# when we think short runners are played out - think again



## fastslc (Sep 14, 1999)

-- looks pretty


----------



## vdubstreets (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (fastslc)*

i thought short runners dont go over the valve cover?
still looks cool!


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (vdubstreets)*

theres really nothing short about those runners...


----------



## G-Magoo (Dec 1, 2004)

its looks like its equal length underneath (or close to it).


----------



## dreadlocks (May 24, 2006)

*Re: (vwpride58)*

you can mount the throtle body so it can be a short runner or a long runner, pretty slick.. 
wonder if its possible to make it a variable runner with use of dual TB and an electronic valves?


----------



## vonfulk (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (ValveCoverGasket)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ValveCoverGasket* »_theres really nothing short about those runners...

looks like that would depend where you mounted the throttlebody. looking at the first picture leads me to think you could block off those runners and use it as ~shortrunner.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (fastslc)*

The guy who cast that made one *HUGE MISSTAKE* once again.
He is still thinking 12v MK3 and doesent know about the cam compensation on MK4´s.

When i pointed this out to him he went crazy and shouted "i cant change cast every 5th year blah blah"








And fyi its OEM length on front plenum = not short 

_Modified by [email protected] at 3:26 AM 5-3-2007_


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:27 AM 5-3-2007_


----------



## actionVR6 (Jul 10, 2003)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (vonfulk)*

The exhaust manifold is a great place for the Throttle Body.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (fastslc)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_doesent know about the cam compensation on MK4´s.

When you built your intake manifold did you take into account this cam compensation?Or this only applies to the 4v/cyl heads?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
When you built your intake manifold did you take into account this cam compensation?Or this only applies to the 4v/cyl heads?

Hi
All mk4 got cam compensation so my MK3 intakes got runner compensation and my MK4 intakes got cam compensation.
Same goes for the MK4 cams we launched this spring.
Compensated for MK4 intake.


----------



## ketch360 (Jan 17, 2005)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (Wizard-of-OD)*

Are theese things available for sale?????


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (ketch360)*

wonder if its just a waste of money lol... any dyno's to back this up


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_The guy who cast that made one *HUGE MISSTAKE* once again.
He is still thinking 12v MK3 and doesent know about the cam compensation on MK4´s.

When i pointed this out to him he went crazy and shouted "i cant change cast every 5th year blah blah"








And fyi its OEM length on front plenum = not short 

_Modified by [email protected] at 3:26 AM 5-3-2007_

_Modified by [email protected] at 3:27 AM 5-3-2007_


Dyno? You can't drive around with a calculator bolted to your cylinder head.


----------



## Soupuh (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

Dyno? You can't drive around with a calculator bolted to your cylinder head. 

Isn't that what the ECU is?


----------



## BLWNZTT (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*

thats awesome


----------



## [email protected]ome (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

Dyno? You can't drive around with a calculator bolted to your cylinder head. 

Still its uneven lenght on a car that require even lenght due to the cams.
You need to know that this guy just cast and the other guy just puts togheter kits and doesent do any calculations and the third guy make the software.









And the reason for this intake.
Easy ...PLASTIC oem blew for XX-customer so they needed a cast one that can be a replacement and still be modified to the other stages .
But still its incorrectly made.








That casting guy need to wake up .... its not 1992 anymore with runner compensated MK3´s
I think my cam post prove it all.
Pictures of MK4 intake are in phatvw´s post about intakes and some more are in my stage 3,4 and 5 post 


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:19 AM 5-5-2007_


----------



## majic (Mar 10, 2005)

I love it how this guy always hijack's threads...


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Still its uneven lenght on a car that require even lenght due to the cams.
You need to know that this guy just cast and the other guy just puts togheter kits and doesent do any calculations and the third guy make the software.









And the reason for this intake.
Easy ...PLASTIC oem blew for XX-customer so they needed a cast one that can be a replacement and still be modified to the other stages .
But still its incorrectly made.








