# 24V ITB kits....USRT needs you!



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

From Scott at USRT:

Well, first off thanks for the interest. Secondly, we're entirely capable of
producing a 24v ITB set up. That would capitalize on the 24v's enhanced
breathing capability. The rub, however, is that I seriously doubt that you'd
want to pay for the R&D yourself. I know 100% that we're not ready to assume
the investment and risk ourselves!

Putting something like this together would certainly cost 3x (or more) of
what a retail hardware kit would fetch (maybe ~$2000). Then there's the
matter of engine management. We're working hard on drive by wire control via
the factory ECU and expect to have it all sorted out this year -possibly by
end of summer. I'd stop back then and check up on our progress.

Cheers,

P.S. Sharing the R&D cost between yourself and say... 5 other guys would
make all this very feasible. Do you suppose that there's sufficient interest
out there to make this happen? We're up to the task if the market will
accept our output.
--
Scott F. Williams

So lets make this happen! i've been wanting someone to come out with an ITB kit and i think USRT are the perfect guys!

-Brett-


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Very few 2.8 24v guys would spend the money for ITBs for several reasons. All of those reasons end up in one way or the other coming down to cost.

The reality is very few 2.8 24v guys even spend the money on something as simple as a cam upgrade.

The couple guys that did try to get some power out of the 2.8 with intake/cams/chip/exhaust have found the power plateau to be around 200whp.

For as much money as a running ITB setup would cost, you can drop in a 3.2 VR6 motor that will make more power throughout the entire rev range even bone stock.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

where can you get an R motor for around 1500-2000? are you holding out on me? haha

-Brett-


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Notice I said 'running ITB setup'.

If you think you can get a running ITB setup on a 24v VR6 for $1,500-2,000 you have a lot left to learn. Try twice that much.


Besides.. our intake manifold is pretty damn good... and the EMS is fantastic. I'd bet serious money that an ITB setup would net a LOSS throughout the powerband except maybe at very high revs (5k+)


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Having set up a car on Extrudabodies.. I'd pass.


----------



## halitzor (Dec 26, 2007)

Screw the ITB's, just make a nice short runner for us boosters.


----------



## GRN6IX (Jan 2, 2003)

PM Vento_Gareth, he's running a setup on an R32 motor in his MKIII. He's running a setup from a company out of the UK IIRC... 

Some of his threads: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/search.php?searchid=1174176


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

> Besides.. our intake manifold is pretty damn good...


 i wouldn't say all that........i have tested over 5 manifolds on mine and bills car and all have gained horsepower over the stock manifold.....


----------



## koko5869 (Feb 15, 2006)

killacoupe said:


> i wouldn't say all that........i have tested over 5 manifolds on mine and bills car and all have gained horsepower over the stock manifold.....


 looked good yesterday, even with the crazy heat. 
my buddy anthony said the track was 167 degrees. 

bang for the buck, i dont know if itd be worth it. looking at 200 for development costs. but the hardware itself is still at a premium. 

i understand quality parts cost quality money, but for the price you can do so much more. im no turbo guy, i plan on staying NA (nothing serious), but the bang for the buck isnt there. 

for the price of developement, software/standalone/and all the other stuff that goes along with itbs, you could find a r motor.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

It was hot but I don't think it was that hot my intake temp only said 122deg at the top end of the track.. 

I just want a manifold that doesn't blow up like a balloon when I hit the gas pedal. 

There are other ITBs out there.. getting a manifold made isn't hard... standalone for sale on every street corner these days. Just do it.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

I just wanted to get an itb kit rolling. It was about time we got some constructive comments. The cost wouldn't be unreasonable. If we split it between 5 guys it wouldn't be bad at all. I don't see why more 24v guys aren't interested. I guess you have to have a vrt...  

-Brett-


----------



## 24ValveGLI (Mar 20, 2005)

If i wasnt already done with my VRT build then i deffinetly would have bought the ITB's its a sick idea, just needs to be pulled off correctly. :thumbup:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Brett VR6 said:


> I don't see why more 24v guys aren't interested.


