# Audi S4 VTG Killer



## borys (Jul 11, 2003)

http://www.vtg.info.pl/paudis4.php

















































































_Modified by borys at 9:37 PM 8-17-2004_


_Modified by borys at 9:37 PM 8-17-2004_


----------



## GruvenVR6 (Aug 2, 1999)

*Re: Audi S4 VTG Killer (borys)*

AWESOME!!


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: Audi S4 VTG Killer (borys)*

Awesome! Is that your car? Did you replace the coolant reservoir with a volkswagen tank to free up space on the driver side? What else has been relocated? How much boost/nitrous is it running? It's a very nice job and a LOT of hard work I'm sure.


----------



## 00vr6gti (Aug 9, 2004)

Wish My car came with a 2.7T.... Just waitin for the VR6T... Come on Vw


----------



## jhillyer (Feb 17, 2002)

*Re: Audi S4 VTG Killer (borys)*

I could use a 2.7T. I was quoted too steep a price for a warranty short-block, somwhere near a lofty $3500.


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (00vr6gti)*

A 30 valve VR6T from VW would be the best engine on the market...regardless of whether it was 2.8 or 3.2.


----------



## Cypher2k (Nov 23, 2000)

only 11s with a GIANT turbo upgrade? Thats not awesome. People are making 11s on k04s.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

30 Valve is not possible with the VR set up and the VR set up is not a great set up anyways.


----------



## DJuncut (Mar 18, 2003)

*Re: (Cypher2k)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cypher2k* »_only 11s with a GIANT turbo upgrade? Thats not awesome. People are making 11s on k04s.


I want to say Dahlbacks golf ran like a 14 something at the uber golf challange and that is the baddest VW/Audi IMO. Maybe they are not trying to have a drag car, 11's bada$$ guys sweet ride.



























































_Modified by DJuncut at 5:42 PM 8-30-2004_


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (Cypher2k)*

The work IS awesome. The ability to use something other than the overpriced K04's is awesome as well. He's not stuck with these turbo's either. He can go bigger or smaller depending on what he wants, and, more importantly, he has the ability to replace the turbo's with about an hours worth of work now.


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

I was referring to a theoretical 30 valve VR6T (from the factory) versus a 30 valve 2.7T. The VR6T would be the better solution.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

Once again, the five valves per cylinder is not possible in a VR6.
Pluss whats with you people and the VR6.... I take a 60º V6 anytime or and I6 over a VR6. VR6 runs too hot and doesnt make all that much power, any V6 or I6 is better than a VR6. 
Why would a VR6 be a better solution?


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

If VW designed it from the factory to be 30v, I'm sure they could work it out. Either way, I'd take a regular 24v 3.2 liter VR6 designed from the factory to be turbocharged.
A 60 degree V causes the same problem you have now with the S4 engine bay...there's no room to do anything. That's why you have situations like this where the guy has to completely rework the ENTIRE engine bay just to fit decent turbos. Notice the ABS system in his S4. It's been moved with just about every other piece of metal and plastic in the engine bay to make room for some turbos that are actually efficient.
The problem with the inline six is that it requires an extremely long crankshaft and an even longer engine bay to house the engine. That's one of the reasons most companies use a V in the first place, but if you're going to use a V, why not use a more efficient V that weighs less and uses ALOT less space in the engine by using the VR configuration.
Saying that the VR6 makes no power is ridiculous. The newer 2.8 24valves makes 200hp, the 3.2's make 240 hp. Compare that to a TWIN TURBO engine that makes only 250 hp and leaves no room for upgrades. The fact that the engine has to be removed to upgrade to SLIGHTLY bigger turbos is reason enough to not want a huge V in there when VW/Audi could just as easily use a VR for their standard 6 cylinder engine configuration if they chose to turbocharge it rather than overlook it.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

Once again it your words show that you dont knwo much about engines and cars. The VR config is not a great config thats why most automakers dont use it. The VR config runs hotter and performance wise is not the greatest. Just do a lil research about the VR motor man.