That casting guy need to wake up .... its not 1992 anymore with runner compensated MK3´s
I think my cam post prove it all.
Pictures of MK4 intake are in phatvw´s post about intakes and some more are in my stage 3,4 and 5 post 

_Modified by [email protected] at 3:19 AM 5-5-2007_


404 Dyno proof not found


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (majic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majic* »_I love it how this guy always hijack's threads...

How is it a hijack? He's commenting on the design. This is a discussion forum afterall. He's not forcing you to buy anything, so no foul. He's got a valid point, why use a design from 10 year old MkIII VR6 on a 24v???. Just doesn't make sense. If you're going to put all that effort into building a great motor, why not go the extra mile and get maximum tune out of the intake. Its all in acoustic theory 101 guys; its not rocket science.
Why are folks so easily convinced that equal-*effective* length exhaust headers are so good but you don't need to do the same on the intake? The intake is just as important. You want all 6 cylinders tuned for the same RPM peak. This setup with the MkIV-style mirror-image cams (aka cam compensation) has a different tuning peak for front cylinders vs rear cylinders. All you have to do to prove it is monitor AFR/EGT on the two separate cylinder banks. Uneven AFR/EGT = uneven power = less than maximum theoretical power peak on the whole motor.
Foffa has already proven his theories with dynos on his true MkIV-cam designs. Next up is the intake dyno. Just wait guys...
In any case, I think HPA's design is really novel. The whole plug and play modular thing they have going is fantastic! But they need to re-cast those lower runners to match MkIV instead of MkIII.

_Modified by phatvw at 10:33 AM 5-5-2007_


_Modified by phatvw at 10:35 AM 5-5-2007_


----------



## majic (Mar 10, 2005)

Acoustic tuning requires a LOT longer runners than anyone has made, here... and the above manifold comes a lot closer to having the appropriate runner length and plenum volume than most... 
Besides, it appears as though the point of this intake manifold is better suited for twin charging rather than for acoustic tuning...


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
You want all 6 cylinders tuned for the same RPM peak. This setup with the MkIV-style mirror-image cams (aka cam compensation) has a different tuning peak for front cylinders vs rear cylinders. All you have to do to prove it is monitor AFR/EGT on the two separate cylinder banks. Uneven AFR/EGT = uneven power = less than maximum theoretical power peak on the whole motor.

If you're doing dyno drags, this might be true. BUT, there are countless examples of race and road engines built with unequal intake runners and exhaust headers (along with many versions of variable or adjustable intakes).
Often, a tuner can widen the useable powerband by doing so...reducing the "lightswitch effect" that some peaky engines would otherwise have. IOW, ultimate horsepower is traded for useable horsepower. 
Tight twisty tracks can often be lapped faster with this type of tuning. Road cars are often more road worthy with this type of tuning, too.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (majic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majic* »_Acoustic tuning requires a LOT longer runners than anyone has made, here... and the above manifold comes a lot closer to having the appropriate runner length and plenum volume than most... 
Besides, it appears as though the point of this intake manifold is better suited for twin charging rather than for acoustic tuning...

That would be awesome if it was twin charged - a supercharger + turbo, or two turbos each with their own throttle-body: a small turbo for the long runners and a big turbo for the short runners.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (The Quinner)*


_Quote, originally posted by *The Quinner* »_
If you're doing dyno drags, this might be true. BUT, there are countless examples of race and road engines built with unequal intake runners and exhaust headers (along with many versions of variable or adjustable intakes).
Often, a tuner can widen the useable powerband by doing so...reducing the "lightswitch effect" that some peaky engines would otherwise have. IOW, ultimate horsepower is traded for useable horsepower. 
Tight twisty tracks can often be lapped faster with this type of tuning. Road cars are often more road worthy with this type of tuning, too.

Excellent point! I figure most folks would prefer to have the hardware tuned for the maximum potential and then level things out with software. Kind of what VAG does on its turbo engines. The OEM tune has a flat torque curve which makes the car very easy to drive. The aftermarket tuners like GIAC gain tons of torque, but over a very small RPM band. Even though the car becomes slightly less drivable the 1.8T and 2.0T folks are convinced that the chip is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (majic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majic* »_Acoustic tuning requires a LOT longer runners than anyone has made, here... and the above manifold comes a lot closer to having the appropriate runner length and plenum volume than most... 
Besides, it appears as though the point of this intake manifold is better suited for twin charging rather than for acoustic tuning...

