Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Guys

Now I have the traction problem sorted im after more power, I currently have an R32 with a Carbonio Ind Kit, and it has been chipped so im guessing power is in the region of 270 bhp im looking to get to 300 hp is this possible without turboing or super charging the car? I know the next mod will be an exhaust but just looking for some adsvice please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I just wanted to add that that 270 bhp figure is a complete guesstimate so i dont wanna sound like im big headed [:$] i am simply adding up the power increases according to what ive been told they should be. ( i know this is probably the wrong way to do it)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
I Shouldnt think your far off 270 mate but id say around 260-265ish but even with an Uprated exhaust id say you'd still only be looking at an extra 10 or so bhp!

Don't know what else you could do to get that extra 25-30bhp????

Maybe uprate the cams?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Hi

Wondering what you did to fix the traction problem? i am still having problems, though not as much as before, looks like the tyres were the intial cause.

Anyways, you can go for Hi-Flo Cat, Cat Back-Box, and a Revo Stage 2 Remap, that should bring you close to 295/300 depending. Then you can go for the free flow manifold or cams, that will take you way above 300.

Though you can just stick with hi-flow cats/exhaust/revo stage 2 and put racing gas in, that will take you to around 310. Mine comes up with 300 if i use good quality octane booster.

Hafizur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
HI Hafizur,

Unfortunately im none the wiser as I don't actually know what they did all i saw was the car up on ramps and they were fiddling around by the diff the guy said there was no errors at all showing and it may have been a dodgy connection?? i've accepted that there many be a tiny amount of spin from the front until the 4motion kicks in and in all honesty i think i may have been looking for a problem that wasnt really there well not as bad as i thought anyway.

I did notice that on all the 0-100 vids on the site the traction control appears to be turned off? whats the reason for this?

Im looking at getting a miltek cat back system then probably have the cat removed and that part customised by a clever mechanic friend, see what kind of increase that gives me but I really need to get it on the rollers to see what im putting out, thing is there arent many tuners in my area with a 4wd rolling road, well not that I kmow of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Hi

Wondering what you did to fix the traction problem? i am still having problems, though not as much as before, looks like the tyres were the intial cause.

Anyways, you can go for Hi-Flo Cat, Cat Back-Box, and a Revo Stage 2 Remap, that should bring you close to 295/300 depending. Then you can go for the free flow manifold or cams, that will take you way above 300.

Though you can just stick with hi-flow cats/exhaust/revo stage 2 and put racing gas in, that will take you to around 310. Mine comes up with 300 if i use good quality octane booster.

Hafizur

260 -265 is more realistic. 300 hp out of MKIV normally aspirated R32 VR6 lump...cams and CAT will give very marginal gains....just look at dyno logs on Awesome's website under Rollin road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Really?

Read this thread:

http://uk-mkivs.net/forums/thread/374797.aspx

only difference is the cams, 306 horses

Getting a Stage 4 at AMD gives you 45+ horses, so standard plus 45 = 285, thats without the CAI, which is basically a Stage 1 Revo Remap

You can easily get another 5-10 horses with a decent CAI and good quality octane booster

So i dont know where you are coming from.

Hafizur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Really?

Read this thread:

http://uk-mkivs.net/forums/thread/374797.aspx

only difference is the cams, 306 horses

Getting a Stage 4 at AMD gives you 45+ horses, so standard plus 45 = 285, thats without the CAI, which is basically a Stage 1 Revo Remap

You can easily get another 5-10 horses with a decent CAI and good quality octane booster

So i dont know where you are coming from.

Hafizur
Really!! 227ATW and 35% losses...thats with the RR next door. Seroiusly compared to the 1.8t they sound nice but they feel gutless.Every R32 I've driven feel nothing like their claimed power. Remaps and cams only give marginal gains on normally aspirated not 30-50 hp that these companies claim to sell packages.

My old VR6 was dyno'd at 226 at AmD using big valve head 268 cams super six re map and filter. Everywhere bar AmD showed it 175-180 ATW nowhwere near the claimed figures. I challenged the figures with AmD to no avail. Drove new TT3.2 a few weeks ago...nice sound but didn't feel potent like 250hp....

AmD 300 conversion at Combe never made under 1.30 a lap.
 

·
I ain't no effin padawan
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
And also

Look at any ptoduction car making nigh on 100hp/litre and see where their peak power is. It's normaly well into the 7000 rpm region, and they usually rev into the 8's. Peak torque would normally be in the high 4's to low 5's thousand rpm. Look at any honda power curve.

A hundred hp/l engines power graph http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/graph/rr.stockport_11.03.06/clarke1.jpg

and another one
Posted Image


now an r32 one
Posted Image


Now does the shape of your 300hp power curve look more like the hondas or the standard r32? If it looks like the hondas, I'll be amazed. If it looks like the 70hp/litre r32 one I won't be.

Also anyone claiming more than 80 lbft/litre from a road car engine is an idiot. Cams dont improve torque, they just move it.

The r32 has horrible restrictive head design. One of the most respected VW head builders in the UK's told me that he didn't know why people bothered with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
And also

Look at any ptoduction car making nigh on 100hp/litre and see where their peak power is. It's normaly well into the 7000 rpm region, and they usually rev into the 8's. Peak torque would normally be in the high 4's to low 5's thousand rpm. Look at any honda power curve.

A hundred hp/l engines power graph http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/graph/rr.stockport_11.03.06/clarke1.jpg

and another one
Posted Image


now an r32 one
Posted Image


Now does the shape of your 300hp power curve look more like the hondas or the standard r32? If it looks like the hondas, I'll be amazed. If it looks like the 70hp/litre r32 one I won't be.

Also anyone claiming more than 80 lbft/litre from a road car engine is an idiot. Cams dont improve torque, they just move it.

