# good TECHNICAL discussion on head porting and SM vs LG port heads



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

some type of stuff a *TECHNICAL* forum needs. tech talk.

smart people may clue in on a person or three in this conversation, too. name them if you know them.

http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=195054


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Really good info. Sometimes hard to follow with all the foreign jargon, but they seem to be saying there is something possibly bad about the port design on the large port heads where the shape of the intake ports are creating unecessary turbulence and negatively affecting the velocity of the air right as it is supposed to be entering the combustion chamber.

Now I'm torn about whether I should throw my supertech valvetrain into a small port or a large port head. One of the guys said that a small port head could flow fine up to 500 hp


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> Really good info. Sometimes hard to follow with all the foreign jargon, but they seem to be saying there is something possibly bad about the port design on the large port heads where the shape of the intake ports are creating unecessary turbulence and negatively affecting the velocity of the air right as it is supposed to be entering the combustion chamber.
> 
> Now I'm torn about whether I should throw my supertech valvetrain into a small port or a large port head. One of the guys said that a small port head could flow fine up to 500 hp


It's interesting but so many people make big power and big port heads. I don't see any reason to rebuild the wheel.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

sabbySC said:


> It's interesting but so many people make big power and big port heads. I don't see any reason to rebuild the wheel.


I'm still trying to decipher exactly what they were talking about with the knife edge effect on the large port heads. I have 2 small port heads sitting in my living room and I just looked down the throat of the intake port at the dividers on the intake valves and they look pretty thin (knife-edged) to me. 

Does anyone have a picture of the intake ports on an AEB head for comparison?


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Here is a link of a picture showing the differences between the ports of an AEB vs. AWP head. 

http://funksoulkitty.org/engineandtranny/AWP/aebcomparison/aebcomparison.html

Top 2 pics are AEB big port intake valve dividers and bottom 2 pics are small port AWP intake valve dividers.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)




----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

the large port head is most def a rougher cast while the smallport seems to have the development put into it. i loved my small port..maybe send it to [email protected] in the future for some clean up with his CNC program..

but a large port head with proper work can be a deadly "bolt on"


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

I don't know.

I went to a big port head, manifold and the car ripped harder everywhere. 

I am not sure what you could do to a smallport to get it to flow like the big port does...... That is where the power is. Why hondas make power, the heads flow extremely well. D16 with a 3067 will make more WHP psi for psi than a small port 1.8T. Fact.


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

He is right, but there is the train of thought that some turbulance is necessary especially with a port injection application.


Your fuel is atomized poorly compared to a carb, or a CIS car, or direct injection. Fact. CIS is awesome at atomizing fuel.

Turbulance can help with fuel atomization. A lot of old muscle car folks leave ports somewhat rough because of this.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

gdoggmoney said:


> He is right, but there is the train of thought that some turbulance is necessary especially with a port injection application.
> 
> 
> Your fuel is atomized poorly compared to a carb, or a CIS car, or direct injection. Fact. CIS is awesome at atomizing fuel.
> ...


I think you are slightly missing the mark here. The thread that the OP posted is specifically discussing the shape and sharp angles of the material dividing each intake valve. The Ibiza people were discussing how the smaller port heads have less sharp angles separating each intake valve port which they think would create less turbulence and allow for more air to enter the combustion chamber. 

Yes I agree that the walls of the intake ports should not be ported and polished to a mirror finish, but that is not what was being debated by the Ibiza guys. I think they were trying to say that they wish the VW engineers would have rounded out the intake valve ports on the AEB heads to further increase flow.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

gdoggmoney said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I went to a big port head, manifold and the car ripped harder everywhere.
> 
> I am not sure what you could do to a smallport to get it to flow like the big port does...... That is where the power is. Why hondas make power, the heads flow extremely well. D16 with a 3067 will make more WHP psi for psi than a small port 1.8T. Fact.


I think you are also neglecting the fact that honda heads have crazy lift compared to our VW/Audi heads. The extra lift allows for greater flow as well as different intake port designs.


----------



## schwartzmagic (Apr 29, 2007)

is it lift only? or lift & duration? 

another thing, a lot of the standard theory available is for NA motors and a lot of that goes out the window under force induction, I would think......

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> I think you are slightly missing the mark here. The thread that the OP posted is specifically discussing the shape and sharp angles of the material dividing each intake valve. The Ibiza people were discussing how the smaller port heads have less sharp angles separating each intake valve port which they think would create less turbulence and allow for more air to enter the combustion chamber.
> 
> Yes I agree that the walls of the intake ports should not be ported and polished to a mirror finish, but that is not what was being debated by the Ibiza guys. I think they were trying to say that they wish the VW engineers would have rounded out the intake valve ports on the AEB heads to further increase flow.


Not at all. I am saying sometimes you have to have trade offs. Some turbulance, a little less flow. I mean I don't see flow bench numbers showing that it is any better. 

This is a volume vs velocity thing, and turbulance a by product is something that is required and good in certain amounts.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

gdoggmoney said:


> Not at all. I am saying sometimes you have to have trade offs. Some turbulance, a little less flow. I mean I don't see flow bench numbers showing that it is any better.
> 
> This is a volume vs velocity thing, and turbulance a by product is something that is required and good in certain amounts.


It is a volume vs. velocity thing. The ibiza guys were trying to say that velocity cannot be accurately measured by a flowbench test. 

It is undisputed that an AEB will always outflow a stock smallport head on a flowbench. What they are getting at is that cfm isn't everything when it comes to making power on low lift heads. Velocity of the air entering the ports may be just as important if not more important than raw air flow numbers. 

I will probably still end up running an AEB head as soon as I find one for a decent price. This is still an interesting discussion for me.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

simon-says seems to be doing quite well with his small port...

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?2698530-Official-Dyno-Thread/page9&p=71330857#post71330857

My guess is that he's using it over the big port for higher velocity.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

All_Euro said:


> simon-says seems to be doing quite well with his small port...
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?2698530-Official-Dyno-Thread/page9&p=71330857#post71330857
> 
> My guess is that he's using it over the big port for higher velocity.


Is his small port head ported and polished or just valvetrain work? What kind of boost is he running?


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

That is Aarons car. He is running a small sport basically stock?

