GTI tuning modifications - what would you do?

[decksla]

just a hypothetical.

would you:

a) go stage 2 ecu + downpipe

or

b) go stage 1 ecu (with modified map) + high pressure fuel pump

i hear ones better for outright power whereas the other is better for midrange grunt.

what do you think? for all the haters, ive left out the chip company names so you can fill it in with your favorite.

[kryten2001]

just a hypothetical.

would you:

a) go stage 2 ecu + downpipe

or

b) go stage 1 ecu (with modified map) + high pressure fuel pump

i hear ones better for outright power whereas the other is better for midrange grunt.

what do you think? for all the haters, ive left out the chip company names so you can fill it in with your favorite.

A.

You won't need the pump until you go K04, and even then it's semi debateable (they have Stage 2 tunes that allow for a slightly less than ample flow - at least the good tunes do).

K04 + Stage 2 tune + pump + exhaust is what you ultimately want.

[h100vw]

How much do you want to spend, would be another place to start? Ignore my signature. ;)

Gavin

[tinto]

Suspension before power. :)

[kryten2001]

Suspension before power. :)

Yeah I couldn't argue with that.

Basically sign your yearly salary over mate, and you'll be right.

What do people like? KW coilovers?

[Mischa]

Suspension before power. :)

couldnt agree more. even the GT has enough grunt for the wallowy standard suspension.

[kryten2001]

couldnt agree more. even the GT has enough grunt for the wallowy standard suspension.

But if I have to chose A or B, it would be A.

Then B..

Then suspension. Then K04, then brakes, then fuel pump.

Thennnnn.........

sh*t... Then...

[decksla]

id like a powah upgrade first then ill deal with the twisty bits.

i spend more time driving around (its my work car) than fangin in the hills, and for the upgrade in power for the outlay, its hard to say no.

i have a k04 :) its for the relli, just a hypo question. i was thinking of doing DP + REFLASH at the same time, but thought REFLASH + HPFP would be more beneficial.

[kryten2001]

id like a powah upgrade first then ill deal with the twisty bits.

i spend more time driving around (its my work car) than fangin in the hills, and for the upgrade in power for the outlay, its hard to say no.

i have a k04 :) its for the relli, just a hypo question. i was thinking of doing DP + REFLASH at the same time, but thought REFLASH + HPFP would be more beneficial.

I just had the pirelli tuned without the fuel pump, and it's just mad... _m_a_d_

That being said, the fuel pump, brakes and full exhaust are on their way. Squeeze the last 20 kw or so out of it.

Oh and some coilovers.

No doubt whatsoever the tune will give you the single biggest HP upgrade for your bucks. The exhaust only adds a smidge (but it soounds rorrrrt)...

[Guy_H]

Downpipe (or full exhaust) before fuel pump.

On the GTI's that's the order in which APR has set the tuning upgrade path!

[tdi guy]

Did you see that UK TopGear ep where they upgraded the Renault Espace, and I recall the best 'bang for the buck' was when they rebuilt the engine to spec. They spent a fortune on new wheels/tyres, brakes, suspension mods etc and the car ended up slower around their track.

IMO the GTI is already pretty capable on the wheels/brakes/suspension front and would handle the extra power no problem.:)

TG

[kryten2001]

Did you see that UK TopGear ep where they upgraded the Renault Espace, and I recall the best 'bang for the buck' was when they rebuilt the engine to spec. They spent a fortune on new wheels/tyres, brakes, suspension mods etc and the car ended up slower around their track.

IMO the GTI is already pretty capable on the wheels/brakes/suspension front and would handle the extra power no problem.:)

TG

Yeah not really a fair comparison though. If you put a million dollar suspension kit, big brakes, big wheels and wide grippy tyres on a golf 1.6 edition, it aint going to track any faster either.

You need powaahhh before those things are required.

Or think of it the other way.. If you had WAY more power than a standard GTI, like nearly double, wouldn't you want better tyres/suspension?

[BarneyBoy]

Power 1st?
This will show up the deficiencies in the suspension & brakes.
Brakes 1st?
Probably would go unnoticed.
Suspension 1st?
My choice. You'd at least get to use all (and then some) of the power you already have.
Then the brakes - you may start to want better brakes as your cornering speeds will be higher.
Then the power.

Anyway, it's your money :biggrin:

[tdi guy]

If you had WAY more power than a standard GTI, like nearly double, wouldn't you want better tyres/suspension?

One can only dream... AWD would be my pick.

TG

[gtimk5]

I went the "a" way with mine. The brakes are very capable with my driving as I am not hard on them. If you are hard on your brakes and plan on doing track work, then maybe you might need a bigger setup but I feel a lot of people putting big brakes on whatever car they are driving have never used them to there potential. At least, not in everyday driving. Sure, they look good.
Suspension would probably be the next step after doing the exhaust and ECU.
I went the Koni coilover setup but I wouldn't neccesarily reccomend that brand to customers here. I could be happier with a different brand.....
Andrew :)

[decksla]

suspension upgrade will be a later option. i clock 500+kms a week. having stiff sus would piss me off doing all those kms. sure the car would look tits and handle a ****e load better, but id need the comfort.

the brake upgrade, also later. the same as above. alot of driving is in day time traffic. very little high speed or twisty stuff. the brakes would be a waste.

power. can be used when i want, where i want. if i drive 500kms a week, half of it can be used utilising the extra power, or none of it :)

its still a work car first and foremost. then a fun toy on the weekends. :)

[BarneyBoy]

suspension upgrade will be a later option. i clock 500+kms a week. having stiff sus would piss me off doing all those kms. sure the car would look tits and handle a ****e load better, but id need the comfort.

the brake upgrade, also later. the same as above. alot of driving is in day time traffic. very little high speed or twisty stuff. the brakes would be a waste.

power. can be used when i want, where i want. if i drive 500kms a week, half of it can be used utilising the extra power, or none of it :)

its still a work car first and foremost. then a fun toy on the weekends. :)

You can upgrade the suspension without sacrificing comfort as much as you may think. There's dampers/coilovers out there that are rated as 'street/comfort' as opposed to 'stiff as sh!x'. Plus many of those have a degree of adjustment in them so you can dial up a hard or soft ride.

But if you want a slammed look, then you'll be struggling to extract any degree of comfort out of it. Just dropped 30-odd mm should leave enough suspension travel for nicely matched dampers/springs/bars to work properly.

[POLARBEAR666]

I agree, downpipe and Tune... if your a straight line person.

Then KW suspension. Totally transformed my car in one stroke and allows my car to keep up with GTI's and other sports cars or go faster! They simply lose ground around corners every time.:driver:

My KW's are almost on the lowest setting and are still more compliant than my factory suspension was. Coming down off bumps they dont bang down and they control everything better.

[Maverick]

Then KW suspension. Totally transformed my car in one stroke and allows my car to keep up with GTI's and other sports cars or go faster! They simply lose ground around corners every time.:driver:

I think you've been racing GT TDI's because the GT TSI has no chance of keeping up with a GTI even if the GTI has stock suspension!

