Here is what I finally ended up with:










Here is a link to the double-pumper: http://www.epiceurotuning.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=STG2PUMP

Ryan at www.epiceurotuning.com sent me a wiring harness, relay and other items to make it a complete kit. He sent these additional items and also 2-day express mail for free. A big thumbs up to Ryan:thumbup:

Each pump will run directly to the fuel rail with it's own fuel line and fuel filter. The idea of merging two fuel pumps into 1 line going to the fuel rail (using a 'Y' fitting) doesn't make much sense to me. Unless, of course, you are merging into a larger-diameter line. The second fuel filter will be located inside the passenger-side fender. I will be contacting Jeff for a switchable pump gas/E85 program. Now that I have enough fuel pump for E85, I will need to upgrade injectors. Highly considering ID1300's. If USRT sells 1200's, then I'll buy those instead.

I realized that my 630cc Seimens injectors at 3 bar are not going to be big enough to max out the GTX2867R on pump gas in the mean time. According to this fuel injector caluclator: http://www.injector.com/injectorselection.php, 630's are good for 300 to 350HP using a BSFC of 0.65. I want to make 475 HP on pump gas (400 WHP). I would like to run my 630's at 4 bar in the meantime until I get new software and injectors. But, I know it's not that simple without a software re-flash.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I was very very close to getting that.

Then I talked to Arnold about a 255 last year, and we'll that turned into the one I got.....

If your running two feed lines into the rail, what's your plan to regulate it?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> I was very very close to getting that.
> 
> Then I talked to Arnold about a 255 last year, and we'll that turned into the one I got.....
> 
> If your running two feed lines into the rail, what's your plan to regulate it?


I instructed my installer to drill and weld a second -6AN port into the front-side of the billet fuel rail as shown below (right side fo rail next to mounting point):










This will allow me to install a billet FPR housing on the right-end of the fuel rail same as stock configuration. Notice that I am also installing a 1/8 NPT port on the back-side of the fuel rail (left side) next to primary inlet. This will allow me to install an electronic fuel pressure sensor and other things down the road.

The reason for going with an intank solution rather than an inline pump is that I hear that inlines are noisy. Also, there are plenty of noises coming from my car, starting with turbo, whine from race transmission (straight-cut gears) etc. The two turbine fuel pumps should be quiet underneath the back seat. Once I get car back, I will post comments on the double-pumper intank if anyone is interested.

I also want to mention (as I stated recently in other thread), that having a second fuel pump, fuel line and fuel filter will add a fail-safe feature when I go E85 if first pump or filter fails. I read that E85 strips fuel system and clogs filter leading to pump failure.

EDIT: Here is how the pumps compare:


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

edit: nm, E85 derp

oh yeah and... dyno it or run it at the track or something already


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> edit: nm, E85 derp
> 
> oh yeah and... dyno it or run it at the track or something already


Dyno is coming soon. I can dyno the car once I get it back from spturbo but it will be with 630cc injectors until I can get setup with the 1300's and a good tune from Gonzo. The 630's will definately max out before the turbo on pump gas from my calculations. Unless someone can tell me how to safely get more out of my 630 injectors (increase fuel pressure etc.) with my existing Unitronics BT tune.

Jeff at Gonzo almost crapped pants when we test drove car last summer with Unitronics 630 BT tune and stock suspension. He said he couldn't imagine car on E85.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

What's your peak goal on E85?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

dave926 said:


> what's your peak goal on e85?


495 WHP (570 HP).

EDIT: ...but with a very wide powerband.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Not sure if you're small or big port, but I'd say the Genesis II 1000cc on your existing 3bar setup would be perfect, get the Double Fogger (I linked the big port injectors) and it'll stand up to pressure increases for mods/tuning down the line.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

l88m22vette said:


> Not sure if you're small or big port, but I'd say the Genesis II 1000cc on your existing 3bar setup would be perfect, get the Double Fogger (I linked the big port injectors) and it'll stand up to pressure increases for mods/tuning down the line.


Small port. Last time I spoke with Jeff at Gonzo he recommended the Genesis II 1000cc at 4 bar for E85. That option is still on the table. 4 bar fuel pressure would provide even better atomization with the Genesis II injectors. However, a 1200cc to 1300cc injector at 3 bar would allow me some more room to upgrade in future if I wanted.

EDIT: I am correct in thinking that Injector Dynamics and Genesis injectors are all Bosch EV14 injectors? Even so, I know that there are significant differences between these two.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

mainstayinc said:


> Small port. Last time I spoke with Jeff at Gonzo he recommended the Genesis II 1000cc at 4 bar for E85. That option is still on the table. 4 bar fuel pressure would provide even better atomization with the Genesis II injectors. However, a 1200cc to 1300cc injector at 3 bar would allow me some more room to upgrade in future if I wanted.
> 
> EDIT: I am correct in thinking that Injector Dynamics and Genesis injectors are all Bosch EV14 injectors? Even so, I know that there are significant differences between these two.


i thought you needed some sort of adapter for the EV14's... i know the G2's are a straight swap


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> 495 WHP (570 HP).
> 
> EDIT: ...but with a very wide powerband.


1000s aren't going to cut it. The ID1300s at 4 bar might, but will be close. I wouldn't recommend the Genesis 1600s, simply because the heat issue mentioned on their site appears to be the same one that ID recalled for the same problem. I know there was one Supra owner that lost an engine behind that


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> 1000s aren't going to cut it. The ID1300s at 4 bar might, but will be close. I wouldn't recommend the Genesis 1600s, simply because the heat issue mentioned on their site appears to be the same one that ID recalled for the same problem. I know there was one Supra owner that lost an engine behind that


I'll go back and re-do my calcuations. I don't want to size them too big where they will compromise idle quality on pump gas. Thanks for the info regarding the 1600's. I'll have to read up on that if I determine that the 1300's are too small.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

At 3 bar the 1300s will support 550 crank horsepower on paper

4 bar gives a little more wiggle room, at 650ish. I would be shocked if those pumps won't support it

I'll send you a link to a thread a week ago with some math :laugh:

Post 101


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> At 3 bar the 1300s will support 550 crank horsepower on paper
> 
> 4 bar gives a little more wiggle room, at 650ish. I would be shocked if those pumps won't support it
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I get back later today.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> At 3 bar the 1300s will support 550 crank horsepower on paper
> 
> 4 bar gives a little more wiggle room, at 650ish. I would be shocked if those pumps won't support it
> 
> ...


I remember that post. I will retype the formula here for fuel injector sizing:

*HORSEPOWER X BSFC / NO_INJECTORS X DUTY CYCLE = LBS PER HOUR*

In my case: 570 x 0.84 / 4 x .80 = 149.625 LBS PER HOUR

*LBS PER HOUR X 10.5 = CC PER MINUTE*

149.625 X 10.5 = 1571cc's per minute at 3 bar.

For a 4 bar fuel system, divide by: SQRT(4)/SQRT(3) = 1360cc's

The Injector Dynamics 1300cc injectors actually flow 1340cc's per minute. Like you said, the ID1300s at 4 bar will be close at 80% IDC. I am highly leaning toward running the ID1300's at 4 bar for E85 and running pump gas on the ID1300s at 3 bar. I did read up on the 1600cc injector problem with ID injectors. Apparently, they don't even sell the 1600cc injector anymore. 1600cc injectors would give me more room. Not sure who sells decent 1600cc injectors.

The double intank fuel system I am installing willl have plenty of combined flow at higher fuel pressure. So, there is less worry about running a higher base fuel pressure on my setup. Anyway, a higher base fuel pressure will give me beter atomization of fuel.

NOTE: Some fuel injector calculators give much lower numbers. For example, the Deatch Werks calculator gives me 1216cc's at 3 bar using the same BSFC and IDC constants on E85

http://www.deatschwerks.com/resources/fuel-calculators/fuel-injector-calculator

Not sure why that is?


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

Injector Dynamics provides a range of 0.84-0.91 for E85 BSFC. if you recalculate using 0.91, it seems like a significant difference.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> Injector Dynamics provides a range of 0.84-0.91 for E85 BSFC. if you recalculate using 0.91, it seems like a significant difference.


Yeah. I saw that. It would be smart to calculate the upper limit BSFC before deciding on a fuel injector. Referencing this post: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?547541-bsfc&highlight=bsfc










BSFC is fairly low until 5000 RPMs. Then, it increases to 0.60 on this setup. Since E85 is much more knock resistant, I don't think that BSFC would increase as much as compared to pump gas in the upper RPM range. Gonzo or other tuners might be able to address this question.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Dave926 said:


> 1000s aren't going to cut it. The ID1300s at 4 bar might, but will be close. I wouldn't recommend the Genesis 1600s, simply because the heat issue mentioned on their site appears to be the same one that ID recalled for the same problem. I know there was one Supra owner that lost an engine behind that



The heat shouldn't be an issue for us, look at this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...Injector**&p=82700006&viewfull=1#post82700006


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Shouldn't be

But anything that will risk an engine for a reason like that isn't worth it to me


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i want to see the gtx2867 vs a gt3071 on a stock bore/stroke 1.8t


though the new gtx3063 looks very promising.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i want to see the gtx2867 vs a gt3071 on a stock bore/stroke 1.8t
> 
> 
> though the new gtx3063 looks very promising.


seems like that was discussed toward the beginning of the thread. 

gtx3063 you say? interesting


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i want to see the gtx2867 vs a gt3071 on a stock bore/stroke 1.8t
> 
> 
> though the new gtx3063 looks very promising.


:thumbup:

Also, quick update: My installer/engine builder Bill Schimmel got the Aeromotive double-pumper intank installed earlier this week along with -6AN fuel lines. He decided to mount the two fuel filters underneath the chassis next to the spare tire wheel well instead of inside the passenger-side fender. After reading this thread:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ents-The-Genesis-II-Injector**&highlight=usrt

I realized that there are advantages to running a higher base fuel pressure (spoolup, torque etc). This dyno shows the Genesis II 500cc injector at 5 bar versus an EV14 550cc injector at 3 bar. 










The problem with this dyno comparison is that the two injectors were run at different base fuel pressures. So, there is no way to isolate the effect that the Genesis II injectors had (by themselves) on the power output. In order to make a fair comparison, both injectors would have to use the same base fuel pressure. I pointed this fact out on the thread (Post# 62) but this was never addressed by USRT or my post was simply ignored. At any rate, there is no doubt that a higher base fuel pressure will improve atomization, as Scott at USRT states:



[email protected] said:


> Look at the direct injection setups. They run 100 - 150 bar for a reason. *That's because atomization improves radically with pressure.*


So... now that I have a fuel pump (i.e.: double-pumper) that is capable of flowing alot of fuel at high pressure, why not run 4 or 5 bar base fuel pressure on my setup? That should give some gains whatever injector I finally choose.

Bill also fitted the Passenger-side SEM IM, R32 TB and upgraded SMIC. He said that the R32 TB is very large and sits close (vertically) to the SMIC outlet requiring a 90 degree bend. He also sold me on the idea of removing any unnecessary emissions components that were crowding the engine bay, re-doing my GT28-style compressor inlet in aluminum with a black-wrinkle finish to match my P_SEM and routing it down to the driver-side bumper. No more sucking hot air from underneath the hood.

He also convinced me to ditch my OEM-size battery for a small but potent lawnmower sized battery. This will facilitate piping my intake to the driver-side bumper. He is also adding a stealth catch-can and simplifying my break-booster hose. He is also installing a few other items which I will talk about later this summer once I get this setup running smoothly.

He also recommended that I upgrade to AWD. I told him that I don't like 02M gearing. He recommended that if I want to keep my APTuning Race Gearset, then I can go with a Syncro transmission and a Haldex rear end. The only component that I cannot use in this setup is my 02J Peloquin LSD. I will want to keep my taller final drive on this setup. I'm not sure if that's possible. So, if this works out, then the plan for next year is to upgrade my suspension (still on stock) and install an AWD system on my car.

As far as the Syncro transmission being able to stand up to the power, this guy makes 577 WHP with syncro AWD transmission on a VR6 with GT35R.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...f-a-Syncro-Swapped-VRT-Jetta&highlight=Syncro

He also has the APTuning Race Gearset.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

you can do haldex without changing the floorpan? or am I misunderstanding


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> you can do haldex without changing the floorpan? or am I misunderstanding


I'm pretty sure floorpan has to change. Although I know very little about this type of conversion. Bill seemed to have a very clear idea about how to do it.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I *think* fouckhest did it with a stock floorplan on a mk4, no r32 stuff

Maybe he can chime in


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> I *think* fouckhest did it with a stock floorplan on a mk4, no r32 stuff
> 
> Maybe he can chime in


I'm interested to learn more about this.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

ah, well you didn't mention having access to an r32/tt shell so I thought something else was going on 

searched fouckhest and saw him mention he did a haldex swap, but could not find details. I thought swapping the floorpan was a must (because of the fuel tank?)


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I think he has a fuel cell

Someone pm him and have him chime in


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> I think he has a fuel cell
> 
> Someone pm him and have him chime in


I searched his threads and didn't find any mention of an AWD swap. UPDATE: I purchased 02C syncro transmission today! $600 + shipping. This project might happen sooner than later.










The last time I talked to Bill, he said he needed an 02J Peloquin LSD. I am considering trading the Peloquin for labor to swap over my AP Tuning Race gearset into the 02C. If he doesn't want it anymore, then I'll post it up here for a good price. Usually, I give away my old parts. However, a Peloquin LSD for the 02C is over $1000.00. I'll also have my 02J for sale with Pinoin Girdle and reinforced clutch fork already installed. That setup has less than 4000 miles on it.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=353217


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=353217


Looking over that now. Thanks. Also, congratuations on the GT3071R.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

same thread I found, seemed like the awd swap had already been completed before he created that thread


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> same thread I found, seemed like the awd swap had already been completed before he created that thread


I read through 20 pages and no AWD swap info. No matter. This thread has a lot of useful info:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3017529-Heres-my-AWD-swap-in-my-MK4


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> I think he has a fuel cell
> 
> *Someone pm him and have him chime in*


I PM'd fouckhest yesterday about his AWD setup.



fouckhest said:


> hey man,
> I actually did not do a pan swap...i did a frankenstein swap....
> 
> you need an R32 rear pan..some have used an audi TT, but it is much more work





fouckhest said:


> i dont really have anything to be honest, and i would not recommend going that path, there is a lot of fab that needs to take place to get it to work correctly....you need to cut into the rockers to make the trailing arms mount, then you need to notch the rear of the car to get the axles to clear the frame in the back....for the cost of getting an R32 pan and drive line as is, it is much more cost effective to swap the pan....you can much more easily take the car to a fab shop say, drill out ALL these little spot welds and swap the pans rather than try and geometrically center the rear end, trailing arms, driveshaft, etc.....
> 
> trust me, if i were to do it again, i would just buy a pan and drill out the welds and weld it back in....that project can easily be done in any standard garage, the franken-swap will require a lift, tables to set the car on to check alignment/squareness and a lot of fab work....not worth it IMO


So... floor pan it is, unless Bill Schimmel has some other ideas.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Back on topic.

Talking with brwmogazos from Greece. He sent me a video of a hybrid GT28RS (2867R wheel supposedly) making 475 WHP at 2.3 bar using W/M injection. Nice results!


----------



## Alec's TT (Jan 28, 2013)

Can we get a list of spool times for the gtx turbos from real gtx users and what displacement/housing/ar they have? ex: 2008cc gtx2863 t3 48 ar 20psi at 2300 rpms


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> Talking with brwmogazos from Greece. He sent me a video of a hybrid GT28RS (2867R wheel supposedly) making 475 WHP at 2.3 bar using W/M injection. Nice results!




Find it hard to believe tbh.

any special brew fuels a play?

not being funny.. 475atw? seriously? >500bhp from this?


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

badger5 said:


> Find it hard to believe tbh.
> 
> any special brew fuels a play?
> 
> not being funny.. 475atw? seriously? >500bhp from this?








Bill take a look at this one too. Its an identical car to mine with the same mods + tubular manifold, while i am using a PPT T3. We are both using the same unitronics mafless file.

I havent dynoed mine yet but i will try different dynos only to have a reference point as i decided to upgrade to the GTX2867R as soon as i get back home...and see if i get similar results like the ones in the vids.

TBH i am a bit sceptical too, but for sure i know this file has good results in several cars with the same setup. I dont know if they are that powerful, but i know they are fast.

The one with the Billet GT28RS was using the same uni file. Its turbocharger has a billet wheel + AGU head + AGU manifold +32 throttle body +WM injection (i dont remember about cams but i believe stock) + 81.5mm CPs with stock crank + i am pretty sure its using some Torco race fuel in that run. In my setup with the GT28RS i am seeing 22 degrees of timing @ high revs with 100Ron pump gas as always.

I think this pretty much sums up most of the details on the BT setup car vids posted.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

brwmogazos said:


> Bill take a look at this one too. Its an identical car to mine with the same mods + tubular manifold, while i am using a PPT T3. We are both using the same unitronics mafless file.
> 
> I havent dynoed mine yet but i will try different dynos only to have a reference point as i decided to upgrade to the GTX2867R as soon as i get back home...and see if i get similar results like the ones in the vids.
> 
> ...



I have a mk4 cupra now with gtx2867 on there, external gate etc etc
I just remain very unimpressed with these gtx units.. all the lag of their larger cousin. Might as well be a GT30 in how it performs.. still 4k before it wakes up.. just like a same a/r gt30 does.

Weird.
Is it just me?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

badger5 said:


> I have a mk4 cupra now with gtx2867 on there, external gate etc etc
> I just remain very unimpressed with these gtx units.. all the lag of their larger cousin. Might as well be a GT30 in how it performs.. still 4k before it wakes up.. just like a same a/r gt30 does.
> 
> Weird.
> Is it just me?


Same feelings here! It is weird though what the 1.8t community will settle for, and accept as a responsive turbo. It seems that waiting for 4k+ for a snail to get going is considered good in these neighborhoods. IMO, which seems in line with yours, the GTX2863r is the only one in that new lineup that is usable in our 1.8t with some resemblance of responsiveness (I'm sure plenty are going to disagree since late-spooling is almost like a sought after feature in the BT 1.8t circles).


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

there have been videos posted up that show the GTX2867R spooling up sooner than 4000.

maybe you need some tuning to wake up your low end? what A/R and flange are you on?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> I have a mk4 cupra now with gtx2867 on there, external gate etc etc
> I just remain very unimpressed with these gtx units.. all the lag of their larger cousin. *Might as well be a GT30 in how it performs.. still 4k before it wakes up.. just like a same a/r gt30 does.*
> Weird.
> Is it just me?


The larger cousin of the GTX2867R would be the GT3071R, not the GT30R (aka GT3076R). Everyone here knows that the GT30R is a slow-spooler (most similar to the GTX3071R). I'm not sure why you would make a comment like that. 

The GTX2867R is most similar to the GTX2863R in terms of turbine wheel and compressor size. I am actually hoping to lose some spool on my setup with my most recent upgrades (larger IM, upgraded SMIC etc.) in order to preserve drivetrain and maybe gain more up top.

My current setup spools way sooner than previous setups (K03s and GT28R at stock displacement). The Boost V. RPM graph I posted earlier in this thread confirmed my impressions. Stock displacement will not be more than a few hundred RPMs different as I have shown.

The GTX2867R's that are exported to the UK are actually made from billet lead. Check the model number on the turbo. If it ends in '-Y', then it is a genuine Yank turbo made from billet aluminum. If it ends in '-GB' that it is one of the lead ones. In all seriousness, it would be helpful to post some data to confirm your late-spool impressions of the GTX2867R (Dynograph, Boost V. RPM etc.).


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

badger5 said:


> I have a mk4 cupra now with gtx2867 on there, external gate etc etc
> I just remain very unimpressed with these gtx units.. all the lag of their larger cousin. Might as well be a GT30 in how it performs.. still 4k before it wakes up.. just like a same a/r gt30 does.
> 
> Weird.
> Is it just me?



The Billet GT28RS car on the dyno is also using NA cams from what i was told lately so i guess thats why it spools a little bit late? R32 throttle body etc.

To be honest i also think the GTX line spools a little bit later than the Gt28 and little bit earlier than the GT30 line.

I dont think there are many options out there with spool similar to a disco potato producing arround 500HP...

Been looking into precision turbochargers and Garretts and the GTX2867R seems to be the best match. 

Which turbocharger would be better than the 2867R ?


----------



## NaSMK4 (Dec 12, 2011)

brwmogazos said:


> The Billet GT28RS car on the dyno is also using NA cams from what i was told lately so i guess thats why it spools a little bit late? R32 throttle body etc.
> 
> To be honest i also think the GTX line spools a little bit later than the Gt28 and little bit earlier than the GT30 line.
> 
> ...


too few people look into turbonetics turbo's... they make a great product as long as u buy one of their ceramic ball bearing turbos u will get great results and they have so many applications for different motor sizes / powerbands that are relevant to the 1.8t ..


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

gitman said:


> there have been videos posted up that show the GTX2867R spooling up sooner than 4000.
> 
> maybe you need some tuning to wake up your low end? what A/R and flange are you on?


not a case of tuning to wake it up at all... Wastegate nailed shut on duty cycle to just before 4krpm and it will only spool when its good and ready and with lean ish afr's to help get some heat into the thing....

I've overlayed the gtx2867 over a GT3071 both 0.6x hotsides on 1800cc motors..
in 4th gear pull on dyno the spool is the same.. no better from the "on paper" smaller GTX2867

Its not the first one I've seen or mapped which spools the same.

They just are'nt all that from what I see..

on the road they will always pull sooner than the dyno plot shows, but my dynos ramp rate is repeatable.. so a fair comparison.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> The larger cousin of the GTX2867R would be the GT3071R, not the GT30R (aka GT3076R). Everyone here knows that the GT30R is a slow-spooler (most similar to the GTX3071R). I'm not sure why you would make a comment like that.
> 
> The GTX2867R is most similar to the GTX2863R in terms of turbine wheel and compressor size. I am actually hoping to lose some spool on my setup with my most recent upgrades (larger IM, upgraded SMIC etc.) in order to preserve drivetrain and maybe gain more up top.
> 
> ...


billet lead - lmao

I make the comparison to GT3071 on 0.6x hotside.. not 30R... which is not what I said 
The turbo I sourced is from ~USA... Arnold..


below... log GT3071, merge collector GT3071 (both 60mm full fat turbines) all 0.6x hotsides.. and GTX2867 also 0.6x hotside log mani. All external gated.

Red is GTX2867, blue is GT3071-merge mani, yellow is GT3071-log mani


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

badger5 said:


> billet lead - lmao
> 
> I make the comparison to GT3071 on 0.6x hotside.. not 30R... which is not what I said
> The turbo I sourced is from ~USA... Arnold..
> ...



Looking at those dyno plots makes me wonder...

That GTX3067R would have an even worse spool than the GT3071R then and similar or less top end power at an even higher price???

Dunno but it seems pointless on a 1.8t stock bore motor?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> billet lead - lmao
> 
> I make the comparison to GT3071 on 0.6x hotside.. not 30R... which is not what I said
> The turbo I sourced is from ~USA... Arnold..
> ...


Thanks. Looking at the boost (PSI) graph, all three setups spool very similarly. The GTX2867R is spooling 7psi at around 3400 RPMs, whereas I get 7psi by 1600 RPMs on 2.1L and Unitronics 630 BT software. On Stock displacement, 7psi is around 1850 RPMs (2066.9/1780.9 x 1600). That's a 1550 RPM difference. So, there is obviously something that is delaying spool in all three setups. Vegeta is getting full spool on his billet GT3071R setup by mid-3000 RPM range.

EDIT: Which software? What is the boost requested 1600 to 3200 RPMs?

EDIT: See correction on page 6 (#198). I get 7 psi by 2300 RPMs on stock exhaust system. With exhaust dump open, I get 7 psi by 2000 RPMs.


----------



## HidRo (Sep 19, 2003)

7 psi at 1850? with a so called big turbo, not a K03?
WOW, I would like to see a log of this.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

HidRo said:


> 7 psi at 1850? with a so called big turbo, not a K03?
> WOW, I would like to see a log of this.


all this stuff has already been provided in this same thread

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5895838-gtx2867r-spool&p=82891129&viewfull=1#post82891129


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Brads car makes 7psi by ~3000rpm, maxes the map sensor by 4200
Geoffs car I don't know off hand what it makes at 3k, but by 3800 or so it's at 22psi

Both 3076r and 2 liter, Geoffs runs corn, Brads runs gas + WMI. Hardware differs from there significantly


----------



## [email protected] Motorsports (Sep 24, 2013)

What I don't like about these GTXxxxxxXXXxxxx Turbo's, is that, the compressor wheels feature full 11 bladed designs. This is where the spool characteristics are affected. The full 11 bladed design allows for more flow capacity however at the expense of spool. Couple it to a relatively smaller turbine wheel and you get the offset of the larger GT turbo cousin.

A compressor wheel that has both large and small blades will spool quicker, transient response will also yield favourable performance.

Turbo's that feature Billet wheels, using both small and large blades:
PPT Compressor wheels
Forced Performance
PTE Billet & Ceramic Ball Bearing
BW/EFR :thumbup:

The GTX's are really the only designs, from what I know, that are configured in all blades being full blades.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Well, that raises the question, are there hybrid Garretts with GTX compressor sides and regular GT turbine sides? More power, better response, without the 11-blade turbines? If there isn't, would the EFRs be the ticket? I've heard nothing but good but I know they are heavier and there certainly isn't the longevity/experience of the Garretts...


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Ppt5935r


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

^ no way is that a street turbo, I'm taking 350whp ballpark


----------



## NaSMK4 (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm curious what one would see for boost around 3k with a 5858 ball barring billet wheel and where would u be rpm wise for 24psi and 30psi


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Motorsports said:


> What I don't like about these GTXxxxxxXXXxxxx Turbo's, is that, the compressor wheels feature full 11 bladed designs. This is where the spool characteristics are affected. The full 11 bladed design allows for more flow capacity however at the expense of spool. Couple it to a relatively smaller turbine wheel and you get the offset of the larger GT turbo cousin.
> 
> A* compressor wheel that has both large and small blades will spool quicker, transient response will also yield favourable performance*.
> 
> ...


Garrett abondoned that design concept with the newer GTX turbos. I'm sure a lot of research and development went into their new blade design. As compared to my previous GT28R turbo (with small and large blades), the GTX2867R has a lot more usable airflow oustide of full boost. The GT28R would spoolup like stock until 3000 RPMs and then get very crazy between 3000 and 5000 RPMs. Whereas, the GTX2867R spools super smooth and strong from as low as 1600 RPMs and just contiues to build stronger and stronger throughout the RPM band. I start to spin tires in second gear (with tall 3.389 final drive) from as low as 2800 to 2900 RPMs.

BTW, I finally got my passenger-side SEM installed recently. I will post pictures once I get the car back in the next week or two. After looking at the stock manifold once it was removed, I have no doubt that the SEM is built for power.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the single length blade concept was borrowed from their diesel lines of turbos. I remember seeing one in that design years ago when it was brought to me for a rebuild (2000ish). The concept would be to maximize volume as diesels are known for large displacement/housings with comparatively small turbine wheels. This is to build low end torque with large inducers. I think they wanted the compressor side to be as efficient as possible for the short bursts that the turbine will dictate through a narrow rpm band. The caveat would be the drag or resistance from the multi blades which the small turbine somewhat counteracted. I dont think this translated well in gasoline engines as we are smaller displacement with wider powerbands, along with the use of comparatively larger turbines and smaller housings.

Edit: Found pic of one example


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

*Sv: gtx2867r spool*



l88m22vette said:


> ^ no way is that a street turbo, I'm taking 350whp ballpark


Ah, I just read last post about what alternatives there is to the gtx wheels. Billet has been working well for me.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Thanks. Looking at the boost (PSI) graph, all three setups spool very similarly. The GTX2867R is spooling 7psi at around 3400 RPMs, whereas I get 7psi by 1600 RPMs on 2.1L and Unitronics 630 BT software. On Stock displacement, 7psi is around 1850 RPMs (2066.9/1780.9 x 1600). That's a 1550 RPM difference. So, there is obviously something that is delaying spool in all three setups. Vegeta is getting full spool on his billet GT3071R setup by mid-3000 RPM range.
> 
> EDIT: Which software? What is the boost requested 1600 to 3200 RPMs?


You are kinda unplaying the effect your extra displacement makes when reporting on what spool is like.... lol
Huge bloody difference..

Not representative of stock displacement cars tho when making comparisons.

Request is "all of it" and n75 is pegged full on to get it to spool as fast as it can muster

Its mapped open loop


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

l88m22vette said:


> Well, that raises the question, are there hybrid Garretts with GTX compressor sides and regular GT turbine sides? More power, better response, without the 11-blade turbines? If there isn't, would the EFRs be the ticket? I've heard nothing but good but I know they are heavier and there certainly isn't the longevity/experience of the Garretts...


Arnold cooked me up a GT3582 with Precision 62 cold side on it.. which I love.
11 blade units just have all seemed laggier than I was expecting given the hype..

they just dont do it for me.

I would rather an HTA billet type wheel, precision etc etc.... staggered blades..