OEM cars tune for 3rd pulse .
Not second due to fitment issues.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


----------



## Deaner (Dec 28, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_404 Dyno proof not found

hahaha








sig material!


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (fastslc)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_404 Dyno proof not found

He does not have any.All he keeps talking about is this cam compensation bs scaring allmost every 24V owner on this forum.
This is what the Cast short runner 24V manifold looks like:

This manifold design took HPA to 600hp+ and other companies to *MORE* and I am sure you know this allready.Once you have the correct tuning to match the manifold then you will be fine.Can we give the cam compensation thing a rest now?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
He does not have any.All he keeps talking about is this cam compensation bs scaring allmost every 24V owner on this forum.
This is what the Cast short runner 24V manifold looks like:

This manifold design took HPA to 600hp+ and other companies to *MORE* and I am sure you know this allready.Once you have the correct tuning to match the manifold then you will be fine.Can we give the cam compensation thing a rest now?

You are so ignorant.
HGP/HPA dude that cast this for Martin Gräf have already told us that he didnt know about this and just CANT change cast every time a new upgrade from factory is produced.
The car will produce 2 different hp nr on each bank and this is why we keep beating our OWN 2 HGP/HPA cars on the track and we got unscrambled software so we know exactly what they have done to be able to run like this.
Thank god for motronic bank fuel compensation.

These are real world tuning facts.
Anyone with any knowlage about this would laught.
Show this to basicly any V8 tuner and he will have a good laugh.

Aint no uneven runners on the uber OEM mani.
And for each inch you remove = 500rpm higher pulse value
http://www.grapeaperacing.com is easy to start of with.


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_The car will produce 2 different hp nr on each bank and this is why we keep beating our OWN 2 HGP/HPA cars on the track and we got unscrambled software so we know exactly what they have done to be able to run like this.
Thank god for motronic bank fuel compensation.

Technically, this is true...but, it would be better to think about it as different power characteristics. It is not as if the two halves of the engine are fighting each other.


_Quote »_These are real world tuning facts.
Anyone with any knowlage about this would laught.

Again, technical facts, but facts that look at the rest of the world with blinders. I can't speak to VW's original design or the real life characteristics of the various manifolds that have been pictured or discussed...but, the arguments against them ignore a LOT of real life information/facts. If life boiled down to bare "facts," race teams could leave a LOT of their spare parts at home.

_Quote »_Show this to basicly any V8 tuner and he will have a good laugh.

Aint no uneven runners on the uber OEM mani.
And for each inch you remove = 500rpm higher pulse value
http://www.grapeaperacing.com is easy to start of with.

I just quickly scanned their article on induction...but, every single time I found something relating to equal runner length, it was very clearly qualified with something to the effect of "tuned to a specific RPM range." So...I say it again, IF you need a light switch of a motor that works best when the right foot is planted firmly against the floor, theoretical ideals might be okay. However, those "facts" become less and less meaningful when one wants to be able to pull away from a stop light AND run at WOT. OR...if one wants to get a good launch out of turn 3 without downshifting...etc...
In theory, theory and practice should be the same...in practice, they rarely are. VERY wise words that apply to these discussions.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_These are real world tuning facts.

Show me the facts.I want to see a dyno/track time where the only manipulating variable is the HPA/HGP manifold and your manifold.


----------



## Dreizehn (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

404 Dyno proof not found









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Passenger Performance (Nov 11, 2005)

Foffa, nice to see some one with some manifold knowledge on this forum, don't waste too much time arguing with these guys though, as soon as someone throws the old "but so and so made xxxWHP with this manifold" kind of crap just stop, they obviously have no idea what purpose a well tuned manifold does for your engine.
Quinner, do you seriously think a properly tuned manifold has some sort of light switch effect that will hurt driveability worse than a poorly engineered manifold?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (Passenger Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Passenger Performance* »_Foffa, nice to see some one with some manifold knowledge on this forum, don't waste too much time arguing with these guys though, as soon as someone throws the old "but so and so made xxxWHP with this manifold" kind of crap just stop, they obviously have no idea what purpose a well tuned manifold does for your engine.