Hang on I will ask him.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

gdoggmoney said:


> That is Aarons car. He is running a small sport basically stock?
> 
> Hang on I will ask him.


I just PMed him that is nutz. Are the rest of us doing something wrong? I could have dropped off my small port head 2 weeks ago to get my supertech stuff put in instead of dicking around looking for an AEB head lol


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

I don't know how banned all of his accounts are. I asked him via facebook. I'll post up what I get back if he does not pop in here.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

yes, the simon-says is mine.

and yes i do and always have made more power/less torque on the PORTED AWP.

82mm bore x ported AWP x stock sized valves = 592 AWHP/434 WTQ.

83mm bore x non-ported AEB x +1mm EX and stock sized intake = 559 AWHP/480 wtq. same boost, same rpm.

and yes right now i am at 648 AWHP with my ported small port AWP head with 33psi and E85 and 8k-ish rpm.

and yes i have a ported AEB to use with the IE internals and solid lifter camset.

and yes i experiment here and there with things just cuz i want to know


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> yes, the simon-says is mine.
> 
> and yes i do and always have made more power/less torque on the PORTED AWP.
> 
> ...


crazy numbers :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

http://www.mototuneusa.com/think_fast.htm


Motoman > *. 


This thread reminded me that he agrees with you, but I have not been to this page in at least 5 years.


Stock yamaha R1 intake port. Look familiar?


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

gdoggmoney said:


> http://www.mototuneusa.com/think_fast.htm
> 
> 
> Motoman > *.
> ...


Yes I have read that article a few times. As schwartz said above it is hard to say how well his theory works with forced induction motors but it does make a lot of sense.


----------



## tedgram (Jul 2, 2005)

I would take more wtq at the same rpm any day. That means there is more power available higher up the rpm ladder.:thumbup:


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> 82mm bore x ported AWP x stock sized valves = 592 AWHP/434 WTQ.
> 
> 83mm bore x non-ported AEB x +1mm EX and stock sized intake = 559 AWHP/480 wtq. same boost, same rpm.


There are way too many variables changed between these 2 comparisons to be able to scientifically say that the port size is what caused you to gain all that power. I do believe you when you say that you've made more power/less torque on a small port head but this comparison has 4 different variables that all contribute to the difference in power.

Also by the same token what the motoman article and the other thread would suggest is an unported AWP head would create even MORE power... Which I'm still not sold on in a boost application.

With turbochargers we are no longer relying solely on the piston's "sucking" action to fill the combustion chamber.

What would be an interesting and very enlightening test to perform would be having 

a block dyno'd with a stock awp head, untouched
same block dyno'd with a ported and polished awp head
same block dyno'd with an unported but polished awp head
same block dyno'd with an AEB head in the same 3 above scenario.
after each test the stock untouched head should be reattached and re dyno'd to make sure the difference in numbers isn't from outside unaccounted for source. ABA testing.

but again all this would prove is which route to take with whatever turbo that was used during the test as well. The flowrate of your turbocharger is what you should really be basing how your build your head. There isn't ever going to be some magic 1 size fits all for port sizes that produces the most power from a stock k03 to a GT40.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

tedgram said:


> I would take more wtq at the same rpm any day. That means there is more power available higher up the rpm ladder.:thumbup:


No, you would have LESS hp in the upper rpms. Its seems like a trade off as you can see below



Powdered Toast Man said:


> 82mm bore x ported AWP x stock sized valves = 592 AWHP/434 WTQ.
> 
> 83mm bore x non-ported AEB x +1mm EX and stock sized intake = 559 AWHP/480 wtq. same boost, same rpm.


AEB gained Aaron 46wtq but lost him 33awhp.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

Cincy has it right, for the first two motors that i ran an AEB block with.

and again, now i am 480wtq and 648 AWHP on the worked AWP head all things the same.

i did have an in between motor, too. a one off motor Issam built the bottom end, something nobody has done before. and a fully blueprinted non ported AEB head. that was a really good motor, by my dyno guy, my honda drag racin buddies, my tuner, us, everyone involved thought that was a good setup. i didnt have the time to replicate it after i wasted it (yeah my fault. 11,495 rpm on a mechanical overrev nothing wants to live). so i went with an off the shelf available anytime by anyone IE stroker kit.

but it was an 86.4mm crank, a one-off set of 83.5mm pistons, a one-off set of 150mm rods. that was 615AWHP/434 wtq on non ported AEB head. 1.9L....

which leads me to my next point. the same setup, but 2.0L and the ported AWP, makes more WTQ and more AWHP. that could be the gain in displacement. the 1.9L had a great curve though.....

and we really havent pushed motors anymore on the dyno.... not after the first two.

i actually do have some neat info, usable really only by me (and my tuner Kevin Black). we track this kind of stuff, see.



*Engine Name: (Pinky Trevahhh built, stolen out of rabbit )*
Bore:  82mm Wiseco 20mm pins 
Stroke: 86.4mm (AEB block)
Rod Length: 144mm Scat
Comp Ratio: 9.25 : 1 ???
Cams: CAT cast hydro lifter 1013652
Head Work: Ported AWP, ST springs, OEM valves
Lifters: hydro lifters, new OEM
Head Bolts: Raceware studs, one (or more, lightly hit previously) hit this motor. No head damage resulted the light hits.
Head Bolt Torque: 80 ft/lb or whatever Raceware said
Turbo: Bullseye Power S366XL, 1.00 A/R T-4 divided
Fuel: Bosch 1000’s on C-16

END RESULT: 45 psi by 5600 rpm on dyno in 3rd, lift/melt head, bent rods, broke all four wrist pins and still ran.

592/434, 7200 rpm 35-36 psi 20.5 degrees.



*Engine Name: (GOLD MOTOR all DJM)*
Bore: 83mm JE tool steel 20mm pins
Stroke: 86.4mm (AEB block)
Rod Length: 144mm IE rifle drilled
Comp Ratio: 9.25 : 1 ???
Cams: CAT cast hydro lifter 1013652
Head Work: AEB non ported, not even a gasket match. ST springs, ST Inconel exhaust and OEM intake valves
Lifters: hydro lifters, new OEM
Head Bolts: Raceware studs, second big hit this motor
Head Bolt Torque: 80 ft/lb or whatever Raceware said
Turbo: Bullseye Power S366XL, 1.00 A/R T-4 divided
Fuel: Bosch 1000’s on C-16
END RESULT: 45-46 psi by 5700 rpm on dyno in 4th, lift/melt head, bend tool steel pins

557/456, 7800 rpm forgot boost 20.5 degrees?