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

So now Pele will believe me that the gtx3071r does not out spool a gt3071r.

Bummed the 2867 sucks. 

I need a v2 ppt wheel. My v1 had me hooked. 

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

*people

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> So now Pele will believe me that the gtx3071r does not out spool a gt3071r.
> 
> *Bummed the 2867 sucks.*
> I need a v2 ppt wheel. My v1 had me hooked.
> ...


Ok. I get the sarcasm now.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Back off topic. I did a little more research about using an 02C syncro transmission with a Haldex rear. It seems like Issam Abed covered this issue several years ago:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?1858533-FAQ/page3
http://forums.fourtitude.com/showth...-Thread-A-Different-Kind-of-quot-R-quot/page2

It turns out that I need an FEX transfer case from an Skoda Octavia 4x4. The FEX unit has the same number of teeth as the Haldex 27/17 as compared to the syncro stock transfer case which has 21/20. If I used the stock unit, it would cause problems with the two systems binding and locking up. The FEX unit will bolt right up to the 02C syncro transmission and mate with the Haldex rear. So, I contacted Isam and he sold me a FEX transfer case, although disassembled. Here is a photo that Issam sent me:










EDIT: Issam also confirmed that I will be able to use my taller 3.389 final drive in the 02C. I'm going to need that for my AP Tuning Race gearset. So, this project is a go. So far, I have the 02C syncro transmission, correct FEX transfer case, and possibly an R32 rear floor pan. I just need the Haldex unit and rear suspension. That can be taken from an R32 or Audi TTq.


----------



## WiKKiDTT (Aug 13, 2009)

On my gtx2867r I get max between 3000rpm and 3800 rpm. It depends on the weather and load. Normally I see 6psi at 2000 rpm and 14 by 3000 and 24 by 3800rpm. This is on a built 1.8t amu with stock compression. Pagparts kit. I'm very happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

WiKKiDTT said:


> On my gtx2867r I get max between 3000rpm and 3800 rpm. It depends on the weather and load. Normally I see 6psi at 2000 rpm and 14 by 3000 and 24 by 3800rpm. This is on a built 1.8t amu with stock compression. Pagparts kit. I'm very happy
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That sounds about right for stock displacement. Do you have sidemount or fronthount intercooler?


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

WiKKiDTT said:


> On my gtx2867r I get max between 3000rpm and 3800 rpm. It depends on the weather and load. Normally I see 6psi at 2000 rpm and 14 by 3000 and 24 by 3800rpm. This is on a built 1.8t amu with stock compression. Pagparts kit. I'm very happy


:thumbup: 0.63 turbine A/R i'm assuming?


----------



## [email protected] Motorsports (Sep 24, 2013)

mainstayinc said:


> BTW, I finally got my passenger-side SEM installed recently. I will post pictures once I get the car back in the next week or two. After looking at the stock manifold once it was removed, I have no doubt that the SEM is built for power.


Looking forward to it


----------



## WiKKiDTT (Aug 13, 2009)

mainstayinc said:


> That sounds about right for stock displacement. Do you have sidemount or fronthount intercooler?


Tread stone TR10 Frontmount


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Ok. I get the sarcasm now.


????


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Motorsports said:


> Looking forward to it


I did some data-logging with VCDS last night on my new setup which consists of: Passenger-side SEM IM, R32 TB, upgraded SMIC, double intank fuel pump etc. With the larger intake manifold and throttle body, I was hoping I wouldn't lose much in spoolup below 3000 RPMs.

As a whole, it seems like the new SMIC to R32 TB to SEM IM is less restrictive down low. I expect the real gains with the larger SEM IM and R32 TB to be above 4500 RPMs. However, since I don't have a dyno of my old setup, I will not be able to compare.

I visited PSI Proformance in Lansdale, PA last week to have them bead roll a short lenght of IC pipe for me. Spoke with Steve and a few other people there. They have a dyno which I plan to get a baseline reading for my setup.

I will also post a picture of my new engine bay with P_SEM IM and other upgrades once I fit my engine cover and replace some heat shielding.

EDIT: Below is a dyno Don R supplied me last year showing nice gains with SEM IM over OEM:


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


>




Instead of superimposing the two, why not add the Aug run data as a second data series on the same graph?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> Instead of superimposing the two, why not add the Aug run data as a second data series on the same graph?


That would definately be preferrable. However, Vagcom timestamps each run at different RPM intervals so it's not possible for both data series (boost pressure) to share a common x-axis (engine speed). There were only a few data points that were common to both runs. So, I had to superimpose the runs between two common endpoints (1600 and 3600 RPMs).

EDIT: The other issue with Vagcom is that the RPM intervals are not the same at each time stamp. If you look at the left side of the x-axis, you see: 1360, 1440, 1480, 1560, 1600 etc. The RPM intervals are as follows: 80 RPMs, 40 RPMs, 80 RPMs, 40 RPMs etc. To get a better idea of the actual curve, I would have to fill in the missing RPM data, add the data series and then graph (maybe in intervals of 20 or 40 RPMs).


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

But you're not graphing by timestamp, you're graphing by RPM. So, it is possible. And even if you were graphing by timestamp it's possible. Each data series can have their own, separate X-axis values. No 'filling in' needed.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> But you're not graphing by timestamp, you're graphing by RPM. So, it is possible. And even if you were graphing by timestamp it's possible. Each data series can have their own, separate X-axis values. No 'filling in' needed.


Ok. I'll try that. Thanks.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> But you're not graphing by timestamp, you're graphing by RPM. So, it is possible. And even if you were graphing by timestamp it's possible. Each data series can have their own, separate X-axis values. No 'filling in' needed.


Microsoft Excel won't let me have more than one x-axis with two different data series. So, I had to use the aforementioned approach to combine the two data series.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

For future reference:

right click graph and choose 'Source data', or select graph then under Chart menu select 'Source data'.

Then on the 'series' tab, use 'Add' button. Use the three blank range selectors to the right to select the data set (title, X values, and Y values) to add to graph. Done.

Or select graph, then under Chart menu select 'Add Data...' and select data range to add just like you were creating a new graph.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> For future reference:
> 
> right click graph and choose 'Source data', or select graph then under Chart menu select 'Source data'.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tips. I tried the first two methods before my last post. When you add a new data series, the 'Category (x) axis labels' option at the bottom allows you to select the x-axis labels. However, it changes the x-axis labels for all data series to the current selection. That's probably why Microsoft seperated the 'Category (x) axis labels' option with a dividing line at the bottom (see below). Otherwise, they would have put that option together with the 'Name' and 'Values' options above. At any rate, I know it can be done in Microsoft Access using SQL, but I didn't want to get into that here.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

what chart type are you using? try scatter with straight lines type.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> what chart type are you using? try scatter with straight lines type.


That works perfect. Scatter FTW!


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Can't go wrong with the SEM :thumbup: and sorry of you've answered this already, but what SMIC did you end up going with?


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

:thumbup: Sorry, I forgot to mention chart type, since I never use anything else for line graphs.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> Can't go wrong with the SEM :thumbup: and sorry of you've answered this already, but what SMIC did you end up going with?


Ebay SMIC that is same as stock IC except 4 inches deep (versus 3 inches for stock). You can get a 5 inch deep version, but that's too deep IMO for the small space in front of the passenger-side wheel well.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/17087126290...iewitem=&sspagename=ADME:L:OC:US:3160&vxp=mtr


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> :thumbup: Sorry, I forgot to mention chart type, since I never use anything else for line graphs.


:thumbup: I'm going to use that. Forget the 'Line Chart' type I've been using all this time. No more filling in empty data.


----------



## [email protected] Motorsports (Sep 24, 2013)

:thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> I think you are addressing my post. If so, yes the engine audibly knocks (pings) upon hard acceleration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How did you calc the overlay rpms against the comp map chart?

thx


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> How did you calc the overlay rpms against the comp map chart?
> 
> thx


The RPM lines represent the amount of air a particular engine requires at different engine speeds and pressure ratios. These are calculated based on engine displacement, engine speed, pressure etc. and then converted into lbs/min, kg/sec, m^3/hr or whatever you want. The model assumes a constant volumetric efficiency across the operating range of the engine. I usually plot all maps using 100% VE. However, I can easily modify the model to include different volumentric efficiency 'profiles' for different engine. That would work well for NA engines. However, in a turbocharged application, the volumetric efficiency of the engine is mostly determined by the efficiency range of the turbocharger, provided the engine has reasonably good flow throughout it's operating range.










The numbers along each engine speed line (circled in red above) represent the amount of air required by the engine at a given engine speed and pressure ratio. This can be viewed as the amount of air 'demanded' by the system. Whereas the compressor map represents the amount of air 'supplied' to the system. Hence, the compressor maps with the RPM lines can be viewed as a supply and demand graph. A usuable operating point on the map is established where these two intersect.

The maps are useful for helping match a turbocharger to a particular engine's operating parameters and are meant as a general guideline. It is important to note that compressor maps are always adjusted to ambient temperature and pressure. Things like intercooler efficiency, length of intercooler piping, use of W/M etc. will effect results. I can always write those into the model at some future point.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> The RPM lines represent the amount of air a particular engine requires at different engine speeds and pressure ratios. These are calculated based on engine displacement, engine speed, pressure etc. and then converted into lbs/min, kg/sec, m^3/hr or whatever you want. The model assumes a constant volumetric efficiency across the operating range of the engine. I usually plot all maps using 100% VE. However, I can easily modify the model to include different volumentric efficiency 'profiles' for different engine. That would work well for NA engines. However, in a turbocharged application, the volumetric efficiency of the engine is mostly determined by the efficiency range of the turbocharger, provided the engine has reasonably good flow throughout it's operating range.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is your model for the 1781cc 5v motor, and could it be accomodated for larger displacements? for example 83mm bore std crank, and the common 2008cc stroker setup?

:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> Is your model for the 1781cc 5v motor, and could it be accomodated for larger displacements? for example 83mm bore std crank, and the common 2008cc stroker setup?
> 
> :thumbup:


Yes. Any displacement. Check out the last page of this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...what-you-think/page9&highlight=compressor+map

The first 8 pages of same thread cover mostly the 1.8T at different displacements: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ll-me-what-you-think&highlight=compressor+map

If you want to look at a specific setup not covered in that thread, just PM me with the details or post in the thread and I will be happy to take a look at it.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Yes. Any displacement. Check out the last page of this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...what-you-think/page9&highlight=compressor+map
> 
> The first 8 pages of same thread cover mostly the 1.8T at different displacements: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ll-me-what-you-think&highlight=compressor+map
> 
> If you want to look at a specific setup not covered in that thread, just PM me with the details or post in the thread and I will be happy to take a look at it.


great read
you're a legend

many thanks
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> great read
> you're a legend
> 
> many thanks
> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


Thanks for the interest. I'll have to update some of the broken links in that thread.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

UPDATE: I just ordered Genesis II 1200cc/min injectors today. They are more affordable than the Injector Dynamics ID1300s I wanted to buy. Both are made with stainless steel internals and are specifically designed for alternative fuels.

http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_44_287&products_id=1926










They are bascially the same as the ID1300s except that the G2_1200s have a dual spray pattern ('double fogger') which directly target intake valves on multivalve heads. GTS (Gonzo Tuning) will provide a switchable E85/Race Gas/Pump Gas program(s) for use with these injectors.

http://tunedbygts.com/software/volkswagen/golf-jetta/mk4/18t-awp/bt-18t










The goal is 375 WHP on Pump Gas, 400+ WHP on Race Gas and 495 WHP on E85 without any loss of spool that I currently enjoy with my Unitronics 630 BT software. We will start out at 3 bar base fuel pressure and increase up to 4 or 5 bar as necessary. My Aeromotive 340 "double-pumper" intank should easily be able to support those flow rates.

The G2_1200s will flow:

1200cc/min at 3 bar
1385cc/min at 4 bar
1549cc/min at 5 bar


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I would recommend 4bar.

Your right at the limit of the pump assuming 30psi manifold pressure. You will only need 300lph if i calculated correctly.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> *I would recommend 4bar.*
> 
> Your right at the limit of the pump assuming 30psi manifold pressure. You will only need 300lph if i calculated correctly.


Thanks. I agree with 4 bar. However, Gonzo wants to start out at 3 bar and bump up as needed. IIRC I will need 280 lph based on the following formula from page 7 of this thread:



Page 7 of this thread said:


> (HP X BSFC)/weight of fuel/gal = gph x liters/gal
> 
> How many lph do I need to make 570 HP (475 x 1.20) on E85?
> 
> ...


Since I have two Aeromotive 340 pumps intank (each with its own fuel filter and each running directily to the fuel rail and each with -6AN fuel injection hose), I should *theoretically* be able to double the fuel flow of a single pump.










According to the chart above, a single Aeromotive 340 pump can deliver 200lph at 90psi (4 bar base fuel pressure + 2 bar boost). So, a double pumper setup as described above should be able to supply +/- 400 lph at 90psi.

The Aeromotive 340 double-pumper intank will also have to supply my NOS Launcher Progressive Controller which is already installed in the car (Bill Schimmel) for a 50 HP to 250 HP shot up top. Actually I haven't told Gonzo this yet.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

mainstayinc said:


> The Aeromotive 340 double-pumper intank will also have to supply my NOS Launcher Progressive Controller which is already installed in the car (Bill Schimmel) for a 50 HP to 250 HP shot up top. Actually I haven't told Gonzo this yet.


I can already hear **** breaking lol


I didnt read previously, so my fault.

I calculated around 280ish, but you always need a little room for error of course

My reasoning for not using the 5bar is just a ton of rail pressure.


----------



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

mainstayinc said:


> The Aeromotive 340 double-pumper intank will also have to supply my NOS Launcher Progressive Controller which is already installed in the car (Bill Schimmel) for a 50 HP to 250 HP shot up top. Actually I haven't told Gonzo this yet.


Not sure how E85 + NOS will pan out. You will need enough fuel to flood a raft


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Not sure how E85 + NOS will pan out. You will need enough fuel to flood a raft


Yeah. I know. I can alway do the nitrous shot on either pump gas or race gas. That should cut down on the demand for fuel flow. Although I think NOS on E85 will be safer since E85 will tend to supress knock.

As far as things breaking, I will probably ramp the nitrous shot above 5000 RPMs. That should put less stress on the drivetrain. Also, I have a built transmission.

Earlier this year, I had some extensive exchanges with Trevor in Doncaster, England (Wizards of NOS) about the NOS system. I will be using his 350 HP Pulsoid X-10 solenoid and 5mm nylon nitrous lines. The 1/4 NPT fuel rail bung I mentioned earlier in this thread will supply the fuel.

http://www.noswizard.com/nitrous-control/nitrous-solenoids/x-10-nitrous-solenoid-350-bhp.html

You might be surprised to learn that nitrous is not the primary reason I purchased the nitrous controller. I'll get more into that once I have the system up and running.

EDIT: Original video that got me thinking about nitrous:


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

mainstayinc said:


> EDIT: Original video that got me thinking about nitrous:


are you sure it wasn't this one?:laugh:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> are you sure it wasn't this one?:laugh:


Ha ha. I never saw that movie but that's the idea. BTW, here is my arming switch which activates the nitrous controller ('GAS' dash button on left closest to steering wheel) taken from a European MK4 converted to natural gas.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Not sure how E85 + NOS will pan out. You will need enough fuel to flood a raft


The Genesis II 1200cc injectors arrived today! Time to get my Gonzo tune.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Just ordered my switchable E85/Pump Gas tune for the G2_1200s (MAF sensor) from Gonzo - GTS Tuning with remote flashing cable! I hope it's as good as his 1000cc MAFless tune!










EDIT: Closest E85 service station: Allentown Service Plaza










E-85 and Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuel available.


----------



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

:thumbup::thumbup: :wave:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> The comments for your order are:
> 
> *Shipping tomorrow!*


:thumbup:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)




----------



## PernellGTI (Jan 1, 2010)

Well, I got some $$$ to spend and I can finally buy a Garrett turbo again, I will ditch the 5556 just because I don't want to face any problems in the future (in case anything happens to it). Now, I just can't seem to decide if I want to go back to a GT3071R or if I should go with the GTX2867R. I read the whole thing just to get clues on spool vs max power out of the gt3071 and the gtx2867 based on other users and it kinda looks like after all the gtx2867 is not all that great? 

love the gt3071 top end, love the gt2871 spool, the gtx2867 seems like a good option that falls in between but I don't want to be disappointed.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

PernellGTI said:


> Well, I got some $$$ to spend and I can finally buy a Garrett turbo again, I will ditch the 5556 just because I don't want to face any problems in the future (in case anything happens to it). Now, I just can't seem to decide if I want to go back to a GT3071R or if I should go with the GTX2867R. I read the whole thing just to get clues on spool vs max power out of the gt3071 and the gtx2867 based on other users and it kinda looks like after all the gtx2867 is not all that great?
> 
> love the gt3071 top end, love the gt2871 spool, the gtx2867 seems like a good option that falls in between but I don't want to be disappointed.


so far i don't think anyone that actually owns one and drives it all the time has been disappointed (at least not anyone on here)


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

I know I am certainly not disappointed! stock motor and 15psi right now on my b5 a4 1.8tqm.. soo smooth and fun. 

Stock rods for now so spool is limited by Stock TB/Intake and keeping timing at a minimum. Eurodyne with my personal 630 settings drives better than the apr stg3 tune I had


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

What does a Gonzo Tune + Genesis II 1200cc injectors + 4 bar MAP sensor get you?

THIS:









Below I re-posted the same graph with vertical lines indicating the engine speed at which I reach 20psi. All of these were on 2067cc displacement and GTX2867R. For my original setup, which consisted Unitronics 630 BT file and stock intake manifold, I reached 20psi at 3,445 RPMs. Replacing the stock manifold for the SEM manifold netted me an additional 150 RPMs at 20psi (3,300 RPMs). Replacing the 630cc injectors, stock MAP sensor and Unitronics file with Genesis II 1200cc injectors, Gonzo Tune and 4 bar map sensor netted me an additional 800 RPMs! I really didn't expect this result. This is with the Gonzo Tune Gonzo sent me out of the box without any revisions.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

John, that's awesome - thanks for doing your usual and posting up useful data and graphs :beer:


----------



## Pisko (Jan 14, 2006)

mainstayinc said:


> Just ordered my switchable E85/Pump Gas tune for the G2_1200s (MAF sensor) from Gonzo - GTS Tuning with remote flashing cable! I hope it's as good as his 1000cc MAFless tune!


Do you have the part number for the 4 bar map sensor?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

gitman said:


> so far i don't think anyone that actually owns one and drives it all the time has been disappointed (at least not anyone on here)


the hype is'nt matched by the performance.
GT3071 spool without the overall top end power..

why?


We turned up a GTX2867 for s customer to 30psi as he wanted it run hard, and it did make 415bhp and close to 400lbft torque when leaned on.. But by feck temps are all very warm when running them hard to force the airflow.

Not my preference for tuning personally.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I've been on the 4 bar map for a month. 

It's the cats arse.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> John, that's awesome - thanks for doing your usual and posting up useful data and graphs :beer:


:thumbup:

EDIT: Gonzo Tune super smooth BTW.


----------



## [email protected] Motorsports (Sep 24, 2013)

That's pretty impressive :thumbup:


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

looks like I need bigger injectors:facepalm:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> What does a Gonzo Tune + Genesis II 1200cc injectors + 4 bar MAP sensor get you?
> 
> THIS:
> 
> ...




Boost build by design/map or creep?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> Boost build by design/map or creep?


Boost is super smooth with GTS Tune. No surging, no creeping that I'm aware of. Builds same as UNI 630 tune from 1300 to 1800 RPMs even though running slightly rich ATM. But then very strong above 2000 RPMs. N75 deleted. MBC about 3/4 closed.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Wow - that's pretty sweet!


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


> Boost is super smooth with GTS Tune. No surging, no creeping that I'm aware of. Builds same as UNI 630 tune from 1300 to 1800 RPMs even though running slightly rich ATM. But then very strong above 2000 RPMs. N75 deleted. MBC about 3/4 closed.


What style mbc? bleed or ball n seat? And was the mbc used on the 630 runs? If not, do you N75 duty data for those runs?

Impressive to say the least.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Check the cam timing before / after.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> What style mbc? bleed or ball n seat? And was the mbc used on the 630 runs? If not, do you N75 duty data for those runs?
> 
> Impressive to say the least.


Not sure which type MBC. But it's the 'better' type that stays closed and hold boost. The same MBC with the same setting  was used on the UNI 630 runs.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Hey John.

I'm in Langhorn for work, not too far from you. If I get a day off, can I check out the car?


----------



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

[email protected] said:


> Check the cam timing before / after.


 VVT is doesn't make THAT big of a difference. Something's off


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> VVT is doesn't make THAT big of a difference. Something's off


I'll have to go back and check. I'll repost if necessary.

EDIT: Scaling for 4 bar MAP is different than for stock.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Very different


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Boost is super smooth with GTS Tune. No surging, no creeping that I'm aware of. Builds same as UNI 630 tune from 1300 to 1800 RPMs even though running slightly rich ATM. But then very strong above 2000 RPMs. N75 deleted. MBC about 3/4 closed.


MBC creep... ?


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

badger5 said:


> the hype is'nt matched by the performance.
> GT3071 spool without the overall top end power..
> 
> why?
> ...


What about the hybrids you run the piss out of? Seems like a bit of a hypocrite statement


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> What about the hybrids you run the piss out of? Seems like a bit of a hypocrite statement


:laugh:


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

will you be posting updated graphs using the correct scaling?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> will you be posting updated graphs using the correct scaling?


I want to get the GTS tune dialed in before I post any new graphs. I did send Gonzo a 3rd gear WOT log and he said it was only boosting to 24psi. The graph that I posted was for a 5th gear WOT pull. Even with higher load in 5th gear, the data isn't accurate.

EDIT: Also, I wasn't reading from the right data column. So, scrap those results for now until I can post accurate data.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Dave926 said:


> What about the hybrids you run the piss out of? Seems like a bit of a hypocrite statement


run the piss out of what?
wtf are you on about

You confused or something because you make no fcuking sense


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

badger5 said:


> run the piss out of what?
> wtf are you on about
> 
> You confused or something because you make no fcuking sense



http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4976896-K04-hybrid-vs-K04-dyno-logs-to-review

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6998937-frankenturbo-vs-gt2860r-DBB&p=85878076#post85878076 Post 14

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6861128-Hybrid-Turbo-(the-Madmax-way)-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt/page9 Post 312.


Dont even tell me intake temps, EGT, or anything else was even close to what a hybrid does with that GTX at 30psi.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

I dont know the most on the subject but I bet a GTX flows a touch better than a K04 (temps wise)... and is actually designed for high boost, unlike a small frame JB turbo...


----------



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

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I dont know the most on the subject but I bet a GTX flows a touch better than a K04 (temps wise)... and is actually designed for high boost, unlike a small frame JB turbo...


:thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Dave926 said:


> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4976896-K04-hybrid-vs-K04-dyno-logs-to-review
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6998937-frankenturbo-vs-gt2860r-DBB&p=85878076#post85878076 Post 14
> 
> ...




You pull a plot post from 4 years ago?? LMAO....

Things progress and hardware is VERY specific to the outcome. What was possible in 2010, is long since suppased in 2014... Hence me knowing fact from fiction from using both and many other turbo installs..

I have all my data on aits, egts........ and the current hybrids are in a much better place than anything back in 2010 with decent supporting mods.

Data posted on the other thread links says it all.. and your point is What Exactly?? :screwy:

:wave:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I dont know the most on the subject but I bet a GTX flows a touch better than a K04 (temps wise)... and is actually designed for high boost, unlike a small frame JB turbo...


Indeed it is..

Mutant taking the pi$$ out of the hybrid on a stroker 400+bhp figure aside, the more realistic hybrid is running at realistic for a k04 hybrid level, with egts in high 800's measured in stock position.

Turning up the GTX's is where they perform better of course, BUT with more boost comes more heat and thats the enemy ad a balance has to be struck not just going for all out power... Turn it up to 11 and expect it to have a shorter life.

I did turn up a GTX2867 for a customer who was chasing number after being mis-sold his setuo by another tuner promising him 450bhp, and he ended up swapping his GT3071 for the GTX and lost significant power, boost for boost.. 30+psi it did go over 400bhp to about 415bhp I think, and torque also into the 400lbft region but it did'nt half get hot..

Choices/Decisions..


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> will you be posting updated graphs using the correct scaling?


Below is an overlay of several boost versus RPM logs comparing my original UNI tune with my new setup (Gonzo Tune + Genesis II 1200cc injectors + 4 bar MAP sensor). These are all 5th gear highway pulls. 

The YELLOW line shows the UNI tune with my 2.5in exhaust cutout OPEN from last summer. As you can see, UNI limited my max boost to 17psi.

The LIGHT BLUE line shows my best pull with the UNI tune earlier this spring with SEM IM and R32 TB installed and exhaust cutout CLOSED (restrictive stock exhaust system). Maximum boost of 22psi was reached around 3700 RPMs with stock MAP sensor.

For comparison, the DARK RED line shows my GTS tune with 1200cc injectors and 4 bar MAP sensor with exhaust cutout CLOSED.

Finally, the DARK BLUE line shows my GTS tune as above but with exhaust cutout OPEN. As you can see, my GTS tune with 4 bar MAP sensor really likes this combination with peak boost of about 30psi around 3500 RPMs. This is with crappy Ebay 'upgraded' sidemount intercooler and no chemical intercooling.










Here is unapologetic plug for QTP Quick Time Performance exhaust cutouts: http://www.quicktimeperformance.com/










Below is an overlay of several boost versus RPM logs I did recently showing improvements with the last three revisions Gonzo sent me. These are with the exhaust cutout OPEN. Also shown on the graph are Engine Speeds at which stock limit of 22psi is reached.










Finally, this is how my new setup compares to stock (taken from FAQ):










With E85, I expect boost versus RPM numbers to improve.

EDIT: This is how my new setup compares to KO3 Stage 2 and KO4 Stage 2 with 2.5in cat back exhaust systems:


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

just went back to the last page to review again. these might be dumb questions...

if you're not using the N75, then what benefit do you get from the 4 bar MAP?

why is there such a disparity in boost levels when you open up the cutout? i guess what confuses me most about this is when the cutout is closed - why does it flatline at 22 psi? if the MBC is allowing 30 psi, why is there no increase past 22 psi once you get in the higher RPM's (with the cutout closed)? seems i'm maybe not fully grasping the effect of the cutout here.

btw do you have a sound clip of that thing closed and then open?


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

He runs a stock exhaust gitman. I have a local customer that does the same thing; difference in spool is nearly 1000rpm.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Dave926 said:


> He runs a stock exhaust gitman. I have a local customer that does the same thing; difference in spool is nearly 1000rpm.


Quoting this for truth!

Gitman, ever read the endless internet arguments about the best exhaust for a turbo car? Well, the camp that swears that 'no exhaust is the best exhaust' is correct. Besides what is shown here, and what Dave witnessed with his customer, I picked up 3-4 psi of boost (no other changes) by switching from a 3" straight through catback with dual tip, to a custom 3" catback with the same straight through... but with a single tip outlet. Eliminating the unnecessary bends associated with making the factory-like dual exhaust tip netted the gains. 

Simply put, don't overlook restrictions in the exhaust system. I see people say 2.5" is good enough for X power goals. This is one of the biggest misconceptions floating around. The gains are there to be had at any power level, stock snail or the fire-breathing screamer.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> just went back to the last page to review again. these might be dumb questions...
> 
> if you're not using the N75, then what benefit do you get from the 4 bar MAP?
> 
> ...


I have no idea why there is such a disparity in boost levels with the exhaust cutout open versus closed. My poor intercooling ('upgraded' ebay sidemount) definately is not helping boost when the exhaust cutout it closed. That is probably why the tune is limiting boost to 22psi (I will be adding chemical intercooling to this setup soon). The real question is why I am able to boost to 30psi with the same poor intercooling but with exhaust cutout open. As far as a sound clip, I will try to post something here. The sound is very very nasty with exhaust cutout fully open and WOT.

EDIT: Chemical intecooling will allow me to increase boost with exhaust cutout closed.


----------



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

I think its just exhaust backpressure limiting boost. Not the tune at all.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

[email protected] Performance said:


> I think its just exhaust backpressure limiting boost. Not the tune at all.


agreed. I experience the same thng on my stock cat-back with my 3" cutout closed. Self-made ebc controlling boost.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] Performance said:


> its just exhaust backpressure limiting boost


:thumbup:


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

thanks guys. I am still trying to understand the relationship of the boost flat-line to the linearly increasing RPM then.... does it mean that his turbo flowing at 22 psi is all the flow that the stock exhaust can handle? what happens as that back-pressure increases as the RPM's go up? is the WG cracked open to bleed that off? does less back-pressure equate to an increased WG cracking pressure?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> I think its just exhaust backpressure limiting boost. Not the tune at all.


That makes sense. Turbine wheel and compressor wheel are connected by a shaft :banghead: (duh). The more freely turbine wheel spins, the more the compressor wheel can produce boost pressure. Tune has nothing to do with boost limit in this case.

