MK5 Golf GTI
All Things Mk5 => Modifications & Technical Area => Performance Modifications => Topic started by: Ant b on December 10, 2017, 02:12:02 pm
-
Is there such thing as a quite induction kit for the gtis,
My ram air oversize is stupid loud I don’t mind the dump when you let of but it’s constantly sucking on acceleration.
Think is I like the look and I don’t really wanna go back to a cover as one I haven’t got one and two I’ve just spend money tarting the engine up.
My old 1.8t had a cone on and had a nice dump when you release but not all the time
-
I've tried the VWR and Revo intakes. Both noisy. I'm not a big fan of all the noise either. I am working on some ideas. Either boxing in the Revo cone with some automotive grade acoustic foam (water, fuel, oil and fire resistant obviously) or throwing the cone in the bin and fitting a BMC enclosed can on the end. I've used them in the past to good effect and they are quiet.
The other problem is the pipes are made of very thin wall ally tube which resonates badly. If the pipes were made of a thick plastic material, it would be a lot quieter.
-
Ive got a forge twintake and that's reputed to be quiet with its 2 enclosed canisters but you still get some flutter on letting off boost and that raspy sucking sound when you open the throttle up (once I get over 3k rpm the powervalve kicks in and I don't hear the intake at all :D). As Pudding mentioned I think all of them with the metal piping will transmit sound even with enclosed ends, especially as its right up against the firewall so doesn't have far to travel. Certainly my twintake is quieter than the open cone ones but you can still hear it.
If you're ever near manchester you're welcome to come have a listen.
-
I’m thinking about fitting a bmc type enclosed on above the mannifold,I no it not the best as heat rises but it will still have the ram air heat shield plus it’s inclosed so should be ok,I could put it right on the end but I think it will still be loud.
Only thing is as mines 90mm atm I need some 70mm silicone joiners and if I do go above mannifold I would fit the rest of the ram air piping as a cold air feed
-
Have the same problem with my ramair intake so bloody noisey gonna try and put some sound deadening under the bonnet after christmas to see if that helps
-
BMC do a couple of compact solutions, like the OTA and DIA. Both come with 85mm OD intakes, so only a very mild drop down from the 90mm pipe.
In was thinking of putting one of these in front of the battery to replace the cone.
Sucking in hot air from the engine bay is overplayed in the aftermarket. It's not that big of a deal with a turbo engine since the turbo itself will heat the air to around 100 degrees C at full boost anyway.
-
Is there a way of modding the standard airbox to improve flow whilst keeping things quiet?
-
I'll have a look into that but I doubt it. VW already did a great job of squashing a traditional plastic airbox into a pancake to sit on top of the engine. The fact ED30s can make ~330hp with nothing more than a panel filter is a testament to their engineering.
If one is prepared to relocate the battery to the boot then all manner of quiet options are available to us, such as the beastly R32 airbox. It's a huge bucket of cold air for the turbo to drink from. Perhaps a little project to investigate in the summer. There must be a reasonable size battery we can lay flat in the spare wheel well......otherwise an R32 boot floor is required......which is a bit extreme for the sake of an intake :smiley:
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi469.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr51%2Ff11kka%2Fcar%2FForge%2520Intake%2FDSC00387.jpg&hash=c2032b251ed0d9288d5c5e0a36b3e02a182a5a0f)
-
Regal seem to have taken the loofah on a stick concept one step further, with a flex coupling :surprised: Finally. You never see that in any intake kits!
http://www.regalautosport.com/shop/IE-2-0TFSi-K03-K04-Cold-Air-Intake-for-Golf-MK5-GTI-Golf-MK6-R-Seat-Leon-Audi-A3-Audi-A3-Skoda-Octavia-VRS-all-2-0TFSi-EA113.html
Not one of them have laminar air flow corrector gauzes upstream of the MAF though. I love how aftermarket parts people just completely omit key functions and then try to convince us they are not necessary when questioned about it. And then 6 months later when the mounting lug has snapped off the Revo intake pipe due to the lack of a flex coupling.......silence.
-
Regal seem to have taken the loofah on a stick concept one step further, with a flex coupling :surprised: Finally. You never see that in any intake kits!
http://www.regalautosport.com/shop/IE-2-0TFSi-K03-K04-Cold-Air-Intake-for-Golf-MK5-GTI-Golf-MK6-R-Seat-Leon-Audi-A3-Audi-A3-Skoda-Octavia-VRS-all-2-0TFSi-EA113.html
Not one of them have laminar air flow corrector gauzes upstream of the MAF though. I love how aftermarket parts people just completely omit key functions and then try to convince us they are not necessary when questioned about it. And then 6 months later when the mounting lug has snapped off the Revo intake pipe due to the lack of a flex coupling.......silence.
It's an intake from Integrated Engineering, not from Regal. I didn't know its existence. :happy2:
I'd like to know if the MAF scaling is really correct. The VWR intake is 4,7% off (which is still acceptable but not exactly the same as stock). A good tuner can correct the difference scaling, of course.
