Volant Intake System for TFSI

[rich83]

Jesus... is this thread really 3 years old. 

[keith]

Found it when looking for another intake, after reading all the pages i wondered how this faired up

[ROH ECHT]

Just because this is old and to post a couple of things I'm not sure are included in the previous pages;
They did upgrade the intake for the mk6 Golf R with the DV relocation...


.....and the Volant did result in low fuel trims, on average, when they had MK6 Golf R people report their fuel trims with various intakes; on another forum. These averages was posted once ten people reported for each of these intakes. So some didn't make their list if less than ten users reported their trims;


I may have posted this all before, on those previous pages, but I'm old now (62 next month), and I just don't remember.

[pudding]

62, wow, good on you 

Good info    Its great to see people take a scientific and detailed approach to these things rather than slapping any old intake on and calling it done.

Even 5% drift caused drivability issues on my Edition 30.  Doesn't sound a lot but it's still a large error the ECU has to work around when calculating fuel trims. I saw 8% error with my Racing Line intake over a week, which grew to 12% after a month of daily use.  Revo intake got up to 18% iirc.  LT and ST trims max out at 25% and then ECU runs out of options.

The 10-25% error intakes shouldn't even be on the market. They are utter garbage and destroy low end response.

Stock intake = 0-1% error margin.

[ROH ECHT]

 
I have the P-Flo and, with its K04, its trims typically sit at +7% (warm months)...but trims (multipl./long term - off idle) can creep up toward +10% during the colder months.
Neuspeed's older P-Flo was worse; with its MAF position much closer to the down-turn just prior to the turbo.

My warm month (US)mpg is 30 mpg (30.2: over 650 mile average) currently; 36 mpg (Imp.). I have difficulty keeping its mpg above 29 mpg (US), 34 Imp. mpg, in the cold months.
I've considered swapping to a CTS intake, but I really could be gaining very little for doing so. And this makes me think to just stay with what I have.

I know there was a good bit of hype being spread, regarding the REVO intake for some time. But in the 80+ page "Topic/Thread" where the trims were being shared, the REVO trim reports were all near the +15% mark; ±2% to 3%. I always thought if the transition in the REVO tube were further upstream, then maybe the laminar air flow would have settled better. But that's me being suspicious of the transition in their tube; just prior to the MAF and possibly disturbing the airflow at the MAF.
I know GIAC worked with EVOMS in correcting their early production period woes, regarding fuel trims, and it seemingly paid off. Sadly though, EVOMS has discontinued production of their MK5 intakes when sales for it dropped. EVOMS; another I considered.

[pudding]

Yeah I remember reading some time ago the Neuspeed intake was one of the better ones for fuel trims, but none of them are anywhere near close to the OEM error margin unfortunately.

It's not helped by the terrible MAF location VW chose to use. It's too close to the turbo, so heat, PCV oil (K04 even more so) and turbo flow reversion work their way back up the TIP and onto the MAF.  It works OK in the stock intake with the laminar flow grid and standard power, but start turning things up and the MAF doesn't like it.

That's why on the EA888 engine, the MAF was moved much further away from the turbo.  You can get away with a lot more on those engines in terms of aftermarket intakes.

The Revo intake was terrible. I could only stomach it for 2 weeks and then sold it.  Good to hear GIAC/Evoms paid attention to the MAF as most others don't. It's not like it's the engine's primary load measurement or anything 

Another good intake from my researching is this one, but look at the price of it    It still won't be +/- 1% error like stock though. Nothing is.

https://hg-motorsport.de/en/hfi-carbon-air-intake-kit-gen.2-plus-vag-2.0-t-f-si-ea113-e.g.-golf-mk5/6-s3-8p

[ZoliWorks]

I've tried the HG motorsport intake for the 1.4 TSI CAXA and boi do I regret it.

I was dumb enough to pay a little over a hundred euros for a shiny pipe and a filter that wouldn't even fit in my engine bay. Had to wait around 3 months and send constant emails while they kept making excuses why they cant ship. Funny that right as I asked to be refunded, they were able to ship it the next day..

I had to really stretch the fit when trying to bolt the pipe onto the screw hole next to the battery. And guess what? after like the 2nd rev, the metal extension that was welded onto said pipe, broke clean off. The rubber adapter-hose that was supposed to connect the pipe to the plastic intake inlet on the turbo was also the wrong size. It was a very loose fit. I had to wrap said inlet with tape so i could tighten the pipe enough for it not to fall off. Oh and did I mention I had to cut a solid 10cm off the pipe, just so I can fit the filter into my engine bay? crazy...



Here's the intake in question https://hg-motorsport.de/en/air-intake-pipe-vag-1.4-t-f-si-122/125hp-e.g.-golf-mk5/6-audi-a3-8p

Safe to say I wont be ordering any of their overpriced stuff any time soon.

[ROH ECHT]

Yeah I remember reading some time ago the Neuspeed intake was one of the better ones for fuel trims, but none of them are anywhere near close to the OEM error margin unfortunately.

It's not helped by the terrible MAF location VW chose...

Speaking of "terrible MAF location" ...even Neuspeed made a change; moving the MAF further upstream of the down-bend.

Took me some time but I did eventually find a pic of the older MAF position on a Neuspeed P-flo, before the revision;