# FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

Finally some numbers. Hot off the press today, I got them done at school. 
Be mindful this is with an APR k04 tune with some v-tune massaging. More power with larger injectors and a custom tune? I definitely think so.
Spill you're guts guys. Ask questions, Doug has been extremely helpful through this whole thing and him and I will answer your questions as best we can.
P.S Big thanks to jamesr88 on helping me on the dyno
Some thoughts on the kit:
Installation was easy if you ask me. Same exact set of events for replacing a k03s and manifold. It took me about 5 hours, taking my time to do the swap from start to finish. 
Fuel mileage has went down and i'm sure when I get larger injectors it will go down more. But before I was getting 28-30 with 50%highway 50% city. Now i'm at about 24-25.
The exhaust sounds a TINY bit different from the k03s with the same Magnaflow setup I have now but nothing drastic at all, but I can tell you the compressor is definitely louder along with included DV.
For what its worth, my dad has a fuel injected Harley with exhaust and chip and I beat him by a car length to 80.
















_Modified by saps at 6:24 PM 11-7-2009_


_Modified by saps at 6:50 PM 11-7-2009_


----------



## QuakeFreak121 (Mar 22, 2004)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (saps)*

Looks pretty good!
Any reason why the pulls stopped shy of 6.5k rpm?
Power and Torque bands look pretty flat, maybe people won't have to worry about snapping rods with this upgrade. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Sorry if I missed the info from another thread but, what other mods are on the car?
-Matt


----------



## AudiTToR (Nov 27, 2008)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (saps)*

what was the boost pressure?
Also, what was the boost curve through out the run? Does it drop off up top?


----------



## Mike.Mike. (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (AudiTToR)*

doesnt look to bad! impressed i want to see Uni's dyno with their tune


----------



## motoo344 (May 26, 2006)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (Mike.Mike.)*

There is probably more in there like you said. Thanks for posting numbers, I was interested in seeing what was up with these Franken Turbos.


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (motoo344)*

22 psi is pushing that turbo.... numbers are decent but I expected more at 22psi



_Modified by Budsdubbin at 7:11 PM 11-6-2009_


----------



## AWPGTI (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (Budsdubbin)*

Nice curve..... You were having problem with over boost how did you solve that????


----------



## dbn23quattro (Apr 8, 2008)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (AWPGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AWPGTI* »_Nice curve..... You were having problem with over boost how did you solve that????

+1, and just how much tweaking did you have do with v tune?


----------



## Haagendaz (May 12, 2009)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (Mike.Mike.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mike.Mike.* »_doesnt look to bad! impressed i want to see Uni's dyno with their tune 

im quite impressed as well comepared to a normal k04, looks like this might be my next upgrade once i buy a new gli http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Hassenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2005)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (Budsdubbin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Budsdubbin* »_22 psi is pushing that turbo.... numbers are decent but I expected more at 22psi

_Modified by Budsdubbin at 7:11 PM 11-6-2009_

Been following the Franken turbo thread. I think with some proper software we will see much better data all around.


----------



## DH Photography (Sep 9, 2009)

Looks good, not really and need for a different software with those numbers!


----------



## Haagendaz (May 12, 2009)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (Hassenpfeffer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hassenpfeffer* »_
Been following the Franken turbo thread. I think with some proper software we will see much better data all around. 
I'd agree on that but i still think for a turbo that size/price those are pretty good numbers, with a decent tune, it should be dialed


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (AWPGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AWPGTI* »_Nice curve..... You were having problem with over boost how did you solve that????

Just backed off the wastegate actuator rod a 1/2 inch or so. No overboost issues at all now, she pulls pretty good now.


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (dbn23quattro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dbn23quattro* »_
+1, and just how much tweaking did you have do with v tune?

I got in about 15 pulls at school to get it dialed in as best I can. APR has some pretty vague descriptions on what the parameters mean so I did my best. 
We should be able to get some more out of it with the injectors, and will be going that route shortly.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (saps)*

Nice powerband...in the end, it seems like the Frankenturbo is unofficially a bolt-on 02x. That's ok, a lot of guys have been asking for that


----------



## bmxp (Aug 10, 2003)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Nice powerband...in the end, it seems like the Frankenturbo is unofficially a bolt-on 02x. That's ok, a lot of guys have been asking for that









Exactly what I've been thinking... To bad I've lost motivation to do any kind of work to my car... Been with the 02x since like 07...a good daily driver!


----------



## 20aeman (Jun 8, 2006)

pretty impressive numbers for a stock frame turbo.


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

*Re: (20aeman)*

I'm not sure what they 'hype' is about this turbo, it's basically the same principle as the old ATP Eliminators that were discontinued for some reason. The GT2XR eliminator was a similar price but it used a Garrett center cartridge, and this one uses the proprietary Frankenturbo CHRA. Same theory, same fitment, similar housing design same results.


----------



## ghostinator (Aug 16, 2008)

*Re: (CTS Turbo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CTS Turbo* »_I'm not sure what they 'hype' is about this turbo, it's basically the same principle as the old ATP Eliminators that were discontinued for some reason. The GT2XR eliminator was a similar price but it used a Garrett center cartridge, and this one uses the proprietary Frankenturbo CHRA. Same theory, same fitment, similar housing design same results.