-
Ah OK, cool. Integrated make some good stuff :happy2:
The Revo scaling is off as well. You don't need to log it to know it. You can feel it in the idle quality and it's sluggishness to pull away from a standstill (in a manual at least). It's the slower air speeds which are affected by it the most. Quite amusing really as Revo bang on about MAF scaling being 'an art' on their website :grin:
Yes, same issue with my VWR too. It idled like crap. Stick the factory air box back on and voila, problem solved.
Again.....they've simply ignored what the OEM did because they couldn't match the flow characteristics of an elliptical MAF housing with a laminar grid. You don't need a Masters degree in automotive engineering to see that mounting a MAF that close to a turbulent compressor wheel is going to cause problems. Think of emptying a sink. The water drops down the plug hole just fine with big volumes of water, but when the water is almost gone, you get a very visible whirlpool. Same happens inside an intake tube with turbos and that is why that laminar grid is there - to straighten the air flow at idle and other slow gas speed situations. Oval tubes help reduce that as well. Rocket science it isn't!
I have a plan, but it won't be elegant looking but it will involve chopping out the MAF housing from the OEM cover :grin:
Revo and VWR are lucky only 1 in 10000 customers are like me :grin:
-
Ah OK, cool. Integrated make some good stuff :happy2:
The Revo scaling is off as well. You don't need to log it to know it. You can feel it in the idle quality and it's sluggishness to pull away from a standstill (in a manual at least). It's the slower air speeds which are affected by it the most. Quite amusing really as Revo bang on about MAF scaling being 'an art' on their website :grin:
Yes, same issue with my VWR too. It idled like crap. Stick the factory air box back on and voila, problem solved.
Again.....they've simply ignored what the OEM did because they couldn't match the flow characteristics of an elliptical MAF housing with a laminar grid. You don't need a Masters degree in automotive engineering to see that mounting a MAF that close to a turbulent compressor wheel is going to cause problems. Think of emptying a sink. The water drops down the plug hole just fine with big volumes of water, but when the water is almost gone, you get a very visible whirlpool. Same happens inside an intake tube with turbos and that is why that laminar grid is there - to straighten the air flow at idle and other slow gas speed situations. Oval tubes help reduce that as well. Rocket science it isn't!
I have a plan, but it won't be elegant looking but it will involve chopping out the MAF housing from the OEM cover :grin:
Revo and VWR are lucky only 1 in 10000 customers are like me :grin:
What Revo don't tell you is that the MAF scaling of their intake is matched in their software. Run an OEM housing with an aftermarket intake on their software (2+ based on my experience) and you end up with a lower reading, sluggish car and high LTFT (12-15%) - Been there and tried it, even with the OEM MAF screen and various size/shape home made alternatives (they genuinely make very little difference with an aftermarket intake pipe from my experience).
If your software uses the standard MAF maps then I'm sure a standard MAF housing will be an improvement.
Not sure which other tuners, if any, spend time correcting the MAF tables
I have also tried MAF pipes from other aftermarket intakes and saw a LTFT of around +10% and a distinctly sluggish performance off boost as you've described.
I must have been lucky with the MAF pipe I currently have, sourced from a CTS intake if I remember rightly but the dimensions and MAF location (including depth/positioning inside the pipe) are identical to the Revo...... LTFT is literally + or - 2% - depending on driving style and how much the WMI has been used. The mounting depth of the MAF inside the circular pipe is crucial to airflow readings on these intakes and seems to be overlooked by many companies.
End result - very spritely and eager even though I have no runner flaps which will only hinder low air speed scenarios.
-
Interesting, cheers Dan. I am glad someone else has also pondered on this and looked into alternatives.
I am getting a Stage 2+ Revo flash tomorrow, so I will see if things improve. I did wonder if their tune is specifically matched to their own intake, but then again if it was, surely they would insist on using their own intake and not let you use Brand X? When I enquired with Revo HQ, they just said an intake was required......not theirs specifically. Anyway, I'm sure a Revo tune + Revo intake should work better.
MAF scaling is certainly an issue. I remember back in the day playing with VR6s and Vortech blowers. The OEM MAF hated it. That whirlpool effect I mentioned where the air flow is denser at the pipe perimeter compared to the middle - i.e. smack bang where the sensor reads from! People who'd binned the laminar corrector 'for improved flow' reasons suffered even more. The engine would barely idle. Modern MAFs have improved with directional characteristics to cancel out back flow from recirc valves, but mounting it so close to the turbo is still an issue, hence why they still use the air straightener. Not a problem if the MAF is mounted far way from the source of turbulence, like the TTS engine for example.......but for us EA113 boys, it needs careful consideration when moving away from stock.
Sounds like you've managed to pull it off. I would prefer a straight, uncalculated MAF reading in Litres per min instead of grams per second, since the engine volume is in litres and we know what the mechanical ingestion amount at idle should be. Then we can see if the aftermarket intake matches it exactly. Simply looking for ~3.5 g/s at idle isn't always a good indication it's accurate. I get the same readings at idle with the Revo as I do the Stock intake......but the stock intake idles a lot smoother and is more eager to get moving.