[POLARBEAR666]

I think you've been racing GT TDI's because the GT TSI has no chance of keeping up with a GTI even if the GTI has stock suspension!

My car can pull 6.89 to 100 which is slightly faster than a dead stock DSG GTI. http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/forums/images/imported/2008/11/DynoliciousPolar666png-1.jpg

WE had a get together in perth and the GT TSI's with KW's were keeping up no problems. I often had to slow down because the GTI's were so slow in and out of corners by comparison. They only pulled away on long straights and even then not by much. GT TSI has 140kw stock versus 150kw for the GTI. Not that much in it stock v stock.

I have had no issues passing other sports cars at lower speeds as I am always on boost when they are spooling up or not yet in full revs. 0-80k's the Twincharger is a beast.

Also, Tinto has beaten subaru's and evo's and 2 other GTI's at the short track racing thing he goes too. The video's are on youtube but he can link them if he likes. He even managed 4th in a field of 50 sports cars! All the cars in front and behind up to 10th were evo's or STI's justabout.

So in answer to your question, Yes a GT TSI with $3k worth of suspension will be faster around a track by miles than a GTI with no suspension.

[G-rig]

Well it obviously comes down to the better driver, but it wouldn't keep up with a GTI in a straight line, no way.

Actually i think there are polo GTI's with V3's beating GT Sports, GTI's and R32s!

Edit: i didn't think that iphone application was that accurate?

[POLARBEAR666]

Suspension lets your cars tyres and brakes and engine make the most of what they have got. I think the fact that a TSI with KW's can beat so many sports cars including GTI's, indicates that suspension makes the car faster in real life situations than simply more engine power. Therefore on a GTI the improvement would be even more. You would be getting even more corner speed and power down. Less axle tramp and better grip etc.

Go the KW's first. Then do engine power.

[Maverick]

My car can pull 6.89 to 100 which is slightly faster than a dead stock DSG GTI. http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/forums/images/imported/2008/11/DynoliciousPolar666png-1.jpg

wait let me load up my iphone.... :duh:

You're comparing your time from a mobile phone with the offical time from VW that is slower then the GTI does in real life.


WE had a get together in perth and the GT TSI's with KW's were keeping up no problems. I often had to slow down because the GTI's were so slow in and out of corners by comparison. They only pulled away on long straights and even then not by much.

Next you'll be telling me a Polo with KW will keep up with the GTI's :eek:

I find it increadibly hard to believe that a suspension swap on a GT TSI will allow it to keep up with a more powerful GTI which already has uprated suspension over the standard GT TSI's.

What you're seeing is that everyone drives differently and the GTI owners don't have anything to prove, which is good especially on public roads.


GT TSI has 140kw stock versus 150kw for the GTI. Not that much in it stock v stock.

The TSI has 125kw/240nm and 7.7 seconds to 100 and the GTI has 147kw/280nm and 6.9 seconds to 100.


Also, Tinto has beaten subaru's and evo's and 2 other GTI's at the short track racing thing he goes too. The video's are on youtube but he can link them if he likes. He even managed 4th in a field of 50 sports cars! All the cars in front and behind up to 10th were evo's or STI's justabout.

And it comes down to the driver and how they drive, the facts are the GTI is a heap faster then the GT TSI.


So in answer to your question, Yes a GT TSI with $3k worth of suspension will be faster around a track by miles than a GTI with no suspension.

If you wanted a fast car why didn't you just buy the GTI instead of the poor mans version? The GT TSI is a good car but if you want to go faster the GTI is the way to go.

The GTI is able to produce a much larger increase from a simple flash of the ECU whereas the GT TSI get's a much smaller gain. The GT TSI is a good car but I don't know why you feel the need to compare your GT TSI against the GTI all the time when clearly they are different cars. Mobile phone benchmarks and seat of the pants measurements don't mean anything.

[Maverick]

Well it obviously comes down to the better driver, but it wouldn't keep up with a GTI in a straight line, no way.

Actually i think there are polo GTI's with V3's beating GT Sports, GTI's and R32s!

I see Polo Edition 1.4's all the time beating GT TSI's off the line. Even the R36 doesn't stand a chance against the polo with new suspension installed.

:driver:

[Greg Roles]

Mav, believe the brochures if you want, but polar is pushing the limits, and good on him. Vag com on my laptop is telling me I can pull a 7.5 0-100k in a manual diesel that is rated over 8 seconds on paper. So is my vag com wrong as well?? I'm sure, like me, polar looked at the piddly dollar difference between the various "sportier" golf's and made his decision. I could have easily afforded the extra for a GTI, but didn't, and don't regret it.

If Polar wants to play, tinker, and ultimately upset a few of you "elite" types, then where's the problem? Same idea as the topic starter in this thread!

[Maverick]

Mav, believe the brochures if you want, but polar is pushing the limits, and good on him. Vag com on my laptop is telling me I can pull a 7.5 0-100k in a manual diesel that is rated over 8 seconds on paper. So is my vag com wrong as well??

VAGCOM/VCDS isn't really an accurate way to measure for a start! Better then a stop watch though.

VW has overstated times for quite a while since they were sued a while ago, but to say that a stock TSI is as fast as a stock GTI is kindoff pointless when they're all fast then the listed times.


I'm sure, like me, polar looked at the piddly dollar difference between the various "sportier" golf's and made his decision. I could have easily afforded the extra for a GTI, but didn't, and don't regret it.

If Polar want's a car as fast as the GTI then buy a GTI, but don't go thinking that your TSI is as fast as a GTI because it isn't. The TSI is priced differently to the TDI and the GTI and they're completely different cars, the TSI is designed for economy with some performance but it's limited on how far you can take it.


If Polar wants to play, tinker, and ultimately upset a few of you "elite" types, then where's the problem? Same idea as the topic starter in this thread!

There's nothing elitist about it but the GT TSI is a different car to the GTI, comparing some people driving on the road and using that as a benchmark to say that the GT TSI is a faster car then the GTI with just a suspension upgrade is ridiculous because it's clearly not the case.

And using mobile phones to determine it's faster is again pointless.

The GT TSI doesn't have 140kw stock either for that matter. Why would the TSI have 15kw over the listed specs and the larger engined GTI only 3kw over the listed specs? All the reviews have shown that it's close to the specs on power and speed.

[POLARBEAR666]

Back on topic... I sure can rant sometimes.

[Greg Roles]

Dude, I understand, and yeah Polar, can't back you on an iPhone mate sorry, nor the 140 idea....but the bottom line is we ALL know the GTI is the car of the year for a reason, and there's no doubt it's king, but the TSI HAS to be quicker than a TDI to 100kph, and I gotta tell ya I've had a squillion drags now, and the diesel is WAY too fast for what it should be. So even if my real world time is about 8 seconds, I'd rate a TSI quicker again, so the gap is less.

Time we all went down some quarters. Vag tells me mid 15's at about 120k. I've only tried 3 times, so far.

[tinto]

The GTI is able to produce a much larger increase from a simple flash of the ECU whereas the GT TSI get's a much smaller gain.
I thought they were much the same with stage 1: +30hp (or are some stage 1 GTI tunes more than that?)
All hearsay until a real-life human actually puts one in a TSI.