Exactly. The only thing i see is that since it's practically a 02X bolt on, and the eliminators are discontinued, that is getting the attention. I never thought the power band would be any different than any other k04, so i never cared.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

what airflow logged for this?
we have hybrid k04's in k03 wrappers here as a popular budget upgrade for those running k03s turbos... nothing new about it
anyone here remember e05?
interested in logged airflows


----------



## HydroGood (Oct 8, 2009)

*Re: (badger5)*

Good numbers!


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (badger5)*

Intake Air Mass Engine Speed

g/s /min
11.33 1720
11.75 1800
3.64 1800
27.39 1920
37.86 2160
53 2520
85.11 3000
127.03 3680
140.67 4320
160.11 5000
172.06 5560
173.19 6040
178.44 6520
35.5 5280

Is this what you're looking for?


----------



## T-Boy (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: (saps)*

That's pretty good if it's on pump gas. About four years ago, I maxed out a k04-01 and put down 245whp & 306wtq.
If you want to compare a maxed out (stock) K04, my mods and dyno can be found here http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1618150


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (T-Boy)*

Thats on 93 oct all day.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_
Intake Air Mass Engine Speed

g/s /min
11.33 1720
11.75 1800
3.64 1800
27.39 1920
37.86 2160
53 2520
85.11 3000
127.03 3680
140.67 4320
160.11 5000
172.06 5560
173.19 6040
178.44 6520
35.5 5280

Is this what you're looking for?

this thru a std size maf housing or 80mm one (210/225 size)
we log this airflow thru k03s turbos, up to 180g/s I see. Hybrid k03/4 we see no less than 220g/s


----------



## AWPGTI (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_
I got in about 15 pulls at school to get it dialed in as best I can. APR has some pretty vague descriptions on what the parameters mean so I did my best. 
We should be able to get some more out of it with the injectors, and will be going that route shortly.

what injects are you running now and what size fpr, I would upgrade the FPR with a 4bar and see what you get first


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)

*Re: (CTS Turbo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CTS Turbo* »_I'm not sure what they 'hype' is about this turbo, it's basically the same principle as the old ATP Eliminators that were discontinued for some reason. The GT2XR eliminator was a similar price but it used a Garrett center cartridge, and this one uses the proprietary Frankenturbo CHRA. Same theory, same fitment, similar housing design same results.
 what exactly is your point? It still flows more than the k04-001 that you sell, is cheaper, and comes with more hardware.







I don't get it Clay.. This is a better option than the k04-001 for guys who want an affordable upgrade, or a replacement for a failing k03s.. I don't feel your hate bro. It just doesn't make any sense


----------



## The_Dude1.8 (Jun 21, 2008)

*Re: (dubinsincuwereindiapers)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubinsincuwereindiapers* »_ what exactly is your point? It still flows more than the k04-001 that you sell, is cheaper, and comes with more hardware.







I don't get it Clay.. This is a better option than the k04-001 for guys who want an affordable upgrade, or a replacement for a failing k03s.. I don't feel your hate bro. It just doesn't make any sense

Couldn't have said it better. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

from the logged airflow, its flows no more than a k03s would when remaped? which i dont understand..


----------



## jamesr88 (Oct 9, 2007)

cough.....****s weak .....cough


----------



## Rubberband (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: (The_Dude1.8)*

I'd have to say that the gap is oficially filled between the k04-001 and a bt.
now get it on with some tuning and injectors... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (AWPGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AWPGTI* »_
what injects are you running now and what size fpr, I would upgrade the FPR with a 4bar and see what you get first 

Just stock injectors and 4 bar. I'm thinking about stepping up to Delphi 440's and the standard 3 bar. That should give me plenty of room.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (Rubberband)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rubberband* »_I'd have to say that the gap is oficially filled between the k04-001 and a bt.
now get it on with some tuning and injectors... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

are you sure with only 178g/s airflow?
Still need confirmation of what maf housing size is on the car logged
thx


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (badger5)*

stock 1.8t maf housing.


----------



## DeathKing (Jun 20, 2008)

Exciting


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (ghostinator)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ghostinator* »_that is getting the attention.

Which is great and all but the majoirty of people out there dont care about results as much as they care about :
* warranty
* availbility
* support
Not sure who Frakenturbo is or what they do but if they plan on running an ATP like operation I forsee nothing but failure in the future.


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*

for what its worth I have about 4,000 miles on the setup no problems, no leaks, no anything.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (saps)*

any other issues come up since your last post on this?
did your mileage dip hold or did it go back up some?

oh, and are you satisfied with this as a daily driver?


----------



## DH Photography (Sep 9, 2009)

He's still waiting for software.
I doubt there are any DD issues.


----------



## jwalker1.8 (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: (DH Photography)*

Two pages and no one said anything about the A/F???


----------



## eldo (Jul 26, 2003)

*Re: (jwalker1.8)*

i'd LOVE to hear about how this turbo is in a daily-driven scenario. how does the car perform over a ko3s "chipped" car?


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (eldo)*

this turbo set up is far from ATP elim kits. its just a hybrid K04. its like what... a K04-001 housing with K04-02X internals/compressor??? the elim kits were a garret housing but with K03/K04 mount points and bends. witch for a turbo that big was a heat sink. Frankenturbos kit is just an upgraded OEM K04 with a high flow mani... at a kick ass price... Im sure he wont run business like ATP... he actualy wants money and he seems to love his dub.