Anyway, tomorrow will be a good test!
-
Interesting, cheers Dan. I am glad someone else has also pondered on this and looked into alternatives.
I am getting a Stage 2+ Revo flash tomorrow, so I will see if things improve. I did wonder if their tune is specifically matched to their own intake, but then again if it was, surely they would insist on using their own intake and not let you use Brand X? When I enquired with Revo HQ, they just said an intake was required......not theirs specifically. Anyway, I'm sure a Revo tune + Revo intake should work better.
MAF scaling is certainly an issue. I remember back in the day playing with VR6s and Vortech blowers. The OEM MAF hated it. That whirlpool effect I mentioned where the air flow is denser at the pipe perimeter compared to the middle - i.e. smack bang where the sensor reads from! People who'd binned the laminar corrector 'for improved flow' reasons suffered even more. The engine would barely idle. Modern MAFs have improved with directional characteristics to cancel out back flow from recirc valves, but mounting it so close to the turbo is still an issue, hence why they still use the air straightener. Not a problem if the MAF is mounted far way from the source of turbulence, like the TTS engine for example.......but for us EA113 boys, it needs careful consideration when moving away from stock.
Sounds like you've managed to pull it off. I would prefer a straight, uncalculated MAF reading in Litres per min instead of grams per second, since the engine volume is in litres and we know what the mechanical ingestion amount at idle should be. Then we can see if the aftermarket intake matches it exactly. Simply looking for ~3.5 g/s at idle isn't always a good indication it's accurate. I get the same readings at idle with the Revo as I do the Stock intake......but the stock intake idles a lot smoother and is more eager to get moving.
Anyway, tomorrow will be a good test!
Hardware requirements for their software do specify a Revo intake for Stage 2 and 2+..... but then what manufacturer doesn't recommend their own version of a product
What intake and software are you currently running?
-
Interesting. When I was speaking to Steve Worthington at Revo, he didn't specify a particular intake, just that one was required. He didn't elaborate any further but if their software is tuned for their specific MAF pipe, then I can see why it's needed.
Currently running the Revo intake with 'custom' tuning. It's stage 2+ boost levels, so ~2bar peak tapering off past 5K. It's fine in the most part, just the onset of boost @ 2500-3000rpm is overwhelming the engine resulting in a king size flat spot......the classic KO4 surge. I'm interested to see how Revo deal with this common problem......but I always loved Revo maps. Super smooth, hence giving their 2+ a whirl.
-
Out of interest what sort of psi does / should a REVO Stage 2 boost too ? On a k04 that is
-
Not sure mate. 1.7 bar I would expect. You can only push to 2 bar+ with a HPFP. You could drop Revo a line, they're very responsive on email. Not sure they would reveal that though......even though you can see it on the Polar FIS / VCDS :smiley:
-
Ya ... did a quick pull today .. glanced down and looked around 18psi , just wondered if that was what it’s meant to be ...
Sorry going off topic
-
Ya ... did a quick pull today .. glanced down and looked around 18psi , just wondered if that was what it’s meant to be ...
Sorry going off topic
Yours is stage 2 Revo, right? 18 psi = 1.24 bar. That's pretty low. It that stable boost or peak boost?
-
Really not sure .... I’ll give it some beans tomorrow if the weathers ok and see ....
My revo settings are
Boost-6
Timing-5
Fuel-7
-
Boost 6-5-9 is the default setting for running super unleaded/V-Power fuel so explains why the boost figure is lower than it could be. Boost request isn't static, it will vary depending on current conditions, Load, RPM, throttle request etc.
I'm interested to see how Revo deal with this common problem......but I always loved Revo maps. Super smooth, hence giving their 2+ a whirl.
Pretty sure Revo don't map around it as such and just try to boost through the surge point, so said hesitation/flat spot sub 3700rpm (ish) will be no better, worse if anything.
Just what I've read over the years, hope I'm proven wrong :happy2:
-
When I originally had Revo Stage 1 installed, they recommended 6B / 6T / 9F for vpower but could use 7B also for a more responsive drive. Obviously I did just that and it ran very nicely. When I recently had the VIS hpfp fitted, Revo said I could richen the fuelling to 6 or 7 and run boost of 8. This time the car felt rougher on the more aggressive settings and I went back to 7 boost and 7 fuel, where it runs more happily. This is in the context of a K03 car however I think you can likely up your boost and timing settings a notch.
-
No guessing, Data logging needed. Timing 6 is quite a strong request for V Power using F9 (the leanest request possible) and would need logging to ensure its ok. Revo only suggest F9 to try to work around the lack of fuel available at low RPM thanks to the standard pump and keep the car operating within the 25% correction window that the ECU is capable of.
Felt rougher how, and under what conditions? day to day driving?
-
Data logging is always a good idea and fwiw my car was originally logged satisfactorily during summer on the settings (T6 / F9) you feel to be aggressive. That said, not everyone has easy access to open unpoliced roads or dynos to facilitate logging and therefore place some reliance on manufacturer’s recommendations.