 No good software solution for it .. yet.. and the people that could do it aren't going to f around with extrudabodies.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

Read my first post. USRT would make a kit WITH management. Complete plug and play:beer: 

-Brett-


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

if i hadn't boosted my car already i'd be so in for this. I made like 2 or 3 threads about ITBs in this forum since i bought my car and didn't really get anywhere so i went FI  

would've loved to build an NA 24v...the sound would've been tremendous!


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

the top end on the 24v....mmmm and the bottom end torque would improve tremendously as well:beer: 

-Brett-


----------



## 3lfk1ng (Apr 10, 2008)

If you love ITB's, you owe it to yourself to watch this video and imagine the sound of a 24v VR6 with ITB's :thumbup: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrjYwtPMF0


----------



## Ld7w_VR (Apr 21, 2006)

3lfk1ng said:


> If you love ITB's, you owe it to yourself to watch this video and imagine the sound of a 24v VR6 with ITB's :thumbup:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrjYwtPMF0


 Wow thats a bad ass car! I wonder if the 24v would actually lose a lot of low end torque. Where would the gains be had through the rev range. I would love to do ITB's on my 24v!!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Brett VR6 said:


> t the bottom end torque would improve tremendously as well:beer:
> 
> -Brett-


 You'll lose A LOT without the intake manifold changeover valve. 

Believe me I know what's "possible" on the management end, I'm just saying no one has done it yet.


----------



## Ld7w_VR (Apr 21, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You'll lose A LOT without the intake manifold changeover valve.
> 
> Believe me I know what's "possible" on the management end, I'm just saying no one has done it yet.


 Are you saying that the engine management end could make up for the loss. Possibly? Obviously you would have to try to know for sure, but is that what your saying?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

No, the low end loss without the intake manifold changeover valve is going to be big, period. Gains will only be up top. 

On the management end, it's a simple check list of stuff that needs to be done: dbw actuator, plenum for tbs, programming. However putting that together still hasn't been done other then on paper. I just talked to Scott on Sunday about it a little bit. Just not my bag.


----------



## Ld7w_VR (Apr 21, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> No, the low end loss without the intake manifold changeover valve is going to be big, period. Gains will only be up top.


 Ok thats what I thought.


----------



## Vento_Gareth (Feb 3, 2003)

I've been running throttle bodies on the 24v engine now for about 6 years, I did the first set-up on a 2.8 24v then I upgraded about 3 years ago to the 3.2 24v you see below. The low end torque is affected, mine runs 240 lb/ft but the low torque isn't an issue for me as I have a 4.24 final drive on my modified 02A box and I'm never needing to pull a long gear. It is so free revving that I'm up to the rev limiter within seconds and alway in the peak top end power. Mine puts down conservative numbers (262whp and that's just over 300bhp at the crank) as I'm only running 268/264 schrick cams. 

This setup will never take off in the US as you can get far more power for your money running forced induction. The power output isn't why I built this engine, it was for show with a bit of race in mind. When I turn up at a show people turn heads, the noise is awesome on full chat and the bay can look so much cleaner without all the pipes and wiring. I run ITB's for the throttle response and the way the car drives, I'm not a fan of forced induction. For the cost of the set-up and stand alone management + modifications to get the air to flow through, I don't see anyone going for it stateside. If I ever upgrade it will be to a 3.6 litre ITB set-up


----------



## Swoops (Nov 16, 2004)

i like ITBs, i'm potentially down for this


----------



## Swoops (Nov 16, 2004)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You'll lose A LOT without the intake manifold changeover valve.
> 
> Believe me I know what's "possible" on the management end, I'm just saying no one has done it yet.


actually the loose without the intake changeover valve is barely noticeable. i currently have a shortrunner, untuned, on my NA motor and the low end loss is barely noticeable, but the up top gain is noticeable, and thats untuned. i currently have poor throttle response but that'll be taken care of soon.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Swoops said:


> actually the loose without the intake changeover valve is barely noticeable. i currently have a shortrunner, untuned, on my NA motor and the low end loss is barely noticeable, but the up top gain is noticeable, and thats untuned.





Loose? Does anyone read what they wrote anymore?


Sorry.. your buttdyno is broken. 

I'm sure your slammed, stretched, airride cars handle just fine though. 