----------



## burkechrs1 (Dec 1, 2008)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
Which is great and all but the majoirty of people out there dont care about results as much as they care about :
* warranty
* availbility
* support
Not sure who Frakenturbo is or what they do but if they plan on running an ATP like operation I forsee nothing but failure in the future.

This turbo is pretty much a k04-02x. There is NO warranty available for a k04-02x, no support and they're pretty hard to find. If someone is making a bolt on k04-02x variant for waaay cheaper than a k04-02x kit then good. It's what a lot of people have wanted for awhile. I don't get why the sponsors are so against it.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (burkechrs1)*

judging from the dyno results, I think it is what I'm after... I dont need 300 hp at 5k rpms... I need the snail spooled by 3k max since my motor spends most of it's time between 2500~6000 rpms...


----------



## engineerd18t (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: FrankenTurbo F4ht Dyno Results (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_
Just stock injectors and 4 bar. I'm thinking about stepping up to Delphi 440's and the standard 3 bar. That should give me plenty of room.

Nice numbers, I'm picturing this with E85 could be a pretty interesting combination. 
I'm prolly going to be selling my Delphi 440's so you can pm me if you're interested.


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (burkechrs1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *burkechrs1* »_
This turbo is pretty much a k04-02x. There is NO warranty available for a k04-02x, no support and they're pretty hard to find. If someone is making a bolt on k04-02x variant for waaay cheaper than a k04-02x kit then good. It's what a lot of people have wanted for awhile. I don't get why the sponsors are so against it. 

ummmm... U named every reason the sponsors are aginst it. its an in demand, afordable kit... NOT MADE BY THEM. the only sponsors that will make money are the tuners. some people go BT because the K04-001 isnt enough, but for the price of a K04-02X u might as well go BT and save some $$$. I wonder how well this would run with basic bolt ons and giacx+ or revo stage 1 or 2. im not a fan of the K04 (over boosted) tunes.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

from the airflows posted (someone plase confirm theirs) this hybrid flows less air than a k04-023 and only as much as a K03s does??
Whats the big deal with this?
Here in the UK we have used hybrid K03s with K04 internals for some time to good effect. Airflows log in the range of 200g/s-227g/s from ones I have seen and mapped.


----------



## girth brooks (Mar 2, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *~Enigma~* »_
ummmm... U named every reason the sponsors are aginst it. its an in demand, afordable kit... NOT MADE BY THEM. the only sponsors that will make money are the tuners. some people go BT because the K04-001 isnt enough, but for the price of a K04-02X u might as well go BT and save some $$$. I wonder how well this would run with basic bolt ons and giacx+ or revo stage 1 or 2. im not a fan of the K04 (over boosted) tunes.


+1
for a bolt on kit you absolutely can't beat under a grand. of course the sponsors are going to bitch and whine about how unproven the product is... after all, it's a far better deal than what they're offering. also, lets not forget how many of their products have left us stranded in the past. 
cough *50 trims* cough
i've heard nothing but awesome things about clay's customer service, btw.


----------



## weenerdog3443 (Jul 5, 2007)

*FV-QR*

i was making that on my ko3 for the money just keep saving and and get a real turbo


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_
Intake Air Mass Engine Speed

g/s /min
11.33 1720
11.75 1800
3.64 1800
27.39 1920
37.86 2160
53 2520
85.11 3000
127.03 3680
140.67 4320
160.11 5000
172.06 5560
173.19 6040
178.44 6520
35.5 5280

Is this what you're looking for?

Either you need a new maf sensor or this turbo is just another way to roll a 7.


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (Pass18t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pass18t* »_
Either you need a new maf sensor or this turbo is just another way to roll a 7.

or he could be running a cone filter off the maf housing. that ****s up the readings. I mean look at the dyno VS airflo... somethings gone right somewhere. with all the tweeks added and everything looking good. id like to see what Clays kit can do.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_from the airflows posted ... this hybrid flows only as much as a K03s does??
Whats the big deal with this?

The 2075-series compressor in a K03s _is capable_ of the same flow rate, yes. But not at the same efficiency. Not even close. In the airflow logs posted the maximum rate was 1788 g/s. This translates to 23.5lb/min, right in the 72% efficiency sweet spot for the 2078-series compressor. Because the turbo is running so efficiently, the dyno numbers are maximized for that rate of flow. 

_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_Here in the UK we have used hybrid K03s with K04 internals for some time to good effect. Airflows log in the range of 200g/s-227g/s from ones I have seen and mapped.
 
220 g/s? That works out to over 29lbs/min. Impressive! Would you mind providing a MAP to corroborate? Come on! I've shown you mine, what say you show me yours?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
The 2075-series compressor in a K03s _is capable_ of the same flow rate, yes. But not at the same efficiency. Not even close. In the airflow logs posted the maximum rate was 1788 g/s. This translates to 23.5lb/min, right in the 72% efficiency sweet spot for the 2078-series compressor. Because the turbo is running so efficiently, the dyno numbers are maximized for that rate of flow. 

220 g/s? That works out to over 29lbs/min. Impressive! Would you mind providing a MAP to corroborate? Come on! I've shown you mine, what say you show me yours?