The reason that most people have stopped taking foffa as serious as they used to take him, is simply because he's never backed up any of his statements with real world proof. Lots of great theorys on paper, but no testing or analysis. 
Do i think there is some truth behind what he's saying - yes.
Do i believe that there would be a significant performance difference - no.
Would i love Foffa to prove me wrong -yes.
Does Cabzilla stand a chance of finally making it in to my sig - yes.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Passenger Performance* »_they obviously have no idea what purpose a well tuned manifold does for your engine.

Then why dont you break it down for some of us who have "no idea"

_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
Would i love Foffa to prove me wrong -yes.

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Thats all I was getting @.
"so and so made XXXwhp" for a reason and that xxxwhp is undeniable.You cant say this manifold does not work then it has aided in the propulsion of VR6T engines into the low 11's/high 10's.


----------



## Passenger Performance (Nov 11, 2005)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
Then why dont you break it down for some of us who have "no idea"
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Thats all I was getting @.
"so and so made XXXwhp" for a reason and that xxxwhp is undeniable.You cant say this manifold does not work then it has aided in the propulsion of VR6T engines into the low 11's/high 10's.

Balance of flow across the ports, peak cylinder pressure balance, water temp, oil temp, EGT's, exhaust manifold pressure, pressure balance, swirl, velocity, harmonics...


----------



## Passenger Performance (Nov 11, 2005)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
The reason that most people have stopped taking foffa as serious as they used to take him, is simply because he's never backed up any of his statements with real world proof. Lots of great theorys on paper, but no testing or analysis. 
Do i think there is some truth behind what he's saying - yes.
Do i believe that there would be a significant performance difference - no.
Would i love Foffa to prove me wrong -yes.
Does Cabzilla stand a chance of finally making it in to my sig - yes.









Fair enough, if he doesn't have his own personal data to back it up I understand its a lot of work. We are hoping to have some good dyno comparisons along with manifold pressures, velocitys etc early this summer but it will be all diesel, VW and Cummins.
For now check out Full Races comparisons over on honda-tech.com http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
(and yes the peak hp #'s are actually pretty big IMO)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Passenger Performance)*

Both cam dynos and intake dynos are posted in the "cam post"
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3062575
And with a daily driven car that traps 130mph i think my theories are quite ok








My cam design acctully kicked all other brands in the nuts with their broad power band.
The same goes for the intake.
When people understand that you just cant change cams or just intake we will have more 10-11 sec daily driven cars.
When you tune for a specific rpm you will benefit in the entire powerband due to the 2nd,3rd and 4th pulse.
So even if you tune for 3rd at XXXX rpm you will gain on all pulses = broad powerband.
And more people need to concept tune.
My max rpm,port area,port lenght,cam duration,gas speed+lift,and were i can accive xxpsi of boost is what made my engine concept.
I dont rev 8000rpm because its fun.
I do it because my setup require that due to small engine displacement.

All test are always back to back on engine hub dyno.
Not rollers.
And Wizard-of-OD sell the HGP/HPA produc so of course he is gonna defend it










_Modified by [email protected] at 7:30 AM 5-14-2007_


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Both cam dynos and intake dynos are posted in the "cam post"
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3062575

Nice post http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .Now when you say MKIV are you talking about the 12V VR6 or 24V VR6?

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
And Wizard-of-OD sell the HGP/HPA produc so of course he is gonna defend it









Wrong guy....I bought that manifold for my A4.I dont sell HPA/HGP products.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

Hi
Both 12v MK4 and 24v MK4 got the cam compensation.


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: (Passenger Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Passenger Performance* »_Quinner, do you seriously think a properly tuned manifold has some sort of light switch effect that will hurt driveability worse than a poorly engineered manifold?