Here are 2 dyno charts showing the effects of the changeover valve.

The first is a car on the stock manifold just turning the valve on and off.

The second is the HPA CVP manifold VS the stock one.


----------



## limastock (Feb 17, 2009)

Vento_Gareth said:


> I've been running throttle bodies on the 24v engine now for about 6 years, I did the first set-up on a 2.8 24v then I upgraded about 3 years ago to the 3.2 24v you see below. The low end torque is affected, mine runs 240 lb/ft but the low torque isn't an issue for me as I have a 4.24 final drive on my modified 02A box and I'm never needing to pull a long gear. It is so free revving that I'm up to the rev limiter within seconds and alway in the peak top end power. Mine puts down conservative numbers (262whp and that's just over 300bhp at the crank) as I'm only running 268/264 schrick cams.
> 
> This setup will never take off in the US as you can get far more power for your money running forced induction. The power output isn't why I built this engine, it was for show with a bit of race in mind. When I turn up at a show people turn heads, the noise is awesome on full chat and the bay can look so much cleaner without all the pipes and wiring. I run ITB's for the throttle response and the way the car drives, I'm not a fan of forced induction. For the cost of the set-up and stand alone management + modifications to get the air to flow through, I don't see anyone going for it stateside. If I ever upgrade it will be to a 3.6 litre ITB set-up


Holy...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

PowerDubs said:


> Sorry.. your buttdyno is broken.


It must be I have to add 20-30% fuel with the intake valve actuated at ~3k.


----------



## Swoops (Nov 16, 2004)

PowerDubs said:


> Sorry.. your buttdyno is broken.
> 
> I'm sure your slammed, stretched, airride cars handle just fine though.


i guess so


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

That was your most intelligent reply to the evidence presented?


----------



## One Gray GLI (Apr 2, 2007)

PowerDubs said:


> That was your most intelligent reply to the evidence presented?


chill, not everyone is all about making the most "possible" power. his SRI was for aesthetics mostly. just like the guy above ^.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I have no idea how 30lbft of torque isn't a noticeable loss. I don't use the changeover due to some traction issues in 1/2 with it active.. but in 3/4 it's quite apparent when I've turned the function off.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

ok ok ok. this is about trying to get a kit together not an argue about SRI vs. LRI debate. yes im sure you'll lose some low end torque with ITB's but you cant compare it to an SRI.

-Brett-


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

It'll be just like a (good) SRI but with a touch more midrange.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

thats true but wouldnt the shorter, individual trumpets and smaller diameter of them create more velocity and create not so much of a torque loss?

-Brett-


----------



## Swoops (Nov 16, 2004)

PowerDubs said:


> That was your most intelligent reply to the evidence presented?


i guess so  
but like brian said, i did it for aesthetics, not for power.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

heres what I think


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Brett VR6 said:


> thats true but wouldnt the shorter, individual trumpets and smaller diameter of them create more velocity and create not so much of a torque loss?
> 
> -Brett-


On a car with a std plenum intake, possibly if the ITB's are fairly small. On a manifold with the 'torque' valve, no way.


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

oh turds 

-Brett-


----------



## bdfcorrado (Feb 3, 2006)

an itb set up would defenatly be something i'd be interested in! but seriously I am looking for something moar unique than the obligatoty vrt...besides the sounds an itb [email protected] just thinking about it gives me goose bump. oh and yeah my 24v resides in a corrado...fair deal of up on a light car like me but maybee just not enought for them big bodies

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


----------



## robinlarry (Aug 5, 2010)

*ITB*

I have an 04 GLI ... love the low end response of the car but have been considering a SC kit in the future. I guess keep me in the loop and maybe this might be another alternative.


----------



## country vr (Jun 20, 2010)

i have an 03 gli and was talking to a buddy today about this......my only concern is running them and to not through codes... can you run with out a MAF or MAP i want to do an extreme n/a build and want all around power... itbs sound great but if there is a large power loss its not worth it


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

What about ITBs in the way that the BMW M3s do it? They have a manifold on the other side of the throttle bodies so that the MAF can still be utilized


----------



## koko5869 (Feb 15, 2006)

pretty sure on most of the M motors with itbs, it goes something like.... 


maf, plenum, itbs. 

that way youre still getting metered air. dont have to worry about sucking up things. have the plenum on quick releases, take it off at the shows. 

even with standalone, youd still need a maf/map....right?