In a straight line acceleration, a GTI walks (ok.. strides) away at the top end when the TSi runs out of puff - at the top end it is a 1.4 turbo v 2.0 turbo, as the supercharger is out of the equation.
The TSI supercharger torque down low lets it keep up quite admirably at everyday speeds. It's at those everyday speeds on public roads where the differences are much fuzzier.
Throw in suspension modifications on cars weighing much the same, and as a passenger you'd be hard pressed to know which was which.

Like others in GTs, the car I chose appealed to me more than the GTI.
I don't think I have anything to prove, but also haven't undergone any therapy to dig deeper into that. ;)
I also don't want my car to be a GTI, despite having some GTI side skirts fitted this Thursday :)
But the GTI is the pinnacle of affordable hot hatch performance + refinement, so you've got to expect a lot of comparisons to be drawn. If I had a GTI I'd find it flattering.

These pissing contests occur on this site once/week, and centre around straight line advocates and those interested in corners. I like a bit of both, and I also like something different, hence the GT TSI.
On that note, I'm off to start a fight with some Polo guys... maybe an oiler too.:brutal:

Back On topic.. out of the A/B options given, I'd choose A.
Then as most are hinting at - a suspension overhaul after a scary week of realising you can't control the hose-beast. :biggrin:

[POLARBEAR666]

heheh a GT vs GTI fight is funny. It's like a little brother and a bigger brother fighting. We just need a honda owner to pipe up.

[Maverick]

Actually it does have 140kw stock... dyno tests have shown power figures at the wheels of about 120kw.

Dyno tests are not really that accurate, there can be 20kw difference between sites and even different operators on the same machines. VW quote it as 125kw stock. There are people who have dynos of the GTI putting out 140+kw at the wheels with stock cars.

What are the revo tunes supposed to show? One is the 1.4 140ps and the other the 1.8 TFSI?


When that aussie car show tested 2 GT's they got one with 120kw at wheels also and called head of VW australia to ask him about it. Its on youtube somewhere

Must be a popular show!


I wear a watch that costs almost $10k so GT vs GTI was not a money issue for me. I like twincharging as an Idea and because I felt it was much better value for money.

I wear a watch that cost $400 and found that the GTI stacked up the best with the GT TDI second best.


My car can go faster than a stock GTI because its a modified GT. I have done exhaust and intake and I have stripped about 50kg out of my car. Once I fit semi slick tyres I will go even faster than 6.9.

Exhaust and intake is not going to take 1 second of your 0-100 time. Inaccurate calculation of 0-100 time would.


GTI is a fantastic car but I could not justify $6-10k price difference over GT. This car is just a fun POV pack ****ter for me to drive to uni and park :nana:

Not having money to piss away I choose the best car of the lot and will look after it, buying a GT TSI and ripping it's guts out isn't on my agenda.


Lastly, Dynolicious is very accurate if its mounted correctly. Youtube video's show it being within a tenth of actual qtr mile. I found it very very accurate because it matches the power output coming from the ECU power reading 185hp.

It can be accurate but it's clearly not in this case! The GT TSI doesn't have 185hp.

[Mischa]

I think you've been racing GT TDI's because the GT TSI has no chance of keeping up with a GTI even if the GTI has stock suspension!

a gt with coilovers would munch a stock gti on any set of regular bends.

[Maverick]

I thought they were much the same with stage 1: +30hp (or are some stage 1 GTI tunes more than that?)
All hearsay until a real-life human actually puts one in a TSI.

Looking at the quoted increases on the TSI show a much smaller increase then the GTI. APR up it from 147kw to 188kw and 280nm to 411nm so it's pretty substantial.


The TSI supercharger torque down low lets it keep up quite admirably at everyday speeds. It's at those everyday speeds on public roads where the differences are much fuzzier.

Except on hot days :biggrin: The GTI has a lot of low down torque and even more so once you chip the car, the TDI is slow to take off but once it builds up some steam is fast.


Like others in GTs, the car I chose appealed to me more than the GTI.
I don't think I have anything to prove, but also haven't undergone any therapy to dig deeper into that. ;)
I also don't want my car to be a GTI, despite having some GTI side skirts fitted this Thursday :)

:moonie: Shall I send you an I to add to your GT badge :nana:


On that note, I'm off to start a fight with some Polo guys... maybe an oiler too.:brutal:

Sounds like fun, where is cogdoc?

Option A for me as well (which was the chip option wasn't it? - forgot what this thread was about :biggrin:)

[TDIESEL]

Dyno tests are not really that accurate, there can be 20kw difference between sites and even different operators on the same machines. VW quote it as 125kw stock. There are people who have dynos of the GTI putting out 140+kw at the wheels with stock cars.

What are the revo tunes supposed to show? One is the 1.4 140ps and the other the 1.8 TFSI?



Must be a popular show!



I wear a watch that cost $400 and found that the GTI stacked up the best with the GT TDI second best.



Exhaust and intake is not going to take 1 second of your 0-100 time. Inaccurate calculation of 0-100 time would.



Not having money to piss away I choose the best car of the lot and will look after it, buying a GT TSI and ripping it's guts out isn't on my agenda.



It can be accurate but it's clearly not in this case! The GT TSI doesn't have 185hp.

Geez Maverick:duh: Are you a professional critic or simply enjoy putting posts written here down? I'm sure all the other GTI owners here don't share your "mine is better" attitude. Perhaps a bit of tact should be employed in your responses. Or better still if you have nothing positive to offer..don't.

[Greg Roles]

I lap it up and use it as motivation to get under the hood....:biggrin:

[Manaz]

Must be a popular show!

I've seen this myself. They ran a GT up on a dyno, and were shocked that the power output at the wheels was almost identical to a GTI. They then went and borrowed another GT from a dealer to see if they got the same result, and it the result on the 2nd car was within accepted testing error ranges to be considered identical.

[Maverick]

Geez Maverick:duh: Are you a professional critic or simply enjoy putting posts written here down? I'm sure all the other GTI owners here don't share your "mine is better" attitude. Perhaps a bit of tact should be employed in your responses. Or better still if you have nothing positive to offer..don't.

Take your own advice and don't post, this is a discussion about modifications and how people can view their changes through rose coloured glasses and also how the measurement tools that people use are not necessarily very accurate and not able to be compared against other cars that have been measured in different ways.

[Maverick]

I've seen this myself. They ran a GT up on a dyno, and were shocked that the power output at the wheels was almost identical to a GTI. They then went and borrowed another GT from a dealer to see if they got the same result, and it the result on the 2nd car was within accepted testing error ranges to be considered identical.

But did anyone consider that the Dyno was inaccurate?

I have a Dyno here where a stage 1 GTI had 574.1nm of torque and ~120kw of power. The Dyno was checked and it kept coming back with that figure.

Another dyno a bosch mechanical gave me ~149kw at the wheels soon after.