*Engine Name: (INA bottom DJM top (black motor))*
Bore: 83.5mm 21mm pin JE
Stroke: 86.4mm (06A block) 
Rod Length: 150mm with random rods, 46mm big end and a ground down crank
Comp Ratio: 9.0 : 1
Cams: CAT Billet solid lifter 1003756
Head Work: AEB non ported, not even a gasket match. ST springs, ST +1mm intakes, ST Inconel exhaust, single groove
Lifters: CAT solid lifters with ST lash
Head Bolts: ARP studs, which hit the lifters on a couple intakes
Head Bolt Torque: 85 ft/lb or what ARP said
Turbo: Bullseye Power S366XL, 1.00 A/R T-4 divided
Fuel: Bosch 1680’s and CORN PORN!!!!!
END RESULT: MIS-SHIFT SPUN 11.5K RPM WINDOWED BLOCK

615/434 8500 33 psi 17 degrees



*Engine Name: 2011 Dyno Bitch (Silver motor)*
Bore: 83mm 20mm tool steel pin JE
Stroke: 92.8mm (06A block)
Rod Length: 144mm IE rifle drilled
Comp Ratio: 8.5 : 1
Cams: CAT Billet solid lifter 1003756
Head Work: Ported AWP, ST springs, ST +1mm intakes, ST Inconel exhaust, triple groove
Lifters: CAT solid lifters with ST lash
Head Bolts: ARP Bolts
Head Bolt Torque: ~80 ft/lb
Turbo: Bullseye Power S366XL, 1.00 A/R T-4 divided
Fuel: ID 1600’s and CORN PORN!!!!!
Preliminary hits to 7200 in 3rd gear with WG pressure (22psi after creep LOL) were >500 AWHP.
648/480 7900 rpm 34 psi 16.5 deg timing peak torque


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

and now, friday, i head to the track with the same setup, although i have increased the hotside to 1.10 A/R. my tuner has added some changes to the map to make up for the change in VE.

the AWP head was blueprinted and the spring height (installeD) was tightened up due to being too loose. .021 loose on the ex and .036 loose on the intake.

and still not one person has named anyone in the SEAT/Ibiza thread. there are a couple prolific people in there..... people whom have done a lot for this platform. 

come on guys. show me that you really do pay attention to stuff....


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

gdoggmoney said:


> D16 with a 3067 will make more WHP psi for psi than a small port 1.8T. Fact.


RPM for RPM also?


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> and still not one person has named anyone in the SEAT/Ibiza thread. there are a couple prolific people in there..... people whom have done a lot for this platform.
> 
> come on guys. show me that you really do pay attention to stuff....


I'll try, the only ones I recognize that come to this forum are Badger5, and INA... Hope I got two out of the three, Not sure if I have any of them:laugh:


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Cincy has it right, for the first two motors that i ran an AEB block with.
> 
> and again, now i am 480wtq and 648 AWHP on the worked AWP head all things the same.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry. Maybe i'm missing something.... but in the thread with the IE cam's... all those guys are talking well over these power levels including one in the 1000 hp range and none of them are having multiple massive bottom end failures like yours. What's the deal? (I understand about the mechanical over rev, so no need to clarify on that one)


----------



## One-Eight GTI (Jan 5, 2010)

Brendon1098 said:


> I'm sorry. Maybe i'm missing something.... but in the thread with the IE cam's... all those guys are talking well over these power levels including one in the 1000 hp range and none of them are having multiple massive bottom end failures like yours. What's the deal? (I understand about the mechanical over rev, so no need to clarify on that one)


 Aaron is All Wheel Drive so thats part of the difference


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

Brendon1098 said:


> I'm sorry. Maybe i'm missing something.... but in the thread with the IE cam's... all those guys are talking well over these power levels including one in the 1000 hp range and none of them are having multiple massive bottom end failures like yours. What's the deal? (I understand about the mechanical over rev, so no need to clarify on that one)


ummm..... bhp and AWHP (Quattro has 18-22% drivetrain loss = ~800 CHP) not pushing it.

but i guess you skimmed and didnt read. have YOU ever made 45psi?



Powdered Toast Man said:


> END RESULT: 45 psi by 5600 rpm on dyno in 3rd, lift/melt head, bent rods, broke all four wrist pins and still ran.





Powdered Toast Man said:


> END RESULT: 45-46 psi by 5700 rpm on dyno in 4th, lift/melt head, bend tool steel pins


do you understand the effects of cylinder pressure? and maybe i pushed it a little too hard? it will make >30 psi by 5k rpm if i let it, and 45psi by 56-5700 as well. and that is a little much. but you know this right? because you do this on a daily basis, right?

oh yeah. one more little bit of info. most of the big dogs dont really let it be known that they blow $hit up. they are embarrassed that they made a mistake. i can say with certainty one of said BIG DOGS (of 1.8T power) has lifted his head at least 3 times as much as me. but to admit that would show that maybe he makes mistakes too, and that isnt good for business. so he hides that fact or just doesnt try to let it be known.

no big deal. fair enough question that you could have gotten the answer from by reading. and the reason is because i was pushing things when people here were afraid to. and they still are. i make a mistake i dont hide it. never have really.

and were we discussing cams here, or cylinder head porting? i seem to have missed when it went that direction. because i also run a solid lifter cam setup. and i only know of maybe 4 others in the 1.8T world that do so. 

holler at me when you nut up and try and do something besides bust my balls for trying to keep this sheep-fest on a technical level.

you have 2595 posts, and only a total of 4 in this forum. and you are gonna try and come in here and bust MY BALLS???? 

CIAO!


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

At the end of the day, what is the most cost effective head for a regular joe wanting to make 400ish whp?

I love reading and seeing what you guys on the edge are up to, but my budget only allows me to take advantage of the trickle down effect :beer:


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

it's all going to relate back to the turbo your running, but since you said cost effective go with the small port head and spend the money you would finding a good AEB on other parts like intake mani, larger TB, etc.

there is never going to be a one size fits all for best port size on your intake ports, it's all relative to the rest of your engine


----------



## tedgram (Jul 2, 2005)

Nice info, I appriciate it. Nothing like learning from experience.