I have logs of a few K03/4 hybrids which are in the range of 200g/s to 227g/s
K03s's I have seen log 180g/s on extremely good ones.. (usually in the 170g/s region)
This unit looks poor airflowing in comparison, or over inflated dyno which does'nt match the reported air mass.








boost is 1.6bar peak with 1.4bar at just over 6krpms on the ones I see


_Modified by badger5 at 4:51 PM 11-20-2009_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
This unit looks poor airflowing in comparison, or over inflated dyno which does'nt match the reported air mass.










What part of 23.5 lbs/min airflow corresponding to 235hp is confusing to you? Are you sure you want to put the idea of "over-inflation" out there when the dyno mark is where it is? As I posted before, the 2078 wheel is more efficient than the K03s you are citing. It's just a better, more efficient wheel than you're used to, nothing confusing about it.


----------



## macosxuser (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*

Looks promising. You have the high-flow manifold on it right? If your MPG's went down, than a new tune will probably help, unless your driving habits changed dramatically. A turbo that comes into boost later, and therefore less often (daily driven) should get better mileage should it not?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
What part of 23.5 lbs/min airflow corresponding to 235hp is confusing to you? Are you sure you want to put the idea of "over-inflation" out there when the dyno mark is where it is? As I posted before, the 2078 wheel is more efficient than the K03s you are citing. It's just a better, more efficient wheel than you're used to, nothing confusing about it.

its not that.
its either 
dyno = broken 
MAF = broken
correct scaled maf 1.25x178= 222Hp 200ish whp


_Modified by [email protected] at 9:37 AM 11-20-2009_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_

correct scaled maf 1.25x178= 222Hp 200ish whp


I really don't want to get into a pissing match about these calculations. But the correct conversion for 178 g/s is over 23 1/2 lbs/min. I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that the universally accepted ratio for hp to air volume is _approximately_ 10hp per lb. That approximation is qualified by many, many variables under any given circumstance. Jumping to the determination of a broken MAF or an "inflated" dyno chart is something you can of course do. But it is unsound. 
I am tired of running around in circles on this. Ultimately, you can think what you want.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
I really don't want to get into a pissing match about these calculations. But the correct conversion for 178 g/s is over 23 1/2 lbs/min. I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that the universally accepted ratio for hp to air volume is _approximately_ 10hp per lb. That approximation is qualified by many, many variables under any given circumstance. Jumping to the determination of a broken MAF or an "inflated" dyno chart is something you can of course do. But it is unsound. 
I am tired of running around in circles on this. Ultimately, you can think what you want.

But you got 237whp and then the scaling of the MAF is a bit off or MAF is broken.
237Whp x 1.12 = 265Hp = 26.5Lb/min = 200gram/sec
210Whp x 1.12 = 235Hp = 23.5Lb/min = 178gram/sec


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (macosxuser)*


_Quote, originally posted by *macosxuser* »_A turbo that comes into boost later, and therefore less often (daily driven) should get better mileage should it not?

we are talking about 100rpms max. Not to mention that its so low in the rpm range that its not even noticeable. Move to a gt30xx and then you can control getting into psi with your foot and shifting


----------



## eldo (Jul 26, 2003)

*Re: (cincyTT)*

its funny how this thread about a SMALL turbo... and people need to chime-in to tell everyone that they're running a "big" turbo and how much better it is.
any stock housing KKK turbo is small. 
yes, i do realize that a "real" turbo will make more hp. shocker. 
the f4h seems to be a better alternative than a K04-001. a bolt-on, daily-driver, low $ option. even if it manages to hold a bit more juice in the higher rpm range to spread out power delivery it'll be worthwhile (as a "stock" replacement unit). 
i'll soon find out i suppose?... 

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


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
I really don't want to get into a pissing match about these calculations. But the correct conversion for 178 g/s is over 23 1/2 lbs/min. I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that the universally accepted ratio for hp to air volume is _approximately_ 10hp per lb. That approximation is qualified by many, many variables under any given circumstance. Jumping to the determination of a broken MAF or an "inflated" dyno chart is something you can of course do. But it is unsound. 
I am tired of running around in circles on this. Ultimately, you can think what you want.

You can quote "reasonable people" and "universally accepted" but the fact is numerous other combinations of dyno runs and maf readings would suggest otherwise. There's dozens of threads/posts on here establishing what max maf readings look like for the various turbos. You can get more power with 178 g/sec flow if the IAT is that much lower due to the greater efficiency and/or timing is advanced, but otherwise that flow doesn't match those kind of hp numbers. It's not what people are saying in this thread that differs with your claims, it's years of modding and posting. Help us understand, we'd all love to see it be replicated for the masses.


----------



## DH Photography (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm more concerned about the reliability of this kit than the numbers. I'm guessing the manifold is of ebayish quality...the turbo itself might have some quality issues. I wish I knew who slappy was as well.
the sponsors are commenting on the quality of the product as well, not hating because it'll take food of their plates.










_Modified by DH Photography at 1:48 PM 11-20-2009_


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
its not that.
its either 
dyno = broken 
MAF = broken
correct scaled maf 1.25x178= 222Hp 200ish whp

_Modified by [email protected] at 9:37 AM 11-20-2009_

So if he had a smic and had tons more heat in there you'd be happier with the numbers?