For that Dyno result to have been even remotely accurate they would have needed to have obtained a few GTI's to see what they achieved. My bet is that they would have been getting around 165-170 at the wheels with the GTI based on the GT's improvements.

[mrx]

Re: The original question. Definately stage 2 + downpipe before a fuel pump. The fuel pump is just the icing on the cake and pretty exe!

Re: Chip vs. Suspension. If your car is primarily to get you to work and back, as mine is, then a chip will make you grin every time you put your foot down. I would say that I can count the number of times on one hand that I have been on the limits of the stock GTI suspension on the road. On the track is a different story, and I'd recommend it if you regularly intend to track your car. Obvious from tinto's videos is how much earlier the instructor was able to get onto the power compared to me going around the same corner.

Re: Polar's iPhone. It's funny how different people remember the same event so differently. Next time we have a track day at AHG you should bring your iPhone and we can compare between GT/GTI, standard suspension or not, chipped or not, different drivers, manual/DSG, or any other combination you can think of. Then even if the iPhone's numbers aren't correct (I have my doubts), it's a more valid comparison. Who knows, maybe I can crack 5 seconds in my GTI! :biggrin:

Re: Vagcom. Greg, I've also only done a few runs. The best I could muster up in a Bluefinned manual GTI was high 14's. My excuse is it was 40degrees at the time (intake air temp 65degrees).

[tinto]

Obvious from tinto's videos is how much earlier the instructor was able to get onto the power compared to me going around the same corner.

Insane instructor driving skills aside, it is worth noting that you would have been up something like 70hp over my car too so a lot more potential rubber burning activity :)

Just so it's clear for others - I'm not the one driving in the AHG clip.
I'm the hack drooling in awe on the left :)

He'd been in GTIs for a couple of laps (and an R32) before me, and you'll notice him looking down at one point coming down the straight where he's obviously thinking "is this thing on...?"

[G-rig]

Sounds like we need a few GTI lap times to make a comparison.

Tinto did the instructor think/say your car would be quicker than GTI's and R32's around the circuit?

Mav, after quality market suspension like the V3 makes a big different in the vehicles dynamics,, especially with sway bars and allows you to throw it around a corner faster. Even semi slicks vs normal tyres can give you 3 sec a lap. So it's not that un believable, but depends on the track. If it's tight then the GT would do alright but the faster cars would make up too much time on any decent length of straight.

[gregozedobe]

If people think dyno figures can't be compared, how on earth will you get any agreement about lap times at a track ?

Lets see, you would need to eliminate all the variables :

Same track
Same day
Same track temp
Same driver (with equal skill and ability in all the diff cars)
Same tyres (ie the one set for all cars - is that practical/feasible ?),
Same tyre temp
Avoiding excessively high brake temps (don't want brake fade affecting results for some cars if they do more laps)
No other traffic (can slow you down, force you to change lines etc)
Some "Control" runs (eg back into first run car to see tyres haven't gone off during the day)

What have I left off ?

[Guy_H]

If people think dyno figures can't be compared, how on earth will you get any agreement about lap times at a track ?

Lets see, you would need to eliminate all the variables :

Same track
Same day
Same track temp
Same driver (with equal skill and ability in all the diff cars)
Same tyres (ie the one set for all cars - is that practical/feasible ?),
Same tyre temp
Avoiding excessively high brake temps (don't want brake fade affecting results for some cars if they do more laps)
No other traffic (can slow you down, force you to change lines etc)
Some "Control" runs (eg back into first run car to see tyres haven't gone off during the day)

What have I left off ?


Sounds simple :)

[tinto]

Sounds like we need a few GTI lap times to make a comparison.

Tinto did the instructor think/say your car would be quicker than GTI's and R32's around the circuit?

Mav, after quality market suspension like the V3 makes a big different in the vehicles dynamics,, especially with sway bars and allows you to throw it around a corner faster. Even semi slicks vs normal tyres can give you 3 sec a lap. So it's not that un believable, but depends on the track. If it's tight then the GT would do alright but the faster cars would make up too much time on any decent length of straight.

He didn't say that to me.
I've unintentionally (OR WAS IT?) left out that I was also on R888 that day.

I do know that MRX in the chipped / eibach'd skoda wagon eclipsed me by a significant margin, despite having to put the power down later. With one long straight and a few higher speed sections, it made sense. Painful, small-man-syndrome ego-bruising sense.

I agree with what you've said re tight courses and the GT. That's the sort of thing I plan on doing more of - matching the car to the environment.
Like sandbagging in a kids' bike race.

[mrx]

If people think dyno figures can't be compared, how on earth will you get any agreement about lap times at a track ?

Lets see, you would need to eliminate all the variables :

Same track
Same day
Same track temp
Same driver (with equal skill and ability in all the diff cars)
Same tyres (ie the one set for all cars - is that practical/feasible ?),
Same tyre temp
Avoiding excessively high brake temps (don't want brake fade affecting results for some cars if they do more laps)
No other traffic (can slow you down, force you to change lines etc)
Some "Control" runs (eg back into first run car to see tyres haven't gone off during the day)

What have I left off ?

But you can do 0-100 times as timed by your iPhone and prove that the numbers don't mean squat! ;)

[Maverick]

If people think dyno figures can't be compared, how on earth will you get any agreement about lap times at a track ?

Dyno figures can be used if they're at the same Dyno on the same day with the same operator and the same strap down tension with the same tyre pressures.

It won't answer the handling issue but it will resolve the power one.

[TDIESEL]

this is a discussion about modifications and how people can view their changes through rose coloured glasses

Rose coloured glasses in the world according to you maybe:) After all, you are always right!

Hey, I changed my mind by the way. I do enjoy reading your comments (as i'm sure many others do). Someone has to set us disillusioned types right and give us diatribe to chuckle at:biggrin:

P.S. I agree with you on how dyno figures can change dramitically depending on different variables. OMG, I just agreed with you on something!!!!

[Greg Roles]

Well I believe there's enough of us out there with Vag com, so why don't we all use that as our standard? Saves a lot of arguing, and gives us a much more comparable standard. Not perfect, but better than this thread has demonstrated??

And hey, I'm sorry for my part in this topic really straying off course, even I'm feeling guilty... :frown:

[mrx]

I do know that MRX in the chipped / eibach'd skoda wagon eclipsed me by a significant margin, despite having to put the power down later. With one long straight and a few higher speed sections, it made sense. Painful, small-man-syndrome ego-bruising sense.

Just to stay off topic for one more post:

I have to admit I was surprised by the outcome of that day too - I expected to get blitzed by you. Are you sure you weren't in Winter mode?! :nana:

Sorry, couldn't resist - sounds like I've gone into wanker mode, better snap out of it now. :biggrin:

[G-rig]

Dyno figures can be used if they're at the same Dyno on the same day with the same operator and the same strap down tension with the same tyre pressures.


There must be some basic conversions to compare the figures for different temperatures etc? If you can't compare dyno's it's uselss posting them for expected performance gains?

[POLARBEAR666]

Maverick just talks out of his ass.

Dyno figures on any good roller or hub dyno are temperature compensated so that they can be compared. I dyno'd my subaru on several hub and roller dyno's and always got similar figures within 5kw.