BTW here is a graph overlaying a boost versus RPM log (with exhaust cutout open) and the intake temperature. Not sure if this is good for a sidemount intercooler.










*Gonzo: How do I switch tune to run E85?* Is it the same process as described on the 'Help' tab of your remote tuning software (press brake and throttle pedals for 3 seconds?) How many engine blinks for E85 and for regular pump gas? Please advise as I am anxious to experiment with the alcohol.

E85 can tolerate 265 F before knock limit (thanks, Marcus, for the timely info!). That should work quite well in my setup with poor intercooling.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Does your boost actually taper off like that?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

gitman said:


> thanks guys. I am still trying to understand the relationship of the boost flat-line to the linearly increasing RPM then.... does it mean that his turbo flowing at 22 psi is all the flow that the stock exhaust can handle? what happens as that back-pressure increases as the RPM's go up? *is the WG cracked open to bleed that off?* does less back-pressure equate to an increased WG cracking pressure?


My external wastegate is slammed shut by my MBC as far as I can tell during boost. The only thing that can crack wastegate open is a gear shift. Since I deleted N75, it doesn't interfere with what turbo wants to do. I think you are right about stock exhaust. 22 psi is all the flow that stock exhaust can handle.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> Does your boost actually taper off like that?


I don't have a boost gauge so I can say for sure. However, VCDS log should be close to what a boost gauge reads. I can tell you that at 3000 RPMs, tune appears to be retarding timing to control onset of boost. If I continue to push it, I get a blinking check engine light.

EDIT: You can see in this log (YELLOW line) that the tune recovers and wants to continue past 30psi before I let off throttle. Revision 3 was running much richer with G2 1200's. Also, I know from compressor map on 2.1L displacement that the GTX2867R wont reach its highest efficiency (center island) until about 4800RPMs. I still have efficiency past 6500 RPMs before it starts to taper off (past 58% efficiency). So, I am nowhere near maxed out with this turbo.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

gitman said:


> thanks guys. I am still trying to understand the relationship of the boost flat-line to the linearly increasing RPM then.... does it mean that his turbo flowing at 22 psi is all the flow that the stock exhaust can handle?


Yep, it's as simple as that, backpressure is the big evil that should be avoided at all cost. That 22 psi is all the turbo is able to achieve due to the choke fest that the factory exhaust system created. The more restriction is relieved (cutout in this case), the more freely the turbo is allowed to operate, and the more boost can be generated.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

:thumbup: now, i wonder how much of a difference the cutout would make on, say, a full 3" exhaust. incorporate on each additional component one at a time to see how much of an impact they make individually, with and without the cutout (ie. muffler, resonator, hi-flow cat). it would be interesting to see the numbers on that if someone had the time/money/patience.

another hypothetical - if it were N75-controlled, would the ECU have a problem with the difference of requested 30psi to the actual 22psi with the cutout closed?


----------



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

mainstayinc said:


> I don't have a boost gauge so I can say for sure. However, VCDS log should be close to what a boost gauge reads. I can tell you that at 3000 RPMs, tune appears to be retarding timing to control onset of boost. If I continue to push it, I get a blinking check engine light.


Lol, no that's a misfire, man. Get that checked out


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

gitman said:


> thanks guys. I am still trying to understand the relationship of the boost flat-line to the linearly increasing RPM then.... does it mean that his turbo flowing at 22 psi is all the flow that the stock exhaust can handle? what happens as that back-pressure increases as the RPM's go up? is the WG cracked open to bleed that off? does less back-pressure equate to an increased WG cracking pressure?


The pressure in the exhaust stream will try to equalize around the turbine wheel. Even with a short exhaust, you are still above atmospheric pressure. If you have20 psi boost pressure, 20 psi drive pressure (pressure prior to turbine), and 10 psi exhaust pressure, you can extract more work across the turbine wheel, up to the point where exhaust pressure equals drive pressure.

But if you have 20 psi exhaust pressure, 20 psi drive pressure, and are trying to achieve 30 psi boost pressure, you can not get more work from the exhaust and the turbo cannot spin faster. Manifold pressure cannot be under exhaust pressure and still spin the turbine the proper direction.

If you find yourself in this situation, the boost controller will slam the Wastegate closed, trying to extract more work than the exhaust pressure differential can produce. This raises exhaust manifold pressure higher. Again, equilibrium will be reached, but at a higher turbine rpm and lower turbine efficiency (higher egts)

A real world example is chipped k03 cars. The turbo is able to produce 20psi on a stock exhaust up to 4.5k rpm. Then exhaust pressure matches drive pressure and as rpm increase (also with the help of compressor and turbine choke) boost pressure drops to 15psi at redline. If you look at turbine speed, it's screaming, having all the exhaust gas passing through the turbine and none being discharged , trying to squeeze out every ounce of boost.

An anecdote: I have a Buddy with a sr20 200sx and gt2871. He has a 3" exhaust with verax muffler (built in cutout), greedy ebc and Jim wolf tune. With the cutout open, he can get 24 psi easily. With it closed, the turbo cannot produce more than 17 psi.

Diesel trucks used to use this principle back in the day. They would use a large turbine housing and no wastegate. Due to exhaust restriction, they were set to a predetermined boost pressure. To increase boost, you would open the exhaust. Modern diesels use the same principle with vgt instead of a wastegate.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

that clarifies everything, thanks


----------



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

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> Modern diesels use the same principle with vgt instead of a wastegate.


Well to clear it up, its the "A/R" of the hotside that controls boost pressure. The bigger the A/R, the less boost you get.
VGT/VNT just changes the "A/R" on the fly. Not the pressure after the turbine.

Everything else you said should be sound, though.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

gitman said:


> that clarifies everything, thanks


 :thumbup::thumbup:

And all one need to remember with exhaust systems in a turbocharged application is what C. Bell gave as an absolute rule in 'Maximum Boost':


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Well to clear it up, its the "A/R" of the hotside that controls boost pressure. The bigger the A/R, the less boost you get.
> VGT/VNT just changes the "A/R" on the fly. Not the pressure after the turbine.
> 
> Everything else you said should be sound, though.


Edit: you're correct...there's this diagram that has stuck in my head for years that made me think that. My bad :thumbup:


----------



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

How would you change the size of the turbine?

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to see how you think that's possible.


----------



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

Wikipedia said:


> Variable-geometry turbochargers (VGTs), (also known as variable nozzle turbines/VNTs), are a family of turbochargers, usually designed to allow the effective aspect ratio (A:R) of the turbo to be altered as conditions change. This is done because optimum aspect ratio at low engine speeds is very different from that at high engine speeds. If the aspect ratio is too large, the turbo will fail to create boost at low speeds; if the aspect ratio is too small, the turbo will choke the engine at high speeds, leading to high exhaust manifold pressures, high pumping losses, and ultimately lower power output. By altering the geometry of the turbine housing as the engine accelerates, the turbo's aspect ratio can be maintained at its optimum. Because of this, VGTs have a minimal amount of lag, have a low boost threshold, and are very efficient at higher engine speeds. VGTs do not require a wastegate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, the last time I read up on VATN was 10 years ago. The cutaway of the vanes look almost as if they extend the turbine blades, and thinking about it makes me feel like an idiot ha, it's impossible, carry on!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> Does your boost actually taper off like that?


Your question got me thinking about where exactly I am on the compressor map. Below is the same graph I posted earlier (actual boost and intake temperature), but with the addition of corrected boost, which was calculated by adjusting actual boost to ambient temperature (20 C or 68 F) using Amontons' Law of Pressure-Temperature.

The calcuation is as follows:










Where P1 is Actual boost, T1 is intake temperature in degrees Kelvin (degrees C + 273.15) and T2 is ambient temperature in degrees Kelvin (20 + 273.15 = 293.15). Solving for P2 will give you corrected boost.










As you can see, maximum corrected boost is about 24psi at around 3200 RPMs. Adjusting for corrected boost is the same as running a theoretical intercooler with 100% efficiency. It is important because actual boost pressure is effected by heat and does not necessarily reflect the amount of air entering into the engine. In my case, I am able to produce the equivalent of 24psi of cool, dense air charge at 3200 RPMs. On a smaller, hotter running turbo such as stock frame or hybrid, one may be able to run 30psi. However, corrected boost may be quite different.

Ajdusting for corrected boost allows one to plot data points on a compressor map, which is adjusted to ambient temperature and pressure. Here is the result:










As you can see, I am well right of the surge line on boost onset. Maximum boost peaks at 3200 RPMs and then tapers to 22psi (P2/P1=2.5). Following the vertical line from that point to the x-axis reads 30 lbs per minute corrected air flow or about 300 HP (260 WHP). At 4000 RPMs and 22psi, I have another 800 RPMs before I reach the maximum efficiency of the compressor (center line). After that, I have another 2000 RPMs of usable air flow before I reach the choke line.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Doesn't plotting your "effective" 24/22psi nullify the original efficiency islands? Assuming you're at sea level and have zero pressure drop between the turbo outlet and IM, you're compressing nearly 30psig (P2/P1=3) @ 3500rpms. With that PR at that engine speed/airflow, according to Garrett's published compressor map, the turbo is spinning X rpm and has Y efficiency. Moving your plots down on the same map by calculating this effective pressure assumes that the turbo is spinning slower than it actually is. This makes sense because the same turbo on the same engine at the same engine speed/load making 24psig is spinning slower than the other at 30psig. You therefore cannot say that "it's at peak efficiency here and chokes there" from your calculations based on the published map.

Your turbo IS pumping all of that pressure - don't short change it! Scientifically, you're calculations are sound in that "my turbo in its current state performs as if it's only making 24psi on a 100% efficient intercooler system". You are very good at calculating things and have definitely contributed a lot of excellent information. I just wanted to point this out.

-Derek


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> Doesn't plotting your "effective" 24/22psi nullify the original efficiency islands? Assuming you're at sea level and have zero pressure drop between the turbo outlet and IM, you're compressing nearly 30psig (P2/P1=3) @ 3500rpms. With that PR at that engine speed/airflow, according to Garrett's published compressor map, the turbo is spinning X rpm and has Y efficiency. Moving your plots down on the same map by calculating this effective pressure assumes that the turbo is spinning slower than it actually is. This makes sense because the same turbo on the same engine at the same engine speed/load making 24psig is spinning slower than the other at 30psig. You therefore cannot say that "it's at peak efficiency here and chokes there" from your calculations based on the published map.
> 
> Your turbo IS pumping all of that pressure - don't short change it! Scientifically, you're calculations are sound in that "my turbo in its current state performs as if it's only making 24psi on a 100% efficient intercooler system". You are very good at calculating things and have definitely contributed a lot of excellent information. I just wanted to point this out.
> 
> -Derek


You raise some very good points. I've read differing points of view about plotting points on a compressor map. Some people correct to ambient temperature and others don't. All of the maps I posted in this forum up until now do not use corrected values. In the example above, the original 30psi actual boost curve and the 24psi corrected boost curve produce the same amount of corrected air flow (same mass of air/oxygen). So, they are identical in terms of power output. However, they are different in terms of vertical placement on the compressor map. Maybe others can chime in with their opinions.


----------



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

Producing the same amount of corrected air flow doesn't mean the turbo isn't working harder to produce said air flow. Loss of efficiency means the turbo is spinning faster. My 2 cents anyways.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Producing the same amount of corrected air flow doesn't mean the turbo isn't working harder to produce said air flow. Loss of efficiency means the turbo is spinning faster. My 2 cents anyways.


True. If you had two identical setups producing the same amount of boost at the same compressor outlet temperature, but one had a really efficient intercooler and the other had a crappy ebay sidemount, the manifold inlet temperatures and boost pressures would be different. The turbos are working the same in both cases.


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

I can't wait to get mine in and running!!!!!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ryan mills said:


> I can't wait to get mine in and running!!!!!


Nice! Make sure you have a free-flowing exhaust!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought I would post a few comparisons to the F21. Remember, I'm on 2067cc's. Stock displacement will be a few hundred RPMs different. Here is a comparison of the boost vs RPM data originally posted in F21 thread.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5867307-Farewell-to-a-FrankenFriend-F4T-gt-F21T










Here is a comparison of the boost vs RPM data posted on page 6 of customer running Eurodyne's Maestro. I'm not sure what exhaust or other details of car. Remember, the RED curve for GTX2867R is with restrictive stock exhaust. I can vary boost anywhere between the RED and BLUE boost curve by adjusting the exhaust cutout.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...4T-gt-F21T&p=85490877&viewfull=1#post85490877


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Don't let Bill see this.....


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> Nice! Make sure you have a free-flowing exhaust!


Going from my transverse PPT set up to my Longitudinal PPT set up with the same exact hardware (aside from my APR FMIC and downpipe) and I can say without question, the same set up is much more responsive and spools faster on my a4 than it did on my gti. Granted there is a little more load, but it def. spools faster, sounds better, and feels better.:beer:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Dave926 said:


> Don't let Bill see this.....


lol

whats not described by those comparisons is applied load.
that makes a big difference to boost onsets on graphs when not the same between chosen comparisons

I've posted the 'exact' same loads... the facts of what I see are clear and already well mentioned - hehe


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> lol
> 
> whats not described by those comparisons is applied load.
> that makes a big difference to boost onsets on graphs when not the same between chosen comparisons
> ...


Not sure if applied load makes that much different between 4th and 5th gear. I've done a few logs in 4th gear and those are virtually the same as 5th gear, but not as smooth. Also, I've had the car with stock K03 and GT28R on stock displacement. The new combination definately spools faster and stronger than previous in all gears.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Not sure if applied load makes that much different between 4th and 5th gear. I've done a few logs in 4th gear and those are virtually the same as 5th gear, but not as smooth. Also, I've had the car with stock K03 and GT28R on stock displacement. The new combination definately spools faster and stronger than previous in all gears.


I am very sure applied load makes a difference.
I do it on my dyno.. It brings the torque boost plot to the left when running a higher load

so, as I said, examples without a datum of applied load will be skewed.
My dyno plots previously posted are same gear, same applied load, and are consistent. The onset reletive to each other is consistent, showing the relative spool characteristics.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> I am very sure applied load makes a difference.
> I do it on my dyno.. It brings the torque boost plot to the left when running a higher load
> 
> so, as I said, examples without a datum of applied load will be skewed.
> My dyno plots previously posted are same gear, same applied load, and are consistent. The onset reletive to each other is consistent, showing the relative spool characteristics.


Thanks. I don't doubt that your results are consistent. It's just hard to believe that the GTX2867R spools like a GT3071R as you have repeatedly stated. These turbos have completely different turbine housings (not to mention the fact that the GTX2867R has smaller, lighter compressor wheel and shaft). There is obviously something else that your not accounting for in your data that is giving you consistently poor results (restrictive exhaust, poor tune etc.). 7psi by 3400 RPMs is not consistent with what other people have reported in this thread.

You mention applied load. Below is a Boost V RPM graph I made a few weeks ago comparing a 4th gear versus 5th gear WOT highway pull and Actual Engine Load. As you can see, boost onset is virtually the same, with the 4th gear pull flatening out somewhat up top as compared to the 5th gear pull.

Actual Engine Load peaks a few hundred RPMs sooner for the 5th gear pull (LIGHT RED) but doesn't seem to effect boost onset.










BTW I had to unplug one of my Aeromotive 340 intank pumps because I kept on blowing my fuel pump relay (both pumps on same harness and relay). I even tried a higher amperage relay (70 Amps) but kept on getting the same result. Apparently, having two intank fuel pumps going into opposite ends of the fuel rail was causing my base fuel pressure to increase to 60psi even with a 3 bar FPR. I didn't realize this until I unplugged one of the fuel pumps and noticed base fuel pressure drop to 43.5psi.

So... the plan is to keep both pumps intank but only run one pump all the time with pump gas. I will wire an 'auxiliarly fuel pump' dash switch connected to a second relay on a second harness to the second intank fuel pump when I run E85. That should give me full control over my fueling.


----------



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

mainstayinc said:


> Thanks. I don't doubt that your results are consistent. It's just hard to believe that the GTX2867R spools like a GT3071R as you have repeatedly stated. These turbos have completely different turbine housings (not to mention the fact that the GTX2867R has smaller, lighter compressor wheel and shaft). There is obviously something else that your not accounting for in your data that is giving you consistently poor results (restrictive exhaust, poor tune etc.). 7psi by 3400 RPMs is not consistent with what other people have reported in this thread.


The NS111 is a much more efficient turbine than the GT30R turbine. In fact, it starts moving at very low airflow, making it spool quickly.

The only advantage to the GT30R turbine is that it flows more. The NS111 turbine is really at its limit with this compressor wheel.

With that said, a proper GTX2867R setup WILL spool faster than a GT3071R. No and's, if's, or but's. GTX3067R is a different story.



> *“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”*


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Just trigger the second fuel pump with a 10psi Hobbs switch. Set-and-forget.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> Just trigger the second fuel pump with a 10psi Hobbs switch. Set-and-forget.


Yeah. I totally thought about the hobbs switch. Then I realized that with the second pump on, base fuel pressure jumps to 60psi. So, once boost reaches the set point (i.e.: 10psi), the fueling would become much richer. That's why I am looking at an auxiliary fuel pump that can be switched on with E85 but off with pump gas. That would give me consistent base fuel pressure based on the program I am running (i.e.: pump or E85).


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> The NS111 is a much more efficient turbine than the GT30R turbine. In fact, it starts moving at very low airflow, making it spool quickly.
> 
> The only advantage to the GT30R turbine is that it flows more. The NS111 turbine is really at its limit with this compressor wheel.
> 
> With that said, a proper GTX2867R setup WILL spool faster than a GT3071R. No and's, if's, or but's. GTX3067R is a different story.


No doubt. That's why anything above a GTX2867R or GT2871R would not work (i.e.: GT2876R). Gonz, please send a reflash based on the trims I sent earlier this week. I can always re-send trims if you need them.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

I'd try and figure out why your base pressure is jumping with the second pump. You might juse need to run a larger return line. It just seems like it's getting unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> I'd try and figure out why your base pressure is jumping with the second pump. You might juse need to run a larger return line. It just seems like it's getting unnecessarily complicated.


Thanks. I am running a -6AN return line. I think that maybe I'm just getting too much flow from two pumps for the 3 bar FPR to handle. Not sure though. Both the supply and return lines are -6AN.

I can actually hear the fuel flowing through the fuel rail. It's loud. I actually thought that I had a vacuum leak somewhere near the intake manifild. I thought this would go away when I disconnected the second pump. However, it's just as loud with the single pump.

EDIT: BTW, the Aeromotive 340 turbine-style pump/s are completely silent intank. I cannot hear them running even with the rear seat cushion removed.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Dave926 said:


> Does your boost actually taper off like that?


It turns out that I was getting misfires from cylinders 1 and 2 as early as 3000 RPMs. Gonzo was right.



[email protected] Performance said:


> Lol, *no that's a misfire, man*. Get that checked out


That probably explains why the boost curve was tapering off and not the tune retarding timing. This is confirmed by the spark plugs which haven't been changed in 2 or 3 years. Here are my old NGK BKR7E's with cylinder 1 on the left and cylinder 4 on the right. Notice how the ground strap on cylinder 1 has been detonated away. I checked the gaps on the old plugs. They are as follows: 0.058, 0.045, 0.042 and 0.040" (originally gapped to 0.028"). The other problem is that all 4 plugs were loose when I removed them. Apparently, these were only hand-tightened when I did my 2.1L stroker kit and never torqued down property. They must have vibrated loose. That probably explains the oil and soot I found at the base of the spark plugs.










I replaced all the plugs with a new set of BKR7E's gapped to 0.025" and torqued them down to 22 ft lbs. Car seems to idle fine at this gap. I will do some new boost logs to see if this makes any difference.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Yikes!


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


> This is confirmed by the spark plugs which haven't been changed in 2 or 3 years. .



 I go thru spark plugs like candy.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Yikes!


Ha ha. I guess that also explains why the car wouldn't go past 4500 RPMs at high boost (>25psi). It was like hitting a brick wall :banghead:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Hope it's just those nasty plugs... simple fixes are nice.

Not sure where all that oil came from but I'd check you valve cover gasket and or the bolts holding the cover down.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> Hope it's just those nasty plugs... simple fixes are nice.
> 
> Not sure where all that oil came from but I'd check you valve cover gasket and or the bolts holding the cover down.


Yeah. I thought it was strange that there would be oil at the base of the spark plugs. I'll check valve cover gasket and bolts per your suggestion.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

do the spark plugs put pressure on the valve cover when tightened?


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

no, u can remove vc with plugs inplace


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> no, u can remove vc with plugs inplace


:thumbup:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Thanks. I don't doubt that your results are consistent. It's just hard to believe that the GTX2867R spools like a GT3071R as you have repeatedly stated. These turbos have completely different turbine housings (not to mention the fact that the GTX2867R has smaller, lighter compressor wheel and shaft). There is obviously something else that your not accounting for in your data that is giving you consistently poor results (restrictive exhaust, poor tune etc.). 7psi by 3400 RPMs is not consistent with what other people have reported in this thread.
> 
> You mention applied load. Below is a Boost V RPM graph I made a few weeks ago comparing a 4th gear versus 5th gear WOT highway pull and Actual Engine Load. As you can see, boost onset is virtually the same, with the 4th gear pull flatening out somewhat up top as compared to the 5th gear pull.
> 
> ...




I know.
It (they) have however done what they have done.
I just have'nt yet seen ANY GTX wheel'd turbo be it 28 framed or 30 spool faster than their regular cousins.. which on paper/other info just does'nt make sense.
They seem to need to be pumped up to high boost levels to make them work, but that brings its own temp issues.

I think there are better billet wheels than the 11 blade garrett has chosen.

Your fuel pumps in Series?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

badger5 said:


> I know.
> It (they) have however done what they have done.
> I just have'nt yet seen ANY GTX wheel'd turbo be it 28 framed or 30 spool faster than their regular cousins.. which on paper/other info just does'nt make sense.
> They seem to need to be pumped up to high boost levels to make them work, but that brings its own temp issues.
> ...


No. Fuel pumps run parallel with a seperate fuel filter for each pump and seperate -6 AN lines running directly to opposite ends of fuel rail. Currently, I have one pump unplugged which keeps my base fuel pressure at a steady 3 bars. The Genesis II 1200's idle much smoother at 3 bar on pump gas. I'll run both pumps when I switch to E85. Base fuel pressure will jump to 4 bar with both pumps engaged even with 3 bar FPR.

BTW I did some logs after I put a new set of BKR7E's (gapped to 0.025"). Boost vs RPM is about the same although I was able to get an extra 1 psi by 3000 RPMs (hitting 27 psi with exhaust valve open). However, that could have been due to cooler weather. Also, engine is not mis-firing up top but is still leveling out to ~30 psi. I think tune is only requesting 30 psi. Not sure.

EDIT: Below I added the most recent log with plugs changed ('Series 6' - Dark Red):


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

man this thing must be crazy at 25-30psi! I only took my on the gti up to 20 and now have the gtx on my b5 at 15psi...


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

13psi @ 2500rpm to 27psi @ 3000rpm - 500rpm for double the boost?! :thumbup::what:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

l88m22vette said:


> 13psi @ 2500rpm to 27psi @ 3000rpm - *500rpm for double the boost*?! :thumbup::what:


Yes!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> man this thing must be crazy at 25-30psi! I only took my on the gti up to 20 and now have the gtx on my b5 at 15psi...


I usually add some torco in there to increase my knock threshold. Works wonders.






EDIT: 15 psi on the B5? Are you limited by bottom end (rods, etc.)?


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

yeah stock blockin for now. Could turnit up to 18ish now that I know the curve in this car, but ive been playing it safe.

Dropping in rods over the winter along with a AEB head thats just sitting in storage lol


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> yeah stock blockin for now. Could turnit up to 18ish now that I know the curve in this car, but ive been playing it safe.
> 
> *Dropping in rods over the winter* along with a AEB head thats just sitting in storage lol


:thumbup:


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.revvedmag.com/features/sema-coverage/sema-2014-the-pressure-is-high-in-the-garrett-booth/

didnt know where else to put this but, it seems that the product range "gap" between the GTX28-3067 and the GTX3071 is soon going to be "closed" by the GTX2871 and 2971...

Both look promising but i think ill wait a little bit longer for my upgrade plans as soon as we see their first spool characteristics...


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I see a gtx2971r in my future


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

brwmogazos said:


> http://www.revvedmag.com/features/sema-coverage/sema-2014-the-pressure-is-high-in-the-garrett-booth/
> 
> didnt know where else to put this but, it seems that the product range "gap" between the GTX28-3067 and the GTX3071 is soon going to be "closed" by the GTX2871 and 2971...
> 
> Both look promising but i think ill wait a little bit longer for my upgrade plans as soon as we see their first spool characteristics...


From the press release:

*GTX2971R*

The 2971 indicates that the size of the charger is a 29 (no physical reference, it is just smaller than a 30 and bigger than a 28 series. The 71 represents the compressor wheel exducer. This is a huge key here because not all manufacturers identify the same part of the compressor wheel.










When Garrett designed this turbocharger, they focused on quick response. So, while the turbine wheel is a little smaller than a GT3071, *it has been optimized to flow more.* So, the charger gets on boost quicker but can handle more flow at the top end. As a result, the GTX2971R can flow enough air to support 360 to 640 horsepower and it is recommended for engines ranging from 1.8L to 3.0L.

*GTX2871R*










In addition to the GTX2971R, Garrett is releasing a slightly smaller GTX2871R that has most of the same features except in a slightly smaller package. The GTX2871 is available with a 0.63 A/R, 0.72 A/R and an 0.84 A/R. With these combinations, it can support 340 to 560 horsepower and is recommended for the same displacement engines as the GTX2971R.

So, the GTX2971R can flow more than the GTX3071R and spool sooner with a slightly smaller turbine wheel. The GTX2871R with the smaller GT28-series turbine wheel will be a quick spooler with about the same flow as the current GTX3071R. These are so tempting with my increased 2.1L displacement. Since I get better than stock response from my GTX2867R on 2.1L displacement, I can afford to tradeoff some low end torque for top end power (powah!). I would likely go with the GTX2871R (560 HP). If that's the case, look for me to sell the barely used GTX2867R for a good price. I would have to re-do my intake and probably (finally) re-build my valve head (i.e.: mild cams).

EDIT: I don't think I would lose much in terms of spool going with the GTX2871R since it has the same turbine wheel and only 3mm larger compressor exducer.

EDIT: The GTX2871R comes with a 0.63 A/R (smallest), so I would have to increase from 0.48 A/R which I currently have. I suppose I could retain the 0.48 A/R if I really wanted but would probably lose some top end. Alternatively, I could just go with the GTX2971R which is still smaller and flows more than the GT30-series exhaust wheel. But I'm so spoiled with the spoolup and power I get from my GTX2867R now...


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Vegeta Gti said:


> I see a gtx2971r in my future


i hope so, because the GT28 turbine is so dated. 
Great they've put the billet 71mm wheel on a gt28 turbine, then they publish 560hp figures, that aint going to happen when the turbo as a whole is inhibited by the ancient and tiny turbine wheel. 

There is also a new GTW range released at sema. dunno anything about sizes but they mentioned 3 sizes up to 950hp with ceramic bearings


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> From the press release:
> 
> *GTX2971R*
> 
> ...


awesome, this answers my doubts in my previous reply :thumbup:


----------



## NaSMK4 (Dec 12, 2011)

mainstayinc said:


> From the press release:
> 
> *GTX2971R*
> 
> ...


mother ****er... they would release some sick ass turbo's that i want ****ing sake... garret stop trying to TAKE MY MONEY!


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> Yeah. I totally thought about the hobbs switch. Then I realized that with the second pump on, base fuel pressure jumps to 60psi. So, once boost reaches the set point (i.e.: 10psi), the fueling would become much richer. That's why I am looking at an auxiliary fuel pump that can be switched on with E85 but off with pump gas. That would give me consistent base fuel pressure based on the program I am running (i.e.: pump or E85).


I am willing to bet money that the problem is your fuel pressure regulator can't handle the fuel from two of those 340lph pumps. I would look into that so you can run both pumps at the same time.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> I am willing to bet money that the problem is your fuel pressure regulator can't handle the fuel from two of those 340lph pumps. I would look into that so you can run both pumps at the same time.


Me too


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> I am willing to bet money that the problem is your fuel pressure regulator can't handle the fuel from two of those 340lph pumps. I would look into that so you can run both pumps at the same time.


I think you're right. I wonder if there is a 'higher flow' 3 bar FPR. 

BTW, I broke down earlier this week. I noticed a strong smell of gasoline as I drove to the store. When I parked the car, I started walking away, but stopped when I saw fuel streaming down to the ground. I popped the hood and noticed my (billet) fuel rail became completely unbolted on one side. Apparently, engine vibration completely loosened the one bolt. There was a lot of smoke under the hood from the fuel coming in contact with the hot engine block. One spark and I could have easily had an engine fire. Luckily, I had a 6mm allen wrench in the car and was able to re-seat the fuel rail and bolt it down tight.

I thought the ordeal was over. But when I attempted to start the car, the car wouldn't turn over. Even worse, there was still fuel streaming from the one side of the fuel rail even though it was bolted down. I pulled the #28 fuse (fuel pump) and it was still good. Since I installed a fuel pressure gauge on the fuel rail the last time I was under the hood, I was able to ascertain the fuel pressure. There was no fuel pressure at this point. I decided that I must have blown a fuel pump relay in the process.