I think your forgetting the other mods on his car...
On mods & dynoing...
I did a simple mod to my car, dyno'd it before & after on the same dyno on the same day on an increasingly hot afternoon. I even heat soaked the motor each time prior to 3 back to back runs for both before & after. Saw an avg peak of 13% gains in both torque & hp, posted it and got nothing but ***t for it. 
I think some of you guys need to chill & stop calling BS on everyone who posts a dyno of their setups... it is getting old.




_Modified by steve05ram360 at 3:27 PM 11-20-2009_


----------



## Bryan on Boost (Aug 8, 2009)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_
So if he had a smic and had tons more heat in there you'd be happier with the numbers?







I think your forgetting the other mods on his car...
On mods & dynoing...
I did a simple mod to my car, dyno'd it before & after on the same dyno on the same day on an increasingly hot afternoon. I even heat soaked the motor each time prior to 3 back to back runs for both before & after. Saw an avg peak of 13% gains in both torque & hp, posted it and got nothing but ***t for it. 
I think some of you guys need to chill & stop calling BS on everyone who posts a dyno of their setups... it is getting old.
_Modified by steve05ram360 at 3:27 PM 11-20-2009_

^Word! Nice numbers on a simple, inexpensive setup. Lots of bang for the buck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (steve05ram360)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steve05ram360* »_
I think some of you guys need to chill & stop calling BS on everyone who posts a dyno of their setups... it is getting old.


Word!








also, its a K04 yeah the dyno was ment to help, but truth is why dyno it. if Ur that concerned bout numbers go to a BT tread!
I was looking into a medium turbo set up, because the K04-02x was not practical and too torqed up. I think Frankenturbos going to be a name we hear alot of good things bout. ALSO... he said the compressor wheel is more eficiant, meaning more eficiant on less airflow... kinda like a ****ty driver in a fast car can be punked by agood driver in a geo metro


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (Bryan on Boost)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Bryan on Boost* »_
^Word! Nice numbers on a simple, inexpensive setup. Lots of bang for the buck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


thanks... roseville huh? hey hey neighbor...


----------



## [pl] (Sep 13, 2003)

Very nice, will be looking out for more info about this.
For bolt on cant go wrong.


----------



## jwalker1.8 (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: (saps)*

Am I the only one seeing this running lean to the point of melting pistons?
The datum point is set to 13:1 and never once does the graph even show it getting that rich!


_Modified by jwalker1.8 at 8:24 PM 11-20-2009_


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (DH Photography)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DH Photography* »_I'm more concerned about the reliability of this kit than the numbers. I'm guessing the manifold is of ebayish quality...the turbo itself might have some quality issues. I wish I knew who slappy was as well.
the sponsors are commenting on the quality of the product as well, not hating because it'll take food of their plates.









_Modified by DH Photography at 1:48 PM 11-20-2009_

I bet U shop at all name brand "quality" stores and refuse to get the "economy" product because it isnt up to Ur approval!
U have to start somewhere, Frankenturbo will be a big player someday. If this was stocks Id invest. Ive read his page and compared what I know about K04s to his hybrid (theory). Hes a smart motivated dude. oh,and ebay "crap" isnt always crap. i have friends that have ebay mannis, headers, exhaust systems, and even 2 with ebay turbos (only 2 cars are VWs, but hey) their manifolds have held up for a couple years now no problems. give this guy a chance!


----------



## burkechrs1 (Dec 1, 2008)

*Re: (jwalker1.8)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jwalker1.8* »_Am I the only one seeing this running lean to the point of melting pistons?
The datum point is set to 13:1 and never once does the graph even show it getting that rich!

_Modified by jwalker1.8 at 8:24 PM 11-20-2009_

Its also on a tune not meant for the turbo. I'm sure once uni gets their tune finished it'll be much better. There is a dangerous lean spike just shy of 3500rpm though..


----------



## burkechrs1 (Dec 1, 2008)

*Re: (burkechrs1)*

I also want to see a dyno of this rev'd out to 7k at least. Just for comparison to how it can hold boost compared to a k03s...


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
What part of 23.5 lbs/min airflow corresponding to 235hp is confusing to you? Are you sure you want to put the idea of "over-inflation" out there when the dyno mark is where it is? As I posted before, the 2078 wheel is more efficient than the K03s you are citing. It's just a better, more efficient wheel than you're used to, nothing confusing about it.

when you clarify why the logged airflows are only in the 170g/s region on this unit, THEN and only THEN will your quoting of comp wheel airflow actually correlate to the logged mass airflow the cars seeing
there's a big gap, between what you are saying and what k03's do on remaps... matching this unit in peak airflow terms.
its not a more effecient wheel looking at your posted results at all... less airflow and its more effecient???
c'mon man..
lol


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*

the point you are missing, and it maye be my fault for not explaining it well enough is your whp 237bhp figures look very plausable, however your reported airflow is not equating to that, which is why i ask for your airflows in the first place, so i could compare to the hybrids i have seen pass by here.
the recorded mass airflows are quite different. 170g/s plays 200-227g/s
What size maf tube are you running?
thx


----------



## avihai-t (Sep 10, 2009)

logs from seat ibiza cupra 1.8t 180hp
oem turbo {ko3s}
oem maf size
1.4bar boost at 3000rpm and 1.05bar at 6000rpm
on this log we get max 208g/s