If dyno's are all so variable then why do people ALL around the world keep getting a power figure at the engine of about 135-140kw for GT TSI's.

My iphone Dynolicious which relies on the iphones very sensitive G sensors and has been shown to be within 1/10th of actual qtr mile time at drags - says 143kw@ engine.

Here is a swedish test of GT and GTI on same day same dyno.
http://vagner.jeje.je/bilder/albums/album67/golfGTeffekt.jpg
Again 140kw.

Here is a GT with suspension work doing Nordschleife time of 9:10....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrVs-vu6IA

Anyway I am sure mav will just reply after each line and say the opposite. Dyno's dont work, Iphone doesnt work, Nobody can ever rely on any measurements because they are all different etc etc.

[Maverick]

Maverick just talks out of his ass.

Don't you want to beat your chest and boast about your $10,000 watch when you say that?


If dyno's are all so variable then why do people ALL around the world keep getting a power figure at the engine of about 135-140kw for GT TSI's.

The Dyno is a TUNING tool and is not a MEASUREMENT tool.

You can claim all you like that VW put an extra 15kw in the GT TSI and only an extra 3kw in the GTI but it doesn't make it so.


My iphone Dynolicious which relies on the iphones very sensitive G sensors and has been shown to be within 1/10th of actual qtr mile time at drags - says 143kw@ engine.

Dynolicious is easy to manipulate, put in an incorrect weight and you will get a higher power figure. If the calibration of the accelerometer is not done exactly correctly or at a different temperature it will give misleading figures.

Compare this to the G-Tech which has accelerometers that are robotically calibrated and temperature compensated and can be used to compare one car to the other.

But let's not let science get in the way will we :idea:


Here is a swedish test of GT and GTI on same day same dyno.
http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/forums/
Again 140kw.

And this means what exactly? Where are the specs on the cars? You don't know what mods have been made or anything.


Anyway I am sure mav will just reply after each line and say the opposite. Dyno's dont work, Iphone doesnt work, Nobody can ever rely on any measurements because they are all different etc etc.

Polar you can say whatever you want but at the end of the day Dyno's are not accurate for comparison unless they are done at the same place with the same operator as the figures can vary substantially. The iphone isn't that accurate and can be easily manipulated. For whatever reason you feel the need to justify the bastardilsation of your car with some figures that are clearly incorrect. Even Tinto and MrX have questioned them and some of your statements.

By removing parts of your car and changing your suspension you haven't created a car that will beat a stock GTI, far from it. The GT TSI is a great car in itself but it's not in the same league as the GTI, and just like the GT TDI they all have difference markets.

[Blitzen]

Mav, if Dynos are so inaccurate, how do the manufacturers get the power for their own engines in the first place...By plucking the answers out of the air like you do??

[POLARBEAR666]

"Dyno is not a measurement tool"! LoL thats a good one Maverick.:duh:

How could it help in tuning if it wasn't measuring things? That is all it does! It torque and calculates hp and plots other inputs on the chart like Air fuel ratios.

"A dynamometer or "dyno" for short, is a machine used to measure torque and rotational speed (rpm) from which power produced by an engine, motor or other rotating prime mover can be calculated.

A dynamometer can also be used to determine the torque and power required to operate a driven machine such as a pump. In that case, a motoring or driving dynamometer is used. A dynamometer that is designed to be driven is called an absorption or passive Dynamometer. A dynamometer that can either drive or absorb is called a universal or active dynamometer."

How exactly would u propose HP is measured then a MAVOMETER? :duh:

Once again as in my previous post

"Anyway I am sure mav will just reply after each line and say the opposite. Dyno's dont work, Iphone doesnt work, Nobody can ever rely on any measurements because they are all different etc etc."

[h100vw]

An engine dyno would be more accurate, done in a test cell under much more controlled conditions than a tuners workshop.

I agree that a dyno should be used a a tool rather than the gospel. ;)

Maverick is risking a lesson from Bugracer with his 'not accurate for comparison' comment :D

Gavin

[Blitzen]

Mav, besides speculating, what do you actually do for a job?? It can't be too technical...

[Maverick]

Mav, if Dynos are so inaccurate, how do the manufacturers get the power for their own engines in the first place...By plucking the answers out of the air like you do??

Manufacturers measure power on engines by connecting an engine dyno to the flywheel or crankshaft. This avoids all the issues of rolling dynos as you're measuring the power at the source.

Explain why you think dynos are accurate? Rather then launch a lame attack explain why dynos are accurate.

Here's an article from one of the biggest dyno manufacturers.

http://www.mainlineauto.com.au/products/brochures/HOWACCURATE.PDF

"There is much deliberation around the industry about dyno accuracy.
Just how accurate are the dyno power readings? Why does the
same car get different results on different days? Why does the same
car get different results on dynos from the same manufacturer and
from different manufacturers?"

"But some people say that the accuracy of a dyno is not as important
as its ability to reflect the outcome when modifications are made to
a vehicle, and its repeatability. Others say a dyno is only useful as a
tuning tool and does not need to be relied upon to be accurate. Is it
any wonder people get confused. Read on to get an understanding
of the reasons behind the variations in results."

"A difference of 8KW's can be seen on a Subaru WRX by just changing from one tyre/wheel combination to another"

http://forums.jdmcentral.net/showthread.php?t=732

http://forums.jdmcentral.net/showpost.php?p=30183&postcount=8

"The Results:
ATP (Dynojet) - 275.8whp and 232.2 torque
Vishnu (DynoDynamics) - 224.7whp and 192.2 torque

So depending on how you look at it ... Dynojet runs 22.74% higher than a DynoDynamic or DynoDynamic runs 18.53% lower than a Dynojet (with regards to whp). Check out these graphs ... (oops ... I can't figure out how to get multiple attachments with a single post)"

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-873912.html

"The problem is there are other "undocumented variables" that you have no way of knowing. For example take a car and put it on a chassis dyno (not a hub type) and do a dyno run right after you drive the car in with 38 psi in the tires. Go get a soda and let the car cool off (transmission lube, differential grease, engine oil cool off) do the run again and the power will be down (provided you left the hood open so the engine did not heat soak.

Now take the tire pressure down to 28 psi and run it again --- power will drop again.

Now go cinch up the tiedown straps a couple notches and try it again --- power will be down again.

Now do several pulls so all the oil/lube temps come back up and and your power will come up, as friction drops due to thinner lube oil.

Then as mentioned above, put a good strong fan on the intercooler (which is now hot) and redo the pull, power will go up. As the tires heat up and tire pressures climb rolling resistance will drop."

[Maverick]

Mav, besides speculating, what do you actually do for a job?? It can't be too technical...

How about explaining why you believe that Dyno's are all accurate and can be used for comparisons? It's a bit lame when you have to resort to pathetic attacks instead of explaining your reasoning.

[Blitzen]

Good research Mav...Now get out there and actually test it...

[Blitzen]

How about explaining why you believe that Dyno's are all accurate and can be used for comparisons? It's a bit lame when you have to resort to pathetic attacks instead of explaining your reasoning.