No...I do not think that a properly tuned manifold vs. a poorly engineered manifold is the issue here. I take issue with the claim that anybody who knows anything about tuning knows that the intake runners MUST be the same length. THAT is a claim and argument that shows ignorance, narrow minded thinking, and an "internet knowledge" of tuning issues. Making the claim that there is only ONE way to build an intake tract and that everything else must be junk is ignoring a tremendous number of successfully built engines and is a poor argument.
The "properly tuned" manifold CAN have equal length runners...or, unequal length runners. So...there needs to be a different argument as to why the manifold in question is bad (which it might or might not be...the "facts" presented against it do not hold water, though).


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (The Quinner)*

The engine is a pump.
You want similar power from all the "pumps" driving the crank or else you will get a non harmonic motion and it will actually fight it self.
In the lab that i work in its more clear when you can test it in 100s of hours and really see the difference.


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Foffa - Really, I'm not trying to minimize what you are doing. It's just that in real world situations, we can't boil engine tuning down to the most theoretical levels. 
Sure, if everything is not exactly the same across the board, there will be uneven issues. But, most motors are not made from silly putty or stressed to the point where the harmonics, etc. cannot be controlled. When your motor IS at that point, these things become more and more meaningful. There are many reasons why crankshafts have more than just a front and rear bearing...same deal with camshafts, etc.
What you are doing obviously works for you and fits within your design constraints and goals. Don't make the mistake of thinking that YOUR goals and constraints are the same as every other tuners', though.
Data, facts, etc. are only good when used well.
For instance, it is NOT an apples to apples comparison when you are dyno testing camshafts with different redlines. Sure, I understand that the factory (euro) redline is set at a certain rpm...but, if you truly want to compare and make conslusions about camshafts and ONLY camshafts, you must either remove the redline limit and let'em all run...or, set the same limit for all tests. If not, you are comparing more than just the camshaft set up.
Again, I don't mean to minimize your work...obviously, you are getting some good numbers that are improvements over stock. But...apples to apples it is not. It becomes marketing hype based on bad science when you try to present it as an equal comparison.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Argument for *equal* effective length "tuned" intake runners (via cam compensation, runner compensation, etc.):
- maximum theoretical peak power for tuned RPM band
- equal power and EGT per cylinder
- balanced engine
Argument for *unequal effective length* runners (no compensation):
- Two lower tuning peaks splits the power over a wider RPM band, with a lower overall peak power
- easier to modulate throttle???

You can achieve the benefits of two tuning peaks with software. Just vary the ignition timing, fueling, and cam phase if you have that parameter, to give the torque curve you want.
Why cripple your hardware's potential by not tuning for the ultimate peak? Just detune it for driveablity with software.
Am I missing something here?



_Modified by phatvw at 11:39 AM 5-15-2007_


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*

It gets back to more than one way to skin a cat. AND AGAIN, I'm not saying that your conclusions and arguments FOR equal length are bad...
You choose to optimize the hardware and to "mellow" the set up with ancillary systems. You could just as easily start with a "mellow" hardware set-up (one of countless examples COULD be unequal intake tracts) and to optimize your ancillary systems.
In the motorcycle world, there is a genius tuner named Kevin Cameron. In one of his books, he speaks about the ONE THEORETICALLY best way of doing something...but, goes on to say that as a tech inspector, he's seen every which way of doing things end up on the podium...
Cars, bikes, boats, airplanes...all have countless examples of very successful designs that the naysayers said would not work. Go ahead and do your thing, but when you start naysaying, be prepared to have your work and your naysaying scrutinized.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (The Quinner)*

Quinner, you're absolutely right, there are definitely many ways to do these things.
I think Foffa's main argument is not whether other setups work (they do since other teams win races without engines blowing up all the time) but rather the reasons those setups were chosen in the first place. They weren't necessarily designed for performance, more for convenience/cost - i.e. adapting MkIII style components for MkIV use. If a vendor takes a shortcut (cost-wise) to get to 98% potential, perhaps 98% of customers don't care and will still be very competitive. I reckon the remaining 2% will find Foffa's theories useful even if he comes across a little brash in the Swedenglish translation http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Both 12v MK4 and 24v MK4 got the cam compensation.