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

so bacause of the design of the dividers in the small port head, if you port it it will make more power and run smoother because of the more stable velocities between the valves? is there any way you can create the coanda effect on the dividers of the big port heads by shaping them differently or is there not enough meterial or something. i have both a small and large port sitting in my garage and this is kind of making me wonder what i should do....


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

gdoggmoney said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I went to a big port head, manifold and the car ripped harder everywhere.
> 
> I am not sure what you could do to a smallport to get it to flow like the big port does...... That is where the power is. Why hondas make power, the heads flow extremely well. D16 with a 3067 will make more WHP psi for psi than a small port 1.8T. Fact.


Keep in mind your talking about a high compression motor that will rev to the moon. Don't get me wrong flow has alot to do with it but we are talking about two different beasts.


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

MKIII_96 said:


> so bacause of the design of the dividers in the small port head, if you port it it will make more power and run smoother because of the more stable velocities between the valves? is there any way you can create the coanda effect on the dividers of the big port heads by shaping them differently or is there not enough meterial or something. i have both a small and large port sitting in my garage and this is kind of making me wonder what i should do....


well I believe what people are trying to get at is simply this:

Does the velocity lost to the increased size of the AEB big port make more or less power.

Radiusied versus knife edged dividers weren't really the main subject of conversation or discussion(although i did read an interesting thread about that subject searching around after reading this thread on a s14 forum)

What people are trying to get at is this.

The intake valve is open for xxx amount of time, and in xxx amount of time Y amount of air/fuel can get into the cylinder.

what increases Y more? 

The quicker velocity, yet small port area of the small port head or the larger port, yet slower velocity of the large port head?

The problem with the motorcycle article is it's talking about NA Carbbed engines. Since we are effectively shoving air into the engine anyway with our turbo's how much lower is the actual velocity by opening up the port?

The answer could be simply that while the stock AWP ports are too small, the AEB port may be to big and the true "best power" lies somewhere in the middle like a mildly ported AWP head. To complicate the matter even more, the flow rate of your turbo may also come into factor as well as, your IC cold side piping size, TB size, IM runner size. Just another example on how when your building an engine you have to look at everything as a whole and not just slapping on the "best" parts and hoping for the best.


----------



## OBIWANKANNA974 (Feb 24, 2011)

This is a good and wise answer.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Cryser said:


> well I believe what people are trying to get at is simply this:
> 
> Does the velocity lost to the increased size of the AEB big port make more or less power.
> 
> ...


These are all excellent questions which cannot truly be answered without back to back dyno testing on identical setups with different head/porting combinations. 

I thought the article was interesting because nobody had really tested the choke point on a small port head. I was amazed to see speeding G60 pushing nearly 800 chp on a small port head when most big turbo guys in this forum have converted to AEB heads.


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

http://www.s14.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46105&page=3

there is the s14.net thread that mainly talks about knife edging versus radius blending gets a little off track at the end but they do talk about velocity a little bit.


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

Cryser said:


> well I believe what people are trying to get at is simply this:
> 
> Does the velocity lost to the increased size of the AEB big port make more or less power.


yeah but what i read seems to be saying that the AWP head has a radius on the dividers which increases velocity and makes for smoother running air into the combustion chamber, which means you can potentially make more power. not because of the port size but just in the design of the dividers. And the AEB head has a sort of knife edge to it from the factory, which creates turbulence and air is actually moving backwards in the port at some spots, making the head less efficient, which means less power. but rather than spending hours or hundreds of $$ on porting an AWP head, is there a way to fix the dividers in the AEB head.

thats why powered toast has all ported small port heads, because of the dividers (im assuming) but since he didnt try to fix the problems in the AEB head, it probably cant be done because there isnt enough material, or the casting is just that much different.


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

im wondering if i should sell my aeb head and put the money towards getting my awp head ported...

HMMMMMMMMM


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> and still not one person has named anyone in the SEAT/Ibiza thread. there are a couple prolific people in there..... people whom have done a lot for this platform.
> 
> come on guys. show me that you really do pay attention to stuff....


Bill and his engine builder JNL both show up on here with good info. 



Powdered Toast Man said:


> and were we discussing cams here, or cylinder head porting? i seem to have missed when it went that direction.


Sorry, but im going to have to bring cams in this. If it is true that the small port will increase hp at the expense of tq and vise versa for the AEB, it is going to have a play on how they choose cams as well. Seems small port people should be able to use smaller cams to get the same hp level where aeb people would need larger cams and give up some of the added tq gained which seems like a wash. But like said before, we would need dynos to see for certain.


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

Use some epoxy and epoxy up the dividers on your intake ports. I'd hate to find out that it let go from vibration.


Folks use JB weld to shape ports.


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> ummm..... bhp and AWHP (Quattro has 18-22% drivetrain loss = ~800 CHP) not pushing it.
> 
> but i guess you skimmed and didnt read. have YOU ever made 45psi?
> 
> ...


Hey man, I wasn't coming in to bust balls at all. I'm genuinely curious. I come from VR6's and 4g63's. I don't know much about the 1.8T so i'm trying to gain knowledge on how to make power with them. Yes, i've seen high boost before on evo 9's with FP black's on E85. Here is a thread on breaking chit of mine http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-transfercase-with-a-GT35R-on-a-3.3l-at-23psi I don't hide stuff either man. 

On the quattro comment, I'm aware how it robs power, I've had numerous B5 S4's with anything from K04's to Tial 605's and GT28R's on 2.8L strokers. I have a B8 S4 now, and it will never reach the power you're making, the blower just can't do it so I don't even try to make big power out of it. I'm saying in a long way, I understand the frustration of big numbers and quattro. 

the 1000hp car is 1000AWHP through quattro shown here 



 This is the one that I found in the IE Cam thread. I wasn't trying to bring up cam tuning or anything, just referencing the thread. I figured you probably already read it so no need to link to it or the video i found within. 