Luckily, I was only a short walk from an Advanced Auto Parts store. So, I crossed the dumb highway and purchased a 40 amp replacement relay and a pair of plyers. I replaced the relay and cranked the car over and over again. Fuel started streaming from the fuel rail again as before. The car just barely turned over and was able to maintain idle. There were plums of smoke coming from the tail pipe as I've never seen before. So, I had smoke coming from the engine compartment from the raw fuel making contact with the hot engine block, and smoke coming out fo the tail pipe. Not a good situation. Of course, I called the wife to be on standby in case I needed her to pick me up. Unfortunately, she was not answering her phone.:banghead:

I'm too cheap of a bastard to pay for towing. So, the plan was to turn off the car and wait until the traffic light turns green. Then start the smoking car and hopefully pull smoothly onto the highway. I checked my fuel pressure and it was only reading about 5 psi. The Genesis II 1200 injectors must have provided enough fuel at 5 psi for the car to run. I got onto the highway and had to wait at a couple of lights. I realized that the additional air coming into the engine compartment as I was driving could fuel any flames under the hood. At any rate, I was praying 'Hail Mary's' the whole way back. Luckily, no fire.

I got back and removed the fuel rail again. I checked the 'O' rings and noticed the following on the end of the fuel rail that was leaking:










Apparently, when the fuel rail became unbolted, the 'O' ring must have vibrated against the fuel rail port or, perhaps, fuel pressure had worn away the rubber. I got into the wifes Audi B6 Avant quattro (soon to get a GTS turbo upgrade) and went down to my local mechanic. I showed him the worn 'O' ring and he said he had a few in the back. Returning with the 'O' ring, he said he wasn't going to charge me since, in fact, these were 'O' rings from my work truck which I picked up the day before. He exlained that he had to order 'O' rings to put my truck IM back together and that they come 10 per pack. So, two packs equals 20 'O' rings minus the 16 he used for the truck equals 4 brand new 'O' rings.

So, I installed the 4 new 'O' rings and bolted the fuel rail down with blue lock-tite. The car now runs smooth again, although my fuel trims are way way off from driving at 5 psi fuel pressure. So, other than my car almost becoming consumed in a pool of fire due to a bolt coming loose, I actually had a pretty good day.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Here's a high flow fuel pressure regulator

http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_119&products_id=1711

You'll need some other bits and stuff to make it work for you. Talk to [email protected] to get set up on the other bits you need.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Here's a high flow fuel pressure regulator
> 
> http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_119&products_id=1711
> 
> You'll need some other bits and stuff to make it work for you. Talk to [email protected] to get set up on the other bits you need.


Thanks. Scott's the man. He set me up with the G2 1200's.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> Thanks. Scott's the man. He set me up with the G2 1200's.


Basically any aftermarket FPR will fix your problem. The stock regulator does not have the ability to bypass all the extra fuel coming in from the twin 340lph pumps. I had the same problem running twin 340lph pumps. 

Also look into the Fuel Lab mini regulators. They aren't as bulky as the regular ones and still flow a ton of fuel with a 6AN return line. Please not that the Fuelab Inline regulator will flow less than the standard bottom return style. Go with the bottom return when you decide what model to purchase.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> Basically any aftermarket FPR will fix your problem. The stock regulator does not have the ability to bypass all the extra fuel coming in from the twin 340lph pumps. I had the same problem running twin 340lph pumps.
> 
> Also look into the Fuel Lab mini regulators. They aren't as bulky as the regular ones and still flow a ton of fuel with a 6AN return line. Please not that the Fuelab Inline regulator will flow less than the standard bottom return style. Go with the bottom return when you decide what model to purchase.


It would be nice to keep my Integrated Engineering FPR housing that uses a stock-style drop in FPR.










That's a nice clean look at the end of my 034 Billet Fuel Rail. Is there an aftermarket replacement FPR that will drop into my IE FPR housing that doesn't have the limitations of the stock regulator?


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> Basically any aftermarket FPR will fix your problem. The stock regulator does not have the ability to bypass all the extra fuel coming in from the twin 340lph pumps. I had the same problem running twin 340lph pumps.
> 
> Also look into the Fuel Lab mini regulators. They aren't as bulky as the regular ones and still flow a ton of fuel with a 6AN return line. Please not that the Fuelab Inline regulator will flow less than the standard bottom return style. Go with the bottom return when you decide what model to purchase.




Why not have the ecu switch on the second pump when needed? That's how I have mine. And I do it just to quite it down in the cabin. If the fpr can't bypass enough fuel to maintain pressure when inj duty is low, cutting on the 2nd pump only when inj duty is high enough to allow fpr to maintain pressure of both pumps, will prevent rich spike.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> Why not have the ecu switch on the second pump when needed? That's how I have mine. And I do it just to quite it down in the cabin.


How do you have ECU switch on the second pump? I wonder if Gonzo Loco can program that into my switchable pump/E85 tune. That would avoid me having to add a manual dash switch to turn on the second pump.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


> How do you have ECU switch on the second pump? I wonder if Gonzo Loco can program that into my switchable pump/E85 tune.




I replaced the the SLS (SAI) function and utilized the SAI relay to control pump. If I can do it, should be a piece of cake for Gonzo. But I'd expect to pay for it.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> I replaced the the SLS (SAI) function and utilized the SAI relay to control pump. If I can do it, should be a piece of cake for Gonzo. But I'd expect to pay for it.


That's smart. I buy a lot of stuff from Gonzo. So, maybe we can work out a deal.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Or just wire a hobbs switch in to the SAI relay control wire.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> Or just wire a hobbs switch in to the SAI relay control wire.


I don't think a hobbs switch would work for me since it's pressure activated. I don't want to run rich after a certain set point (i.e: 15 psi boost). Unless you have a different idea about the hobbs switch.

I guess I can get an adjustable FPR that drops into stock-style housing to adjust base fuel pressure down when both fuel pumps are on. Or, I can just live with the 60 psi base fuel pressure when both pumps are on when running E85. That's just over 4 bars. It will draw more amps through the relay but I plan on wiring seperate relays for each fuel pump.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Sorry, I was only addressing the "how to turn the pump on when you need it" aspect.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Does this car run a MAF?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> Sorry, I was only addressing the "how to turn the pump on when you need it" aspect.


Got it. The hobbs switch was my first choice until I realized I would run rich when it switched on.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Does this car run a MAF?


Yes. MAF.


----------



## NaSMK4 (Dec 12, 2011)

http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_119&products_id=673

unsure what bar / psi u need... but this is adjustable and drops right into the stock fpr location..


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

NaSMK4 said:


> http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10_119&products_id=673
> 
> unsure what bar / psi u need... but this is adjustable and drops right into the stock fpr location..


He doesn't need adjustable, he needs higher flow


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Yes. MAF.


We could do a simple fuel pump on-off circuit with a schmitt trigger, a bipolar transistor, a relay, and a little support circuitry. Use the MAF to determine load. Set the schmitt trigger set points with a pot.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> We could do a simple fuel pump on-off circuit with a schmitt trigger, a bipolar transistor, a relay, and a little support circuitry. Use the MAF to determine load. Set the schmitt trigger set points with a pot.


Schmitt trigger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmitt_trigger

In electronics, a Schmitt trigger is a comparator circuit with hysteresis, implemented by applying positive feedback to the noninverting input of a comparator or differential amplifier. It is an active circuit which converts an analog input signal to a digital output signal. The circuit is named a "trigger" because the output retains its value until the input changes sufficiently to trigger a change. In the non-inverting configuration, when the input is higher than a certain chosen threshold, the output is high. When the input is below a different (lower) chosen threshold, the output is low, and when the input is between the two levels, the output retains its value. This dual threshold action is called hysteresis and implies that the Schmitt trigger possesses memory and can act as a bistable circuit (latch or flip-flop). There is a close relation between the two kinds of circuits: a Schmitt trigger can be converted into a latch and a latch can be converted into a Schmitt trigger.

That's pretty high-tech. I'm not sure if it would work since I only want the second pump to come on using the E85 program. A single Aeromotive 340 intank pump provides plenty of flow for pump fuel. However, the second pump is needed for E85. The re-purposing of the SAI relay sounds like the most direct way to integrate the ECU with the second pump.

Come to think of it, it would work assuming I resolve the fuel pressure issue. However, a hobbs switch would do the job just as well, although not as elegant as the Schmitt trigger idea.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Its all about load. Boost referenced load on a fast spooling turbo is ok. MAF or map based is better.

Do you run a meth controller by chance?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Its all about load. Boost referenced load on a fast spooling turbo is ok. MAF or map based is better.
> 
> Do you run a meth controller by chance?


No meth controller. I have a NOS Launcher nitrous controller with a boost reference and other triggers.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

If gonzo is going to control it with the SAI pump circuit then it's a done deal. Tell him to only turn the second pump on for the e85 program, and only turn the pump on above 10 PSI boost (measured with the MAP sensor) or only above a certain 'load'. That should solve all these issues.

Not sure how stout the relay is that runs the SAI pump is. If it needs more oomph you can drop another relay in front of it.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> If gonzo is going to control it with the SAI pump circuit then it's a done deal. Tell him to only turn the second pump on for the e85 program, and only turn the pump on above 10 PSI boost (measured with the MAP sensor) or only above a certain 'load'. That should solve all these issues.
> 
> Not sure how stout the relay is that runs the SAI pump is. If it needs more oomph you can drop another relay in front of it.


Thanks for the advice! I will definately have to upgrade the SAI relay since the turbine-style Aeromotive 340 pump draws more amps than other pumps.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Isn't the sai circuit 40 amps?


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

50A


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> 50A


A 50 amp relay should be good for a single Aeromotive 340. 40 amps will work too, but I've toasted a few of those already.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I found this forum while searching for more information on the GTX2971R (Nissan 200SX and 240SX):

http://zilvia.net/f/showthread.php?t=432611

There are currently 32 pages of discussion on the GTX2867R. Here is a dyno of the GTX2867R on 2.0L on 98 RON posted on page 25 (Galant_x):










The specs are:



Galant_x said:


> after mutch forth and back, i finaly mapped and dynoed my GTX 2867 setup.
> 
> My spec are:
> Built bottom end.
> ...


The Nissan 200SX 214a is a 2.0 liter turbo (1998cc's) with original output of 197HP. Interestingly, he uses 2.0TFSI ignition coils. The dyno shows peak power of 413 WHP/HP (not sure) at 6250 RPMs and maximum torque of 565.5 Nm or about 417 lb ft of torque at 4800 RPMs.

Those are nice results. Note, 98 RON is not the same as 98 AKI (R+M)/2 and is probably closer to our 92/93 octane (AKI).

EDIT: Here is another graph from the same dyno run showing boost in Kpa (absolute). Maximum boost is 287.2 Kpa (about 27psi gauge) at around 5000 RPMs.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

badger5 said:


> I have a mk4 cupra now with gtx2867 on there, external gate etc etc
> I just remain very unimpressed with these gtx units.. all the lag of their larger cousin. Might as well be a GT30 in how it performs.. still 4k before it wakes up.. just like a same a/r gt30 does.
> 
> Weird.
> Is it just me?



Ok i know its off topic but this topic has some great info gathered so i will also post this here...

Took my car at the Maha LPS Dyno too few days ago and here are the results

Dyno Run @ 1.8bar of boost





and @ wastegate spring pressure 0.8bar spring ~1.0 bar of boost






Will have the dyno plots scanned tomorrow and have them posted here too.

I knew from the start that this dyno would give me high results but since my mate wanted to dyno again his own car there like before, i chose to go with him.

This is a different dyno compared to the video i posted a while back of my friends identical setup ibiza cupra.

All i wanted was to have a reference as i am planning to upgrade the turbocharger very soon with a new gtx one. Unfortunately the dyno plot was ruined due to the boost drop i got down low (i guess i have to adjust my BC again) so i didnt get a proper dyno plot , nore did i get an accurate performance figure.

430Hp corrected @ 1.8bar of boost using 100RON pump gas (no race fuel or addittives), using a full 3 inch exhaust system with an 100cpsi catalyst, no water methanol injection, 62C degrees of intake air temp and only 13 degrees of timing during the pull...(will get the detailed dyno plot showing the lamda, ignition etc tomorrow maybe)

Thats way off but the un corrected power figure is very close to my mates ibiza cupra on the early video...

I dont really know how much my Pag Parts Turbo T3 manifold along with the T31 garrett turbine housing (no WG) .64 a/r has helped the car to breath up high but still i think the percentage of loss settings are set way off in that dyno or something...


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

^^Nice results.:thumbup: I'm sure the Pagparts manifold and T31 housing are helping the car to breath up top. Now let's see that GTX turbo!


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

The CNC porting on the PPT manifold is beautiful. I might have some pics of it when I 1st got it... but id imagine its one of the highest flowing *cast* Manifolds on the market.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

yep that was the plan when i was ordering my setup parts back then. T3 instead of all the T25 disco potatoes and .63 housing. Still the dyno result i got of 430HP is out of the question but it performs very well with this specific unitronics stage 3 tune.

I will carry on with the new GTX setup using PPT parts from Al ( new V band SS mani etc) even though i can have a tubular manifold built for the same money but i prefer cast...

Theres quite a few things i am not 100% sure yet like what fuel pump for the GTX2971 flow ( i think Al can sort me out with a custom surge tank and bosch 045 pump too. I dont know if the stock wiring would be ok) etc etc...

Tried to take some vids with full boost @ 4th gear and 5th so that i could post in this thread too for spool reference but my yokohama paradas spec 2 (still new) would loose grip in the motorways tarmac  (damp road though :banghead


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought I would update this thread with some recent hardware changes I made. I was having some issues with my double in-tank fuel pump. I was stranded several times last year due to a my fuel pump relay overheating and burning out. Apparently, the Aeromotive 340 turbine-style pump draws quite a bit of current as can be seen from the graph below.










The problem was compounded by the fact that both fuel pumps were wired onto a single relay and shared a single set of power/ground wires. Once I figured this out, I disconnected the second pump which solved the problem. I have been running this single pump setup since last year and it has been very consistent. However, my fuel trims indicated that I am running very lean (032: 7.9, 18.8). This makes sense because Gonzo at GTS Performance tuned my setup when I was running two pumps. Base fuel pressure jumps to 4 bar with both pumps on (about 60 psi) using the stock fuel pressure regulator. I contacted Gonzo at GTS Performance earlier this week for a re-flash to bring my fuel trims into line. I am waiting to hear back from him.

Several weeks ago I had some time to finally re-wire both pumps onto a separate relay and separate power/ground wires. I decided to use two sets of 10 gauge wire running directly from the battery instead of the stupid 14 gauge power source from the stock wiring harness above the foot panel. I also decided to ground the pumps to the chassis. Here is the result:










Notice the two sets of 10 gauge wire running from the positive battery terminal (blue circle) to the two sets of 40 amp circuit breakers I installed next to the OEM battery circuit box (blue oval). The 10 gauge wire then runs up the enclosed plastic tunnel to the rain tray. From there, it goes through the fire wall pass-through and under the foot panel to two 40 amp bosch-style relays. There is a separate set of trigger wires which run each 40 amp relay. One set of trigger wires has an on/off switch so that I can manually turn on/off the second pump.

Here is the other side of the wiring harness. Notice the ground to chassis (yellow circle):










The two black hoses are -6 AN fuel supply lines which run to opposite sides of my aftermarket fuel rail. The blue hose is the -6 AN fuel return line. The light blue wire is the fuel relay trigger wire.

In addition to re-wiring my double in-tank fuel pumps, I decided to replace my original 90 amp alternator which was only producing 11.5V (13 years old) with an upgraded 120 amp Bosch alternator. I also decided to replace my small motorcycle battery (15.5 lbs. lead acid type) with a more expensive Lithium polymer 3.8 lb. battery. So, I went from 45 lb. stock battery to a 15.5 lb. motorcycle battery last year to a 3.8 lb. Lithium polymer battery this year. A total weight savings of over 40 lbs. Here is a link to the WPS Featherweight battery:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DX8971E?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00










The Lithium polymer battery has more Cold Cranking Amps (CCA) than my previous motorcycle battery at 420 CCA versus 310 CCA. I no longer have to put my battery on a charger with the new alternator and battery combination. When the WPS Featherweight battery arrived from Amazon, it felt like an empty plastic box, almost like a child's toy. Also, Lithium batteries put out slightly higher voltage at 12.8 to 13V as compared to the lead acid type which put out 12.5V. Also, the Lithium polymer battery charges in less than 10 minutes. 

Also, when I installed the new alternator, I decided to delete my A/C compressor and replace the accessory belt with a new OEM shorter version and a new tensioner. See below:










The new alternator and battery combination solved an ongoing issue I had with my car's idle. I would start the car and it would idle fine when cold (I have 1200cc USRT injectors). However, after warming up and some hard driving, the idle would tend to hover from 1800 RPM to 2000 RPMs. Very annoying. I contacted Gonzo about this problem last year. He pretty much concluded it was a hardware issue. Well, the issue is finally solved. I now have a rock-solid idle on cold start and warm-up.

The other result of the new alternator and battery combination along with the dedicated wiring harness is that I now have more current going to my double in-tank fuel pump. Consequently, I am getting more fuel pressure when both pumps are turned on. Instead of the 4 bar I was getting before, I now get 5 bar (72.5 psi) base fuel pressure and sometimes 6+ bar (87+ psi). The whole point of my double in-tank fuel pump setup is to run E85 and make about 550 HP +/- 25 HP. 

I would be very happy running a 5 bar base fuel pressure on E85 (both pumps turned on) and a 3 bar setup on pump gas (single pump). The math works out great as a 5 bar setup gives me exactly 129% more fuel over 3 bar (SQRT(5)/SQRT(3)=1.29). That way, I can start to play around with E85 using my pump gas program and fine-tune it with Lemmiwinks (advance timing, adjust primary fuel setting etc.). Once I get an idea of how much timing I can add and how much more fuel over the 129% I need, I can report the results to Gonzo and he can map that into my E85 switchable ECU.

The other benefit to running a higher base fuel pressure is better atomization. This should, in theory at least, translate into more power. Here is a dyno comparison posted on USRT's website:










The Genesis II injectors (unknown size) at 5 bar are producing about 15 more max HP on an F23 setup as compared to EV14 550cc injectors at 3 bar. That's about a 5% increase (not to mention a higher overall power curve). If this theory holds true, than I can expect a 25 to 30 HP increase over a 3 bar setup. The better atomization due to higher base fuel pressure should also help somewhat with E85 cold weather start problems. 

Actually, the 1200cc USRT injectors are not sufficient at 3 bar for the power I want to produce according to some members of this forum and this fuel calculator: http://fuelinjectorclinic.com/flow-calculator. At 3 bar base fuel pressure (BFP) and 80% IDC, I would need at least 1400cc injectors to achieve 550 HP on E85. However, at 5 bar BFP and 80% IDC, I would only need 1100cc injectors. In fact, at 5 bar BFP, the USRT 1200cc injectors act more like 1600s (1550s) while maintaining a reasonable Injector Duty Cycle.

There is, however, one small problem. When I first re-wired my dual in-tank fuel pump, I was consistently getting 5 bar base fuel pressure with the second pump turned on. When I turned on the second pump via a switch, my base fuel pressure would jump from 3 bar to 6 bar momentarily and then settle nicely at 5 bar. However, today, the my fuel pressure wants to stay at 6 bar for some reason as seen in this short video:






I did purchase and Adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulator from ECS Tuning to try and have some control over my base fuel pressure: https://www.ecstuning.com/ES5271/










However, I got the exact same result as the OEM FPR (stays at 6 bar). I even tried to adjust the center screw for less pressure. However, the adjustability feature doesn't seem to work on my setup. I did get it to settle back to 5 bar on a few occasions with the ECS unit:






Yes. That's almost 100 psi (6.75 bar) on my first attempt. The second attempt jumped to 6.75 bar and then back to 5 bar (the way I like). I'm going to experiment a little more with the second pump to see if I can identify why I have this inconsistency. I did notice that the pumps run at a different frequencies at 5 bar versus 6+ bar when I opened the gas tank cover underneath the back seat. So, it could be an electrical issue. More likely, however, there is a physical issue with either the return line being pinched or, perhaps, my (customized) aftermarket fuel rail.










Notice the two supply lines coming into opposite ends of the fuel rail (blue circles). Perhaps (sometimes) the fuel experiences turbulent flow inside the fuel rail and doesn't flow nicely out of my FPR based on this arrangement. I can always cap the right side supply on the fuel rail and then run the second fuel hose into a 'Y' adapter fitting along with the first fuel hose before supplying the fuel rail from the left side only. This will allow fuel pressure to enter the fuel rail from one side only.

Here is a diagram of the existing fuel rail:










I could modify it as follows to see if I can get more consistent fuel pressure:










I went and purchased four (4) 55 gallon drums from this ebay vendor: http://www.ebay.com/usr/ospi_vivi?_trksid=p2047675.l2559. He has a bunch of these pristine 55 gallon drums sitting in a warehouse in Northern Jersey (Japanese food supply distribution place).










I just spent the last week cleaning/degreasing these until there is no more sesame oil residue. Next step is to go to the E85 station in Allentown, PA. Hopefully, I can solve my fuel pressure consistency issues and Gonzo can send me the re-flash for my existing tune. That will give me the headroom I need to start playin' with the corn juice.


----------



## sponcar (Feb 5, 2010)

I know you're running water meth but is the upgraded side mount intercooler big enough for this turbo?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sponcar said:


> I know you're running water meth but is the upgraded side mount intercooler big enough for this turbo?


Yeah. The smaller upgraded side mount intercooler is not ideal for this setup. The reason I keep the SMIC is because I want to keep a stock appearance (sleeper). I actually never purchased a W/M kit because I didn't like the added complication of this system. I would rather inject the alcohol through fuel injectors (E85 Ethanol) verses a solenoid and pump and Methanol. I think that running a little hotter with the smaller SMIC might actually help vaporize the Ethanol better. I have ports welded to the aluminum SMIC for chemical intercooling in the future. This will entail using my existing NOS progressive controller which is setup but not running yet. Once I get the E85 running, I plan on topping out the power band with some NOS and Ethanol using my progressive controller.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I think you're overwhelming the return port on the OEM style FPR. You have a very high flow fuel pump setup. I think you'd do well to get a more substantial fuel pressure regular such as the ones made by Fuellab.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> I think you're overwhelming the return port on the OEM style FPR. You have a very high flow fuel pump setup. I think you'd do well to get a more substantial fuel pressure regular such as the ones made by Fuellab.


Thanks. I think that you are probably right. The ECS Tuning FPR is almost identical to the OEM one except it has an adjustable nut. I wanted to stay with the nice Integrated Engineering FPR Housing on the end of my fuel rail to keep a sleek look.










I don't like the Fuellab one mainly because it is larger and more complicated and looks like a Dalek from the 1970's Dr. Who TV series. Here, you can see the similarities:



















But... If this is the solution, then I guess I have no choice. I will test the 'Y' fitting theory and then, maybe, try to bore a slightly larger hole in my OEM FPR to see if that makes a difference.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Without reading through your entire thread again, what pumps do you have in that basket?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I just ran to the post office and came back and tested the second fuel pump. All three times it settled back to 5 bar. Perhaps the car needs to be warmed up to get consistent results. The car was cold started in the previous two videos:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Without reading through your entire thread again, what pumps do you have in that basket?


Those are Aeromotive 340 pumps. They are turbine-style and super quiet in tank. You can't hear them running. I didn't want to go with an inline due to noise. I bought the kit from EpicEuroTuning and then modified it for my own needs.

https://www.epiceurotuning.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=STG2PUMP


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Your youtube video is private.

What base fuel pressure are you intending to have?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Your youtube video is private.
> 
> What base fuel pressure are you intending to have?


I intend to run my pump gas program at 3 bar and my E85 program at 5 bar. With the Lithium battery running at 13 volts, I actually get 3.25 bar with the single pump and about 5.4 bar with both pumps when it settles back down.

I'll check into videos.

EDIT: All three videos posted so far are listed as 'Public' on youtube. Does anyone else see the videos?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I don't think a single pump should overwhelm the stock fuel pressure regulator.

Unscrew the return line from the fuel pressure regulator her. I attach some hoes in its place and run to a container. Run the single pump again and see if you can get the three bar fuel pressure

This will take the possibility of a return line problem out of the equation 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

The on/off switch video works, the other is private.

Are you sure that battery has enough juice and you don't need a boost a pump or some way of keeping up for the fuel pump?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> I don't think a single pump should overwhelm the stock fuel pressure regulator.
> 
> Unscrew the return line from the fuel pressure regulator her. I attach some hoes in its place and run to a container. Run the single pump again and see if you can get the three bar fuel pressure
> 
> ...


Yes. I already have the hose and ordered a 90 degree elbow to attach to the bottom of the FPR (as you described) so that I can quickly drain pump gas into a container rather than back to the gas tank via the return line. This will allow me to drain the gas tank and fill up with E85 rather than mix whatever is in the gas tank. I'm waiting for the elbow to come through the mail (ships from California). This will also allow me to test the return line as you suggest.

The three rubber hoses (2 supply and 1 return) are routed through a pass through in the chassis like the original OEM lines. However, they are pretty tight in the pass through and could be pinching. So, I need to rule this out before anything else.

EDIT: The single pump runs perfect. The double 'boxer' pump setup is a little more tricky on OEM-size FPR.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> The on/off switch video works, the other is private.
> 
> Are you sure that battery has enough juice and you don't need a boost a pump or some way of keeping up for the fuel pump?


My voltmeter consistently tests almost 13V on the Lithium battery with the engine turned off. There is plenty of juice coming from the battery and especially with the 120 Amp Bosch alternator when the engine is on. As Groggory said, there is plenty of flow from this dual pump setup. No boost pump needed as these Aeromotive pumps flow plenty. The problem is the return circuit, and most likely the stock-size FPR. My return lines are 3/8 inch (-6 AN).


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Ok. The youtube videos should be fixed. I forgot to hit the 'Publish' button on 2 of the 3 videos. Go back and try to view the videos again.

EDIT: Since this thread started a new page (21), I'll repost all 3 videos here.

First video: On/Off Switch, high base fuel pressure (BFP):






Second video: high BFP on first attempt, 5 bar BFP on second attempt.






Third video: consistently getting 5 bar BFP:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

You mentioned return lines (plural). I thought you only had one return line.

Also, if you want to do an easy test, like I said, just unhook the line from the fuel return port, shove a rubber line onto the male AN fitting, put a hose clamp on it, and pump the gas into a container such as a clean gallon milk jug. You can later pour that gas back into your gas tank.

All this test will do is give your fuel return a very low restriction return path and see if your fuel pressure regulator can handle the flow of your pumps or not.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> You mentioned return lines (plural). I thought you only had one return line.
> 
> Also, if you want to do an easy test, like I said, just unhook the line from the fuel return port, shove a rubber line onto the male AN fitting, put a hose clamp on it, and pump the gas into a container such as a clean gallon milk jug. You can later pour that gas back into your gas tank.
> 
> All this test will do is give your fuel return a very low restriction return path and see if your fuel pressure regulator can handle the flow of your pumps or not.


2 supply lines and 1 return line. The push on ('barb') end of the fitting is impossible to remove from the hose once it is pushed on. My engine builder, Bill Schimmel (spturbo) had to buy a special device that cranks the hose onto the fitting. Notice that he did even bother to use clamps on the hose. It is definately not coming off even at 100 psi fuel pressure. 

If you mean pushing a somewhat flexible hose onto the threaded cone end of the AN fitting (bottom of the FPR Housing), I might be able to do that. Either way, I agree that this is important to test.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Yes, i just meant push onto the male an an fitting. If you're dumping into a milk jug / gas can it should have almost no pressure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Yes, i just meant push onto the male an an fitting. If you're dumping into a milk jug / gas can it should have almost no pressure.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Come to think of it that's a brilliant idea. I don't have to wait for my fitting to ship from CA to test. I might try to rig something tomorrow. Thinking about even using a section of garden hose just to test. I was starting to get very consistent 5 bar BFP as seen in the last video. Hopefully, I can figure out what's making it inconsistent. Fuel return test will definately be helpful either to confirm or rule out a pinched or restrictive return line.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Il add to this from across the pond

Audi s3
Rebuilt engine (every gasket bearing and bolt!)
Brute rods
AGU Pistons (9.5:1 vs 9:1)
AEB head mildy ported
Atp style mani
Gtx2867r T25 .64
3 inch down pipe and decat
2.75 inch miltek cat back exhaust
90mm turbo intake
B5 RS4 maf housing
Genesis II 630cc injectors 
BIG toyosports intercooler
63mm pipe work

Final results of mapping were 380hp 360lbs (UK figures, dyno dynamics rr), spiking at about 29psi tapering to 26-27 at a redline of 7400rpm
Peak boost on the road is slightly earlier than on the dyno, about 3700rpm. But it really starts shifting at about 3k.