I don't need to explain myself to a guy that has no idea, because you just wouldn't get it...This isn't the only thread you have shown this on...I'm leaving it at that...Can you?

[Maverick]

Maverick is risking a lesson from Bugracer with his 'not accurate for comparison' comment :D

To explain what I said a little better.

Cars run on the same dyno with the same operator, same tie down tension and same tyre pressure are a fair comparision but to compare cars that are run on different dynos, in different parts of the world, under different conditions, with different tyre pressures and tie down tensions are pointless.

[Maverick]

I don't need to explain myself to a guy that has no idea, because you just wouldn't get it...This isn't the only thread you have shown this on...I'm leaving it at that...Can you?

Pretty pathetic blitzen, you made the claim that dyno's are accurate and can be used for comparison and you can't back it up :duh:

[G-rig]

It's not that easy to compare dynos is it, unless someones got a program to type in the differences in intake temps, tyre psi and other factors? I'm trying to do the same thing myself at the moment.

[Maverick]

Some more information on why Dynos are not accurate.

http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm

"Chassis dynos are great tuning aids but they only give a approximation of power output as some of the important variables are not accurately controlled. Certain magazines seem to think that results obtained from chassis dynos are the gospel. They are not. In one recent independent test, hp figures varied by 11% simply by doing the runs in different gears and in another test, results varied by almost 4 % by doing the runs with a different wheel/tire combination. Tire alignment has been shown to affect results up to 3% as well. Note that Engine hp DID NOT change here yet the dyno recorded an increase in hp at the wheels. A change in wheels/tires also does not affect true, wheel hp either, only the rate of change on the rollers and the vehicle acceleration on the road. One can only conclude that inaccurate moments of inertia and correction factors are being used."

"On intercooled, turbo cars, there is usually insufficient airflow to ensure accurate results due to charge temperature variation which can be substantial. Even coolant temperatures may not stay down during the run which can affect power outputs considerably. The rate of acceleration is also important on turbo cars to be sure that the boost is not lagging the engine rpm. With RPM climbing too quickly, the boost has not reached a peak value so the hp figure is again inaccurate. Turbo cars should therefore be tested in top gear.

Without proper temperature stability and accurate moments of inertia on the rotating components, there CANNOT be accurate results as the scientific method is no longer being applied."

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm

"Some time ago I had three almost identical race cars set up together in a group session at a rolling road. The engines were very similar except for minor differences in the camshafts fitted. One showed 118 bhp at the wheels, another showed 124 and the third showed only 98. The operator spent ages I'm told (I wasn't there) trying to find why the third car was so poor. It wasn't till the next day when that particular owner was checking things before the race that he noticed that the tyres only had 7 psi in them - the car had sat unchecked over the winter and no-one had bothered to standardize the pressures before the dyno test. In the race, that car went just as well as the other two and if anything was slightly the fastest of the three. That gives you some idea of how much power a set of flat tyres can absorb."

"Also called chassis dynamometers, these are used to measure power at the driving wheels. This avoids the inconvenience of having to remove the engine to test it if a tuning modification has been made. However, it means that the power figures obtained will be lower than the flywheel power because of the frictional losses in the drivetrain and tyres. This leads to one of the biggest sources of confusion, error and plain misinformation in the tuning industry. You see, as discussed above, all major manufacturers quote flywheel power so it is understandable that people want to know if the hard earned cash they spent on tuning mods increased the power of their engine and by how much. To know this for certain means knowing how much the transmission losses are. There is enormous pressure on rolling road operators to be able to quote flywheel bhp rather than wheel bhp and most operators now run proprietary software systems which "supposedly" print out flywheel power.

PROBLEM !! - THESE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS DO NOT AND CANNOT WORK !!"

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/editors/technobabble/9907scc_technobabble/index.html

[G-rig]

Some good information in there.

"The Sound of Silence" was also a good song by Simon and Garfunkel.

[Bug_racer]

Seriously maverick what planet you off , or should I say timeframe ??
Dynos have correction factors for temperature and altitude so the reading wont matter about air temp or where you are .

Everything else youve stated is all inaccuracies due to operator error . The dyno is a measuring tool and only is as good as the operator using it . If you cant get a dyno from X place with Z car and take Z car to Y place and get within 1% you dont know how to use the dyno !

Just remember hp is a series of calculations based on inputs , if your inputs are wrong then your answer will be wrong . Dont go blaming the way everything is calculated !

[shaneth]

Dynolicious is easy to manipulate, put in an incorrect weight and you will get a higher power figure. If the calibration of the accelerometer is not done exactly correctly or at a different temperature it will give misleading figures.

Id like to know if you have every calibrated dynolicious? and how does temp affect it?


On another note Mav Grow up, put the e-penis away (we arent all keyboard warriors) and take a chill pill. You dont need to teach everyone what you think you know. Just my 2c.

[Mischa]

On another note Mav Grow up, put the e-penis away (we arent all keyboard warriors) and take a chill pill. You dont need to teach everyone what you think you know. Just my 2c.

thats the most sense i've heard from this forum in weeks :)

[Bug_racer]

here is some more info to ponder over , this is for you Shaneth , let me know if its accurate :)

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

[Maverick]

Seriously maverick what planet you off , or should I say timeframe ??
Dynos have correction factors for temperature and altitude so the reading wont matter about air temp or where you are .

Which is listed in what I wrote.


Everything else youve stated is all inaccuracies due to operator error . The dyno is a measuring tool and only is as good as the operator using it . If you cant get a dyno from X place with Z car and take Z car to Y place and get within 1% you dont know how to use the dyno !

What you've written doesn't make any sense. Since when did Dyno operators let the user operate the dyno? I assume you mean the dyno operator can't operate but even if you had good operators I doubt you could get consistent results closer then 10% across a range of cars.

Even the big manufacturers states that dynos vary greatly from site to site but you claim that they are accurate within 1%.

The biggest problem with dyno's are the operators! I had a dyno for a stage 1 GTI with 574.1nm and ~123kw of power, he checked and couldn't get it to read any different to that.

CES have a bosch dyno (old unit that plots directly onto paper) and I get a figure of 148kw. Stock GTI 123kw. No correction, no bs. Cars at the dyno day that had no changes from the previous year had the same figures.


Just remember hp is a series of calculations based on inputs , if your inputs are wrong then your answer will be wrong . Dont go blaming the way everything is calculated !

There are many variables with a dyno, even Dyno Dynamics recognise this and have shootout mode so that there can be some consistency across different sites. A car could still be strapped down harder or tyre pressures/grip could be different.