Listen man, I'm not busting your balls, I'm just curious as to the differences in your setup versus the few others that are out there making big power. I know some people try to hide their blow ups it just seemed like there were a bunch on your end because you voice it and it all seemed at lower power levels compared to the rest. Good job on making big power and pushing the envelope, continue to do it man. Its impressive and for the 1.8T to grow it's going to need people like yourself willing to try new things. But don't be negative to someone asking a question when like you said... I don't post here that often. Nothing negative was meant out of my question to you. 

Have a good one


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

eace: :beer: :beer:

and that car you show is one of the solid lifter cars.

and i am pretty up on the 1.8T cars around the world. 

the pink motor blew up due to:

the 35R map took 50% boost duty cycle for the turbo to create 35psi. we hit the bigger turbo with the same thing right out of the door and it only requires 30% boost duty cycle to generate 34psi. it blew the line off the ECU and all.

the gold motor, we backed it down, and made 18 dyno pulls thru 3rd gear, to 40psi. and all was good. for shiz n giggles we hit 4th gear once. and forgot to back down the duty cycle in 4th as we tune 3rd gear. it was >30 psi by 5k, and was 45-46 psi by 5700 rpm and blew the head off again.

then it was break time for me..... i had to quit for awhile just because.

so thanks for clarifying that. apologies if i took it the wrong way (which i obviously did). i am not very well liked around this forum because i am me. but i wont change for anyone.


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

gdoggmoney said:


> Use some epoxy and epoxy up the dividers on your intake ports. I'd hate to find out that it let go from vibration.
> 
> 
> Folks use JB weld to shape ports.


:laugh:


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> eace: :beer: :beer:
> 
> and that car you show is one of the solid lifter cars.
> 
> ...


haha no problem man, as long as you come back with a reply like this i'm cool. There are just too many dick heads around these forums nowadays so I know where you're coming from. I probably over looked it but how are you tuning these things? Also, is there anyway to add more studs for additional clamping force? are you over torqueing them trying to get the head to stay down as well? 
I'd love to see big (semi reliable) power out of these things one day. I'm itching to do a A4 like the one in the video because it would make more power than my S4's ever did (mid 600's at all four) but windowing blocks left and right scares the shiiiiiit out of me lol


----------



## jbrehm (May 16, 2006)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> i am not very well liked around this forum because i am me. but i wont change for anyone.


I like you :thumbup:


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

powder toast man. what are the dimensions of the ports on your smallport head. can you get any pics?


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

jbrehm said:


> I like you :thumbup:


Like him too, one of the few guys around that share my take on this whole making 1.8t power thing! There's always going to be haters protecting the "status quo":beer:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

*These specs, from www.lugtronic.com, are interesting...*


_Todd Pavics's 700 whp, 9 second, ABA/16vT Mk3 GTI Street Car

Owner:

Todd "I went 9's" Pavics (turbodub)
Best E.T. 9.73, Best MPH 155.67

Engine:

ABA / 16v
10:1+ compression Wiseco pistons
Crower connecting rods
Stock 1.8 head w/ valve springs
Shrick Camshafts
Clutchmasters FX700 Twin Disc Clutch
AP Tuning 4 Speed Gearset
DSS Stage 5 Axles
MT 24.5" Tires on Spinwerks 13" Wheels
Racecraft Intake and Exhaust Manifolds
Precision Billet 6265 T3 .82AR Turbo
2x Bosch 044 Fuel Pumps
Bosch 1680cc Fuel Injectors
"NJ Race Gas" Pump E85 Fuel

Additional:

Lugnuts Tuned
LugTronic Standalone ECU
Lugtronic Full Custom "Wire-Tuck" Harness, Boost Control, Wideband, Pressure Sensors

Dyno Sheet:

700 whp at 28-38 psi_


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

All_Euro said:


> *These specs, from www.lugtronic.com, are interesting...*


that means, what you colored red, that he ran a 16v head non ported, from a 1.8 (NOT a 2.0L) with aftermarket valve springs. 

and he has since moved on to the 20v platform, BTW. not that i keep up much on things like this. 

just to clarify things.....


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

MKIII_96 said:


> powder toast man. what are the dimensions of the ports on your smallport head. can you get any pics?


my intake ports are gasket matched to AEB standards now.

and forever i was running my AEB runners manifold without gasket matching it. i just did that finally in March of this year because i was bored.


----------



## purple-pill (Feb 2, 2003)

still currently running stock port AEB head and hydraulic lifters. no technical info, just real world testing.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Feb 16, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and >900 whp/700wtq, too. and been doin it for quite a while as well as becoming the FIRST North American VW FWD car to run an 8 second quarter mile!!!!!!


----------



## Nevaeh_Speed (Jul 9, 2004)

So whats the verdict, Large port or Small port? I just want some bolt on power, not trying to get super crazy at the moment.





Yes I have a BT car.:wave:


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> and >900 whp/700wtq, too. and been doin it for quite a while as well as becoming the FIRST North American VW FWD car to run an 8 second quarter mile!!!!!!


Where's the clap icon when you need one. That is damn impressive. Onto the 7's boys!


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

well, i think ill be porting my AWP head. theres gonna be a AEB head for sale shortly


----------



## PhilW (Jan 3, 2006)

Any more info on this? 

Still deciding what head to go for.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

PhilW said:


> Any more info on this?
> 
> Still deciding what head to go for.


 lol - really? 
GT30 Phil... only one sensible choice dude 

an example... and not "flow or velocity related" but as tuned.. 









comparison 2 K04 hybrid'd cars.. S3's, same turbo, one smallport one largeport..... Largeport permitted more timing than smallport cousin... on same airflows......... one made more power, guess which


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

PhilW said:


> Any more info on this?
> 
> Still deciding what head to go for.


 yeah i changed my mind about selling my aeb head. im just gonna keep it and smooth out rough spots and sharp edges, and do a little bowl work


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)




----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)




----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm starting to love this thread lad's :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Making power on stock port AEB's is because the limiting factor on these heads is the throat diameter / stock valve seats, not the port itself. :thumbup:


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Making power on stock port AEB's is because the limiting factor on these heads is the throat diameter / stock valve seats, not the port itself. :thumbup:


 I don't really understand what you mean by this? Are you saying the limiting factor is the size of the valves themselves and not the size of the intake tract/throat?