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

hahaha! No no..you're right...a twin turbo v6 engine that makes 250 hp and takes up the entire engine bay is OPTIMAL for you and anyone else who is never going to mod their car. 
Perhaps it's you that should do a little bit of research. My research has come while driving my VR6T and my 2.7T. My S4 is a better CAR...but my VR6T is a much better engine to mod. I would absolutely love to rip out the 2.7T from the S4 and drop the VR6T in it's place. As far as "running too hot," that's what oil coolers, FMIC's and short runner intakes that don't cross the cylinder head are for. No one engine is "the best engine ever made." The same way that there's not just one way to mod a car, but the fact of the matter is the VR6 has more room in a GOLF engine bay than the 2.7T has in the S4 engine bay. One of the biggest problems with modding ANY car is engine bay room. People scoff at this guy's work and say "he only ran 11's," but he did SOOO much work to just make room for the setup. That's why I commend him so much because I can understand the extreme lenghts he went to just to make this system FIT. Tuning and testing is normally hard enough as it is, but what he did is insane.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

Dood just do some research I have seen 2.7T with alot of HP and they will run better than a VR6. I do agree with you about the VR having more space in the bay for mods, but overall the V6 is going to be better. I would love to see a VR6T too from the factory, but its not going to happen anytime soon. Remember the 2.7T only makes 250 because its tuned like that from the factory... just look at the 1.8T 225 in the TT and then 150 in the A4, Passat, and Jettas.


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *B3sat16v* »_Dood just do some research I have seen 2.7T with alot of HP and they will run better than a VR6. 

You're not basing that on anything close to fact or "RESEARCH." It's an absolutely false and laughable statement. When the largest turbo you can fit on the 2.7T, WITHOUT GUTTING YOUR ENGINE BAY like this guy did, is a K04 then you can't possibly make the statement like you did unless it's based on complete naivety. It shows no thought and logic when it comes to having what it takes to actually build an engine. Sure, you can gut your engine bay like this guy, pump in countless hours and sleepless nights to build up the engine and do an outstanding job...but you can do that with ANY engine if you have time and enough money. 
You can put 6 days worth of labor into a VR6T to assemble the car, or you can put 6 months worth of labor into completely reworking the engine bay of a 2.7T and make the same power out of the engine, and THAT is what it all comes down to. No one motor is better than the other. It all comes down to the amount of room you have to work with, and for anyone who wants to mod their car, a VR6 would be better than a V6 in the S4.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

you keep talking about bay structure not engine structure. Once again, I dont think you know much about engine structure. READ about the VR6 and how yeah they were great back in the days, but nowadays, mm not really.


----------



## 46and2 (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

Well I take it as a great compliment that you don't believe I know much about engine structure. 
Let me try to simplify it even more for you...
Your basis that a 2.8 V6 engine naturally makes more power than a 2.8 VR6 design is ridiculous....but lets pretend...for your sake...that it is true.
This is going to be a theoretical example so try to follow:
We start by taking two engines, a 2.8 24V VR6 and a 2.7T 30V V6.
We yank them out of their donor cars. On the VR6, we put on the exact same K04 upgraded turbos (we make the vr6 a TT even though it's not necessary...but for the ficticious example, we'll do it). 
Now...we have two engines, both with the same K04 turbo setup, both running 9 psi...so we hook them up to an engine dyno...and let's PRETEND the 2.7T flows more air and produces 20 more horsepower at the same boost levels with the same turbos as the VR6TT.
We look around and say..."Wow...not bad I guess the 2.7T is a better flowing engine." 
now....here's the important part......the part that REALLY matters...
We say, "Well, we can still install a bigger turbo on the VR6 and make some INCREDIBLE power."
Someone in the shop says, "Hey, but we can't just BOLT ON a bigger turbo on the 2.7T V6...there's no room in the engine for it. We'll have to rework the entire ENGINE BAY STRUCTURE (ooop...there's that phrase again) just to accomodate SLIGHTLY larger turbos than the K04'S!!"
We then say, "Wow...that's true. I guess, in this case, ENGINE BAY STRUCTURE is a LOT MORE IMPORTANT than ENGINE STRUCTURE and the amount of air that an engine can flow. For this application, even though the VR6 may produce SLIGHTLY LESS power at the same boost levels and with the same turbos bolted on, it's still a MUCH BETTER ENGINE CHOICE because the VR6 allows for more power to be made without having to rework the ENGINE BAY STRUCTURE."
Stop READING misinformation. Start DOING some actual modding.


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (46and2)*

I am done, like they say Opinions are like a$$$holes everyone has one. I am basing my **** in actual mechanical information about engines. It seems like you love your VR6 so much you wont let it down.
Missinformation huh, I work on my own car and many of my buddies cars, and not just little $hit, I am talking about putting 32V V8s NS on Fieros, modifing my 16V, and the list can go on and on.... so dont tell me to start doing actual mods. And I still think you nee to research about engine structure.