The r32 has horrible restrictive head design. One of the most respected VW head builders in the UK's told me that he didn't know why people bothered with them.
Makes horrible/dissapointing reading for R32 owners including TT owners but as Wilko has posted it's very true.

These 300 conversions are good sellers but on road performance doesn't match the claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,630 Posts
Backing up what's been said.

I've been in a mk5 R32 that had CAMS, remap, exhaust etc, there's no way that car produced the claimed 300bhp. I've driven other cars with 280bhp and they where much faster.

Ultimate figures aside, Cams will make the car 'feel' faster and more aggressive, because the way the power is delivered is much more sporty feeling. You'll be satisfied in chasing the red line once the engine's had Cams. Without them the engine always feels strained at the very top end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
And also

Look at any ptoduction car making nigh on 100hp/litre and see where their peak power is. It's normaly well into the 7000 rpm region, and they usually rev into the 8's. Peak torque would normally be in the high 4's to low 5's thousand rpm. Look at any honda power curve.

A hundred hp/l engines power graph http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/graph/rr.stockport_11.03.06/clarke1.jpg

and another one
Posted Image


now an r32 one
Posted Image


Now does the shape of your 300hp power curve look more like the hondas or the standard r32? If it looks like the hondas, I'll be amazed. If it looks like the 70hp/litre r32 one I won't be.

Also anyone claiming more than 80 lbft/litre from a road car engine is an idiot. Cams dont improve torque, they just move it.

The r32 has horrible restrictive head design. One of the most respected VW head builders in the UK's told me that he didn't know why people bothered with them.
Makes horrible/dissapointing reading for R32 owners including TT owners but as Wilko has posted it's very true.

These 300 conversions are good sellers but on road performance doesn't match the claims.
I get the point, but these graphs are not from a 300bhp conversion, one belongs to golfgirl who only had CAI and exhaust at the time. I admit the conversion factor of 35% drive train loss is a bit too much, it should be more 23% as its not full time 4WD, 17% only applies to FWD vehicles. Still, where one gets 226bhp at the wheel, converts to 293.5 bhp at the flywheel. Which is pretty close to 300bhp.

Hafizur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
"The r32 has horrible restrictive head design. One of the most respected VW head builders in the UK's told me that he didn't know why people bothered with them."

Absoutely correct...same with the old VR6 unit....a strange designed bottom end to make it compact but in engineering terms it wasn't ideal.

Clever how they got it into a hatchback though.

300hp very much achievable with a Vortech Scharger though but at what cost!

Most tuners including AmD of old always commented how VR6's didn't reach claimed power especially the Corrado....after re map they just about got 190---some 200bhp crank HP.

When you look at Power ATW on the R32's I've seen most seem to be poor due to losses...then take into account the weight of the R32 and you can see why they struggle especially against more seemingly mundane cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,528 Posts
"The r32 has horrible restrictive head design. One of the most respected VW head builders in the UK's told me that he didn't know why people bothered with them."

Absoutely correct...same with the old VR6 unit....a strange designed bottom end to make it compact but in engineering terms it wasn't ideal.

Clever how they got it into a hatchback though.

300hp very much achievable with a Vortech Scharger though but at what cost!

Most tuners including AmD of old always commented how VR6's didn't reach claimed power especially the Corrado....after re map they just about got 190---some 200bhp crank HP.

When you look at Power ATW on the R32's I've seen most seem to be poor due to losses...then take into account the weight of the R32 and you can see why they struggle especially against more seemingly mundane cars.
that surprised me, I have read a fair bit on the vr6 24v over on vwvortex and people reckon the head is quite we ll designed, or maybe I am missing something in what they is its about as good as its going to get so theres no point doing head work..

Howevere as said above it is a good design in terms of packing it into a smallish hatchback.

however i do think its strange the way porsche can get a whole lot more BHP from the cayenne 3.2 engine.. would be interesting if there maps could be copied to a r32 chip or if the intake and exhaust sytem was better flowed.

alternatively get some seriously high octane fuel and a an apr map, then get tabs to give you lessons in launching the .:R his old normally aspirated R is still the fastest R in PVW hall of fame
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,220 Posts
Heres some more dyno's, all on the same dyno at different stages of Modding

Stock:

Posted Image


Chip & Intake:

Posted Image


Chip, Intake & Exhaust:

Posted Image


Chip, Intake, Exhaust & Cams:

Posted Image


If Cams and Cats dont make much difference, how comes theres a huge difference when adding one to the .:R

That last one is 300.x BHP at the wheel with 23% Loss. If it was 17%, then the one with Chip and Intake is only making 3 horses more, doesnt figure somehow.

Hafizur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,586 Posts
I'm a bit bemused that you say the cams won't make any difference to power outputs Wilko?

I
understand that they can shift the power band but if the lobes are
ground for greater duration and/or lift then the valves will be open
further or longer so letting in more air and fuel mix. If there is more
mixture in the cylinder there will be more bang for each cycle? This
would equal more power I would have thought?

I know big cams
fitted to old flat fours used to set the power band so it made power at
certain points in the rev band depending on where you wanted it but a change in cam will give you a change in power output.
 

·
I ain't no effin padawan
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
I'm not saying that cams don't make power. I'm just saying that judging fom dynos I've seen, the cams available for the r32 will not make 300hp. on normal fuel.

The dynos just posted are crap. The torque at 2-3000 rpm is increased. High lift, long duration cams generaly reduce torque at low revs as port velocity is dropped and torque consequently drops. The upside is that peak torque is maintained higher up the rev range and so more peak power is produced. Peak torque is prety uneffected. It's just higher up the rev range.

Thats why the r32 ones just will not make the best part of 100hp/ litre. Low end torque would be compromised if it did, and the dynos around just don't show that. Sorry.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top