Ok After reading this thread I understand what you are talking about now.
Now suppose I have a sheet metal manifold with equal length runners and decide to install custom camshafts?Then what?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (The Quinner)*

Phatvw and Quinner
Yeap its the swenglish








Sure its more in to tuning but i still think that most engines work the same.
Then add head design flat or chamber and you still goot 2 different basic tuning bases by cosworth to follow.
And as for intake and exhaust design you also have alot of pinpoints to follow.

But for VR6 tuning for example i still have most Litre Hp on every engine i build.
Having and engine concept tuned for one main use and that is broad powerband at were its used with shiftpoint and gearing including i my case so its no dyno queen engines.
In HGP/HPA´s case (i own lots of thir products in the past) i kick their 3.2Litre 24v 600hp+ kits in light cars with a 2.3Litre engine with 10 valves.
Sure they have better low en power but still i mangage to beat all of their cars event their big cash sponsor cars with claimed 675hp etc just by doing it "right"
So its just as easy to use "correct" runner lenght ,tuned for specific rpm vs specific duration and lift vs "correct" port area and not go to big on anything.

I think the MADtech page is very good.
When other tuners got 500,600,700Hp out of 2 Litre Nissan S14 they accived 900+. Having world record Hp and speed on the tracks
And this is mainly because of them using all theories in the book but are still openminded to new ideas.

Im no Motronic guru ...i consult Jeff Attwood,Claus Aichberger and HGP/HPA tuner Carsten and UNI Guru Mike Z
All im trying to say is that its just as easy to do it right as it is to do it "wrong" or not as good .
Most Vortex shops/tuners do it as cost efficient as possible because they don have a power goal.
Espessially in VR tuning


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

404 Dyno proof not found


Funny that quote applies more to your "supposed" 500hp than anything Foffa has posted.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Most Vortex shops/tuners do it as cost efficient as possible because they don have a power goal.
Espessially in VR tuning 


http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## xpalendocious (Nov 28, 2003)

*Re: when we think short runners are played out - think again (vw1320)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw1320* »_

Funny that quote applies more to your "supposed" 500hp than anything Foffa has posted.










a dyno sheet just isn't enough evidence for people anymore? Power shift any gear in his car, if and when it hooks it wont bog or hesitate, it will just proceed to accelerate like no other.
Chuck Norris is scared of his car.
Kevin


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
The reason that most people have stopped taking foffa as serious as they used to take him, is simply because he's never backed up any of his statements with real world proof. Lots of great theorys on paper, but no testing or analysis. 
Do i think there is some truth behind what he's saying - yes.
Do i believe that there would be a significant performance difference - no.
Would i love Foffa to prove me wrong -yes.
Does Cabzilla stand a chance of finally making it in to my sig - yes.










* Does Foffa spend entirely too much time in a laboratory fantasyland and not enough time in the real world - *yes*
* Do we really need anybody to wear us out about his NASA - approved rocket science intake manifolds that would cost thousands of US dollars, if they were actually available, when we can already make more HP / TQ than we could ever use with a "poorly designed" C2 SRI that runs about $700 and is readily available off-the-shelf - *no*
My question has never been whether more power could be made with some crazy intake manifold, because I'm sure that with enough R&D it could be made to happen. 
The problem is, when you're already making about twice as much power as you could ever put down, why spend the money? Experimenting with different exhaust and / or compressor housings and wheel trims would probably be more cost-effective.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (vr6swap)*

Obviously some folks like a challenge and pushing the envelope while others are content with mediocrity and the "tried and true" solutions. Kudos to those who have the guts (and bankroll) to try new things


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_ content with mediocrity and the "tried and true" solutions. 

Not sure how an off-the-shelf chip-tuned 400+ whp could be construed as "mediocre". I'd call it "f*cking incredible", but I guess you can call it what you like, fact is it works. 
4 years ago people were content with bullsh*t ATP / EIP software, FMU's, poor driveability and burnt pistons. That's what I'd call mediocre.