Anyhow, more recently after the new stage 1 VIS hpfp was fitted with Revo’s more ambitious settings, the car felt rougher running in day to day driving, being lumpy and unhappy on part throttle.
-
Data logging is always a good idea and fwiw my car was originally logged satisfactorily during summer on the settings (T6 / F9) you feel to be aggressive. That said, not everyone has easy access to open unpoliced roads or dynos to facilitate logging and therefore place some reliance on manufacturer’s recommendations.
Anyhow, more recently after the new stage 1 VIS hpfp was fitted with Revo’s more ambitious settings, the car felt rougher running in day to day driving, being lumpy and unhappy on part throttle.
I didn't say aggressive, what I meant was everything needs to be pukka and happy in order for it to be ok on that request. Not all cars are though which is why I would always recommend logging unless you go with a much lower/safer request
I'm not saying i don't believe you, but find it odd that it was the day to day driving that was affected since the settings change the WOT requests. Day to day driving the ECU runs a stoich mixture and huge timing request. I've never noticed a difference with mine running lower settings in terms of drivability, only at WOT.
Mine runs B9-T7-F6 I think? But then again I use WMI so not comparable. Still, as long as people are happy, thats all that matters
-
Done a few pulls today from low down and saw 23psi spike then a consistent 17ish psi to red line ..... runs nice , so happy really .
-
Done a few pulls today from low down and saw 23psi spike then a consistent 17ish psi to red line ..... runs nice , so happy really .
That's more like stage 2 boost levels. :happy2:
-
Do I do a pull in 4th gear from 2500 rpm to redline to determine amount of boost?
-
Yeah 4th is best as it's a 1:1 ratio, so takes gearing out of the equation. As Dan says, you need to keep the pedal pinned because the boost varies with pedal position.
Popped up to AKS today and got the Revo Stage 2+ done. B9, T4, F8.
Initially I was surprised how flat it felt compared to my custom map. Quite a marked difference in pedal punch. The Revo needs a much harder shove on the pedal to get the same sensation of midrange thump, despite going with the default non-linear pedal map. There was no timing pull on the test runs apparently and Vince there said it was quick, so I guess that's how it is.
During the 80 mile journey home, I got used to it and it's way smoother at part throttle and the 2500-3000 surging has gone. I think because it's smoother, it can be perceived as being slower, but the mph needle flies round just as quick as before. I'm not dissapointed, it's a really good map......I was expecting it to be more aggressive. I will play with the settings. I might back the boost off and add timing.
What do the numbers add/subtract in real terms? Say, going from T1 to T9, how many degrees of advance does it add, and is it across the whole map or just in boost?
The Revo intake is a lot quieter with their own software, which is a nice, but unexpected bonus!
Another plus point is an annoying jolt coming on/off the throttle around town has completely gone. Go Revo :happy2:
-
Very nice Pudding!
-
Yeah 4th is best as it's a 1:1 ratio, so takes gearing out of the equation. As Dan says, you need to keep the pedal pinned because the boost varies with pedal position.
Popped up to AKS today and got the Revo Stage 2+ done. B9, T4, F8.
Initially I was surprised how flat it felt compared to my custom map. Quite a marked difference in pedal punch. The Revo needs a much harder shove on the pedal to get the same sensation of midrange thump, despite going with the default non-linear pedal map. There was no timing pull on the test runs apparently and Vince there said it was quick, so I guess that's how it is.
During the 80 mile journey home, I got used to it and it's way smoother at part throttle and the 2500-3000 surging has gone. I think because it's smoother, it can be perceived as being slower, but the mph needle flies round just as quick as before. I'm not dissapointed, it's a really good map......I was expecting it to be more aggressive. I will play with the settings. I might back the boost off and add timing.
What do the numbers add/subtract in real terms? Say, going from T1 to T9, how many degrees of advance does it add, and is it across the whole map or just in boost?
The Revo intake is a lot quieter with their own software, which is a nice, but unexpected bonus!
Another plus point is an annoying jolt coming on/off the throttle around town has completely gone. Go Revo :happy2:
Nice one Pudding, I found it very similar with my Stage 1 recently with how progressive it is with the pedal and so much smoother power delivery!
-
@Pudding (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10733)
The surging you talk about .... pretty sure I get this with mine , I’ve heard it mentioned before . Something to do with too much boost for the engine to cope with at lower rpm ‘s ? Does the upgraded pump sort this then ?
Glad your happy with the map /money spent , always nice when it turns out good :happy2:
-
The KO4 turbo has a spool up/flow characteristic that overwhelms the engine at a certain load / rpm point, which is between 2500-3000rpm with 50-75% throttle and 20+psi.
Best way I can describe it is......nail it at 2500 and it goes like a stabbed rat for a second or 2, then hits the mega flat spot and stutters, then takes off again.
If you have an open cone intake, you can also hear the turbo fluttering badly between those rpms.
A lot of tuners reduce the boost in that region to get around that. Some complain the car feels slower as a result, but smoother boost delivery is faster than wheel spin, or a huge flat spot!