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> I don't really understand what you mean by this? Are you saying the limiting factor is the size of the valves themselves and not the size of the intake tract/throat?


 Valve Lift is the big difference.


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Budsdubbin said:


> Valve Lift is the big difference.


 So it's really the cams not the head itself.


----------



## Audi Boy TT (Feb 25, 2009)

*correct me if im wrong* but wast the AEB head made by VW/AUDI before heads like the AWP. VW/AUDI is not a company to go backwards in engineering (no german company is). there may be something to this AWP thing after all. 

however, in argument to germany. they are stubborn and usually run with a bad idea until it works out of pride. for example porsche 911: engine in the wrong spot... it only took like 30 years for it to become great.:laugh:


----------



## smugfree3 (Feb 20, 2006)

i thought that the later heads had smaller throat areas to increase the material around the valve guides, as some aeb's wore them out prematuraly (resulting in warranty repairs). 
the flow difference being inconsequential on such small turbo's, and the better ko3's actually adding power over the standard ko3 the aeb's came with. 
hence, smaller port, more powerful awp's etc stock.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

I'm saying that the limiting factor to flow on an AEB head is not the "port" but rather the inside diameter of the valve seat, and how far you can lift the valves (not far). 

The stock seats are very thin, so they cannot be opened up that far to take advantage of oversize valves. 

The small lifter buckets mandate low valve velocity or the cam will hang off the edge of the bucket- causing destruction... Low valve velocity means that you need a lot of duration to get high lift. 

The center intake valve is also close to the top ring in the piston. So, in order to get a lot of lift, you need a lot of duration- the center intake valve wants to run into the piston due to the duration, but you can't make the notch big because it will hit the ring land. 

So, small valve seats which can't be opened up much, very small bore size that puts the center valve in conflict with the top piston ring, and small diameter lifter buckets which limit valve velocity- are essentially the limiting factors to performance with this platform. Some of it we can correct, like the valve seats. The rest of it, the solution is a MK5 / MK6 4v head. :laugh: 

The really big cams have smaller lobes on the center intake, and the center lobes are ground on wider centerline angles- this too is a compromise. Our solid lifter cam, when we finally get around to releasing it- has only 10mm of lift on the center intake lobes, yet 11mm on the outers- for example. Contrast that to the mk5 heads where 12mm of lift is possible without getting too crazy- with massive valves.


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

could the "best answer" possibly be increasing an AWP exhaust side to AEB specs, while retraining or slightly increasing the intake bore size to a tad below/ 1/2 half between AEB and AWP specs? 

I mean velocity no doubt is an important factor on the intake side we all agree since we have a limiting factor of time, so the faster the air is moving the more will get in. Finding the balance between getting the most air in between increasing velocity versus mass air flow is only going to be determined through testing. But on a turbocharged application how important is velocity on the exit side? A long as the cylinder has no more spend exhaust gasses left in it wouldn't you want the velocity to be as low as possible in order for that to happen? Turbo's spool because of heat not airflow so the more, hotter air we feed it the faster and more powerful the spooling action will be. does decreasing velocity by adding more mass air space increase temp? 

I ask here because I meant to ask my friend tonight but we haven't seen each other in ~5 months and he just picked up a 2010 wrx and we were talking mods and such between other things and it slipped my mind. I unfortunately don't have the knowledge currently to know the answer but I know some people on this board should. 

Also going along with what pete said, has anyone every tired only upgrading the 2 outside intake valves to +1mm and leaving the center valve the stock size? would there be any downside to having 2 different valve sides on the same side of the engine?


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Cryser said:


> Turbo's spool because of heat not airflow


 opcorn:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

sound slike my AWP needs to go out for some CNC work in the future


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

Cryser said:


> Also going along with what pete said, has anyone every tired only upgrading the 2 outside intake valves to +1mm and leaving the center valve the stock size? would there be any downside to having 2 different valve sides on the same side of the engine?


 Is it not possible to +1 all 3 valves? Im assuming that is the case based on your question...


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

Vegeta Gti said:


> sound like my AWP needs to go out for some CNC work in the future


 It is almost impossible to get a decent CNC port on the intake side due to internal construction of the intake port. 
Exhaust port is fine though.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

well, then it will be hand ported intake or what not..i got a guy in canada who does race heads, not jsut Vw..and his 1.8t stuff is pretty nice. all gas flowed, CNC where it can be.


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> sound slike my AWP needs to go out for some CNC work in the future


 At your level of power with that turbo, a potted awp would be great. Any bigger tho is questionable. You gotta remember Aaron is pushing more boost than 99% of us out there. More boost yields more power. My pored aeb head is heavily ported! It is knife edged and I will be rounding that out. It killed low end power big time and I'm like 99% sure that backwards spin it put on the air is why and my only compaint with it. Top end it screamed crazy awesome! I honestly don't think my car has ever been faster except maybe the few times I ran it over 30lbs back on the 35r. And I've only hit 20lbs of boost thus far. Can't wait to get her all back together with the twin setup and the id1000's yuuuuuuuumy! :beer:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

well, the current bowl worked and cleaned up AEB is GREAt..no bottom end loss except from the cams and timing...but midrange and up..it is vastly different..but i need a heavier wg spring to really see. plus my turbo is leaving at the end of the month... i got some plans for my ****...and i am gonna keep it all to myself for now...changes are goooddd.:beer: 

stoked for your new setup dude. gonna be SSIICCKK:thumbup:


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Vegeta Gti said:


> well, the current bowl worked and cleaned up AEB is GREAt..no bottom end loss except from the cams and timing...but midrange and up..it is vastly different..but i need a heavier wg spring to really see. plus my turbo is leaving at the end of the month... i got some plans for my ****...and i am gonna keep it all to myself for now...changes are goooddd.:beer:
> 
> stoked for your new setup dude. gonna be SSIICCKK:thumbup:


 dammit! i keep forgetting to order you a big green spring


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

We stock all those springs and stuff and can priority mail it, chad... :thumbup:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i heard bob ross' fro has 20v's or fury and 4 wheels of grip 

lemme know Al!! :beer:


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

velocity196 said:


> At your level of power with that turbo, a potted awp would be great. Any bigger tho is questionable. You gotta remember Aaron is pushing more boost than 99% of us out there. More boost yields more power. My pored aeb head is heavily ported! It is knife edged and I will be rounding that out. It killed low end power big time and I'm like 99% sure that backwards spin it put on the air is why and my only compaint with it. Top end it screamed crazy awesome! I honestly don't think my car has ever been faster except maybe the few times I ran it over 30lbs back on the 35r. And I've only hit 20lbs of boost thus far. Can't wait to get her all back together with the *twin setup *and the id1000's yuuuuuuuumy! :beer:


 Twin 044s? 