----------



## The Quinner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_Obviously some folks like a challenge and pushing the envelope while others are content with mediocrity and the "tried and true" solutions. Kudos to those who have the guts (and bankroll) to try new things









The problem here is that I don't really see anything "new." Pushing the envelope to the Nth degree? Yes. 
The mistake is calling anything else mediocre or suggesting that anything else is wrong. By extension, it could be argued that anything but Formula ONE technology in a street car would be settling for mediocrity.
I love a challenge and love to see the envelope being pushed. BUT...suggesting that one path is the ONLY path is proceeding with blinders...blinders that will most likely limit how far that person actually pushes the envelope. IOW, narrow minded thinking prevents those oh-so-important outside the box moments...
Focus the work, but don't constrain the thought process.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (vr6swap)*

Ok mediocre is the wrong word








I meant that anybody with $10,000 can take off-the-shelf components and build a reliable 400hp car. It takes real dedication to learn the necessary skills and make your own parts. Thats what I really respect about Foffa. None of his stuff is really new, but its new to VR tuning. Whether you like his Swenglish or not you gotta give him credit for designing custom cams and intakes!


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_Ok mediocre is the wrong word








I meant that anybody with $10,000 can take off-the-shelf components and build a reliable 400hp car. 

10K? Holy hell. where do you buy your parts? I probably have less than 6K in my setup. C2, EIP intercooler / piping, ITS turbo, JE pistons, 3" turboback exhaust. No cheap stuff. 

_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_ It takes real dedication to learn the necessary skills and make your own parts. Thats what I really respect about Foffa. None of his stuff is really new, but its new to VR tuning. 

If anybody really wanted to innovate, to really bring something new to the market, maybe they should be developing affordable electronic traction control and bombproof transmission parts so we can use all the power that's already available to us. 

_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_ Whether you like his Swenglish or not you gotta give him credit for designing custom cams and intakes!









I give him credit for having an incredible knack for self-belief, self-promotion and internet hype without any real proof to back it up. 
Let's all spend several thousand dollars for (maybe) an extra 10 - 12 hp and a few ft/lbs of torque to make our turbo VR6's even more difficult to hook up. That's a real return on your HP investment. 
Yeah it is.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (vr6swap)*

Ok you win








Lets put this thread back on track. No more Foffa discussion.
So who's running this HPA/HGP manifold anyway? Dynos? Dual throttle bodies for sequential turbo or supercharger? Custom cams to match the custom intake runners?


----------



## Corradokcid (Nov 6, 2006)

*Re: (vr6swap)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6swap* »_
10K? Holy hell. where do you buy your parts? I probably have less than 6K in my setup. C2, EIP intercooler / piping, ITS turbo, JE pistons, 3" turboback exhaust. No cheap stuff. 
If anybody really wanted to innovate, to really bring something new to the market, maybe they should be developing affordable electronic traction control and bombproof transmission parts so we can use all the power that's already available to us. 
I give him credit for having an incredible knack for self-belief, self-promotion and internet hype without any real proof to back it up. 
Let's all spend several thousand dollars for (maybe) an extra 10 - 12 hp and a few ft/lbs of torque to make our turbo VR6's even more difficult to hook up. That's a real return on your HP investment. 
Yeah it is. 

is this guy serious???? buddy some people have more money then they know what to do with.....i thank those people for wasting that money developing better parts for "ME" to use because "I" do not have that kind of money to throw around......sooo why are you argueing with guys who want a perfect running setup??......i've had the money to turbo my car several times but wouldnt unless i could do standalone.....i'm called a perfectionist i like my car's just like my dirtbikes,jetski's,and quads running absolutely perfect......C2 makes a great over the counter chip....the chips run great but there tuned for "general" purposes meaning you could probably lean the mixture out in many places in the powerband but there tuned to get people running and so they dont lean out.......back on topic sorry but this guy makes no sense i had to waste 10mins of my life posting


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

Are you stupid and ignorant to real world tuning ?
Read a book and make some record breaking Vr´s first
How about 130+ mph trap speed on full weight street car?
Show me 5 other MK4 street cars with that power .
If i dont blow that crappy AP tuning gear box the 11.24sec OEM ecu street car record will be beaten this summer.