Revo have tuned that area very nicely. No issues there at all, but they are running a lot less boost there than the old map :smiley: I would be surprised if yours has KO4 surging to be honest. It could just be less responsive in that area because they dialled the boost back, which makes you think it's surging? Have you got the Loba pump?
-
It’s just it does a pulse/surge type thing like you’ve explained .... didn’t hear it as much with the standard air box but with the revo induction on you can hear it . No don’t have the Loba .... wasn’t planning on fitting one to be honest but just curious if this helps with the surging
-
It’s just it does a pulse/surge type thing like you’ve explained .... didn’t hear it as much with the standard air box but with the revo induction on you can hear it . No don’t have the Loba .... wasn’t planning on fitting one to be honest but just curious if this helps with the surging
A few turbo builders do a K04 with an anti-surge wheel. I've seen a few graphs of 2+ setups with this and the torque from low to mid looks really impressive. Not just getting rid of the flat spot but the initial spool almost looks comparable to a K03. Mapping doesn't need to be compromised - the tuner has much more to play with in terms of ramp up etc. It's something I've always kept in mind if and when I go K04 on my GTI. I'd love a setup that picks up just as well but doesn't give up on boost from 4-5k like the little K03 does.
Kev, glad you're happy with the Revo map. You've had a while of tinkering with the software so hopefully this is closer to what you want and you can perfect it with the SPS. Let me know how you get on!
-
Oh and get a better pump Bodyboarder. TFSIs love fuel.
-
It’s just it does a pulse/surge type thing like you’ve explained .... didn’t hear it as much with the standard air box but with the revo induction on you can hear it . No don’t have the Loba .... wasn’t planning on fitting one to be honest but just curious if this helps with the surging
I think some VCDS logging is in order here, to see what the sensor values are during this surge. I suspect your pump is weak. If log the lambda regulator channel and see +25% in boost, you need a pump.
Cheers @AJP (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=11926) I'm happy with it. Very docile until provoked. It feels like VW themselves mapped it. None of the tyre shredding drama from before, which I still can't get my head around as I always heard feedback from people that Stage 2+ Revo was savage :smiley:
So here's a ponderingment for a Friday morning. If you can adjust the boost, fuel and timing yourself, why are there hardware requirements you MUST have before getting the flash? Surely you can just turn the boost etc down to suit your hardware? There must be more to it that I don't realise, or the adjustments are tiny.....but it seems you can dial things back all the way to stock levels with the SPS! Handy :smiley:
Good shout on anti-surge cores. I've read the TTE420 doesn't have the surge problem either and spools like a standard KO4.
I'm also wondering if a more generalized mapping / turbo talk thread is needed seeing as this is all mixed in with quiet intake discussions!
-
Ah OK, cool. Integrated make some good stuff :happy2:
The Revo scaling is off as well. You don't need to log it to know it. You can feel it in the idle quality and it's sluggishness to pull away from a standstill (in a manual at least). It's the slower air speeds which are affected by it the most. Quite amusing really as Revo bang on about MAF scaling being 'an art' on their website :grin:
Yes, same issue with my VWR too. It idled like crap. Stick the factory air box back on and voila, problem solved.
Again.....they've simply ignored what the OEM did because they couldn't match the flow characteristics of an elliptical MAF housing with a laminar grid. You don't need a Masters degree in automotive engineering to see that mounting a MAF that close to a turbulent compressor wheel is going to cause problems. Think of emptying a sink. The water drops down the plug hole just fine with big volumes of water, but when the water is almost gone, you get a very visible whirlpool. Same happens inside an intake tube with turbos and that is why that laminar grid is there - to straighten the air flow at idle and other slow gas speed situations. Oval tubes help reduce that as well. Rocket science it isn't!
I have a plan, but it won't be elegant looking but it will involve chopping out the MAF housing from the OEM cover :grin:
Revo and VWR are lucky only 1 in 10000 customers are like me :grin:
What Revo don't tell you is that the MAF scaling of their intake is matched in their software. Run an OEM housing with an aftermarket intake on their software (2+ based on my experience) and you end up with a lower reading, sluggish car and high LTFT (12-15%) - Been there and tried it, even with the OEM MAF screen and various size/shape home made alternatives (they genuinely make very little difference with an aftermarket intake pipe from my experience).
If your software uses the standard MAF maps then I'm sure a standard MAF housing will be an improvement.
Not sure which other tuners, if any, spend time correcting the MAF tables
I have also tried MAF pipes from other aftermarket intakes and saw a LTFT of around +10% and a distinctly sluggish performance off boost as you've described.
I must have been lucky with the MAF pipe I currently have, sourced from a CTS intake if I remember rightly but the dimensions and MAF location (including depth/positioning inside the pipe) are identical to the Revo...... LTFT is literally + or - 2% - depending on driving style and how much the WMI has been used. The mounting depth of the MAF inside the circular pipe is crucial to airflow readings on these intakes and seems to be overlooked by many companies.
End result - very spritely and eager even though I have no runner flaps which will only hinder low air speed scenarios.
Just to follow up on this, Revo's intake MAF scaling is way off. They mention on their website the MAF scaling is stock.