Here's an example

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:t3E3--K8pW0J:www.fordxr6turbo.com/forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D7654+shootout+mode&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au

"1. Said Test Vehicle produces 282.1 rear wheel kilowatts @ 14 psi boost.
2. Said vehicle is then driven approximately 300 metres to another workshop where it is placed on a current model Dyno Dynamics chassis dynamometer equipped with the latest Dyno Dynamics Shootout Mode software. Software designed, we’re told, to ensure an absolute level playing field between every Dyno Dynamics dyno in the country (when fitted with the Shootout Mode software).
3. Once said vehicle is strapped onto the dyno and the software is set to the ‘Shoot6’ Mode (for six cylinder powered cars), a power run is performed for a relatively consistent result of 288.5kW @ 14 psi.
4. Said vehicle is now run with the ‘Shoot8’ Mode (designed for V8 powered cars), with the power run resulting in 304.9kw @ 13 psi.
5. Said vehicle is finally run on ‘Shoot81’ Mode (designed for turbocharged/supercharged or nitrous facilitated V8 powered cars) with the power run resulting in 317.8kw @ 12.5 psi."

"I have seen 30rwkw lost and gained by the way a car was strapped to the rollers ...

the key variables (that haven't been mentioned yet ) are temperature, barometric pressure and tyre pressure

if the dyno has a full weather station ... atmospheric variables are automatically fed in and should only act to standardise the results .... some dynos however only have a "local" weather station which requires the variables to be read and then fed into the dyno ... there is scope for variation there"

[Mischa]

we dont need a coroners inquest into every single post. just shoosh and accept that theres people out there that actually know more than you about something :eek: you cant get a degree in everything known to man just from browsing the net.

[Maverick]

Id like to know if you have every calibrated dynolicious? and how does temp affect it?

Yes I have and I also took a few minutes to check into it's operation. Try reading the manual.

http://www.dynolicious.com/docs/manual_2_0_0/setup.php

"NOTE: Although it is imperative that you calibrate the iPhone before using Dynolicious for the first time, you may want to take note that the accelerometers in the iPhone are somewhat temperature sensitive. For best results, you should consider recalibrating Dynolicious in the same environment in which the test will be performed."

"The iPhone’s accelerometers are not calibrated from the factory. For any given axis, the value returned from the accelerometer may be off by as much as 33%. The calibration function allows Dynolicious to compensate for this error and generate accurate results."

http://www.dynolicious.com/Dynolicious_Manual_v1_0.pdf

"The accelerometers in the iPhone are somewhat temperature sensitive. For best
results, calibration should be performed in the same environment in which the test will
be performed."

http://www.forums.gtechpro.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&p=457

"Dynolicious is not a bad application. However, according to our testing, the accuracy is not that consistent. This is due to the fact that the accelerometers inside the i-Phone need to give adequate signal to determine if the i-Phone was rotated or moved. They were not intended for a high-accuracy and high-speed application like vehicle dynamics.

The key is in calibration of the sensors. With the i-Phone you do a simple zero-out before the measurement and if the conditions don't change during the run you results won't be that bad. But if the conditions (mainly temperature) do change in the course of measurement you will be off. Most of the time conditions do change, ever so slightly, but enough to render the 1/4mile result inaccurate."


On another note Mav Grow up, put the e-penis away (we arent all keyboard warriors) and take a chill pill. You dont need to teach everyone what you think you know. Just my 2c.

My apologies for posting up arguments based on facts when there are too many people that want to believe their wildly inaccurate dynos and results from $12.99 iphone applications are accurate to within .001%.

[geoff_gti]

Good God, is this still going? All I hear is noise :monkeypiss: http://forums.eurocca.net/images/smilies/metallicblue.gif

Thanks for the youtube link Polar, I enjoyed that the most out of this thread.

I am not going to weigh in on this debate as it's all just numbers to me, I'm not doubting there are variables (and hence potential inaccuracies in meaurement techniques / tools) but perhaps someone should just take a chill pill to work tomorrow, or a colostomy bag...

But what would I know, I drive a Mk IV.

PS Tinto, you are a funny man. Is your ego feeling better by now?

[mrx]

But what would I know, I drive a Mk IV.

Yeah, I heard dyno's don't work on them. :biggrin:

[tinto]

PS Tinto, you are a funny man. Is your ego feeling better by now?
I'll live - just taking it day by day at the moment.
(and just to introduce ANOTHER tangent...) How is the gearbox?

[geoff_gti]

Yeah, I heard dyno's don't work on them. :biggrin:

Indeed. If you can't compare a Mk V GT and GTI, I'd hate to bring a Mk IV into the equation :brutal:


I'll live - just taking it day by day at the moment.
(and just to introduce ANOTHER tangent...) How is the gearbox?

Hoping it may not need to be replaced now, but I'll update you on that in the appropriate thread :)

[BarneyBoy]

My brain hurts - it's like rolling down an infinite hill, inside a rainwater tank with a bunch of marbles...

[geoff_gti]

Feel sorry for decksla this has gone so far off track. Lucky not every thread degenerates like this. It was a relatively harmless quiestion to begin with too! :duh:

[Maverick]

Feel sorry for decksla this has gone so far off track. Lucky not every thread degenerates like this. It was a relatively harmless quiestion to begin with too! :duh:

It's still on a related topic so it hasn't wandered off course (much)

[TDIESEL]

Mav, besides speculating, what do you actually do for a job?? It can't be too technical...

Maybe he's a wanna be jet fighter pilot but seeing Goose died, it would be bad luck using his name:biggrin:

[Greg Roles]

Fugg me, if some of you spent more time under the bonnet, rather than at the keyboard, the dyno arguement would be made redundant by your car's performance. If I was after a dyno beastie, well, it wouldn't be a VW Golf. They're all just slightly tough chicks cars really.

I'll use my contacts at VW to see if I can spend some time in a stock TSI and a stock GTI with my Vag com, just for sh#ts and giggles..

or if anyone out there in Brisneyland is up for it...... giddy up!

[G-rig]

Got a question for you lot:

How do i go about comparing dynos with different intake temps and other variables? Is there a formula or conversion?

[Greg Roles]

Basically depends if your are Polarphillic or Mavphillic.:biggrin:

[Maverick]

Basically depends if your are Polarphillic or Mavphillic.:biggrin:

I have dyno manufacturers and the dynolicous software company to back up my claims.

Polar has a hacked up GT TSI, dodgy dynos and dodgy dynolicous data.

:driver:

[Maverick]

Got a question for you lot:

How do i go about comparing dynos with different intake temps and other variables? Is there a formula or conversion?

Look at the info/link I posted early about the shootout mode, still far from perfect but let's you compare cars around the country (tyre pressures, strap down tension and so forth will affect the results).

If the results you have indicate flywheel HP and Torque this is purely a calculation based on estimated drive train losses and can vary a lot between dyno operators/manufacturers and also of course different cars and to a certain extent those from the same manufacturer.

To get around all the variables with strap down tension, tyre pressures, wear on the rollers, tyres and so forth hub mounted dynos are a better choice.

Review of one setup http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2654/article.html

www.rototest.com = Eddy Current/Strain Gauge (this is apparently a better method)
www.dynapack.com = Hydraulic Fliud displacement

"The Dynapack™ direct couples to the wheel hubs and applies a precisely controlled hydraulic load. This method of direct coupling plus its built-in strength means the Dynapack™ is always in control of the vehicle.