Sunday 
06A 906 032 RP 

'002 
Idle speed	Engine load	Inj. period	Air mass in
700-820 rpm	15-25%	2.0 - 4.0 ms	2.0-4.5 g/s
MARKER /min	% ms g/s
2240	27.1	3.74	13.92
2480	127.8	12.24	70.58
3160	191.7	22.44	120.19
3960	191.7	22.78	158.89
4600	191.7	22.78	187.47
5160	191.7	20.74	193.44
5680	186.5	20.06	*200.47*
6120	172.9	18.36	*204.75*
4840	191.7	21.08	190.22
5160	191.7	21.76	199.92
5480	191.7	20.74	*204.14*
5720	188.7	19.72	*205.67*
5920	183.5	19.38	*208.47*
4760	168.4	18.36	177.11
4880	191.7	21.76	192.69
5040	191.7	21.42	196.67
5200	191.7	21.42	*200.17*
5120	12	0	13.14
4960	12	0	9.83
4800	12	0	11.25
4640	12	0	11.28
4520	12.8	0	10.75
4360	12	0	10.92
4200	12.8	0	10.39
4080	12.8	0	10.08
3960	12.8	0	9.72
3800	12.8	0	9.64
3680	12.8	0	9.08
3560	12.8	0	8.67
2440	112	11.9	61.67
2640	187.2	20.74	106.17
2920	191.7	21.76	110.06
3160	191.7	21.42	120
3400	191.7	21.76	128.86
3640	191.7	22.1	136.97
3880	191.7	22.1	156.42
4080	191.7	22.1	157.75
4280	191.7	22.1	172.67
4440	191.7	22.44	180.42
4640	191.7	22.44	186.83
4800	191.7	21.08	185.61
4960	191.7	21.08	190.94
5080	191.7	22.1	190.78
5240	191.7	20.4	196.42
5160	14.3	1.7	6.58
5120	12	0	10.08
4960	12	0	10.94
4840	12	0	11.03
4680	12	0	11.28
_Modified by avihai-t at 8:59 AM 11-21-2009_


_Modified by avihai-t at 11:20 AM 11-21-2009_


----------



## engineerd18t (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
What part of 23.5 lbs/min airflow corresponding to 235hp is confusing to you? Are you sure you want to put the idea of "over-inflation" out there when the dyno mark is where it is? As I posted before, the 2078 wheel is more efficient than the K03s you are citing. It's just a better, more efficient wheel than you're used to, nothing confusing about it.

According to the compressor map from your website, it shows a choke point of 29lb/min. That being said, how come people aren't making 290whp? Perhaps even 250whp? 
As far as the whole efficiency situation goes, 178g/s is 178g/s regardless of the efficiency. 100cfm at xx psi and 60% efficiency and 100cfm at xx psi and 70% are not the same (both we will have different mass flow rates). 
As another note on the efficiency, with a sufficient intercooler, the difference in temperature in the intake manifold shouldn't be much different. I have a k03s at the moment that's certainly out of it's efficiency (bent fins an all nevermind running at high speed) and I see only a few degrees increase of IAT's throughout a pull. I can guarantee you that some of the temps pre-intercooler are 300degF++.


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

Sorry im late to this discussion, just started a new job.
As far as durability issues i'm ready to do my first oil change on this setup, ive got a little more than 4,000 miles on it. 
I'm pretty sure there is more power in there. I'm running a stock 1.8t maf. Has a 142,000 miles on it so maybe numbers are a little skewed. Who knows.
This is also on a apr k04 tune with some vtune massaging and stock injectors with a 4bar fpr. A purpose built tune would most definitely help.
When I get some extra cash im going to get a bigger fuel pump and injectors and get it running on E85. I think that will help.


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (burkechrs1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *burkechrs1* »_I also want to see a dyno of this rev'd out to 7k at least. Just for comparison to how it can hold boost compared to a k03s...

why would you ever rev a stock 1.8t to 7k? http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## burkechrs1 (Dec 1, 2008)

*Re: (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_
why would you ever rev a stock 1.8t to 7k? http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

i dont just most dynos i see on here with stock turbos rev to at least 6500 some higher. not to mention this turbo is holding boost longer so I'd like to see how high you can rev it.


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (burkechrs1)*

see how high I can rev it. Dumbest thing ive ever heard.


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

*Re: (saps)*

I don't see what the big deal is with 7k I've been in the scene for around 5 years now and have yet to see an issue with our engines reving to 7k. The only issue is our heads our restrictive. Many have pushed stock cams and exhaust valves past 7k - 7500 to 400+whp on gt3076 and 50 trim setups. You'll have no issue but I wouldn't recommend it because there will be no power in that range for that turbol, even if there was it wouldn't be worth it because you'll be out of your peak next shift.


----------



## engineerd18t (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_see how high I can rev it. Dumbest thing ive ever heard.
Most dynos usually do go past 6500rpm. A turbo like this should be good till 7000rpm. The engine can handle well over the stock engine limiter. I'm pretty sure the stock limiter is there just to avoid turbo overspeed. I revved my k03 to 7000rpm on the dyno with no issues.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: (bbeach)*

Come on guys: 142,000 miles. Let's wait for a built motor for results in the stratospheric revs.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_Come on guys: 142,000 miles. Let's wait for a built motor for results in the stratospheric revs.









what? no sense of adventure?


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

everyone here knows with this setup there would be no power at 7,000.