To cut a long story of me doing back to back testing of stock vs VWR vs Revo, Stock and VWR are fairly close. Revo LTFTs climb to +15% over 100 miles. Stock is 3%, VWR around 5% over the same distance.
Effective cross sectional diameter of the stock oval MAF housing using ellipsoid/oval math calcs = 63mm ID.
VWR MAF ID = 64mm.
Revo MAF ID = 66mm.
VWR shove an insert inside their 66mm intake tube to drop the diameter down to as close to stock as possible.
Revo don't bother, but I will drop a 63mm ID insert into it to correct the trims. Paying customers are the beta testers as always. Amateur hour products at premium prices :congrats:
-
What software are you running when conducting the tests? Revo software or flashed back to standard?
Be interesting if these tests were conducted on 100% stock software
-
What software are you running when conducting the tests? Revo software or flashed back to standard?
Be interesting if these tests were conducted on 100% stock software
I get 4.7% correction on the LTFT with my VWR intake. The MAF scaling is stock.
-
How have you got round the intake pipe hitting/putting pressure on the coolant union?
I love how my VWR intake sounds, but it has broken the union once and I'd like to know if anyone has good suggestions how to solve the issue other than junking the setup...!
Would this sort it; http://www.gruvenparts.com/vw-audi-bpy-billet-radiator-hose-4y/
-
What software are you running when conducting the tests? Revo software or flashed back to standard?
Be interesting if these tests were conducted on 100% stock software
Sorry, I should have added the tests were all done with Revo 2+ software on the same B9, T5, F7 setting.
How have you got round the intake pipe hitting/putting pressure on the coolant union?
I love how my VWR intake sounds, but it has broken the union once and I'd like to know if anyone has good suggestions how to solve the issue other than junking the setup...!
Would this sort it; http://www.gruvenparts.com/vw-audi-bpy-billet-radiator-hose-4y/
For the purpose of the test I just threw it in loosely without the front air scoop, which means you can run the canister above the coolant pipe. If I was to fit the VWR kit permanently, I would put a dent in the canister for clearance. Or you could tilt the canister up above the elbow and use an OEM plastic flex bellows to join it to the other pipe. The bellows on the stock airbox fits the VWR piping if you trim off the oblong end of it.....or any 76mm ID OEM bellow from any VAG car will do the job. Just don't use rubber as it may collapse under boost, restricting air flow.
The Gruven parts elbow whilst stronger, doesn't address the issue. The canister would just wear through the pipe instead of breaking the outlet off. The only fix is to provide adequate clearance for engine rock. Something VWR should have done in the first place but VWR are like so many other small UK companies - virtually bugger all R&D and a very strong "that'll do" approach to things, rather like the utter embarrassment that was British Leyland.
-
I must say I'm really quite surprised at your findings @Pudding (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10733) I never thought the Revo would be so far off when using their software.
Let us know once you have reduced the intake ID to 63MM and whether it helps. I imagine, if your car responds as mine did, that once you correct the MAF readings the car will drive all the better for it
-
I was surprised too given how Revo proclaim to have the MAF scaling spot on. New MAF, old MAF, makes no difference. No vac leaks etc.
It didn't drive that badly with high trims to be fair, but putting the stock air-box back on has improved the idle quality and part throttle response no end.
-
I appreciate this is likely old news, but in the interests of sharing.....there's a lot of interesting info in this (6 year old!) thread - http://www.vwgolf.net.au/showthread.php?11812-Forge-Wintake-amp-MAF-sensor-read-issue
According to that thread, the Volant intake shows 3% trims and was the one the tuners in that thread recommended back in 2012. The info and testing relates to the MK6 R, so very relevant to ED30 owners.
Other useful little nuggets I picked out of that thread:
The top end AFRs can be 0.5 leaner than requested if the trims are not correct, which is dangerous at 2+ levels of tune.
Most of the tables in the ECU rely on accurate MAF readings, therefore it is recognized that software tuners don't (or shouldn't at least) modify the MAF table, otherwise the engine would be locked down to a particular intake for life and skew other calibrations.
The regular K03 engine doesn't seem to suffer with wild fluctuations as much as the KO4 engines. Must be a flow dynamics difference between the two compressor wheels.
This little beauty :smiley: http://www.42draftdesigns.com/fsi-oem-style-maf-housing/ Hats off to them for that one. Very neat.
Adding a laminar grid has shown improvements.
And some other bits n bobs.
In other news, Revo 2+ continuing to drive very nicely indeed with the stock intake. Kept up with a new shape 335d no problem on the way into work this morning, so that's a good sign things are healthy as they are bloody quick in the midrange.
Cold starting and hot and cold idles are also considerably better compared to the Revo intake. As is part throttle smoothness.
Thinking of just throwing both intakes onto ebay to be honest. Feeling a bit indecisive. I don't think the modest top end gains are worth the high price of the intake, the noise, or the idle/part throttle rubbishness in all honesty.
-
Thinking of just throwing both intakes onto ebay to be honest. Feeling a bit indecisive. I don't think the modest top end gains are worth the high price of the intake, the noise, or the idle/part throttle rubbishness in all honesty.