Injectors are at 90%. I need a) bigger injectors b) higher base fuel pressure in order to make more combined with WMI. But you must understand this is VERY good figures for a UK .64 T25 car. 
Egts were 770 peak as measured in the down pipe approx 2 inch from the turbine, -100 degrees difference accounted for. 
Approx 20 degrees timing at the top end.
IAT of about 14 degrees above ambient. 

Overall extremely happy. This turbo definitely likes higher pressures! It really sings at 25+ psi. 
Currently have a boost problem tho with it only peaking to about 24psi, I've pressure tested everything so I'm at a bit of a dead end right now.

Cheers


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> Overall extremely happy. *This turbo definitely likes higher pressures! It really sings at 25+ psi.*
> Currently have a boost problem tho with it only peaking to about 24psi, I've pressure tested everything so I'm at a bit of a dead end right now.
> 
> Cheers


Those are very respectable figures for T25 turbine housing. It would be interesting to see the 630s at 4 bar BFP (15% more fuel). Yeah, this turbo definately likes higher boost pressure. I'm really at the ragged edge pushing 25 to 29psi on my upgraded SMIC. Even so, I have to use Torco Accelerator to avoid engine knock. That's really the reason I want to go E85. More boost, more timing, more cooling = more power. I'm hoping to push 35+ psi with the Ethanol. We'll see.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> I think you're overwhelming the return port on the OEM style FPR. You have a very high flow fuel pump setup. I think you'd do well to get a more substantial fuel pressure regular such as the ones made by Fuellab.


Groggory, I think you were right. After some research, I decided to buy the Fuelab Dalek. I called Fuelab and discussed my setup with a technician. He recommended model no.: 51506-c-L-E for a dual pump setup. The 'L' suffix denotes the large return orifice version. The orifice measures about 5/16 of an inch as compared to the 1/8 inch on the stock FPR. That's about 6 times the flow area (625%). The maximum flow capacity of the Fuelab is 3.2 Gallons per minute (GPM) at 1.75 Bar. That can easily handle the two 340 liter per hour (LPH) Aeromotive fuel pumps (340 x 2 = 680 LPH = 2.99 GPM).

Here is a video showing little pressure increase with the second pump turned on:






I am going to replace the straight -6 AN fitting coming from the return line outlet (blue line) to a 90 degree -6 AN elbow. I highly recommend Sniper Motorsports fittings since those are true -6 AN (3/8 inch) internal diameter fittings as compared to most fittings. For example, this cheap -6 AN fitting from ebay barely measures 1/4 inch on the threaded side.










That's 2.25 times less flow (225%) as compared to a true 3/8 inch fitting. I took pains when I put together my fuel system to make sure every fitting and even my fuel filter inlet/outlet ports measured at least 3/8 inch internal diameter throughout. I guess I overlooked the restriction in my stock FPR. However, that's resolved with the Fuelab. Now, I have everything I need to reliably run E85.

EDIT: The Fuelab unit seems to be very accurate. I'll use the adjustment screw on the Fuelab to increase base fuel pressure to 5 bar when I run E85.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Well done!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Well done!


Thanks, mang. You helped pinpoint the issue in short order. I forgot to mention that Gonzo sent me a re-flash last week. My fuel trims are pegged at zero. I didn't realize that tuning can be so accurate. Car runs real nice and now I have the headroom with Lemiwinks to add/subtract primary fuel as needed. Also now have option to reliably add/subtract fuel by increasing/decreasing base fuel pressure on the Fuelab Dalek.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

mainstayinc said:


> Thanks, mang. You helped pinpoint the issue in short order. I forgot to mention that Gonzo sent me a re-flash last week. My fuel trims are pegged at zero. I didn't realize that tuning can be so accurate. Car runs real nice and now I have the headroom with Lemiwinks to add/subtract primary fuel as needed. Also now have option to reliably add/subtract fuel by increasing/decreasing base fuel pressure on the Fuelab Dalek.


I have a DW65v fuel pump running on stock lines, stock fuel filter, into a stock regulator and fuel rail. I feel like the stock FPR is acting flaky on me. Sometimes it references 43.5 PSI, sometimes 40 PSI. Sometimes at 20PSI boost it has fuel pressure at 60 PSI. Sometimes at 58PSI. It's just not all that consistent. I have a fancy schmancy electronic fuel pressure sender and in-cabin gauge so it makes it real easy for me to keep an eye on fuel pressure. I can't decide if it's the pump or the OEM fuel pressure regulator that is my problem. Gonzo told me to get my fuel issues in check and then he'll get a revision on my file going. Car runs pretty great, but I know it has the potential to run a lot better.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> I have a DW65v fuel pump running on stock lines, stock fuel filter, into a stock regulator and fuel rail. I feel like the stock FPR is acting flaky on me. Sometimes it references 43.5 PSI, sometimes 40 PSI. Sometimes at 20PSI boost it has fuel pressure at 60 PSI. Sometimes at 58PSI. It's just not all that consistent. I have a fancy schmancy electronic fuel pressure sender and in-cabin gauge so it makes it real easy for me to keep an eye on fuel pressure. I can't decide if it's the pump or the OEM fuel pressure regulator that is my problem. Gonzo told me to get my fuel issues in check and then he'll get a revision on my file going. Car runs pretty great, but I know it has the potential to run a lot better.


That sounds similar to the problems I was having with my stock FPR. Except my base fuel pressure would fluctuate at idle between 30 psi and 50+psi just with a single pump. My fuel pressures were very inconsistent. I don't think the stock FPR with the 1/8 inch return line orifice is suited for anything larger than the stock fuel pump. I thought you mentioned that you already had a fuelab in one of your posts.

Why not just install the Fuelab and... exterminate your fuel pressure inconsistencies?






Sorry. I had to post that.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Do you have both of the pumps running all the time or do you stage them?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> Do you have both of the pumps running all the time or do you stage them?


Currently, I have the option of running either one pump or both pumps at the same time via an electrical (manual) switch. I originally ordered the mini version (535 series) of the Fuelab FPR which has a standard size return orifice. When I contacted the technician at Fuelab, he suggested that I stage the pumps, as the 535 and 515-standard version(s) can only handle 2.5 GPM at 1.75 bar.

I opted to go with the larger size return orifice version because I didn't want to have any jump in fuel pressure when the second pump is turned on. The plan in the future is to see if Gonzo can programically turn on the SAI Pump relay under high-boost situations (E85 tune). The relay would effectively replace my manual switch.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> The plan in the future is to see if Gonzo can programically turn on the SAI Pump relay under high-boost situations (E85 tune). The relay would effectively replace my manual switch.


That would be pretty cool!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> That would be pretty cool!


No kidding. IIRC someone mentioned earlier in this thread that it's possible to turn on SAI Pump relay programically. That would actually make it a staged setup as mentioned before. I hope Gonzo is up to the task. I'll probably have to pay him a few extra pesos for that feature. Not sure.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Edit: redundant post. Sorry


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

My Sniper Motorsports -6 AN 90 degree elbow came in the mail yesterday. This will allow me to tuck my return hose underneath my intake manifold. Below is a comparison of the Sniper fitting (right), which is a true -6 AN (3/8 inch) fitting compared to a generic -6 AN fitting from ebay.










Also, I finally made a trip to Allentown yesterday to purchase the juice! I bought 110 gallons (2x 55 gallon drums) of E85 from the PA Turnpike Allentown Service Plaza Sunoco. The price was $2.649 per gallon as compared to the other station in Allentown which was $3.559 per gallon. My Quick Fuel tester indicates that it is E70 winter blend. I have to figure out how to unload the ~400 pound barrels from the back of my cargo van. I have a wood ramp and some tires, which is the usual way it is done.

I also purchased a very high quality hand-crank fuel pump for my 55 gallon barrels along with 3/4 inch fuel hose, a swivel and fuel nozzle. This gives me easy access to the juice. If everything goes well today, I'll be filling the tank with the E70 and beginning some initial testing.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Post up your male -6 flare fitting along with those fittings. I don't see where the 37 degree flare seat is on that sniper motorsports fitting. I don't see how it seals.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Post up your male -6 flare fitting along with those fittings. I don't see where the 37 degree flare seat is on that sniper motorsports fitting. I don't see how it seals.


The male flare is a -6 AN Port Adapter with O-Ring (Part#: 22206413):










Here is the Port Adapter and 90 Degree elbow installed:










Also, some of the bubbles settled out of my Quick Fuel test tube and now it's reading 85% Ethanol content. Also, I just wrestled the two 55 gallon barrels of E85 into position. I'll be draining my gas tank via a drain hose fitted with the cheap ebay -6 AN fitting and then filling with E85 momentarily. I have to remember to increase my base fuel pressure to 5 bar before starting.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Draining pump gas from the fuel tank:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Filling with E85:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I took a 'first start' video but for some reason it didn't register on my camera. Or, perhaps, I was too excited and didn't push the 'start' button. At any rate, the car surprisingly turned over on the first crank and settled immediately into a steady idle. Before starting I turned the adjustment screw of the Fuelab three (3) turns which gave me exactly 5 bar base fuel pressure. I took the car out for an initial test drive. Wow. There is definitely a lot of power on tap. I wound out third gear to 4500 RPMs, which usually starts to knock under high boost. There was no knock at all and a lot more torque.

I started to hear a hissing sound coming from my fuel tank (I have the back seat removed and the metal access cover off). This was followed by ethanol fuel spraying on me from the back seat. Apparently, there is a lot of pressure building up in the gas tank with so much fuel being pumped and then returned to the basket. The gasket on my return line leaks slightly because I originally drilled the hole a little to big for the bulkhead fitting. I am going to try and add another rubber washer or, perhaps, drive with the gas cap removed in order to resolve the issue. I intend to post another video of the car starting and running on the E85.

Also, I am going to clear codes using VCDS to get an initial read on my fuel trims on E85 at 5 bar BFP.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I decided to remove the entire fuel pump basket assembly from under the rear seat and repair the leaking gasket. I used thick nylon washers to replace the cracking rubber washers which weren't doing the job. Below you can see the rubber washers next to the nylon washer and black neoprene gaskets:










Here is the basket assembly re-installed with the nylon washers and neoprene gasket on the return line.










I cleared codes using VCDS and took the car for a test drive to get fuel trims and test the new basket assembly. There was absolutely no leaking or spraying fuel coming from the top of the bulkhead. So, I am extremely happy with this modification.

My base fuel pressure at idle before the test drive was at 77.5 psi or about 5.3 bar (both pumps turned on). After driving the car for 20 miles, block 032 returned 7.9% and 14.8% which indicated a lean condition. So, my total percentage increase in fueling over pump gas (at 3 bar BFP) is as follows: SQRT(5.3 bar) / SQRT(3 bar) = 1.334 + 0.148 (fuel trim) = 1.48 or 148%. In other words, E85 requires 148% more fuel than pump gas in my case. Interestingly, this is almost exactly what is predicted in a spreadsheet I made which calculates the additional fueling needed for various blends of gasoline and ethanol. The spreadsheet predicted 149% for E85 for a stoichiometric mixture (see below).










The car seems to run smoother and stronger with E85 as compared to pump gas. It idles smoother at 5 bar BFP on E85 with my 1200cc Genesis II injectors as compared to pump gas at 3 bar. Acceleration is nasty in second, third and fourth gear. As mentioned earlier, I am not seeing detonation like I was with pump gas in third and fourth gear under high boost/ high load situations. This results in stronger smoother pulls in these gears. I am going to continue to do testing and maybe I'll post a 5th gear boost graph comparing E85 verses pump gas. 

Also, at some point I plan to look into advancing timing above my pump gas program using Lemmiwinks. From my research, I am looking at 5 to 10 degrees advance. After that, I plan to go to PSI Proformance in Lansdale, PA to get a baseline dyno reading. Not sure if I should keep my NGK BR7's or drop down to the cooler 8's


----------



## Alec's TT (Jan 28, 2013)

Not sure what is all going on here, read the last page. I have an IE surge tank with an 044 pump under the hood, 3/8 lines on 6 an fittings with an 034 fuel rail and a 6 an fuel lab fpr with 1000cc genesis 2s at 43 psi and have no fueling problems at 35 psi on an hy35. E85

Edit, that was a post to show a single pump with 6an will suffice for a big turbo on corn! Good luck


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

I am not sure of what boost the OP is running at WOT, but I am pretty confident he might be pushing the 1,200's on E85 at 2.1L of displacement and a 2867r. What is WOT IDC on corn?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I am not sure of what boost the OP is running at WOT, but I am pretty confident he might be pushing the 1,200's on E85 at 2.1L of displacement and a 2867r. What is WOT IDC on corn?


I am not sure what boost level I am running since I don't have a boost gauge and usually log with VCDS. However, on pump gas, I was able to push 29 psi with my exhaust valve open using Torco Accelerator. On E85, I am hoping to push maybe 35 psi (or more?).

The 1200s are definitely on the small side if I were running 3 bar base fuel pressure. However, with my dual pump setup, I am able to run 5 or 6 bar BFP safely without too much problem. 5 bar BFP gives me 129% more fuel making the 1200s act like 1550s. 6 bar gives me 141% more fuel making them 1700s. Plus, as mentioned before, I get the benefit of better atomization of fuel, which should contribute to a nominal increase in horsepower over a 3 bar setup.

I've been using this fuel calculator to estimate the BFP I need to keep a reasonable IDC with the 1200s. I think the maximum horsepower I can produce from the GTX2867R on 2.1L with E85 is about 570 HP (500 WHP). Below is a video of a guy from Germany with a GTX2867R on stock displacement with E85. He produced 512 wheel PS (about 505 WHP) or about 581 HP.

So, if I input the maximum HP into the above fuel calculator, along with the following:

Fuel Pressure = 72.5 (5 bar)
Horsepower Desired = 570
Duty Cycle: 80%

The injector size required on E85 is 1130cc which is smaller than my 1200s.






BTW, I don't expect to produce 500 WHP anytime soon. That takes a lot of tuning and tweaking to get the most out of one's setup. Plus, I have the 0.48 A/R T31 housing (equivalent to a 0.64 A/R T28 housing). This housing spools up the 67mm turbo instantly on 2.1L while producing great mid-range power with some top end. It is not setup for maximum peak horsepower. For better peak HP, I would have to get a GTX2971R or larger. I expect my powerband to be flatter and wider than in the video.

I want to keep expectations low as far a HP numbers on my setup. I would be very happy with 350 WHP (about 400 HP) on my first dyno.

How do you calculate fuel injector IDC? Can someone provide a link or explanation.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Alec's TT said:


> Not sure what is all going on here, read the last page. I have an IE surge tank with an 044 pump under the hood, 3/8 lines on 6 an fittings with an 034 fuel rail and a 6 an fuel lab fpr with 1000cc genesis 2s at 43 psi and have no fueling problems at 35 psi on an hy35. E85
> 
> *Edit, that was a post to show a single pump with 6an will suffice for a big turbo on corn!* Good luck


That's good to know. Thanks.

The 1000cc injectors seem a little small for that setup. Not sure.


----------



## Alec's TT (Jan 28, 2013)

mainstayinc said:


> That's good to know. Thanks.
> 
> The 1000cc injectors seem a little small for that setup. Not sure.


I feel like they are and am really questioning what kind of power i actually make now. :'( I cant wait to get to the dyno this winter now. Will do some logging next weekend to see where my IDC is. Tore my round dog bone bushing from ecs, so my car is down for a week.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Don't fully rely on the flow calculators. They can give you a ballpark idea of what's going on, but are not exact tools. To get IDC, simply log average injector period ("on" time) vs rpm (VCDS block 002) and use one of the online calculators like this one to convert the average injector period vs RPM into Duty Cycles:
http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Don't fully rely on the flow calculators. They can give you a ballpark idea of what's going on, but are not exact tools. To get IDC, simply log average injector period ("on" time) vs rpm (VCDS block 002) and use one of the online calculators like this one to convert the average injector period vs RPM into Duty Cycles:
> http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm


Thanks, Max. Your advice is always on point! I plan to do some logging this week and will post results here.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

mainstayinc said:


> ...How do you calculate fuel injector IDC? Can someone provide a link or explanation.


(rpm)(ms)/1200 = IDC

Love all the details in your posts :thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

All_Euro said:


> (rpm)(ms)/1200 = IDC
> 
> Love all the details in your posts :thumbup:


Perfect. Thanks.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Here is the rationale for a double pump setup.

According to the above fuel calculator, I will need 1130cc per minute injectors at 5 bar BFP to produce 570 HP at 80 IDC on E85. I will, of course, measure my actual IDC as advised above. 

To determine the flow required from the fuel pump in liters per hour (LPH): 1130/1000 x 60 minutes per hours x 4 injectors = 271 LPH. So, the fuel pump has to flow 271 LPH at 107.5 PSI (5 Bar BFP + maximum boost = 72.5 + 35 = 107.5 PSI). Below I have estimated the Aeromotive 340 fuel pump's flow rate up to 120 PSI.










As you can see, a single Aeromotive 340 fuel pump does not provide enough flow at 107.5 PSI to supply the injectors. I estimate that at 107.5 PSI, the pump will flow about 160 LPH. Therefore, a double pump setup should *theoretically* flow double that amount or about 320 LPH at that pressure.

Here is the estimated amperage draw for each Aeromotive pump:










As you can see, a 25 amperage circuit (minimum) is required for each pump. That is why I decided to run a dedicated relay for each pump.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Your fueling thought process is very well thought out.

A few small tweaks for you though if you want to make your calculations a bit more accurate.

Assume some pressure losses across your fuel lines. As in, if you have 100 PSI of pressure at the rail, the fuel pump may need to be pushing 105 PSI at the pump head. Pressure losses across long length of hose, fuel filters, bends, elbows, etc area all very real. And the pressure losses are variable depending on lots of factor. Just toss in 5 PSI losses on your calculations and you should be fine.

Also, when you combine the pump flows you are going to have further pressure losses due to the turbulence of combining the multiple pump outputs. So add a few more PSI of pressure loss there.

That's about it. Very well done!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Your fueling thought process is very well thought out.
> 
> A few small tweaks for you though if you want to make your calculations a bit more accurate.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I totally forgot about these other pressure losses. Since I have my two (2) fuel filters mounted just behind the passenger rear wheel well, that adds extra hose length and more pressure loss across the longer length of hose. See below:










The one good thing is that I was careful to make sure I used true -6 AN fittings throughout the entire supply/return system. Also, those are Bosch fuel filters for the VW Corrado IIRC. Those were the only ones I could find that had anything close to a 3/8 inch opening. Even so, I had to drill out the opening to 3/8 inch before installing.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Below is a boost versus RPM graph comparing my first E85 log (dark green) versus my two best logs for pump gas. These are in fifth gear with the exhaust valve open. As you can see, the E85 log is higher overall as compared to pump gas. It pulls noticeably stronger in the 2500 to 3000 RPM range, with a 5 psi increase in boost at about 2700 RPMs. This is with no adjustment in timing.










I am still having some misfires up top and am probably limited by my side-mount intercooler with no chemical intercooling.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Also, I logged block 002 on a hard 3rd gear pull to red line. At 6560 RPMs, my IPW was 9.86. Using the above Fuel Injector Duty Cycle Calculator and confirmed by the calculation provided, my IDC is 53.9%. It appears that I have plenty of injector at 5 bar BFP on the 1200s.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought this was very interesting. Below is a boost actual versus requested graph. As you can see, the GTX2867R on E85 and the tune want to go in different directions. One thing I noticed is that there is a lot more power between 2500 and 3000 RPMs running E85. It feels like the car wants to take off but flattens out around 3000 RPMs. It feels like th ECU is struggling above 2800 RPMs to keep things under control and within limits. By 4000 RPMs, the ECU wins out and manages to tame the GTX2867R on E85.










This makes sense as this is my pump gas program which is tuned to a maximum boost of 2 bar (29.4 psi). When I contact Gonzo to flash my dedicated E85 program, I will ask him to increase the boost requested threshold to 2.75 bar (40 psi) at 3500 RPMs. This will allow me to get the most out of this turbo/fuel combination.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought I would post this compressor map for reference (2.1L):










As you can see, there is some nice usable area above 2 bar PSIG. The GTX2867R turbo on E85 seems to want to operate in that region.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


> I thought this was very interesting. Below is a boost actual versus requested graph. As you can see, the GTX2867R on E85 and the tune want to go in different directions. One thing I noticed is that there is a lot more power between 2500 and 3000 RPMs running E85. It feels like the car wants to take off but flattens out around 3000 RPMs. It feels like th ECU is struggling above 2800 RPMs to keep things under control and within limits. By 4000 RPMs, the ECU wins out and manages to tame the GTX2867R on E85.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


E85 will require less N75 duty than gas for a set boost target. To be spot on the boost control PID will need slight tweaking from gas to E85.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> E85 will require less N75 duty than gas for a set boost target. To be spot on the boost control PID will need slight tweaking from gas to E85.


Thanks. I removed my N75 a while back and replaced with a MBC. That's probably why there is a discrepancy between requested and actual boost. I guess the ECU can only retard timing or momentarily cut ignition to bring boost down to requested level. I think the misfires I am experiencing above 3000 RPMs is the ECU trying to deal with actual boost over requested. It feels like the car can take a lot more boost on E85 but the ECU is keeping things restrained.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

I need an exhaust cut out. 

Is yours electric or boost actuated?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> I need an exhaust cut out.
> 
> Is yours electric or boost actuated?


Mine is a 2.5 inch (64mm) electric cutout from QTP Performance. It's definitely one of my favorite mods. Here is a quick video showing the activation switch and exhaust valve. The sound on the video doesn't capture how loud the exhaust is when open.






Definitely helps with spoolup! The rest of my exhaust system is totally stock.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I did some data-logging last night for blocks 011 and 020 and got some strange results. Below is a 4th gear WOT pull with exhaust valve open.










As you can see, ignition timing is reported in After Top Dead Center (ATDC) and ranges from 0.8 to 12 degrees ATDC. You'll also notice 6 degrees of timing pull for each cylinder. This doesn't make sense since Ethanol burns slower and can tolerate more timing advance. Here is a chart overlaying two (2) fourth gear WOT pulls. First pull is with exhaust valve open, second is with valve closed.










You'll notice that for each WOT pull, ignition timing was reported as being after top dead center (ATDC). There is not one point below zero (0) on the y-axis. This means that at no point, was ignition timing reported as being before top dead center. However, considering that optimal timing for Ethanol is at least 30 degrees before top dead center, there must be something else going on.

My first thought was that maybe my engine builder, Bill Schimmel, either did not plug in the crank position sensor, or somehow installed the crank impulse wheel incorrectly when he did my IE 2.1L stroker kit. I checked and made sure the crank position sensor was plugged in. This is the sensor just behind and to the right of the oil filter on the engine block, correct? If so, it was plugged in. 

Is it possible that the impulse wheel was not installed incorrectly? What other ideas do people have with my **very late** ignition timing. Considering how much torque and power the engine has, especially now with E85, I can't imagine that my timing is that late. I would be losing a lot of power with that much timing retardation. But the car is wicked fast!

I also considered that I might be running very lean, causing timing retard. However, my fueling is almost spot on, with 5 bar BFP (+129% over gas) plus 10.2% primary fuel added, plut 5.5% fuel trim adjustment. Total increase in fuel over pump gas is: 129 + 10.2 + 5.5 = 145%.

Any thoughts?


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

If you have a bad CPS then it _should_ throw a code but doesn't always. Does the car shut off randomly at a stop light or just driving? That's what people usually report. I personally never had one go bad.

Is your car tuned for 5 bar of base fuel pressure?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> If you have a bad CPS then it _should_ throw a code but doesn't always. Does the car shut off randomly at a stop light or just driving? That's what people usually report. I personally never had one go bad.
> 
> Is your car tuned for 5 bar of base fuel pressure?


Currently, I am adapting my pump gas tune to work with E85. Once I determine how much more fueling and timing I need, along with maximum boost, then I will ask Gonzo to flash that into a dedicated E85 tune. I don't see a code for cank shaft position sensor. The car doesn't shut off randomly at a stop light or while driving. So, based this, I am going to assume that the CPS sensor is probably working.

I am wondering if it's possible that the impulse wheel was installed incorrectly when my engine builder, Bill Schimmel, installed my ALH crank and IE rods. Or, perhaps, he installed the incorrect wheel.

According to IE:



performancebyie; said:


> Crank Sensor Trigger Wheel
> We have hunted down the correct trigger wheel to use when stroking a 1.8T engine with the proper TDI crankshaft making the TDI crank a direct fit into 1.8T engines. These are brand new OEM parts directly from Volkswagen and include 3 new bolts for easy install.












I'm pretty sure Bill sourced the stroker kit from IE. In which case, it *should* have the correct Crank Sensor Trigger Wheel ('impulse wheel'). If it was the correct wheel, is it possible that he installed it in the wrong orientation? Based on the picture below, it looks like a 3-bolt affair:

If it was installed incorrectly, it would throw timing off by 120 degrees (360 / 3 bolts). That would put timing either way too early or way to late, not close to ATDC as indicated by block 011. I'm not sure what's going on here.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

why not log wideband lambda values to see what your o2 sensors are reporting for WOT fueling.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

SB_GLI said:


> why not log wideband lambda values to see what your o2 sensors are reporting for WOT fueling.


Is that block 031 or 032? Block 032 is returning: 7.9 and 5.5.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

If you run a 5 bar base pressure and 2 bar boost your fuel pump need to push against 7 bars..... Some monster fuelpump you got installed or what? You wont get good fuelflow at 7 bars / 100psi (!) 

What's your lambda requested and actual. O2 corrections?

Also, your IAT is very high. Looks like mine with too small IC.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Gulfstream said:


> If you run a 5 bar base pressure and 2 bar boost your fuel pump need to push against 7 bars..... Some monster fuelpump you got installed or what? You wont get good fuelflow at 7 bars / 100psi (!)
> 
> What's your lambda requested and actual. O2 corrections?
> 
> Also, your IAT is very high. Looks like mine with too small IC.


He's running dual aeromotive 340's, FYI.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Gulfstream said:


> If you run a 5 bar base pressure and 2 bar boost your fuel pump need to push against 7 bars..... Some monster fuelpump you got installed or what? You wont get good fuelflow at 7 bars / 100psi (!)
> 
> What's your lambda requested and actual. O2 corrections?
> 
> Also, your IAT is very high. Looks like mine with too small IC.


Yes. Dual Aeromotive 340's in the tank. I Should have plenty of flow at 5 bar base fuel pressure plus 2-3 bar boost. I provide the rationale and calculations on the previous page for this setup. Click here for this post (#534)

As far as AITs, I only have an upgraded SMIC. But notice that at cooler AIT's, my timing was pretty retarded at up to 9 degrees ATDC.

I log block 031 for lambda values, correct? What gas lambda values should I shoot for at WOT, about 0.80 (or AFR=12)?


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Looks like that pump has 170lph at the pump with that pressure. Keep in mind the resistance across oem fuel lines increase exponentially with increased pressure.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Gulfstream said:


> Looks like that pump has 170lph at the pump with that pressure. Keep in mind the resistance across oem fuel lines increase exponentially with increased pressure.


And he's running 3/8" lines and fittings across the entire system including a high flow FPR and dual fuel filters.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

groggory said:


> And he's running 3/8" lines and fittings across the entire system including a high flow FPR and dual fuel filters.


Nice.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Gulfstream said:


> If you run a 5 bar base pressure and 2 bar boost your fuel pump need to push against 7 bars..... Some monster fuelpump you got installed or what? You wont get good fuelflow at 7 bars / 100psi (!)
> 
> What's your lambda requested and actual. O2 corrections?
> 
> Also, your IAT is very high. Looks like mine with too small IC.



Regardless of his IC, he is starting out (at normal temperature and it does climb quickly) and already pulling back timing because he is firing ATDC. Hence why I asked if his tune is set up for 5 bar base fuel pressure. He could be flooding the cylinders out if his SW isn't set up for his HW.


----------



## fonzii18 (Mar 24, 2015)

I have a gti mk6 tsi, would yall recommend gtx2867 it gtx3071?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Please provide a running AFR log at WOT, something if awfully wrong. You shoul NOT be seeing so much timing corretion on E85.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> Regardless of his IC, he is starting out (at normal temperature and it does climb quickly) and already pulling back timing because he is firing ATDC. Hence why I asked if his tune is set up for 5 bar base fuel pressure. He could be flooding the cylinders out if his SW isn't set up for his HW.


I'm going to try and log block 031 shortly to check lambda values. I just have to wait until wife returns from store. Wife yelled at me yesterday for making 'Exhaust Cutout" video... 'don't you have work to do?" LOL.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

I would consider a real, high speed, data log. Not with VCDS. Search ME7Logger.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

SB_GLI said:


> I would consider a real, high speed, data log. Not with VCDS. Search ME7Logger.


That looks far better than VCDS for data logging and free too. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I just did a log of blocks 031 and 011 using VCDS on a 4th gear WOT pull (see below). As you can see, block 011 shows degrees before top dead center(BTDC). 










I did not mention in my earlier post that while I was checking to see if the crank position sensor was plugged in, I noticed that Knock Sensor 1 was loose and not even plugged in. The last time I had my car at spturbo, Bill Schimmels, he didn't button up the car very well before he returned it to me. In fact, the car wouldn't even start after he did my GTX2867R upgrade as he left the camshaft position sensor unplugged. Apparently, Knock Sensor 1 was also left unplugged. That would explain error code 16711 - Knock Sensor 1 (G61): Signal too low code I was getting and continually ignoring.