----------



## steve05ram360 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: (saps)*

you guys make it sound like the world will come to an end if this setup goes to 7k... I have no problems bringing my 135k motor up to 7k and will proceed to do so with whatever turbo gets put on there. 
The only problem I could ever see is if you have worn cylinders and a nice ridge at the top. WHO here would ever have that???


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

heres the thing to revving to 7k
its pointless. all it would do is make noise.


----------



## -Khaos- (Dec 22, 2003)

*FV-QR*

oh no! Not seven grand! OMG, it'll blow up!








alright, moving on....


----------



## ohyeaitsagti (Apr 28, 2008)

saps: are you running stock manifold as well? seems pretty worth it for 975.00a few beers and a few hours. well besides the vtune and apr k04 upgrade. if all you did was a turbo swap.


----------



## cdn20VALVE (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (ohyeaitsagti)*

Any word on that dip in A/F ratio at 3500 rpm?


----------



## DH Photography (Sep 9, 2009)

*Re: (ohyeaitsagti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ohyeaitsagti* »_saps: are you running stock manifold as well? seems pretty worth it for 975.00a few beers and a few hours. well besides the vtune and apr k04 upgrade. if all you did was a turbo swap.

like i said before and something everyone is over looking...quality of the manifold if not the turbo itself. Never seen so much worthless babbling about #'s.


----------



## engineerd18t (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: (cdn20VALVE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cdn20VALVE* »_Any word on that dip in A/F ratio at 3500 rpm?
Deff not making the best power with that AFR. That'll be putting out some high EGT's too.

_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_Come on guys: 142,000 miles. Let's wait for a built motor for results in the stratospheric revs.








I've got 123k and it's never stopped me. These engines can take a decent amount of high rpms...especially for a couple of dyno runs.


----------



## Red_MK4 (Jun 26, 2009)

Since this is practically a "bolt on k04-022", i'm guessing that the best software as of right now would be GIAC because they have the proper software for the real k04-022... right??? correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## overdrivedgn (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: (Red_MK4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Red_MK4* »_Since this is practically a "bolt on k04-022", i'm guessing that the best software as of right now would be GIAC because they have the proper software for the real k04-022... right??? correct me if i'm wrong.

Unitronics also has a k04-02x file and they are working on one specifically for this turbo.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

doing a file for k03/4 hybrid is not rocket science
the hybrids I have done hold 1.4bar boost to 6krpm then fall away rapidly there after all out of puff then, change gear and move on


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (badger5)*

Something the everyone always keep forgetting is that you can propably boost 40psi with a K04.
Its that OEM 6psi waste gate thats the problem.
If you add 95% N75 duty cycle over the entire powerband you will get 20psi at 3000rpm that fall off to 16psi at 7000rpm.

So before you decide that the turbo is done you need to check what waste gate acctuator is mounted
change the gate and you can propably get much nicer curve at 7k
Can post some dynos and logs of my BAM K04 if you want to.
We did a file for it last week.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Its that OEM 6psi waste gate thats the problem.


The actuator diaphragm adjustment pressure needs to remain at OEM if you don't want to rewrite the N75 duty cycle map. The actuator spring holds a lot more pressure than 6psi, by the way. The spring resistance is not derived from the pressure adjustment setting and can vary by turbo model.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
The actuator diaphragm adjustment pressure needs to remain at OEM if you don't want to rewrite the N75 duty cycle map. The actuator spring holds a lot more pressure than 6psi, by the way. The spring resistance is not derived from the pressure adjustment setting and can vary by turbo model.

cracking is at 6psi on the 2002 K04 BAM equiped turbo we got.
and you dont have to re-write the map.
That map with duty cyle and request is only good for a OEM car.
as sson as you start to turn the boost up and get to the upper limit it cant deliver what you want even though the table say 22psi at 7k 90% according to that stolen bosch motronic handbook that have been around on the web for ages.
to get that small turbo to boost more you need a gate that dont get affected the way that the 6psi get by the n75 not evaquating as much as need OR exhaust back pressure pushing the gate open.


----------



## jamesr88 (Oct 9, 2007)

*FV-QR*

chris you got injectors in the pig yet?


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (jamesr88)*

not yet. I want to go e85 so im looking for some injectors


----------



## jamesr88 (Oct 9, 2007)

for the whole fuel system? or for injection when in boost


----------



## Red_MK4 (Jun 26, 2009)

This is definitely my next buy when they have the proper software







, what sucks for me is that I have APR software on my GTI and it's gonna hurt me $800 dollars more to run this turbo. LOL
Freaking APR people that only run their stage 3 software update and that's it.
I think i'm an APR victim in here. LOL


----------



## saps (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: (jamesr88)*

to use it all the time. People have good luck with e85 on their k03s's. Premium will be $4.50+ next summer so this is best of both worlds.


----------



## jamesr88 (Oct 9, 2007)

got cha does anyone make a tune for e85? i.e. apr,uni...ect


----------



## AWPGTI (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (Red_MK4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Red_MK4* »_This is definitely my next buy when they have the proper software







, what sucks for me is that I have APR software on my GTI and it's gonna hurt me $800 dollars more to run this turbo. LOL
Freaking APR people that only run their stage 3 software update and that's it.
I think i'm an APR victim in here. LOL
i hear you


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (saps)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saps* »_to use it all the time. People have good luck with e85 on their k03s's. Premium will be $4.50+ next summer so this is best of both worlds.

While it's cheaper, it only tends to be like $.20-$.30 cheaper than 87 from my experience (only 1-2 places sell it around me). Also, it does burn 30% more fuel. So, if you do the math... you're not really saving any money on fueling, just saving the environment or something like that. 
Just figured I'd add that.
Also, the f4h has the k04-02x compressor wheel as far as I know, correct? How does that fit into the k03s housing? My k04-02x compressor inlet nearly swallows my k03s compressor inlet... so my k04-02x ID = k03s OD. Just tossing that out there?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_
Also, the f4h has the k04-02x compressor wheel as far as I know, correct? How does that fit into the k03s housing? My k04-02x compressor inlet nearly swallows my k03s compressor inlet... so my k04-02x ID = k03s OD. Just tossing that out there?

The 2275-series compressor wheel used in a K04-02x won't fit in a casting meant for K03/K03s. So you're right to question that. A 2078-series wheel will fit, though.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappy_dunbar* »_
The 2275-series compressor wheel used in a K04-02x won't fit in a casting meant for K03/K03s. So you're right to question that. A 2078-series wheel will fit, though.









So it's a smaller inducer with a larger exducer? Interesting...







I wasn't sure as the maps looked awful similar.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_
So it's a smaller inducer with a larger exducer? Interesting...







I wasn't sure as the maps looked awful similar.

Welllll... actually no:
2275 = 2.2" exducer & 75% inducer (42/56)
2078 = 2.0" exducer & 78% inducer (40/51)


_Modified by slappy_dunbar at 10:22 AM 12-15-2009_


----------



## ~Enigma~ (Jul 8, 2009)

*Re: (slappy_dunbar)*

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


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (girth brooks)*

...



_Modified by PassatMrT at 9:24 AM 12-10-2009_


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: (bbeach)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bbeach* »_
According to the compressor map from your website, it shows a choke point of 29lb/min. That being said, how come people aren't making 290whp? Perhaps even 250whp? 
As far as the whole efficiency situation goes, 178g/s is 178g/s regardless of the efficiency. 100cfm at xx psi and 60% efficiency and 100cfm at xx psi and 70% are not the same (both we will have different mass flow rates). 


I'm not so sure that the g/sec is a constant. That reading (at least on the longitudinals) is taken pre-compressor. Whatever heating that air receives after the compressor stage is going to affect it's density. Otherwise there'd be no need to intercool the charge air. If a compressor wheel is working at 75% efficiency, that 178 g/sec should be making more power than 178 g/sec at 50% efficiency, no?
Also, I asked the same question re: the choke line. If memory serves, Slappy said that they were trying to keep turbine speeds within reasonable limits. Hence the advertised 24lb/min 240HP ratings. 


_Modified by PassatMrT at 4:39 PM 12-8-2009_


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PassatMrT)*

uote, originally posted by PassatMrT»

_Modified by Pass18t at 1:33 PM 12-9-2009_


_Modified by Pass18t at 11:23 AM 12-12-2009_


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Pass18t)*

.



_Modified by PassatMrT at 9:28 AM 12-10-2009_


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PassatMrT)*



_Modified by Pass18t at 11:24 AM 12-12-2009_


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Pass18t)*

.


_Modified by PassatMrT at 9:29 AM 12-10-2009_


----------



## MK4_SLOW (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (PassatMrT)*

clay= frankenturbo customer service?


----------



## burkechrs1 (Dec 1, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (MK4_SLOW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MK4_SLOW* »_clay= frankenturbo customer service?

i agree keep it out of this thread. clay has absolutely nothing to do with frankenturbo so the above posts are completely unnecessary.


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (burkechrs1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *burkechrs1* »_
i agree keep it out of this thread. clay has absolutely nothing to do with frankenturbo so the above posts are completely unnecessary.

Hey I'm happy, I said my piece.


_Modified by PassatMrT at 7:05 PM 12-9-2009_


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

Now, how about some longitudinal dyno results http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PassatMrT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PassatMrT* »_
Hey I'm happy, I said my piece.

_Modified by PassatMrT at 7:05 PM 12-9-2009_

If you had any balls you'd delete your posts from an overall great thread. Quoting/responding to a tiny bit of post from three weeks ago. A hijack to bash somebody because your "entitled to" is weak. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 


_Modified by Pass18t at 7:47 AM 12-10-2009_


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Pass18t)*

Well, since I have do happen to have balls, poof there it isn't. 
*Ahem, this is where you take down yours as well*


_Modified by PassatMrT at 1:30 PM 12-11-2009_


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PassatMrT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PassatMrT* »_Well, since I have do happen to have balls, poof there it isn't. 
*Ahem, this is where you take down yours as well*

_Modified by PassatMrT at 1:30 PM 12-11-2009_

Gone. Maybe next time you'll think a little more before you post unnecessary crap. You'll be a fine addition to the world of attorneys some day.


----------



## PassatMrT (Oct 10, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Pass18t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pass18t* »_You'll be a fine addition to the world of attorneys some day.









Just give the lazy LSAC buggers another 3 weeks to run my LSAT test through their magic scoring machine and we'll see if you're right. I tell you, I've seen people at the DMV move faster.


----------