[/quote]
Thinking of doing the same with my vwr intake and just chucking the oem one on with an updated panel filter. Looked under the bonnet today and noticed that the intake canister is hitting/rubbing the the little black dust cap thing on the hpfp. Iv had to use cable ties to secure and stop the intake flopping about under the bonnet, that and all the other faults with this thing I think it’s ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING that Vw racing or racingline whatever there calling themselves these day can charge people the best part of £500 for what’s essentially a few pieces of pipe, hose and a sponge and obviously zero r&d done. Rant over :evilgrin:
-
Yep - mine did that until the intake snorkel thing of the VWR kit was moved further to the passenger side. One of the pipes was slightly re-routed so at least the HUGE airbox canister wasn't resting on the four-way union as well, but as Pudding says (and thank-you for your useful posts as ever!) there is still the back and forth movement as the engine rocks, and it still nudges that small coolant return from the top of the engine.
I have kept a close eye on mine since, and there are occasions where the filter housing comes out of the air duct piece fixed in the slam panel. Pudding is right - there is no consideration for engine movement on a road car on these kits. It isn't vertical movement - it is the back and forth that causes the canister to hit the coolant t-piece.
I am thinking of the gruvenparts stronger t-piece and then an extra sleeve of rubber hose to protect / give a bit more life to the one that gets hit, but that still isn't what I'd have thought I would ever need to do to correct what is marketed as a premium aftermarket item...!
I did find a very interesting photo of a VW racing car for sale - I must upload the photo, but it looks as though some of the coolant pipes have been rotated, and a bracket fitted which holds one of the hard pipes to the bulkhead.
-
I would recommend finding the right MAF pipe before sacking off intakes all together @pudding
The one I have now is near enough perfect and it drives well, much better than with the MAF pipe from other intakes such as the RamAir thing. My LTFT never deviates more than +- 2% even with the WMI spraying on occasion. Checked it tonight and its currently sat at 0.8%
It was a CTS intake my pipe originated from.
-
@99hagued (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9188) Yeah it is shocking. I'm not impressed with the VWR intake at all, probably one of the worst on the market for fitment, but also the most expensive. It does OK on the fuel trims though after they shoved a sleeve into it. Apparently VWR weren't interested in resolving the problem until APR got involved.
@Dave J (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6566) Makes me laugh. It's like a double glazing company selling you some upgraded windows made-to-measure for your house, but you have to bash half the bricks away to make them to fit. It's forgivable if it's a beta product, but even after APR got involved 6 years ago, it's STILL a beta product!!! There is a rumour circulating that they are working on a improved design. If it's true, they need to offer the revised version to existing customers at a massive discount!
@Dan_FR (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9513) Don't worry, I'm not giving up yet. I got over myself today, did an oil change and threw the Revo intake back on whilst I was there, but with the ghetto sleeve from the VWR intake shoved up it's hole this time. It's a section of 1mm wall thickness stainless pipe, which is naturally springy and holds itself in place no problem. It drops the diameter down to 63.5mm, so near as dammit stock diameter.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4735/25668822388_0403d5183a_b.jpg)
I reset the trims and went out for a test run. After 50 miles, this is what I got. Much, much better :happy2: Without the ghetto mod, the trims would shoot up to 8-9% within 30 miles, so this is very encouraging. I will give it a couple of weeks and see where they settle at. Big improvements in idle quality too. A couple of flat spots (compared to the stock intake) but I'm hoping these will smooth out over time.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4588/25668821908_68f9c1a019_b.jpg)
Yes in that thread I linked to, I'm sure the CTS pipe is mentioned as being a good one, so I'm glad you've found something that works for you :happy2:
I'm not completely anti intakes, I just want one that works properly. I really like the Revo for it's one piece pipe and a few other bits. No silicon joiners which can create steps in the air flow and introduce turbulence. They kind of knew what they were doing on the one hand, but made the same mistakes as others on the other hand.
I mean, for example, this MAF mounting is absolutely perfect. VWR's is junk and leaked like a sieve until I corrected it.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4737/25668823658_071aea1c85_b.jpg)
Lovely smooth transition from 90mm to 70mm :happy2: Keeps the airflow happy.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4685/25668822898_64c129c50d_b.jpg)
KO4 DV input already built into the pipe. A blanking bung supplied for K03 people. VWR people have to puncture the pipe and fit a fitting themselves :stupid:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4730/25668825178_6ec0872066_b.jpg)
One area that isn't so good with the Revo is the MAF insertion depth. Not even close to central, where the air stream has more velocity. Still, the trims seem to be OK at the moment so I will see how it pans out.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4734/25668823918_743752e3b8_b.jpg)
For comparison, VW's MAF insertion depth. Dead centre. We know VW don't use guesswork, therefore we can assume this depth is where it needs to be.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4730/25668823198_d6fbec4512_b.jpg)
As for why an oval shape, who knows. The TT-S EA113 engine uses a 3" round MAF mounted far away from the turbo, so this is something I may look into in the future.