Controlling a powerful car on a roller dyno can sometimes be a daunting task. With Dynapack™ you have TOTAL CONTROL of the vehicle, with no wheel slip due to its direct coupled design. With that there is no inertia to mask the results, giving you greatly improved sensitivity, repeatability and significantly reduced time spent tuning and mapping!

With the power of the Dynapack™ literally at your fingertips, you have complete control over the test and the demands placed on the vehicle. Flexible data presentation and analysis is available direct from the Dynapack™ in seconds.

Dynapack™ chassis dynamometers are such a radical departure from the stereotypical roller dyno that it really is in a class of its own. Most of the previous assumptions made about chassis dynos (the roller type) simply do not apply to the Dynapack™ series."

[Greg Roles]

Polar has the balls to actually do some unproven, first time, experimental mods, in the face of endless criticism and keyboard bound warriors. He may be rough around the edges, but he's not all talk, and he's my kinda guy.

[G-rig]

Polar has the balls
<snip>

He may be rough around the edges, but he's not all talk, and he's my kinda guy.

Just in time for Valentines Day :biggrin:

Has Polar got any real dynos to see if any of his mods work, or tinkering?

[Greg Roles]

You need to gang up with the TSI crew, that was a good one.

[POLARBEAR666]

I could spend $250 to get a full run up on my tuning shops hub dyno. That would give me all the readouts, a/F ratio, hp, torque, air temp.

But at the end of the day. Whats the point? If the reading is 300hp or 2hp my car is just as fast as it was when it went in. I only get dyno time when my car is getting tuned or after a tune to check the A/F ratio's at all the different rev ranges.

I know what works on 4cyl turbo's. I have built a subaru from stock power to 300kw@wheels and completed a full gearbox and drivetrain conversion from 5 speed 99 manual to 6 speed 2003 variable ratio STI gearbox.

I know about custom fuel systems, intercooler sizing and how different pipework changed my boost threshold and reduced or increased lag. I know that a huge front mount is not always better than a smaller well made one due to pressure drop etc.

At the end of the day. I know that the things I have done so far will have taken the car from 135kw stock to about 140kw.

I have also reduced my cars weight by about 35kg with the seats in and 55kg with the rear seat out.

So in the real world ... regardless of my cars power figure it is at least 70kg lighter than a GT TDI which makes up for the difference in torque. I would be almost 90kg lighter probably than a GT TDI with my seats stripped.

So yeah... 6.89 is real when i strip the car.

[G-rig]

You need to gang up with the TSI crew, that was a good one.

Yeah was just kidding- need a few funnies to break up the bickering.

I'd go broke if i went to the dyno's before and after every mod too, as well as the wasted time. Some people have said you should do that to go about it methodically, but it doesn't really affect the outcome and by that stage already bought the mod anyway (unless you get a free trial).

It's also a bit pointless if you can't compare dynos to other cars with the same mods, unless they were done on the same day and other conditions the same etc. It's good that some tuning shops provide dynos but people can get upset if they do a dyno and it doesn't measure up. i would have thought you could still get it within a 1 or 2 kW. (mine was 11kw atw under what i expected from the Harding Performance graph of the mods i got).

BTW Polar I wouldn't mind trimming some weight off my car, and meant to ask if the tyre shops like changing a tyre after that foam is put in.. doesn't wreck the tyre i assume??

[TRGTI]

what a great read.
Mave, you seem to make more and more enemies every post you make.
like i said before, mave is king of google search and Wikipedia :nana:
instead of talking about everything you know, have you actually done it to YOUR car? or anything technical for that matter?

to the OP, if you want more power, go stage 2. you will love the turbo rush and the noise:cool46:

[Maverick]

what a great read.
Mave, you seem to make more and more enemies every post you make.
like i said before, mave is king of google search and Wikipedia :nana:
instead of talking about everything you know, have you actually done it to YOUR car? or anything technical for that matter?

Congratulations Hong on your first post that doesn't contain your normal Anti-APR or Pro-GIAC diatrabe.

If you have something to refute the comments that I made and the evidence that I posted then by all means feel free to contribute.

Just because I'm not getting a heap of work performed out of hours by the GIAC distributor on my car doesn't mean anything Hong, anyone can toss a K04 in their car and make all sorts of claims with nothing to back it them up. If you believe so much in the dyno accuracy how about posting the ones from your car or GTILIN's??

[tinto]

oh no.
it's like herding cats.

Hong - how is your LSD at low speed/around town?
Any different to standard driving?

that's an item that should have been a factory option on the GTI.

[gtimk5]

This is sooo off topic, either start other threads please rather than dribble on here.
Thanks fellas, and keep it friendly too eh?? :)
Andrew :)

[ENERG1]

Hey decksla

I would go A mate

stage 2 with downpipe

I have stage 2 with full exhaust and getting HPFP 2morrow.

The power is really addictive! the fuel pump should squeeze a little bit more

MID-RANGE grunt, 3000-5000rpm out of the GTI.

I'M AN ENTHUSIAST WHO LOVES HIS CAR JUST LIKE YOU GUYS THATS WHY

I JOINED THIS FORUM. BUT OF LATE OF NOTICED THAT THE MAJORITY ARE

IN THE MIND SET OF MINE IS BETTER WHICH IS LOOKING VERY DISTASTEFUL.

ALL EGOS ASIDE ,WE HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON, WE LOVE OUR VDUBS:)

ANY OF YOU BLOKES WANT TO GO DOWN THE QUARTER WITH ALL OUR

DIFFERENT CARS AND ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE!!


cheers

LUKE

[smoothcall]

The thing I've found interesting, having recently gone to Stage 2 (TBE), is that you have to retrain your senses.

Part throttle on Stg2 is about as loud as WOT on Stg1, so if you are basing your expectations on what you are hearing, then you can wonder where the power is. Push a bit harder though and you are quickly reminded…

PS. Would be interested to hear what your impressions of the HPFP are ENERG1

[G-rig]

Some people raise a good point.

It's very hard to get a dyno from Giac is any better than APR.

[BarneyBoy]

Some people raise a good point.

It's very hard to get a dyno from Giac is any better than APR.

LOL.
And when dyno results are quoted that upset others, the others immediately cast doubt on the dyno - even though there's no basis for doing so (ie they weren't actually there themselves, &c...)

Bottom line is that ALL quoted figures are a guide only and are open to criticism from all sides. There are just too many variables for any figure to be taken as gospel (even manufacturer's claims - where they may decide to quote high or low, depending on marketing or political reasons).

[G-rig]

Agree with you there.. After doing a few dynos myself, there are too many variables to compare them properly to other dynos.

[Big Yellow]

Congratulations Hong on your first post that doesn't contain your normal Anti-APR or Pro-GIAC diatrabe.

If you have something to refute the comments that I made and the evidence that I posted then by all means feel free to contribute.

Just because I'm not getting a heap of work performed out of hours by the GIAC distributor on my car doesn't mean anything Hong, anyone can toss a K04 in their car and make all sorts of claims with nothing to back it them up. If you believe so much in the dyno accuracy how about posting the ones from your car or GTILIN's??
Hongs and GTILINs arent K04s!