----------



## spitfire481 (Mar 21, 2007)

yea you would run a map sensor. most common way of running vacuum sources with itb's that i've seen is to put a port on the head to itb manifold behind each butterfly, then tee them all into one line. then usually to a vacuum canister that has multiple ports for brake booster, map, etc. that way components using vacuum are pulling from each runner instead of just one which could cause issues


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Tuning ITB's on a MAP sensor on a real motor is total balls, I tune almost all of them with just TPS (alpha-N). Some ecu's allow for blending to make it easier and more driveable but for most skip a MAP sensor.


----------



## headsup7up (Nov 26, 2008)

hmmmm.... i was searching for a SC kit (only stg 1 cause boosted fwd sucks IMO but i want some extra power) if you can get a rough idea of cost ill entertain the idea. i drove a big turbo 2.0 before my 24v so low end TQ loss doesn't bother me. :thumbup:


----------



## 35i 2000 (Jan 27, 2005)

Vento_Gareth said:


> I've been running throttle bodies on the 24v engine now for about 6 years, I did the first set-up on a 2.8 24v then I upgraded about 3 years ago to the 3.2 24v you see below. The low end torque is affected, mine runs 240 lb/ft but the low torque isn't an issue for me as I have a 4.24 final drive on my modified 02A box and I'm never needing to pull a long gear. It is so free revving that I'm up to the rev limiter within seconds and alway in the peak top end power. Mine puts down conservative numbers (262whp and that's just over 300bhp at the crank) as I'm only running 268/264 schrick cams.
> 
> This setup will never take off in the US as you can get far more power for your money running forced induction. The power output isn't why I built this engine, it was for show with a bit of race in mind. When I turn up at a show people turn heads, the noise is awesome on full chat and the bay can look so much cleaner without all the pipes and wiring. I run ITB's for the throttle response and the way the car drives, I'm not a fan of forced induction. For the cost of the set-up and stand alone management + modifications to get the air to flow through, I don't see anyone going for it stateside. If I ever upgrade it will be to a 3.6 litre ITB set-up


wow


that is one gorgeousss set up, a Mark III 24v ITB wow


----------



## MatadoR32 (Jul 27, 2007)

Bump!


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

I know, i'm still itching for this haha

-Brett-


----------



## MatadoR32 (Jul 27, 2007)

New month bump, want moar info!!!


----------



## .SLEEPYDUB. (Jul 28, 2005)

Its been so long I dont even know what the name of my manifold is called...all i know is that it tapers at the end, and its equal length and cast. 

My tuned couldnt use the VVT in the tune for some reason, he just couldnt make it smooth. So this is my dyno sheet with VVT disabled and this intake manifold. I know its not pretty at all, and totally not practical, but its all I could get with my setup...it does pull like a rocket though from 4500rpm-5500 rpm haha, feels like a sling shot really


----------



## Brett VR6 (Jan 29, 2008)

so flat 5200-7200!!! 

-Brett-


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

.SLEEPYDUB. said:


> Its been so long I dont even know what the name of my manifold is called...all i know is that it tapers at the end, and its equal length and cast.


 It has been sooo long Mr.BMW.... 
I still have 2 of these manifolds @ $1399 USD incase anyone wants a thread jack 



MatadoR32 said:


> New month bump, want moar info!!!


 You have 2 obstacles to overcome with ITB's 


DBW 

MAF 

 

If you are looking for a DBC ITB set up then forget it , you will lose alot of functionality with your vehicle. To those that think an ITB kit for a VR6 will cost $2000 USD are dreaming. The ITB motor alone is in the 800 USD range and can power up to 8 individual shafts.:thumbup:


----------



## .SLEEPYDUB. (Jul 28, 2005)

INA said:


> It has been sooo long Mr.BMW....
> I still have 2 of these manifolds @ $1399 USD incase anyone wants a thread jack


 Haha, i know, been to busy breaking records over in the n54 world  

I know where one manifold is


----------