I rectified Knock Sensor 1 earlier this morning. When I started my car to do the latest log (above), block 011 was still reading 'ATDC' for the first 20 seconds. Then, after that, I noticed it was reading 'BTDC' as the car was warming up and I was headed towards my WOT stretch of road. There were flashes of 40 degrees BTDC and I thought... this is going to be different. During the WOT pull in fourth gear, it was much smoother above 3000 RPMs than anything previously and much stronger as the car did not experience any misfires. As you can see, timing ranged from 5.3 to 20.3 degrees BTDC. That's a lot better. I am going to confirm these results with another WOT 4th gear pull but this time with the exhaust valve open (higher boost). I will also log block 020 to see if there is any more retardation going on in my engine.

As far as lambda values, you can see that there is a nice 0.836 lambda or about 11.8 AFR for E10 pump gas (12.3 for straight gasoline) in the mid to upper RPM range. For E85, this translates into 8.24 AFR. Hopefully, I can confirm these results with another WOT pull and that the ATDC issue was because of Knock Sensor 1 not being plugged in. If so, then I can proceed to start advance timing while monitoring block 020 for timing pull.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

based on this you are at 20psi by 2,700rpm and 25+ after 3,000rpm. Correct?










at 3,000rpm you are running .93 lambda. Not until 4,250rpm do you get to an acceptable lambda.

You are too lean and too far advanced early in the revs. That's causing timing pull (as well as high IATs), which will reduce your overall ignition angle as you increase in revs. Better logs will tell a better story, but I think your tune needs some work.

If you need help getting me7logger running let me know.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Surely E85 can't compensate for poor AIT with a small cooler. Obv it's very knock resistant but cooler charge temps will without a doubt help your situation. 
Also you don't log very high, logs should be done to redline, you only have about 75% of the picture there.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

superkarl said:


> you only have about 75% of the picture there.


He's got enough to see that sh1t ain't right. He'll risk blowing something up with his current state... especially at 30+ psi and a lot of timing pull.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

SB_GLI said:


> based on this you are at 20psi by 2,700rpm and 25+ after 3,000rpm. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That graph is in 5th gear with the exhaust valve open. That's how I am able to attain 20 psi by 2700 RPMs and 25+ after 3000 RPMs under the higher load and free flowing exhaust. The data logs I posted are in 4th gear and with the exhaust valve closed. I can only achieve about 22 psi maximum with the exhaust valve closed at WOT due to stock exhaust system. The two graph and the data are not really comparable. I will do some more datalogging with lambda and boost to check if I am too lean. Thanks for the me7logger tip and support. I definately think that's the way to go.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> Surely E85 can't compensate for poor AIT with a small cooler. Obv it's very knock resistant but cooler charge temps will without a doubt help your situation.
> *Also you don't log very high, logs should be done to redline, you only have about 75% of the picture there*.


I have a 3.389 final drive. If I took it to redline, I would be doing about 160 MPH (260 KPH) in 4th gear IIRC. The last log I did with BTDC was done at the worst possible time (during 5:00 pm rush hour). But I managed to rev to about 5800 RPMs.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

SB_GLI said:


> He's got enough to see that sh1t ain't right. He'll risk blowing something up with his current state... especially at 30+ psi and a lot of timing pull.


Plugging in Knock Sensor 1 is doing wonders for my timing. I'll double check timing pull when I get a chance.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> I have a 3.389 final drive. If I took it to redline, I would be doing about 160 MPH (260 KPH) in 4th gear IIRC.


Il let you off then hahaha


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

Take logs in third gear.

I looked at your log under the impression that you were spooling up that early. If you start hitting boost around 4k then I take that all back, logs are looking better.


----------



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

The high IAT's won't be caused by advanced timing or a lean condition................... EGT's are a different story. Lambda request can be tweaked and its really a non-issue as that is just one revision away.

Quite frankly a better intercooler/exhaust setup would go _*very*_ far here.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> The high IAT's won't be caused by advanced timing or a lean condition................... EGT's are a different story. Lambda request can be tweaked and its really a non-issue as that is just one revision away.
> 
> *Quite frankly a better intercooler/exhaust setup would go very far here.*


Yeah. I know. I will be adding chemical intercooling once E85 tune is sorted out. But it's not W/M injection. I'll discuss that later when I have it setup.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> Il let you off then hahaha


I just double-checked my gear ratio spreadsheet. It's actually 150.3 MHP at 7200 RPMs, but that's still too fast. 



SB_GLI said:


> Take logs in third gear.
> 
> I looked at your log under the impression that you were spooling up that early. If you start hitting boost around 4k then I take that all back, logs are looking better.


Yeah. Third gear WOT pull is probably better. That will get me to just under 120 MPH.


EDIT: I'm going to wait another half an hour to an hour and then maybe do some logging. I plan on doing a WOT 5th gear pull to 4500 RPMs logging blocks: 031 (lambda), 011 (ignition timing) and 115 (boost). I'll also do a WOT 3rd gear pull to 6500+ RPMs with blocks 031, 011 and 020 (retard). I feel optimistic about having Knock Sensor 1 plugged in now. It ran much better earlier today.


----------



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

fonzii18 said:


> I have a gti mk6 tsi, would yall recommend gtx2867 it gtx3071?


GTX3071R is pretty laggy. About as laggy as a GT3076R. Please post on the correct forum, though


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

stop using bandaids to do intercooling. why don't you get a correct cooling setup instead of adding more fuels and variables into the mix.


----------



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

You can always tuck in a nice and big Vibrant intercooler with a little bumper trimming. Powder coat it black for a stealth look. Then add more cooling goodies.

Yeah boost response is affected a little bit, but you will be making 400whp (more with E85) with excellent spool (about the same time), so who cares?

Just stating my opinion.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Below is a data log for blocks 031, 011 and 020 in 3rd gear WOT with exhaust valve closed. Even with the boost limited to 22 psi, the car pulled very strong and smooth with no misfires as I was having before.










As I approached 5400 RPMs, the car suddenly stopped pulling without notice and decided to shut down temporarily. For a moment I thought I might have broke something but I didn't hear any metal grinding or sparks flying. As you can see from block 020, cylinder 4 started to retard timing as early as 4840 RPMs. I think my GTS tune decided to keep things safe before cylinder 4 got out of control. There were no DTC error codes added to my log file. I guess I should start by examining my spark plug on cylinder 4. Any suggestions here as to why cylinder 4 would start to get retarded?

Also, my lambda values looked very consistent and steady up to 5400 RPMs. Lambda 0.844 equates to 12.4 AFR for gasoline, 11.9 AFR for E10 and 8.3 AFR to E85.

Also notice that I am getting straight zero's for the most part for block 020 and no longer taking the 6 degree retard penalty across the board with Knock Sensor 1 unplugged.


----------



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

Fuel cut maybe?

4.5cf is not even close to being dangerous on pump gas


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> You can always tuck in a nice and big Vibrant intercooler with a little bumper trimming. Powder coat it black for a stealth look. Then add more cooling goodies.
> 
> Yeah boost response is affected a little bit, but you will be making 400whp (more with E85) with excellent spool (about the same time), so who cares?
> 
> Just stating my opinion.


I might consider that. But I really like chemical intercooling. Better intercooling is on the way soon.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Fuel cut maybe?
> 
> 4.5cf is not even close to being dangerous on pump gas


Yeah. It just stopped.


----------



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

mainstayinc said:


> Yeah. It just stopped.


Does engine run now or is it dead?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Does engine run now or is it dead?


Engine is totally fine. Runs perfect. After a few seconds of letting it coast, I could get back into boost again.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

if your car is logging IAT's like that, in cool/cold November weather...no chemical cooling is going to cut it.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

Vegeta Gti said:


> if your car is logging IAT's like that, in cool/cold November weather...no chemical cooling is going to cut it.


You'd be surprised.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

I love where this build has gone, nice work. I think you're gonna see considerable IAT reductions with chemical intercooling, no question, but you're leaving one huge thing out of the equation: pressure drop. Trying to squeeze all of that air through an intercooler barely good enough for a K03 (for both cooling and flow) is just mad!

I'm all for the stealth look, believe me, and I appreciate the great lengths you've gone to keep it like that, but you may want to consider a higher-flowing intercooler...or maybe none at all if you can get your chemical intercooling straightened out well enough (it's a bitter/sweet idea for me). I love your exhaust setup and I do not think that it's a major player with your issues (when it's wide open of course). But that charge air pressure drop must be nuts. If you've ever read Maximum Boost by Corkey Bell you'll know what I'm talking about. PSIG for PSIG, the car will be better in almost every performance/reliability dimension.

Regardless, there ARE other stealth options out there that'll offer much better flow (and subsequently little to no pressure drop). I know Arnold @ PagParts did a side mount AWIC setup...pretty trick stuff...

Keep up the great work and updates.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Correct size IC is incredibly important. When I did my 723bhp dyno pull I had a Garret 550 core and IAT rise by 40c. I got a Garrett 800 core and doing same pulls now I only get 10c rise....... That's a huge difference which I also feel above 6k.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Now that you have the real issue out of the way (missing knock sensor), time to get this thing dialed in properly. 

1) First of all your tip-in lamba curve is too lean (even for E85). Best *theoretical* AFR for power on our forced induced motors is 0.85 lambda, however real life variables throws a wrench in the theory (air charge temperature, knock threshold not allowing ideal ignition timing, port injection not being ideal for perfect fuel atomization etc.). 

For E85, I have tested no power increase from 0.83 lambda- up, what did increased however (although slightly) is EGT -- so there is really no practical point in running leaner than 0.83 while on boost, even on E85. For pump gas that threshold is even lower as the cooling properties are lessened considerably. It is a culture in the 1.8t tuning world to run leaner than needed and kill the boost and timing possible just to support the leanish AFRs. Run a fatter lambda curve and you will be able to afford more boost and timing before seeing knock and EGT based corrections. 

2) You have a serious case of excessive air charge temperature. And as a result, the IAT readings are making the ECU pull timing (even when on E85 which can handle the heated charge). Don't forget, the BTA protection maps referencing IAT are tuned to reflect pump gas capability, so running a hotter air charge than they are tuned to support will result in timing pull (regardless of the ability of ethanol to handle it without knocking). Address the on-boost IAT delta and timing corrections will disappear. My vote is for chemical cooling (several nozzles pre-throttle plate will fix that), simply because there is no spool penalties like what comes attached with a FMIC capable of handling the load. 

3) You seem to be blowing spark. The condition is very common at the boost level you're running. Usual recommended spark plug gaps are not suitable for your condidtions. When I ran the factory ignition system (revision 1.8t or 2.0t COPs) nothing would allow more than 0.025" gap at 28 psi -up. So what are you gapping at now? If the answer is the conventional 0.028"-0.032", you have likely found the answer as to why the car stops pulling at WOT. Clean pulls at high boost require plug gap appropriate to what the stock ignition can support (it is not a secret that the VAG-family COPs are not most powerful coils out there). 

My personal observations, so take them for what they are, test things and draw your own conclusion! :beer:


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

great input Max! 

I too drank the large spark plug / 2.0t coil koolaid! that was until I went with the GTX Smaller gaps of about .024-.026 yielded better results as everything ran smoother. I am on stock (revised) 1.8t coils also.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm on the road today. I'll check back in later this afternoon.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> great input Max!
> 
> I too drank the large spark plug / 2.0t coil koolaid! that was until I went with the GTX Smaller gaps of about .024-.026 yielded better results as everything ran smoother. I am on stock (revised) 1.8t coils also.


called that **** from day 1 lol


better plug gap, PROPER IC, solidfy tune, then go to chemical cooling. the over quality of the setup will be far superior than skipping steps and being stubborn.
be efficient, be smart, and do it right even if it is the "normal" way. 

i too love this build, it's great, but somethings have ben proven to only be correct but work, so why skip such solid steps to avoid heart break and potential failure?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> I love where this build has gone, nice work. I think you're gonna see considerable IAT reductions with chemical intercooling, no question, but you're leaving one huge thing out of the equation: pressure drop. Trying to squeeze all of that air through an intercooler barely good enough for a K03 (for both cooling and flow) is just mad!
> 
> I'm all for the stealth look, believe me, and I appreciate the great lengths you've gone to keep it like that, but you may want to consider a higher-flowing intercooler...or maybe none at all if you can get your chemical intercooling straightened out well enough (it's a bitter/sweet idea for me). I love your exhaust setup and I do not think that it's a major player with your issues (when it's wide open of course). But that charge air pressure drop must be nuts. If you've ever read Maximum Boost by Corkey Bell you'll know what I'm talking about. PSIG for PSIG, the car will be better in almost every performance/reliability dimension.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I definitely considered a side mount AWIC setup like the one you described from PPG. My current side mount IC is admittedly a cheap one from ebay. However, I carefully considered the cross-sectional area of the core before upgrading from my stock SMIC. My conclusion was that the flow area of the core itself was larger than the 2 inch inlet/outlet pipes. Therefore, the core itself would not present much of a flow restriction. The cross-sectional area of the core is 4 inches deep by 8.25 inches tall or 33 square inches. The typical 2 inch deep front mount intercooler would have to be 16.5 inches tall to equal the cross-sectional area of the SMIC. Most front mount ICs are 12 inches tall or less or about 75% less cross-sectional area. BTW the most common ebay upgraded SMIC is a 5 inch deep core, which is equivalent to a 20 inch tall, 2 inch deep front mount. I thought that was a little much for side mount placement, as there is not a whole lot of area in front of the wheel well to begin with. My 4 inch core fits nicely in front of my vented fender liner.

As far as cooling capacity, there is no question that a front mount IC, with a longer core and better placement up front, if far superior than a SMIC. However, I had always planned to get chemical intercooling with my upgraded SMIC.

Conclusion. My upgraded SMIC does not present any additional flow restriction over a front mount intercooler. However, the cooling capacity is far inferior as compared to the front mount. Chemical intercooling combined with a side mount IC can outperform a good front mount without adding additional volume to the intake tract or the added fabrication necessary to install a front mount or without loosing the stock sleeper look.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I am sure Max and others can chime in and agree. Chemical cooling can only do so much. It's not like you are freezing the air, merely adding water/methanol and essentially increasing octane rating. You aren't actually cooling the charge air. That's the main issue here and your IC (regardless of your inch/squared calculation) is not up to par for the set up you are running. Fact, proven by your logs. In PA it's in the 50's now when you are driving around so it shouldn't climb 40 degrees and you aren't even at redline yet. The SMIC is fine for a k03 pushing hot air, it's totally different when you are in the 400whp range. Your options are: 

If you want to stay SMIC get an AWIC set up.
To change to a FMIC.

Personally, after running a PTE core and then switching to a Garrett core of the same rating, I saw a difference in temps not climbing as high. It's a bit more involved than area and plain size. I think that is what Vegeta is hinting in his post. GL


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

If you put the nozzles just post intercooler, you can actually cool the charge air. That is one of the big benefits of the water injection.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Now that you have the real issue out of the way (missing knock sensor), time to get this thing dialed in properly.
> 
> 1) First of all your tip-in lamba curve is too lean (even for E85). Best *theoretical* AFR for power on our forced induced motors is 0.85 lambda, however real life variables throws a wrench in the theory (air charge temperature, knock threshold not allowing ideal ignition timing, port injection not being ideal for perfect fuel atomization etc.).
> 
> ...


Thank you for your observations. I have NGK BRK7's gapped to 0.025 inches. I should probably re-gap or replace these. Do you recommend BRK8's one step cooler for running E85?

I definitely agree that I might be blowing spark under high boost. There were no backfires or blue flames out the tail pipe when the engine cut and stopped pulling. I think the ECU cut fuel after detecting no ignition. I hope that my current ignition system is up to task. What type of ignition system are you running in your TT?

I definitely have excessive AIT charge temps. The smaller-inducer GTX turbos have to spin faster to achieve the same amount of corrected air flow as compared to their GT counterpart. This creates more heat. I will refer the finer details of on-boost AIT delta, tip-in lambda etc. to Gonzo who will create my final E85 tune. Please continue to give feedback, as this will hopefully become hard-coded into my setup.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> If you put the nozzles just post intercooler, you can actually cool the charge air. That is one of the big benefits of the water injection.


I had my engine builder weld a 1/4 NPT bung at the intercooler outlet and another 1/4 NPT bung just past the turbo compressor outlet. I plan to use these for cooling. All this talk about high AIT's is going to make me get my progressive controller sorted out and setup.

EDIT: I have all the parts for my chemical intercooling system. I just have to tie a few parts together. Re-wiring my dual in-tank pumps gave me a lot of confidence for doing electrical on my MK4. Hopefully, I can translate that into a completed chemical intercooling setup. Most of it is already there, though, thanks to Bill Schimmel of spturbo.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

18T_BT said:


> I am sure Max and others can chime in and agree. Chemical cooling can only do so much. It's not like you are freezing the air, merely adding water/methanol and essentially increasing octane rating. * You aren't actually cooling the charge air*. That's the main issue here and your IC (regardless of your inch/squared calculation) is not up to par for the set up you are running. Fact, proven by your logs. In PA it's in the 50's now when you are driving around so it shouldn't climb 40 degrees and you aren't even at redline yet. The SMIC is fine for a k03 pushing hot air, it's totally different when you are in the 400whp range. Your options are:
> 
> If you want to stay SMIC get an AWIC set up.
> To change to a FMIC.
> ...


Mine is setup to actually cool the air. Whatever heat is left in the combustion chamber will be taken up by the ethanol. That's the plan, at least.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> I am sure Max and others can chime in and agree. Chemical cooling can only do so much. It's not like you are freezing the air, merely adding water/methanol and essentially increasing octane rating. You aren't actually cooling the charge air. That's the main issue here and your IC (regardless of your inch/squared calculation) is not up to par for the set up you are running. Fact, proven by your logs. In PA it's in the 50's now when you are driving around so it shouldn't climb 40 degrees and you aren't even at redline yet. The SMIC is fine for a k03 pushing hot air, it's totally different when you are in the 400whp range. Your options are:
> 
> If you want to stay SMIC get an AWIC set up.
> To change to a FMIC.
> ...


I agree, chemical cooling can do a lot, but rarely be relied on as the primary mean of cooling the air charge. Usually a decent method intercooling needs to be there and let the chemical cooling aid the process to bring charge temperature closer to ambient. A nice air-to-water setup would be ideal here as it would give the best of both world with adequate charge cooling without the lag penalty associated to the large and efficient air-to-air systems (I'm also not the biggest fan of the huge front mounted cores for various reasons including the added polar weight, and hurting natural airflow to the radiator). 

With that said, below is a test I did on my car when I ran an air-to-water setup. I tested my water injection setup as a single variable to see what it could do by itself. The test was easy with an air-to-water setup because you could just pull the fluid pump fuse to disable the system. I had a total of 5 nozzles at the time (4 directly ported and a single pre-TB nozzle). The result can help gauge what can and can't do by itself -- and obviously the results could have been better with more pre-TB nozzles:



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I did some more testing with the car, but this time with the direct port water injection as my tested variable. The only real way to do that is by taking the AWIC offline (I simply unplugged the water pump). The following snapshots are with the 4 direct port nozzles and a single 1 Gal/Hr nozzle in the pipe before the TB.
> 
> Theoretically, with enough water volume on the pre-TB nozzle, IAT should be kept in check even without anything else to help cool the air charge. It turned out that the single 1 Gal/Hr is not up to the task and I'm going to bump that to 3 Gal/Hr and see where that takes me (maybe a twin pre-TB nozzles is the ticket). IAT was rising steadily at full boost and not able to event keep the air charge temp constant.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> Thank you for your observations. I have NGK BRK7's gapped to 0.025 inches. I should probably re-gap or replace these. Do you recommend BRK8's one step cooler for running E85?
> 
> I definitely agree that I might be blowing spark under high boost. There were no backfires or blue flames out the tail pipe when the engine cut and stopped pulling. I think the ECU cut fuel after detecting no ignition. I hope that my current ignition system is up to task. What type of ignition system are you running in your TT?
> 
> I definitely have excessive AIT charge temps. The smaller-inducer GTX turbos have to spin faster to achieve the same amount of corrected air flow as compared to their GT counterpart. This creates more heat. I will refer the finer details of on-boost AIT delta, tip-in lambda etc. to Gonzo who will create my final E85 tune. Please continue to give feedback, as this will hopefully become hard-coded into my setup.


Yeah, you likely grew the gap overtime and/or need fresh plugs. The coppers are great for conductivity but are very high service interval plugs. They need a tighter schedule of maintenance than most realize (two racing weekends is what I get out of those). 

I run 8 heat range NGK racing (non-resistored) iridiums for that very reason. They don't grow the gap as quickly as the coppers -- and when they do, they're not throw aways with eroded tips, and can be re-gapped for another round of abuse. I suggest running 8 heat range plugs for your setup. Anything above 26/27 psi and flowing more air than a K04 air could use an 8 heat range IMO. 

In my TT, I run GM coil-near-plugs (CNP), NGK racing iridiums gapped at 0.028" with uprated dwell setting. The GM coilpack conversion was one of the most solid and problem-solving mods I've done to date. Even at factory dwells, they make the common vag ignition shortcomings a thing of the past.

GM coilpack conversion 









Dwell setting on them


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I agree, chemical cooling can do a lot, but rarely be relied on as the primary mean of cooling the air charge. Usually a decent method intercooling needs to be there and let the chemical cooling aid the process to bring charge temperature closer to ambient. A nice air-to-water setup would be ideal here as it would give the best of both world with adequate charge cooling without the lag penalty associated to the large and efficient air-to-air systems (I'm also not the biggest fan of the huge front mounted cores for various reasons including the added polar weight, and hurting natural airflow to the radiator).
> 
> With that said, below is a test I did on my car when I ran an air-to-water setup. I tested my water injection setup as a single variable to see what it could do by itself. The test was easy with an air-to-water setup because you could just pull the fluid pump fuse to disable the system. I had a total of 5 nozzles at the time (4 directly ported and a single pre-TB nozzle). The result can help gauge what can and can't do by itself -- and obviously the results could have been better with more pre-TB nozzles:


That's very helpful. Do you recall what ambient temperature was when you did the testing? Also, I agree that the results could have been better with more pre-TB nozzles. That would have allowed more contact time with the charged air.

BTW, thank you for your suspension advice. If you recall, I called you earlier this year to discuss suspension options. I decided to go with your recommendation (Bilstein PSS B14 non-adjustable dampers). It took me a few months to get everything dailed in but I am extremely happy with this setup. I added an SRS-style anti-torsion bar which complements the Bilstein's perfectly. The car feels alot safer at highway speeds and is a lot more fun around town. Your advice has been extremely valuable for me and, I'm sure, others.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Yeah, you likely grew the gap overtime and/or need fresh plugs. The coppers are great for conductivity but are very high service interval plugs. They need a tighter schedule of maintenance than most realize (two racing weekends is what I get out of those).
> 
> I run 8 heat range NGK racing (non-resistored) iridiums for that very reason. They don't grow the gap as quickly as the coppers -- and when they do, they're not throw aways with eroded tips, and can be re-gapped for another round of abuse. I suggest running 8 heat range plugs for your setup. Anything above 26/27 psi and flowing more air than a K04 air could use an 8 heat range IMO.
> 
> ...


I am going to check my plugs and diagnose and replace as recommended. I think it's a good idea for me to get my voltmeter out and begin to poke around my ignition wires to see if they are still good. I'm not exactly sure what I am doing. My OEM alternator lasted 13 years but was only putting out 11.5V for the last 2 or 3 years. Just like my alternator, my ignition wires are probably past their prime and need to be updated or replaced with something better.

034 sells a repair harness:

http://store.034motorsport.com/harness-update-repair-1-8t-4-wire-coil.html










and some kind of high-output coil kit:

http://store.034motorsport.com/aan-high-output-coil-kit-plug-in.html










Your thoughts?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> That's very helpful. Do you recall what ambient temperature was when you did the testing? Also, I agree that the results could have been better with more pre-TB nozzles. That would have allowed more contact time with the charged air.
> 
> BTW, thank you for your suspension advice. If you recall, I called you earlier this year to discuss suspension options. I decided to go with your recommendation (Bilstein PSS B14 non-adjustable dampers). It took me a few months to get everything dailed in but I am extremely happy with this setup. I added an SRS-style anti-torsion bar which complements the Bilstein's perfectly. The car feels alot safer at highway speeds and is a lot more fun around town. Your advice has been extremely valuable for me and, I'm sure, others.


Yes, thankfully all these charge cooling tests were compiled and documented in one thread so it's easy to trace back. Test was done mid June with an ambient temperature of 87 deg F (high for that day). I feel the same way as well, if I had more nozzles (or maybe more volume), the chemical cooling would have shown better results as a standalone. My issue at the time was that with Air-to-Water of piping being so short, I only had one port plumbed post-cooler, I later added a second one post turbo before the cooler, but never got a chance to repeat the experiment as a single variable. 

I still feel however that chemical cooling, as great as it is, is better at lowering knock threshold in-cylinder than handling the air charge temperature as a primary cooler. You need a decent solution to handle the IAT primarily (say 85% of the load) and use chemical cooling as a supplement. 

Yes, I do recall our phone conversation about suspension setup. I am glad that you have followed the suggestions and is finding positive results as a results. Don't hesitate if you need more help with suspension stuff to reach out. :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> I am going to check my plugs and diagnose and replace as recommended. I think it's a good idea for me to get my voltmeter out and begin to poke around my ignition wires to see if they are still good. I'm not exactly sure what I am doing. My OEM alternator lasted 13 years but was only putting out 11.5V for the last 2 or 3 years. Just like my alternator, my ignition wires are probably past their prime and need to be updated or replaced with something better.
> 
> 034 sells a repair harness:
> 
> ...


Definitely inspect the coil harness condition. You never know what surprise might be waiting for you once you unwrap it. This is what mine looked like when I did:


*The problem ranged from fried connections to badly broken insulation and exposed wires. The wires were also very hard from age*



















































As for upgrading the ignition coils themselves, please do yourself a favor an look at the GM coilpacks conversion thread posted in this section. For a fraction of cost of the 034 kit, you can build yourself a similar setup that is proven and used by many experienced members with excellent results with builds of all levels. Everything you need to know about the GM coilpacks conversion, down to part numbers, is archived here: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...kon-coil-conversion&highlight=Yukon+Coilpacks


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

18T_BT said:


> That's the main issue here and _your IC (regardless of your inch/squared calculation) is not up to par for the set up you are running._ Fact, proven by your logs. In PA it's in the 50's now when you are driving around so it shouldn't climb 40 degrees and you aren't even at redline yet. _The SMIC is fine for a k03 pushing hot air, *it's totally different when you are in the 400whp range.*_
> 
> Personally, after running a PTE core and then switching to a Garrett core of the same rating, I saw a difference in temps not climbing as high. *It's a bit more involved than area and plain size.*


Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. Things like fin density and end tank design (i.e. vanes, etc.) come to mind - both of which are a little "hairy" with any 1.8T SMIC!



mainstayinc said:


> I definitely have excessive AIT charge temps. The smaller-inducer GTX turbos *have to spin faster to achieve the same amount of corrected air flow* as compared to their GT counterpart. *This creates more heat.*


On top of that, the turbo has to spin even faster to reach the requested boost target due to the inevitable post-IC pressure loss attributed to unsatisfactory ICs. This in turn creates even more heat, working only to heat soak the already stressed/pushed IC. It's pretty easy to see that things snowball quickly from there...

However, I'm not saying it's a bad IC - it certainly has its purpose. You're just so far beyond its acceptable operating range! If it's within your budget, my vote is for an AWIC in the same location :thumbup:


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> That's very helpful. Do you recall what ambient temperature was when you did the testing? Also, I agree that the results could have been better with more pre-TB nozzles. That would have allowed more contact time with the charged air.
> 
> BTW, thank you for your suspension advice. If you recall, I called you earlier this year to discuss suspension options. I decided to go with your recommendation (Bilstein PSS B14 non-adjustable dampers). It took me a few months to get everything dailed in but I am extremely happy with this setup. I added an SRS-style anti-torsion bar which complements the Bilstein's perfectly. The car feels alot safer at highway speeds and is a lot more fun around town. Your advice has been extremely valuable for me and, I'm sure, others.


Just out of curiosity (I'm prepping for a suspension refresh myself), are you using stock or aftermarket springs? Thanks!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> Just out of curiosity (I'm prepping for a suspension refresh myself), are you using stock or aftermarket springs? Thanks!


I'm using aftermarket springs. The Bilstein B14 (PSS) kit comes with tuned springs and dampers. It's definitely a much stiffer ride than stock and takes a little getting used to on the street. However, I definitely couldn't go back. I also installed a Shine-style Rear Anti-Torsion Bar (ATB) from this vendor. It complements the Bilstein kit perfectly and allows me to keep the suspension components hidden, as the Shine-style ATB fits inside the OEM ATB.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. Things like fin density and end tank design (i.e. vanes, etc.) come to mind - both of which are a little "hairy" with any 1.8T SMIC!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. You guys convinced me that lowering my AITs is a top priority in making the most out of my setup. I will go with a stock-location AWIC setup if my chemical intercooler fails to bring down AITs sufficiently.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Yes, thankfully all these charge cooling tests were compiled and documented in one thread so it's easy to trace back. Test was done mid June with an ambient temperature of 87 deg F (high for that day). I feel the same way as well, if I had more nozzles (or maybe more volume), the chemical cooling would have shown better results as a standalone. My issue at the time was that with Air-to-Water of piping being so short, I only had one port plumbed post-cooler, I later added a second one post turbo before the cooler, but never got a chance to repeat the experiment as a single variable.
> 
> I still feel however that chemical cooling, as great as it is, is better at lowering knock threshold in-cylinder than handling the air charge temperature as a primary cooler. You need a decent solution to handle the IAT primarily (say 85% of the load) and use chemical cooling as a supplement.
> 
> Yes, I do recall our phone conversation about suspension setup. I am glad that you have followed the suggestions and is finding positive results as a results. *Don't hesitate if you need more help with suspension stuff to reach out. *:beer:


:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Definitely inspect the coil harness condition. You never know what surprise might be waiting for you once you unwrap it. *This is what mine looked like when I did*:
> 
> 
> *The problem ranged from fried connections to badly broken insulation and exposed wires. The wires were also very hard from age*
> ...


Those pictures are very revealing. It makes me think that my ignition wiring is in need of repair. I did find that link to the LS2 coil conversion last night and did a little research. That would definitely be the ultimate solution to sub-standard coils on a BT setup. It seems like it's either hit or miss with OEM coils and wiring harness. Some guys get good results, a lot of people don't. I am leaning toward replacing the wiring harness with the ECS Tuning replacement.

https://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Golf_IV--1.8T/ES2506749/










For $73.00 plus the cost of the wire pulling tools and my time, it's worth trying. If I'm still getting unreliable spark, then I'll go for a complete conversion.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> Ok. You guys convinced me that lowering my AITs is a top priority in making the most out of my setup. I will go with a stock-location AWIC setup if my chemical intercooler fails to bring down AITs sufficiently.


I agree, add chemical cooling to your existing setup to see where that lands you first. My suggestion is to have at least one pre-cooler nozzle because you get the best charge cooling effect by targeting the extremely-heated charge coming out of the compressor outlet. This way, the cooler sees a cooler charge and can be operating closer its ideal efficiency range. A second post-cooler (but still pre-throttle body) nozzle can finalize the air charge cooling.

In my car, I have tried countless setups. At some point I even deleted one of the twin SMICs that comes standard on the 225 TT because my charge air was so low (that's with a stock K04 spitting lava at 33 psi peak boost). The goal was to gain spool and reduce pressure loss. It was a success as I gained 3 psi of boost throughout the rev range with no other changes -- this allowed me to lower the MBC (reducing the shaft speed and heat produced) while keeping the same initial peak boost and higher sustained boost at redline. The moral of the story, if you have an elaborate chemical cooling setup, it can be a great support even for an otherwise overwhelmed cooler like you have. 

Another thing worth throwing out is pre-compressor cooling. I don't know how extensive your chemical cooling plans are, but it's something worth exploring. Not only will it expand your compressor map, the compressed charge will also be lowered a certain margin at the same shaft speed. Wet compression is not popular, but very effective in real life. When I tried it on my stock K04, it made the thing feel like a slightly bigger turbo as it was spitting less heat, and flowing more volume of compressed and condensed air. 

So, there are many possibilities with chemical cooling, and not all systems are created equal (especially when you go beyond the basic cookie cutter off-the-shelves kits). What are your specific plans with your chemical cooling project?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i am running direct port meth/water


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I agree, add chemical cooling to your existing setup to see where that lands you first. My suggestion is to have at least one pre-cooler nozzle because you get the best charge cooling effect by targeting the extremely-heated charge coming out of the compressor outlet. *This way, the cooler sees a cooler charge and can be operating closer its ideal efficiency range*. A second post-cooler (but still pre-throttle body) nozzle can finalize the air charge cooling.


That's what I was thinking. Since I have a relatively inefficient intercooler, a pre-cooler nozzle will allow my IC to operate more efficiently. I have both a pre-cooler NPT bung and a post-cooler NPT bund already welded into place. The pre-cooler bung is located at the beginning of my lower intercooler pipe just after my compressor outlet hose. It is a good 16 to 18 inches before the intercooler. The post-intercooler bung is located on the intercooler end tank and points straight up the intake tract toward my R32 TB. So, I figure there is ample contact time for the chemical intercooling.



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> In my car, I have tried countless setups. At some point I even deleted one of the twin SMICs that comes standard on the 225 TT because my charge air was so low (that's with a stock K04 spitting lava at 33 psi peak boost). The goal was to gain spool and reduce pressure loss. It was a success as I gained 3 psi of boost throughout the rev range with no other changes -- this allowed me to lower the MBC (reducing the shaft speed and heat produced) while keeping the same initial peak boost and higher sustained boost at redline. The moral of the story, if you have an elaborate chemical cooling setup, it can be a great support even for an otherwise overwhelmed cooler like you have.
> 
> Another thing worth throwing out is pre-compressor cooling. I don't know how extensive your chemical cooling plans are, but it's something worth exploring. Not only will it expand your compressor map, the compressed charge will also be lowered a certain margin at the same shaft speed. Wet compression is not popular, but very effective in real life. When I tried it on my stock K04, it made the thing feel like a slightly bigger turbo as it was spitting less heat, and flowing more volume of compressed and condensed air.
> 
> So, there are many possibilities with chemical cooling, and not all systems are created equal (especially when you go beyond the basic cookie cutter off-the-shelves kits). *What are your specific plans with your chemical cooling project?*


I'll get into specifics once the system is setup and running.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i am running direct port meth/water


That's in addition to AWIC, correct? Did you ever upgrade to the larger AWIC core?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i finished my larger core last week..i need to weld on the map sensor then powder coat and then modify my mounting bracket.

my last 3 track days i didn't run the direct port, i saw those IAT's..if i run it i turn up the boost and i will see mid to low 30's in Celsius for IAT's even out here in the 100+ temps of the desert.

i have a post AWIC 200cc nozzle and then my 4 individual 45cc nozzles. i have the direct nozzles turning on at 21psi and the single nozzle turning on at 15psi....system hits full spray at 27psi. I mix by weight and i use filtered then distilled water and VP M1. without the meth i see the IAT's i mentioned in the 40's....but my A2w system is very very sorted, and i'm closed look which is also changing, i'll be running a 3 gallon reservoir and secondary heat exchanger(underneath) in the car.

remember though my setup is all stuffed into the bay of a MK1. though i alos have things coated with ceramic coating, heat dispersion coatings and so on. 

my hottest temps were at chuck walla...it was 126* outside..i was seeing IAT's in the tight sections after the long stretch of 48-53*C with my full meth system running, so BARELY sub ambient...which is why i am finnaly upgrading everything.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i am running direct port meth/water


That's great for in-cylinder cooling and lowering knock threshold, but directly ported noozles are almost useless for charge cooling before reaching the IAT sensor. In this particular case, the IAT temp readings are obviously what is causing the timing pull, so I think it's better to prioritize on pre-tb charge cooling over in-cylinder cooling.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

which i do...but i'm monitoring what's going on inside and EGT's as well...hoping to wire up the back pressure stuff into the AEM in the future as well....got to talk some cool **** at SEMA with AEM. we do some testing for them. hence why i got such a smoking deal on the infinity, which is a dream. i jsut need to sort out my transmission issues now lol aka start ****ting money.

i am going to put my 225 back in soon when i put my larger AWIC in, see how crazy i can get with IAT's.


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> I'm using aftermarket springs. The Bilstein B14 (PSS) kit comes with tuned springs and dampers. It's definitely a much stiffer ride than stock and takes a little getting used to on the street. However, I definitely couldn't go back. I also installed a Shine-style Rear Anti-Torsion Bar (ATB) from this vendor. It complements the Bilstein kit perfectly and allows me to keep the suspension components hidden, as the Shine-style ATB fits inside the OEM ATB.


:thumbup: Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually looking to get new Bilstein struts/shocks + a rear bar on my OEM sport springs, so it's greatly appreciated. Sorry for muckin up the thread...back to turbos!


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

mainstayinc said:


> Ok. You guys convinced me that lowering my AITs is a top priority in making the most out of my setup. I will go with a stock-location AWIC setup if my chemical intercooler fails to bring down AITs sufficiently.


:thumbup:

And don't forget about pressure drop! Water/meth won't fix that!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> :thumbup: Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually looking to get new Bilstein struts/shocks + a rear bar on my OEM sport springs, so it's greatly appreciated. Sorry for muckin up the thread...back to turbos!


That's what I was originally going to go with. That should be a nice setup. No need to apologize for being off topic. There is a lot of good information here not directly related to turbos.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought I would post up a quick video of my new E85 fuel nozzle:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

:thumbup::thumbup:

Very cool, makes everyone that have done it the old fashion way look like cavemen!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> Very cool, makes everyone that have done it the old fashion way look like cavemen!


Thanks. I think the whole setup cost me around $400.00 including barrels, pump, fuel hose, swivel and nozzle. You can tell I am highly committed to E85.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I made a few changes recently I thought might be interesting to post here. First, as mentioned above, I plugged in Knock Sensor 1 after it has been unplugged for the last two years. What I didn't mention is that it has effected my spool-up significantly. Below is a comparison of the first 5th gear pull I did on E85 (dark green) and two pulls I did recently with Knock Sensor 1 plugged in (dark cyan and purple *bolded*).










As you can see, without Knock Sensor 1 plugged in, the GTX2867R turbo is able to freely spool above 30 psi at around 3400 RPMs (dark green). With Knock Sensor 1 plugged in (dark cyan and purple), it seems like the ECU has more control over the turbo and is able to bring spool-up into conformity with the tune. 30 psi is now attained at 4000 RPMs. That's a 600 RPM lose in spool-up. This is probably where the tune is requesting maximum boost.

Also notice that VCDS didn't register any data points between 2900 and 3900 RPMs for the later pull in dark cyan (with Knock Sensor 1 plugged in). That's because the engine jumped from 2900 RPMs to 3900 RPMs in fifth gear in a split second at speeds in excess of 100 MPH. I thought for a moment that my clutch slipped. However, I was amazed when I was able to repeat this same phenomenon on the second pull (in purple). On the second pull, the engine jumped from 2700 to 3700 RPMs in a split second and continue climbing after that as the car continued to accelerate.

So, there seems to be a lot of power in my hardware setup that wants to be unleashed. However, the tune, now that Knock Sensor 1 is plugged in, has everything confidently under control. Keep in mind that this tune is a modified version of my pump gas tune which limits boost to 2 bar (29 psi). For my dedicated E85 tune, I will ask Gonzo to increase maximum boost to 2.75 bar (40 psi) at 3500 RPMs. Based on how the turbo spools up with Knock Sensor 1 unplugged, this seems feasible. Spool-up would look something like this (dark red):










The second change I made was detecting and fixing a small leak on my SEM intake manifold. Apparently, one of my unused ports didn't have any sealant and was leaking. It's amazing what a little PTFE tape will do to smooth out engine performance. My idle is not as choppy and, even better, I did not have any misfires or engine cut-out under load when I did the second 5th gear pull. My setup pulls much more confidently without hesitation in fifth gear. This may rule out my ignition as being a weak point. I will have to do another 5th gear pull to confirm.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Below I posted two charts showing my second 5th gear pull (the one in purple above). The x-axis on the first chart is Engine Speed (RPM) and, for comparison, on the second chart is the time stamp.










Notice the wide gap between the data points at 2700 and 3700 RPMs. Below is the same graph but with the time stamp on the x-axis.










As you can see, Actual Boost jumped from about 15 psi to 29 psi in about 1.5 seconds. This would confirm the issue with engine speed jumping in a split second I mentioned above.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

Why would you unplug a knock sensor just to gain some spool?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

superkarl said:


> Why would you unplug a knock sensor just to gain some spool?


When my engine builder, Bill Schimmel, of spturbo installed my GTX2867R, he forgot to plug some sensors back in before he returned the car to me. This included my Camshaft Position Sensor and Knock Sensor 1. I didn't discover the knock sensor unplugged until about two weeks ago. So, I've been driving my car around without one of the knock sensors for the past two years. Knock Sensor 1 is hidden underneath my SEM intake manifold so it is not really visible. At any rate, the car spools better without Knock Sensor 1 plugged in.

I might try and unplug Knock Sensor 1 to see if I can repeat the better spool I had before. However, Knock Sensor 2 is much easier to access so I might try that.


----------



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

Log actual timing as well while you are at it


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

That 5th gear 15-29psi spool time is ridiculous. 5th gear! Is this tamed by N75 or MBC? The fact that you're talking full retune makes me think the former but I feel like I've heard both tossed around in this thread. If that's N75, well done Gonzo.


----------



## SB_GLI (Oct 17, 2005)

I really don't understand why you are doing all of this at low rpm in 5th gear. I don't think the logs you've take really show the big picture of what's going on here. 

Why not do some 3rd or even 4 gear pulls so you can get a better idea of what's going on when you drive it like it's supposed to be driven. Not to mention the fact that you are going to kill someone going 130 MPH while doing WOT pulls in 5th gear.

Gonzo - give the man a stock bin of your file so he can takes some real logs.  VCDS blows for logging.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Log actual timing as well while you are at it


I think I did log timing with that pull. I'll post when I get a change.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

suffocatemymind said:


> That 5th gear 15-29psi spool time is ridiculous. 5th gear! Is this tamed by N75 or MBC? The fact that you're talking full retune makes me think the former but I feel like I've heard both tossed around in this thread. If that's N75, well done Gonzo.


MBC. Yeah, it scared me both times when it jumped 15 to 29 psi almost instantaneously. I thought I slipped clutch or broke something.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

SB_GLI said:


> I really don't understand why you are doing all of this at low rpm in 5th gear. *I don't think the logs you've take really show the big picture of what's going on here*.
> 
> Why not do some 3rd or even 4 gear pulls so you can get a better idea of what's going on when you drive it like it's supposed to be driven. Not to mention the fact that you are going to kill someone going 130 MPH while doing WOT pulls in 5th gear.
> 
> Gonzo - give the man a stock bin of your file so he can takes some real logs.  VCDS blows for logging.


No, they don't show the whole picture. Up until now, I was getting mis-fires past 4000 RPMs or the engine would simply cut out for some unknown reason. I thought it might be my ignition system. However, since fixing the small leak in my SEM intake manifold, the car pulls very strong and confidently past 4000 RPMs. Last night when I recorded the log on the crappy VCDS, I was going over 140 MPH on a local bypass. Thank goodness I upgraded my suspension because I probably would have rolled the car into the railing.

Now that I fixed the leak, I feel more confident to do a proper log in 3rd or 4th gear. I'm a little histant to do a 3rd gear pull since that's kind of a weak point in the 02J transmission. Even though I have a built 02J transmission, I'm still a little weary. At any rate, I'm definately looking forward to doing a full log (2000 to 6500+ RPMs). Currently, I added +5.25 timing with Lemmiwinks and the E85 seems to eat that up just fine.

I'm also in the process of getting my chemical intercooling setup and running. I'm currently waiting on a delivery of some key parts.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Some of you may have noticed that I haven't posted up in this thread for a couple months now. That's because my MK4 has been sitting and not able to start due to a flooded engine situation. Let me explain. Earlier this year I received some long-awaited parts from Trevor (Wizards of NOS) to complete my nitrous system. My first test with both a fuel and nitrous solenoid resulted in the engine stalling and slowly dying. The moment I engaged the solenoids, the car immediately bogged down. However, I kept the throttle pushed down hard and struggled to keep the engine running until I could turn off at the next exit. Unfortunately, it died on the side of the highway and I had to get a tow.

The car hasn't fired up since. It cranks fine but just doesn't start. I've been slowly troubleshooting the problem on my spare time and here is what I have done.

The first thing I noticed is that I don't have any fuel pressure. My twin Aeromotive 340 in-tank pumps would prime but my fuel rail would not hold any pressure. It would bleed down in about 2 seconds leaving no fuel pressure to start the car. So, the first thing I checked was my fuel pump relays and wiring. I bench-tested the relays and they worked fine. I decided to re-wire the trigger wire directly to the ignition power source to get continuous pressure in the rail. Unfortunately, that only drained the battery as both pumps were running while the starter attempted to crank over the engine. I reverted the wiring back to the original configuration.

I decided to order two (2) one-way check valves and install them where my fuel supply lines go into my fuel rail. I thought the check valve in one of the Aeromotive 340 pumps may have failed causing the fuel pressure to flow back into the tank after priming. I was pretty confident this would solve my fuel pressure bleeding problem. Unfortunately, it did not.










I next decided to call Fuelab in Collinsville, IL and discuss the situation with them. At this point I was confident that the return valve on the Fuelab FPR was failing causing fuel pressure to bleed back into the tank. The technician said that was virtually impossible and that my fuel solenoid on my nitrous system was probably stuck open. I disconnected the fuel supply line to the solenoid and threaded a cap on the port and, viola!, now I hold fuel pressure.










Unfortunately, my problems were far, far from being over. Although I now had fuel pressure in the fuel rail, I noticed that I had quite a bit of ethanol sitting at the bottom of my intercooler. 
I proceeded to drain the ethanol from my intercooler which amounted to about a 1/2 gallon. Every time I opened the driver's side door or primed my fuel pumps, ethanol would bleed down into my intercooler due to a fuel solenoid being stuck open.:banghead:

Even worse, I noticed that I had a disturbing amount of ethanol floating on top of engine oil at the bottom of my oil pan. I drained the oil and ethanol from the oil pan which combined to about 9 quarts of fluid total, most of which was Ethanol! I changed my oil and installed a new oil filter. The oil filter only had oil in it. So, there is no doubt that Ethanol got into the oil pan during the original incident. It's also possible that the Ethanol slowly bled past the piston rings after months of unsuccessful engine cranking.

I also removed my SEM intake manifold and noticed Ethanol inside the manifold and also sitting in a pool above the intake valves. At this point, I was trying avoid the H-word (hydrolock... bend rods, failed head gasket, broken piston rings etc.).

At this point I had fuel pressure but the car wouldn't crank over. So, I decided to change my Crankshaft Position Sensor, as that is usually the first thing that causes a no-start. I replaced the old unit with a new Bosch Sensor. The old unit registered 965 Ohms between pins 2 and 3 which is out of spec. I tried cranking the engine but it still wouldn't turn over. I did notice that my tachometer registered about 200 RPMs after the first few cranks which indicated that the sensor is working and the ECU is reading it correctly.

The next thing I did was check for spark. I popped off the Ignition Control Unit ("coilovers" or whatever they are called) above cylinder 4 and removed the spark plug from the cylinder head. I plugged the spark plug back into the ICU while it was unplugged. I cranked the engine over several times and observed a nice spark coming from the spark plug. So, I had spark. Later I repeated this procedure with all four ICUs unplugged and was getting spark from all four plugs.

The next thing I did was do a Throttle Body Adaption to make sure I didn't short out my throttle body and was getting air to the cylinders. Here's a quick video of me cranking the engine and observing the throttle body:






Since I had fuel pressure, air and ignition, I thought that the E85 remaining in the fuel tank was perhaps bad. So, I drained the E85 and filled the tank with 5 gallons of premium pump gas. I used Unisettings to scale back my primary fueling and timing back to my last Gonzo update. After cranking the engine over, it did not start on pump gas. I pulled the spark plugs to verify that the fuel was getting into the combustion chamber. All four plugs appeared to be wet with fuel.

Then I decided to do a cylinder compression test. I purchased a pressure gauge kit from the local Advance Auto Parts store. After installing the gauge on each cylinder and cranking the engine over (dry test), the results were disturbing. I was only getting 50 to 60 psi across all four cylinders. At this point, I thought it was pretty obvious that there was some kind of major engine damage. Either a failed head gasket, bent rods or even broken piston rings. However, each cylinder registered about the same pressure. You would expect to see some variation between cylinders for a bad head gasket. Also, I did not observe any coolant or milky appearance when I changed the engine oil.

I decided to do a wet cylinder compression test by adding about 1 tablespoon of oil into each cylinder. The results were a lot more encouraging. I got between 130 and 140 psi across all four cylinders. Keep in mind that I have JE pistons which require more clearance due to high thermal expansion. So, these probably don't seal fully until they are warmed up. Also, with so much Ethanol passing through the combustion chamber, the oil film on the cylinder walls must have been removed.

At this point I know I have fuel pressure, compression and ignition and I'm not getting any error codes. The engine should fire up. The only thing I can think of is that another sensor is preventing the engine from starting (and is not being reported as an error code) or perhaps the timing is off. I used VCDS measuring block [011] to check coolant and air intake temperature. These registered 21 C and 24 C which are within spec. I also checked block [115] which shows 500 millibars of boost pressure (I am using a 4 bar MAP sensor with a custom tune which halves the value).

So, that just leaves the Camshaft Position Sensor. I unplugged the CPS and tried to start the engine so as to force the ECU to try and guess at the camshaft position. It didn't start. However, this morning, I was able to pull an error code from VCDS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 14 June 2016, 12:52:03:24145
VCDS-Lite Version: Release 1.2
Control Module Part Number: 06A GTS 032 SK
Component and/or Version: GONZO/BT V5.0m G01 0060
Software Coding: 07550
Work Shop Code: WSC 21591
VCID: C8E30572FBAB
Additional Info: 3VWSE69M42M132386 VWZ7Z0A4335746

1 Fault Found:

16727 - Camshaft Position Sensor (G40): Signal too High

P0343 - 35-10 - - - Intermittent

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if this error was due to unplugging the CPS or a genuine error. So, the first question is: does unplugging the CPS produce this error? If not, then I might be onto something here. Second, would a failed CPS produce this error? Is there any way to test the CPS or should I just replace.

Lastly, I am getting a oil pressure light on my dash after cranking the engine for more than about 5 seconds. It is almost exactly like this guy:






Is this normal? Could a bad oil pressure sensor or bad oil pump prevent the engine from starting? Please don't hesitate to shoot back some replies here as I am getting close to resolving this.


----------



## sleepy1.8t (Sep 5, 2013)

mainstayinc said:


> Could a bad oil pressure sensor or bad oil pump prevent the engine from starting?


i know far more knowledgeable people will give their input, but from what i have experienced in the past no, it wouldn't prevent the engine from starting. for a long time i ran without the pressure sensor connected, as my harness got shredded and i had an aftermarket oil pressure gauge installed, never had a problem starting it. f*cking beeping was annoying as **** though.

the pump is purely mechanical, so if there was damage you would have likely seen it when you drained your pan?


either way good luck man, your build is a monster and i'm in for the resolution


----------



## WiKKiDTT (Aug 13, 2009)

On my TT when my cam sensor died and I got that cel after I put the new one in I had to clear my codes as it wouldn't start once I got that code. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sleepy1.8t said:


> i know far more knowledgeable people will give their input, but from what i have experienced in the past no, it wouldn't prevent the engine from starting. for a long time i ran without the pressure sensor connected, as my harness got shredded and i had an aftermarket oil pressure gauge installed, never had a problem starting it. f*cking beeping was annoying as **** though.
> 
> the pump is purely mechanical, so if there was damage you would have likely seen it when you drained your pan?
> 
> ...


That's extremely helpful information. Thanks. Beeping... LOL.

Also, I didn't see any other damage or metal bits when I changed the oil. I suppose if the piston rings failed, than there is a good chance I would have seen something come out of the oil pan. Also, when the car bogged down, I didn't hear any mechanical breaking. The car just started dying and then went into its final death throes before leaving me stranded by the side of the highway.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

WiKKiDTT said:


> On my TT when my cam sensor died and I got that cel after I put the new one in I had to clear my codes as it wouldn't start once I got that code.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It looks like there are a couple of codes for the Camshaft Position Sensor.  I probably should have gotten an P3007 (Camshaft Position Sensor (G40): *No Signal*) if I unplugged the sensor. The fact that it says, "Signal too High" means that it must have been plugged in when it threw this error code. That leads me to believe that the error is genuine and I need to replace the sensor. The ECU obviously doesn't like what it's seeing from the Camshaft Position Sensor if it threw this code.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Here's a quick update:






Link to the black car (1984 Rabbit GTI)


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

As per the video, I swapped the Camshaft Position Sensor from the 2002 Audi TT 225 Roadster into my 2002 GTI this morning. After clearing Error Code P0343 and attempting to crank the engine several times, it would not start.

I will have to order a new Camshaft Position Sensor since I have no way of knowing whether the one on the Audi Roaster is good or not (Audi did not start). Unless there is a way to test the sensor. I did check for continuity on the sensor that came out of my GTI and it is reading "1" which I think is no continuity. I tried all the possible combinations for the 3 pins in the sensor and they all registered "1"

So, at this point I am running out of ideas. I will replace the Camshaft Position Sensor and probably the Coolant Temperature Sensor just to make sure those are in working order. I did inspect the timing belt while I had the timing belt cover off and I did not see any missing teeth or damage. This suggests that the timing didn't change between the crankshaft and the valve head.

However, I still suspect that the timing is not correct considering that I have spark, fuel and compression. I also want to test to see if my connecting rods are bent by removing the spark plugs and measuring each cylinder at TDC. If there is any variation between each cylinder, then that would indicate a bent rod. However, even with a bent rod, the car should still crank over.

Lastly, I may have to investigate further the oil pressure issue as a last resort.

I did notice some vapor or steamy smoke escaping from my turbo inlet pipe after some repeated cranking. It definitely smelled like air mixed with fuel that was compressed but not combusted. I know with VVT on during cold start, there is slight valve overlap between the exhaust valve and the inlet valve. Assuming that the valve events are normal then it's possible that the uncombusted fuel/air mixture is back flowing into my turbo inlet pipe. This would be a good thing. It would mean that I am somehow not producing spark or the timing is off. It's feasible that my Ignition Control Units (that sit above the spark plug) are failing to produce spark under compression. This could have happened as a result of the fuel flooding situation. Is there any way to test the ignition units with a voltmeter? I guess the simplest way to test these is to swap them into my wife's 2004 Audi Quattro Avant 1.8T and try to start her car. That's one of the few 1.8T's that are currently running around here.. LOL.

Please don't hesitate to reply with any ideas or things I should be checking.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I swapped over the Ignition Control Units from my car to my wife's 2004 Audi Quattro Avant 1.8T and her car started right up. So, the ICU's are good. I also decided to swap her Camshaft Position Sensor into my car just to be 100% sure that the CPS is working. My car didn't start. I then swapped my CPS to her car and her car started right up. So, the CPS is working in my car and my Crankshaft Position Sensor is new and working. Those can be completely ruled out.

I tried to reproduce the steamy smoke coming from the turbo inlet pipe. I cranked it over 3 or 4 times and could not produce the smoke. So, I think the smoke was the residual oil that was left on the piston after I performed the wet compression test.

Jeff here has been suggesting that I throw some ether into my throttle body to try and get it started. I am starting to consider that option.


----------



## Sim (Jun 27, 2002)

I use to take some peek into the cyls with a $10 chinese borescope i got here through the spark plug hole. Piston/valve contact should be seen.
Cam high signal... what do you think about the cam gear lock/tooth (or what) failing and the cams are in the wrong position? just an idea


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Sim said:


> I use to take some peek into the cyls with a $10 chinese borescope i got here through the spark plug hole. Piston/valve contact should be seen.
> Cam high signal... what do you think about the cam gear lock/tooth (or what) failing and the cams are in the wrong position? just an idea


I was just thinking about that... using a borescope through the spark plug hole. That would give me a good indication of the condition of the combustion chamber and valves. As far as checking the camshaft gear, I'm starting to think that may not be a bad idea. I am getting compression as per the wet test I conducted earlier. You would think that I would get Error Code P1340 (Camshaft Position Sensor (G40) / Engine Speed Sensor (G28): *Incor. Correlation *) if the crankshaft and camshaft were out of phase. However, I am getting no error codes outside of the one time it gave me Error Code 0343 (Camshaft Position Sensor (G40): *Signal too High*).

After doing a borescope, the next step would be to either remove the camshaft cover and inspect the camshaft gear or remove the head altogether. I do have to service that valve head anyway due to leaking valve stem seals. If I decide to remove the valve head and it turns out to be bad, then I have an extra valve head on the Audi TT Roadster (sans VVT). I'll just use that and transfer the VVT over from the AWP to the AMU from the Audi.

Before the borescope I want to double-check to make sure I am getting fuel. The problem is that I have an aftermarket fuel rail and it tends to rattle loose. So, I currently have it Loctited down (blue version)and am afraid to strip the bolts if I unscrew. So, the plan is to remove spark plugs but keep injectors plugged in and then crank to see if I have any fuel spitting out the spark plug holes.

EDIT: Just ordered the borescope 7mm diameter.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Have you skipped all the crazy stuff and just gone simple and checked fuses and relays? Also you stated you swapped the cam position sensor but then you said crank so did you swap and replace both or just one?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Have you skipped all the crazy stuff and just gone simple and checked fuses and relays? Also you stated you swapped the cam position sensor but then you said crank so did you swap and replace both or just one?


Yes. I checked all of the fuses (both in cabin and on battery) when I went through the fuel pump relay and wiring. I pulled out every fuse in cabin to make sure each one was good. I replaced the Crankshaft Position Sensor with a new Bosch Unit. I swapped a known working Camshaft Position Sensor (wife's car) and left it on my car.

The new Crankshaft Position Sensor seems to be working as my tachometer registers 200 RPMs while I attempt to crank the car.
The swapped Camshaft Position Sensor from wife's car was tested on her car just minutes prior to swapping into my car.

A neighbor suggested that I might be getting too much fuel into the combustion chamber as I try to crank the car since my spark plugs where pretty wet upon inspection. I decided to dial back my FPR back to 3 bar (from 5 bar) since that is technically the correct fuel pressure to run my Gonzo Pump/Race gas program. After dialing back and turning off one of the in-tank fuel pumps, the car still wouldn't start.

Please keep the input coming. I'm determined to get this. 

Would a failed Coolant Temperature Sensor cause a no-start? Mine is reading correctly but I have to rule this out before I dig deeper into the engine.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

The car should still start with a bad coolant temp sensor.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

So you've confirmed you have fuel AND spark ? You mentioned wet plugs. Did you confirm spark? Is there measuring block in vagcom with condition-starting?

Log mblock 004 while cranking. OR if you have a high resolution/high-speed logger, log RPM, IAT, and ECT while cranking.

The ECU uses those three values to decide if you're trying to start the car.


----------



## ExtremeVR6 (Sep 6, 2001)

No, but you can take the plugs out, plug the plug into the coil and have someone crank the car while you watch for spark. You may pull the fuel pump fuse so you don't flood the cylinder though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> The car should still start with a bad coolant temp sensor.


:thumbup: Thanks for the response. That's very helpful.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ExtremeVR6 said:


> No, but you can take the plugs out, plug the plug into the coil and have someone crank the car while you watch for spark. You may pull the fuel pump fuse so you don't flood the cylinder though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's exactly what I did. I got spark on all four ignition coils.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> So you've confirmed you have fuel AND spark ? You mentioned wet plugs. Did you confirm spark? Is there measuring block in vagcom with condition-starting?
> 
> Log mblock 004 while cranking. OR if you have a high resolution/high-speed logger, log RPM, IAT, and ECT while cranking.
> 
> The ECU uses those three values to decide if you're trying to start the car.


I definitely have spark and compression. I am 90% sure I have fuel because the plugs are definitely wet with fuel after repeated cranking. I am going to double-check that I have fuel by disconnecting my SEM intake manifold and visually checking that the fuel is coming out of the end of the manifold. That will also give me the opportunity to make sure the intake valves are opening and that the fuel timing is correctly matched with the intake stroke.

I will check measuring block [004] while cranking as per your suggestion.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I disconnected my SEM intake manifold and physically checked that there is fuel spraying out of the manifold. I then hooked up a noid light on the number 1 cylinder. Here is the result:






Notice that the noid light on the first four (4) intake strokes is quite intense. The light decreases in intensity to almost nothing on stokes five (5) through eleven (11). I'm not sure what this could mean. It could be that my battery is draining as I am trying to crank the engine. However, as you can hear, there is no decrease in crank speed.

Also, it looks like the fuel injector is firing before the intake valve opens. That is to be expected when the engine is running at a higher speed. However, it just seems too early for a 200 RPM engine crank. The fuel is arriving almost instantaneously at the back of the intake valve. Maybe the VVT solenoid is not engaging on cold-start. This would cause the intake valve to open later (18 degrees ATDC versus 4 degrees BTC). Not sure. Any feedback or observations are appreciated.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Killer diagnostic work batman. I'm not sure, but best of luck to you!


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

groggory said:


> Killer diagnostic work batman. I'm not sure, but best of luck to you!


Thanks. I'm not sure what to make of the noid light. The light fades away to almost nothing. I didn't expect that. Also, it looks like the injectors fire too early. I'll have to re-test to see if I get the same results.


----------



## ExtremeVR6 (Sep 6, 2001)

mainstayinc said:


> That's exactly what I did. I got spark on all four ignition coils.


Wow... Color me baffled then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sleepy1.8t (Sep 5, 2013)

dude.. why the hell would your noid light dim out like that.. obviously you have enough juice to crank, but you should jumper your car to another running vehicle and do the same test


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sleepy1.8t said:


> dude.. why the hell would your noid light dim out like that.. obviously you have enough juice to crank, but you should jumper your car to another running vehicle and do the same test


I already tried to jump the car with my work van which has plenty of CCA. I did a little research yesterday and several people attributed a fading noid light to a faulty coolant sensor. A faulty coolant sensor will trick the engine into thinking the engine is warm and will lean the mixture out. It will also prevent the engine from doing a cold start which will make it very hard to start. So, I am going to unplug the coolant sensor and conduct another noid test. Then I will swap a coolant sensor from the parts car (Audi TT 225 Roaster) or my wife's car (Audi B6 quattro Avant) and see if that makes a difference. I should probably log measuring block [004] as previously suggested.

Also, I forgot to mention that I already tried to swap out ECU's with a backup Unitronics 630 ECU I had laying around. It made no difference.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I can probably rule out the Coolant Temperature Sensor as the cause of the no-start. I unplugged the sensor and cranked the engine and got the exact same result. I logged measuring block [004] and it read 21C ECT with the sensor plugged in and -48C with the sensor unplugged. I then swapped the CTS from the parts car (Audi TT 225 Roaster) and got the same result.

It's possible that the cold-start sequence includes 3 or 4 strong pulses of injector to get the engine started, similar to when you choke a carbureted engine. It then reverts to the proper AFR after that to get a smooth idle. Since I have somewhat large injectors (Genesis II 1200's), the pulse width is probably very short at idle speed.

The next thing I am going to troubleshoot is the VVT solenoid. As I mentioned previously, it looks like the injector is firing too early before the intake valve even opens. It's possible the VVT solenoid is not engaging which would retard the intake 22 degrees. This could prevent that initial prime from getting into the combustion chamber.

After that, I am running out of ideas. My borescope is scheduled to arrive tomorrow but I won't be able to do diagnosis until Monday. If the VVT checks out ok, then I will borescope the combustion chamber to see if there is anything unusual. After that, I will be forced to remove the camshaft cover to see if there is any damage to the camshaft gear or check for timing issues. I am probably going to make an appointment with NLS on Monday as a backup. Josh and Adam are extremely busy this time of year and won't be able to schedule me in for at least a month from now.

To summarize, all of the following checked out and are in good working order:

Fuel Pressure: Yes (Fuel Pump primes, Injectors Fire)
Ignition: Yes (Spark Plugs fire, Coil Packs are good, but didn't check spark timing).
Compression: Yes (Throttle Body is good, Compression Tested to 140-150 psi)
Crankshaft Position Sensor: Good (new sensor)
Camshaft Position Sensor: Good (swapped a known good sensor)
Coolant Temperature Sensor: Good (swapped to another sensor)
ECU: Good (tested a backup ECU)
Fuel: Good (filled with 5 gallons of fresh pump gas)
Battery: Good (it is on continual charge, also attempted jump start).
Timing Belt: Good (visually checked).
Immobilizer: Deactivated.

I did notice a broken vacuum line underneath my SEM intake manifold. I don't know if it broke due to me removing the manifold (noid light) or if it was previously broken. That will definitely be replaced as the 1.8T is sensitive to vacuum issues. I am going to return the noid light set and purchase some engine starting fluid at Advanced Auto.


----------



## sleepy1.8t (Sep 5, 2013)

mainstayinc said:


> I already tried to jump the car with my work van which has plenty of CCA. I did a little research yesterday and several people attributed a fading noid light to a faulty coolant sensor. A faulty coolant sensor will trick the engine into thinking the engine is warm and will lean the mixture out. It will also prevent the engine from doing a cold start which will make it very hard to start. So, I am going to unplug the coolant sensor and conduct another noid test. Then I will swap a coolant sensor from the parts car (Audi TT 225 Roaster) or my wife's car (Audi B6 quattro Avant) and see if that makes a difference. I should probably log measuring block [004] as previously suggested.
> 
> Also, I forgot to mention that I already tried to swap out ECU's with a backup Unitronics 630 ECU I had laying around. It made no difference.


curious, did you jump it with the noid light connected? did it act the same?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I tested the VVT solenoid and it read 14 Ohms which is within spec (10 to 18 is good). I then tested the voltage on the wiring harness going to the VVT solenoid. With the car turned off, it read 3.6V. When I turned the car on and tried to crank the engine, it barely made it to 6V. I am not sure what it's suppose to be. I thought I would get 12V. I tried to run an Output Test in VCDS for the VVT solenoid. It ran through the sequence of engine tests, but did not display any results. Does anyone know what the voltage should be to the VVT solenoid with the car turned on and warming up?

If I am not getting enough voltage to the VVT solenoid, I suppose I can try to activate solenoid by connecting directly to the battery.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sleepy1.8t said:


> curious, did you jump it with the noid light connected? did it act the same?


No. I tried to jump the car earlier in the week before I performed the noid test on the injectors. I am pretty sure I am getting steady voltage from my battery as I am continually charging.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

What was IAT and RPM reading when logging mblock 004?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Ecu power supply relay bad?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Ecu power supply relay bad?


Yes, possibly. I got some inconsistent voltage readings on the injectors too. I'll follow up on Monday.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

elRey said:


> What was IAT and RPM reading when logging mblock 004?


I will have to log that. IAT while not cranking was around 24C.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Ecu power supply relay bad?


Now you got me thinking about a possible electrical issue. I never really troubleshooted why I have a stuck open fuel solenoid. It's possible that I wired it incorrectly or it somehow shorted out. That could be causing a drain on all the components connected to my ignition wire, including my fuel pumps, ECU power relay etc. It's also possible I shorted out a few things when the original incident occured.

Unlike my fuel pump relays which run two seperate dedicated power wires directly from the battery, I decided to power the fuel and nitrous solenoid relay directly from the ignition power wire under the foot panel. This could be causing issues or could have caused damage. So, I am going to re-wire my fuel/nitrous relay the same as my fuel pumps and run a dedicated wire from the battery. This will also give me the opportunity to troubleshoot the stuck-open relay.

I thought I turned the power off to the nitrous system by turning off the arming switch. However, that switch I think is just the relay trigger signal (terminal 86 on a Bosch relay) and not the main power (terminal 87). It's also possible the fuel/nitrous relay is stuck in the 'on' position causing the fuel solenoid to remain open.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I chased a bad relay that we had added when wiring the car in order to have a kind of secondary protection to the ECU and it's between the ECU relay and the ECU. anyway it's just something I never thought of and it was a simple install safety issue that just grew old. but searching for that for four and a half months was horrible. So yeah maybe you have to like do some continuity test on some things from one end to another and see what you come up with.

Good luck man, you're on the right track I think.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> I chased a bad relay that we had added when wiring the car in order to have a kind of secondary protection to the ECU and it's between the ECU relay and the ECU. anyway it's just something I never thought of and it was a simple install safety issue that just grew old. but searching for that for four and a half months was horrible. So yeah maybe you have to like do some continuity test on some things from one end to another and see what you come up with.
> 
> *Good luck man, you're on the right track I think*.


Thanks. I will at least have some peace of mind once I re-wire the solenoids and figure out why the fuel solenoid is stuck open.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Ecu power supply relay bad?


Does anyone know which relay is for ECU power supply on my 2002 MK4 1.8T? I've read that it is 219 or 429 but I don't have those under the foot panel.

Also, I bench tested the relay for my nitrous system. It's working fine. I blew some air through the fuel supply line going to the nitrous solenoid. The solenoid is definitely stuck open even with power disconnected to the solenoid. So, I will have to pull my front bumper and remove the solenoid and possibly send back to Trevor (WON).

While researching the ECU power supply relay, I came across this thread: http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/514398-No-ignition-need-some-help

The guy had similar no-start issues. He finally opened his valve cover and realized that the timing was off: http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/514398-No-ignition-need-some-help?p=8363646&viewfull=1#post8363646

It turns out that a piece of plastic got caught in crank gear, caused timing to skip teeth and bent one intake valve on each cylinder. He ended up replacing the valve head. I got the borescope yesterday which comes with a mirror. That will hopefully allow me to look back up at the valves when I insert the borescope into the cylinder. Even with the borescope, I may not be able to detect a slightly bent valve. However, I might be able to see scoring on the piston (if, indeed, there was valve/piston interference).

If the solenoid is faulty, then I might have to take this issue up with Trevor.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

It is relay for 09 it is in the engine bay above the brake reservoir. As well as another power supply really then as well


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

It definitely seems like you're making some ground though that's pretty awesome man. Good luck


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> It is relay for 09 it is in the engine bay above the brake reservoir. As well as another power supply really then as well


Thanks. I just bench tested the two relays inside that plastic box above the brake reservoir (labeled 100 and 428) and both worked. Both also registered continuity when the relay was engaged.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Excellent


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> It definitely seems like you're making some ground though that's pretty awesome man. Good luck


Funny thing is, I'm not even a mechanic. However, with all the information on the internet and people willing to give some pointers here and there, I may just figure this thing out. The borescope will be very interesting. I have a feeling I may have to remove the camshaft cover and dig a little deeper into this issue. It's starting to look like a timing issue as everything else checks out.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Agreed. Something mechanical


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I have some initial borescope results. I decided to post the first video just because it's kind of hilarious at about the minute mark. You can't really see anything until the end of the video. The LEDs at the tip of the borescope are not powerful enough to illuminate the dark combustion chamber. So, I had to hold a flashlight at the opening of the spark plug hole. 






I took a still shot on this video. You can definitely see a fresh mark on the edge of the piston. Can someone confirm that this is no bueno.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I figured out how to turn on the LED lights on the camera. There is a little roller wheel on the side of the USB plug where you plug it into the USB port. With the LED lights on, I am getting better video.

Here is the quick video showing cylinders 2 and 3:






And here is cylinders 4 and 1:






It's hard to tell from these videos whether I had valve/piston interference. It's possible there was some contact which caused the timing belt or the camshaft chain gear to slip. I won't know for sure until I remove the camshaft cover and check. I will probably use the borescope to examine the inset area on the piston more closely below the center inlet valve.

Link to borescope: https://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Borescope-Inspection-Compatible-Smartphones/dp/B01DPCBEIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466462420&sr=8-1&keywords=Geekpro+7mm+camera


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Since I have to remove the camshaft cover to investigate my no-start issue further, I decided to take this opportunity to completely overhaul my stock valve head. I just placed an order with Arnold at Pag Parts Turbo (PPT), which includes: Supertech Iconel Exhaust Valves, OEM valve guides (exhaust side only), and new valve seals (intake and exhaust). I've been wanting to replace my valve seals for quite a while as I get a lot of smoke at startup. Arnold suggested that I also replace my exhaust valve guides, as those tend to wear over time due to exposure to heat. I've also been wanting to upgrade my exhaust valves to Iconel so as to avoid any issues with the stock exhaust valves.

Since I was getting good results from my wet compression test (130 to 140 psi), I am assuming that I don't have any sealing issues due to a possible bent intake valve. However, I won't know for sure until I remove the head and do a closer inspection. Talking about removing the head, one thing that scares me is unbolting my T3 turbine housing from my ATP (clone) manifold. The turbine housing and manifold have been bolted together since 2009 so who knows how willing they will come apart. I guess I will have to take my time and use PB Blaster and hope that I don't strip the M8 bolt heads. If all else fails, I may have to ask my local mechanic to use his professional tools to zip the bolts off.

I will also take this opportunity to do a timing belt change and other stuff normally associated with changing the timing belt. Servicing the valve head will be good practice for when I build my AEB head later this year for my MK1 Rabbit GTI. I already place an order with Arnold a couple of weeks ago for new cams, valves etc. I will have to start a dedicated build thread for that project so that I can provide more details.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Don't do inconel to stainless. He has been living with them and it was talk to me by several people I look up to including my old tuner. You're never going to throw enough Heat and to those stainless exhaust valves to have them be an issue secondly stainless will bend and inconel will break so would you rather have something that will bend and still have a bottom in words you have something that will break and take out the entire engine if you have an issue in the future?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Don't do inconel to stainless. He has been living with them and it was talk to me by several people I look up to including my old tuner. You're never going to throw enough Heat and to those stainless exhaust valves to have them be an issue secondly stainless will bend and inconel will break so would you rather have something that will bend and still have a bottom in words you have something that will break and take out the entire engine if you have an issue in the future?


That's a timely response. I ordered two (2) sets of the Iconel Exhaust Valves. I ordered one set several weeks ago from Arnold for my 1984 MK1 Rabbit project, and one set today for my Mk4. Arnold put my first order on hold so nothing has been delivered yet.

So, you are recommending that I go with the Stainless over the Iconel? Your reasoning makes sense of having a bent valve over a broken valve. Are there any documented cases of the Iconel failing? I am surprised that Arnold didn't mention that to me. He is the one that recommended the Iconel.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Arnold knows his stuff and if you have the money feel free to buy inconel. But all the guys I've raced with over the years and many friends who had dropped inconel valves have all stayed stainless after one try with inconel. I've had stainless valves in for a good 70,000 miles of sheer abuse.

As far as being able to take the heat, inconel is superior, but are you really pushing it that hard? Is your intercooler that small? Is you're hot side that small?

Have you watched egt's?? Don't get me wrong, Arnold is the ****ing man. But do a search....I've said out for years as have many other people.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Arnold knows his stuff and if you have the money feel free to buy inconel. But all the guys I've raced with over the years and many friends who had dropped inconel valves have all stayed stainless after one try with inconel. I've had stainless valves in for a good 70,000 miles of sheer abuse.
> 
> As far as being able to take the heat, inconel is superior, but are you really pushing it that hard? Is your intercooler that small? Is you're hot side that small?
> 
> Have you watched egt's?? Don't get me wrong, Arnold is the ****ing man. But do a search....I've said out for years as have many other people.


Thanks for your advice. I just read through a thread that partially deals with this issue: Valvetrains: Supertech vs. Ferrea-- school me

As far as my EGTs, I don't monitor that in my MK4 daily driver. I have a 0.48 A/R T3 turbine housing which is equivalent to an 0.64 A/R T28. So, yes, it is somewhat small because I like the quick spoolup. Also, my intercooler is only an aftermarket 4 inch thick SMIC and doesn't cool very well above a certain point (I like to keep the sleeper look). That is the reason I installed a nitrous system on the car. Not so much for nitrous, but to cool with direct CO2 injection into the intercooler. That is how I was able to get -4 C temperature on the one graph I posted (AEB Thread). 










This combination works great. But I never had a chance to post my findings on this forum because I was working on a wet system that injects both CO2 and Ethanol into the air stream. That system should be more efficient and work better than W/M injection. But then, Trevor's fuel solenoid stuck open on the first test run and flooded my engine, and now I am here.

So, now that the cat is out of the bag, I will probably post some details of my CO2/N2O/Ethanol injection system at some point. My system is setup to use the CO2 for cooling and N2O for additional power (which I really don't need but is nice to have in 4th gear). The CO2 also acts as a dilution gas and cools EGTs.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

You can run stainless


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Ps. Daddy like


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> Ps. Daddy like


:laugh:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I drove down to Bill Schimmel's shop this morning to get an update on my MK4 daily driver. As some of you may recall, I have not been able to start the car since I had a NOS fuel solenoid stuck open and flood the engine. The car would crank, but no ignition. Here are all of the things I checked so far before bringing to Bill's shop this morning:

Fuel Pressure: Yes (Fuel Pump primes, Injectors Fire)
Ignition: Yes (Spark Plugs fire, Coil Packs are good, but didn't check spark timing).
Compression: Yes (Throttle Body is good, Compression Tested to 140-150 psi)
Crankshaft Position Sensor: Good (new sensor)
Camshaft Position Sensor: Good (swapped a known good sensor)
Coolant Temperature Sensor: Good (swapped to another sensor)
ECU: Good (tested a backup ECU)
Fuel: Good (filled with 5 gallons of fresh pump gas)
Battery: Good (it is on continual charge, also attempted jump start).
Timing Belt: Good (visually checked).
Immobilizer: Deactivated.

Bill texted me earlier this week and said he removed the cylinder head and wanted me to take a look. Based on all of the troubleshooting I performed so far (and documented in this thread), I was expecting the cylinder head to be bad. However, when I arrived, it was pretty clear that there was nothing wrong with the cylinder head. No bent valves, no cracks in the head, no scoring of the pistons from valve-to-piston contact, nothing visibly wrong with the VVT solenoid, timing belt looked great (no missing teeth). See below.



















Bill asked me what I have done so far to troubleshoot this issue and I showed him this thread. He is going to remove the oil pan to double-check for bent rods, worn bearings and/or broken piston rings and do a re-hone of the cylinders. The JE Pistons looked great which was totally unexpected. The dark areas on the pistons are oil from the leaky valve seals but otherwise could be wiped off and are brand new looking underneath. He asked me if I changed the plugs and I said no. He is confident he can get the car started once everything is back together.

We are also going to have the ATP clone exhaust manifold sent out and re-powder coated. Other than that, the GTX2867R looks basically brand new. The ebay turbo blanket that's been protecting the exhaust turbine is doing a great job. No rust whatsoever only around the 4-bolt flange. So, this engine is going to get the re-built Audi TT cylinder head with the Supertech exhaust valves, upgrades springs etc.

I hope Bill is right and we can get this thing started. I am totally out of ideas.


----------



## ticketed2much (Feb 18, 2012)

Good news! You may be back in a turbo 1.8t sooner than expected.:thumbup:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ticketed2much said:


> Good news! You may be back in a turbo 1.8t sooner than expected.:thumbup:


Yes, definitely good news. I just hope we can get it started once it's together. He said it could be something as simple as new spark plugs if I've ruled out everything else. We'll see.


----------



## Monsterhigh13 (May 6, 2017)

This is crazy. This was my post from years ago. I got rid of that car and just got back into a 04 BMP gli. I never knew this would still be going


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

Monsterhigh13 said:


> This is crazy. This was my post from years ago. I got rid of that car and just got back into a 04 BMP gli. I never knew this would still be going


LOL.


----------



## sleepy1.8t (Sep 5, 2013)

UGH you'd almost wish something had been found, chasing gremlins is never fun


----------



## ticketed2much (Feb 18, 2012)

mainstayinc said:


> Yes, definitely good news. I just hope we can get it started once it's together. He said it could be something as simple as new spark plugs if I've ruled out everything else. We'll see.




Are you going to try nitrous again when you get it running?


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

ticketed2much said:


> Are you going to try nitrous again when you get it running?


Absolutely! I am going to swap over my nitrous system from my MK4 daily driver and install on the MK1. It will be used for cooling and also as a power adder in 4th gear if necessary. It will be version 2.0 which will be a lot more flexible.

EDIT: This time I will bench test everything before I inject into engine. I learned my lesson. :banghead:


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sleepy1.8t said:


> UGH you'd almost wish something had been found, chasing gremlins is never fun


That's the thing that makes me nervous. I wish we found something wrong with the car. But, nothing found so far. Bill is going to go through the bottom end and check piston rings and bearings just to be safe. I would hate to put a brand new cylinder head on the engine hoping it would start but only to find out later that there is still something undiagnosed.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

I just got a text from Bill Schimmel...



Bill Schimmel - SPTurbo said:


> Hi. I got Pistons out and glad we did. Major damage. Can you come to shop tomorrow to look at?


I plan to run down to Warminster, PA tomorrow morning to see for myself. I'll update this thread with the results. The "major damage" statement obviously makes me nervous.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

UPDATE: I stopped by Bill's shop this morning. The first thing he asked is, "didn't you buy a second set of Mahle pistons...?" So, I knew there was something major going on with my bottom end. As it turns out, the piston rings on each of the JE pistons were completely shattered and pressed into the ring lands. This was most likely due to the extreme pressure from hydro-locking the engine due to the stuck open fuel solenoid. So, there was literally nothing to seal the pistons against the cylinder wall. Even though I got good wet compression results from when I was trouble shooting last summer, the dry compression results were concerning. I was only getting 40 to 50 psi IIRC. So, the reason the engine would not start is: lack of compression. The connecting rod bearings were also beat up. See picture below.










Also, it looks like one of the ring lands is slightly deformed and the piston crown is slightly lifted on one of the JE pistons (see below).










Bill did a quick test fit of the Mahle pistons which were scheduled to go into the MK1 Rabbit GTI. They look like they fit perfect with just the right amount of play between the cylinder walls. He is going to carefully measure the cylinder bore and determine if they can be used as a replacement for the JE's. He will also re-hone the cylinders in place without having to remove the crank. He will also remove several main cap bearing to see if they are also beat up and replace if necessary. He will also polish the journals if necessary.

So, the second set of Mahle 9:1 CR 95.5mm pistons will go into my MK4 daily driver. I'm glad I'll be using those as they will be quieter and perform better than the JE's. I will lose a little static compression with the 9:1 Mahle's versus the 9.5:1 JE's but, as you can see above, I don't have any problem with spoolup on my GTX2867R with T3 exhaust manifold. Also, the Mahle's might be a little more friendly with pump/race gas if I decide to go back to that from E85.

The IE H-beam connecting rods seemed to have survived the extreme pressure without a scratch. So, those have to be highly recommended to anyone who wants to build a solid bottom end. Tuscan I-beams will go into the MK1. I hope those are just as stout.


----------



## sleepy1.8t (Sep 5, 2013)

well that answers that... wowsers


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

sleepy1.8t said:


> well that answers that... wowsers


LOL Yes, I'm glad we found what appears to be the source of the problem here. The best part is that I have all the parts already to fix it and get it back on the road.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

UPDATE: Bill just called me and informed me that the main bearings were beat up (see below). He will have to remove the transmission to gain access to the crankshaft. He did an in-cylinder hone of all of the cylinders and removed 98% of the vertical scoring. However, since he has to remove the transmission, he will bring the block to a machine shop to have them hone the cylinders. Since we don't know if the TDI (ALH) crank is bent out of spec, we are going to wait to hear from Greg at Automotive and Industrial in Souderton to see if the Eurospec crank is usable and straight. If that's the case, then I will swap in the TDI crank I purchased and already had checked out by Greg last summer in the MK4 daily driver. We will then use the Eurospec unit for the MK1 project. Works for me! since I already have all the parts to do both cars.


----------



## CD155MX (Dec 18, 2007)

Been Quietly watching this and your MK1 build thread. Sorry to see you had such a major failure. At least there is light at the end of the tunnel now and you're on a path toward everything being 100% again.


----------



## mainstayinc (Oct 4, 2006)

CD155MX said:


> Been Quietly watching this and your MK1 build thread. Sorry to see you had such a major failure. At least there is light at the end of the tunnel now and you're on a path toward everything being 100% again.


Thanks for saying that. It definitely s*cks finding all of this major damage. Hopefully Bill can get this straightened out in the next few weeks and get the car back together. I've been driving the 1984 MK1 Rabbit GTI *in stock form* in the meantime and that puts a big smile on my face. Even with just 100 HP or whatever it has that thing is fun to drive. I can't wait until the MK4 is *out of the way* and we start the engine, transmission and drivetrain swap into the MK1. Some of you may have notice I updated the "Build Details" on page 1 of my build thread with the words, "Kleiner Felsenbrecher" next to the transmission. That's in reference to the Muncie M22 transmission that was popular in the 1960's and 70's. The APTuning/G Force transmission that is going into the MK1 is going to whine so loud. I'll post some videos of the engine and transmission once the MK1 is up and running.


----------



## brwmogazos (Oct 12, 2011)

Back on topic or sort of 


Finally after years of waiting i managed to find some time to get my setup upgraded once again.

Out went the GT2860RS, in went the GTX3067R.

I know theres no data around the net about this turbo and personally i took the "risk" buying this turbo after doing some research and following Als (PPT) thoughts too...


I was afraid the 60mm turbine would be big for my stock bore (1.8t) engine compared to the smaller wheel of the 28RS (or the gtx2867 if i had chosen to buy it instead) and i would loose too much response compared to the 28RS or the 2867...but i think its looking good so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of80y6R3Ddc

(sorry for bad video quality. Greddy boost gauge cannot be seen clearly)


I need to break in my new Clutch kit (FX400 8puck) and have a new tune so i am not flooring it yet. Still the turbo feels a little bit laggier on lower revs (as expected...) but on 5th gear pull and WOT at 3000rpm it pushes solid 0.5bar of boost and then climbs up to 1- 1.1bar (WG spring pressure ) @ arround 3500 rpm!So i hope to get full boost below 4000rpm! 

Thats on a Pag Parts Cast T3 exhaust manifold, using the Garrett T3 to 3" V band .63 a/r exhaust housing, 3" full exhaust on my Unitronic Stage 3 (630cc) tune.


Had to upgrade my exhaust valves with ferrea @ cat cams double exhaust springs + crank pulley with (IE Billet as the oem one had the keyway sheared by a fraction already!) so i plan to push this turbo to the maximum pretty soon.

ill get some real data by then. I was really tempted by purchasing a Gen 2 GTX2867 but on its smaller turbine wheel i chose to keep my GTX3067 instead


----------