Vegeta Gti said:


> i heard bob ross' fro has 20v's or fury and 4 wheels of grip
> 
> lemme know Al!! :beer:


 Hey whatch what you be sayin...


----------



## OBIWANKANNA974 (Feb 24, 2011)

UFC 133 fight of the nightorted AWP head(aka velocity)vs AEB polished head(aka big flow) :laugh:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

derekb727 said:


> Twin 044s?


 I have twin 044's feeding this little setup 
thirsty beast


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

Bill, are you at liberty to share what is in and done to your head?


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

derekb727 said:


> twin 044s?


 no u know twins (.) (.) lol


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

kamahao112 said:


> no u know twins (.) (.) lol


 I love them things!


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

kamahao112 said:


> no u know twins (.) (.) lol


 LOL!!! 

No CM twin disc and a single pump surge tank. There is no need for twin pumps on my 6262. Maybe down the road but not now. ID1000's the surge tank and the twin disc should do a 2L some good.


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

Does anyone have a photo of a bare block 1.8T from each angle? preferably with the head on? I have an idea...


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i heard bob ross' fro has 20v's or fury and 4 wheels of grip
> 
> lemme know Al!! :beer:


 Shhhhhhhh


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

This thread is inspiring me to put the 3651's I have sitting around in the smallport head on my 3076 Jetta tonight.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

cincyTT said:


> Bill, are you at liberty to share what is in and done to your head?


 heads nothing uber spec. 
std size supertech valvetrain, ported AGU (largeport head) fully gasket matched intake and exhaust side. Its still on hydro's... which is going to cap my rev limit. 

I run special grind catcams for some years, which are in there for now.. but I do fancy trying IE's new race ones at some point. 

other than that its 83mm bore, std stroke (because of capacity & regs in my c'ship). compression is higher than 1st build.. which is a gamble I think, but aimed to try and get some better response off boost, as this is a racecar limited to run on road legal tyres (not even track rubber allowed) and races against non-turbo cars, which run ~300bhp, but can use all of their power with instant punch.. In race trim its only been running 1.4bar boost.. and is 50/50 tractable... difficult constraining wheelspin. I have fitted vvt to this, and will play with it when its running.. I hear some nice gains in spool and mid range torque are possible so that would be nice.


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

So I had peered into a D16 head this weekend. Very close to a knife edge between the two intake valves........ 


Maybe honda does not care about turbulance or builds it into the port for a good fuel/air mix?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

following my previous SP vs LP ign timing.. 
Same car is here, same turbo spec as before, just now runs largeport head.. same boost levels, same airflows.. just 10 degree's more timing now possible with zero pull so far (still tuning it, clutch slipped paused the progress momentarily) 

LP rock! :thumbup:


----------



## TheBossQ (Aug 15, 2009)

badger5 said:


> Its still on hydro's... which is going to cap my rev limit.


Speaking of which, I came across this interesting test the other day. The tester claims valve float / bad harmonics beginning at 7500 rpm. Interestingly, they are blaming the lifters, so uprated springs wouldn't solve their claimed problem. What is your rev limit on the hydraulic lifters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HwJDxgLUU


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

TheBossQ said:


> Speaking of which, I came across this interesting test the other day. The tester claims valve float / bad harmonics beginning at 7500 rpm. Interestingly, they are blaming the lifters, so uprated springs wouldn't solve their claimed problem. What is your rev limit on the hydraulic lifters?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HwJDxgLUU


thanks for the video.. interesting..

if that was exhaust valves only on the check, there looked like resonant periods on there at lower rpms also..

Not sure if I could draw any conclusion on it being the hydro followers which were the cause.
bench test cant simulate the exhaust back pressures the valves would see under same rpms.. and oil viscosities will be critical to hydro followers function.

Still extremely interesting to see this done..
many thanks for that

all I can say is I have revved to 8200rpm for a few race seasons on my supertech valvetrain, using 300V motul oil, and all has been well.


----------



## GLI_jetta (Jan 3, 2006)

lol so I invested in an AEB, with all supertech parts, 3658s, SEM IM and hemi tb and ppl are now finding out that my old AWP head thats sitting on my shelf in the garage is more superior?


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

GLI_jetta said:


> lol so I invested in an AEB, with all supertech parts, 3658s, SEM IM and hemi tb and ppl are now finding out that my old AWP head thats sitting on my shelf in the garage is more superior?


Think you need to read the thread again


----------



## Brendon1098 (Oct 17, 2008)

badger5 said:


> Not sure if I could draw any conclusion on it being the hydro followers which were the cause.
> bench test cant simulate the exhaust back pressures the valves would see under same rpms.. and oil viscosity will be critical to hydro followers function.
> .


Another thing, boost pressure, cylinder pressure and temperature could not be accounted for. I wonder how they provide oil pressure in this manner as well


----------



## TheBossQ (Aug 15, 2009)

Brendon1098 said:


> Another thing, boost pressure, cylinder pressure and temperature could not be accounted for. I wonder how they provide oil pressure in this manner as well


You can see on the test bench the head is mounted to that there are feed and return lines. They address that in the top comment to the video.



JAZZBOE1966 said:


> Hi there,
> 
> please check the﻿ Oilline (0,47 Sec ) which goes in the head.
> 
> ...


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

TheBossQ said:


> You can see on the test bench the head is mounted to that there are feed and return lines. They address that in the top comment to the video.





> The right oil.......