----------



## billzcat1 (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: (46and2)*

Enter the RS4 - 380hp with 100% factory parts, came with a 50,000 mile warranty and didn't require changing the "engine bay structure" to do so. There are other options to keep the twin turbo design and by using a fabricated set of headers, relocate the turbochargers to allow more room around them and use something larger. Just because YOU don't know how else to do it doesn't mean there is no other way. The VR6 DOES benefit from a cheaper selection of bolt-ons. Typically twin turbo kits with manifolds for 2.7tt will be much more expensive than a VR6 single turbo kit (unless you buy it from HPA) 
The last VR6-equipped car I worked on had no room in the engine bay at all. I've worked on a 95 GTI VR6 and a 92 Corrado VR6 and I can't say it was a pleasureable experience. Both cars ran hot all the time, and I would say the cooling system on those VW's is not sufficient to handle the VR6.
Now lets talk apples to apples. Naturally aspirated motors. 2.8L 24v VR6 is 200hp, 2.8L 30v V6 is 190hp. 3.0L 30v V6 is 220hp, 3.2L 24v VR6 is 250 hp (in the TT, 240 in the R32). So they are really rather comparable in my opinion. HP is a function of torque and rpm, so a 10hp difference might be made up just in where the factory rev limiter is set. Without comparing engine dyno plots it would be hard to show how the powerbands compare to each other.
Now lets step away from the VW/Audi. I6 - 3.2L I6 24v makes 333hp in the E46 M3. There's a 240hp 3.0L in the E36 M3, a 235hp 3.0L in the E46 330i, a 220hp 2.8L in the e36 328i, and a 190hp 2.5L in the E36 325i, and all of them do it with plenty of room under the hood. Enough room that people are doing V12 swaps and making it look factory. So just remember that the VR6 isn't the greatest engine on earth, and there are many ways to make power on any engine and any "engine bay structure"


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (billzcat1)*

Thanks, finally someone agrees with me. BTW the AUDI A6 2.8 30V V6 makes 200 HP and 210FtLbs.


----------



## Groundskeeper (Jul 24, 2001)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

You could really read this discussion two ways. Are we debating space or what the factory gave us? 
The first way to read this is: A 15 degree V6 provides more engine bay room than a traditional V6. This is in regards to SPACE
The other way to read this is: The ATQ/AHA 2.8L 30v V6 as compared to the BDF 2.8L 24v VR6. This is in regards to "What the factory gave us". I guess this one is more of a DESIGN issue. With regards to NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINES.
Let's go with the latter first:
Let's start with the 30v - You've got this gi-normous setup of a V6, complete with two banks, two heads, and 30 valves. Yet, even if you want to factor in that the tests for rating the engines had their variables that would alter the numbers slightly, you still have this full blown, heavier (and ever-so-slightly more complex) engine that's still in the same neighborhood as the VR. Now as stated earlier the ATQ/AHA 30v is roughly 190hp, and the BDF 24v is right around 200 or so. So with 6 EXTRA valves, you've actually managed to finagle yourself 10 FEWER HPs. (Again, quabble with the minor digits all your want. Fact remains, they're both putting out similar numbers.)
This isn't even bringing up the NATURALLY ASPIRATED 220HP 225 ft-lb tq. 24v V*R*6 in the Touareg (BMX is it?). Or even the BJS 24v 3.2VR in the R32 that's rated 240hp and 236 ft-lb tq. Even the AAA (and even the overlooked AFP) 12v VRs are good solid designs for a 6 cylinder setup.
Now, let's tackle the SPACE issue:
Comparatively, these V6/VR6 engines obviously get their arses kicked by their 4 cylinder counterparts when space becomes an issue. I mean, have you TRIED changing a Coolant Temp Sensor on a Passat V6? Lemme tell you, there was a decent pile of my scraped off dead skin cells from my hand behind that engine after I was through with it. But there's the gimmick - The philosophy of the VR was to have the benefits of a 6 cylinder engine in the engine bay that's normally made for regular old 4 cyls. So, you could almost forgive the VR for being in such "tight" quarters. But even then, it's marginal.
Though if you look at it one way, both are in a "tie", so to speak - Cause the Passat (and all other cars of that platform) engine bays are made so they JUST fit the hefty V6 and all it's accessories. And the Golfs, Jettas, etc all JUST fit in their "hefty" VR6s and all IT'S accessories. So I guess you could sort of tie in the "Space" issue to the "what the factory gave us" story.
As for heat issues - How do you want to measure the radiation of heat? I mean again, both engines are confined very tightly in their respective bays. Heat soak IS a big problem in both engines. I guess you would want to theoretically take both engines out and sit them side by side in temperature regulated booths and have them both run and see which one produces more heat? I'd be more inclined to say the VR. Since the engine is so compact and everything is so close to each other, the immediate radiation of heat is more concentrated as opposed to it's V6 brethren, which is more spaced out (3 cylinders per bank, with one bank on each side of the bay). I guess if you wanna fudge around a bit (y'know, just for S&Gs) you could say that the V6 isn't working AS hard to produce the 190 or so HPs as the VR (who's notably smaller, but is working furiously . . . like a cr4ckwh0r3 on cr4ck!







). But again, real world applications say that we have to cram those bad boys back into their bays to see what happens.
So do I want an engine that produces 200hp out of the factory that works . . . well . . . like a cr4ckwh0r3 on cr4ck . . . or an engine that for an intents and purposes has more components, and doesn't offer as much out of the factory?
Once again, the above was all based upon "WHAT THE FACTORY GAVE US".
Of course if we want to step outside of our warranties (where ANYTHING is possible), we only need analyze the market and desire for upgrades/aftermarket products. But then it becomes the old "who has more money" to spend on their engines (for mass produced or custom items altogether). Cause I mean 2.7T vs VR6 stock for stock . . . . I'm putting good money on the 2.7T. Of course it's because that particular engine block was BUILT FOR BOOST. And sure while you CAN spend money on building up a boost VR block (crank, pistons, rods, etc), the cost probably wouldn't justify the journey. (This is actually part of one of my points when participating in the infamous 1.8T vs VR discussions). But as a foundation, a good VR block with STOCK internals can handle a generous amount of boost without too much stress.
So in the end: Do you want a 24v VR (a cr4ckwh0r3 on cr4 . . . yeah you get the picture







) or a 30v V6 (more components for similar results)?
Again, the above was all based upon "WHAT THE FACTORY GAVE US".
Edit: A second time for crazy spelling and grammatical errors











_Modified by Groundskeeper at 6:26 PM 9-10-2004_


----------



## Groundskeeper (Jul 24, 2001)

*Re: (Groundskeeper)*

Now for some REAL S&Gs:
Which one would I rather do an oil change for? Probaby the 30v V6. I mean it's just unscrew the filter and drain the oil; AND THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. No need for this 36mm Oil filter housing and 6mm hex Housing Drain Plug Business.
Which one would I rather drop a tranny on? VR6!!
Which one would I rather do a timing belt/chain? Well . . . the 30v is more of a removing the front bumper (or rather, just putting it into service position), and removing pulleys ordeal, (and that d4mnable T-Belt tensioner and washer) locking the cam gears and such. Whereas the VR is taking out the tranny, removing intake manifold and valve cover . . . . I GUESS the 30v . . . . I don't know . . .








Which one would I rather do valvetrain work on? VR6!!! It's just easier!








Feel free to submit your own thoughts!
EDIT: Added clarification of SERVICE POSITION and not removing the front altogether.











_Modified by Groundskeeper at 11:56 PM 9-9-2004_


----------



## Groundskeeper (Jul 24, 2001)

*Re: (Groundskeeper)*

Oh, so as not to stray off topic. The original post - That IS impressive . . . . . . . MOST . . . impressive, one might say







.


----------



## slickfisher (Oct 16, 2004)

*Re: (B3sat16v)*

I was just cruising around the other forums that I never go to. And saw your opinion re VR6. I think its at least a little better than your giving it credit for. It was a breakthrough engine design when it came out. It has been developed to produce quite decent power. My tech friends don't tell me of a lot of internal problems with the engines( although some don't like to work on them). And when you look at the power vs. the other V6's in VW/AUDI's stable this has the best HP N/A.
Now I not a drag racer, so I don't know about heat problems or other turbo/modding issue re: the VR. There may be some. 
But after all Porsche thought enough of the engine to put in in the Cayenne.
Slickfisher


----------