I suspect it's because on the GTI, the MAF sits so darn close to the turbo and they found an oval gives a more consistent reading. Anyway, it's all good, I like experimenting with this stuff!
-
Love your posts @Pudding (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10733)! :drinking:
-
Love your posts @Pudding (http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10733)! :drinking:
Thanks mate :smiley:
After 80 miles the trims are going negative, so that insert is slightly too thick.
-
Has this intake system been tested by any of the members on here?
It is enclosed, so I'd assume it would be quieter than an open cone, but i could be wrong!
The second link is the "gen 2" version, although I do not know the differences between the two.
https://www.hg-motorsport.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p26261_HFI-Carbon-Cold-Air-Intake-Kit-for-VAG-2-0-TFSI-Models.html
https://www.hg-motorsport.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p28061_HFI-Air-Intake-Kit-Gen-2--Plus--for-VAG-2-0TFSI-Models.html
-
Enjoyed that read, including the ghetto sleeve insert. Not sure that is any better for smooth flow than an additional join further down the intake, but at least it is helping
How far negative are we talking?
As for the MAF insertion depth, mine is nowhere near centre, it is near the edge as the Revo one is and my trims are perfect. I found by changing the mounting depth and mounting it central in the pipe it significantly reduced the reading and gave me the 10-15% positive trims I had previously
Whats the next plan? A thinner insert?
-
Has this intake system been tested by any of the members on here?
It is enclosed, so I'd assume it would be quieter than an open cone, but i could be wrong!
The second link is the "gen 2" version, although I do not know the differences between the two.
https://www.hg-motorsport.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p26261_HFI-Carbon-Cold-Air-Intake-Kit-for-VAG-2-0-TFSI-Models.html
https://www.hg-motorsport.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p28061_HFI-Air-Intake-Kit-Gen-2--Plus--for-VAG-2-0TFSI-Models.html
Another crazy money intake! Looks good though and will be quieter than open cone for sure.
It's nice to see an intake with a flex coupling, too.
V2 appears to just have that bulge in the filter housing compared to V1, which is similar to the old Carbonio/APR intake. I'm sure they will try and baffle you with science as to why that shape is beneficial, but 90% of it will be marketing flannel :grin:
-
Enjoyed that read, including the ghetto sleeve insert. Not sure that is any better for smooth flow than an additional join further down the intake, but at least it is helping
How far negative are we talking?
As for the MAF insertion depth, mine is nowhere near centre, it is near the edge as the Revo one is and my trims are perfect. I found by changing the mounting depth and mounting it central in the pipe it significantly reduced the reading and gave me the 10-15% positive trims I had previously
Whats the next plan? A thinner insert?
Yeah the step from the insert won't aid smooth air flow!
It's on -2% after 71 miles. I can already feel in the way it drives that number will grow. I don't like seeing negative trims. It's safer to add fuel than subtract it.
OK, I will ignore the mounting depth for now. Some things can't be explained / reasoned unfortunately!
I can't find any stainless tubing with <1mm wall thickness, so I think it's going to be a back to the drawing board approach.
I might get the 42DD clip in MAF housing to use with the stock TIP and work back from there. I'm thinking these aftermarket pipes are too long which reduces the off boost responsiveness, certainly in K04 applications. I've got a few ideas floating around my head, so I'll have to see what's available.
-
Stock intake back on. B9,T4,F8. Drives superb :smiley: Much more responsive everywhere compared to Revo + B9,T5,F7.
The only reason I can come up with for that is the very short path of the stock intake. Turbo inlet to filter is about 18 inches, compared 4+ feet of drain pipe to filter.
The VWR is also a lot more responsive low down than the Revo intake.
With turbo engines, the air intake and exhaust paths need to be as short as possible for maximum response.
Therefore my 'problem' is more fundamental than MAF scaling/trims, it's just basic physics.
If you look at the AMG A45 and BMW M turbo engines, they all have very short boost paths.
This is how it should be done (M3 turbo engine) :smiley:
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bmwblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014-bmw-m3-m4-engine-05.jpg&hash=6836b9660eb9c6442b30ee02928d437f4b37c795)
-
I’m new to all these revo settings .... back when I had a revo map the sps controller was for 4 different maps ( shell v power /95/stock/limited rpm)
I have a sps controller but it’s the old style I presume .
I guess the new ones you can play with everything ( boost/timing/fuel) but why would one bother to pay for a ‘+’ map just to play with the settings anyway ? Could you not just use the sps controller to run + settings anyway ?
-
Doesn't work that way chap. + is + level of boost. It's fixed. So you can't get a Stage 1 map and up it to 2+ with an SPS :smiley:
The adjustable settings just fine tune things like boost responsiveness, target air/fuel ratio and ignition timing. B3 or B9, you still get 2+ boost pressure, just one is more aggressive than the other.
To be honest I don't really feel much of a difference performance wise across the settings, they're pretty subtle changes, but mine seems to feel smoother with less timing and less fuel, so there's an advantage to having adjustments right there :happy2:
-
Right .... thanks for explanation, makes sense :happy2: