# US Spec TT-RS Dyno - Stage 2 United Motorsports 93 and 104 Octane



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

*US Spec TT-RS Dyno - Stage 2 United Motorsports 93 and 100 Octane*

I did 3 runs on an all wheel Dynoject on 93 octane. Very consistent pulls. I still have stock air box and catback. I'm only running 034 downpipe and catless mids. I had a couple minutes of cool down between runs. I was getting cluster misfires in cylinders 2 & 3 at 6500rpm which is odd since I don't experience these misfires when doing pulls on the street. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with the results. My spark plug gap caused the misfires. UM recommended .024 so I reduced the gap and misfires are gone. I want to note that I have not experienced any misfires with this car except when I installed the DV+ and had to lower the gap for the increased boost onset in the 3500-3800 rpm range. 

I'll be dynoing on 104 octane next Saturday and will update this thread with the results.

379 awhp 422 awtq (384ps 572nm)

*Here's a graph of 3 pulls with standard correction. *




*Video of one of the runs. Ignore the AFR as the gauge wasn't reading correctly.*


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

That's some solid power. On an AWD Dynojet on 93 tune, I put down about 439 whp and 417 wtq with an APR Stage 3 kit,so you've gotten most of the way there relative to stock with just some basic mods.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Marty said:


> That's some solid power. On an AWD Dynojet on 93 tune, I put down about 439 whp and 417 wtq with an APR Stage 3 kit,so you've gotten most of the way there relative to stock with just some basic mods.


Thanks buddy. I just pulled my stock spark plugs and they are shot! Putting in Denso 1 range colder and stopping it to the dyno on 100 octane.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Here's the 100 octane numbers. My stock plugs were shot when I did the 93 dyno so I switched spark plugs to Denso IKH24 which is one heat range colder than OEM NGK and gapped to .022. I was still misfiring at WOT around 5500rpm in cyls 2&3 so I moved the coil packs from 2 to 1 and 3 to 4 to see if the coils were the culprit. They seated nicely with a click sound indicating they were seated and the misfires were gone. It appears that the coils got pushed up by the heat and pressure ever so slightly just enough to cause this issue. I suspect it will happen again and believe running race fuel for a while caused the increased pressure causing the coils to rise up. 

What I'm not happy about is the syncros in this POS transmission. I started grinding 2nd on up shift and down shift about 4 days ago and it won't go away. I can avoid it if I let the rpms drops under certain speeds. So far to date I've been locked out of 3rd, 5th and 6th on occasion, grind 3rd if I shift too fast from 2nd and now this issue with 2nd gear. The syncro issue are common based on threads I've found on the vortex. Looks like I'll be rebuilding the trans before custom big turbo setup. :facepalm: 

Not bad for just downpipe and catless mids! Since the turbo falls off at 5500 we just did the runs to 6200 to reduce heat soak. 

*100 Octane* 

 


*100 vs. 93 Overlay
*


----------



## Fined (Sep 3, 2013)

that octane really makes a massive difference. 

Was a program switching tune used here? 
Granted they are different dynos but.. 
with more torque for stage II and only 20 less hp on 100 octane. Seems like running 100 octane would take a long time to add up to the cost of stage III + supporting mods. Like.. years.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Fined said:


> that octane really makes a massive difference.
> 
> Was a program switching tune used here?
> Granted they are different dynos but..
> with more torque for stage II and only 20 less hp on 100 octane. Seems like running 100 octane would take a long time to add up to the cost of stage III + supporting mods. Like.. years.


Low RPM spool is better on the OEM turbo as well. The Stage 3 power band is nice and flat from 5500 to 7000 RPM so it just moves like a train up there.


----------



## Dan.S (Jan 3, 2012)

i really, really want to see the market come out with an E85 setup for this engine. There has got to be someone trying to figure it out. Its more prevalent, and useful than running high octane race fuel, and its safer. 

My Neon SRT-4 runs E85 street tune at over 500whp/500tq. I hate saying its faster than my Audi lol.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Fined said:


> that octane really makes a massive difference.
> 
> Was a program switching tune used here?
> Granted they are different dynos but..
> with more torque for stage II and only 20 less hp on 100 octane. Seems like running 100 octane would take a long time to add up to the cost of stage III + supporting mods. Like.. years.


Um doesn't use program switching like apr does. Instead I have a control module that I access thru VCDS to change my fuel from 91 to 112 in increments of one. Example, I set it for 100 but was not seeing any CF's so I could bump it to 102 and log again. With water meth, bump up to max of 112 is goal since meth is 116. 

It is hard to justify the cost of the kit. I can't agree more but my turbo is maxed out at 5400 as you see. I'm researching the possibility of EFR turbo with Jeff (UM) doing the tune. 



Marty said:


> Low RPM spool is better on the OEM turbo as well. The Stage 3 power band is nice and flat from 5500 to 7000 RPM so it just moves like a train up there.


Exactly. LOBA turbo just made 10.5 1/4. Impressive if tune was street able. 



Dan.S said:


> i really, really want to see the market come out with an E85 setup for this engine. There has got to be someone trying to figure it out. Its more prevalent, and useful than running high octane race fuel, and its safer.
> 
> My Neon SRT-4 runs E85 street tune at over 500whp/500tq. I hate saying its faster than my Audi lol.


Jeff has done many custom setups on E85. Given our flow rate in stage 2 I think it is doable with minor changes. You can always blend it on existing setup but need to compensate for extra 25% IDC need to push it. 


Thanks guys. I'm going to see about running C16 just to see what pier it will out down. I ran cam2 in my GTI for thousands of miles and didn't have any o2 sensors fail. 

I would just run 5 gallons in the TT. Haha


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Let us know what you work out for an EFR turbo build. With a good supporting setup, the right EFR turbo should be able to make 600whp and still have good mid range pull. I spent some time using the online turbo calculator from Garrett and compared available GTX vs Honeywell EFR turbos. Our 2.5L's of displacement should allow a TT-RS to utilize a relatively large turbo compared to 4cly 2.0L cars, yet not give up all of the mid-range "punch". This was especially true with the EFR turbos. 

Garrett's app is very useful if you want to nerd out on turbo options: Garrett Boost Advisor

Make sure that you can actually get the EFR turbo that you need for your project. One problem with the EFR turbos has been availability


----------



## robotvoice (Apr 7, 2014)

Steelcurtain - Are you running OEM fluid in your transmission? Have you thought about swapping fluid out to see if it helps with the grinding some?


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

hightechrdn said:


> Let us know what you work out for an EFR turbo build. With a good supporting setup, the right EFR turbo should be able to make 600whp and still have good mid range pull. I spent some time using the online turbo calculator from Garrett and compared available GTX vs Honeywell EFR turbos. Our 2.5L's of displacement should allow a TT-RS to utilize a relatively large turbo compared to 4cly 2.0L cars, yet not give up all of the mid-range "punch". This was especially true with the EFR turbos.
> 
> Garrett's app is very useful if you want to nerd out on turbo options: Garrett Boost Advisor
> 
> Make sure that you can actually get the EFR turbo that you need for your project. One problem with the EFR turbos has been availability


Thanks for the info Jeff. I'll be in touch when I'm ready to move forward. 



robotvoice said:


> Steelcurtain - Are you running OEM fluid in your transmission? Have you thought about swapping fluid out to see if it helps with the grinding some?


I am running OEM fluid per the recommendation of RSWorx who I got my SoutBend clutch from. They stated thicker fluid was tough on daily driving. I'm taking the TT to the shop that installed it to have the linkage adjusted and to consult about using a mix of trans fluid as noted in this post *here* I experience every issue noted in that thread in addition to the 2nd gear grind that just started recently and won't go away. I'm hoping that is a linkage issue but my gut tells me it is not.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Marty said:


> That's some solid power. On an AWD Dynojet on 93 tune, I put down about 439 whp and 417 wtq with an APR Stage 3 kit,so you've gotten most of the way there relative to stock with just some basic mods.


Hey Marty, are you able to run 100 oct or do you need upgraded rods to do so? I'm sure the APR stage III would come alive with some good fuel.

Dave


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Looks like we run 620 + hp quite happily with euro 102 octane here in Germany


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Optimus812 said:


> Hey Marty, are you able to run 100 oct or do you need upgraded rods to do so? I'm sure the APR stage III would come alive with some good fuel.
> 
> Dave


APR "recommends" upgraded rods with 100 octane, so I've been steering clear for now.

One thing to note is that there is a huge power difference towards redline between Stage 2 and Stage 3 plots in this thread (over 100 whp difference at 7000 RPM). I'm going to did one overlays to see how the average power differs in the used power band when accelerating.

Hey steelcurtain, could you ask your dyno place to give you similar plots with SAE correction turned on like mine for better comparison?


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Marty said:


> APR "recommends" upgraded rods with 100 octane, so I've been steering clear for now.
> 
> One thing to note is that there is a huge power difference towards redline between Stage 2 and Stage 3 plots in this thread (over 100 whp difference at 7000 RPM). I'm going to did one overlays to see how the average power differs in the used power band when accelerating.
> 
> Hey steelcurtain, could you ask your dyno place to give you similar plots with SAE correction turned on like mine for better comparison?



APR "recommends" them on all their stage 3 kits. Keeps the lawyers happy. GOLF R and TSIEA888 hold up fine on stock rods but they still "recommend" them. 

NP Marty. I got the raw files so I'll load up on Winpep and post it up when I'm in front of the laptop tomorrow.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

steelcurtain said:


> APR "recommends" them on all their stage 3 kits. Keeps the lawyers happy. GOLF R and TSIEA888 hold up fine on stock rods but they still "recommend" them.
> 
> NP Marty. I got the raw files so I'll load up on Winpep and post it up when I'm in front of the laptop tomorrow.


Hey steelcurtain, could you post your SAE corrected plots? Thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

300 all wheel tq by shortly after 2500rpms. Wow.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> 300 all wheel tq by shortly after 2500rpms. Wow.


Indeed! Would love to know the more realistic numbers with SAE correction.  The dyno operator should have known better!


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

The concept of standard correction is using the SAE J1349 formula to correct for altitude changes, weather differences, and humidity differences. The formula for corrected values just compensates, but in the end, both values should be the same at Sea level of 101.3kpa, 0% humidity and 68 degrees F. Uncorrected SAE at altitude in extreme humidity in the summer can not be compared to Corrected STD at Sea level. 

I'd love to see what your corrected values are Marty, as that is the more useful way of comparing other dynojet tested TTRS's.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

URHank said:


> The concept of standard correction is using the SAE J1349 formula to correct for altitude changes, weather differences, and humidity differences. The formula for corrected values just compensates, but in the end, both values should be the same at Sea level of 101.3kpa, 0% humidity and 68 degrees F. Uncorrected SAE at altitude in extreme humidity in the summer can not be compared to Corrected STD at Sea level.
> 
> I'd love to see what your corrected values are Marty, as that is the more useful way of comparing other dynojet tested TTRS's.


My posted numbers are SAE corrected. Were you after STD correction?


----------



## URHank (Mar 19, 2009)

Marty said:


> My posted numbers are SAE corrected. Were you after STD correction?


Yeah, I'd love to see them at STD correction. SAE is really only useful as either a personal benchmark, or for determining performance like how fast the car is going to in a certain environment. For example, at 4000 feet, you have 82% of the altitude you would have at sea level, so if you are maxing a turbo out(like the k16 TTRS unit for example), you can not simply just "raise the boost" to get the altitude back. What you get is what you get. At sea level you may get 420whp, but at 4000ft you may only get 350whp uncorrected (SAE). If you are interested in how fast the car is in the quarter mile for trap speed, the uncorrected 350whp is what will be the indicator, as the 420whp is not achievable at that altitude with that turbo. 

In the tuning industry though in order to compare data, there is a correction factor that works of the ideal gas law in order to compensate for weather. Most dynos(like my own awd Land and Sea dyno) have weather stations on them that automatically take the humidity, barometric pressure, and ambient temperatures to get the corrected numbers. One of my good friends lives in NH at near Sea Level, much more humidity and lower temps than we see here in Las Vegas, but we have the same dyno. I can flash a custom big turbo ECU tune and we are usually within 1-2% of the same output corrected despite being as much as 10-12 percent off uncorrected. Whose car will be faster? Well his, because I am giving my cars compensation where he is at more ideal conditions. 

Hope that helps. 

Hank


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Marty said:


> Indeed! Would love to know the more realistic numbers with SAE correction.  The dyno operator should have known better!


I've gone to 3 different dyno facilities and nobody has done SAE by default. Obviously the numbers would be lower but as URHank explained it isn't "more realistic" as you put it. 



URHank said:


> The concept of standard correction is using the SAE J1349 formula to correct for altitude changes, weather differences, and humidity differences. The formula for corrected values just compensates, but in the end, both values should be the same at Sea level of 101.3kpa, 0% humidity and 68 degrees F. Uncorrected SAE at altitude in extreme humidity in the summer can not be compared to Corrected STD at Sea level.
> 
> I'd love to see what your corrected values are Marty, as that is the more useful way of comparing other dynojet tested TTRS's.


I would too. Marty, tell your shop to email you the .drf files for your runs. Download winpep and have at it. 

Here's a 93 vs 100 comparison with SAE correction.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Thanks! I was able to dig up my old DRF files. Here is my Stage 3 dyno with "STD correction" for comparison:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

http://imageftp.dynojet.com/CMD/Truth_Lies_Dyno Runs_Final.pdf



Dynojet said:


> If you take anything away from the last few sentences, it would be to ask your dyno
> operator to make sure that he is showing you SAE corrected HP figures, and before I get
> off my soap box, I will say that there are certain Dynojet dyno owners who apply the
> “STD” correction factor, and that’s not proper to do. The STD CF is an older standard
> ...


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Marty said:


> Thanks! I was able to dig up my old DRF files. Here is my Stage 3 dyno with "STD correction" for comparison:


If you compare both AR and UM runs you will see that SAE list 11-12 whp and wtq less than STD which is identical to all my runs when I compare my files in win pep.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Regarding your transmission issues... 
1) Other than slow synchros on the 2-3 up shift, I haven't heard of many transmission issues with the TT-RS until you get to Stage 3 level power. Where have you seen others report problems? Not saying that you haven't found these threads, just would like to see some of the details for myself. 
2) Have you confirmed that you are getting full clutch release both near idle and at high RPM's? If you put the transmission in first, hold in the clutch, and rev up the engine, does the car move forward or otherwise feel/sound like it is dragging? 

If there is a clutch problem and you have to pull the transmission, I would have the transmission opened up and inspected no matter. However, you should check out the clutch operation before assuming that it isn't causing your transmission/shifting issues. 

I had a mk6 GTI with an aftermarket stage 2 clutch. The clutch ended up with dragging /disengaging problems. The symptoms were similar to yours. You could just have real transmission problems now of course, but thought this information could be helpful. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

hightechrdn said:


> Regarding your transmission issues...
> 1) Other than slow synchros on the 2-3 up shift, I haven't heard of many transmission issues with the TT-RS until you get to Stage 3 level power. Where have you seen others report problems? Not saying that you haven't found these threads, just would like to see some of the details for myself.
> 2) Have you confirmed that you are getting full clutch release both near idle and at high RPM's? If you put the transmission in first, hold in the clutch, and rev up the engine, does the car move forward or otherwise feel/sound like it is dragging?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback. The blocking ring for the 2nd gear synchro broke. Its a pretty weak part. No lift shifting from 1st to 2nd puts a lot of strain on it. My clutch is good. Car should be fixed by Friday.


----------