I run a "different oil" to most..... and without specifying which, its as inconclusive as their statement

its not enough info of the whole test regime unfortunately.

great to see such things being done tho.. they would no doubt have this info, just not youtube probably


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

TheBossQ said:


> Speaking of which, I came across this interesting test the other day. The tester claims valve float / bad harmonics beginning at 7500 rpm. Interestingly, they are blaming the lifters, so uprated springs wouldn't solve their claimed problem. What is your rev limit on the hydraulic lifters?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HwJDxgLUU


Too many people are running 8500 rpms with no problem


----------



## GLI_jetta (Jan 3, 2006)

cincyTT said:


> Think you need to read the thread again


Really? I believe Aaron is (or was) running an awp head and gained hp and lost tq, and with the AEB it was the opposite I believe. That itself is enough reason to question the decision ppl made when switching to a LP vs SP IMO.

Plus, theres a few guys on here saying their considering selling their AEB and throwing on a ported AWP.

just looking for information...


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

aaron also has a ported aeb for the next go round when ie releases their big solid cams :thumbup:


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

GLI_jetta said:


> Really? I believe Aaron is (or was) running an awp head and gained hp and lost tq, and with the AEB it was the opposite I believe. That itself is enough reason to question the decision ppl made when switching to a LP vs SP IMO.
> 
> *Plus, theres a few guys on here saying their considering selling their AEB and throwing on a ported AWP.*
> just looking for information...



That tells me you are going with what people _say_ versus making your own opinion....

Also, as stated with Aaron's setup there where alot of other vairables that where not accounted for. 

In my opinion the differences are maginal either way, so I will be sticking with whatever head I have readily available. Which is currently an AEB...

Had I cam across this discussion earlier I would have really had to think about my decision to pick up an AEB vs throwing STs in my small port...

rather before it was the need/want of the AEB for the _BOG POWER_


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Just don't loose track those numbers aren't just a small port, it's ported . Id pick an aeb over a ported awp any day for a couple reasons. 1, you can easily fack up the work. 2, its not cheap getting a head cnc ported. 3, if you do have the cash to get it professionally ported, is the cost worth 20hp? 30? I think not, stick with your aebs fella's and don't port them unless your building a race car. Trust me, it flows great up top but down low in city driving and low end torque isn't so great on a big turbo and big cams :thumbup:


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

http://mototuneusa.com/power_news_--_the_8_phase_motor.htm


The fuel/air charge should remain turbulent in the cylinder to maintain a uniform mixture throughout. One popular way to do this in a two valve engine is to curve the intake port to "swirl" the mixture into the cylinder. This doesn't work with a four or five valve head though, because too much turbulence is created in the port, which disrupts the volume of flow into the cylinder.




Some more meat. Is this dead?


----------



## GolfCL Smooth (Jul 9, 2006)

I may as well add to this thread even though my dilemma is FAR less consequential than the ones faced by you big HP guys. But I figured there's no better people to ask than the pros...

I can swap my AWP head for my friend's AEB head (with AWP internals with VVT functionality) for a very good price (he's selling the car), complete with ported matched intake mani. I have a rebuilt K03s that I would like to ride out until it dies, so no BT plans in the forseeable future. But I will be getting a stage 2 tune soon enough.

For 95% daily driving, is the AEB head a good match or am I better off staying with the AWP? My goal isn't big HP but rather a solid powerband. My friend tells me he was hitting full boost by 2500rpm (also stage 2 @ 22psi) which sounds like a great gain down low for city torque. Up top he said he didnt feel a big difference. This somewhat conflics with the info in this thread. However, his car did dyno at 262 whp and 312 wtq with only bolt-on mods, so the AEB head must have made a big difference to get numbers so high, even with dyno sheet 'uncertainty'. That's all the power I would ever want if my stock turbo can hold up.

I'd consider a BT in a couple years, and I could also get the AEB head then. The only reason I'm thinking about it now is because it's readily available, and my motor is already disassembled on the garage floor!

Any input will help with my decision, TIA


----------



## formerly silveratljetta (Feb 6, 2007)

GolfCL Smooth said:


> I may as well add to this thread even though my dilemma is FAR less consequential than the ones faced by you big HP guys. But I figured there's no better people to ask than the pros...
> 
> I can swap my AWP head for my friend's AEB head (with AWP internals with VVT functionality) for a very good price (he's selling the car), complete with ported matched intake mani. I have a rebuilt K03s that I would like to ride out until it dies, so no BT plans in the forseeable future. But I will be getting a stage 2 tune soon enough.
> 
> ...


You won't notice great gains by swapping the head b/c your stock turbo is not moving that much air. True gains from a large port head swap will only come from running a much larger turbo. I don't see it being worth the hassle for you right now to swap the heads. Maybe if the head swap was free I would say go ahead and do it.


----------



## GolfCL Smooth (Jul 9, 2006)

formerly silveratljetta said:


> You won't notice great gains by swapping the head b/c your stock turbo is not moving that much air. True gains from a large port head swap will only come from running a much larger turbo. I don't see it being worth the hassle for you right now to swap the heads. Maybe if the head swap was free I would say go ahead and do it.


Thanks for your thoughts. I've been doing some more reading on the topic, and still can't make up my mind. On top of the head swap it will cost another me $200 for a head gasket and headstuds correct? Can I consider re-using my existing with only 20K on them? The AEB head was decked/hot tanked/leak tested about 10K ago, whereas my AWP head had a couple exhaust seals re-done but the ports and valves are very dirty. So I'm seeing it as an opportunity to get a fresh start along with a decent power boost... Any maybe the motivation to go BT down the line


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Added to FAQ


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Does anyone know where to get a head tested on a flow bench? Preferably in the capitol area but anywhere on the east coast could suffice. 

I'm going to do some hand porting on one of the AEB heads I acquired and I'd like to see the before and after. I'd also like to make sure it's flowing the same amount on all 4 I/E ports.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

DMVDUB said:


> Does anyone know where to get a head tested on a flow bench? Preferably in the capitol area but anywhere on the east coast could suffice.
> 
> I'm going to do some hand porting on one of the AEB heads I acquired and I'd like to see the before and after. I'd also like to make sure it's flowing the same amount on all 4 I/E ports.


This is from the man himself the OP on the latest info if more comes I'll relay it,

and that i run 45+ psi now on the reg, >800 AWHP, and low (9.30's) 9's on the same small port head 
low compression motor, 8.5:1 pistons and has only 135 cold compression.

but, once i have a NEED to put in the 2013 motr, it will go in. same bottom end, with the CNC ported IE AEB setup. and the huge cams.


----------