*And the cams and intake gave me the same power at 1.2Bar of boost as i had on 1.6 last year.*
Go figure because ive ran out of fuel with my 730cc injectors and need to remap with 840s instead and its 10 days before i can do that at turbocenter.



_Modified by [email protected] at 5:49 AM 5-20-2007_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Foffa, don't even bother man...
*I* can't wait to see your results!


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

Great thread! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif But let's PLEASE keep it on topic before it gets locked by those stupid moderators







.
And that would suck b/c it's a good thread.


----------



## bmxrado (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: (vr6swap)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6swap* »_
10K? Holy hell. where do you buy your parts? I probably have less than 6K in my setup. * (C2, EIP intercooler / piping, ITS turbo) cheap *, JE pistons, 3" turboback exhaust. No cheap stuff. 


6k is pretty cheap alot of people in here prob have more the 10k in there motor and turbo setup


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (bmxrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bmxrado* »_
6k is pretty cheap alot of people in here prob have more the 10k in there motor and turbo setup

Not to mention brakes, suspension, clutch, limited slip differential, install labour. sticky summer tires, etc. I was referring to building a car, not just an engine lol!


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

*Re: (bmxrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bmxrado* »_
6k is pretty cheap alot of people in here prob have more the 10k in there motor and turbo setup

I do too...
I quit counting though...b/c it hurts me to think that I might have spent well over 10k on a VW.


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (bmxrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bmxrado* »_
6k is pretty cheap alot of people in here prob have more the 10k in there motor and turbo setup


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
Not to mention brakes, suspension, clutch, limited slip differential, install labour. sticky summer tires, etc. I was referring to building a car, not just an engine lol!


_Quote, originally posted by *nater* »_
I do too...
I quit counting though...b/c it hurts me to think that I might have spent well over 10k on a VW.










Added it all up, I have a little over $6200.00 in reciepts / paypal invoices for my motor and turbo setup, including a stage 3 Clutchnet clutch. Only labor cost was for the machine work. I already had ARP head studs, a Velocity light flywheel and a rebuilt trans with a Peloquin. 
A little more than I thought, but still not nearly 10K. All the parts except the EIP intercooler and piping were bought new, mostly through the Vortex FI classifieds. 




_Modified by vr6swap at 10:36 AM 5-21-2007_


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

Yea,
Just to justify my expenses (if possible) I spent some coinage on a rebuilt 3L Schimmel long block and also did an O2M swap in my mk3.
So, 
It depends on what you consider a "must have" for your turbo car.


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (nater)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nater* »_Yea,
Just to justify my expenses (if possible) I spent some coinage on a rebuilt 3L Schimmel long block and also did an O2M swap in my mk3.
So, 
It depends on what you consider a "must have" for your turbo car.










I saw your build thread(s), it was pretty obvious where your money went. If the end result makes you happy, then good enough. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## bmxrado (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: (vr6swap)*



vr6swap said:


> Added it all up, I have a little over $6200.00 in reciepts / paypal invoices for my motor and turbo setup, including a stage 3 Clutchnet clutch. Only labor cost was for the machine work. I already had ARP head studs, a Velocity light flywheel and a rebuilt trans with a Peloquin.
> A little more than I thought, but still not nearly 10K. All the parts except the EIP intercooler and piping were bought new, *mostly through the Vortex FI classifieds. *
> QUOTE]
> i have little over 10k in my motor and turbo setup its crazy to think that but all my stuff was bought brand new nothing used from the classifides. i could of saved money buyin used parts, but you shoud just do it right the first time.


----------



## vr6swap (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (bmxrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bmxrado* »_ all my stuff was bought brand new nothing used from the classifides. i could of saved money buyin used parts, but you shoud just do it right the first time.

Thought I made it clear, but look like you missed it anyway. 
*The only turbo parts bought used were the EIP intercooler and piping.*
Other than that, everything was all new parts, bought largely from people who found out the hard way how much a vr6 turbo costs and were selling their new-in-box parts cheap. So thanks, but I don't really need any advice about "doing it right the first time".


----------



## bmxrado (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: (vr6swap)*

my bad when i read it real quick i thought you said they were the only 2 things you bought new


----------

